Running Vista with this pc?.

[the gamer]

Hi alll I was woundering if Vista would run on my current pc or would i need to upgrade stuff.

Specs

AMD64 3500+ Venice core running @ stock.
Abit Fatal1ty AN8
Corsiar Xpert Leds
Creative Audigy2 ZS
Sapphire Radeon X850XT PE PCI-E

Thanks.

[BillLeeLee]

Judging by the specs that have been floating around, you should be able to run Vista just fine. I'm not saying it'll run Vista at max everything, but it'll run it.

[SuperSubZero]

Your computer is far, far, FAR too slow to possibly run Vista. At least upgrade that ancient videocard.

[Kristo]

the leds on the ram will help.

[flynlr]

nope vista requires a sound card with 512gb of ram.

[eeyrjmr]

nope vista requires a sound card with 512gb of ram.

is that irony or do you mean GFX card?

[djnes]

nope vista requires a sound card with 512gb of ram.
Damn, my sound card doesn't have any RAM. :(

[Rambler]

Sorry, but all that comes to my mind when reading this question is: :rolleyes:
Either you know shit about computers or you just want to boast with the setup you have.

[djnes]

Sorry, but all that comes to my mind when reading this question is: :rolleyes:
Either you know shit about computers or you just want to boast with the setup you have.

This, unfortunately is becoming commonplace here:

1) The OP can easily find this answer out themselves.
2) Other posts that are so incorrect, that you just have to ignore them. Even if he meant video card, it's still not correct.

[Grimmda]

I have an old AWE32 with 2MB of 30pin SIMMs on it :)

[drizzt81]

why don't you wait for the fourth quater of 2006 to find out what the specs that Vista requires will be? I mean, when it's out, Microsoft will let you know what you need to run Vista. If you plan on running the beta, you should know the sys requirements already, since there surely is a readme with the install. If you just BT'd the beta, we are not able to help you, since this forum does not provide support for pirated software.

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/154479.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=154479)

[Rambler]

This, unfortunately is becoming commonplace here:

1) The OP can easily find this answer out themselves.
2) Other posts that are so incorrect, that you just have to ignore them. Even if he meant video card, it's still not correct.

ad 1) yea, i can only agree with that
ad 2) I guess the "512gb sound card" was supposed to be ironic joke. :confused:

[XOR != OR]

To the OP: What will Vista do for you that XP can't? Or 2k for that matter?

MS is trying to train us to be their money producing flock of sheep.

[the gamer]

Hmmm won't ask another question in here anymore if i get answers like those again :eek: . Im trying to get a X1800XT now (or a revison like X1850XT PE if ATi do make them) only had the X850XT PE since march 2005 and yeah i think i'll wait for future specs.

Also I like playing with microsoft's OS's nothing else ok.

[Shameless Liar]

The only requirements for Vista is 512MB RAM and 20GB HD space. Otherwise it won't install.

Your PC is WAY more than qualified for Vista.

[FoxhoundOp]

20 GB for the OS alone? Ouch.

[djnes]

20 GB for the OS alone? Ouch.
If I remember right, XP and 2000 both stated 20 GB as a minimum. THey know you'll need room for the OS, swap file, and apps you will eventually install.

[GreNME]

The only requirements for Vista is 512MB RAM and 20GB HD space. Otherwise it won't install.

Your PC is WAY more than qualified for Vista.
You're so shameless. ;)

Minimum requirement is 10 GB. The OS takes up around 4.

[Whatsisname]

You can run XP on a 233. Jesus christ :rolleyes:

[S1nF1xx]

Do you really think they're going to make you buy a supercomputer to run Vista? :rolleyes:

It will have some retarded minimum specs that it will install on.

Here are the XP minimum requirements:

PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

CD-ROM or DVD drive

Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

While we all know it's not really possible to run XP on a machine like that and get anything accomplished, it can be done. You can run XP on that machine, and for every step higher your rig is, the more features you can run.

Vista will be the same way.

As Douglas Adams said:

DON'T PANIC!

[lesman]

Do you really think they're going to make you buy a supercomputer to run Vista? :rolleyes:

It will have some retarded minimum specs that it will install on.

Here are the XP minimum requirements:


While we all know it's not really possible to run XP on a machine like that and get anything accomplished, it can be done. You can run XP on that machine, and for every step higher your rig is, the more features you can run.

Vista will be the same way.

