• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

what does "Vista Capable" mean??

B
#1
When I bought this laptop a few months ago I looked up the graphics
capabilities on the Intel website.
This laptop uses Mobile Intel 915/910 GML chipset.
On the website http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/910gml/index.htm it
states "Ready for windows Vista", Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset family
platforms using 512 MB of system memory or greater meet all current
requirements for the Microsoft Windows Vista* Capable PC program.

But what does this mean exactly? I made the mistake of assuming it would be
capable of doing Aero Glass but there are no wddm drivers for it. So maybe
they mean that it meets the BASIC requirements?
 

My Computer

J
#2
Here is what Dell says, "Based on currently available information from
Microsoft. Requirements subject to change. Microsoft requires that a PC have
a modern processor and 512MB RAM to be included in the Windows Vista Capable
PC program. Since the operating system and drivers are not final, Windows
Vista has not been tested on all user configurations. Please visit
www.dell.com/vista for more information."

So it could basically mean you have basic driver support, and minimum
requirements, at least at the point in time the information was made
available.

Also if you look at the Vista website with the multiple versions it appears
that Aero Glass might not be in the Basic version, but its not clear at this
point either.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:O1aTkRnpGHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
When I bought this laptop a few months ago I looked up the graphics
capabilities on the Intel website.
This laptop uses Mobile Intel 915/910 GML chipset.
On the website http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/910gml/index.htm it
states "Ready for windows Vista", Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset family
platforms using 512 MB of system memory or greater meet all current
requirements for the Microsoft Windows Vista* Capable PC program.

But what does this mean exactly? I made the mistake of assuming it would be
capable of doing Aero Glass but there are no wddm drivers for it. So maybe
they mean that it meets the BASIC requirements?
 

My Computer

M

Mark D. VandenBerg

#3
<sweeping broad uninformed opinion>

Vista capable means that the computer is capable of running Vista Home
Basic. Also, most PC manufacturers put little disclaimers in that basically
say, "this computer has the ability to operate at a satisfactory level with
the hardware and software in its original configuration." Meaning that if
you add an application like iTunes, or additional hardware like a USB drive,
and it crashes, no soup for you.

<sweeping broad uninformed opinion>

--
Mark

Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!

"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:O1aTkRnpGHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> When I bought this laptop a few months ago I looked up the graphics
> capabilities on the Intel website.
> This laptop uses Mobile Intel 915/910 GML chipset.
> On the website http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/910gml/index.htm it
> states "Ready for windows Vista", Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset
> family platforms using 512 MB of system memory or greater meet all current
> requirements for the Microsoft Windows Vista* Capable PC program.
>
> But what does this mean exactly? I made the mistake of assuming it would
> be capable of doing Aero Glass but there are no wddm drivers for it. So
> maybe they mean that it meets the BASIC requirements?
>
 

My Computer

B
#4
"John" <does@not.exist> wrote in message
news:uCx2fcnpGHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Here is what Dell says, "Based on currently available information from
> Microsoft. Requirements subject to change. Microsoft requires that a PC
> have
> a modern processor and 512MB RAM to be included in the Windows Vista
> Capable
> PC program. Since the operating system and drivers are not final, Windows
> Vista has not been tested on all user configurations. Please visit
> www.dell.com/vista for more information."
>
> So it could basically mean you have basic driver support, and minimum
> requirements, at least at the point in time the information was made
> available.
>
> Also if you look at the Vista website with the multiple versions it
> appears
> that Aero Glass might not be in the Basic version, but its not clear at
> this
> point either.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx


Thanks. Looks like it could be the basic minimum requirements then.
I am not actually bothered about glass, I just want to have first hand
experience of what it looks like :-)
 

My Computer

J

John Jay Smith

#5
that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...

they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"

to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...

and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a miracle!



"Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFO2ptnpGHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> <sweeping broad uninformed opinion>
>
> Vista capable means that the computer is capable of running Vista Home
> Basic. Also, most PC manufacturers put little disclaimers in that
> basically say, "this computer has the ability to operate at a satisfactory
> level with the hardware and software in its original configuration."
> Meaning that if you add an application like iTunes, or additional hardware
> like a USB drive, and it crashes, no soup for you.
>
> <sweeping broad uninformed opinion>
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!
>
> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
> news:O1aTkRnpGHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> When I bought this laptop a few months ago I looked up the graphics
>> capabilities on the Intel website.
>> This laptop uses Mobile Intel 915/910 GML chipset.
>> On the website http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/910gml/index.htm it
>> states "Ready for windows Vista", Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset
>> family platforms using 512 MB of system memory or greater meet all
>> current requirements for the Microsoft Windows Vista* Capable PC program.
>>
>> But what does this mean exactly? I made the mistake of assuming it would
>> be capable of doing Aero Glass but there are no wddm drivers for it. So
>> maybe they mean that it meets the BASIC requirements?
>>

>
 

My Computer

M

MICHAEL

#6
I basically agree, however, I don't think it's "crappy".

I have noticed some users saying it is faster than XP,
runs better than XP, gives them less problems than XP.
I seriously doubt that. More than likely, those users
have 450+ applications installed, 20 items in the systray,
a dirty ass registry, leftover dlls that weren't removed after
an uninstall, and numerous security programs running in XP-
they haven't done a clean install of XP in years.

For me, there isn't a comparison- XP is faster, snappier, and
more stable than Vista. But I didn't expect Vista to blow XP
away, not at this juncture. However, Vista actually works better
than I thought it would. And Office 2007 isn't nearly the nightmare
I had been led to believe. I have had fun using it and it works
rather well for me.

-Michael


"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>
> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>
> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>
> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a miracle!
>
>
>
> "Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uFO2ptnpGHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> <sweeping broad uninformed opinion>
>>
>> Vista capable means that the computer is capable of running Vista Home Basic. Also, most PC
>> manufacturers put little disclaimers in that basically say, "this computer has the ability
>> to operate at a satisfactory level with the hardware and software in its original
>> configuration." Meaning that if you add an application like iTunes, or additional hardware
>> like a USB drive, and it crashes, no soup for you.
>>
>> <sweeping broad uninformed opinion>
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>> Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!
>>
>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message news:O1aTkRnpGHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> When I bought this laptop a few months ago I looked up the graphics capabilities on the
>>> Intel website.
>>> This laptop uses Mobile Intel 915/910 GML chipset.
>>> On the website http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/910gml/index.htm it states "Ready for
>>> windows Vista", Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset family platforms using 512 MB of system
>>> memory or greater meet all current requirements for the Microsoft Windows Vista* Capable PC
>>> program.
>>>
>>> But what does this mean exactly? I made the mistake of assuming it would be capable of
>>> doing Aero Glass but there are no wddm drivers for it. So maybe they mean that it meets
>>> the BASIC requirements?
>>>

>>

>
>
 

My Computer

B
#7
"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>
> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>
> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>
> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a miracle!


I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example, doesn't
mean others will have no problems.
Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing procedure
as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
 

