Windows Vista Pre-RC 1 (Release Candidate) - Preview
Posted by Steven Parker on 30 August 2006 - 21:08 · 13 comments & 8157 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by billyea on 30 Aug 2006 - 21:12
- He makes better reviews than Paul Thurott at least.
-
#2 Posted by ThePitt on 30 Aug 2006 - 21:35
- yup nice review
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by MioTheGreat on 30 Aug 2006 - 21:38
- Wierd. When I installed 5472 on my Athlon64 3200+, It took less than half an hour. Maybe his dvd drives suck?
-
#3.1 Posted by Space_Balls on 30 Aug 2006 - 21:48
- yes, out of all releases I've tried (6384 x64 & x86, 5472 x86 and 5536x86), the Beta 2 branch was by far the slowest to install.
-
#4 Posted by NightmarE D on 30 Aug 2006 - 22:59
- Quote -Microsoft has recommended that a Vista capable system should have the following: an 800 MHz processor (or better), 512 MBs of RAM (minimum recommended) or more (128 GBs of RAM maximum depending on the edition and platform) and 15 GB’s of free hard disk space.
I know that's a simple typo in his review, but I cracked up when I read it. Not too far from the truth honestly lol just kidding
-
#5 Posted by RAID 0 on 30 Aug 2006 - 23:40
- It was a great review. The specs on his tester computers are kinda low. Well, very low.
-
#6 Posted by SwitchBlade on 31 Aug 2006 - 00:03
- Boring article. The layout just puts me off.
-
#7 Posted by :: Lyon :: on 31 Aug 2006 - 00:38
- not bad
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by hardgiant on 31 Aug 2006 - 01:42
- Wow Vista is a big bag of bloated goodness. To bad you need the best hardware available to get it to run ok.
-
#8.1 Posted by PCyr on 31 Aug 2006 - 03:49
- Quote - hardgiant said @ #8Wow Vista is a big bag of bloated goodness. To bad you need the best hardware available to get it to run ok.
WOW! I didn't realize my 2GHz Pentium 4 with 768MB of RAM was the best hardware available. What is the industry doing if my 4 year old computer is able to run Vista fine? -
#8.2 Posted by WelshBluebird on 31 Aug 2006 - 12:08
- Quote - hardgiant said @ #8Wow Vista is a big bag of bloated goodness. To bad you need the best hardware available to get it to run ok.
erm, you don't. Beta 2 (which was supposed to be terrible in terms of preformance compared to the newest builds) runs as fast as XP on my friends 3 year old PC (Althon 64 3200, 1GB RAM, Nvidia FX 5500)
For me, installing the operating system has been a varied experience depending on the hardware; I tried different machines, all which successfully installed a combination of x86 and x64 platforms. The BETA 2 build released in May installed in approximately 35 to 40 minutes on both 32 and 64 bit hardware. Microsoft has since released updated builds (5456, 5472) otherwise known as interim releases. I recently installed 5472 (x86); the install time on my desktop and laptop were 59 minutes and 54 minutes respectively. A significant drop in performance there compared to build (5384 – BETA 2). Although we should take into consideration 5472 x64 is an interim release and does not reflect the same quality, as a milestone build such as BETA 2 or RC1 will be. Hopefully I will see changes to this area as development progresses, but fluctuation in performance has been a number one problem since BETA 1.