As Douglas Adams said:

DON'T PANIC!

I totally agree...it'll be fine! It's just common sense...if you have a half decent video card (yes, HALF DECENT- you won't need anything special...) and at least 512mb of RAM, a CPU that's at least 2ghz, then everything will be fine. You will most likely will be able to run it decently on machines of a lower spec, not that you'd want to, but it will be doable! It's just a new OS with new grahical features, if I can run OS X Tiger on a machine with a 700mhz CPU, 1gb of RAM and a 64mb standard PCI video card, then you will be able to run Vista on not-a-whole-lot-more.
:)

[Hamid]

Look at my specs. I have installed vista beta on my 2nd 20gb hard drive and it took almost 11gb for windows installation (No customization), the drivers and some multimedia softwares. I havent yet tried to install office or any other software on it.

As far as the performance is concerned, it look a little slower as compared to XP and I think this can be the because of in compatible drivers or even software. Also it is still in very early stage of beta and I think final product will be much more optimized and will work faster.

As for the games, I just tried to run call of duty from my already installed game in XP partition without even re installing it in vista and it ran fine though there were some glitches with my sound card.

[tazman4]

Hi alll I was woundering if Vista would run on my current pc or would i need to upgrade stuff.

look around in here. May give you some idea, maybe not.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/default.mspx

[Super Mario]

Honestly, who needs Vista? What is it going to offer besides more bloat and a pretty GUI. Who needs the WDDM? All it is going to do is waste your video card on pretty menu bars and the like, thus wasting your video card resources for gaming.

Windows XP is already a good OS, so why even bother with Vista? The only thing that interests me is significant improvements in the kernel that will make the OS faster, more reliable, and make applications run faster. Will Vista even offer much of that?

What is Vista going to offer besides the WDDM that will appeal to the power user and gamer?

Another words, why not just slap the NT 6.0 kernel onto Windows XP to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage Vista is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?

[Whatsisname]

because microsoft thinks you are in the minority

Another words, why not just slap the NT 6.0 kernel onto Windows XP to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage Vista is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?

[Unknown-One]

Another words, why not just slap the NT 6.0 kernel onto Windows XP to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage Vista is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?
How do you expect Microsoft to make any money that way? :rolleyes:

[the gamer]

omg I didnt know this thread was still going :D .

[evildre]

Ran all the eye candy just fine on a Radeon 9800 Pro ... of course, the fact that I was testing it on a dual Opteron kind of helped a little :D

That's the only thing I miss from my previous job ... my kick-ass dually workstation ...

[GreNME]

Honestly, who needs Vista? What is it going to offer besides more bloat and a pretty GUI. Who needs the WDDM? All it is going to do is waste your video card on pretty menu bars and the like, thus wasting your video card resources for gaming.

Windows XP is already a good OS, so why even bother with Vista? The only thing that interests me is significant improvements in the kernel that will make the OS faster, more reliable, and make applications run faster. Will Vista even offer much of that?

What is Vista going to offer besides the WDDM that will appeal to the power user and gamer?

Another words, why not just slap the NT 6.0 kernel onto Windows XP to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage Vista is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?
Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, wait...
Honestly, who needs XP? What is it going to offer besides more bloat and a pretty GUI. All it is going to do is waste your video card on pretty menu bars and the like, thus wasting your video card resources for gaming.

Windows 2000 is already a good OS, so why even bother with XP? The only thing that interests me is significant improvements in the kernel that will make the OS faster, more reliable, and make applications run faster. Will XP even offer much of that?

What is XP going to offer that will appeal to the power user and gamer?

Another words, why not just slap the NT 5.1 kernel onto Windows 2000 to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage XP is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?
Honestly, who needs 2000? What is it going to offer besides more bloat and a pretty GUI. All it is going to do is waste your video card on pretty menu bars and the like, thus wasting your video card resources for gaming.

Windows 98 is already a good OS, so why even bother with 2000? The only thing that interests me is significant improvements in the kernel that will make the OS faster, more reliable, and make applications run faster. Will 2000 even offer much of that?

What is 2000 going to offer that will appeal to the power user and gamer?

Another words, why not just slap the NT 5 kernel onto Windows 98 to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage 2000 is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?
Honestly, who needs 98? What is it going to offer besides more bloat and a pretty GUI. All it is going to do is waste your video card on pretty menu bars and the like, thus wasting your video card resources for gaming.

