Microsoft Claims Vista's Aero Interface Doesn't Slow PCs

[Brandon Live Veteran]

XP Requirement: 64 MB

XP Recomended: 128 MB

Vista Requirement: 512 MB

Vista Recomended: 1 GB

Wow, another FUD from M$

Please tell me what system requirements or this article have to do with Fear + Uncertainty + Denial attacks? To quote on of my favorite films, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

512MB is so small these days and you'll never find a new system with less than that. Even systems from years ago usually have 512MB or more. I'm pretty sure Vista will install and run on systems with less than that... the size of the kernel increased by less than a megabyte and I'm pretty sure with the new services and features disabled it will run just like XP on such systems. But at that point there's really no reason to upgrade to Vista and not install some extra memory. Also, I don't see "1GB recommended" on the Vista requirements page.

[-Hiroshi-]

Well, Im sure once decent NON-BETA drivers are released for ATi, nVidia, and Intel cards, Im sure it'll get faster. Hell I saw a HUGE speed increase from going from inbox drivers, to the latest beta drivers in Vista.

[HistoricalNeowin]

Brandon, there is a point where you can be 'too' defensive of a company/product...

[Slimy]

What all these articles fail to acknowledge and put emphasis on is that Vista, like XP, is meant to last. Aero won't be felt with many of today's newer computers and in the future, the computer tested would be standard for most people.

[raskren]

Brandon, there is a point where you can be 'too' defensive of a company/product...

And there's also a point when enough people believe something that it becomes "the truth", aka "groupthink." Unfortunately, it runs rampant in these geek hangouts.

[none_needed]

Seriously Im getting tired with people posting stupid comments about Vista requirement. I mean c'mon... do u really wanna run ur machine with 128, 256MB of RAM? What are u on? Win98? Then be it. Keep on using it and dont complaint about Vista if u're not planning to use it after all. Save the fuss. You need to grow up and so does the machine. Its 2007 for God sake, stick Core 2 Duo and another Gig of RAM on ur 2001 (Made for XP) machine.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Brandon, there is a point where you can be 'too' defensive of a company/product...

There also comes a point when one needs to silence a user hellbent on the practice of using their FUD to convert users to the platform of their choice.

[ATLien_0]

Very good point, the only problem i see with that is that some people just wont want upgrade their specs. I mean my parents for instance their computer at home is a 1.5 celeron, 256 ram, 64 mb geforce ti4200. They are happy running xp on that with those specs for what they do. But vista wont run well on that i know, and the only way the computer will be upgraded for vista is if i purchase all the parts, i just cant do that.

[Quick Shot]

http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800080

The problem for me in the long run is what happens when Aero glass gets boring, with Windows XP you could change the theme.

You'll be able to change the theme. And it'll look like XP :whistle:

[jwjw1]

512MB is so small these days and you'll never find a new system with less than that. Even systems from years ago usually have 512MB or more. I'm pretty sure Vista will install and run on systems with less than that... the size of the kernel increased by less than a megabyte and I'm pretty sure with the new services and features disabled it will run just like XP on such systems. But at that point there's really no reason to upgrade to Vista and not install some extra memory. Also, I don't see "1GB recommended" on the Vista requirements page.

uh huh and the average HD is 40gigs and it seems MS exploits this also..if you compare to what the full install of past Windows where...MS still sucks at graphics and tryin to impress people with the 5yr old style of eye candy...the only real accomphishment in GUI was with Office 2007...soon the average HD will be 120gigs and MS graphics will still suck and one will need to rent a U-Haul to bring the MS Install Home......lol

[raskren]

uh huh and the average HD is 40gigs and it seems MS exploits this also..if you compare to what the full install of past Windows where...MS still sucks at graphics and tryin to impress people with the 5yr old style of eye candy...the only real accomphishment in GUI was with Office 2007...soon the average HD will be 120gigs and MS graphics will still suck and one will need to rent a U-Haul to bring the MS Install Home......lol

Talking without actually saying anything. Good job!

[zhangm Supervisor]

uh huh and the average HD is 40gigs and it seems MS exploits this also..if you compare to what the full install of past Windows where...MS still sucks at graphics and tryin to impress people with the 5yr old style of eye candy...the only real accomphishment in GUI was with Office 2007...soon the average HD will be 120gigs and MS graphics will still suck and one will need to rent a U-Haul to bring the MS Install Home......lol

Wow, remind me again just why hard drive space is so critical to "MS graphics"? And the U-Haul bit? Did you make that up all by yourself?

