Windows

Vista's recommended system requirements were not realistic

Did Microsoft sell itself short when it listed the recommended requirements for Vista? Would it have been better received had Microsoft originally presented Vista as requiring a powerful hardware platform to run efficiently? Do other manufacturers understate their system requirements?

Did Microsoft sell itself short when it listed the recommended requirements for Vista? Would it have been better received had Microsoft originally presented Vista as requiring a powerful hardware platform to run efficiently? Do other manufacturers understate their system requirements?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in the day (whenever that was!) when it came time to upgrade users' software, I would refer to the manufacturer's listed system requirements. I came to learn that the minimum requirements were usually adequate; but if I always opted for the recommended system requirements, I'd not only have plenty of computing power but I'd also give ourselves some room to grow.

Is it just me, or does it seem that some software manufacturers are grossly understating their system requirements? One of the worst cases I've seen is Microsoft Vista's recommended requirements.

Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, and Windows Vista Ultimate:

• 1-gigahertz (GHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 1-GHz 64-bit (x64) processor

• 1 GB of system memory

• Windows Aero-capable graphics card

• 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

• 40-GB hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space

• Internal or external DVD drive

• Internet access capability

• Audio output capability

Microsoft Source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183

Compared to my preferred system for running Vista, a computer with Microsoft's recommended requirements would literally crawl -- perhaps even come to a drastic halt with a taxing application. I have to wonder if Microsoft knew this? I suspect they did, but they weighed the pros and cons of desired sales quotas versus the inevitable negative customer feedback. But I can't imagine a company actually inviting bad publicity, so it's hard for me to believe they opted to deal with the negative feedback. I also can't believe they didn't know they were understating the requirements.

In my opinion, Microsoft didn't do itself any favors by selling their operating system short in regards to their recommended requirements. I believe that a great majority of the computing-buying public realizes that hardware upgrades will be a never-ending fact of life, and they would have responded much better had Microsoft simply overstated the requirements. They could have even used it to their marketing advantage and presented it in a manner similar to this:

Windows Vista is a powerful new operating system. While it will require a powerful platform to run efficiently, it will also provide some powerful results. When you're ready for your next hardware change, Windows Vista from Microsoft will be the best choice.

I've been running Vista (Ultimate) for about a year, and there's really nothing to gripe about -- well, now that I have it installed on an adequate system, that is. The UAC (User Access Control) was (and is) a mild inconvenience, but it's really no more than unlocking your door every time you want someone to enter your house. I can certainly see where those benefits outweigh the inconvenience factor. Moreover, all previous versions of Windows were slammed for compromising security. This was one way those complaints were addressed.

And while I was never one to be impressed with eye candy, a lot of people like all the fluff. For example, when I upgraded my users to Vista, I turned off the Aero desktop and the gadget sidebar. Half of them turned it back on, however, even though they were warned about a possible decline in performance. And those lower-end P4s (1.4 to 2.4 GHz) sure did feel the drag.

All-in-all, I like Vista -- now that I have it running on the hardware platform that should have been the recommended requirement. I'm certain that if Microsoft had simply stated this up front and marketed it accordingly, much of the negativity surrounding Vista would have never happened.

Another instance of a software manufacturer understating their hardware requirements is Autodesk. First of all, the listed (minimum?) requirements and recommendations on their Web site don't entirely make sense. In the case of the processor, it seems that they're listed backward. But I do suppose that a computer running Vista with AutoCAD might require more computing power than one running XP with AutoCAD. It does not say, however, that AutoCAD 2009 will crash and burn on their recommended system if it's running Vista instead of XP. But I'll save this gripe for a future blog.

