Vista 5536 Pre-RC1 Review

[Warrior]

Microsoft released 5536 to Beta Testers on Aug 24th and it is a Pre-RC1 interim build.

Changes include:

Dramatic Speed enhancements over 5456/5472 and decreased boot time memory usage
Fit and Finish icons all over the place
Slight UI improvements
Updated Gadgets
Seemingly better Display Drivers (And the ability to reboot a crashed driver)

Read the review here.

Personally, I think that what I said a few months back still stands. Vista is going to be a hell of a release. The OS has picked up it's act from being a sluggish and buggy beta OS to one that is looking to hit the shelves any time soon.

I still wish that Microsoft would delay Vista so that they can have even more time to make sure everything will run fine, the last thing we want is an early SP1.

[rabbit]

My only conern is that I'm about to get a new laptop, but IIRC it's got a dual core 32bit processor, but Vista can only do full HD display in 64bit.  Bummer.

[Warrior]

Seriously? I thought 32Bit could do it since there was recently some turmoil over Microsoft only allowing HD that was Protected to play.

I'll try to look into it further. Some Vista info on Microsoft's website is semi outdated, it's simply too hard to keep it updated in such a beta stage.

[iago]

Seriously? I thought 32Bit could do it since there was recently some turmoil over Microsoft only allowing HD that was Protected to play.

I'll try to look into it further. Some Vista info on Microsoft's website is semi outdated, it's simply too hard to keep it updated in such a beta stage.

Yeah, HD isn't going to be allowed on 32-bit CPUs due to copy protection or something stupid like that.  DMCA is really going to bit the world in the ass when, in a couple hundred years, they aren't going to be able to access any data from the 21century. 

oh, and Source.

<edit> I was just looking at the source, and apparently microsoft told them that they were wrong, and said that it might be possible.  But MS has  yet to elaborate on what the odds are.  So who knows?  My feelings about DMCA stand

[Warrior]

Seriously? I thought 32Bit could do it since there was recently some turmoil over Microsoft only allowing HD that was Protected to play.

I'll try to look into it further. Some Vista info on Microsoft's website is semi outdated, it's simply too hard to keep it updated in such a beta stage.

Yeah, HD isn't going to be allowed on 32-bit CPUs due to copy protection or something stupid like that.  DMCA is really going to bit the world in the ass when, in a couple hundred years, they aren't going to be able to access any data from the 21century. 

oh, and Source.

<edit> I was just looking at the source, and apparently microsoft told them that they were wrong, and said that it might be possible.  But MS has  yet to elaborate on what the odds are.  So who knows?  My feelings about DMCA stand

That's really stupid and I'm glad Microsoft disagrees, will they do something is the question.

[rabbit]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

[nslay]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

[Joe]

Nothing will be able to run Vista better than "barely" for a few (several) years.

[rabbit]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

Well, I haven't bought it yet, so I'm not sure.

[Warrior]

Nothing will be able to run Vista better than "barely" for a few (several) years.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Warrior]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

I'm pretty sure we've had 512MB of ram for more than a year or less. Now to run all of the eye candy you need a 128MB Video card. (You can even get away with less I've heard at a small performance loss)

So, like the above: What the hell are you talking about?

[Newby]

Nothing will be able to run Vista better than "barely" for a few (several) years.

You're a fucking moron. Please refrain from opening your mouth on subjects you lack any knowledge about whatsoever.

[nslay]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

I'm pretty sure we've had 512MB of ram for more than a year or less. Now to run all of the eye candy you need a 128MB Video card. (You can even get away with less I've heard at a small performance loss)

So, like the above: What the hell are you talking about?

Ok let's set something staight.  Microsoft says that Windows XP needs a minimum of 233 MHz and 64MB of ram to run.  Does that mean it will run well? NO!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

I hear Vista requires a minimum of 512MB. Well, if this requirement is proportional to Windows XP's...you had better have more than 512MB of ram.  Probably the same applies to minimum video ram and  minimum CPU speed.

[Newby]

Actually I used to run it on a computer that was a 233 MHz 64MB RAM laptop (my old old laptop). It ran fine. Occasionally it got extremely sluggish, but it did its job. So eh? I guess minimum requirements were met.

[nslay]

Actually I used to run it on a computer that was a 233 MHz 64MB RAM laptop (my old old laptop). It ran fine. Occasionally it got extremely sluggish, but it did its job. So eh? I guess minimum requirements were met.

I ran XP Pro on a 500MHz Dell with 128MB of RAM.  It ran fine as long as you turned off all special features.  I can't imagine anybody running it on 233MHz...even Windows 98/ME chokes on 233MHz!

[Newby]

Yeah, it was an experience trying to start Internet Explorer. Once it got running though it worked fine!

