MS Admits windows is bloated, using 25MB core for next version of windows.

Source:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202404710

Ugh.

What's the point of using Vista if a new OS is coming out in 2 years?

After the extremely prolonged development period with Vista, MS stated (in fact, before Vista's launch even) that they wouldn't make such a large upgrade cycle anymore. The plan is shorter release gaps with smaller changes each time. Similar to what apple does really.

Although, many say that this is BS and they simply still "weren't ready" with Vista, so they are cleaning it up for Windows 7. Fact is though, when you make an extremely long development cycle, you end up having to redo a lot of things due to changing technology (see: Duke Nukem Forever).

Also important to note that MS has recently patented the so-called "Teapot" interface, which is what it calls "Creation of three-dimensional user interface." In fact the patent depicts a 3D model of a teapot with user interface elements spread across the various surfaces. Obviously just a proof-of-concept since a teapot is a fairly bizarre shape, but we'll see what they cook up for UI enhancements for version 7. The technology allows simple creation of a 2D interface that is then mapped onto 3D objects.

[Captain Renault] I'm shocked, shocked I say! [/CR]

Fixed it for you...

Also, shorter development cycles with less ambitious feature addition means a steadier stream of income for the company.

A 25mb core would be amazing.

Vista comes with a bubbles screensaver.

Yep. I also switched back to XP the other night, although it has more to do with a massive virus ripping Vista apart (thanks to a family member who downloaded stuff from Limewire), and I figured why bother, so I switched back to good ol' reliable XP.


J.

Honestly, aside from some compatibility issues with Finale music maker (which is what I get for using a bootleg version anyway ), I haven't had any problems with Vista. I am irritated that the system restore isn't working, but since this happened on my XP computer following the last and hardest crash, I don't think it's a Vista only issue.

So far, I got more praise than complaints for Vista. I made sure to buy a computer with 2 gigs instead of the bare-bones 512 minimum. I think that helps a lot.

You boght your computer with Vista. The problems are with hardware that was made for xp originally.

We're stuck with Vista for 2 years? Maybe I should buy a mac...

Sounds like people using XP may be able to hold on for the new version that doesn't require the same amount of power as Vista. Interesting that Microsquash is finally starting to actually listen to users. I've wondered for years why they didn't use a more modular type of system. I wonder just how much "stuff" I could get rid of from XP and Vista without missing a lick?

My roommate works at the M$ campus (for Canon actually) and apparently Win 7 is pretty good. Alot fucking better than Vista.

I like Vista.

Like I said, I would never purchase a computer with Vista on it yet. I'll give it another year or so prior to purchasing it.

So do I. It seems the 'Vista Sucks!!!' crowd doesn't know crap about using Vista anyways. Yes, it IS a big OS, but if you have the correct amount of RAM (3gig on mine) with HDD space to spare (massive 650gig) and a killer graphics card.. AND I run Vista with all the bells and whistles on (Aero, etc etc).. and it has worked more than fine for me.

I prefer to wait until all the hackers, virus programmers and etc. have found the major bugs in MS operating systems prior to my installing them on any of my computers and using them.

That's my stance as well. No one was crazy about xp when it first came out, just like Vista. The difference between the two launches is that there are MAJOR driver issues with Vista that persist to this day. No one hopped on board fully with Microsoft for this.

A: Computers sold with Vista have resolved driver issues. The majority of driver issues are with legacy hardware at this point.

B: The reason there was a glut of driver issues at launch was because the hardware manufacturers were too busy dicking around and failed to support their consumers. The fact is, the Vista beta was the most public beta of Windows ever, and the hardware devs certainly had it for even longer than the public. But rather than actually fire out working drivers, ATi was busy fucking around with getting bought out by AMD, nVidia was screwing around with a feature few use (SLi), and both were having a pissing match to see who could create more versions of its cards. Meanwhile, Creative was too busy thinking about how much money they could make off of releasing a way to use EAX with the new Windows sound system to actually write any other drivers for Vista.

Let's not even get into the "performance" issues that are really a result of people not letting the system index and acclimate.

Yeh actually thats wrong on both counts. XP had its fair share of driver issues and Vista driver issues are pretty much gone now.

I had XP upon release and I remember folks saying ZOMG TEH DRIVERS SUCK, ITS A TON OF RESOURCES FOR JUST A STUPID PRETTY INTERFACE DONT BUY IT ITS A POS STICK WITH Win98 ZOMG ZOMG.

Yeah... people just don't like change. I had Vista RC1 on a box that I didn't want to buy a windows license for, and that was on oldish (2.5 years) hardware and it worked fine. Then later I got a free copy of Business Edition through my university and I've been using it ever since.

As we want machines to use more ram our OS has to be able to use it Windoze XP 32 bit won't recognize (use) any more than 2 gigs of RAM. XP 64 will use no more than 4.

* 64-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic: 8GB
* 64-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Premium: 16GB
* 64-bit versions of Windows Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate: 128GB

Im buying two computers in a couple months and both will have vista, I will make the desktop one a multi boot with linux. I will put xp pro on the laptop if I need to. both will have 3 gigs or more of ram.

But how many people are going to want or need 650 gigs or have to shell out a few more dollars for a graphics card?

The point is it should work with far less than that, even if I agree there's been a lot of ignorance among the general public about running computers in general. Most people really want a computer to store photos on, send e-mail and maybe watch/download a few videos/mp3s. That's it. And I think any future OSs from Windows should be catered to them, not us nerdtastic geeks who'll buy the biggest and best computer tech anyway.

It does.

His specs are way over the requirements. Vista runs fairly well on 1GB of RAM.

It's true that you need something more than the very-shittiest onboard solutions for video. Fact is though, if you want a nice shiny interface, it's not going to come from out of thin air. Those pretty effects have to all be calculated somehow.

You can run Aero just fine with a 50 dollar video card, so it's really not outside of the reach of the average PC user. Hell, even most ONBOARD graphics solutions on new laptops these days have no problems with Aero. And of course, you have the option to turn Aero off.

Vista is taking up about 11.5GB on my box. Yes, it is big. But for the average PC hard drive these days, it's probably under 10% of the average persons storage. When I got XP my hard drive had 30GB (and was fairly new), and XP took up about 4.5GB. It's true Vista is quite a bit bigger on disk than XP, but as a percentage of relative drive space, it's actually smaller than XP was.

Do not upgrade to Vista on an old machine. Don't. But don't shy away from it on a newly purchased machine either.

edit: here is a visual representation of how much Vista takes up on my machine. The area with a white box around it is Vista's footprint. All the various rectangles are files, each one having an area proportional to it's size. The entire thing shows all of the files on my disk (files only, free space not represented). For reference, the large blue files in the upper left are dual-layer DVD iso's. The large red file on the left bottom is a virtual hard drive that has an XP install on it, as well as visual studio 2005 installed on it. The yellow areas in the upper right are peices of the World of Warcraft install (which totals to ~7.5GB). The bright green rectangles and the small files beneath it are my Steam directory, which is about 31GB in total size. The purple blocks in the upper right are the Pagefile and Hibernation file.

http://www.wordforge.net/imagehosting/18947aff811b23c0.png

Doesn't require that, though. It requires a whopping 512 MB of RAM, a relatively-recent video card with all of 64 MB of RAM, and a 1 GHz processor as well as 20 GB of HD space. In short, a relatively common computer for 2001-2002.

Will it run nicely on that? Hell no! Would anyone (reasonable) expect it to run well on that? Hell no!

Honestly, those specs are pretty much my baseline for a good Windows XP experience.

Really, throw a gig of ram in there with a 2.4 GHz PIV and a Radeon 9500 128 MB and you'll be running a pretty smooth Vista machine. That ain't new, and that ain't expensive. It's pretty cheaply attained nowadays.

I do agree with Anna, however, that Microsoft needs to take a hard look at a slim, task-based OS again. If anything, it'll make computers even more of a commodity by allowing for lower-spec parts. Definitely shouldn't abandon a more traditional Windows, though. It's a good solution for people who want more control over their computer than with Apple yet don't need the transparency of Linux (or don't want to explore that Undiscovered Country).

Board doesn't thumbnail large images anymore? I'll change it to a link.

The board never thumbnailed inline images automatically, only attachments.

mmm xp home and pro (32bit) will address 32 bits of ram (that's where the 32 bits comes from). This gives addressability from 0 to 4,294,967,295 bytes. The OS carves up the 4gig into 2 gig private and 2 gig shared. The shared part is used by the OS but isn't limited to it.

But so did win2k.

I can't imagine needing more than 2 gig though. But I also said that about 64K back in the 80's.

^^^ On top of that, the 64 bit flavor of Vista will address 64 bits of RAM, or several TERABYTES.

I run XP on a 600 mhz machine with 384mb of ram. It works great. Of course I don't try to do crazy stuff with it.

Also even the cheap games are getting too much for the system.

Thankfully however I'll be upgrading my brother-in-laws computer that he gave me by replacing the hardrive (its broken) and a new copy of XP. His machine is 2 gigs of ram and a 2ghz chip. Then I'll be building my new one over the course of this year.

Whats the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit and if 64 bit is better why doesn't everyone just go with 64 bit?

Well, it should but it doesn't (not yet anyway). Bradhfd has posted the correct specs.

I don't see anyone hitting the 128GB limit before Vista is deprecated though. Probably not even the 16GB limit on home premium.

I could see people getting to 8GB before Vista has run its course, but those aren't the type of people who buy the home basic version of Vista.

Odds are your memory size is going to be limited by your mobo for at least the near future though.