• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Vista Boycott?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
But again, you don't need 2GB of ram, nor a dual core processor to use Vista -- even with the eye-candy. Example: Pentium-M 1.4ghz, ATI x9600 128mb, 1GB DDR-333 = works fine. Hell, it works better than fine, it boots faster on this old laptop than XP Pro did. Outlook certainly opens faster, so does IE.

People who insist that it needs all this horsepower to run "optimally" have also never tried running it on sub-optimal hardware.

I would never have guessed that hardware profile would run Aeroglass... guess I learned something today! :beer:
 
Aero glass only has two requirements: DX9 compatibility is one, the other is either 128mb of dedicated video ram or at least 32mb of dedicated video ram + 1gb of system ram.

Done :)
 
Same crap happened when XP came out. Runs horribly, poor performance, eats up too much ram, silly interface, and 3 years later everyone is using it and it runs solid. I'm sure Vista Service Packs will do the same thing that Service Packs did for XP. It'll turn Vista into a solid Operating System that runs well.
 
Yea, i ran Vista ultimate x64 and it did pretty well, all besides the 800mb ram bite after a fresh install. Im back to xp at the moment.
 
Yea, i ran Vista ultimate x64 and it did pretty well, all besides the 800mb ram bite after a fresh install. Im back to xp at the moment.

Strages discusses this earlier in the post. It isn't really using all the RAM it appears to. It's just preloaded it for your convenience.
 
The ram argument is kind of a moot point. Unused ram is useless ram. The more ram your system is using as a cache and buffer, the faster it will respond, when your machine goes to access data, if it's in the ram instead of the HDD it's going to be a much faster access time. Ram is meant to be used. You'll run into a problem when the system is asking for more ram than is available, and I don't see that on the list of problems.

I just have a problem with Vista from a basic product standpoint. Instead of providing a product that blows away competition (in this case its own predecessor), they instead push a product on consumers that may prove to be marginally better somewhere in the future. That is unacceptable. The fact that DX10 is my primary incentive for eventually installing the box that's been sitting on my shelf for a few months is lackluster at best.

As far as the Aero interface, I find myself unimpressed. OSX is leaps and bounds beyond Aero, and Compiz-Fusion for Linux based systems just annihilates all competition as far as desktop effects go. I don't find Aero an acceptable reason for upgrading an OS. If Aero was done right, or even had 1/2 the features that it was supposed to have in the Windows Longhorn beta, it might be an arguable point.
 
The ram argument is kind of a moot point. Unused ram is useless ram. The more ram your system is using as a cache and buffer, the faster it will respond, when your machine goes to access data, if it's in the ram instead of the HDD it's going to be a much faster access time. Ram is meant to be used. You'll run into a problem when the system is asking for more ram than is available, and I don't see that on the list of problems.

I just have a problem with Vista from a basic product standpoint. Instead of providing a product that blows away competition (in this case its own predecessor), they instead push a product on consumers that may prove to be marginally better somewhere in the future. That is unacceptable. The fact that DX10 is my primary incentive for eventually installing the box that's been sitting on my shelf for a few months is lackluster at best.

As far as the Aero interface, I find myself unimpressed. OSX is leaps and bounds beyond Aero, and Compiz-Fusion for Linux based systems just annihilates all competition as far as desktop effects go. I don't find Aero an acceptable reason for upgrading an OS. If Aero was done right, or even had 1/2 the features that it was supposed to have in the Windows Longhorn beta, it might be an arguable point.

All valid points and while several good reasons were made not to upgrade, none of them seem, IMHO, to be justification for a boycott as mentioned in the FP linked article referred to in the OP.
 
Last edited:
All valid points and while several good reasons were made not to upgrade, none of them seem, IMHO, to be justification for a boycott as mentioned in the FP linked article referred to in the OP.

I guess I should have added that as my overall final opinion. I don't think boycotting is an appropriate reaction, seeing as how millions of people have already upgraded Vista, and it's coming pre-packaged with millions of more computers, a boycott now is too little, too late. Demanding a good service pack 1 would be a nice start.

I do however agree with the spirit of the boycott, demanding a superior product is what the consumer should be doing, I just don't think a small boycott will have the necessary impact. I certainly won't be limiting my DX10 experience by boycotting Vista, and this is coming from a daily Linux user.
 
Buggy or not, I got Vista Business x64 as it will eventually improve and XP x64 OEM doesn't have as good support as it otherwise should have gotten.

I can legally transfer my copy of Vista as I upgrade my systems while XP OEM is married to the original motherboard it was installed on.
 
Back