# Windows Vista - newly released overview



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

.

*From the CNN.com Technology page:*

*An early look at Windows Vista*


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

Viruses already out for it too!
http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122125,00.asp


----------



## cheese (Jun 22, 2003)

CouchMaster said:


> Viruses already out for it too!
> http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122125,00.asp


Yeah, not a suprise.


----------



## redhat9 (Jun 11, 2004)

Looks cool but how much processor and ram will you need to run it?


----------



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

redhat9 said:


> Looks cool but how much processor and ram will you need to run it?


We may not find out until close to final release since it's still in Beta and
significant changes are yet to be made.

Take a look through these:

*Windows Vista Website*
(I would bookmark this site.)

*Microsoft Windows Vista Beta 1 Fact Sheet*

*Performance: Faster response and startup*


----------



## SIR****TMG (Aug 12, 2003)

Looks great..............


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

^ Noobs  

This guy has been doin this stuff for awhile. His review makes me content and confident.

As far as processor I think there will be both 32 bit and 64 bit versions, ofcourse having a 64 bit processor will be much better. And in Paul's review, on the "Performance" section he stated it actually being faster than XP, on older hardware too. He says he hopes it staysthat way. I do too :up:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta1_01.asp

[edit - addon: oh, and PS, that virus was a joke it seems]


----------



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

.

Much of the preliminary information now being released is just that and will be reviewed and updated as the release of Vista, set for late 2006, grows near. Some of it raises concerns of the user anticipating upgrading or installing Vista and perhaps should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.



Microsoft said:


> *"Although it will be able to run on all but the most ancient machines, Vista will favor newer and relatively powerful machines when it comes to showing its true colors, analysts say."*


*Will Your Computer run Windows Vista?*


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Ofcourse, it is mean to be ran with a good graphics card at high resolution, it will look really good, and MS is working on getting it to take full advantage of 64 bit computing. :up: 

Glad they are trying, I hope it is good, because since MS controls a good deal of the market, there will be alot of Windows Vista around.


----------



## Doom_Machine (Jun 26, 2005)

ive toyed around with vista beta a bit and i'm not saying vista is bad in any way, i'm saying its not worth all that money for what you get,its not like switching from xp to mac or linux, its not revolutionary, it doesnt change how people can interact with thier pc's, plus much of its features can be found in xp if you download all the right programs.

1> Longhorn transformation pack 10.5 free - all the wallpapers,themes,icons..etc found in vista
2> Dreamrender 2.19 shareware- uses graphics cards instead of cpu, a replacement for avalon - create/download 3d animated wallpaper/use videos,liquid effects for wallpaper/transparency..etc
3> Desktop X shareware - another simliar replacement for the avalon feature- 3d icons, wierd start bars and menus, apple icons/animated icons lots of stuff dedicated to eyecandy
4> Google desktop/coppernick/findfiles-free - of course these search utilities are not virtual folders like how vista's search works, these find whats on your drive pretty fast anyway.
5> Truelaunch bar -shareware-you can create virtual folders,combine shortcuts in groups..etc, replaces old quicklaunch
6> WinFX - shareware- different effects for menus
7> Armor tools/pcsecure/securexp...etc - replacements for vista's user account protection (which will be quickly hacked and taken advantage of)

heres a list of some features that i think many will at some point find them to be resource hogs 

support for tablet pc's (wow..tablets)
broad IPv6 support,
improved client-side caching of data stored on a server,
whole-volume encryption... (i have a 2 yr old prog that does that)
a revamped synchronization engine....(ooo..revamped)
the ability to support laptops with an auxiliary display 
automatic hard drive optimization and a secure boot-up process (i think diskeeper and bootloc already does that)
more outlook security features (do people use this crappy thing whith all the alternatives out there?)
user account protection- (something else to hog resources)
security features for corporate,roaming and mobile environments (cripes theres already a virus for it and why would home users need those extra securities, more resource hogging crap with countless patches that will be needed within a year)
service hardening monitors critical services for abnormal activity (great if your a paranoid antivirus freak but more monitoring, just what we need)
IE7 (nuff said, many will still want firefox)
Network access protection ( everyone will have to use an AV anyway..why bother with this crap)
Firewall with incomming & outgoing protection ( no one will trust this or it will be exploited anyway and use 3rd party firewalls)
A.C.T (most users will still not know how to use this and request help or pay someone anyway)
faster bootup/sleep and better memory management ( great but is that worth $300)
U.I. (avalon) glass and new window animiation ( will get boring quick and you can have all that on XP that also uses your video card instead of cpu)
Virtual Folder (great but again one of few features of any real interest)
winfs (nice but dont expect miracles in performance)
Network projection for mobile pc's (i'm pretty sure theres software on xp for this)
indigo (i'm not impressed nor would i expect to see this utilized to full potential anytime soon after release)


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Well I have confidence, as I still see stuff it does that XP can't and since it is happily 64 bit I'm thinkin of maybe even getting a mac and installing vista on it, which would pretty much cover all grounds


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

How are you going to run Vista on the Mac? VirtualPC?


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

New macs are now intel compatable.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Oh I see, you're talking about the future Macs.
Too bad OS X won't run on PC though


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Would it matter, wouldn't you rather a Mac that can run windows than a Windows that can run Mac? That would ruin macs whole individual thing, then there'd be gateway macs, and dell macs it just wouldn't feel right.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

No way, I'd rather run OS X on a regular x86 box. If I had expensive Mac hardware, I wouldn't ruin it by running Windows.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

I don't think windows would break it but yah it is kinda a sad thought either way, but hey, if i can use mac and enjoy, but still have windows compatability (play games) life would own, not to mention i could also put linux on there too, harddrives are gettin really big (ive seen 400GB ones not costing as much as you think)


----------