[XIII]

What garbage.

"...performance loss will be very devastating."

I lol in your direction.

Have you even tried watching a DVD or playing a game in Vista?

You are the one speaking garbage. If you are using SLI or top of the line video card, of course the performance impact will be low. I am talking about business machines equipped with border line graphic card, handling graphic demanding program and video rendering like AutoCAD, Photoshop,....

Go troll else where, scum.

[gkl]

@XIII

erm, I don't think those programs are (usually) used on some rather slow business machines.

[raskren]

You are the one speaking garbage. If you are using SLI or top of the line video card, of course the performance impact will be low. I am talking about business machines equipped with border line graphic card, handling graphic demanding program and video rendering like AutoCAD, Photoshop,....

Go troll else where, scum.

AutoCAD is an OpenGL application and will most likely force Aero off. Photoshop doesn't stress the graphic card and doesn't require exclusive access to it. By "video rendering" I assume you mean "video editing" which is mostly CPU bound.

You need to go read a book.

[ThePitt]

Microsoft Claims Vista's Aero Interface Doesn't Slow PCs

this is Jan 1st and not Apr 1st ;)

[Chode]

Isn't it cheating a bit to have a system with 1Gb RAM, a 2Ghz processor and a 256Mb Graphics Card? Apart from gaming PCs, very few computers with 1Gb RAM and a 2Ghz CPU will have a 256Mb Graphics Card. Businesses definitely wouldn't have a 256Mb Graphics Card, and this is who the task is aimed at judging by the fact it was tested doing business chores.

Not really.

I've been running with a GB of RAM for 3 years now, and I am by no means a "zomg, buy new hardware cause it's out" person...I don't have the cash to do such a thing.

Even with my 3 year old 9800 Pro (128MB of RAM), Aero runs seamless to me. Although the last time I used it was in RC2, so I can only assume that it has improved in some small ways since.

I ran RC2 on an FX 5200 with 512MB of system RAM, and it was fine as well.

[L3thal Veteran]

Aero will run fine in almost any decent dedicated GPU. On the other hand, if you have an IGP, then you are in trouble.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Aero will run fine in almost any decent dedicated GPU. On the other hand, if you have an IGP, then you are in trouble.

Works fine on most modern integrated chipsets, such as the Intel 945, GMA 2000, etc. Also works great with integrated ATI chipsets like the Radeon X200.

[L3thal Veteran]

Works fine on most modern integrated chipsets, such as the Intel 945, GMA 2000, etc. Also works great with integrated ATI chipsets like the Radeon X200.

modern being the keyword ;)

[hagjohn]

You are the one speaking garbage. If you are using SLI or top of the line video card, of course the performance impact will be low. I am talking about business machines equipped with border line graphic card, handling graphic demanding program and video rendering like AutoCAD, Photoshop,....

Go troll else where, scum.

Most of the business machines that I've seen do not even use the defaulted XP theme. I would bet the same would happen with Vista.

[Danrarbc]

You could change the color, or use Window Blinds in Vista (once the new version comes out, I don't think the current one is ready for Vista).

There is a beta available for Object Desktop subscribers.

[Karl Sheldon]

Well I can't blame Aero for slowwing performance on my Sony GRT 715M Laptop.

Spec: 2.8Ghz Intel P4, 512K Cache, 133Mhz Bus

512Mb Ram DDR 133 (2100) (2x256)

NVidia 5600 Go GPU, 64Mb Dedicated Ram

Segate 5400 40Gb Hard Drive

Vista Ultimate RTM Install runs fine with Aero on or Off, no difference in overall speed, only things that sometimes lag are Flip 3 and the start menu initialisatation (Not Aero related though)

The only difference is in the system information when Aero is on the video memory reads as 128Mb (64Mb Video and 64Mb Shared) - I assume the shared is AGP ram as in the bios as I have never seen any reference in XP to this shared memory in any driver or hardware info software, it has always reported 64Mb, if Aero is off the it reports 64Mb as normal. But it works well.

Physical memory is a bug bear and the Hard Drive performace is an issue with paging and the way in which Vista would seam to cache files and try to do house keeping and search indexing.

Indeed the only annoyance in Vista is the user control thing - even when switched off ot bugs you still, try moving files around on an old xp drive after a clear install and it bugs about permission to move these files all the time, even refusing a simple move when permission is granted. A real pain in the but.

Still Aero is fun, works well and looks good, I look forward to some custome theme work with this, imagine an OSX'd Aero theme awesome -- any takers !