Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Retro42]

@Fenrir:  If there was I REALLY wish they let me in on the profits

Seriously though.  Microsoft fucked up and let everyone know 512 or 1gb is acceptable for Vista and it really isn't.  Almost all "mid" to "high" end pc's sold now have at least 2gb out of the box.  The only time you can get away with less is with Vista Basic and even then it's pushing it.

Retro

[Old School Gamer]

quote:Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>And that is why we hat Microsoft updates, in all their forms.

I love my little Linux dual-boot option...  I'd love it even more if any games actually ran on Linux, without the need for a firm grasp of how to work Linux, which I do not have.

If I could choose an OS to master, I'd have to choose Linux or one of the other ones of that breed.  Windows is simple enough to plug away at, but the freedom allowed to a master of Linux...  Dayumn.</STRONG>

I have this theory that MS designs their OS's to hobble the everyday computer operator.. keep the little guy down and what not.  Then the enterprise OS's they have like Win2000 work much better, which more corporations use.

Of course I think that every major corporation wants to subdue the little guy and turn us all into slaves... not that there isn't evidence of this, but I suppose that just saying it makes some peoples' ears "turn off".

In any freakin' case,  I've been using Ubuntu for the last year or so, and it's absolutely amazing the difference it's made in everything that I do, both on the computer and in life in general.  With MS OS's, it's an experience of frustration to use a computer;  with Linux, it's hugely powerful for the individual using it.  Gives you so much capability and power,  ability, etc.

Windows XP, etc are all like putting on a concrete suit and going to work,  a very stifling series of OS's.

Mainstream games feel like stale bread to me nowadays, and I can play DF on Ubuntu through wine even faster than on XP,  so I have no need for XP anymore.  I'm not as much of a gamer anymore either, so when the time came to axe XP it felt amazingly freeing, and my computer feels much more secure now without XP on it.

Vista is MS's power-play to make the consumer pay out the nose for computing.. but the smart people out there stay far away from it.  I personally used to hate MS, but now that their terrible software is no longer on my computer, they're just another faceless corporate exploiter of the populace that I just dismiss as useless bastards to be ignored.

Long post here, but I think a lot of people have a long history of trials and tribulations with MS, so some of you out there can no doubt identify.

Another thing:  you can run Ubuntu just fine on a P3 1000Mhz PC, quite well really.  Seen in the light of this it's clear that MS's OS releases are a constant devolution of computer capability & usability.

[Hyperturtle]

I don't run vista, but come on.  It's not a big deal to expect a new OS to require more hardware resources than the previous one.  A devolution?  that's crazy talk.  You wouldn't have high end machines available like what we have now if we just ran Windows 98.  There was no need for a 1000mhz cpu on that OS.  Even windows 95 had problems reading over 64 megs of memory, because there was no need for it and they didn't plan for it.  The OSR 2 of 95 fixed that problem and, and also offered us FAT32--which people complained they had to reformat their drives. FAT32 is used on the majority of all usb drives in Windows computers, and home appliances that accept flash (like picture frames, printers that can print straight from the stick, cameras, etc).

People bang their war drums about it, and it doesn't make sense to me.  I needed to upgrade to play doom 3 and quake 4 and oblivion with the graphic details I wanted, and that seemed reasonable to me if I wanted a better gaming experience.

If someone doesn't entice (force?) you to upgrade, we'd still be at a dos command prompt with 8088 processors, or maybe a turbo 286 for the lucky people here.

How often do you get a new phone?   Does the new one have old features, or do you upgrade?  How about your game console?  The PS3 isn't running on PS2 hardware with a new OS--it's all been upgraded, as is the expectation.  Why don't people assume that a new OS is the same way?  And yes, linux has many ways to modify it and distros for it, but the mass market is unable to figure it out.  

Anyway, for the expectations I have with my phone or a game system, I treat PCs the same way.  If I am unwilling to update the hardware, then I likely have no good reason upgrading the OS on it.  

For those that say Vista is forced on new machines, that's true.  But if you are in the market to upgrade your existing machine that works fine, at least do some research on what you are buying!

I am not arguing that Vista is a "better" product than XP.  But it seems entirely unreasonable that as software and hardware progresses forward, that people continue to complain that the latest new software doesn't work on their hardware that is not capable of handling it (to their specifications).. be it Crysis or Vista or whatever.

[Mephisto]

The problem is not that the software uses more resources. That is to be expected.

The problem is the amount of resources used. 512MB was great for XP. My first computer ran XP with half that and it worked fine. Along comes Vista a few years later, which needs four times the RAM. When put in this perspective, yes, it does look excessive.

[Keiseth]

What Mephisto said. New computers shipped with Vista (at least, as soon as it came out) seemed to have lacked the resources to run Vista properly. It's kind of crazy to say, "Hey, my computer runs terribly, I just bought it. What should I do?" "Upgrade it."

When people buy a new computer they don't even want to THINK about upgrading for some time. When I bought this (seven year old now?) computer it shipped with a XP, a 1.4.ghz Processor, 256MB of RAM and a *very* bad video card. With the exception of the card, however, it ran pretty well and I had no complaints for a long time.

[Fenrir]

I checked the system requirements on the box and they matched the requirements for Medieval II, so I got it. "It looks like the game will run on this one!" I thought, never imagining the horrors that dwelt within. Computers ought to give you what they say they can. Don't you think so?

The moral of this story: Don't shop for computers at Wal-Mart! Those high-school dropouts don't know a gigabyte from Adam.

[ March 19, 2008: Message edited by: Fenrir ]

[Hyperturtle]

The new computers often come with options to increase memory, a different processor, etc.  A computer-in-a-box would require someone to crack it open to "upgrade it" but I see it as being little different than getting air conditioning in a car or upgrading your kitchen cabinets in a house.

Yes, the car still drives and the house is livable without the upgrades, but the quality of the experience differs.  It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me that a computer can be selected and then upgraded.  

I agree that is it unfair to think that a computer can't run the OS well that it shipped with, but that's what they are doing to clear out the older stock of computers.  You Get What You Pay For!

[Mephisto]

Let me put it this way. That extra RAM is required for the computer to run decently. If you go out and buy a pickup truck for hauling wood and other crap around, you don't want it to have a dinky 3-cylinder engine, do you? Sure, it might run, but it probably won't be able to go the speed limit on any highway. Why not just upgrade after you buy it?

There is a difference between required hardware like the RAM, CPU, an engine, etc and the optional stuff, like an air conditioner, power windows, 60 inch monitor.

[ March 20, 2008: Message edited by: Mephisto ]