My Computer

T

Travis King

#8
The thing I don't like about Office 2007 is PowerPoint. It is very slow and
animations are horribly slow. Maybe its my video drivers. It also wants to
freeze up a lot. I've got Office XP on my XP partition and PowerPoint is
great there with no slow-downs with animations whatsoever. This is running
on my Sempron 64 2800+ @ 1.6GHz, Ati X1600 PRO with 256MB GDDR2 VRAM AGP 8x,
1.5GB of RAM, and so on. Office 2007 also takes a lot of getting used to
and some relearning.
"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:eYG5FsopGHA.756@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I basically agree, however, I don't think it's "crappy".
>
> I have noticed some users saying it is faster than XP,
> runs better than XP, gives them less problems than XP.
> I seriously doubt that. More than likely, those users
> have 450+ applications installed, 20 items in the systray,
> a dirty ass registry, leftover dlls that weren't removed after
> an uninstall, and numerous security programs running in XP-
> they haven't done a clean install of XP in years.
>
> For me, there isn't a comparison- XP is faster, snappier, and
> more stable than Vista. But I didn't expect Vista to blow XP
> away, not at this juncture. However, Vista actually works better
> than I thought it would. And Office 2007 isn't nearly the nightmare
> I had been led to believe. I have had fun using it and it works
> rather well for me.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>
>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>
>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>
>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>> miracle!
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uFO2ptnpGHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> <sweeping broad uninformed opinion>
>>>
>>> Vista capable means that the computer is capable of running Vista Home
>>> Basic. Also, most PC manufacturers put little disclaimers in that
>>> basically say, "this computer has the ability to operate at a
>>> satisfactory level with the hardware and software in its original
>>> configuration." Meaning that if you add an application like iTunes, or
>>> additional hardware like a USB drive, and it crashes, no soup for you.
>>>
>>> <sweeping broad uninformed opinion>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!
>>>
>>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>>> news:O1aTkRnpGHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> When I bought this laptop a few months ago I looked up the graphics
>>>> capabilities on the Intel website.
>>>> This laptop uses Mobile Intel 915/910 GML chipset.
>>>> On the website http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/910gml/index.htm
>>>> it states "Ready for windows Vista", Mobile Intel® 915GM Express
>>>> Chipset family platforms using 512 MB of system memory or greater meet
>>>> all current requirements for the Microsoft Windows Vista* Capable PC
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> But what does this mean exactly? I made the mistake of assuming it
>>>> would be capable of doing Aero Glass but there are no wddm drivers for
>>>> it. So maybe they mean that it meets the BASIC requirements?
>>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

#9
His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not yet
loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now because
the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down and the Vista
code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period when XP rtm'd XP may
still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for the typical hardware
profiles of the period. On current new hardware Vista final should run away
from XP because Vista will be optimized for the new typical hardware
profiles.

Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it. There is
a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The same with other
upgrades.



"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>
>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>
>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>
>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>> miracle!

>
> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example, doesn't
> mean others will have no problems.
> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>
 

My Computer

J

John Jay Smith

#10
oh no!!!! not the lame debugging excuse again! ....

please.. it has been said again and again.

how much you willing to bet that after they remove the debugging code it
will be just a sluggish as before?

the same thing was said for live messenger. Any improvement after it went
out of beta in performance and memory optimization? NIL!!!


As for the hardware excuse you are saying that vista will run faster on new
hardware... wow.. now why didn't I think of that! LOL

Don't try to hide behind the crap they tell you, and even worse repeat it!



"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not yet
> loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now because
> the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down and the
> Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period when XP
> rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for the
> typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware Vista
> final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for the new
> typical hardware profiles.
>
> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it. There
> is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The same with
> other upgrades.
>
>
>
> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>
>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>
>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>
>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>> miracle!

>>
>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example, doesn't
>> mean others will have no problems.
>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>

>
>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

#11
You're just screwy sometimes, John.

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:OTQfn%23spGHA.1140@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> oh no!!!! not the lame debugging excuse again! ....
>
> please.. it has been said again and again.
>
> how much you willing to bet that after they remove the debugging code it
> will be just a sluggish as before?
>
> the same thing was said for live messenger. Any improvement after it went
> out of beta in performance and memory optimization? NIL!!!
>
>
> As for the hardware excuse you are saying that vista will run faster on
> new hardware... wow.. now why didn't I think of that! LOL
>
> Don't try to hide behind the crap they tell you, and even worse repeat it!
>
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not yet
>> loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now because
>> the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down and the
>> Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period when XP
>> rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for the
>> typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware Vista
>> final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for the new
>> typical hardware profiles.
>>
>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it. There
>> is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The same with
>> other upgrades.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>
>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>
>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>
>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>> miracle!
>>>
>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example,
>>> doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>

>>
>>

>
>
 

My Computer

B

Bernie

#12
Colin's post made pretty good sense to me. There is such a thing as code
added to programs to help developers pinpoint dodgy bits of code. It
slows down those programs dramatically because the monitoring bits of
code are being constantly called. Vista is very likely crammed with it
as any other beta program would be. Performance wise it is running
pretty good on my test machine with only 512MB RAM.