170 comments
dukethepcdr
dukethepcdr

I'm no Microsoft hater. I admire Mr. Gates for building from a humble beginning into a huge company. I'm no sycophant at the altar either. I have my problems with Windows too. The mistake they made with Vista is that they didn't make an OS for low end computers. Lots and lots of people buy a computer with a budget in mind. I used to work for a couple of retail stores that sold computers and most of our customers came in looking for "the cheapest" laptop or desktop. I'd work with them to make sure that what they thought they wanted would actually meet their needs and expectations, but a lot of them still wound up buying computers that were grossly under powered just because of the low price. Microsoft has made lower powered OS's before with their Windows CE for PDAs. Why not make a bare bones OS that can be run on desktops and laptops with slow processors, low-end video cards and low memory? All the bells and whistles of Vista are really not necessary to get actual work done. Even for power gamers, I have found that I have needed to shut off as many sevices and graphical goodies as I could get away with to make the OS use up as little precious CPU clock time and memory so that more was available for playing some of these high requirement games like Crysis and Halo 2. Games like that can bring even a pretty expensive desktop to it's knees if it's burdened with running all of Vista's stuff in the background too. If Microsoft were to come out with a bare bones, and cheap, OS to give people an option to Vista, they'd win back a lot of people who are looking at Macs and even Linux for their computers. I have Vista and XP dual booted on my computer at home. Like the author, I don't "hate" Vista, but I find myself spending most of my time in XP because games and other high-end apps seem to run better on it. My computer's specs far exceed the ones required for Vista Pro too.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

but never the 'nads to step up and admit I was wrong. World might be a better place if everybody was like that, eh?

mrdave_215
mrdave_215

Yes I think the fact that Vista is supposed to be on a computer at all is a joke. Regardless of the requirments if it doesnt work let alone work better then its replacement it should have been released. I lived with it on my now notebook for a week before I fdisked everthing and started over with XP. Many be next year or next service pack. But honestly why bother, XP works and any computer that runs Vista will run faster on XP.

mikifinaz1
mikifinaz1

When Intel etc. needs a boost a new heavy requirement OS comes out; when new hardware comes out we all of a sudden need a new OS. Does anyone else notice this? Who does it benefit? Do the companies involved know each other do they talk? I would guess that they are using technology to line each other's pockets. Look at Linux, you can get a good version of Linux that does most if not all of the tasks of the majority of users and it will run on an old, small capacity Pentium. You tell me...

FXEF
FXEF

Telling the truth is always the best policy, however that does not always fit Microsoft's style. Forget Vista.... it's dead. What will Microsoft do with Windows 7?

mikeholli
mikeholli

As well as changing the the Internet Protocol to version six from four. This little change has caused nothing more than costly problems for the IT department! Right now myself to be able to connect and make useful every computer on my network, I have to use OpenSolaris, and from there I can open the "Windows Network(s) which is (example) Work group, and Work group[2] No that's not a typo, Open Solaris sees this work group as being 2 separate work groups because the one without the [2] are ip4, and Windows Vista is ip6. THANK YOU Microsoft for doing THIS unnecessary update/upgrade to the Window's Internet Protocol! I would be dead in the water had not Sun's OpenSolaris there been able to read the state information on both IPv's and given me connectability.

charles.homsy
charles.homsy

See I built this system when i heard about the rollout of the public beta so i went and built a minimum system requirement machine with one 64bit AMD proc, 2gb ram, pci 64MB VID card, dual DVD burners, HDTV tuner, Audigy sound card, etc., and yah know what Mildred it worked and it worked just fine till one day this huge storm came through. You remember that one when the grandkids all came and got their grubby little hands onit. Yah those pesky "CIO's" from down the street. None of 'em knew their collective asses from a hole in the ground. They all started blasting the Vista just like they did when XP came out. They all had to sit and play with it like they was watchin porno or somethin.

cabanossi-21666366011136960807907799337173
cabanossi-21666366011136960807907799337173

it would not have helped - it is not just a resource hog but ignores the bulk of the market which does not want to have to buy new hardware or change all drivers if some software house r&d decide they need to chuck their latest product over the wall and force it down the throats of pc vendors

buvens
buvens

Nothing new, just like NT was or OS/2 back in the 80's and early 90's. Both ran great whenyou put the horsepower behind them but really caused issues with out it.

still_learntoo
still_learntoo

Blog writer failed to list his recommendations for the minimum requirements. Writers seems to assume everyone knows what they know. Not true!

jpdecesare
jpdecesare

Flight Simulator has the same underpowered minimum requirements when it comes out. It's well-known to just go get big guns if you want to run this stuff.

