Posted on 02/28/2008 10:57:49 PM PST by militem
A Microsoft Corp. executive last year said the software company made a mistake by lowering the minimum technical requirements needed to run Windows Vista, a decision he said was made to help Intel Corp. meet its quarterly earnings, according to internal emails disclosed this week. The emails provide a glimpse into how Microsoft executives and hardware partners grappled with technical glitches and other problems as they prepared the long-awaited Windows Vista software for market. The emails were released as part of a federal class-action suit alleging that Microsoft's marketing program for Windows Vista misled consumers. In several of the emails, Microsoft executives appear to be planning how they will explain to Microsoft Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner how a branding program implied that certain PCs were technically capable of running Windows Vista operating system when, in fact, they weren't. The emails also show how Microsoft executives struggled to respond to complaints from a Microsoft board member about technical problems he had encountered.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
But otherwise it seems like you should be good to go.
...go...back to Windows XP. Kidd, stop blaming hardware for the problems that Vista has. What, do you work for MS or something? Don't get me wrong, I make a very good living thanks to MS, but I recognize a rotten egg when I smell it.
Two gigs of RAM from Newegg add $44 to the price of a barebones computer from Newegg.
They are facing a bigger problem. Vista is the client for Longhorn (Windows 2008 Server), much like XP was the client for Windows 2003. They are going to have a hard time selling enterprise Admins and CIO's on the benefits of upgrading if they can't get Vista fixed. Would you risk your mission-critical environment on a server O/S whose client can't even run properly?
bump
And I got a whole nestful of rotten Vista eggs.
Gonna kill it dead soon, yes I am.....LOL!
QFT
Especially: Do you know what kind of hard drive you have [ata100, ata133, satai, or sataii?], and how fast it spins [5400, 7200, or 10000 rpm?]
I'm sorry, but an Operating System is there to take care of the housekeeping chores of the computer, such as file management and graphical interface, so that programs can run.
An Operating System shouldn't be so complicated and computationally intensive that it requires more resources than the underlying programs it is supposed to support.
Vista spent more time trying to make the windows do neat graphics tricks when opening and closing than they did in making sure it tracked memory use, file structures, and allowed programs to run efficiently.
They should have named Vista Windows MEII because it is going to suffer the same fate as ME.
I know dell still sells XPs via their small business operation.
It runs well and although I have had to do some tweaking it is really no better or worse than any of my XP Pro installs.
The biggest issues I have had are with Media Center (a pig that I have never had on XP, so I can’t compare it to anything in my experience).
I would not recommend doing any of the following in today’s market regardless of the OS you choose to run, and especially if you ever want to run Vista: Less than 2Gb Ram, Less than 256Mb system ram dedicated to video, a slower Front Side Bus, or less than 2Mb L2 Cache.
My 2 cents
(FWIW I also had a properly spec-ed ME PC that ran as good as 98, but now I am running XP Pro on it with good results).
These Vista threads are the same everywhere. A number of people pipe up with the long laundry list of things required to run Vista along with all of the switch to Mac or Linux posts.
The question never answered is, “why upgrade at all?” XP seems to work just fine 99.9% of the time and has functional and stable drivers. And it works with the hardware you own right now.
So what’s the point? Does anyone need DRM crap or the zoomy interface to get things done? Of course not.
Vista was released to keep the MS revenue stream flowing, not to help you out as a user...
A relative did the same thing (98 to Vista laptop), and had to spend even more money to get the latest QuickBooks, an unplanned purchase, among other annoyances.
Yes, indeed! My wife is still using my 10-year-old Mac "Wall Street" G3 laptop -- which has never had a problem.
I'm writing this on my 2003 Titanium G4 Powerbook -- which I bought used -- sight unseen -- from a fellow FReeper several years ago. ;-) I have used it so constantly and heavily for doing high-end graphics ("overhead imagery", cartography and graphics-heavy presentations for archaeology) that the plastic frame to the right of the trackpad is worn down ~3mm below the titanium deck plate. Aside from adding a larger HD and 1 MB of RAM, all I have done is lug it all over the country -- including "in the field" on digs -- and use the heck out of it.
I have the $$ set aside for a new 17" Macbook Pro, but am holding off in hopes Apple will soon offer their great LED backlighting on the 17" (as they now do their 15").
When I get the new 17" MBP, I will set up a partition to run XP via VMWare. Then I'll dump my Dell laptop -- that I only use for running ESRI's ArcGIS software...
I run both systems daily -- and hate every moment I'm on the Dell. OSX/Mac is the only way to go!
It wasn’t a criticism, just an observation. I have a recommendation too. If you’re looking for a “good experience” when buying a new PC, look for one that’s running XP...
XP With its Service Packs is as far as you want to go....
VISTA is not ready for Prime Time
Got my first Mac last week.
Love it. Adios Vista and whatever crap is in the pipeline from Microsoft.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.