Windows Vista Capable Machines Coming 340
An anonymous reader writes "PC World's Techlog has a short piece talking about the upcoming emergence of 'Windows Vista Capable' PCs." From the article: "The Vista Capable designation doesn't promise that a PC will provide a great Vista experience, or even that it'll support all Vista features or features...just that it'll be able to run Windows Vista Home Basic in some not-very-well-defined-but-apparently-adequate way. At the moment, there are still new PCs on store shelves that don't meet the Vista Capable guidelines--for instance, low-end systems still sport 256MB of RAM in some cases. Wonder if that means that that A) we'll see some cheap systems that still have XP even after Vista ships; or B) the specs on even the cheapest machines will be beefed up; or C) we'll see machines that have Vista preloaded but which don't qualify as Vista capable?"
Reading too far in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sticker. Probably shiny.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:5, Funny)
It's a little shiny.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:2, Funny)
I hope it has ponies on it. :-(
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:2)
Mind you it is a bit of a cash grab but I have found software that has the sticker has a tendency to run better in windows.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:5, Funny)
Mind you it is a bit of a cash grab but I have found software that has the sticker has a tendency to run better in windows.
It's a wash. I've found software that has that sticker tends to work worse - or not at all - in Linux.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:4, Informative)
And all of those apps that foolishly stuck to the Windows developer guidelines, even where it went against common sense, are finding their methodology to be deprecated [yafla.com]. The programmatic, non-system use of the registry was one of the worst mistakes of the Windows platform.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:3, Informative)
You make a good point but give credit where credit is due. At least they are admitting that sometimes, the simplest way may be the best way.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:5, Funny)
Two of these are pristine; half of the third has rubbed off so that it is now "Desig-- Microso-- Window--" instead. I wonder if XP will start crashing when the rest of that sticker is worn away.
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Reading to far in...BIOS still here (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't think I'll upgrade until the dust settles.
Re:Reading to far in...BIOS still here (Score:2)
Of course this will not happen anytime soon. Microsoft is in the business of selling software, so a midrange PC bought today will run Vista just fine.
New EFI Hardware in 2007 (Score:2)
In effect Microsoft is helping the hardware guys sell a lot more computers in the next 2 years.
Re:New EFI Hardware in 2007 (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally think the Gates-Ballmer team has taken on so much in attempting to own the whole ball game, that they can't deliver on reasonably fast quality upgrades with speed, and are becoming the sluggish giant that some other notable corporations have become.
By biting off too much, Microsoft can't even get out a decent OS upgrade once a year or once every other year. They are quite simply dead in the water for the better part of 5 years. The sooner they break the
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:2)
Wasn't there something on User Friendly recently... about power supplies?
Sorry, I'm just too lazy to search...
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, the latest integrated Intel graphics ARE DirectX 9 capable, which may or may not satisfy the "DirectX 9 capable graphics processor" requirement in the Vista Capable program (I haven't seen any definitive word either way.)
It needs to support Shader 3.0 for Aero Glass... (Score:2, Informative)
That said, if your graphics card isn't up to running Aero Glass, Vista will just turn it off, it won't refuse to run. There is a TON of FUD about this issue, lots of people claiming Vista won't run unless you have a High End, 256MB Graphics card, which is patently false. Vista will r
Re:Reading too far in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Naw, that won't work - you are right, all those people are screwed.
The day Vista comes out and their machines up and die because WinXP ceases to exist, I bet they are all going to run out and buy new computers.
Just curious, do you know even a single person that had a mach
Bah Vista compatible. (Score:2, Funny)
The phantom console? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bah Vista compatible. (Score:2, Funny)
Additionally, the AtomChip laptops are one of Duke Nukem Forever's launch partners. I look forward to getting my hands on one of these puppies.
Re:Bah Vista compatible. (Score:2)
Missing Option (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Missing Option (Score:2, Insightful)
Would be interesting, but I doubt that is going to happen. It could be interpreted as admitting open source software is better than Windows. Microsoft don't want to do that. I think they'd rather put the blame on unauthorized copies.
Re:Missing Option (Score:2)
I realize you're probably being facetious here, but just in case: Can you point me to where this might be true? The notion that "hordes of Linux users" are threatening MS' domination of the desktop seems rather far-fetched to me.
Re:Missing Option (Score:2)
In al reality, I'd be more willing to keep my same option, but change Microsoft blaming OSOS to Microsoft blaming piracy OR (wishful thinking) blaming another company altogether. The backlash on that last bit would be an awesome thing to see, almost on the V for Vendetta scale.
It will change.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing Option (Score:2)
Nearly a year to go (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nearly a year to go before Vista's release to consumers - so I'm pretty sure that pretty much all low-end machines with Vista will be 'Vista Capable' then (i.e. usually adding an extra 256mb RAM).
They will sell "what is hot" even if it crawls. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They will sell "what is hot" even if it crawls. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not check Microsoft rather than two blogs? (Score:5, Informative)
Minimum system requirements will not be known until summer 2006 at the earliest. However, these guidelines provide useful estimates:
" 512 megabytes (MB) or more of RAM
A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support
A modern, Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC."
Re:Why not check Microsoft rather than two blogs? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not check Microsoft rather than two blogs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel: http://www.intel.com/business/bss/products/client/ vistasolutions/index.htm [intel.com]
AMD: http://www.amd.com/windowsvista [amd.com]
VIA: http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/vista/cpu.jsp [via.com.tw]
My problem is with the consistently mediocre reporting, when just a little bit more effort would get to primary sources, rather than this persistent blog banality culture.
Re:Why not check Microsoft rather than two blogs? (Score:2)
Re:Why not check Microsoft rather than two blogs? (Score:2)
Interesting that they say "a dedicated graphics card". Nvidia's new integrated chipsets support DX9c and should be able to run the Aero Glass interface.
ho please stop (Score:5, Insightful)
On another side, take also in account that Vista will probably have a lifespan comparable to XP, something like 5-6 years. Every computer will be easily capable of running all the GUI eye-candy in the years following the release. It's a good idea to leave some room for improvement IMHO.
Re:ho please stop (Score:2)
Actually I seem to remember them saying that they felt XP had gone on too long and that from now on they would be releasing new OS' every 4 years-ish... I can't find the actual info though.
C, but You're probably too young to remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Having been raised on Apple IIe's, C64s, 8086s, 286s, 386s, and 486s, I have trouble thinking of anything super-1GHz as 'slow.' Of course, that's not to say I didn't just spend $200 for 1 Gigabyte of memory for my Tu
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always been my experience that you need more than 128MB RAM to run Windows XP. It uses a fair chunk of your 128MB RAM before you even do anything, and as soon as you try to run any non-trivial app it'll decend into a big swap-fest. This is made worse by the fact that the manufacturers that will sell people Windows XP machines with far too little RAM are the sort to also bundle a really slow, noisy disk. The main problem with these cheap machines isn't any one skimp but that they've skimped on everythin
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
I thin
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
M$ sucks! (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, though (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hardware Sales (Score:2)
X is a major culprit, specifically DEs like GNOME and KDE.
But i'm fairly confident you could get a reasonably responsive bash shell on the thing.
Re:Hardware Sales (Score:2, Insightful)
People have a really poor perspective on computers these days. I think it in part is due to an infestation of framebuffers.
Bah, whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
These numbers are just to give the ideal out of box experience, so people will be happy with their purchase.
With some of the effects turned down I am positive Vista would run fine on these 256 MB machines.
Re:Bah, whatever (Score:5, Funny)
Vista sounds like a new game. Just turn down the draw distance and Vista will run fine! People might have trouble getting used to the fog on inactive windows though.
Re:Bah, whatever (Score:2)
Definition (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume that Vista has a Win2K mode, that cuts away all the Aero Glass crap and lets me work. Is that was this "Vista-Compatible" certification is? ie. It runs the low quality mode, but not the Toys-R-Us look? In that case, pretty much every machine with 256MB ram and a Pentium 4/ AMD Socket A proc will work
Re:Definition (Score:2)
Yes, like Windows XP, Vista has a Windows Classic [wikimedia.org] mode.
Au contraire (Score:2)
Obviously you'd never pay duke nukem forever on a rig like that but for most users needs it's not a problem. As a Mac convert from Windows with a 366mhz iBook I can honestly say that XP scales down to older hardware better than the competition.
Re:Au contraire (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, with respect, I don't think that anything will ever play Duke Nukem Forever.
What a load off shit (Score:5, Insightful)
So by then we will have seen the fading out of of 256mb machines and gone to 512mb. (Even the cheapest Dell now has that already) Wich is happily the recommended minimum. In fact many Dells already come with 1 gig as do a lot of "cheapo" white brand PC's.