Windows 95 is already a good OS, so why even bother with 98? The only thing that interests me is significant improvements in the kernel that will make the OS faster, more reliable, and make applications run faster. Will 98 even offer much of that?

What is 98 going to offer that will appeal to the power user and gamer?

Another words, why not just slap the kernel onto Windows 95 to make it the most up to date while at the same time avoiding all the bloated garbage 98 is going to throw at those of us who don't like it?

My, how easily the substitutions take me back in time...

[Super Mario]

Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, wait...




My, how easily the substitutions take me back in time...


The argument was valid from Windows 2000 to XP. But in NO WAY was the same argument valid from Windows 98 to 2000. Windows 95/98/ME were POS operating systems. Windows 2000 was a good OS, so the argument was most certainly valid from 2000 to XP.

Honestly, XP is by far better than any previous version of Windows used in the home computing market. So you can't even comnpare the upgrade from XP to Vista with the upgrade from 98 to 2000 or XP. Windows 98/ME were POS operating systems. Windows XP is already good.

[GreNME]

You're the one doing the comparing, not me. I am letting you know that your argument against while comparing is old hat and was in no way significantly different than any other argument against change. You're demanding someone justify the OS to you when there is very little actual information on it to begin with, and little public availability from which to build a list of practical examples for demonstration.

[Hvatum]

You're the one doing the comparing, not me. I am letting you know that your argument against while comparing is old hat and was in no way significantly different than any other argument against change. You're demanding someone justify the OS to you when there is very little actual information on it to begin with, and little public availability from which to build a list of practical examples for demonstration.

We know this much with certainty: Aeroglass will directly utilize the Video Card for 2D accelleration. Instead of being a mostly software based desktop each window will instead be a texture in video memory. Drop shadows and translucency will then be rendered using your video card's accelleration abilities instead of in software as they currently are. No matter how you slice it that's a greater load on your video card which some people may or may not like.

[Unknown-One]

[b]No matter how you slice it that's a greater load on your video card which some people may or may not like.
It depends on how the implement it realy. If they make windows keep the GUI alive in the background while you play your games I'll be pissed. If they put it into a sort of "sleep mode" where the GUI is unloaded from video memory and allows your game to run all alone, I'll be fine.

[GreNME]

We know this much with certainty: Aeroglass will directly utilize the Video Card for 2D accelleration. Instead of being a mostly software based desktop each window will instead be a texture in video memory. Drop shadows and translucency will then be rendered using your video card's accelleration abilities instead of in software as they currently are. No matter how you slice it that's a greater load on your video card which some people may or may not like.
Um, they said the same thing about XP. Yes, on older hardware 2k or even 9x may have a better chance of less hardware load. However, on newer hardware XP spanks 9x and actually nudges ahead of 2k in performance. Yet there's all that "bloat" and "shiny extras" that tax your hardware more than older OSes. Imagine that.

Don't get me wrong: I am verifying for anyone who wonders that Vista will have higher minimum system requirements. I've tested it myself and can verify that it will use no less than 4 gigs just for the OS and requires 10 to install. To take advantage of the GUI enhancements you'll have to have a newer video card and CPU. Indeed, just like every other next generation of an OS, the system requirements will be higher.

If you are expecting to play newer games on older hardware and continue to expect top performance, however, then you are living in a dream world. That has never been the case, and games have had higher system requirements then operating systems for nearly a decade now. Odd how we don't hear much bitching about the newest FPS being so "bloated" and performing mediocrely. It's a double-standard that puts the cart before the horse: none of the popular games out there will play on older, less-power hardware, and yet people continually blame the OSes that actually do. There is nothing different about the new OS' increased system requirements, while game requirements jump exponentially, and the OS gets blamed continually.

Guys, this has been happening since DOS. It's like beating a dead horse.

[streetkid]

Hmmm won't ask another question in here anymore if i get answers like those again :eek: . Im trying to get a X1800XT now (or a revison like X1850XT PE if ATi do make them) only had the X850XT PE since march 2005 and yeah i think i'll wait for future specs.

Also I like playing with microsoft's OS's nothing else ok.

Then please, dont.


as for 'playing with ms OS's', one would assume then you make a hobby out of it and would already know/easily find out the answer to this stupid question

[Hamid]

Um, they said the same thing about XP. Yes, on older hardware 2k or even 9x may have a better chance of less hardware load. However, on newer hardware XP spanks 9x and actually nudges ahead of 2k in performance. Yet there's all that "bloat" and "shiny extras" that tax your hardware more than older OSes. Imagine that.

