Jump to content

Home

Windows Vista is a hardware beast !!!!!!

OptimalOptimus

By OptimalOptimus
in Ahto Spaceport Cantina

Recommended Posts

OptimalOptimus Newbie

OptimalOptimus

Posted
Posted

System breakdown

 

Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.

 

CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.

 

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.

 

HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.

 

Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.

 

Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Yay.

 

 

Thoughts

 

Amusingly, Page admits that there are no monitors out there that will do HDCP, and that this is a problem. Frankly, it's the consumer's problem, however, according to him. "It's up to you [the users] to say, 'Where's my HDCP?'"

 

I'm more inclined to say to Hollywood 'Hey, STFU' to be honest.

 

One of the major problems is that Hollywood knows that Microsoft dominates the operating system sphere, and so it can arm-wrestle MS into working with it. If there was more competition, Hollywood would have to be a little more cautious about what it tries to get away with.

 

We come back to the age-old problem. Content is being forced onto us that is, to all extents and purposes, crippled. It's not like any of this stuff is actually going to make any difference - we're still going to have dodgy films on the net, probably in no less quantity than we have now - so why would be pay to be screwed, when we can just get an uncrippled version for free?

 

But, that's a little off topic. In terms of the hardware stuff, it seems obvious that hardware makers are rubbing their hands in glee. It's been hard to persuade people to upgrade their WinXP boxes, since they can handle pretty much anything thrown at them, unless you're a gamer. Graphics companies are going to be selling a bucket-load more GPUs, since now practically every system sold for Vista is going to need one. It's no coincidence that Nvidia is re-introducing onboard graphics for its motherboards very soon.

 

2GB of RAM for high-end systems is pretty chunky, and it could be that we start to see RAM prices go up as suddenly, a big percentage of systems are being built with 4 times the current requirement. If you thought SATA2 had been slow to take off, expect every new enthusiast chipset to have it built in next year, and for drive makers to start shifting over to it quick - if they're not building a huge number of NCQ drives by the middle of next year, they risk missing out on loads of orders come Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prime Newbie

Prime

Posted
Posted
:wstupid:

 

besides vista is NOT reverse-compatible with older software even stuff designed for XP :mad:

Which means it will be doomed in the business enviroment, since the vast majority of companies aren't going to rip out whatever they have to switch. It is hard enough to get them to switch as it is.

 

I'm under the impression that a lot of Vista features can be turned off to take less resources. Is this incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Sitherino Newbie

El Sitherino

Posted
Posted

You're correct Prime, but a lot of features are supposed to be integrated into the system for "aesthetic performance" or some other such nonsense, therefore not capable of being disabled.

 

The biggest problem with Vista is the DRM junk that'll mean half your CD's won't play and you'll have a limitation on what you can do with Mp3/*encode's you've legally aqcuired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevanA4 Newbie

RevanA4

Posted
Posted
You're correct Prime, but a lot of features are supposed to be integrated into the system for "aesthetic performance" or some other such nonsense, therefore not capable of being disabled.

 

The biggest problem with Vista is the DRM junk that'll mean half your CD's won't play and you'll have a limitation on what you can do with Mp3/*encode's you've legally aqcuired.

 

looks like ms it dooming themselves to fail with this one.

 

heck its gonna kill the pc gamers, programmers, businesses the most out of anybody

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vladimir-Vlada Newbie

Vladimir-Vlada

Posted
Posted

Now i have to agree with the topic of this thread, since what I hear, the requierments for an operating system are insane and irrational. Let me clarify:

 

Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors.

Whoever suggested that the new Windows operating system uses that, either he knows jack S**T about economics or is an utter idiot.

 

GPU is a new type of processor IN DEVELOPMENT which is pretty expenisve. Likewise, the GPU is acctuely and processor consisted of two grahpichs cards that together render the data. And using a GPU is instable, expensive and SERIOUS power wasting.

 

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told.

Considering how expensive RAM memory is, and the fact that the new state-of-the-art DDR memory is required, I would say that Microsoft doesn't care anymore for normal buyers and is turning to rich clientelle and companies (like EA).

 

So bassicly, I think that buying the Windows Vista, would be th most expensive thing you will ever buy in your life. So THINK: Use XP (or Linux, or whatever).

 

Anyways, that sucks. I'll stick with XP, then, till like, 2-3 years later when everyone thinks XP is lamer than Vista...

Bah, who cares if XP will be lamer than Vista. As long as you have an operating system you're fine.

