Certainly is just like all the others. While I was at school, they
upgraded all the machines from Windows 95 to 98, without upgrading the
hardware. For starters, these machines had minimum memory for 95, so
shouldn't even have been capable of running 98, having half the required
memory, let alone recommended. They ended up painfully slow - sometimes
taking several minutes just to log on (from entering username and
password to being able to do anything - not counting boot time)

Can installing Vista on underrated hardware be expected to be any
different? I guess now people want the latest flashy software, but don't
want to pay for the hardware to run it. We have an 8 year old Windows 98
PC which still does its job. Doesn't need upgrading. Doesn't need a
flashy new OS. I certainly wouldn't expect Vista to run on it though.

Although I do agree that new computers sold with Vista should be capable
of running it at a reasonable speed from the start, without requiring
immediate upgrades or "optional" extras.


Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of
> the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP
> did on its release..
>
> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
> simple..
>
>
> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the
>> Rumors that Vista
>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of
>> the new
>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
>> Dell
>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they
>> will end up
>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>
>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying
>> "But Vista
>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>> disbelief. MS
>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
>> buying
>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>
>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to
>> cost me
>> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>>
>>
>> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
>> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>> different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer
>>> Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a
>>> combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>>
>>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to
>>> be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>>
>>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I
>>> have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>>
>>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users
>>> and certainly no WOW factor!
>>>
>>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better
>>> but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running
>>> so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>>
>>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram,
>>> and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in
>>> future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>>>
>>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS
>>> about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good
>>> thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of
>>> making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>[/color]