"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.22.07.05.14@users.easynews.com...
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:32:58 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've gotten Aero to run on boxes with 64MB video RAM. Can't get Beryl
>>>> to run on the same system.
>>>
>>> I would say you have an anomalous test bed.
>>
>> And what makes you think that?
>>
> Because I have a couple of boxes with 64mb Nvidia cards that run Beryl
> just fine. And I have read that MS recommends 128mb of video RAM for
> Aero. But I won't argue this further because I couldn't care less about
> Beryl anyway. That's not what matters in a desktop UI for people over 21.
>

Well, we agree on that point. Whirling cubes do nothing for me either. And
while MS recommends 128MB vid RAM for Aero, one -can- enable it with less.
The point I was trying to make was, ironically, that, just like Vista,
Ubuntu and Beryl have hardware issues of their own.

>
>>
>>>> So... I'll continue to be skeptical of your claim that MS "...made
>>>> conscious design choices... to ensure it would be incompatible with
>>>> older hardware and software." There are plenty of folks that hang out
>>>> in this ng that would beg to differ. Sure, some old stuff won't work
>>>> with Vista. So what?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't complain if Vista offered some kind of important new
>>> capabilities. But it doesn't. It's a replacement for something that
>>> didn't need replacing.
>>>
>> Well, then, I can only spew your own words back at you: "You must not be
>> familiar with..." Vista. Improved memory management. Improved security
>> (not perfect, but improved nonetheless). Improved system tools. Those
>> are important to me.
>
> They may be important to tech enthusiasts, but do they even register with
> the average user? Joe Schmoe bought W95 because all the best new
> software was 32-bit. He bought W98 because he wanted to use all that
> cool USB stuff. He bought XP to play 3d games that take a gig of RAM.
> Is he gonna buy Vista for improved memory management and system tools???
> Answer -- not unless he has to, which he will because Vista will be on
> the new computer at Best Buy.
>

Well, I think those kinds of features, while not painfully apparent to the
end user, will impact his or hers experience if they make for a more stable
system. I know others will argue otherwise here, but Vista has been rock
solid on the five different PC's I've installed it and run it on here. That
said, I don't remember it being smooth sailing on any of those Windows
releases you mention above. They all promised those "improvements" but I
don't recall those promises being fulfilled in the first release of any of
them. And to those that like to say that XP is rock solid... well, yeah,
maybe it is, but it's had, what?, five years to get there? I remember quite
clearly that I had to buy a new scanner when XP was released. The W2K driver
was supposed to work, but didn't. There was an XP driver eventually released
and even that didn't work. So, imho, these Vista "growing pains" are nothing
new when it comes to new Windows releases.

> But let's say for the sake of argument that Vista embodies some important
> new technology advances, which it probably does. My question then is,
> did these advances require a completely rebuilt OS, or could similar
> changes have been made over time by continuing to develop XP? I remember
> when 2k/XP first came out... consumers may have griped about the bugs,
> but techies were saying, Microsoft finally got it right in terms of the
> basic OS design. Were they wrong?

Sounds exactly like what folks are saying about Vista. Are they wrong? I
guess time will tell. I'm not technically savvy enough to state beyond doubt
that MS could've rolled Vista's advances into XP.

>
> That (along with the Vista EULA) is really the difference in approach
> that is steering me toward Linux... it's not that Linux is perfect... the
> difference is that Linux evolves incrementally. It doesn't just get
> replaced, so that one day when I decide to buy a new computer, bang, I'm
> dealing with a completely new OS with all the BUGS of a new OS. I mean,
> how many more times is Microsoft gonna do this to its customers? And how
> many more times will the customers go along with it?
>

If one's choice of OS rests on an "approach," well, that takes me out of the
conversation, because I have no issues with MS's "approach." I'm not saying
one shouldn't base one's OS choice on "approach," just that I don't choose
to put that at the top of my decision tree.

>
>>The other stuff, like Aero, is way less important,
>> but Aero doesn't make me froth at the mouth like it does many others,
>> both pro and con. LOL. And my Vista experience has generally been quite
>> good. All my Vista installs have been clean installs. I believe that has
>> helped with my Vista experience. I am cognizant, only too well, having
>> hung out in this ng for a year, that others have not had great Vista
>> experiences. But, still, that doesn't mean MS made conscious design
>> choices to ensure incompatibilities with older software and hardware.
>
> I didn't express myself clearly enough... the goal was not to ensure
> incompatibilities, but to ensure a fresh revenue cycle. Look, I've got
> several Windows computers scattered around my house, ranging from new
> last year to several years old. I need the newest one if I want to
> render video... but for anything else, any of these machines is as good a
> choice as the others. That is Microsoft's biggest marketing problem --
> how to get all those complacent, satisfied Windows customers to ditch
> their old systems and buy new ones. The easiest way to do it is to
> release a glitzy OS that needs and uses the sexiest, hottest, most
> powerful new hardware... and then market it in such a way that Joe Schmoe
> feels like his 2-year-old XP laptop is already obsolete.
>
> Charlie

Ah... well that -is- different, no? The result is the same, yes, but the,
hmm, approach, is different. ;-)

My son is running Vista on a 3 year old computer with 1GB RAM. It runs fine.
I've got a 2.5 year old PC that will run Vista without Aero, when I decide
to upgrade it. (What's holding me back is it's my wife's main computer and
she's resistant to any change on her computer.) Point being... I think
Vista -will- run on older equipment. Maybe not several years old, but I
don't think you need a PC that rolled in the last year to run Vista. I doubt
very much that all 2 year old laptops are incapable of running Vista. Yeah,
they may not be able to run Aero, but that's not the end of the world, Vista
wise.

Lang