Don't get me wrong: I am verifying for anyone who wonders that Vista will have higher minimum system requirements. I've tested it myself and can verify that it will use no less than 4 gigs just for the OS and requires 10 to install. To take advantage of the GUI enhancements you'll have to have a newer video card and CPU. Indeed, just like every other next generation of an OS, the system requirements will be higher.

If you are expecting to play newer games on older hardware and continue to expect top performance, however, then you are living in a dream world. That has never been the case, and games have had higher system requirements then operating systems for nearly a decade now. Odd how we don't hear much bitching about the newest FPS being so "bloated" and performing mediocrely. It's a double-standard that puts the cart before the horse: none of the popular games out there will play on older, less-power hardware, and yet people continually blame the OSes that actually do. There is nothing different about the new OS' increased system requirements, while game requirements jump exponentially, and the OS gets blamed continually.

Guys, this has been happening since DOS. It's like beating a dead horse.

Good post................I totally agree.

[Super Mario]

What about the cumbersome burden all technicians have to go through to learn a new MS OS yet again. Learning a new MS OS is a pain as it is. People have already settled in with Windows XP for longer than any other MS OS, and it will be even harder to get used to a brand new MS OS again.

I would be totally fine with it if Vista gets delayed a lot longer. Lets just let Windows XP stay around for a lot longer until hardware gets tremendously faster. I don't see hardware getting trmendously faster for quite some time because of the heat issues with CPU going past 4GHz in speed.

[Tazman2]

I would be totally fine with it if Vista gets delayed a lot longer. Lets just let Windows XP stay around for a lot longer until hardware gets tremendously faster. I don't see hardware getting trmendously faster for quite some time because of the heat issues with CPU going past 4GHz in speed.

If your referring to P4s and the new Xeons, etc. then yes its a problem. The solution? Buy AMD and say goodbye to temp issues and having to use a new standard (BTX) to hide your temp problems! :rolleyes: Sorry its off topic abit but it is still relevent in a sense! ;)

[riot8ap]

Change is good, and learning is never a bad thing. Its what gives some people a technical advantage over others.

For every 1 person who doesn't want to learn a new O/S, 10 WILL just for enthusiast's sake.

[djnes]

What about the cumbersome burden all technicians have to go through to learn a new MS OS yet again. Learning a new MS OS is a pain as it is. People have already settled in with Windows XP for longer than any other MS OS, and it will be even harder to get used to a brand new MS OS again.
If it really is cumbersome to learn a new Windows OS, they shouldn't be technicians in the first place. Secondly, if they were serious IT Professionals, they'd have access to the betas.

[SJConsultant]

What about the cumbersome burden all technicians have to go through to learn a new MS OS yet again. Learning a new MS OS is a pain as it is. People have already settled in with Windows XP for longer than any other MS OS, and it will be even harder to get used to a brand new MS OS again.

It's not like your learning a whole new OS like moving from Windows to Linux.

If your not willing to learn then you have no business being in the IT field. :rolleyes:

[Super Mario]

It's not like your learning a whole new OS like moving from Windows to Linux.

If your not willing to learn then you have no business being in the IT field. :rolleyes:

That's true, but that was only one small point I was trying to make. The other point is, what is Vista going to offer that is going to be so great other than being a way to lure more cash into Microsoft's pocket? Is Vista really going to be any more than Windows XP with a few extra features here and there?

Previous Microsoft OS releases in Windows 2000/XP/2003 were a huge leap from any previous operating systems MS had to offer. Is Vista going to be the same thing? Any beta testers who can see if it offers anything special? I also fear that Vista will be an OS that exerts more control over you than the control you the individual will have over it.

What I fear is that Windows XP will be phased out so fast after Vista is released. I don't want to see that happen. Do you think it is safe to say that Windows XP will still be supported by the latest video cards and chipsets that continuously get released for a long long time (4 years or more) after Vista is released? I hope so.

[GreNME]

What about the cumbersome burden all technicians have to go through to learn a new MS OS yet again. Learning a new MS OS is a pain as it is. People have already settled in with Windows XP for longer than any other MS OS, and it will be even harder to get used to a brand new MS OS again.
Um, this has happened with almost every new OS iteration. The transition from 9x to 2000 was harder than this one will be. I can also verify for you, having used the OS briefly, that Vista still has all the elements that XP has. You won't be starting from scratch, and will really only need to learn the new features, building on the older knowledge base. This is no big deal.

I would be totally fine with it if Vista gets delayed a lot longer. Lets just let Windows XP stay around for a lot longer until hardware gets tremendously faster. I don't see hardware getting trmendously faster for quite some time because of the heat issues with CPU going past 4GHz in speed.
Gigahertz != better performance. Without the architecture to back it up, clock speed means jack. AMD has proven this unequivocably, as has the Pentium mobile processor.

[GreNME]

What I fear is that Windows XP will be phased out so fast after Vista is released. I don't want to see that happen. Do you think it is safe to say that Windows XP will still be supported by the latest video cards and chipsets that continuously get released for a long long time (4 years or more) after Vista is released? I hope so.
You have nothing to fear. Up until this year, Win 2000 was still fully supported for everything, and even then 2000 will probably still be supported up until about 2007. XP still has plenty of life in it.

[Super Mario]

When is the final version of Vista due out anyways? Is it really going to be in 2006, or will it be pushed back to 2007?

I have heard that the beta builds are still in the very early stage and that seems like getting it out by 2006 would be a long shot. Because I have heard that major software early in the beta stage often takes at least more than a year to finalize? Is that true?

Also, I have heard that the betas of Vista currently available are not even close to what the final version will be like. And if that's the case, how do you expect major changes to be implemented before the year 2006 comes to an end?

[Super Mario]

Um, this has happened with almost every new OS iteration. The transition from 9x to 2000 was harder than this one will be. I can also verify for you, having used the OS briefly, that Vista still has all the elements that XP has. You won't be starting from scratch, and will really only need to learn the new features, building on the older knowledge base. This is no big deal.


Gigahertz != better performance. Without the architecture to back it up, clock speed means jack. AMD has proven this unequivocably, as has the Pentium mobile processor.


True, but AMD has already made faster CPUs with much lower clock speed by a very efficient archictecture. How much faster can they make the CPU by changing the architecture even more? I thought they already made the architecture super efficient at a slower clock speed with the Athlon 64? How much more efficent can they make it now that GHz speed has hit a road block and more efficient archictectires to compensate have already been around for 2+ years by now?

[GreNME]

True, but AMD has already made faster CPUs with much lower clock speed by a very efficient archictecture. How much faster can they make the CPU by changing the architecture even more? I thought they already made the architecture super efficient at a slower clock speed with the Athlon 64? How much more efficent can they make it now that GHz speed has hit a road block and more efficient archictectires to compensate have already been around for 2+ years by now?
You'd be surprised. Ever since Intel stopped focusing with tunnel-vision on clock speeds the capabilities of processors has jumped considerably. Hell, most CISC processors nowadays have RISC underpinnings. Busses, instructions, pipelines, and more could still change and "technically" still be considered x86, so perhaps we'll see more changes along those lines. I really can't say, not being the person who makes those decisions for Intel and AMD, the two industry leaders.

[SJConsultant]

That's true, but that was only one small point I was trying to make. The other point is, what is Vista going to offer that is going to be so great other than being a way to lure more cash into Microsoft's pocket? Is Vista really going to be any more than Windows XP with a few extra features here and there?

Previous Microsoft OS releases in Windows 2000/XP/2003 were a huge leap from any previous operating systems MS had to offer. Is Vista going to be the same thing? Any beta testers who can see if it offers anything special? I also fear that Vista will be an OS that exerts more control over you than the control you the individual will have over it.

What I fear is that Windows XP will be phased out so fast after Vista is released. I don't want to see that happen. Do you think it is safe to say that Windows XP will still be supported by the latest video cards and chipsets that continuously get released for a long long time (4 years or more) after Vista is released? I hope so.

XP will be around and supported for a long time. Per the Microsoft Lifecycle (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p1=3223&x=11&y=10) , XP will be supported until around 2011. ;)

Vista adds plenty of features that are very noteworthy, the major one I am looking at is:

Security (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security.mspx) - Vista in conjunction with TPM hardware will allow for *full* hard drive encryption. This alone in terms of security in business environments alone. Vista will also have outbound firewall protection, not to mention a host of changes to how services and user accounts are handled that will harden the system from attacks.

