• NudeCelebForum has been moved from the vBulletin to the XenForo platform.
    For additional information, see: NCF Moved To XenForo
  • New threads will not be visible until approved by a moderator.

  • Welcome to the forum!
    You must activate your account in order to post and view all forum content
    Please check your email inbox & spam folders for our activation email, then follow the link to validate your email address.
    Contact Us if you are having difficulty posting or viewing forum content.
  • You are viewing our forum as a guest, with limited access.
    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
    Membership is absolutely FREE! Registration is FAST & SIMPLE.
    Register Today to join the first, most comprehensive and friendliest communities of nude celebrity fans on the net!

Microsoft Vista

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
I will eventually get used to anything. I hated XP at first but I eventually got used to it, so whatever.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Cman said:
I hated XP at first but I eventually got used to it, so whatever.

Me too cman. But now I get on a Win 9x machine and can't believe what we used to put up with. Every time I make a change to networking or a new driver I have to reboot, if I do too much at once it hangs, and netwoking in general is a P.I.T.A.

I just don't expect the same sort of performance improvement from Vista. Everyone who has seen it talks about how pretty it is. I have yet to hear anyone comment about how good it runs.
 

blazin

Lost Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
246
Reaction score
16
no one ever notices how good anything runs, we notice problems first...rarely notice the good until its gone
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
th_02759_3060000000054243.jpg

cman, Nostradamus couldn't have called this better. Today Gartner Research (big tech reseach company) says the quiet word from Redmon Washington is to expect Vista around June. It's too big and complicated.

And if you're like me, all this "complicated" talk makes me pretty nervous it will be buggy.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
Preferred User said:
And if you're like me, all this "complicated" talk makes me pretty nervous it will be buggy.
XP wasn't complete until SP2. That was the "real" XP. So expect the working Vista to be released around 2010
 

Pemolis

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
There is one issue about buying/building a PC now, when Vista Comes out, ALL your videocards will need to be upgraded.

Vista comes with the new release of DirectX10. While this is just a number, no modern videocard is able to run DX10 at this time (nor does there seem to be a patch/ugrade method for videocards to run DX10). Now Your present videocard WILL RUN Vista, but won't be DirectX10 Compatable ( I believe it will run DX9 though).

So if I were you, I'd avoid spending 3 to 500 dollars on Videocards till Vista is completely released and DX10 cards have been created.

Other than that, build your system.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Pemolis said:
There is one issue about buying/building a PC now, when Vista Comes out, ALL your videocards will need to be upgraded.

Yes and no. As I understand it there will be several versions of Vista...some of which dumb down the eye candy for the rest of us.

The latest in yesterday's NY Times:

Microsoft said yesterday that Vista, the much-delayed new version of its Windows operating system, was ready for its last and broadest round of testing.

Later in the article:

But Michael Silver, an analyst with Gartner Inc., a technology market research company, said that the shipping schedule was overly ambitious and that Vista was not likely to reach consumers before next March. "We think they are underestimating how long it's going to take to respond to the problems that two million people find," he said, referring to those who are likely to test Vista.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
If anyone hears about launch dates, please let me know. I would like to attend the launch party if they have one here.

They had an XP launch here in 2001 and I got a free copy of XP Pro, so I'm hoping that I can get a free copy of Vista this time too.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
Eyup, I'm thinking my roommate might want to do this. So I check Preferred's pretty pic and, man, MS sure hasn't changed much. So, does anyone "really" think Vista is going to run with this (MS minimum PC):

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

* A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

Or even this (their "preferred" machine):

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero2.
* 128 MB of graphics memory.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

800 MHz? 512 RAM? They've got to be kidding. XP barely runs with that.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
mindido said:
So, does anyone "really" think Vista is going to run with this (MS minimum PC):

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

* A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.


800 MHz? 512 RAM? They've got to be kidding. XP barely runs with that.

I'd say that's the biggest lie since "the unsurgency is in it's last throes." Straight from Microsoft's web site is their minimum for XP Service Pack 2:

To install the service pack, your computer must have a CD-ROM drive or Internet connection and meet the following minimum requirements:
• 233 megahertz (MHz) processor
• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
• 1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
Preferred User said:
I'd say that's the biggest lie since "the unsurgency is in it's last throes." Straight from Microsoft's web site is their minimum for XP Service Pack 2:

To install the service pack, your computer must have a CD-ROM drive or Internet connection and meet the following minimum requirements:
• 233 megahertz (MHz) processor
• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
• 1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Lets see. How long ago did I have an equivalent machine. OK, I remember. It was a Toshiba 300 MHz laptop in the mid 90's. If I remember correctly, I could never get Win 95 (or was it 98?) on there correctly due to driver problems.
 

snowcow

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
There's some old computers at uni running XP Pro SP2 with 300MHz 128mb ram. They run sloooow.:fag:
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
snowcow said:
There's some old computers at uni running XP Pro SP2 with 300MHz 128mb ram. They run sloooow.:fag:

snowcow,

My point exactly! Why in the world would you put XP on such a machine. Let alone think of putting Vista on it.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
I spend some time at a Geek forum where a bunch of guys have installed Vista beta. These are pretty much guys who have built their own gaming machine so have lots of overclocked horsepower, huge video cards and 2 to 3 Gigs of RAM. The consensus seems to be that it's gorgeous but does not seem to offer any real performance benefit. There is a new release of Beta2 that runs much better than the orignal Beta release (no surprise, MS even releases Beta before it's ready).

They're all saying the Page File committ is huge. 700MB to 900MB at idle!!

Maybe some of you would disagree with me, but my gut says if it actually ran worse, the Lamboghini's these guys are running it on would make up for it's shortcomings.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
Its just another one of Microsoft's "traditions".

All of the things mentioned in this thread, from their questionable release dates to their seemingly low requirements are things they done every time since Windows 3.1. Its nothing new and nobody should be shocked by Microsoft related controversies
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
702
One other thing. No one will see a big performance boost until the software is written for 64 bit.
 

UltraLisk

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
274
Reaction score
500
Without reading these 6 pages I will say:

I like Windows XP because its simplified and everything works well with it (as far as OS's go).... I personally have been thinking of switching to Ubuntu (linux). It complete free and it has gone a long way. If you work at it you can get 80-90% of the stuff you do on windows to work on Linux (clones or use a program like wine).

What it all comes down to is…. I do not want to dish out 200-400$ for a OS that will have a couple extra features that I might not even use....
 

Kaneinite

Respected Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2003
Messages
270
Reaction score
742
We'll just have to wait and see if it lives up to the hype. I know a few people that are excited about it...but like everything...getting it as soon as it comes out is a big NO NO...it'll be good after that six months to a year after it's release and then we'll be looking forward to another OS. :p
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Kaneinite said:
getting it as soon as it comes out is a big NO NO...it'll be good after that six months to a year after it's release and then we'll be looking forward to another OS. :p

Cman said:
XP wasn't complete until SP2. That was the "real" XP.

..
 
Top