Windows Vista (Build 5270)

[Nomad559]

Vista 5270 (Beta) - Video

Images
?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

?click

[Hokie]

1. Wow tabbed browsing!

What a novel idea. What won't they think of next?

(Sarcasm off).

[mainegreen]

2. Well, it looks shiny, but does it work better or is it still that same old

buggy MS code?
Plus, I don't care how 'nice' Window Media player is. I'll never use it. :7

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

3. Making it look more like Linux/Mac every time

A real pity it still doesn't work nearly as good as them...

[RoyGBiv]

4. Not seeing it ...

I'm just not seeing how all this eye-candy, as pleasing as it is, makes it worth it to spend more money on a hardware upgrade just so I can have the priviledge of spending even more money on a new OS.

Those are nice screenshots, though. Thanks for providing them. That's the first real look I've had at how it will appear to the eye.

[Nomad559]

6. spend more money on a hardware upgrade

To run all of the eye candy, the only hardware upgrade some people will need Is a graphic card that can support DirectX 9.

Here Is a list of NVIDIA cards that will work with Vista.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_32_supported.html

[RoyGBiv]

7. Hardware upgrade ...

Not exactly.

You'll need a graphics card that supports the Windows Display Driver Model, which basically means DirectX 9c, as you say. However, a lot of people do not have that. What they have is something that will allow the use of DirectX 9, but doesn't support it fully. They can run graphics applications that require it to be installed, but they just can't utilize all the features. From my understanding, Vista requires full compatibility. The last ten computers I worked on didn't have GPUs that were fully compatible. The nVIDIA cards you listed are fully compatible, but, again, a lot of people don't have them. I have an ATI 9600XT, which is one step removed from the low-end cards for Vista.

But that's not all.

The minimum system memory requirement, as reported by Microsoft's own website, is 512MB. I didn't have that much memory in my system until about 6 months ago, and at present I think it safe to say that most people don't have that much memory. Also of note that Microsoft says "PC systems should have 512MB of memory or more." The "or more" is important, I think, given that MS (as well as other software developers) regularly low-ball the minimum requirement to such an extent that, yes, you can run it with the minimum, but not efficiently.

But wait ...

Microsoft also states you should have a "modern" processor. What, exactly, does that mean? Well, for AMD, their definition is essentially a 64 bit processor or a Sempron. I have neither, but my system is very speedy and very efficient using both WinXP and Linux.

So, yes, for many people, a hardware upgrade will be necessary to run Vista, which, from what I've seen, doesn't have just a great deal going for it except the eye-candy.

My larger point is that this is an operating system, not AutoCAD or Doom 3. I fully understand the need for these kind of system specs for specific software packages. The OS should not eat up all my resources.

[Deja Q]

5. Still looks like a game meant for kindergarteners... Never mind the DRM.

Denial of Rights and Media.