Spend some time on Microsofts website and read about Vista's (http://www.microsoft.com/vista) improvements.

[Hvatum]

Um, they said the same thing about XP. Yes, on older hardware 2k or even 9x may have a better chance of less hardware load. However, on newer hardware XP spanks 9x and actually nudges ahead of 2k in performance. Yet there's all that "bloat" and "shiny extras" that tax your hardware more than older OSes. Imagine that.

Don't get me wrong: I am verifying for anyone who wonders that Vista will have higher minimum system requirements. I've tested it myself and can verify that it will use no less than 4 gigs just for the OS and requires 10 to install. To take advantage of the GUI enhancements you'll have to have a newer video card and CPU. Indeed, just like every other next generation of an OS, the system requirements will be higher.

If you are expecting to play newer games on older hardware and continue to expect top performance, however, then you are living in a dream world. That has never been the case, and games have had higher system requirements then operating systems for nearly a decade now. Odd how we don't hear much bitching about the newest FPS being so "bloated" and performing mediocrely. It's a double-standard that puts the cart before the horse: none of the popular games out there will play on older, less-power hardware, and yet people continually blame the OSes that actually do. There is nothing different about the new OS' increased system requirements, while game requirements jump exponentially, and the OS gets blamed continually.

Guys, this has been happening since DOS. It's like beating a dead horse.

Um no, you completely missed my point. I was just pointing out that Vista, unlike pervious iterations of Windows, is actually fundementally different in that it directly utilizes your Video Card's 3D accelleration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista#Windows_Vista_Aero

If you read my post again you would see I wasn't even complaining. Instead it was a simple statement of fact. Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows 98 and Windows 95 were all the same in that they required only as much video memory as a given resolution and color depth required.

Vista on the other hand will actually store desktop information on your video card's memory. So if you move a windows offscreen instead of being re-drawn this Window will instead be grabbed back from your Video Card's memory. This reduces the load put on the CPU and makes for a hopefully snappier and more responsive GUI. It does however put a greater load on your graphics card - there's no free lunch.

OSX and Linux, indeed even SGI have had a similiar rendering structure for a few years now. On all of these systems enabling hardware accellerated desktop features seemed to speed things up and I would venture the same will be the case for Vista.

[Hvatum]

XP will be around and supported for a long time. Per the Microsoft Lifecycle (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p1=3223&x=11&y=10) , XP will be supported until around 2011. ;)

Vista adds plenty of features that are very noteworthy, the major one I am looking at is:

Security (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security.mspx) - Vista in conjunction with TPM hardware will allow for *full* hard drive encryption. This alone in terms of security in business environments alone. Vista will also have outbound firewall protection, not to mention a host of changes to how services and user accounts are handled that will harden the system from attacks.

Spend some time on Microsofts website and read about Vista's (http://www.microsoft.com/vista) improvements.

TPM is just a couched term for DRM as far as I can tell...

[SJConsultant]

TPM is just a couched term for DRM as far as I can tell...

That is because the publicity surrounding TPM has been narrowly focused on possible DRM related issues. Let me tell you what experience I have with TPM hardware at this point.

For example, My IBM Thinkpad has TPM in which the hard drive in my laptop requires a password at the bios screen in order for the laptop to even begin accessing it to boot, in addition, my laptop requires my username and password. I have replaced both with a single swipe of my finger across the biometric sensor.

The above would not be possible without TPM hardware in the laptop in which to store information such as passwords and scanned fingerprints.

While I am not discounting the fact that TPM could be used for DRM purposes, I am merely pointing out DRM is not the sole application of TPM.

[GreNME]

Um no, you completely missed my point. I was just pointing out that Vista, unlike pervious iterations of Windows, is actually fundementally different in that it directly utilizes your Video Card's 3D accelleration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista#Windows_Vista_Aero
There is not enough information available to make an educated guess about what and how Vista will be affected, and your link is even proof of that. There is nothing to indicate better or worse performance, just a new way of doing things.

If you read my post again you would see I wasn't even complaining. Instead it was a simple statement of fact. Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows 98 and Windows 95 were all the same in that they required only as much video memory as a given resolution and color depth required.
Actually, no they didn't. They required as much video memory as necessary for whatever was taking advantage of the GPU. Wherere the hell are you getting your information from? If Wikipedia is your primary source material, you have a lot of back studying to do since Wikipedia is not always trustworthy.

