Windows Vista a reason to buy ECC memory?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
My understanding is that, from a business' point of view, it is in Microsofts best interest to bring the price of required hardware down. I think that they raised the recommended specifications to enhance the user experience in general. It has always been an advantage for Apple to be able to know exactly what kind of hardware OSX will be running on and people really liked OSX.

And when did overclockers start caring about the "Vista Ready" logo or the recommended specifications, let alone "soft requirements". Vistall will still run on non-ECC.

Even cheap machines with crappy on baord everything will probably still run Vista as good as they could run XP.
 
I'd love to know how many of you Microsoft lambasters actually have legal copies of Windows. You steal then complain about it, or in this case, complain about it before you even steal it. No one holds a gun to your head to use anything from Microsoft. Go use Linux, then post your complaints to the open source community who will fix everything and make all of your dreams come true. My apologies to all who have legal copies of Windows, but that doesn't give you the right to go bashing without the facts, or even more, without even seeing the finished product. We're custom system builders and always use good, name-brand RAM with our systems, and actually recommend ECC to certain clients based on their usage. We will have no qualms about following Microsoft's recommendation. Let me know when you find anything that is perfect.
 
So you want to pay 200-300 dollars for an operating system that is very much like what you can get today? That is your vision? I say come out with a revolutionary operating system that would make me WANT to upgrade, not because I have to or are supposed to. Give me a break with this vision stuff.

If windows XP does everything I want it to do, what reason is there for me to upgrade, tell me that? What is so damn compelling about Vista?

And I didn't go run out and buy Windows XP either, I just got it when I bought a cheapo Emachines for like 350 dollars after rebates, so why do I care about Vista. Hardware upgrades are moving at a much slower pace nowadays, then it was back then. And there isn't much need to upgrade, unless it is just a hobby or yours.

-Mark
 
he was correct stranger. vista is going to be much like XP, visually and otherwise. it's main implement will be to look nicer and be more secure, things i can already do with a theme pack and anti virus or anything linux. the idea that windows wants us to use more stable ram because they are too stupid and lazy to program anything that doesn't require a directx 9 graphics card, a gig of ram, a powerful processor and registered memory is insane. nobody is going to tell me that the memory i payed top dollar for is "low quality" and needs to be registered for the screw-offs over at microsoft to go ahead and get lazier with programming
 
Why an idiot ?

Because i see many people new to computers who try and get the best they can for 200€ ?
You know the type that make 800-950€ a Month working hard ?
And just want to Surf / DVD / Word ? Beginners

I had 95, The only reason i went to 98 was for the PnP & USB
The only reason i went to XP was to have an easy time our Lan Parties.
All my OS were either OEM or original (95-98-NT4-ME-XP).

Whats WinXP SP2 ?
A Win95 with PnP USB2 & LAN.

Does that Explain the 200MB -) 2GB Install or 32MB -) 256MB Ram ??
Or the Stress on the CPU ?

Take XP, Copy & Paste, add a nifty 3D interface, DRM and VOILA : VISTA !
(And double all the hardware requirements of course)



Please explain to me why i had to do 95-98-ME-XP just for that ?
(As an ex Gamer i did upgrade often, but what about the average joe ?)

New fuctionalities in OS are awesome.
But they should not come at the expense of hardware.

I am against the "Arms Race" Microsoft has decided to make with its OS.
 
that and its possible they will make us buy a new monitor! how retarded is that? in addition to possibly buying a server motherboard with ecc ram, i have to get a new monitor too possibly. and then theres the new format wars between dvd high def...its just pissing me off more and more...there won't be any new functions either, everything you need is already there, it will just be less screwy unlike XP without a bug every 20 lines of code. i might just switch to linux altogther, i am sick of this crap.
 
he was correct stranger. vista is going to be much like XP, visually and otherwise. it's main implement will be to look nicer and be more secure, things i can already do with a theme pack and anti virus or anything linux. the idea that windows wants us to use more stable ram because they are too stupid and lazy to program anything that doesn't require a directx 9 graphics card, a gig of ram, a powerful processor and registered memory is insane. nobody is going to tell me that the memory i payed top dollar for is "low quality" and needs to be registered for the screw-offs over at microsoft to go ahead and get lazier with programming
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand what the difference between a DX8 and a DX9 card. It's not a matter of horsepower as such.... DX9 cards have features which DX8 cards don't have. That's why for the full "Vista experience" you will need a DX9 card.

