Vista goes Next-Gen


Recommended Posts

I love how this guy made up some system requirements and you all bought it.

586258990[/snapback]

It sounds like most of the other information is made up as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly why I posted my reply... since no one had a reply to that, I guess it is what it is--pure speculation and hype. I've given up reading up on technology sites merely because of this: someone speculates, and a billion other people have something to say about it like it even matters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading through this thread, and the more I read it the more it all seems like total bull****.

All you'll need to run LH (Vista) in top tier is about a 1.4 ghz system with a DirectX9 videocard with around 128mb, and perhaps even 256mb of RAM will do it.

For example, check out Lexcyn's system. If you're a true geek, you'll have a hard on after reading it. You won't need anywhere near that, I mean NOWHERE near that to run Vista comfortably in top tier mode. A decent 32-bit cpu with a solid 512mb of RAM and a DreictX9 videocard (most of the ones out there ARE DX9 cards) will suffice.

Edited by LTD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds to me that everything sounds great but the requirements. I mean we just got a 512mb gddr3 video card that cost 600 to 700 bux (redicolous cost) and hdd's that are 15k rpm they speak are rare to even spot unless its scsi and sata only have 10k rpm at 74g for now. I still firmly believe that my 3000+ amd 64 running at 2.07ghz, a new 6800 gt, 1g of ram will run vista like a champ. After december tho im upgrading to a new dual core x2 but still though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the article did a good job of piecing together gamer-oriented info about WinVI, it also had a TON of exaggerations and hyperbole that would make even marketers ashamed.

For software developers and beta testers (speculation):

3.6 GHz processor

2 GB memory

1 GB videocard with WGF 2.0 support

15000 RPM HD 1 GB flash memory

The highest settings requirements are ONLY for software and graphics developers that will test their software by using the two beta's.

First off, most developers won't need anything near that: I'm definitely not going to need a 3.6ghz processor or a 15000 RPM HD w/ 1GB cache to test Photoshop Elements or one of my WMP/Messenger plug-ins! Second, virtually no one is going to have or need a 15000 RPM SCSI hard drive.
Microsoft and Samsung are still working on a way to unload files very fast from the harddisks flash memory.
That makes no sense; "unloading" data is virtually instant no matter what hardware is used.
This means you'll always be downloading at top speed, as long as you can afford multiple internet connections. Because of this you're able to play up to four different games at the same time online with just one internet connection.
Huh? How does VI being able to use the bandwidth from multiple connections mean I can run 4 games on one connection? They're completely unrelated... :blink:
This means, that engines that will be used in the near future, like the Doom 3, Source and Unreal 3 Engine, will have to be fully compatible with WGF and the new videocard architecture.
First, Doom 3 and Source were being used over a year ago, and UE3 won't be coming out for another year or so; they shouldn't all be mentioned in the same breath :). Second, any game that works in XP should work in VI; you make it sound as if games will have to be rewritten in order to work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds to me that everything sounds great but the requirements. I mean we just got a 512mb gddr3 video card that cost 600 to 700 bux (redicolous cost) and hdd's that are 15k rpm they speak are rare to even spot unless its scsi and sata only have 10k rpm at 74g for now. I still firmly believe that my 3000+ amd 64 running at 2.07ghz, a new 6800 gt, 1g of ram will run vista like a champ. After december tho im upgrading to a new dual core x2 but still though.

586261488[/snapback]

What you've been reading is total bull****.

LIke I said, a decent 32-bit cpu (around 1.4 - 2 gig) with around 512mb RAM, and a DirectX9 videocard with, say, 128mb should run Vista in top tier just fine.

LOL, 15k RPM HDs. I mean, just reading that you have to know that the writer is smoking crack.

There's alot of stupid **** going around. Grab a shovel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ yeah. OS X runs on a 9600 with all the effects on. when vista comes out i doubt that it'll need a 1gb video card. for games 256-512mb is plenty. 1gb would be on the highest end cards that cost $1k++. who's gonna spend that too see transparent windows and little effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article does sound real you guys are just not reading it correctly, the new directx and tis apis will require software to be re coded but most likely they will include software for backwards compatibility like 16 bit still runs in 32 and 32 runs in 64 but with the hardware yes those could be real due to the new technology to get optimum performance out of he BETA software u would require that but when its released u will not need that much, i can belive u guys missed what he ment by the specs when he refered to developers he ment people making software for longhorn while its still in production not after its released

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly why I posted my reply... since no one had a reply to that, I guess it is what it is--pure speculation and hype. I've given up reading up on technology sites merely because of this: someone speculates, and a billion other people have something to say about it like it even matters...