 

Hmmm, even after 2-3 years some people will be uing XP (I know I will). And maybe then I'll be called a hypocrite, ignorant, stupid, arrogant, be added to someones ignore list, called a mindless basher, bashed for using it and so on and so on...

Right Aash Li, lukeiamyourdad, Revan, Fuu, Insane Sith, Rogue Nine? Don't worry... All of you will get your chances to call me all those things in 2-3 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stingerhs Newbie

stingerhs

Posted
Posted
Now i have to agree with the topic of this thread, since what I hear, the requierments for an operating system are insane and irrational. Let me clarify:

 

 

Whoever suggested that the new Windows operating system uses that, either he knows jack S**T about economics or is an utter idiot.

 

GPU is a new type of processor IN DEVELOPMENT which is pretty expenisve. Likewise, the GPU is acctuely and processor consisted of two grahpichs cards that together render the data. And using a GPU is instable, expensive and SERIOUS power wasting.

actually, GPU stands for Graphics Processing Unit. in other words, Vista will use the graphics processor to run the desktop. and graphics processors range from integrated chipsets (that are usually very slow) to very expensive video cards such as the GeForce 7800GTX. this actually isn't that bad of an idea as it will allow CPU intesive applications to run a bit faster since the visuals won't have to run through the CPU. but, like mentioned earlier, all of that requires having a lot of dedicated video memory, which translates into slower performance for games and a lack of memory if you use an integrated card (since integrated cards have to 'hijack' part of the main memory). overall, its not a bad idea, but it wasn't thoroughly thought through, IMO.
Considering how expensive RAM memory is, and the fact that the new state-of-the-art DDR memory is required, I would say that Microsoft doesn't care anymore for normal buyers and is turning to rich clientelle and companies (like EA).
actually, adding memory to your system is one of the cheapest upgrades you can get for your computer. and i highly doubt that Vista is going to require DDR3 at launch. count on that being apart of 'Windows Update'.
So bassicly, I think that buying the Windows Vista, would be th most expensive thing you will ever buy in your life. So THINK: Use XP (or Linux, or whatever).
well, i don't think it will be the most expensive thing you'll ever buy. consider this: PCI-X is already the new industry standard for graphics cards. you'll be hard pressed to find a machine on the market that still uses an AGP8x slot. and having a lot of memory is not a new concept. currently, most manufacturers ship their computers with at least 512MB of system RAM and usually have at least one open memory slot on the motherboard.

 

the biggest issue is that a lot of the average users out there don't have new computers. a lot of people are still using some fairly old technology complete with 256MB of memory and integrated chipsets. and unless you're a gamer that constantly upgrades your computer, chances are you're graphics card isn't entirely 'up-to-specs' for Vista.

Bah, who cares if XP will be lamer than Vista. As long as you have an operating system you're fine.

 

Hmmm, even after 2-3 years some people will be uing XP (I know I will). And maybe then I'll be called a hypocrite, ignorant, stupid, arrogant, be added to someones ignore list, called a mindless basher, bashed for using it and so on and so on...

well, after about a year or so, the hardware required for Vista will be readily available, and unless hardware manufacturers have no intelligence at all, there will be some older and cheaper stuff on the market that will meet and exceed Vista's requirements.

 

if you haven't caught on yet, though, i am put off by Micro$oft thinking that they can bully the entire computer industry by making a another s****y operating system that requires a ton of system resources. i've pretty much made up my mind that i will continue to use my XP for quite a while, then i'll probably jump over to Linux when i get a new computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTV2 Newbie

MTV2

Posted
Posted
I NEED TO BUY RAM! I have a Dell 8400 and Dell will charge me 80.00 for a 512MB piece! Links anyone?

 

But back to the topic at hand. Yay Microsoft! Vista is going to be awsome. Take that Macs! :smash:

dude, MACS will always own Windows(even though i have windows :p ) Macs have 2D goodness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Det. Bart Lasiter Newbie

Det. Bart Lasiter

Posted
Posted

ya know what the sad thing is. I'm gonna be forced to learn vista >.< no matter what due to the nature of the computer field >.>

It's almost the same as C#, just start looking at the documentation now and you should be off to a good start. By the way, don't any of you know how to dual boot? Actually, you could technically 'triple-boot' and run Linux off of your CD drive, while still only using one HD. There's no need to stick to one OS, for instance I used to have XP and Longhorn (now Vista). By the way, Mac's aren't better, in no small part due to Microsoft's business tactics, ie compatability and more expensive hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...