Good Old Dog
Good Old Dog

Microsoft are just following the previous thinking, or mis-thinking (whatever the case my be) that they used when XP was released; PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features) 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor CD-ROM or DVD drive Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device While I never saw any OEM's with 64 megs of memory I did have numerous systems brought to me with 128MB and the complaint was always, can you do anything to speed up this machine . . . PLEASE? Even back in 2001 I would install 512 megs of ram and the slowpoke would transform into a cheetah. After the installation of SP1, SP2 and all security updates and patches my minimum memory requirement became 1GB. Any system I build today goes out the door with this hardware at a minumum, 2GB of ram, a decent 256MB video card, a 2GHz or higher processor, an 80GB 7200rpm HDD and a quality DVD R/W drive. If Microsoft had specified these requirements when XP was released, I am sure all of the XP-bashing, blue screens and random crashes we all remember would have been a lot less than it was. It seems some of the boffins at M$ are unable to learn from history.

Roc Riz
Roc Riz

Don't they all? IMNSHO, it seems that all software vendors give the requirements for their software, as if it is the only thing that you will ever run on your machine. It's been this way for as long as I can remember, and that would be since the DOS days.

Tig2
Tig2

Was the chipset. I blogged on this issue some months ago but realistically, I don't believe that the failure of Vista at introduction was all Microsoft. Were there some shady dealings? Sure. But part of the problem was Intel pushing a chipset that could not manage Vista. In my personal opinion, I think that Vista may be the beginning of the end of the "single OS". I think that OS agnostic software and web applications will be the future in personal computing and very likely, corporate computing as well. I think that we have reached a level of sophistication that will allow for this. And I think that both business and users will embrace it. The real question in my mind is whether support groups will.

mwtoelle
mwtoelle

Microsoft has *always* understated understated system requirements for Windows all the way back to Windows 3.0. Even the recommended specs are a bit on the wimpy side. I normally double the memory and more recently CPU that are recommended to get a usable system.

dilbert
dilbert

Microsoft is not the only company to play that game. Our medical software states that a workgroup server should be a P4 2ghz or better for up to 10 clients. The minimum client is listed as a P3 500mhz or better. In actuality, the minimum server should be a dual Xeon dual core for up to 10 clients. It's hard to keep explaining to customers why they insist on understating actual hardware requirements.

rasilon
rasilon

MS has *NEVER* stated the minimum requirements. W98, W2K and WXP are all unusable in the minimum configuration. Will they boot up? Sure... Will they "run"? Sure...... Can you do anything productive? Smash yourself in the head with a hammer.... much less painful... ;-) Why should Vista be any different?? Hank Arnold

j-mart
j-mart

I work for an engineering firm that designs and builds industrial fans, boilers and other industrial equipment. We strive to use anvancing technology to make our products more efficient, consume less resources, increase reliability etc. In the 30 odd years I have been in this feild the advances in micro processors as aplied to PLC's variable speed drives for motor controlers have enabled better, more efficeint and reltively cheaper products. What does the IT software industry do for us with this technology, it gives us the crowning glory of Microsoft's long run of less efficeint less reliable, consume more resources rubish OS, Vista. More hardware to basically, in terms of industrial use, to do the same work and level of productivity we were at 15 years ago using 286 to 486 machines. If we upgraded our boilers along the same lines as Microsoft has done with it's OS we would require at least 128 times the fuel consumption for the same heat output. The whole approach to OS design and architecture as it applies to advancement in hardware performance is most certainly need of a complete new aproach. It would make a nice change to have a new release of an OS more efficient less BS and bloat and a real advancement for a change.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