Vista on the other hand will actually store desktop information on your video card's memory. So if you move a windows offscreen instead of being re-drawn this Window will instead be grabbed back from your Video Card's memory. This reduces the load put on the CPU and makes for a hopefully snappier and more responsive GUI. It does however put a greater load on your graphics card - there's no free lunch.
Where the hell are you getting this information? This is not listed in that link you gave, and is not described in this manner on any MS sites regarding Aero. Who is making this shit up and feeding it to you?

OSX and Linux, indeed even SGI have had a similiar rendering structure for a few years now. On all of these systems enabling hardware accellerated desktop features seemed to speed things up and I would venture the same will be the case for Vista.
You're claiming that other systems have the same thing as something that, honestly, we don't know all that much about to begin with. It's all speculation. Nice to see you've already come to decisions regarding the subject with insufficient data.

TPM is just a couched term for DRM as far as I can tell...
Paranoid much? ;)

[Hvatum]

There is not enough information available to make an educated guess about what and how Vista will be affected, and your link is even proof of that. There is nothing to indicate better or worse performance, just a new way of doing things.You essentially just said:

"There is no indication that these newfangled graphics cards will speed up 3D rendering at all. Hardware and Software 3D rendering aren't faster or slower, they're just different ways of doing things."

The desktop of Vista will use the hardware accelleration of your graphics card. At the same time however they will be adding features such as translucency and drop-shadows so you are completely right that we cannot be sure if the end result will be faster or slower. Ostensibly it will look better though. It will also put a great load on your graphics card.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/abouttn/subscriptions/flash/tips/tips_092805_2.mspx

I don't have time to sift through every Microsoft tech document but there's a quick overview.

Actually, no they didn't. They required as much video memory as necessary for whatever was taking advantage of the GPU. Yes, and we were discussing the GPU requirement for displaying the desktop. The requirement for any given display resolution and color depth in Windows 95-XP was the length and width of the desktop multiplied by the color depth. Obviously if you want to use the graphics card for something else, such as 3D rendering, you would need a more powerful graphics card.


Where the hell are you getting this information? This is not listed in that link you gave, and is not described in this manner on any MS sites regarding Aero. Who is making this shit up and feeding it to you?Microsoft, but then again they've been wrong about every OS release so far so you're right, they'll probably be wrong about this one too. (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/graphics-reqs.mspx)

Vista on the other hand will actually store Window information on your video card's memory. So if you move a windows offscreen instead of being re-drawn this Window will instead be grabbed back from your Video Card's memory.
The Windows Vista desktop is being drawn in a completely different way from all previous versions. Every window will have its own, full window-sized surface to draw to. The desktop will be dynamically composed many times a second from the contents of each window.


Paranoid much? ;)

I just honestly don't see the need for TPM or what it would accomplish outside of a few niche applications such as the above named biometric login. The problem with windows security is not an absolute inability to setup a secure Windows install, rather the users are often too apathetic or incompetent to prevent infection or avoid installing viruses on their own computer. TPM won't save Windows users from their own stupidity, nothing will.

[SJConsultant]

I just honestly don't see the need for TPM or what it would accomplish outside of a few niche applications such as the above named biometric login. The problem with windows security is not an absolute inability to setup a secure Windows install, rather the users are often too apathetic or incompetent to prevent infection or avoid installing viruses on their own computer. TPM won't save Windows users from their own stupidity, nothing will.

While security is a niche application, i'd have to say that its a damn important one that far exceeds any reservations that people have about DRM crap.

Look at how many laptops or desktops were stolen the past few years with sensitive information. I'd hate to think that you can't see the benefits of advanced security technologies TPM could provide to the mass amount of businesses that need it.

TPM is not touted as a 100% solution to all security problems, but it sure could prevent some accidental or inadvertant security breaches that are almost commonplace in business environments.

[GreNME]

You essentially just said:

"There is no indication that these newfangled graphics cards will speed up 3D rendering at all. Hardware and Software 3D rendering aren't faster or slower, they're just different ways of doing things."
Don't ever misquote me. It just makes it obvious you are not here to discuss with what I actually say, and are instead interested in attributing statements I don't make to me. I said that the way the new GUI is going to work will be different, and that there have been no indications that it will impact performance in terms of anything but requiring higher minimum specs (like a DX9 compatible card).