586261366[/snapback]

very true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update 11: COPY PROTECTION

Microsoft has teamed up with Disney and a lot of music labels to improve copy protection for movies, music and software using digital rights management functionality in Vista. Microsoft said they will use heavy copy protection schemes, so users won't be able to copy digital media. This may scare of a lot of consumers, but Microsoft doesn't worry about that, because eventually everyone will go Vista (their words). This means no Warez anymore.

586254135[/snapback]

Right, no more warez anymore, good luck with that... lol :rolleyes:

People will always find a way around to breaking copy protection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, no more warez anymore, good luck with that... lol  :rolleyes:

People will always find a way around to breaking copy protection

586262360[/snapback]

Yah, exactly. DVD John cracked itunes, DVD encryption and Google Video Search with the flick of a wrist. The mortal drawback to the PC, it can be reverse engineered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the same.

586262404[/snapback]

Off-topic.

Saadu, what's with that Concorde in your sig? Looks interesting. Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"15000 RPM HD 1 GB flash memory"

That line doesn't make any sense...

Why would a solid flash drive be spinning at 15000 rpm?

586262655[/snapback]

Because it will be wired to the duotronic flux-capacitor, and spinning on a Johnson rod, vertically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it will be wired to the duotronic flux-capacitor, and spinning on a Johnson rod, vertically.

586262807[/snapback]

:rofl:

I think thats pure conjecture. I doubt we even need anything about the standard 7200rpm for some textures. Seeing as games push the computer more than Vista ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to look at the highest requirements. As I said before, those are needed to run Vista at the highest quality setting (all shaders, special calculations and effects enabled). It's just for developers. The developers have to know how much resources are being used by Vista when their software is running. They have nothing to do with 'normal users' like us.

Explanation:

Your computer will run at full power when the CPU and memory usage is 100%.

Now, lets say you're a software-developer and you want to see if your software is able to run on Vista.

You boot Vista on the highest possible setting and then you see that the CPU and memory usage already is at 100%. This means that the computer doesn't have any power left to run your software on Vista, because the highest settings eat up everything. This means that you have to take action.

Those (speculative) highest requirements are needed to be able to test if your software works on Vista on the highest settings. They are for the two upcoming beta's and have NOTHING to do with the 'real' Windows Vista.

586257521[/snapback]

That makes abolutely no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I highly doubt that will happen.  If it does have so much DRM, no one will buy it.  Who wants more DRM?

586254664[/snapback]

all companys will start to upgrade to it slowly, and you basically will be forced to upgrade, as they will start doing what they did with 2000 and xp, when some programs/games will only work on vista.

only alternative will be linux, but who wants that?

some computers sold today by toshiba, ibm already have build in hardware drm. intel build in drm in their latest chipset, which later they denied, who to believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes thats what I fear too  :cry:

OS X interface is definitely slower as compared to a decently powered XP-PC. Sluggish as in time it takes to show menus, window resize etc etc., the normal way you use it. Just compare Finder to WExplorer and you will see his point. But I think that is the price to pay when using eye candy. Hopefully Microsoft will do better than Apple on this since they actually make WGF/DirectX and are not bound to any standard like Apple is (OpenGL)

Even the Athlon rig in your signature will beat any powerbook out there, not just yours.

Again  :unsure: bring on the eye-candy but please don't slow down WExplorer and others.  :pinch:

586254646[/snapback]

Hopefully Microsoft will do better than Apple on this since they actually make WGF/DirectX and are not bound to any standard like Apple is (OpenGL)

Any standard? What does apple using OpenGL have to do with anything? OpenGL and Direct X and rendering technologies.

I've had quite enough. Yes, resizing windows with large amounts of content aren't as fast as windows in regards to frames. Not actually resizing the windows, but the framerate it's displayed at. Your point? That doesnt make OS X more sluggish. Not to mention it's been drastically improved in Tiger. Note the OS X UI is based off PDF Technology. Windows is using.. GDI. You take your pros and cons. Time it takes to show menus?