They could have recommended 4 gigs of ram, a terrabyte HD and a 512MB graphics card, people would STILL bitch and gripw because : 1) it is Microsoft and it is trendy to diss MS, even though most pepople use it daily. 2)It is new and people in IT are generally complacent by nature and don't accept change well. 3)it is Microsoft and it is trendy to diss MS, even though most pepople use it daily. No matter what systen requriements were there, if they were high, people would say the requirements are too much. If they are low, everyone complains that the system crawls. Face it, in IT people don't like to change, it is not a part of the IT mindset. People in IT like everythingi to be the same each day, everything to just work as it did yesterday, whether it improves office productivity, eases people's day to day lives or whetever, the IT department doesn't want work (been on both sides of that fence more than once). I avoided XP like the plague, I absolutely HATED XP. There was NO reason for my to upgrade form Win2KPro, which, even today, is probably my fav so far. Even though I really like some of the new Vista benefits, that weren't included with XP, I still find 2K to be fast and stable. Unfortunately my ntoebook died and I needed a new one in an hour, so Vista it was. Note: the specs listed as minimum do recommend using 2 gigs of memory, in a roundabout way. The OS itself requries 1gig to run, which is true. But you also need a good graphics card or chipset. Aero will suck up power, thus it is noted to get an Aero compatible card (plenty of on board RAM). So add the video card's 128Mb requriement to the 1GB of system ram and you now need two 1GB memory modules in a notebook (as you need to match/pair them). This assumes that as with most notebooks, you get onboard graphics and not a dedicated card with its own memory. If you did get a notebook with 128MB CARD or better, it is more than likely that such a system would have at LEAST 2GB RAM too. So any minimum requirement 'notebook' install will require 2Gigs of ram with a fair bit in dedicated video memory, which is there in the requirements if you add it all up. As for an upgrade, while Vista IS available in an upgrade version, just as with XP, the hardware requirements will be best met with a new PC. Do you not remember all the HCL issues with XP and how so many people were opposed to it due to the need for a new PC? Same sh1t, different day. As for corporate upgrade costs, in teh US iut seems many companies actually like Dell, the cheapest on the heap. SO if you can buy a new Dell for $800.00 that runs Vista well, what's teh issue? Even a large rollout of 1000 PC's now you are looking at less than a million for 1000 NEW PC's. Any worthy company running 1000 stations looks at a million as chump change. If you have only 10 PC's, what's $8K for new hardware throughout? Nothing. Improved productivity willr ecover that alone, then add the warranty support, faster hardware etc and its not such a stupid cost at all. General office use PC's don't run $3K each like they used to, especially if buying decent equipment from a business vendor who works you out a deal and not a retail or online outlet.

RipVan
RipVan

More than a few people mention the "we have heard this all before" defense. Happens each time MS has an OS "upgrade". The point appears to be that people are stupid and drag their feet going to the latest technology. But it is just as likely that the point is MS continually releasing crap with the "like it or lump it" philosophy. It isn't ready for primetime, but MS is ready for another revenue stream, so start buying, and if we (MS, that is) get enough money, we will put some engineers on it and will unwillingly improve it. And don't worry about criticizing it, before you know it (and before the product is perfected), MS will be on to something else! So like it or lump it...

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Don't hold your breath. Vista is better out of the gate than XP was. In fact, XP was the worst OS released (save ME) at the time it came out. There were more security holes than MS could patch, so they held off on releasing security updates until SP1, which addressed some but not all of the endless list problems. A couple of years after its release, SP2 made XP a system that companies were willing to start using. (just search for old XP topics on TR and you'll see just how useless it was and how NOBODY was interested in it, funny enough people all complained about buying new hardware with XP and having to downgrade it to Win2K Pro. As you can see, the response was exactly the same as the XP fanboys toward Vista has been. In fact, Vista is FAR more stable and usuable at this early stage than XP was in the same time frame. This has been the same story for every release since upping from Win95 to Win98 (yes I've been around here for a while) we even see it for new Mac and Linux flavours. Face it, IT staff are complacent, "if it aint broke, don't fix it". However, the staff at thesse organizations will usually benefit from better user features of a new OS which, unfortunately for the company, means nothing to IT staff. Complacent IT staff, like you XP fanboys with no reason for distaste other than trends, fear of change and more work, are actually stopping staff from being more productive and companies from being profitable. Now, do you REALLY think that Windows 7 will be so different to all other OS's that everyone will jump from XP to love it? Not bloody likely, we will hear the same old lame arguments all over again, "Vista with SP3 is stable and fast, why upgrade to Windows 7 with all the bloatware and additional hardware requirements?" Give me a break, we've heard it all here before.

Joe_R
Joe_R

Why can't you simply uncheck TCP/IPv6, and configure only for TCP/IPv4?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Blog reader failed to click on link where blog writer identifies the specs for his preferred system for running Vista. Had reader done so, this post and its parent would be unnecessary. Second chance: http://tinyurl.com/5enhrg

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

And how do you justify the [b]Big Guns[/b] as you say when confronted by an Accountant questioning the cost of New Hardware for the Business. They come armed with the Minimum System Requirements supplied by M$ and then you have to disprove M$ to get hardware that works decently. If you are only buying for Home no big deal but things like this can make life very difficult when you are attempting to provide the required computers for business. If all business systems run like a Pig what do you expect these users to say about the Brand of Computer that they are using at work and the OS and Software Loaded? All the stated Minimum Requirements or Recommended Requirements do is give the Minimum that the system will run at. Not run well or productively and that is where the problem lies for Business they need the computers being used there to run well not just work. Col

Joe_R
Joe_R

My son asked me if he could install a dual-boot system on his computer - a Linux distro. I said yes. In fact, I told him that I'd do it too, perhaps on a dedicated computer (after he asked me to help him get it done). So we're both making the Linux plunge, at least looking into it. (Probably long overdue.)

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

.. Business. I don't want my personal data "out there" in some nebulous cloud. In a company where all data on the network belong'eth to the company; absolutely. Minimal mirrored install on the workstation, all applications provided by network from a central server; perfect.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I'm a computer guy. He runs a steel shop. He has the lucky misfortune to work in an industry that does not tollerate lowered standards. If his products are not machined to speck, a building may fall apart. The customer is going to come for his head; as well they should depending on the cause. He is lucky that the industry requires minimum standards and recognizes quality as a selling feature. He's unfortunate becuse he has to live up to those standards or go out of business. By contrast, the computer industry seems to happily tollerate poor quality production provided it's prettier than the last release. The idea that software engineers should be held to the same professional standards as other engineers is far from baseless. No software is perfect but some development companies seem to have really given up on trying.

Joe_R
Joe_R

[i]It is Microsoft and it is trendy to diss MS, even though most pepople use it daily. Do you not remember all the HCL issues with XP and how so many people were opposed to it due to the need for a new PC? Same sh1t, different day, There was NO reason for me to upgrade (to XP) from Win2KPro, which, even today, is probably my fav so far. [/i] Thanks for posting.

blarman
blarman

For living in "Snowy Canada Brrrrr!, British Columbia" you really need to chill out. The discussion is about whether or not Microsoft did itself any favors by understating the hardware requirements for Vista. Your bitterness and berating don't help you win anyone to your side of the argument, they just make you bitter and berating. It's pretty clear that you're a technically smart guy. Keep in mind that the IT people are the minority of Windows Vista purchasers - even Microsoft's sales figures cite home users buying new computers as the major drive behind Vista sales rather than corporations. And the common user is woefully ignorant of the realities of computing needs. They are gullible and trust the labeling. This is not an issue of technical specifications, but of setting performance expectations. Did Microsoft err by understating their requirements? Those home consumers shout YES! because their expectations were that on the given hardware, Vista would run as well - with all it's new features - as XP. And on the basic hardware, it doesn't even come close. You and I know that Microsoft has understated their minimum system requirements ever since Windows 95. You typically have to double MS's specs to get a system that measures up to a user's expectations. But we're in the minority. Besides, if consumers were as smart as us, we'd not only be out of jobs, but Microsoft would have a lot more competition to stay in business. ;)

grax
grax

Microsoft provided a small program download so that people could test their machines for Vista compatibility. I tried it and was told that all my stuff was ancient crap. I should throw it out and buy new. Two years on and I'm still using the same machines - and XP. My wife wanted a new machine so we've been obliged to embrace Microsoft's Brave New World. She hates it because it's different, full of bling and doesn't do what she's used to. She has a point. Aero is pretty. I like the "Bubbles" screen saver and the Inkball game, which doesn't work on XP is quite fun. So, when Oz_Media says: "Improved productivity willr ecover that alone.." I'd like to know where this spurious "improved productivity" comes from. Could it be because one no longer needs a spell-checker?

