Vista... Anyone tried it?

JSamuel · 26th October 2006

I think I have a beta version of Vista somewhere as an ISO but havn't tried it. I've read something about needing an additional graphics card (as opposed to using onboard graphics chips) to actually get Vista looking good.

Something about Windows "Aero" ?
Not quite sure, could be me being confused.

Comments?
First impressions?

Jamie- · 26th October 2006

It's the transparency.. I've used it for a short time, on an earlier beta, I'm actually on the beta list but have never bothered with it, as I really don't have the time to sit reinstalling any of my systems and messing about with them. It _looks_ decent, but I don't like the way it thinks it can control everything. Have a look on the net for info on it, re: virus scanners etc.

markcastle · 26th October 2006

Not sure about the latest beta but i know some of our chaps tried it on some pretty std hardware and it refused to install because there were no drivers for the graphics cards.

Hypermediocrity · 26th October 2006

Whatever you do, don't install it in a VM. I started an install when I got into work at 8:30am, and by the time it had finished I was packing up ready to go home

ukgaz · 26th October 2006

tried it, i love the part where it's saying its finding a solution and never does, 600MB ram usage on startup

just a bit excessive, other than that it ran fairly smooth for me

PC specs

XP3400+
2GB Ram
Asus A8N SLI SE
Leadtek 7950GT 256MB

PaulC · 26th October 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypermediocrity

Whatever you do, don't install it in a VM. I started an install when I got into work at 8:30am, and by the time it had finished I was packing up ready to go home

I've been messing about with Beta 2 and RC 1 in a VMware machine and it installed and runs just like I would expect a standard machine to run like. The host machine is only a P4 2.8GHz with 1.5Gb RAM.

It does look nice, has some "interesting" features such as everytime you want to do something it asks if you want to do it. Seems they calmed that down a bit in the RC though.

Main reason I really installed it though was a look at IIS7 which is looking good

WN-Karl · 26th October 2006

I’ve tried Vista was not too impressed, XP Pro is still running fine and with vista most people will have to upgrade their machine to get the same performance from vista as they do XP Pro.

Work is paying me to go to a vista convention soon, basically Microsoft sales people try to con us into upgrading all of our machine... I will be taking my macbook out of defiance!

dkhosting.co.uk · 26th October 2006

Quote:

It's the transparency.. I've used it for a short time, on an earlier beta, I'm actually on the beta list but have never bothered with it, as I really don't have the time to sit reinstalling any of my systems and messing about with them.

I'm in the same boat, didnt bother installing the second beta since i didnt like the first and its not worth my time, however even when they release it, most likley most people will say with xp and the small percentage may use vista. Can't yet see it being ready by the end of the year, microsoft keep delaying it!

JSamuel · 26th October 2006

Quote:

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.

Quote:

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

Quite a jump in specs to actually get it working as designed too, with all the pretty bells and whistles.

WN-Karl · 26th October 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepItReal

Quite a jump in specs to actually get it working as designed too, with all the pretty bells and whistles.

I cant actually see if being able to be usable with those specs within an office enviroment as a workstation.

A support contract company we use advised us to upgrade all machines to dual cores to run vista, they were swiftly told where to put their sales pitch.

In my eyes XP isnt past its age yet, no point in fixing something that isnt broken.

richard · 26th October 2006

Tried the RC1 on my laptop but despite ATI releasing drivers for RC1 they would not run; so no aero support yet for me;; plus a few other teething troubles meant that I had to get rid of it asap... looks good but the file system is definately something new! like links instead of directories, ala unix

I'll wait for the final release before I try again

Dexxa · 26th October 2006

I tryed it, Liked it, and removed it....

Karl · 27th October 2006

I think we all know those min specs from MS are just wishful thinking, XP on those specs wouldn't be fun. You need at least a 30GB Windows partition to run XP once you start installing a few apps (and that's if you install the Apps to a different partition). I'd not dream of running XP on anything other than an SMP system with 2GB RAM, anything else and it's a bit of a clunker, so lord know what Vista would be like on those specs.

4dhosting · 27th October 2006

I've installed RC1 on 3 PCs and 2 laptops so far - Not had a problem with any of them.

One of the laptops ran a bit slow but it was a tad old

All the other machines it worked without any issues.

Karl · 27th October 2006

Yeah, but we all know when you install any OS it runs fine and super-fast, it's when you install the 30+ apps you use on a day to day basis that things start to grind to a halt.