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Not only is some of that FUD, but some of it is rather subjective.

Try dragging a window around a screen. See those tears? Those are hideous. I don't have those in OS X.

Stop the FUD, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any standard? What does apple using OpenGL have to do with anything? OpenGL and Direct X and rendering technologies.

I think that what he meant was that Microsoft "owns" DirectX. That way, it can modify it for its own needs and it knows the tricks of its own tech and Apple doesn't necessarily "own" the OpenGL standard.

I've had quite enough. Yes, resizing windows with large amounts of content aren't as fast as windows in regards to frames. Not actually resizing the windows, but the framerate it's displayed at.  Your point? That doesnt make OS X more sluggish. Not to mention it's been drastically improved in Tiger.  Note the OS X UI is based off PDF Technology. Windows is using.. GDI. You take your pros and cons. Time it takes to show menus?

Not only is some of that FUD, but some of it is rather subjective.

i believe that Windows Vista will fall more or less into the same place in what regards reisizing windows. since they're using very close techs :p

Try dragging a window around a screen. See those tears? Those are hideous. I don't have those in OS X.

586265843[/snapback]

and neither will Windows Vista. Mainly because of window buffers, which OS X has and Windows Vista will have. Regular Windows doesn't keep track of each window's contents. those new OSes do :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my brothers 400mhz powerbook g3 runs smoother than windows, it might not have all the fancy effects but the things it does implement it does faster than windows, hasn't anyone else noticed how the "visual effects" of windows xp lag on the average library or school computer, what a joke.

this is a flamewar, but microsoft is following apples footsteps so its visual effects will probably run just as smooth using equivelent systems, the area of interest will be how much is sacrificed on the home pc vs. the leading edge pc, and how the os runs as a whole on an older system, you can install tiger on any mac over 300mhz without sacrificing much speed in its critical functionality, but if you install xp on a 300mhz system you will notice that the whole system lags, even opening hte start menu gives you a delay.  I'm not saying that a 300mhz should be a comparizon point, but for vista to suceed it will need to be able to run flawlessly with very little slowdown when it comes to the operating system features (like searching, filebrowsing etc.) on any machine unlike xp.

once again, dont bitch this post out or pick it apart, thats not the  intention.

586265923[/snapback]

Well done.

By saying Microsoft is following Apple's foot steps is like adding gas to a raging fire, no matter how ture it might be.

Lets not forget that if you tried to run OS X86 on a Pentium @ +300mhz you'd probally get the same delay opening the Apple menu as you would in this statement;

"..you can install tiger on any mac over 300mhz without sacrificing much speed in its critical functionality, but if you install xp on a 300mhz system you will notice that the whole system lags, even opening hte start menu gives you a delay."

This reason is because of the PowerPC archetecture.

400mhz PPC is a lot more powerful than an Athlon 400mhz or a Pentium II 400mhz.

I'm just judging this off of my current experance and knowledge so don't be suprised if I made mistakes. But still Window VI will take tons of resources so running off of a 400mhz PC is impossible. I'd think the worst it could probally run on is 800mhz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done.

By saying Microsoft is following Apple's foot steps is like adding gas to a raging fire, no matter how ture it might be.

Lets not forget that if you tried to run OS X86 on a Pentium @ +300mhz you'd probally get the same delay opening the Apple menu as you would in this statement;

"..you can install tiger on any mac over 300mhz without sacrificing much speed in its critical functionality, but if you install xp on a 300mhz system you will notice that the whole system lags, even opening hte start menu gives you a delay."

This reason is because of the PowerPC archetecture.

400mhz PPC is a lot more powerful than an Athlon 400mhz or a Pentium II 400mhz.

I'm just judging this off of my current experance and knowledge so don't be suprised if I made mistakes. But still Window VI will take tons of resources so running off of a 400mhz PC is impossible. I'd think the worst it could probally run on is 800mhz.

586266141[/snapback]

Exactly what in the PowerPCs "architecture" allows OS X Tiger to run *smoothly* on 400mhz systems? What in the cpu enables Tiger to perform like this? What settings is Tiger at when running on a 400mhz rig?

How is a 400mhz PowerPC "faster" than a 400mhz AMD? Pipelines? More work done per cycle, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.