WTRTHS
WTRTHS

Be that as it may, nobody has forced it on you (or at least I may hope so). I have never had problems with Vista, because I waited until I could buy a decent system to go with it. Complaining and wailing isn't going to help, they'll keep doing it anyway. Just don't buy it. If everybody does this, MS will soon be forced to abandon this approach. See, it's a paradox that cannot be solved, the law of action and reaction.

mikeholli
mikeholli

Oz_Media said [quote]Now, do you REALLY think that Windows 7 will be so different to all other OS's that everyone will jump from XP to love it?[end quote] No, I don't SEE much if any change outside of eye candy..OH WAIT!! It's Vista in disguise!!! The next iteration of Windows code name 7 is going to be like how Windows 98 was to Windows 95. Meaning it will be built on the same kernel as Vista is. This will be (in my own opinion a service release.) And as with Windows 98 their won't be that much change over Vista.

mikeholli
mikeholli

Joe, Thanks! I never even checked to see if they were running simultaneously. Thanks again.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Not to mention he couldn't have made his point by doing it that way...

jamesdtuttle
jamesdtuttle

That happened when Houston Independent School District decided all teachers should have laptops. Some technical wizard in accounting bought Duron Compaqs with 128 megs of memory and XP. They were incredible dogs. Once I maxxed out the memory on my wife's machine (as fast as I could get it) the performance became acceptable. MS does not do anybody any favors by understating what's necessary for reasonable performance. Except the accounting technophiles, who look like heroes for keeping costs down. Hosing performance being only incidental, of course.

j-mart
j-mart

When we look at the main OS's out there at the present time, they, at their core go back a long way, Windows at it's root is built up on concepts and an architecture that goes back at least 30 years, Linux and all the 'nix derivatives the same. Over the same period hardware has moved ahead "light years" in the same period. Isn't it about time software engineers took a complete fresh look into OS's and make a serious attempt at some fresh concepts.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I am NOT tech savvy at all, in fact most of my friends kids know more about computing than I do. I do not work in IT either, though I have done. If you buy a box that meets the minimum requriements and, as suggested, turn off Aeroglass, the system will run. There are NO comments about it running fast or being as quick as XP or being anything more than a minimum to run the OS. OS takes one gig of RAM, and YES it will run on 1 GIG. Graphics card requires a minimum of 128MB dedicated RAM so you either need 2 gigs now (in a shared RAM system) or an independant 128MB graphics card, and yes the system will run, even with Aeroglass turned on, at that time. The recommended requirements are higher than that, and it will run on the recommended requirements. Its seems to be just people who sold their Win2K box, in order to buy a new one fast enough to run XP, that are now pissed that they have to do it again to run Vista. The bottom line is, if you use XP and it runs fine, stick with it and stop whining. If you NEED to upgrade to Vista, buy or build a box that supports it. It's not some secret scam or marketing ploy to lie to or cheat people, it's straight up marketing, if you don't like it, you can walk through any department store and find the same form of misguidance behind most of their product ads. Being in audio myself, I can't tell you how many times I've seen speakers advertised with a 20-20 frequency response, when in actuality 99% of them cannot hit either 20Hz or 20KHz properly. BUT, they CAN hit the note...technically. Most good manufacturers will rate a speakers frequency response based on a 3db curve. Anything higher or lower than 3db is not considered accurate reproduction. However a crappy speaker will still state 20-20, even though the note is barely audible or discernable with the human ear or too distorted to listen to if you can hear it. BOSE, for example, famed for those little Accustimass Cubes. They don't get anywhere NEAR the state dfreuency response that they have been sold on for a couple of decades now, but people still flock to them and think they are unique (only because nobody else will BS that way). People say how yuo can hear the bass, well a true bass note from a kick drum sits around 47Hz, not 20Hz. So it is irrelevant what the spec is really, it just draws those that don't know any better. It's not a lie but just misleading information and information that is not actually validated properly. You know very well that RAM size is irrelevant, compared to RAM speed. A P4 does not mean its a fast processor, the clock speed and cache are just as important too. But people buy on single specs, as accurate or misleading as they can be. Consumers need to do their homework vs comparing advertised specs in the flyers. It's not MS's fault or Bose's fault that people buying their products are not reaearching their purchases or don't know how to read marketing lingo.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