[Joe]

Nothing will be able to run Vista better than "barely" for a few (several) years.

You're a fucking moron. Please refrain from opening your mouth on subjects you lack any knowledge about whatsoever.

It was a joke, you fucking moron. And you seem to imply thinking I haven't ran Vista on my own computer.

* Joe[x86] knocks Newby upside the head.

[Newby]

It was a joke, you fucking moron. And you seem to imply thinking I haven't ran Vista on my own computer.

You didn't imply it was a joke. Infact, you actually sounded like you believed that "nothing" would run Vista better than "just barely" for a few years.

[iago]

It was a joke, you fucking moron. And you seem to imply thinking I haven't ran Vista on my own computer.

You didn't imply it was a joke. Infact, you actually sounded like you believed that "nothing" would run Vista better than "just barely" for a few years.

It sounded pretty sarcastic/hyperboleish to me...  but eh?

Yeah, my dad's 500mhz sucks at running Windows XP, even with all the special features disabled.  I think it varies computer to computer, though.

[Warrior]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

I'm pretty sure we've had 512MB of ram for more than a year or less. Now to run all of the eye candy you need a 128MB Video card. (You can even get away with less I've heard at a small performance loss)

So, like the above: What the hell are you talking about?

Ok let's set something staight.  Microsoft says that Windows XP needs a minimum of 233 MHz and 64MB of ram to run.  Does that mean it will run well? NO!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

So let's compare Oranges to Oranges, Vista is a vast improvement over XP and most of the crucial OS components are in User mode. Let's also note that Vista has a redesigned Memory manager which additionally increases performance. The OS requires 512MB right now because it's in Beta stage, it is however expected to go down.

Now, get back to the original point. You stated that no laptop build before this year would run Vista, and that's wrong. Now if you want to go and say that Vista's minimum requirements are what's needed to run it at optimal performance then you need to rethink what the word "Minimum" means. Minimum means able to operate and perform tasks on.

I hear Vista requires a minimum of 512MB. Well, if this requirement is proportional to Windows XP's...you had better have more than 512MB of ram.  Probably the same applies to minimum video ram and  minimum CPU speed.

Like I said above, it's obvious you havn't done your homework on Vista. Like I said not only does it have a more responsive UI (Since it's in Usermode and Composited using the DWM) but it has a redesigned Memory Management.

[Warrior]

http://winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5536.asp

An additional review by Paul Thurrot.

[MyndFyre]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

With moving a lot of driver frameworks into user mode and thereby preventing a lot of context changes, I think we'll see a big performance gain.  I haven't really had trouble running XP on minimum-requirements PCs (my mom's old computer was a Pentium II 350MHz with 64mb of memory) - the big bottleneck was memory, of course, and paging.

My laptop, which is two years old, runs it great without Glass.  My home computer, which I built December 2004, runs it great *with* Glass.  At least, this is true about beta 1.

[nslay]

I hope so.  I really don't want my brand new laptop to not be able to get the best out of Vista.

I wonder if a laptop, aged this year or less, will be able to even barely run Vista.

I'm pretty sure we've had 512MB of ram for more than a year or less. Now to run all of the eye candy you need a 128MB Video card. (You can even get away with less I've heard at a small performance loss)

So, like the above: What the hell are you talking about?

Ok let's set something staight.  Microsoft says that Windows XP needs a minimum of 233 MHz and 64MB of ram to run.  Does that mean it will run well? NO!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

So let's compare Oranges to Oranges, Vista is a vast improvement over XP and most of the crucial OS components are in User mode. Let's also note that Vista has a redesigned Memory manager which additionally increases performance. The OS requires 512MB right now because it's in Beta stage, it is however expected to go down.

Now, get back to the original point. You stated that no laptop build before this year would run Vista, and that's wrong. Now if you want to go and say that Vista's minimum requirements are what's needed to run it at optimal performance then you need to rethink what the word "Minimum" means. Minimum means able to operate and perform tasks on.

I hear Vista requires a minimum of 512MB. Well, if this requirement is proportional to Windows XP's...you had better have more than 512MB of ram.  Probably the same applies to minimum video ram and  minimum CPU speed.

Like I said above, it's obvious you havn't done your homework on Vista. Like I said not only does it have a more responsive UI (Since it's in Usermode and Composited using the DWM) but it has a redesigned Memory Management.

Oh, I'm not meaning to compare XP to Vista.  I'm not even picking at its design.  I'm Just pointing out that running Vista, or any software for that matter, on the minimum requirement probably is far from ideal.  Sort of like running XP on 233MHz and 64MB ram.