As for CPU. Well thanks to the move to Dual core's in 1 year I think single core machines will be rare. Why go single when a dual costs only 10 bucks extra?
The only real problem may be with the 3D card needed for the new gui. Except that I have been led to believe that it is optional and you can still use the old gui wich does not require a 3D card.
So basically, any halfway decent machine will do but as always you need lots of ram.
So what else is new? This has been true for opensource as well. You are not going to run KDE with all the options on a 486 with 16mb memory.
What I want is a sticker that says wether the hardware is DRM ready. That is the thing I am intrested in for Windows Vista.
Not in the way MS/Intel/etc wants. Just so I know wich products to avoid like the plague.
A nice shiny sticker "Big Brother Ready" so we can let them rot on the shops shelves.
but what everyone wants to know is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Or hopefully.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Good news, everyone! (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Old machines that won't run Vista well will be phased out with dramatically lowered prices. So if you're looking for a cheap average computer that runs any OS beside Vista, you'll have a lot of cheap options.
2. Because of the whole Aero interface noise (the toughest part of Vista in terms of system requirements), we're finally going to see mainstream laptop manufacturers putting reasonable videocards in laptops. As it currently stands, it's extremely difficult to find a reasonable laptop with a reasonable (= can play Half-life 2 just fine or better) video card in a sane price range. Right now if you want a good (not even the best) video card, you have to buy a high-end laptop which will cost you a lot, at least in Europe.
3. Behind the ubercool Aero, Vista sounds like XP with a few bugs fixed. Many people with less than high-end computers will be disappointed because they won't be able to run Aero, and will see little reason to upgrade to Vista. Now I finally have a "n00b-obvious" good argument to convinve them to swtich to Linux
This last sentence requires a clarification: Whether Linux's desktop will be able to look better than Vista's will remain to be seen. Probably not at first. I've seen Vista screenshots, and it does look amazingly beautiful, for the most part. The lower requirements, however, are there: Xgl runs beautifully on a 32mb laptop videocard (GF4), while Aero won't, judging from what I've read around the Internet.
Re:Good news, everyone! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good news, everyone! (Score:2)
What is Vista supposed to do -- eat resources? (Score:3, Interesting)
I use W2K, XP, and OS X. OS X has some pretty graphics effects -- the translucency and all -- and OS X has its advocates, but I don't see it doing anything that makes me dissatisfied with my XP screen displays. Aero is supposed to be ultra-cool, but I will believe it when I see it that it applications can have new feature
Re:Good news, everyone! (Score:2)
Even Dell's $300 machines now come with a "Aero Glass" capable GPU. So, I think it's safe to say that non-Vista machines have already been largely phased out.
> we're finally going to see mainstream laptop manufacturers putting reasonable videocards in laptops.
Only if you consider Intel Extreme 2 to be reasonable -- it has all the features, it's just slow. Half-Life2 is probably not going to be a treat.
Great news (Score:2)
Why all those Vista stories ? (Score:3, Funny)
would want to run it. We don't see stories about new latest
AmigaOS, why all this hype about Vista. Is it that
filled with windrones ? Are those stories just trollish click
baits?
That kinds of piss me off, is there a news site for real nerds
out there or is
mod me down into oblivion. You are still windrones.
Re:Why all those Vista stories ? (Score:2)
No worries (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meantime, the "official" sources all have vested interests and aren't to be trusted. There is, after all, a big difference between the specs on which Vista will work in theory and those on which it will work without giving the user an ulcer, quite aside from being able to turn on every feature.
I'm more interested in knowing how much the Vista versions are going to cost.
What a non-issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about D... (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't need benchmarks for speed. We need published, reliable benchmarks to serve as good, real-world guidelines about how much RAM the average user really needs to buy.
System requirements are depressingly unreliable, because it's one place where a company can sweep its underperformance under the rug. It's a soft requirement. Everyone will know whether Vista ships late. Everyone will know whether Vista has the feature they said it would have. But nobody will know whether some round of testing or tightening didn't get done, or whether engineering warned management that the goal for the system requirements can't be met and the requirements need to be bumped up. With the PC vendors pushing for a way to hit low price points for the entry systems...
For me, the timeline has been depressingly similar, over about two decades, in both the PC and the Mac world, whenever a new OS is introduced:
--The stated system RAM requirement is X, the entry-level systems are equipped with X, the midline systems are equipped with 2X. I buy 2X, but all my "I'm-not-a-computer-genius" friends who buy a machine at Best Buy and come to me for advice bought X.
