-
June 9th, 2006, 01:29 PM
#16
Registered User
Well, RG, I did notice the evaluations were on notebooks, and I think that's a pretty good test of whether an OS is ready for prime time or not. I think the observations on overall Vista performance are going to carry through to desktops.
Right now I see Vista as most likely having heavier hardware requirements than MS would like us to think, as well as being less mature than it should be. I mean, it was supposed to be released this year after all.
At the moment, it seems likely that upgrading from XP (let alone W2K) is going to require a pretty heavy investment in hardware and time. Not to mention the cost of the OS itself. BTW, could MS make the various versions just a bit more numerous and confusing?
Anyway, while I like the security enhancements and some other things in Vista, I really can't see how I could reccomend it as an upgrade for most of my customers.
-
June 9th, 2006, 02:37 PM
#17
Bear in mind that that realistic hardware minimums for "good" performance are a 3 GHz processor, 2 Gbs of RAM, and a fast SATA hard drive.
Be prepared for driver pain. On my Vista system, I have no support for my sound card, scanner, ink jet printer, TV/Vid capture card (all from major mainstream manufacturers).
Similar Threads
-
By TechZ in forum Tech News
Replies: 45
Last Post: September 19th, 2006, 03:37 PM
-
By TechZ in forum Tech News
Replies: 4
Last Post: May 25th, 2006, 04:42 AM
-
By Richard1 in forum Windows Vista
Replies: 5
Last Post: September 13th, 2005, 01:44 PM
-
By mastermiaow in forum Windows XP
Replies: 3
Last Post: January 6th, 2005, 04:38 PM
-
By rtucker in forum Tech Lounge & Tales
Replies: 21
Last Post: June 20th, 2002, 11:17 AM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks