vista xp home question

I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

It is called dual-booting. The first step is to ensure that you have an available partition (target) on which to install Vista.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

Ok... I THOUGHT it might be dual-booting, but wasnt sure. I have never done that before though.... Will Vista give me this option? Or will I have to find out how to od this myself?
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

It is called dual-booting. The first step is to ensure that you have an available partition (target) on which to install Vista.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

If your current drive has only one partition (not counting any Restore Partition from the Manufacturer) on it you will need to repartition it using a third party software such as Partition Magic. BACK UP all your data first and then repartition your drive so that you have a fee partition of about 40GB. Once you have done that you can boot from the Vista DVD and go from there. Be aware that doing this MAY VOID any warranty you have from the laptop manufacturer.
Ted


"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

Ok... I THOUGHT it might be dual-booting, but wasnt sure. I have never done that before though.... Will Vista give me this option? Or will I have to find out how to od this myself?
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
It is called dual-booting. The first step is to ensure that you have an available partition (target) on which to install Vista.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

mm... new laptop... working fine... I'm kind of iffy on this whole thing now... Would there be any benefit of me installing Vista Beta and then applying the final version later?
"Ted Ruoff" wrote:

If your current drive has only one partition (not counting any Restore Partition from the Manufacturer) on it you will need to repartition it using a third party software such as Partition Magic. BACK UP all your data first and then repartition your drive so that you have a fee partition of about 40GB. Once you have done that you can boot from the Vista DVD and go from there. Be aware that doing this MAY VOID any warranty you have from the laptop manufacturer.
Ted


"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Ok... I THOUGHT it might be dual-booting, but wasnt sure. I have never done that before though.... Will Vista give me this option? Or will I have to find out how to od this myself?
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
It is called dual-booting. The first step is to ensure that you have an available partition (target) on which to install Vista.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

The only "advantage" to installing it now would be to play with it, learn it and report any bugs you find to help make the final product better. This is a Beta release and is not "ready for prime time". If you install it now you would have to format the partition and reinstall the released version when it comes out. Installing it is not something I would recommend doing just to do.
Ted
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

mm... new laptop... working fine... I'm kind of iffy on this whole thing now... Would there be any benefit of me installing Vista Beta and then applying the final version later?
"Ted Ruoff" wrote:
If your current drive has only one partition (not counting any Restore Partition from the Manufacturer) on it you will need to repartition it using a third party software such as Partition Magic. BACK UP all your data first and then repartition your drive so that you have a fee partition of about 40GB. Once you have done that you can boot from the Vista DVD and go from there. Be aware that doing this MAY VOID any warranty you have from the laptop manufacturer.
Ted


"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Ok... I THOUGHT it might be dual-booting, but wasnt sure. I have never done that before though.... Will Vista give me this option? Or will I have to find out how to od this myself?
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
It is called dual-booting. The first step is to ensure that you have an available partition (target) on which to install Vista.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

Any Beta software is meant as a test and should not be installed on a computer you actually use. Vista is very complicated, very incomplete and very short on drivers at the moment. The only benefit of installing a Beta O/S is for the manufacturer to have a wide source of testing.
You will most likely not have the option of Upgrading Vista RTM froma previous build.
-- Mark
Keeping the fun in dysfunctional! "thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

mm... new laptop... working fine... I'm kind of iffy on this whole thing now... Would there be any benefit of me installing Vista Beta and then applying the final version later?
"Ted Ruoff" wrote:
If your current drive has only one partition (not counting any Restore Partition from the Manufacturer) on it you will need to repartition it using a third party software such as Partition Magic. BACK UP all your data first and then repartition your drive so that you have a fee partition of about 40GB. Once you have done that you can boot from the Vista DVD and go from there. Be aware that doing this MAY VOID any warranty you have from the laptop manufacturer.
Ted