--If you only have X, the system will, in fact, boot and very basic functions like displaying directories in the shell or running trivial programs like Wordpad seem OK. Typical purchased software (Office, Photoshop Elements, etc). seem to run sorta OK, but as soon as you see what they are like on a system with 2X you realize that X was actually underpowered from the word go.
--You can't tell your friends, "no big deal, buy another X RAM chip, it's only $49.95" unless you plan to go with them to buy it and plan to go to their house and install it for them.
--Even if the system works adequately, about eight months after it is released an automatic patch that is billed as "recommended for ALL systems" will, without clear notification, increase the RAM footprint by about 15% of X, which is just enough to push the systems that used to work sorta-kinda-OK into dogs, and the systems with 2X, which really did work OK, into systems that work noticeably slowly. Nothing that you can't fix if you're willing to spend a week or so tuning...
--All the advice articles saying admiringly that the system "loves RAM" and that it will work like a charm if you have 4X in.
--About a year after release, all the add-on software that runs under the OS starts to get point updates, which, unannounced, suddenly require more RAM. If you bought your system with 4X, or have upgraded to 4X, you don't even notice. If you bought even a midline system, you suddenly notice the upgrade has made an application that used to work fine dog-slow.
--About two years into release is your last good opportunity to throw RAM at the problem. If you miss the opportunity, by the time you are in the three to four year period you will find that RAM technology has moved forward, nobody quite remembers what kind of RAM your system needed, or how much you can add
Begin the next cycle of the upgrade treadmill (Score:2)
A little warning... (Score:2)
Average Joe Consumer won't know better (Score:2)
Intel Graphics (Score:2)
These same machines can have large hard drives, decent processors and good RAM, but still not have any useful kind of graphics card.
Windows with vertex shaders? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't imagine what kind of 3D GUI they're going to have that won't work with a less-than-$100 Radeon. I find it difficult to believe they're going to be using vertex shaders and curved surfaces a whole lot; app screens don't take hundreds of megs of video memory (remember when video memory was a luxury?) either. I remember before Win95 came out (they were calling it Windows 4.0) and I had a 386SX/16 w/ 4MB RAM. I had to buy a new computer to upgrade.
Another point: I'm seeing a lot of people who seem to think that Vista is XP with a 3D GUI; that's not so!
Vista moves a lot of OS software out of kernel space (where it will crash the whole machine if it dies) and into user space. For instance, the networking and driver interfaces. This is good for security, but helps a lot with stability too. In theory, you won't have to reboot if you install a driver, as I understand it.
I use Gentoo and XP. XP is a LOT more stable than Win2k and NT4 were; Vista will be that much better.
I'm not crazy about the way MS designs software (Windows in particular), but they're rewriting a lot of code that has been with Win32 since NT4 (and even Win95 and older). That doesn't mean it will work; but it's a far cry from being XP with a new GUI. Also, Windows XP isn't 64-bit (unless you get the 64-bit version with less-than-Linux driver support - basically XP recompiled to support 64-bit), whereas Vista will probably do some things that 32-bit windows couldn't do, if you have a 64-bit chip.
Re:Windows with vertex shaders? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it, really? It's good for system stability. But it's easier for malevolent code to 'break into' user-level execution space than into kernel space. Do we really want malware out there that can 'on the fly' replace the networking functionality without crashing the machine? You want to run the PATRIOT-a
Re:Windows with vertex shaders? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm with you. I moved to XP largely because I bought a laptop that came with XP. I can only think of 3 features that are improvements in XP over 2000:
1. You can lock the start bar so you don't accidentally drag it
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Joe Average Won't Be Buying Vista (Score:3, Informative)
The fact is that Joe Average didn't run out and upgrade to XP either. Routine PC turnover happens, and that is always the primary way that the latest preinstalled MS OS gains marketshare. Eventually Vista will have 70% marketshare just like XP does today. It is inevitable.
If there is an upgrade hook for Joe Average, it's probably going to be the Media Center features moreso than the flashy new shell.
But the salesperson said it would run Vista!!! (Score:2)
When it turns out that Vista won't run or runs like a dog, those customers won't blame the shifty salesdroid, they'll blame Microsoft.
