The only reason for me to upgrade would be if a new game would not run on previous OS, why would you voluntary double the RAM of your machine just so you could run the newest OS? From experience of previous "upgrades" I would estimate 2Gb RAM is required for Vista.
Definitely not my experience so far - Vista Beta 2 is running a bit slow on my PC but doesn't seem to be any worse then XP for memory requirements (on my PC - I have 1Gb of RAM).
Don't run it as your main system - it is only a Beta and is still quite buggy, however for getting an idea of what it is going to be like it's now worth having a look at.
As for the "user experience" I'm slightly bemused, the OS definitely holds you hand more but they have grafted on new ideas to the old 95-XP UI and that results in something that I think is clumsy and counterintuitive.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
I do not bother to get the next versions of the operating system. I just wait until the computer is too old then upgrade everything. My old computer lasted 4 years then I gave it to a friend who is still using it 9 months later.
Not have the latest software? Does not compute. I mean how can you live without all those features you were managing to live without for years before?
It's thanks to people like you we have marketing departments... if the world was populated just by people like me all they would have to do is slap a ".1" on something or a "new" sticker and we'd be buying it.
It's thanks to people like you we have marketing departments... if the world was populated just by people like me all they would have to do is slap a ".1" on something or a "new" sticker and we'd be buying it.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
It works and I know how it works. Then in another 3 years time or so I will want something my computer will not deliver, so I get another one with Vista, only 2 years or so after you. In the meantime you and people like you find all the errors in the software. I am sure Vista will be around for 6 years or so. XP has been around for how long?
I'm a sucker for the all the "pretty UI" enhancements they've been teasing me with. That, and it's free. Plus, I have an extra machine.
It's not so much "Are you sure?" as warnings that you are about to run something that is trying to mess about in the gubbins of the system; previous versions did seem a bit over protective however now I'd say it was about on par with OS/X. (And you can configure it so you don't need to enter a password each time.)
Hagrok
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Messages
- 937
Hmm, sounds irritating. I actually had a similar problem with Windows stopping an application in XP when I was trying to play the new Rainbow Six game. I had to turn off some non-intuitive setting to get it to work.
You're going to have to avoid updating to any new OS then, it's something that is pretty much in all the new OSs.
Hagrok
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Messages
- 937
*whimper*
I don't see how a feature like that will improve security for the home user. The computer illiterates will continue to click "OK" in every window that pops up.
Yes but it does mean that at long last MS can say like Apple does - "We warned you but you still went ahead and now you say it's our fault?"
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
I've had ZoneAlarm do this to me on more than one occasion when a game has for some reason best known to itself tried to access the network/internet. ZoneAlarm pops up a "Do you want to allow this?" dialog, but because the game's running full screen it doesn't get displayed. I sit there wondering what's wrong until the "Ah, Zonealarm" neurons get fired.
Right, I'm a sucker for something new, so I'm downloading this as we speak and will clag it onto my games PC. I'm going to install it on a separate partition (hopefully) so I can still dual boot to XP if need be.