"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Ok... I THOUGHT it might be dual-booting, but wasnt sure. I have never done that before though.... Will Vista give me this option? Or will I have to find out how to od this myself?
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
It is called dual-booting. The first step is to ensure that you have an available partition (target) on which to install Vista.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I'm a pretty knowledgable teen with an advanced knowledge of computers... I am downloading hte Vista 32 bit version to install on my Turion 64 laptop, with 1GB of RAM, and a Radeon Xpress 200M (I think it is capable of 128mb if the RAM is shared... so, that is called 64mb shared I believe.. I could be wrong about that). Its got a 100GB hard drive. currently loaded is the XP Home that came with it. I am interested in installing the 32 bit vista as a second OS (NEVER done this, not sure what it's called, I only haev a general idea of how to do it). I'm assuming all I have to do is put the DVD in, and it will walk me through this, with an option of setting it up with the two OS installed. This is where the questions begin: Am I OK with this setup, and am I correct on how to do it? Just as important is my safety... If I do this, am I going ot be able to wipe out the Vista later on if I hate it? Or will I have to wipe EVERYTHING (both OS's)? I have also heard that Vista has some extreme problems with massive slow-downs. If I decide to use my XP one day, will having Vista on my computer affect the performance in ANY way of my XP?
Thanks in advance for your help (hoping you provide some).
Mike

There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test <insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:

There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test <insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

Folks kept asking for all this stuff. Now they are finding out what it takes to run it.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:
There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test <insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

Resource hog, possibly. "require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS " Not at all. My Vista computer is far from that and it works very well in Vista, but not the latest Vista build.
AMD 2400 1.5 GB memory NVIDIA FX 5500 256 MB AGP video card.
As always people should not upgrade operating systems unless there is a specific benefit expected. The vast majority should not upgrade to Windows Vista. Instead they should wait until a new computer is needed and get Vista with the computer.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:
There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test <insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

Well, it's said that, such a large company has to resort to providing those people with an example in order for the "folks" to realize what they are asking. They could've pointed it out, that what people want isn't REALLY what they want. But then again, it also seems like Microsoft ups its OS requirement standards each time it make an OS.
As for the top-of-the-line comment I made, I take it back... I didn't mean top-of-the-line, I meant that you had to get a powerful computer, even to todays standards. 256mb video card isnt what normally pacakges with most computers, at least not here in Southern Ontario... Its an add-on, or you must specifically choose a computer which is much more expensive and suited for video and photo editing. And same with anything over 1 GB of RAM.
Vista is a road-block in lowering computer hardware prices.
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:

Resource hog, possibly. "require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS " Not at all. My Vista computer is far from that and it works very well in Vista, but not the latest Vista build.
AMD 2400 1.5 GB memory NVIDIA FX 5500 256 MB AGP video card.
As always people should not upgrade operating systems unless there is a specific benefit expected. The vast majority should not upgrade to Windows Vista. Instead they should wait until a new computer is needed and get Vista with the computer.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:
There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test <insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

"it also seems like Microsoft ups its OS requirement standards each time it make an OS." That will almost certainly slow or even stop as soon as users stop demanding more from their computers. Until then, program manufacturers make programs that demand more resources that customers then demand on their computers. To a large degree, Microsoft and other manufacturers are simply responding to the demands of the customers. It is currently a never ending circle.
"Vista is a road-block in lowering computer hardware prices." I really doubt that. But we will have to wait and see what the prices for new computers with Vista will be.
Look in the various newsgroups and you will see many successfully using Vista with lesser machines than mine. Video of 128 is not uncommon and seems to work well. Many report success with as little as 64 bit.
Of course the lower the specifications, the less you will get. And some features such as Glass may not function properly. The person needs to determine if the lost features are important on a less than optimal configuration.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

Well, it's said that, such a large company has to resort to providing those people with an example in order for the "folks" to realize what they are asking. They could've pointed it out, that what people want isn't REALLY what they want. But then again, it also seems like Microsoft ups its OS requirement standards each time it make an OS.
As for the top-of-the-line comment I made, I take it back... I didn't mean top-of-the-line, I meant that you had to get a powerful computer, even to todays standards. 256mb video card isnt what normally pacakges with most computers, at least not here in Southern Ontario... Its an add-on, or you must specifically choose a computer which is much more expensive and suited for video and photo editing. And same with anything over 1 GB of RAM.
Vista is a road-block in lowering computer hardware prices.
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
Resource hog, possibly. "require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS " Not at all. My Vista computer is far from that and it works very well in Vista, but not the latest Vista build.
AMD 2400 1.5 GB memory NVIDIA FX 5500 256 MB AGP video card.
As always people should not upgrade operating systems unless there is a specific benefit expected. The vast majority should not upgrade to Windows Vista. Instead they should wait until a new computer is needed and get Vista with the computer.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:
There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

