Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
130 Pages « < 21 22 23 24 25 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Official Microsoft Windows Vista Discussion Thread, Strictly NO warez discussion

views
     
samurai1337
post May 24 2006, 05:47 PM

@_@
Group Icon
VIP
11,594 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Area 51

QUOTE(cockerish @ May 24 2006, 11:49 AM)
no really, windows 98 took almost 700 plus mb to install, windows xp took around 2gigs or so but i dont understand, vista needs 15gigs of free space?
what the hell is wrong with msoft?
its either its too bloated up or something is really wrong
*
QUOTE(allvin @ May 24 2006, 03:31 PM)
i think u guys make so mistake la! my frie install vista beta just 6Gb le! How come 15gb rclxub.gif

maybe the beta2 got adding some stuff. Kinda weird. 15GB  shocking.gif
*
Well, a few points that i can think of

- They might not need 15GB anyway, it's a prudent prediction and it doesn't mean 15GB will be used after the installation, some are reserved for page file and other purposes.

- Storage is real cheap nowadays. 120GB HDD doesn't cost that much. And if you've 200GB of storage, 15GB doesn't even exceed 10% of it.

- You can't compare legacy OS with new OS. Windows XP took 2GB, Windows 98 took 700MB, Windows 1.0 took one floppy disk. But what can you do now with Win 1.0? It has to grow.
Of course, if you think you can do whatever you want with your Win98/XP now, then you can go ahead with it. But one day your OS will be obsolete (as you can see now WLM and WMP11 don't support Win2000) and you can't avoid that.

- Consuming more storage space won't really make the system bloated or slowing down the performance. It's the number of processes and the consumption of RAM that matters
dadurtyz
post May 24 2006, 07:22 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
658 posts

Joined: May 2006
From: Melaka



Vista use lot of memory..need more than 512mb ..

allvin
post May 24 2006, 08:15 PM

......
*******
Senior Member
4,506 posts

Joined: Aug 2005

QUOTE(dadurtyz @ May 24 2006, 08:22 PM)
Vista use lot of memory..need more than 512mb ..
*
That's normal i think. If u play high-end game, it also need at least 512Mb. smile.gif cheer
skullz)
post May 25 2006, 03:14 AM

Shutterbug
****
Senior Member
651 posts

Joined: Apr 2005
From: KL


so far anyone tried the new beta 2 yet? wonder how many weeks we need to wait till they make it downloadable to the normal public..

anyone here with an MSDN subscription? hehe
prasys
post May 26 2006, 09:52 AM

Heros Never Die
Group Icon
VIP
12,925 posts

Joined: Mar 2005
From: Kuala Lumpur
I got a friend who has that...Later I would ask him , hows the new BETA 2 ...

BTW , as for me...VISTA is just a bloatware OS , that needs huge amount of HDD , huge amount of memory and SLi Graphics card. Without it , your computer would be like 300Mhz Pentium II , with 128MB RAM , 4MB VRAM with Windows XP...Dont get me wrong...Its soo much bloated..I would wait for SP1 to come out , and then later I would think about moving to VISTA. So far , XP does a great job. I am not getting this VISTA thingy , as who knows..It might contain Blaster Virus as well...Suddenly , bam restart

I would rather use Tiger...it only needs 256MB of RAM to run...Bah , it even runs fine on a 1999 PowerMac G3 with 512MB of RAM and on a 500Mhz G3 Processor....I would wait [and save $$$$$]
allvin
post May 26 2006, 01:06 PM

......
*******
Senior Member
4,506 posts

Joined: Aug 2005

QUOTE(prasys @ May 26 2006, 10:52 AM)
I got a friend who has that...Later I would ask him , hows the new BETA 2 ...

BTW , as for me...VISTA is just a bloatware OS , that needs huge amount of HDD , huge amount of memory and SLi Graphics card. Without it , your computer would be like 300Mhz Pentium II , with 128MB RAM , 4MB VRAM with Windows XP...Dont get me wrong...Its soo much bloated..I would wait for SP1 to come out , and then later I would think about moving to VISTA. So far , XP does a great job. I am not getting this VISTA thingy , as who knows..It might contain Blaster Virus as well...Suddenly , bam restart

I would rather use Tiger...it only needs 256MB of RAM to run...Bah , it even runs fine on a 1999 PowerMac G3 with 512MB of RAM and on a 500Mhz G3 Processor....I would wait [and save $$$$$]
*
YA!!! I don't think i will install vista too. Addition, my pc spec not that good. U need like dual core processor and high-end card. Winxp suit my pc!

Sorry for OT, i heard that winxp got SP3 soon. I think after vista release or what. Duno whether is rumour or not smile.gif
Eoma
post May 27 2006, 12:17 PM

- ,. -
Group Icon
Elite
4,603 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: PJ


I woke up early today morning, so i could play around with the Beta 2 build, and here are my thoughts:

Installation on my slow Maxtor 15GB disk took roughly 1 hour 15mins from booting up the installer to finish. Faster than previous builds. They cleaned up the interface and looks pretty good. Total space (default@Vista Ultimate Edition) = 6.67GB + 2.3GB for the page file = ~ 10GB. You can change the pagefile size later on though, like I did to 1GB.

Boot times are impressive; pretty much like my primary Win XP installation. Performance has further improved (from the last build 5365 that I had). No sluggish menus, loads, , hdd thrashing, etc. Bear in mind, that this is on my slower Maxtor 15Gb. If I install on the primary WD80GB, there shoud be further (though slight) loading benefits.

RAM usage = Heavy. Windows Classic theme @desktop with only the sidebar running (and other default services left on, untweaked) took up about 502MB of RAM. Changing to Windows Aero saw the usage go up to 680MB. Taskbar shows(with IE7 and 6 tabs open) RAM usage at roughly around 740MB. 2Gigs definately!

I don't like the default Start Menu options, though it is easily tweaked.
I'm gonna have to get used to the new default Explorer setup. Classic menus and folders is still available for those wondering.

For the ATI users, the Catalyst for Longhorn Beta 2 installs fine. Current driver revision adds Adaptive AA in the CCC options. Drivers (as before) show a GDI version of 9ex.

Might try some D3D and OGL demos on it later after lunch. biggrin.gif
johnnycp
post May 27 2006, 02:17 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
600 posts

Joined: May 2005
From: Sabah
QUOTE(allvin @ May 24 2006, 08:15 PM)
That's normal i think. If u play high-end game, it also need at least 512Mb. smile.gif cheer
*
normal minima memory requirements for high end games = 1GB

best performance = 2gb

rclxms.gif
allvin
post May 27 2006, 03:57 PM

......
*******
Senior Member
4,506 posts

Joined: Aug 2005

QUOTE(Eoma @ May 27 2006, 01:17 PM)
I woke up early today morning, so i could play around with the Beta 2 build, and here are my thoughts:

Installation on my slow Maxtor 15GB disk took roughly 1 hour 15mins from booting up the installer to finish. Faster than previous builds. They cleaned up the interface and looks pretty good. Total space (default@Vista Ultimate Edition) = 6.67GB + 2.3GB for the page file = ~ 10GB. You can change the pagefile size later on though, like I did to 1GB.

Boot times are impressive; pretty much like my primary Win XP installation. Performance has further improved (from the last build 5365 that I had). No sluggish menus, loads, , hdd thrashing, etc.  Bear in mind, that this is on my slower Maxtor 15Gb. If I install on the primary WD80GB, there shoud be further (though slight) loading benefits.

RAM usage = Heavy. Windows Classic theme @desktop with only the sidebar running (and other default services left on, untweaked) took up about 502MB of RAM. Changing to Windows Aero saw the usage go up to 680MB. Taskbar shows(with IE7 and 6 tabs open) RAM usage at roughly around 740MB. 2Gigs definately!

I don't like the default Start Menu options, though it is easily tweaked.
I'm gonna have to get used to the new default Explorer setup. Classic menus and folders is still available for those wondering.

For the ATI users, the Catalyst for Longhorn Beta 2 installs fine. Current driver revision adds Adaptive AA in the CCC options. Drivers (as before) show a GDI version of 9ex.

Might try some D3D and OGL demos on it later after lunch.  biggrin.gif
*
After reading your review, i don't think i want to install vista. Need at least 1GB ram cry.gif

QUOTE(johnnycp @ May 27 2006, 03:17 PM)
normal minima memory requirements for high end games = 1GB

best performance = 2gb

rclxms.gif
*
YA la! So are u using 2GB? laugh.gif Why don't make it 4Gb ram? Even best performance tongue.gif
X.E.D
post May 31 2006, 02:13 PM

curmudgeonosorus emeritus
******
Senior Member
1,955 posts

Joined: Jan 2006
From: Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­ch


QUOTE(cockerish @ May 24 2006, 12:49 PM)
no really, windows 98 took almost 700 plus mb to install, windows xp took around 2gigs or so but i dont understand, vista needs 15gigs of free space?
what the hell is wrong with msoft?
its either its too bloated up or something is really wrong
*
Those previous versions were all different code, and Vista is too.
15GB= Expected HD space for OS+ Casual Apps like Office 2007.
prasys
post May 31 2006, 07:49 PM

