Windows XP - the OS that refuses to pass quietly into the night

[badass]

And that there is how 99% of people will get it (along with hardware more capable of running it).

The problem being that many manufacturers are releasing pocket calculators loaded with crapware with vista on them. This will not help som peoples impressions of Vista.
IMHO, for Vista, you should have 4GB RAM minimum and "modern" hardware.
My computer has run Vista X64 very nicely for the past 5 months. Mind you, it is a quad core with 4GB RAM

[Biscuit]

This will not help som peoples impressions of Vista.
IMHO, for Vista, you should have 4GB RAM minimum and "modern" hardware.

Well both my flatmate and have run 2gb near enough since it was released and had no problems. Everyone moans about vista eating ram but in actual fact it just uses it much more efficiantly. Yeash there is a lot more crap on vista but it still works just as well on 2GB for me.

[digit]

I'd agree with what you have said there. I would say though 1 gig is simple not enough for Vista. I ran that for about a year after its release on MSDN:AA and it was very sluggish compared to my current setup.

[AndrewJ]

I think end of the day it comes down to personal preference, on how you use a pc, and what you do with it.

[Agent]

Gates: Windows 7 may come 'in the next year' | Beyond Binary - A blog by Ina Fried - CNET News.com

[pauldarkside]

Gates: Windows 7 may come 'in the next year' | Beyond Binary - A blog by Ina Fried - CNET News.com

I've not read that particular article but have read about it elsewhere. My guess would be that if Windows 7 came out "in the next year" and taking into account their track record of closed/public testing (I've participated in XP/Vista and Server 2003/WHS releases along with various Office versions) it'd have to be nearing the beta phase soon. There's no real word on that yet though.

[Agent]

Unclear is whether Gates was referring to early testing of Windows 7 coming within the year, as opposed to a widespread release or debut. An early test geared toward developers would be conceivable.

Who knows - either way, its come from the horses mouth directly, so to speak, so we should expect something within a year by the looks of it.

[AndrewJ]

Tells me they did release Vista as nothing more than a stop gap until Seven come out.

[badass]

Well both my flatmate and have run 2gb near enough since it was released and had no problems. Everyone moans about vista eating ram but in actual fact it just uses it much more efficiantly. Yeash there is a lot more crap on vista but it still works just as well on 2GB for me.

The reason I say 4GB is simple. There was a noticable speed increase when I upgraded my system from 2 to 4GB. This might be because I'm using x64 and that needs a lot more memory anyway. Also, its now as little as £50 for 4GB

[kalniel]

Tells me they did release Vista as nothing more than a stop gap until Seven come out.

That'll be why they spent so much money on it then

[Agent]

Hey, for all we know at this current stage, Windows 7 could be what Windows ME was to Windows 98se

[Biscuit]

Hey, for all we know at this current stage, Windows 7 could be what Windows ME was to Windows 98se

It will have a lightly prettier logo too then

[pauldarkside]

Who knows - either way, its come from the horses mouth directly, so to speak, so we should expect something within a year by the looks of it.

Well it'll give me something new to play with anyway. I'm interested in seeing what they manage to get into 7 (and keep unlike Longhorn/Vista)

[digit]

I'm really wanting Win FS to appear in Windows 7.

linky: WinFS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was a bit annoyed that it was pulled from Vista. From the little I know / understand of it, it looks to be a far better file system. I can't myself see Windows 7 as being more then Vista +. Much of the same underlying features and coding of vista, it will almost certainly look the same to Vista as well if the video's floating about are to be believed.

[dangel]

WinFS is MS' holy grail - it's a bugger to implement but would (probably) be amazing nonetheless. One thing I'll pull you up on - it's not a file system - NTFS would still be running underneath. Think of it more as a metadata layer (it's a database in part at least) for organising the relationships between files rather than as a storage medium.

[Craig321]

Read more.

Good to here they actually know that Vista (and agree (in a roundabout way)) doesn't run too well on older machines

I still don't understand why so many people are against Vista, I bet more than half of them haven't even tried it. Unfortunately it's the way a lot of people have made it seem.#

Unfortunately it's the way people are. If something works for them they don't praise it much, but if something doesn't work they will post and post about it until everyone think it's a bad product.

The reason I say 4GB is simple. There was a noticable speed increase when I upgraded my system from 2 to 4GB. This might be because I'm using x64 and that needs a lot more memory anyway. Also, its now as little as £50 for 4GB

That's probably because Vista was able to use your RAM more efficiently for the operating system services and also for superfetching programs.

There is no drawback for Vista using more memory. The memory that's used for Superfetch is simply overwritten when needed.

A lot of people think Vista using more memory is bad. If you look at Windows 2000 it uses some small amount like 60MB of RAM when it's first installed. XP uses ~120MB. It's just increasing as the times move on. Computers have more RAM so more RAM will be used.