Where do you get it that MS "could've pointed it out, that what people want isn't REALLY what they want."?
What do think they are running in Redmond, the Psychic Hotline?
Are you using the same hardware you had in 2001? I have been through three generations of hardware since then.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

Well, it's said that, such a large company has to resort to providing those people with an example in order for the "folks" to realize what they are asking. They could've pointed it out, that what people want isn't REALLY what they want. But then again, it also seems like Microsoft ups its OS requirement standards each time it make an OS.
As for the top-of-the-line comment I made, I take it back... I didn't mean top-of-the-line, I meant that you had to get a powerful computer, even to todays standards. 256mb video card isnt what normally pacakges with most computers, at least not here in Southern Ontario... Its an add-on, or you must specifically choose a computer which is much more expensive and suited for video and photo editing. And same with anything over 1 GB of RAM.
Vista is a road-block in lowering computer hardware prices.
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
Resource hog, possibly. "require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS " Not at all. My Vista computer is far from that and it works very well in Vista, but not the latest Vista build.
AMD 2400 1.5 GB memory NVIDIA FX 5500 256 MB AGP video card.
As always people should not upgrade operating systems unless there is a specific benefit expected. The vast majority should not upgrade to Windows Vista. Instead they should wait until a new computer is needed and get Vista with the computer.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:
There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB

"Vista is a road-block in lowering computer hardware prices."
Not if you don't buy anything.
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" wrote in message

Well, it's said that, such a large company has to resort to providing those people with an example in order for the "folks" to realize what they are asking. They could've pointed it out, that what people want isn't REALLY what they want. But then again, it also seems like Microsoft ups its OS requirement standards each time it make an OS.
As for the top-of-the-line comment I made, I take it back... I didn't mean top-of-the-line, I meant that you had to get a powerful computer, even to todays standards. 256mb video card isnt what normally pacakges with most computers, at least not here in Southern Ontario... Its an add-on, or you must specifically choose a computer which is much more expensive and suited for video and photo editing. And same with anything over 1 GB of RAM.
Vista is a road-block in lowering computer hardware prices.
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
Resource hog, possibly. "require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS " Not at all. My Vista computer is far from that and it works very well in Vista, but not the latest Vista build.
AMD 2400 1.5 GB memory NVIDIA FX 5500 256 MB AGP video card.
As always people should not upgrade operating systems unless there is a specific benefit expected. The vast majority should not upgrade to Windows Vista. Instead they should wait until a new computer is needed and get Vista with the computer.
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org
"thunderstruck_302@hotmail.com" thunderstruck302hotmailcom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message I am cancelling my plans as I type this... I no longer plan on trying this, now that I see all the risks. Now, if I may state my opinion on Vista, from all the research I've done on its requirements:
Vista is a GIANT resource hog that will require home users to- a)buy a new powerful, top-of-the-line computer in order to run the new OS (even if they've splurged on a new computer in the last 2 years) or b)have spent atleast $1500 CDN in the last year (only at futureshop... about $2000 CDN anywhere else)
I have a pretty powerful laptop to todays standards (although the graphics card could be more "dedicated") with a Turion64 1.8GHz, and 1GB of RAM, 64mb dedicated and 64mb shared of video memory. According to the Vista Update Advisor and the minimum reqiurements tables I've seen, my laptops CPU and memory will take the Vista burden without complaining, but I will, in no way, experience AWESOME performance... But my video card is a different story... The Update advisor tells me that, to run windows aero and to enjoy the full benefits of photo editing, I will need a full 128mb (although, I'm trying to figure out whether it even realized that I have 128, half shared half dedicated). 128mb video card will JUST scrape a user by with the video requirements... That is TOO demanding. Does anyone else here think the same thing or have a reply to this?
P.s. This is just me venting steam on the resource-hogging OS we know as Windows Vista...
"Jimmy Brush" wrote:
There is no benefit to installing a Windows Vista Beta, except for the exhilaration of installing a beta OS, making it work, and finding bugs.
In fact, if you plan to eventually move to the Vista final release, installing the beta OS is probably a bad idea unless you have a good reason to do it, as I doubt you will be able to upgrade from beta to final.
Some words of wisdom: If you're new to this, and you want to test insert operating system here>, do NOT do it on your brand new shiny laptop.
- JB