| Home | Register | Members | Search | Windows Vista Tips | File Database | Links |
 |
| Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Mike Hall - MVP" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:... > .. for the Vista bashers.. > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 > The case is as simple as one can think of : Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 : namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any special graphics. No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware. And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold" CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over. You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004 or 2005. XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be able to copy the underlying techs. Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech recognition, the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and what else goodies are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing buro does never seem to point out these new features. And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and there Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I don't see the need for such actions. I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on. XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year 2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will say "Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" .. Some things never change  Sascha. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Sascha Jazbec" <> wrote in message news:6BEF95FE-5038-4382-A16F-... > > > "Mike Hall - MVP" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:... >> .. for the Vista bashers.. >> >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 >> > > The case is as simple as one can think of : > > Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 : > namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any > special graphics. > > > No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware. > > And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold" > CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't > go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over. > > You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of > Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004 > or 2005. > > XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on > year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie > software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be able > to copy the underlying techs. > > Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech recognition, > the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and what else goodies > are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing buro does never seem > to point out these new features. > > And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and there > Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I don't see > the need for such actions. > > I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always > resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on. > > XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year > 2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will say > "Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" .. > > Some things never change > > Sascha. Here is a complete list of Windows version requirements Windows 3.1 (enhanced mode) Released 1992 REQUIREMENTS Computer: 100% IBM Compatible Processor: 80386 or higher processor Memory: 2MB + RAM Drives: 8MB Hard disk drive space 3.5" / 5.25"Floppy Video: VGA Controls: keyboard / Mouse operating system: DOS 3.1 and Higher Windows for workgroups 3.11 Released 1994 REQUIREMENTS Computer: 100% IBM Compatible Processor: 386 or higher processor Memory: 3MB + RAM Drives: 14MB Hard disk drive space 3.5" / 5.25"Floppy Video: VGA Controls: keyboard / Mouse operating system: DOS 3.3 and Higher Windows 95 Hardware Reqirements -Hardware Requirements For Installing And Successfully Running Windows 95 -Before even considering an upgrade of your current operating system to Windows 95, you should closely examine your current hardware configuration to determine if you meet the absolute minimum requirements that Windows 95 needs to run. Make sure and use the preferred requirements if at all possible. Windows can run in the minimum hardware configuration but performance will be awful. -Here's the list of minimum, recommended, and preferred requirements for a Windows 95 installation: PROCESSOR Minimum: 386/DX Recommended: 486/DX Preferred: Pentium 75Mhz or higher MEMORY Minimum: 4MB Recommended: 8MB Preferred: 16MB or higher VIDEO ADAPTER: Minimum: VGA Recommended: SVGA Preferred: SVGA with 2MB Video RAM DISKETTE OR CD-ROM DRIVE Minimum: 3.5 High Density Floppy Drive Recommended: CD-ROM 2X Speed Preferred: CD-ROM 4X Speed or higher HARD DRIVE SPACE Minimum Install: 24 MB free space Recommended: 70 MB free space Preferred: 90-120 MB free space Windows 98 Hardware Requirements Personal computer with a 486DX 66 MHz or faster processor (Pentium central processing unit recommended) 16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended) One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive CD-ROM drive 195 mb of free space VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit color SVGA recommended MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR WINDOWS ME Processor - Pentium or equivalent, 150 MHz or higher Memory - 32 mb of RAM Hard Drive Space - 320 mb to 420 mb depending on configuration selected Display - VGA or higher Peripheral - Microsoft Mouse or compatible Modem - Minimum supported 28.8 or higher baud rate. For Movie Maker - 300 MHz processor, Pentium II or equivalent, 64 mb of RAM, 2 GB of free hard disk space for video. Other hardware is required for DVD, Broadcast and Web Reception, Internet Connection Sharing and Windows Media Player System Requirements for Windows 2000 Technology Support Center suggested system requirements for Windows 2000 350 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. 96 to 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness. 4GB hard disk with a minimum of 1GB of free space. Microsoft suggested system requirements: 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness. 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space. Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems. Windows XP/XP Pro Designed for Windows XP computer hardware logoSystem requirements for Windows XP Home and Professional editions as follows:[21] Minimum Recommended Processor 233 MHz 300 MHz or higher Memory 64 MB RAM (may limit performance and some features) 128 MB RAM or higher Video adapter and monitor Super VGA (800 x 600) Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher resolution Hard drive disk free space 1.5 GB 1.5 GB or higher Drives CD-ROM CD-ROM or better Devices Keyboard and mouse Keyboard and mouse Others Sound card, speakers, and headphones Sound card, speakers, and headphones In addition to the Windows XP system requirements, Service Pack 2 requires an additional 1.8 GB of free hard disk space during installation Vista Home Basic, Home Premium / Business / Ultimate 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 512 MB of system memory 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory DVD-ROM drive Audio Output Internet access (fees may apply) Additional Requirements Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system configuration. Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and edition of Windows Vista will run on your computer. While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors. 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1 GB of system memory 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: WDDM Driver 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware 32 bits per pixel DVD-ROM drive Audio Output Internet access (fees may apply) Additional Requirements Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system configuration. Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and edition of Windows Vista will run on your computer. While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors. Home Premium / Ultimate TV tuner card required for TV functionality (compatible remote control optional). Home Premium / Business / Ultimate Windows Tablet and Touch Technology requires a Tablet PC or a touch screen. Ultimate Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption requires a USB Flash Drive and a system with a TPM 1.2 chip. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Sascha Jazbec wrote:
> > > "Mike Hall - MVP" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:... >> .. for the Vista bashers.. >> >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 >> > > The case is as simple as one can think of : > > Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 : > namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any > special graphics. > > > No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware. > > And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold" > CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't > go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over. > > You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of > Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004 > or 2005. > > XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on > year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie > software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be > able to copy the underlying techs. > > Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech > recognition, the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and > what else goodies are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing > buro does never seem to point out these new features. > > And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and > there Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I > don't see the need for such actions. > > I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always > resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on. > > XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year > 2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will > say "Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" .. > > Some things never change > > Sascha. Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they were ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing. The amazing thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is normal and should be accepted. Alias |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Alias wrote:
> Sascha Jazbec wrote: > >> >> >> "Mike Hall - MVP" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >> news:... >> >>> .. for the Vista bashers.. >>> >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 >>> >> >> The case is as simple as one can think of : >> >> Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 : >> namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of >> any special graphics. >> >> >> No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware. >> >> And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP >> "gold" CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( >> but don't go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over. >> >> You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because >> of Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as >> 2004 or 2005. >> >> XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies >> on year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie >> software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be >> able to copy the underlying techs. >> >> Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech >> recognition, the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and >> what else goodies are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's >> marketing buro does never seem to point out these new features. >> >> And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and >> there Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I >> don't see the need for such actions. >> >> I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always >> resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on. >> >> XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year >> 2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will >> say "Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" .. >> >> Some things never change >> >> Sascha. > > > Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they were > ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing. Wrong! Stop lying. The > amazing thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is normal and > should be accepted. If you so hate MS and Windows then go on over to your open sores sh*thole where you belong. You're lying and spamming is not wanted nor needed here. Frank |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:... > Sascha Jazbec wrote: >> >> >> "Mike Hall - MVP" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >> news:... >>> .. for the Vista bashers.. >>> >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 >>> >> >> The case is as simple as one can think of : >> >> Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 : >> namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of any >> special graphics. >> >> >> No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware. >> >> And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP "gold" >> CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( but don't >> go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over. >> >> You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because of >> Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early as 2004 >> or 2005. >> >> XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies on >> year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd partie >> software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will never be able >> to copy the underlying techs. >> >> Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech recognition, >> the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and what else goodies >> are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's marketing buro does never >> seem to point out these new features. >> >> And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and there >> Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs I don't >> see the need for such actions. >> >> I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I always >> resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on. >> >> XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the year >> 2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, people will >> say "Vista is so much better and faster than >put Codename here<" .. >> >> Some things never change >> >> Sascha. > > Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they were > ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing. The amazing > thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is normal and should be > accepted. > > Alias And Ubuntu doesn't? So we can assume that Ubuntu 7.10 at the point of release hasn't required any updates, fixes, minor rewrites? -- Mike Hall - MVP How to construct a good post.. http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc Mike's Window - My Blog.. http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> "Alias" <> wrote in message > news:... >> Sascha Jazbec wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >>> news:... >>>> .. for the Vista bashers.. >>>> >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 >>>> >>> >>> The case is as simple as one can think of : >>> >>> Windows XP is designed for Computers that were common in the year 2000 : >>> namely a 300-400 MhZ Cpu and memory of 128 MB Ram and no demands of >>> any special graphics. >>> >>> >>> No wonder this OS will literally fly at warp speed on today's Hardware. >>> >>> And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP >>> "gold" CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy ( >>> but don't go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all over. >>> >>> You should also remember that XP's Life is only still around because >>> of Vista's delayed release. Microsoft wanted to replace XP as early >>> as 2004 or 2005. >>> >>> XP is a good and stable OS, but it is hopelessly outdated and relies >>> on year 2000 technologies, that's the point, you can add-in 3rd >>> partie software to get near Vistas Look and features, but you will >>> never be able to copy the underlying techs. >>> >>> Vista is more than just "Aero", think of the built-in speech >>> recognition, the preview and filter options, saveable searches a and >>> what else goodies are in there. It's a shame that Microsoft's >>> marketing buro does never seem to point out these new features. >>> >>> And with the already around hotfixes and a bit of tweaking here and >>> there Vistas slowlyness can be handled on older Hardware, on new PCs >>> I don't see the need for such actions. >>> >>> I myself was tempted more than one time to go back to XP, but I >>> always resisted when looking at the OS with brain turned on. >>> >>> XP has grown up with SP2, Vista will go the same route and in the >>> year 2010 or so, when the next Windows Client will be released, >>> people will say "Vista is so much better and faster than >put >>> Codename here<" .. >>> >>> Some things never change >>> >>> Sascha. >> >> Yep, MS has *always* released *all* versions of Windows before they >> were ready and used the paying public to do the final beta testing. >> The amazing thing is that you MS fanboys and girls think this is >> normal and should be accepted. >> >> Alias > > > And Ubuntu doesn't? So we can assume that Ubuntu 7.10 at the point of > release hasn't required any updates, fixes, minor rewrites? > Yes, but I haven't noticed any changes. When it was released, it worked perfectly. XP SP2 was when XP should have been released. Updating it since then is not a bad thing, just as updating a final release of Ubuntu is not a bad thing. Alias |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Difference between Physical Memory and the Vista System Memory (Ra | DP | Windows Vista Hardware | 2 | 02-20-2008 05:29 PM |
| Bug in SD Memory Card driver : driver remains in memory after remo | Malignonne | Windows Vista Hardware | 3 | 01-24-2008 09:40 AM |
| Memory warning message with memory still available | ironcito | Windows Vista General Discussion | 6 | 08-22-2007 10:49 PM |
| problem with memory (graphics shared memory) | black2night | Windows Vista General Discussion | 3 | 03-29-2007 10:16 PM |
| Ati Radeon 9550 using system memory? 511mb shared system memory. | GT | Windows Vista Hardware | 11 | 03-05-2007 12:51 AM |
Linear Mode
