Quote from: Clockd 0Ne

Quote from: Beaker

Quote from: Clockd 0NeYou cant slag them off because their OS was released years ago and isnt bleeding edge like a linux beta distri.

IMO the number of die hard MS haters that will turncoat when they realise Vista is actually going to be the mutts nuts is going to be so high youll think this uncanny.

Doubt it, the beta isnt to oshabby, and much better than i was expecting.  However to have all the bells and whisltes on its gonna force an upgrade.  :\

Fancy graphics doesnt make an OS and it is all scalable. The point is, its going to have all the bells and whistles and be more powerful than anything else weve seen before.

Mostly ripped off from Linux. Bells and whistles to one is bloatware and speed reduction to another.

you could go all the way back with that argument.

Ripped off from apple, ripped off from commodore, etc.

Poor Commodore, but when you name your puter after a toilet, what do you expect? :mrgreen:

Quote from: Clockd 0Ne

Quote from: BeakerDoubt it, the beta isnt to oshabby, and much better than i was expecting.  However to have all the bells and whisltes on its gonna force an upgrade.  :\

Fancy graphics doesnt make an OS and it is all scalable. The point is, its going to have all the bells and whistles and be more powerful than anything else weve seen before.

But why should an OS force a system upgrade to get all the relevant parts working?  Ill upgrade for applications and games, but the OS Shouldnt ever force you too.  Im wating to see it running on a Celeron or older Athlons that are only just about hitting minimum spec.  Im told the full installer is going to check the system specs and if you arent fast enough it isnt going to let you install.  Not really on, and it isnt going to go down well with the corporate customers, where I work out main client has only just gone to windows XP :\

It doesnt force you to get all the parts working. Have you actually read about this or are you speculating? There is even a stripped down version that will work on systems with something like 128Mb RAM.

The only thing that needs high specs are all the fancy graphics options, all the applications and features supplied are in the different packages only and they will work fine off the bat, you dont need to upgrade to use the OS, only to use the fancy graphical features.

Even saying that, the number of people on this forum alone with stupidly high end PCs and cutting edge graphics cards is pretty high and most people have at least 1Ghz of processing power these days, more than enough for any OS.

The specs arnt that grand really, have you used the compatibility program on the website?

Corporate customers on the whole will not give a monkeys, they wont need the features anyway in most cases, Im sure Windows XP is fine for them. They dont need to be cutting edge, any intelligent businesses would not throw money at an IT overhaul without seriously needing the capabilities offered. If they are upgrading for the sake of it more fool them.

Do you think Microsoft are really going to be stupid enough to release an OS no one can use?

edit:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

Massive spec requirements there My only objection would be to 15Gb of HDD space for Premium, but I think its still pretty good. Maybe a few features require a more powerful machine such as the disk encryption, but tbh things have to move on. You would only be complaining in a few years otherwise thats its so obsolete compared to linux.

Quote from: soopahflyyou could go all the way back with that argument.

Ripped off from apple, ripped off from commodore, etc.

Apple nicked it from Xerox IIRC

Quote from: maximusotterPoor Commodore, but when you name your puter after a toilet, what do you expect? :mrgreen:

The Amiga was a good computer which was milked for all it was worth by Commodore. Except they didnt put anything back into developing it until it was far too late. They deserved to go bankrupt TBH for the gross negligence and stupidity of the management.

Quote from: Clockd 0NeIt doesnt force you to get all the parts working. Have you actually read about this or are you speculating? There is even a stripped down version that will work on systems with something like 128Mb RAM.

The only thing that needs high specs are all the fancy graphics options, all the applications and features supplied are in the different packages only and they will work fine off the bat, you dont need to upgrade to use the OS, only to use the fancy graphical features.

Even saying that, the number of people on this forum alone with stupidly high end PCs and cutting edge graphics cards is pretty high and most people have at least 1Ghz of processing power these days, more than enough for any OS.

The specs arnt that grand really, have you used the compatibility program on the website?

Corporate customers on the whole will not give a monkeys, they wont need the features anyway in most cases, Im sure Windows XP is fine for them. They dont need to be cutting edge, any intelligent businesses would not throw money at an IT overhaul without seriously needing the capabilities offered. If they are upgrading for the sake of it more fool them.

Do you think Microsoft are really going to be stupid enough to release an OS no one can use?

edit:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

Massive spec requirements there My only objection would be to 15Gb of HDD space for Premium, but I think its still pretty good. Maybe a few features require a more powerful machine such as the disk encryption, but tbh things have to move on. You would only be complaining in a few years otherwise thats its so obsolete compared to linux.

yes i have looked at, though ive only had chance to get an early version running as it hated the machine i installed it on.  My not too shabby laptop (3.2Ghz P4, 1Gb, 128Mb 9700)bnearly choked, and if that was anything to go by then im more than a little dubious of it.  As it is ive just queued up the Beta2 download from MS and ill have a play around to see how it is before either assigning it to the bin, or assigning it as my windows boot option.

I had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.

The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.

Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....

Quote from: soopahflyI had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.

The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.

Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....

really?  why is it a poor excuse?

Ive never been forced to upgrade, nor do i intend to unless i see some real benefits.  My old 2800+ isnt going to cut it with Vista, ill give it a try, but if i find the performance between XP and Vista is noticable ill put XP back on the machine, its not like ive ever been in a rush to upgrade, and regardless i wont be installing it on my main machines until after SP1.  Ive yet to see an OS that is "perfect" on 1st release, and they rarely get there before they drop out of the support cycle.  Im gonna install the Vista Beta 2 this weekend.  Ive checked and one of my desktop machines is fully supported.  Sole reason for doing it is because im informed where i work now may now extend our contracts, and if they do ill have an advantage if ive got used to Vista before almost everyone else.

Quote from: soopahflyI had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.

The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.

Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....

You know... that has been done.

mmm. didnt everyone complain about the min. spec needed for XP when it came out ?

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: soopahflyOhh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....

You know... that has been done.

an old 6th form teacher of mine had XP running on a 286 with 4 meg of ram

he said he had to leave it overnight for it to boot, but it did boot !

Quote from: Beaker

Quote from: soopahflyI had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.

The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.

Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....

really?  why is it a poor excuse?

Ive never been forced to upgrade, nor do i intend to unless i see some real benefits.  My old 2800+ isnt going to cut it with Vista, ill give it a try, but if i find the performance between XP and Vista is noticable ill put XP back on the machine, its not like ive ever been in a rush to upgrade, and regardless i wont be installing it on my main machines until after SP1.  Ive yet to see an OS that is "perfect" on 1st release, and they rarely get there before they drop out of the support cycle.  Im gonna install the Vista Beta 2 this weekend.  Ive checked and one of my desktop machines is fully supported.  Sole reason for doing it is because im informed where i work now may now extend our contracts, and if they do ill have an advantage if ive got used to Vista before almost everyone else.

Looks like I have no real chance of my old 2500+ handling it then, not that I want it to. As long as the games I want to run work adequately on my present rig I wont be upgrading.

I would still use w98 if it would work with everything. All this uppgrades of perfectly working apps why ? The only good ones are security uppdates.

The only real reasons not to use 98 are USB support and games. With business software it doesnt really matter what you use providing its fast enough.