Heros Never Die
Group Icon
VIP
12,925 posts

Joined: Mar 2005
From: Kuala Lumpur
QUOTE
"640k is enough for anyone,
and by the way, what's a
network?""
- William Gates III


Since 640K is enough....I wonder If I can run VISTA with 640K of RAM..!
Atlantis
post Jun 1 2006, 05:10 PM

Casual
***
Validating
403 posts

Joined: Apr 2006
issit a MUST to have CD-ROM ? if i got only DVD-ROm issit ok ? since dvd rom also can support cd rite ?
Eoma
post Jun 1 2006, 05:21 PM

- ,. -
Group Icon
Elite
4,603 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: PJ


QUOTE(Atlantis @ Jun 1 2006, 05:10 PM)
if i got only DVD-ROm issit ok ? since dvd rom also can support cd rite ?
*
Yes, your DVD drive will be sufficient; and recommended too since Vista won't fit in one CD like Windows XP does.
samurai1337
post Jun 2 2006, 02:08 AM

@_@
Group Icon
VIP
11,594 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Area 51

QUOTE(Atlantis @ Jun 1 2006, 05:10 PM)
issit a MUST to have CD-ROM ? if i got only DVD-ROm issit ok ? since dvd rom also can support cd rite ?
*
All DVD-ROM drives should able to read CD-rom since it is backward compatible.
cockerish
post Jun 2 2006, 03:31 AM

12k SP@M Club
********
All Stars
13,619 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: between your legs


i think he is trying to make a joke

anyway, who am i to advise but imho, wait for sp1 to come out before jumping on the bandwagon for good.

every msoft os at start is crap and full of loopholes no matter what msoft tries to overhype any new security tool they have embedded into the OS.
its just the same everytime.

but if the os cant run properly with 512mb, i guess msoft just sold a huge chunk of the pie to Linux.
as it is linux is gaining ground, the more msoft push buyers to get new hardware, the more they would jump on the bandwagon.

some organization have also created thier own flavour of linux which imho is a good move so they would save cost and msoft would know where the ground lies and where the sky lies and where they are exactly
X.E.D
post Jun 2 2006, 11:03 AM

curmudgeonosorus emeritus
******
Senior Member
1,955 posts

Joined: Jan 2006
From: Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­ch


QUOTE(cockerish @ Jun 2 2006, 04:31 AM)
i think he is trying to make a joke

anyway, who am i to advise but imho, wait for sp1 to come out before jumping on the bandwagon for good.

every msoft os at start is crap and full of loopholes no matter what msoft tries to overhype any new security tool they have embedded into the OS.
its just the same everytime.

but if the os cant run properly with 512mb, i guess msoft just sold a huge chunk of the pie to Linux.
as it is linux is gaining ground, the more msoft push buyers to get new hardware, the more they would jump on the bandwagon.

some organization have also created thier own flavour of linux which imho is a good move so they would save cost and msoft would know where the ground lies and where the sky lies and where they are exactly
*
When you get all the BEST professional applications and games on Linux (not considering Cedega; it's awful), maybe people might try it.
TBH noone will see any benefits using Linux compared to the current Windows XP; and with Microsoft streamlining everything plus today's powerful PCs, I'm having a hard time imagining the mainstream consumer NOT having a copy of Windows, XP or Vista.

(And for the bugs/ SP1, you probably forgot how Vista testing and CTP launches were so different from previous Windows-es. It launches a year after the first beta with a completely rewritten kernel, doesn't seem to be as exploit-heavy as everyone thinks.)
ahmades
post Jun 6 2006, 12:47 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
110 posts

Joined: Apr 2006
From: Esfahan, IRAN


I heard some rumors say, Vista used more memory comparing with Windows XP. And more, Vista drains laptop batteries. Here the story ::: ZDNet::Viata Drains Laptop Batteries.
splinter
post Jun 6 2006, 10:31 AM

New Kid In Town
*******
Senior Member
2,120 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: In front my PC


Is M$ announce the requirement for Vista? I saw some HP Dual CORE laptop come with a sticker Vista capable. But some HP dual core doent come with tat sticker. Wonder y!
fariz
post Jun 8 2006, 05:56 AM

Tan Sri F
Group Icon
VIP
16,825 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Siberia
Vista Beta 2 will be available for download soon.

http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=298569
prasys
post Jun 8 2006, 11:02 AM

Heros Never Die
Group Icon
VIP
12,925 posts

Joined: Mar 2005
From: Kuala Lumpur
Its up now ...biggrin.gif

thanks fariz !

130 Pages « < 21 22 23 24 25 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0318sec    0.89    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th December 2025 - 12:38 AM