Now, let's talk about requirements and laptops.
I have no numbers, but from walking around campus and noting what friends have, I would wager that most people own laptops in this range:
1.0GHz-2.00GHz Pentium-M
512MB-1GB ram
32-64MB of video memory
40-60GB harddrive

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

Microsoft says that Windows Vista Capable requires:

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.

Okay that's fine.
Now what about Vista Premium?

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.

If my wager is correct, most people cannot run Vista Premium on their laptop.  If not for ram, for video memory.
To further my argument, I have a fairly recent (January 2006) IBM Thinkpad T43.
It has the following:
1.86GHz Pentium-M
512MB of RAM
60GB harddrive
64MB of video memory

And by the way, I would consider running Vista Capable "barely" running Vista as Vista is known for its bells and whistles in graphics (yeah yeah, it has other features...nobody cares).

[rabbit]

Let's see, my laptop will have:

Intel Core Duo processor T2500 (2GHz, 2MB L2, 667MHz FSB)
512MB PC2-5300 DDR2 SDRAM (I'm upgrading to 2gb)
128MB ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 HyperMemory
80GB, 5400rpm Serial ATA (Standard)

DVD-ROM, Internet, and Sound are all pretty much given.  Now also understand this is a ThinkPad Z, and I've been considering getting a ThinkPad T instead (which will have 256MB video card).

[nslay]

Let's see, my laptop will have:

Intel Core Duo processor T2500 (2GHz, 2MB L2, 667MHz FSB)
512MB PC2-5300 DDR2 SDRAM (I'm upgrading to 2gb)
128MB ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 HyperMemory
80GB, 5400rpm Serial ATA (Standard)

DVD-ROM, Internet, and Sound are all pretty much given.  Now also understand this is a ThinkPad Z, and I've been considering getting a ThinkPad T instead (which will have 256MB video card).

Alright, I take that back, most brand new laptops can run Vista premium.  Most existing laptops will not be able to run Vista Premium ... those with laptops with less than 128MB video ram are left with no choice but to purchace a new laptop.

[rabbit]

Or upgrade.

[nslay]

Or upgrade.

You can't upgrade the video on laptops, its built into the motherboard.

[rabbit]

Remove all the internals and replace them.  Same thing.

[nslay]

Remove all the internals and replace them.  Same thing.

At what cost?  You actually have to replace the motherboard.  I had an ATI chip go bad on a T40, they did exactly that.  Luckily the warranty covered it

I guess Microsoft isn't that terrible since they made a version of Vista available for systems without the video capability, however, the premium would require the complete replacement of laptops without the video capability.

[MyndFyre]

Remove all the internals and replace them.  Same thing.

At what cost?  You actually have to replace the motherboard.  I had an ATI chip go bad on a T40, they did exactly that.  Luckily the warranty covered it

I guess Microsoft isn't that terrible since they made a version of Vista available for systems without the video capability, however, the premium would require the complete replacement of laptops without the video capability.

I wouldn't want a laptop wasting all of that work on the glass effects anyway.  Too much battery waste.

[Warrior]

Remove all the internals and replace them.  Same thing.

At what cost?  You actually have to replace the motherboard.  I had an ATI chip go bad on a T40, they did exactly that.  Luckily the warranty covered it

I guess Microsoft isn't that terrible since they made a version of Vista available for systems without the video capability, however, the premium would require the complete replacement of laptops without the video capability.

I see your point, it's the same issue for most new things though. Take for example if Linux ever gets a Stable  3D accelerated desktop, how many laptop users with small amounts of internal video ram will be able to run it? I'd say it's more of a problem with the Laptop than the OS.

[nslay]

Remove all the internals and replace them.  Same thing.

At what cost?  You actually have to replace the motherboard.  I had an ATI chip go bad on a T40, they did exactly that.  Luckily the warranty covered it

I guess Microsoft isn't that terrible since they made a version of Vista available for systems without the video capability, however, the premium would require the complete replacement of laptops without the video capability.

I see your point, it's the same issue for most new things though. Take for example if Linux ever gets a Stable  3D accelerated desktop, how many laptop users with small amounts of internal video ram will be able to run it? I'd say it's more of a problem with the Laptop than the OS.

Well, when you talk about desktop in Unix, it's no longer the OS's responsibility - Don't care if its IRIX, BSD, Linux, AIX.  It really depends what X can do, what X will implement, and what desktop environments/window managers will take advantage of.  Usually X tries to do handle things on the software level if the hardware features don't exist or are lacking.

http://wiki.x.org/wiki/X11R71Release

[Warrior]

Yea, it compares to the same thing DWM does (Since it handles Compositing and 3D Accel), I think Microsoft  doesn't bother with Software accelerated 3D because it'd be an unpleasant experience and show Vista in a way they don't want.