For all those mums and dads out there who just want to browse the web and send email..... They will be fine with a fairly low spec machine becuse Vista will still do all those things but just won't be as pretty.

The main thrust of Vista will be the interface. If you don't understand how important an interface is to the productivity of a user why don't you install windows 3.0 on your PC and see how easy it is to use when compared to XP.

It's called progression and evolution. Get over it!
 
i am well aware of that, as an intel extreme edition with directx9.0c is developed specifically for vista. however, i am more than certain you could do the same things on a directx7 chipset, and i think it is a bit accessive. you don't think the recommendation of ram is insane? what about the minimum requirement of a gigabyte, when xp only requires 128mb?
 
that and its possible they will make us buy a new monitor! how retarded is that? in addition to possibly buying a server motherboard with ecc ram, i have to get a new monitor too possibly. and then theres the new format wars between dvd high def...its just pissing me off more and more...there won't be any new functions either, everything you need is already there, it will just be less screwy unlike XP without a bug every 20 lines of code. i might just switch to linux altogther, i am sick of this crap.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? HDCP compliance isn't something that Microsoft is forcing on anyone. You just won't be able to get proper HD res without having a HDCP compliant display. Blame the movie makers for this......

It's uninformed dribble like yours that makes forums displeasurable to use :roll:
 
windows is still going along with it, rather than defending its current users. moving the blame to somebody else doesn't mean that microsoft isn't partly responsible.
 
i am well aware of that, as an intel extreme edition with directx9.0c is developed specifically for vista. however, i am more than certain you could do the same things on a directx7 chipset, and i think it is a bit accessive. you don't think the recommendation of ram is insane? what about the minimum requirement of a gigabyte, when xp only requires 128mb?
Click to expand...

Direct X is not a chipset at all either....... perhaps you need to Google the topic a little and understand what you're talking about.

Read the page below and tell me that as Direct X has progressed it hasn't transformed the way things are rendered on your screen......

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/13/new_3d_graphics_card_features_in_2006/

I don't see why the minimum requirements of operating systems should seemingly stand still for people who don't upgrade. If the hardware can handle it then someone is going to write software to exploit those capabilities. Sadly this is going to make older machines chug.... it's the nature of the PC

When we first got a PC in '92it has 2 megs of RAM, when we got another one in 98 it had 64, when I build my mum a PC in 2002 it had 256 megs, I built my PC in 2004 and it had 512 megs ... now it has 1 gig. It's progression. As hardware becomes faster, programs start to require more memory and use up more of your CPU's power if you're running an older machine.

Progression.... evolution... whatever you want to call it. It's good and you should get used to it instead of bashing it.
 
windows is still going along with it, rather than defending its current users. moving the blame to somebody else doesn't mean that microsoft isn't partly responsible.
Click to expand...

You don't understand do you :lol:

Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's built into the discs themselves that they must be displaying their image on a HDCP compliant screen to display at full HD resolution. If anything else is plugged in it's not going to display at full HD resolution.

Stop bashing Microsoft for something that's in no way their fault.
 
I am runing Windows Vista Beta 1 on my computer without any problems...

I have got:
Pentium 4 530 @ 3,82GHz
2x 512Mb Corsair DDR-400 @ 510MHz
GeForce FX5950Ultra 256Mb

It works great...
 
StrangeStranger,

I wasn't replying to your post at all, I was replying to mpjesse's post about how people who don't care about upgrading to Vista are Visionless.