John Jay Smith wrote:
> oh no!!!! not the lame debugging excuse again! ....
>
> please.. it has been said again and again.
>
> how much you willing to bet that after they remove the debugging code it
> will be just a sluggish as before?
>
> the same thing was said for live messenger. Any improvement after it went
> out of beta in performance and memory optimization? NIL!!!
>
>
> As for the hardware excuse you are saying that vista will run faster on new
> hardware... wow.. now why didn't I think of that! LOL
>
> Don't try to hide behind the crap they tell you, and even worse repeat it!
>
>
 

My Computer

D

Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 \(5384\), OPP2007B2

#13
Colin:
The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not yet
> loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now because
> the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down and the
> Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period when XP
> rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for the
> typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware Vista
> final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for the new
> typical hardware profiles.
>
> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it. There
> is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The same with
> other upgrades.
>
>
>
> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>
>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>
>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>
>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>> miracle!

>>
>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example, doesn't
>> mean others will have no problems.
>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>

>
>
 

My Computer

J

John Jay Smith

#14
lets see and hope



"Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
wrote in message news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
> Colin:
> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not yet
>> loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now because
>> the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down and the
>> Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period when XP
>> rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for the
>> typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware Vista
>> final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for the new
>> typical hardware profiles.
>>
>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it. There
>> is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The same with
>> other upgrades.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>
>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>
>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>
>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>> miracle!
>>>
>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example,
>>> doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>

>>
>>

>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

#15
Being an XP Pro x64 user, I do remember. It has turned out to be the
stablist OS I have yet seen. It's a rock.

"Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
wrote in message news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
> Colin:
> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not yet
>> loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now because
>> the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down and the
>> Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period when XP
>> rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for the
>> typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware Vista
>> final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for the new
>> typical hardware profiles.
>>
>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it. There
>> is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The same with
>> other upgrades.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>
>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>
>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>
>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>> miracle!
>>>
>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example,
>>> doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>

>>
>>

>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

#16
Skepticism is healthy. I agree, we wait and we hope the best for all
concerned.

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
news:OTxTz3tpGHA.4188@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> lets see and hope
>
>
>
> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
>> Colin:
>> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
>> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not
>>> yet loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now
>>> because the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down
>>> and the Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period
>>> when XP rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for
>>> the typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware
>>> Vista final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for
>>> the new typical hardware profiles.
>>>
>>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it.
>>> There is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The
>>> same with other upgrades.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>>
>>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>>
>>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>>> miracle!
>>>>
>>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>>>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example,
>>>> doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>

>
>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

#17
Did you apply for the SP2 beta program?

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eOgHRIupGHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Being an XP Pro x64 user, I do remember. It has turned out to be the
> stablist OS I have yet seen. It's a rock.
>
> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
>> Colin:
>> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
>> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not
>>> yet loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now
>>> because the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down
>>> and the Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period
>>> when XP rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for
>>> the typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware
>>> Vista final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for
>>> the new typical hardware profiles.
>>>
>>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it.
>>> There is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The
>>> same with other upgrades.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>>
>>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>>
>>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>>> miracle!
>>>>
>>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of programs.
>>>> Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for example,
>>>> doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>

>
>
 

My Computer

D

Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 \(5384\), OPP2007B2

#18
Colin:
I missed the download before it was pulled from the connect site.
Maybe I'll get another chance or wait until it's offered again.


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23kbYUOupGHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Did you apply for the SP2 beta program?
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eOgHRIupGHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Being an XP Pro x64 user, I do remember. It has turned out to be the
>> stablist OS I have yet seen. It's a rock.
>>
>> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
>> wrote in message
>> news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
>>> Colin:
>>> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
>>> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not
>>>> yet loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now
>>>> because the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down
>>>> and the Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period
>>>> when XP rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized for
>>>> the typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new hardware
>>>> Vista final should run away from XP because Vista will be optimized for
>>>> the new typical hardware profiles.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it.
>>>> There is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The
>>>> same with other upgrades.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>>>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>
>>>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of
>>>>> programs. Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for
>>>>> example, doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>
 

My Computer

C

Colin Barnhorst

#19
It's still there. The standalone file is for both Server and XP x64. It's
named w2k3sp2_2725-1_usa_x64fre_spcd.iso. Since it is named 'w2k3..." it is
a little deceptive.

"Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
wrote in message news:2D08283B-FBCC-41AB-AC38-4DD8327E3011@microsoft.com...
> Colin:
> I missed the download before it was pulled from the connect site.
> Maybe I'll get another chance or wait until it's offered again.
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23kbYUOupGHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Did you apply for the SP2 beta program?
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:eOgHRIupGHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Being an XP Pro x64 user, I do remember. It has turned out to be the
>>> stablist OS I have yet seen. It's a rock.
>>>
>>> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2"
>>> <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
>>>> Colin:
>>>> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
>>>> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not
>>>>> yet loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now
>>>>> because the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down
>>>>> and the Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period
>>>>> when XP rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized
>>>>> for the typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new
>>>>> hardware Vista final should run away from XP because Vista will be
>>>>> optimized for the new typical hardware profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it.
>>>>> There is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The
>>>>> same with other upgrades.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of
>>>>>> programs. Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for
>>>>>> example, doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>>>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>>>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
 

My Computer

D

Dennis Pack x64, v64 B2 \(5384\), O2007B2

#20
Colin:
I went to the connect site and can't find it. Can you give me the
sign-in link. Thank You.

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OhWj4dupGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> It's still there. The standalone file is for both Server and XP x64.
> It's named w2k3sp2_2725-1_usa_x64fre_spcd.iso. Since it is named
> 'w2k3..." it is a little deceptive.
>
> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2" <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:2D08283B-FBCC-41AB-AC38-4DD8327E3011@microsoft.com...
>> Colin:
>> I missed the download before it was pulled from the connect site.
>> Maybe I'll get another chance or wait until it's offered again.
>>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23kbYUOupGHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Did you apply for the SP2 beta program?
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eOgHRIupGHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Being an XP Pro x64 user, I do remember. It has turned out to be the
>>>> stablist OS I have yet seen. It's a rock.
>>>>
>>>> "Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 (5384), OPP2007B2"
>>>> <dennispack@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6CDB0692-F5AB-4436-B075-DAF07A606C38@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Colin:
>>>>> The same thing was disputed when Windows x64 was still a beta
>>>>> release. After RTM the operating system was much faster and smoother.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23tsuJRspGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> His point was that if Vista and XP are both freshly installed and not
>>>>>> yet loaded up with progs, XP will run faster. This is true right now
>>>>>> because the Vista code contains debugging code that slows things down
>>>>>> and the Vista code is not yet optimized. On hardware from the period
>>>>>> when XP rtm'd XP may still beat Vista final because XP is optimized
>>>>>> for the typical hardware profiles of the period. On current new
>>>>>> hardware Vista final should run away from XP because Vista will be
>>>>>> optimized for the new typical hardware profiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: Few people optimize XP for greater memory when they add it.
>>>>>> There is a lot that can be done, like increasing various caches. The
>>>>>> same with other upgrades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OmMHZGppGHA.4268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:OZzYDcopGHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> that's the main problem with people who "testing" vista...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they just poke at it... "Gee wow nice glass effect.. oh and that
>>>>>>>> flip 3d weeeeeeeeeeeee!!!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to see how crappy it really is you have to put it to the real test
>>>>>>>> but installing 150+ applications and 5-10 extra hardware...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and if it doesn't crawl like a turtle with arthritis it will be a
>>>>>>>> miracle!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think its important to test it with all sorts and number of
>>>>>>> programs. Just because one person may be able to run say Opera for
>>>>>>> example, doesn't mean others will have no problems.
>>>>>>> Someone using 2-3 applications is just as important to the testing
>>>>>>> procedure as someone who wishes to throw 100 programs at it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>

>
>
 

My Computer

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)