Of course, half these customers will try to run Vista wi
Much Ado About Nothing (Score:2)
I've had a PC HDTV3000 card sitting on the shelf that I got in late 2004 during the broadcast flag scare. Recently, I got an "all-shovelware, every-piece-on-rebate" Sempron 3300+, 1/2 gig of RAM and mobo that should be just fine for a PVR because it would have been a fairly kick-ass system in 2004. And it looks like it would be adequate for Vista with a decent graphics card should the desire to install it appear.
All this really demonstrates is that the rate of desktop hardwa
the mind of a chiseler (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy. 256MB configurations will quickly go the way of the Dodo bird. Retail competes on sticker price for the cheapest thing on the shelf. Some morons come along and buy that cheapest thing, the less moronic allow themselves to be "up sold" into something less incapacitated, while the super moronic hang around to get "up sold" to the highest margin piece of crap displayed on the shelves for exactly that purpose (anyone here like to part with $2k? I've got some *really* **awesome** 24 gauge zipcord looking for a good home).
Just imagine when you go across with the street with your 256MB price check and the oversexed 22 year old slick working there starts giving you the hairy eyeball about "Vista compatible".
Haven't you ever heard the retail lingo "oh, those guys, we get a lot of people in here after dealing with those guys"? That's the sound of retailers driving their own (who don't fall in line) into extinction.
Any store continuing to sell 256MB configurations in the Vista epoch is going to be portrayed by every slick-haired commissioned sales droid within a five mile radius as the fat kid with the black hairs growing out of his pimple.
speculations (Score:2, Interesting)
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Buy cheap PC... (Score:2, Funny)
Vista experience (Score:2)
pwned (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista capable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Downgrading Vista for More Machines (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it?
1: It hard to be compatable with a wider variety of less capable machines and still provide the best performance on the latest+greatest hardware. It's also very expensive to maintain multiple, incompatible versions (e.g. 32- and 64-bit versions).
2: How many people with older machines are going to pop out another $200-$300 to run Vista slowly on their existing h/w, have to load it and activate it themselves, and break compatability with existing programs -- when for $600 you'll be able to have a faster machine with enough memory, a bigger harddrive, 64-bit processor, AND Vista preloaded?
3: Why is Microsoft worried if you can't run Vista on less capable machines? I don't think they are. You're still going to uh...buy XP from them anyway. They get you coming or going.
Intel finally loves Microsoft again because, for the first time in years, people are going to really have to buy new hardware, mostly with Intel processors and chip-sets, to run the newest killer application.
I doubt that a 32-bit Vista will survive long, given that it ever see the light of day anyway. And if it does, it will be crippled compared to a 64-bit version. I expect most 64-bit processors probably meet the minimum Vista requirement, and those are the people who will be running it.
Will 32-bit systems even still be being sold at the time of this latest slip to January 2007? Will even single core processors be common in new machines?
Re:Security ? Nix ? Consumer ? No . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security ? Nix ? Consumer ? No . (Score:2)
Swish!
Re:Security ? Nix ? Consumer ? No . (Score:2)
You can currently install Linux on a computer with a direct internet connection without problems. You can't do that with Windows. Patching it fully takes hours after installation and the average time before you get infected with something is about 30 minutes -- do the math.
I actually tried that with a friend. Gave up after 3 tries, and ended up bringing it to my home so that I could install it behind my Linux firewall.
Re:Security ? Nix ? Consumer ? No . (Score:2)
Not Entirely unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
A 3D UI also makes doing interesting things with window management easier, or in fact practical.
IMO this is an opportunity for MS to do a lot right, and certainly isn't useless.
Re:Not Entirely unnecessary (Score:2)
I'm reasonably certain, however, based on previous experience, that Microsoft won't be the ones to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Entirely unnecessary (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would anyone care about this? The moment you get a new OS installed (be it Windows or Linux), the first thing you do is tweak Control Panel-type settings to adjust fonts, etc. Sure, on Linux and X, fonts can sometimes be a pain but Windows is pretty good with maintaining a standard look with fonts afterwards. I can't recall one time when I've worried about "dpi" settings on Windows.
</i>
Then you either have a low-resolution monitor, very good eyesight, or don't work on the computer that mu
Re:What we'll see (Score:3, Interesting)
Also... I hate to say it, but doing a Google search usually IS the best way to get a Linux box configured. I have Linux on my laptop (it's a Dell, so I had to go through multiple distros to even get something sorta working