As a user myself, I find it is much easier and a lot faster searchin gfor files and documents with the improved search indexing engine. Many people have also stated how much easier and faster folder navigation is with eth bredcrumbs toolbar, which I get used to more and more each week. I, and many others, find that its ability to properly manage the dual core processor and prioritize tasks, ensures faster access to foreground vs background programs. There are a coiuple of third party tools available to do this and enhance XP performance, but they aren't a part of the OS. As for Aerogalss, the gadget bar and Inkball? Not used in my system. I hate that bloatware crap and decided to shut it off. Just as most people shut off the goofy, bloated XP interface when it was released so that they could use the much more useable Classic (Win2K) look and feel. Remember, XP was a complete piece of crap when it was released, with far more speed and hardware compatbility issues and security flaws that seen in Vista. Everyon ecomplained that their old boxes would not pass teh XP HCL check, and needed to buy new hardware, NO KIDDING! I though my 396 should and would run everything new! (yeah great logic there!) Just because XP is finally a usable system 3 years later doesn't mean its God's gift. In fact I have yet to see a more HATED MS release out of the gate. You just weren't around here to see it all, or chose to conveniently ignore it.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

And while I don't think the world is full of savvy users, as more and more people use computers daily, more and more people are able to support their own systems. Often this means someone is offering advice to someone else that gets them into a worse mess than before, but mroe and more people are willing to look at sorting out their own problems. In a business case, many applications are Windows only, and most servers these days use MS Exchange (which I don't really agree with but that's the reality). I think the dumb user is a lot braver than before, it keeps admins busy at least. But when Future Shop and Best buy sell more inexpensive machines that run Linux, it will get greater penetration. While it is available in some builds, they are in it for the dollars and Windows sells their PC's, not Linux. When I was in a Novell world, so nice, and they started offering Suse Linux and Novell's Linux desktop, I saw som egreat potential. But as more and mroe people started to go to Exchange they had to swap servers to MS NOS. Now everyone raves about teh great features that Exchange offers, which were available in GroupWise years ago, just like NDS from Novell vs ADS from MS. As always MS just adopts someone elses ideas and markets it, even in a stripped down version it will outsell competitors.

RipVan
RipVan

(Just had an anomoly, hope this doesn't end up as a duplicate post.) Sorry, it did and I can't see how to delete it.

RipVan
RipVan

I don't buy it. What I need to do is stop helping the people who do get suckered into buying it. But that wasn't my point. My point was more along the lines of usability. Some people point out how much more usable Windows is because "everyone uses it". Well, they may be able to click on things and make them open, but that is the extent of the knowledge of the majority of the users. These users are not able to do the simplest maintenance or deal with any problems they create. In that sense, they are no worse off than being on Linux, because they will be no less lost. So I have seen firsthand that the "Windows is familiar" argument is a straw man for the average user. Click/open is the extent of the knowledge base...