Are any of you going to actually go out and buy Vista? I have never even bought a stand alone operating system, never had a need to. Why buy a windows stand alone OS for 80-200 dollars when you can get it in a manufactures PC for about 10-15 dollars? Maybe two or three years from now when I see a need to get Vista, I will probably just buy another computer. Fair enough? I'll say it again, Vista doesn't have anything compelling enough at this time to make me run out and buy a copy. When Microsoft does provide me something worth buying over windows XP I will buy it.

Whoever thinks Vista is so compelling, can you please tell me why? And please include specific features, don't just say, "because it is the next best thing is OS!!!!" Don't just upgrade for the sake of upgrading, that is kind of ignorant is it not? Have a reason at least.

-Mark
 
I am runing Windows Vista Beta 1 on my computer without any problems...

I have got:
Pentium 4 530 @ 3,82GHz
2x 512Mb Corsair DDR-400 @ 510MHz
GeForce FX5950Ultra 256Mb

It works great...
Click to expand...

I am running it on a
P4 2.8C
2x 512mb Kingston ValueRam
XFX 6600GT 256 AGP

Runs fine. This is hardly stupidly powerful hardware the last time I checked and handles the Beta version of Vista just fine.

I wouldn't upgrade for the sake of it but considering I'm allowed to use my work's volume licence at home I'd be silly not to...... IF the operating system offers substantial improvements over it's predecessor.

Anyway I have three hard drives in my PC and I can use two of them for OS's so I'm silly not to at least have a play around with Vista even if it is only in beta form.

I think upgrading to Vista for most people who consider themselves fairly savvy in the computer department will seem a little pointless at first but you'll wonder how you ever did without things in the first place. Just like you'll wonder how you ever did without a GUI in the DOS days 😉

BTW AK47..... you said that Vista will need a gig of ram. This is not true. You will only need 512mb to be Vista ready but older machines with 128mb of ram or 256 mb should still run. But you're silly if you ever buy in with the minimum specs because when it comes to being 2 years down the track your PC will be abysmally slow! Best to spend a little more and get something that will actally be Vista ready IMHO
 
yeah, im with you on that note. what makes vista worth 50 bucks more than xp pro?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The natural progression everyone is talking about is fine, but don't tell people who don't care about upgrading that they are wrong. They are just being an informed consumer and not some happy go lucky upgrader.

If you don't vote with your money, then Microsoft will keep coming out with a subpar product.

-Mark
 
Most of you are forgeting that Vista will not storm the market from PC gurus like the ones on this forum, but the average Joe User who buys his/her next Dell, HP, or whatever. Once the "home users" begin to buy new computers, the rest of us will not be far behind. Why? Because us guru's will want to be superior to mere mortals that buy $400 and $800 PCs. We want to rule the gaming universe. It won't happen immediately--I HATED XP, it "forced" you to run at 800X600 instead of 640X480 which for me was a big todo since I had no $$$ and my 14" CRT monitor was all I needed.

This sounds stupid, but trust me, in one year from now, all these stupid ridiculous claims will sound stupid as well. 64MB video card too much? Spend the $30 for the GeForce MX4000 or ATI X300 'n shut up. 512MB ECC RAM a frikin hardship? Buy Corsair non-ECC and shout in MS's face that it works fine. Shut up now until you know. You can buy a Vista-ready PC TODAY for only $500 easy. In two years you guys will have or want Vista for one reason or another, whether for DirectX10 or whatever else.

I'm not buying Vista right away either, I'll likely wait until at least SP1 (usually 6 months to a year after initial release). My point is you guys are throwing fits over nonsense you know little about. I'm not speaking of everyone who's posted--in fact mpjesse has the most sense of anyone posting here. Finally, remember we arent the only people who use computers--ignorant consumers will get Vista before you do, and most (not all) of us will ENVY them for it, mark my words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom