[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Lab Tests: Vista's Fast If You Have the Hardware here

[davidsco27]

ANOTHER reason NOT to upgrade to this piece of crap. Wait for the next one. Once again the morons at Microcrap create an OS to impress themselves, rather than their customers. WHO NEEDS AERO JUNK??? WE WANT A FASTER MORE PRODUCTIVE COMPUTER!!!!!

[justinrobert80]

Okay, we have a hater here! Seriously don't you need to go back to OSX Users Anonymous for more therapy? Vista rocks no matter what the "Microsoft is evil" people say.

[TheNameless]

I don't want the fancy GUI they put on Vista, I'm probably going to use the more light-weight version, or just get rid of Vista, and put Linux on the next computer I get.

[drploof]

Linux is more stable than windows in many instances, and XGL with Beryl for certain distro's of linux make Aero look like garbage, but I think vista is definately more stable than linux running xgl. I still wouldn't upgrade however.

[LightningLockey]

I found your article very interesting, but yet vague on overall performance in a real life scenario.Can some tests be done on the mentioned systems with more applications running on those systems such as Norton Internet Security, WIndows Defender (or does that automatically run?) Instant messanger program and windows media player running. Then try the office programs.The reason why I'm asking this is most of the systems I work on have these programs running. The only slowness would usually be caused by viruses, spyware or a failing hard ware issue.Thank you

[lorderic22]

Why would I pay for a new OS if it's not going to improve my systems speed or performance? If the apps I run work faster under XP and I can get my work done quicker what's my motivation to upgrade? Getting home from work later does not justify the new aero interface. Hey MS call me when you come up with an OS that actually runs faster.

[solomonrex]

Literally YEARS after OSX was released, Vista has similar graphics, but requires HUGE horsepower, while OSx was happily running on subpar power cell processors. Yes, I've used both extensively, including OSX on a PowerPC processor.It's embarassing that Windows is so much in collusion with the hardware makers that they expect us to pay TWICE as much for computers to run an OS that should run on HALF the horsepower. Why would you ever run Aero when games and work will go faster without it? It's a complete failure. I'm so disappointed that they added yet another layer onto their already aggravatingly inconsistent system. I'm really not looking forward to this, and I doubt that any competent company will upgrade.Office is a completely different story. The new toolbars are great innovation and money well spent, and revamping excel was (albeit late) a HUGE improvement that thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of workers will take advantage of. Crunching data is only getting more and more important, and this was the single biggest improvement any software company could make to our nation's productivity. I'm not exagerrating. From 256 columns to 16,000! From ~60,000 rows to ~million. It's H-U-G-E. Office workers around the world salute you, MS, and not with the usual single digit!

[drploof]

Running XP wasn't that stable when it was first released, and it didn't even support all my hardware, Vista does, but since my system is just enough to be considered usable with the aero interface I decided to use Vista. I know that as soon as the first service pack comes out for vista a lot of problems will be addressed, but why should we have to wait for that? I could run linux only, but it is more useful as a backup system since most of my favorite apps run in windows, like office. I don't choose to use a windows emulator in linux to run my windows programs, because that just seems obsurd. I really don't understand why OS's such as OSx and xgl linux can run on hardware that aero won't run on. It just doesnt make sense why microsoft doesn't produce a nice graphical OS that supports more standard workstations, but it does if you think about how much more hardware people are going to have to purchase if they want aero running smoothly on par with OSx or XGL. Microsoft just needs to realize that it is digging a hole for itself while more people realize how smooth and beautiful XGL or OSx run with half the amount of $ spent. For the price of a really nice vista system with aero you could have a system running OSx and another running XP and linux with XGL. Why is this the case?

[davidsco27]

[quote name='justinrobert80']Okay, we have a hater here! Seriously don't you need to go back to OSX Users Anonymous for more therapy? Vista rocks no matter what the "Microsoft is evil" people say.Sorry, putz, I'm not a hater [Removed]. You failed to provide ONE reason TO upgrade to this worthless piece of junk. [Removed]

[davidsco27]

[quote name='lorderic22']Why would I pay for a new OS if it's not going to improve my systems speed or performance? If the apps I run work faster under XP and I can get my work done quicker what's my motivation to upgrade? Getting home from work later does not justify the new aero interface. Hey MS call me when you come up with an OS that actually runs faster.> > Agreed 100%. nice to see people with common sense. Hopefully this garbage will bomb, and MS will be forced to listen to it's customers (what a concept!) and release a new one that is actually an IMPROVEMENT over it's predecessor. Vista looks to go the way of ME

[seventhsight]

I call microsoft to keep re-genuinizing my retail version of xp and my retail version of office 03 & my retail version of Xp Plus addons everytime I have to do a system restore, connect a new piece of hardware, reformat and reload because of a system upgrade or crash,if I clean out certain system files using any registry or track cleaner, or uncheck MS files at boot.Bill Gates is saying I won't thank average Americans for being honest 'I am God and you are the peon bow to me. Besides I need to recoup the billions Im so charitibly giving away to 3rd world countries who wouldn't put American's out if they were on fire". I hate being treated like criminat in my home after paying literally several hundreds, and if all were added together, thousands of dollars for MS software. No way I would want to have a system that Microsoft could use invade my privacy even more. MIckysoft equals a shister who ripped me off on the retail price and keeps coming back to beat me up for being honest.