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Exactly, deal with the speed and performance you have now, don't worry about improved games, better user experiences, the lack of anything new to increase workflow etc. NO new software as there is NO new hardware to run it on. DirectX 9c forever, that's it, nothing will get better. Just glad MS didn't take that approach when they came out with Win3.11 for workgroups. IT worked, IT did what it needed to do and mroe at the time. Why buy anything new? You're right though, 1) why should someone buy new hardware when their P4 with XP does the job fine? 2)Complaining is just for teh XP fanboys, where were THEY when XP wss released, (I would guess unborn if they dont remember THAT horror show of an OS release), LOL 3) There is no reason to upgrade from XP, as everyone seems to object to. If XP works for you, STFU and get on with it while others buy new hardware with a new OS. Vista runs just fine for me too, I downgraded an XP box to Win2K because XP was garbage at the time too (except it was REALLY REALLY insecure and unstable garbage when it came out, security holes, licencing issues, endless hardware incompatibility issues etc.). But Vista, despite what XP fanboys think, actually does have some really good features that XP lacks, it has better processor management and really is faster for a user if installed and configured properly on a compatible box.

charles.homsy
charles.homsy

That might be a good direction for Microsoft to take Windows 7, a mobile module that can run inside a browser.

mikeholli
mikeholli

Col, I don't disagree with that. All my post was about was the striped down kernel for Windows 7. And I, myself also heard it was going to be a module O/S.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I can only go on what M$ where saying about 7 Prior tot he Release of Vista. 7 Is supposed to be a Modular OS where you can pick & chose what is installed so from that prospective it will be considerably smaller than Vista is for all Intelligent Business Installs. The way that M$ where speaking about 7 is that it is aimed more at the Office Environment where as Vista will have a Major Update in the Form of a Service Pack at the 2 year mack and a new version of Vista called something completely different at the 4 Year Mark to be followed 2 years latter by a Service Pack type upgrade and then again 2 years latter another New Version of Whatever replaces Vista. Vista is/was going to be the basis of all Windows Products with the exception of 7 for the next 10 Years post the Vista Release. & on the other hand was to be aimed at the Office or Business Systems and be a more cut down offering that was customizable where as Vista wasn't in that class of product. Of course as M$ has never been able to follow their projected Release Dates the so called Major Upgrade at the 2 year mark has yet to happen. SP1 for Vista wasn't anything but a collection of Patches to give the impression that M$ had been busy and released a Service Pack for Vista. Strictly speaking in M$ terms SP1 for Vista was not a Full Service Pack. Col

Joe_R
Joe_R

.....discover such things somewhere. Over the past 20 years that I've been in this business, it's always been a challenge migrating to a new operating system. The natural tendency is to gripe about this or that. The better approach, however, (at least in my opinion) is to figure out what makes the new product tick, and what I have to do to make it work. I didn't just snap my fingers and all was well with Vista, but rather a lot of trial and error. I even called in a Windows Server expert to help me figure out the best way to do certain things. Right now, my Vista desktops are humming along just fine in my Win2K domain. Thanks for your messages......

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

For the tone of my last post. I made invalid assumptions concerning your motives for wording the post as you did.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

The point here is that quite often IT is supplied with the Hardware that exceeds the OS Makers Minimum Requirements and may even meet the Recommended Requirements and its the IT Departments job to make it work acceptably. Most times this isn't even possible and as the Hardware meets or exceeds the Minimum Requirements the Business read that as the Accountants who purchased it are unwilling to spend any more money to make it work. So you are given the option of either leaving it in a corner and then the Accountants say something about buying new hardware and it wasn't used or make it work in some form of acceptable manner till it can be dumped off and replaced with things that will do the job required. So it gets Maxed out with RAM in the hope that will be enough to make it work in an acceptable manner which it hardly ever is and whoever gets to use it believes that the OS and that computer maker produce Dogs. I've seen examples of new Vista computers supplied with 1 GIG of RAM and a On Board Video where 128 MEG is shared with the M'Board for use. That system exceeds M$ Recommend Minimum and behaves like the Dog that it is. Though the Accountants who try to penny pinch and screw the suppliers for as much as possible for as little as possible feel good that they have done a great thing when all they have really done is buy a piece of junk that will never be any good for the business but as it's here now you had better use it or else. Col

jpdecesare
jpdecesare

It's obvious I was talking about HOME USE since my only comparison was Flight Simulator. For business, whole different story. If accountants won't be realistic about hardware budgets and increasing demand on hardware due to new technology, then just stay on XP and don't gripe.