Chip weather forecast: Price wars are imminent. Squally showers.
AN INFOWORLD HACK has discovered that the secret to actually enjoying Vista is to use an obscenely over powered workstation.
Historically the Linux and Mac-using Paul Venezia would not touch the operating system since February 2007 when he first reviewed it. Now he has had another look and has found that he rather likes it.
The fact that he is using an IBM Intellistation zPro with a dual Intel 5160 dual-core 3.0Ghz CPUs, 8GB RAM, an nVidia Quadro 3500 graphics adapter, and SAS drives hooked up to Sun's 24-inch LCD monitor, and a second 20-inch LCD might have something to do with the change of heart.
He said that it had been possible to set up the machine so that it did all the things his Mac and Linux boxes do. Some, such as blogging package Ecto for Windows, is arguably sexier than the version he was running on his Apple toys.
With Office 2007 installed, alongside Thunderbird, FireFox, Pidgin, WinAmp, and a smattering of handy gadgets, the machine is almost a Linux box.
On this gear Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 goes like the clappers. He said that he had not run into too many software incompatibilities so far, showing that, in the 17-months since he looked at Vista, developers have caught up.
The one downside is that he kept having to reboot his machine, with every minor system or software change requiring it. µ
L'Inq
Paul's
Bog
On E8400, 4 gigs of RAM and an 8800GTS 640MB Vista Home Premium 64-bit runs smoothly too. And I love the Protected Administrator and security prompt most - a very important thing which XP lacked. I'm serious.
This is similar to being surprised that a frog can't bite its own neck.
server 2008 converted into a workstation runs like the clappers on my 3 year old asus laptop and is far more responsive then xp is on it (suprisingly) i would rather pay more for the os then buy an over powered pc that runs a shit os faster lol the os should be streamlined and not need more resources just to work it should be streamlined
"The one downside is that he kept having to reboot his machine, with every minor system or software change requiring it." I thought one of the features of vista was not having to restart the damn OS every time a driver or programme was installed....
Ooh, a super-powered PC can run Vista with ease. Gosh ! Color my gast flabbered ! And ? That is news like the $1000 PC of 2015 will be able to run Crysis at top resolution and top quality without a hitch. Duh. Of course a powerful, over-the-top configuration can run Vista and not trip over its own feet ! Vista still has intrusive and annoying DRM - that is the only reason I don't want it. And it won't change toorrow, nor will it change with Windows 7 - aka Me II SP2.
This box is a long way below that used by the reviewer, but Vista SP1 has always run just fine on it. Specs: Shuttle SB81G5 nV 6600 passive cooled 2Gb RAM P4 3.6GHz Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 Not a scorcher by any stretch of the imagination. Well except maybe the CPU temp ;)
So all he needs is a monster powerhouse of a machine, Vista, and several days' tinkering time, and he can have something that gives him the same functionality as a vanilla, cheap PC running an out-of-the-box Linux. 'Nuff said.
So he likes Vista, when it's running on a shed-load of hardware? This really doesn't tell us much. Any chance we could get a comparison, on the same hardware, of Vista vrs. Digital Research's CPM? That would at least give us old farts some basis for contrast.
I'd better wait for duel Nehalems, 128gigs of DDR3, RAID, SSD, liquid cooling, and prednisone.
Let's see, I'm currently typing this from a Core Duo T2400 (1.83Ghz) notebook with 2GB of RAM running Vista Ultimate flawlessly. My home computer is a Core 2 Duo E6300 with 2GB of RAM that cost me about $900 to build when I did over a year ago, and it's running Vista Ultimate flawlessly. My wife's computer is a $550 Dell running a Core 2 Duo E4350 with 2GB of RAM running Vista Home Premium flawlessly. Yep, those are totally overpowered workstations.
Ya I'm sure vista runs great on that monster machine, BUT it also runs just fine on my old Athlon 3200 (2gb ram). I really dont understand all the bad press that vista has gotten. When I ask people why they dont like it, they really dont have valid reasons, its almost like "vista sucks" is just the cool thing to say. Sure vista did have its issues and compatibility problems when it first came out, but as they say, 17 months on, most of that has been sorted out and now im more than happy with it.
Hmm Vista is running slow. I better get a monster workstation for it. I know what will make a difference: "Sun's 24-inch LCD monitor, and a second 20-inch LCD" Since when did big monitors speed up computers? The rest of this article is complete garbage as well. 8GB of RAM costs nothing these days, unless its DDR3, so thats not exactly high end. An Nvidia Quadro - is that going to make the difference? How about the Intel Dual Core 5160? But then why cant a Wolfdale do the job? Answer is Vista runs perfectly fast on cheap PCs these days. You just have to get past the problem of pensioner reviewers who clutch their Windows 95 floppy disks to their chests like babies.
I think people are missing the point, the person in question is a Mac and Linux fanboy, something really has to be impressive for them to sway their opinion.
I think the author might be using the literary technique sometimes known as satire. Get a grip people Note the tag at the very top of the page; The root of all fascism is the lack of a sense of humour - Vanessa Swatzell
Vista Ultimate x86 Sp1 with E8400 and 9800GTX with 4GB DDR2 RAM on Abit IX38 runs smoothly even without RAID on a Samsung SATA drive. People, Vista needs RAM only to rung good (except for Aero, you'll need an 8600GT minimum). I know it's not the best OS but the neat interface and great cache speed (superfetch) gives a boost to experience. It's like they sing and we dance, right? :P