Microsoft, but then again they've been wrong about every OS release so far so you're right, they'll probably be wrong about this one too.
Dude, there is a huge difference between requiring the card to have hardware support for DX9 and it over-taxing the card. That is what I'm talking about. There is simply not enough data yet to make unrealistic guesses either way. I'm saying that, yes, the OS will have higher system requirements, and the hardware acceleration will have to be up to a certain spec in order to take advantage of Aero (though it is not necessary to run the system). However, what is not known is how performance will be affected outside of running the OS itself and some basic apps used when testing the system.

I'm saying that we'll know more when the public Beta is made available. Until then it is all conjecture and histrionics.

[Hvatum]

Don't ever misquote me. It just makes it obvious you are not here to discuss with what I actually say, and are instead interested in attributing statements I don't make to me. I said that the way the new GUI is going to work will be different, and that there have been no indications that it will impact performance in terms of anything but requiring higher minimum specs (like a DX9 compatible card).

Did you read my post? I said it's like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy) you were saying that. Look at it again and read carefully. You'll see it was very clear I was not direcly quoting you.

Secondly, if you would stop being so defensive you would see I'm not being critical of Vista in any way, nor was I critical of it in any of my other posts. For some reason you consistently seem to believe I'm against any sort of change in software which requires greater hardware resources. This simply isn't the case. I was simply stating technical facts and offering my opinion on and my analysis of them - I believe that's the purpose of this forum but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

Finally, a GPU accelerated user interface would have to be less taxing on the CPU and more taxing on GPU when compared with the same interface rendered in software mode. This isn't conjecture or heresay, it's simple logic. If I move more load onto something then there will be less load at the location I removed that load from. Piece of cake. :)

Dude, there is a huge difference between requiring the card to have hardware support for DX9 and it over-taxing the card. That is what I'm talking about. There is simply not enough data yet to make unrealistic guesses either way. I'm saying that, yes, the OS will have higher system requirements, and the hardware acceleration will have to be up to a certain spec in order to take advantage of Aero (though it is not necessary to run the system). However, what is not known is how performance will be affected outside of running the OS itself and some basic apps used when testing the system.

I'm saying that we'll know more when the public Beta is made available. Until then it is all conjecture and histrionics.

I never said it would "over-tax" the card. Also what I posted about Aero was not a "guess," if you'd bother to thoroughly read the links to Microsoft's technical documents I posted you would see that all of this information is available for you to read from Microsoft. There's no need for you to depend on my summary of it.

You honestly blew my original post way out of proportion anyway. All I was pointing out was that Aero Glass was a GPU accelerated desktop interface. This will put a greater load on the Graphics Card which, again, some people may or may not like. In this respect there is actually a fundemental difference in the structure of Vista when compared with all earlier versions of Windows. Is the change for the better? It depends on how much you value the visual features of Aero vrs. the load it puts on your Video Card.

[Hvatum]

While security is a niche application, i'd have to say that its a damn important one that far exceeds any reservations that people have about DRM crap.

Look at how many laptops or desktops were stolen the past few years with sensitive information. I'd hate to think that you can't see the benefits of advanced security technologies TPM could provide to the mass amount of businesses that need it.

TPM is not touted as a 100% solution to all security problems, but it sure could prevent some accidental or inadvertant security breaches that are almost commonplace in business environments.

I completely agree that TPM is extremely useful for hardware encryption of a mobile laptop. If that laptop gets stolen it's no longer a potential security threat, instead it's just a lost laptop but the data is secure.

Almost all cases of windows virus and security problems though won't be helped one way or another by TPM. TPM won't stop programmers from implimenting weak security or poorly programed buffers. It won't stop users from opening up virus infested emails and it won't stop a virus from proliferating once it's on a users computer.

On the other hand TPM brings with it a host of features which seem very convienent for the purposes of DRM. Off the top of my head executable singing seems like a prime example of this. At bootup the integrity of the basic system executable will be checked - if it's not singed then it will run in restricted mode (According to TCPA) which will prevent access to encrypted content. A security feature like this only makes sense if they're planning to impliment very strong DRM schemes. Why would a hacker ever bother changing the basic structure of the OS when they already have full access anyway (which they would probably need to access those system files in the first place!).

The benefits of hacking the OS to allow backup and fair-use of that DRM protected content for the end user are obvious however.