[PersianDark]

Great article, once I upgrade my 2gig ram 1gb dedicated graphics machine to a dual-core CPU AND the games that I will be playing finally take advantage of 64bit, I will probobly jump to the 64bit versian of Vista, I am only planning to go vista for the 64 bit support, I cant wait till games start taking advantage.For the average user, Vista does not offer much, but I am hoping for a good performance boost with 64bit applications once they become available, I will find out when they are. (64 bit XP is way too buggy from what I've heard).

[seventhsight]

I call microsoft to keep re-genuinizing my retail version of xp and my retail version of office 03 & my retail version of Xp Plus addons everytime I have to do a system restore, connect a new piece of hardware, reformat and reload because of a system upgrade or crash,if I clean out certain system files using any registry or track cleaner, or uncheck MS files at boot.Bill Gates is saying I won't thank average Americans for being honest 'I am God and you are the peon bow to me. Besides I need to recoup the billions Im so charitibly giving away to 3rd world countries who wouldn't put American's out if they were on fire". I hate being treated like criminat in my home after paying literally several hundreds, and if all were added together, thousands of dollars for MS software. No way I would want to have a system that Microsoft could use invade my privacy even more. MIckysoft equals a shister who ripped me off on the retail price and keeps coming back to beat me up for being honest.

[Vistababble]

Hey im a Vista beta tester for a website and I can tell you that alot of PC worlds rubbish about 1 gig ram and such is just for utter money making www.vistababble.com for more!

[Wingman]

Whats the fuss about? This is the way its always been, to go from windows 3.1 to '95 you needed to upgrade, from 95 to 98, unless you wanted a slug, you probably had to upgrade, and you realy dont want to run XP on a 98 machine.... unless you just have that kind of time.They make a heavier OS to keep the hardware market going, why have all that power if you dont use it? Why upgrade if your machine is already lightning fast?Oh and like all microsoft OS's, wait a year after the release date before purchasing the product.

[michaelper22]

First things first, lets hope Microsoft actually releases Vista on 1/30.I think that Vista is great for the latest and greatet croud. Personally, I have no need for almost anything in Vista, and I might not want to upgrade to Vista (form XP Pro) due to software compatibility issues (I run a ton of strange programs, some of which might not even be supported anymore). At this point, I don't think I have enough hardware beef to run Aero or other stuff either. And based on my family's history, my first copy of Vista will probably be on a new computer in a couple of years from now.I'm not complaining about or hating Vista. I just don't need or want it now.

[Cosmo]

I don't see why everyone is complaining. No one is forcing you to upgrade to Vista, so for the Apple fanboys: go away, your opinion doesn't matter here.I have tested Vista beta 2, RC1, and RC2. I have no problem with Aero on my budget laptop (AMD 64 3200, 512mb DDR, ATI integrated x300 with 128mb dedicated RAM). If you do not like Aero, you can simply turn it off. Problem solved, and you can change back to the Windows classic look if you want.I don't see what the fuss about having to use higher power components either. Most PCs being sold have dual cores, and a large amount of RAM and a fair quality graphics cards. Even the budget PCs have more powerful components. I could see the problem with a P3 system with 64mb of ram, but on a newer PC bought in the past few years or so, you shouldn't have many problems, if you choose+ to upgrade.

[davidsco27]

Except that most people don't have Dual Cores, and all tests show Vista to be SLOWER than XP. That is called a DOWNGRADE.And, in contrast to what you just stated, they WILL be forcing us to upgrade to Vista, just as they have in the past.

[Cosmo]

No one is forcing you to upgrade. Microsoft will not come to the door, put a gun to your head, and tell you to upgrade to Vista. I still have computers running Win95. My university still has computers running Windows 3.0. No on can force you to upgrade, so quit whining about it.Most people may not have dual cores, but single the single cores they have, are capable of handling Vista. A P3 operating at ~1.5ghz will run Vista with no problem. I don't have a dual core in my budget laptop, and Vista ran faster on it that XP.I'd like to see the technical data gathered on PCWorld's testing before I take their word for it. My programs ran faster on Vista than XP. I'd also like to know what other programs were running in the background and whether or not Aero was on when PCWorld did its testing.