Can you run Vista?

Anonymous:

For an accurate Vista experience on a IBM XT, you'd have to downsample that screen shot to 2 or 4-bit monochrome.

raindog:

According to Microsoft, these are the minimum hardware specs you'll need in order to capably run Vista at a level where you have "a good experience."
Isn't it great when marketing and software development departments can work so closely together, even if that work is on a practical joke at the expense of those hapless consumers willing to waste half a day attempting to try load a new OS onto its qouted minimum hardware specs. There would be many adjectives used by those brave souls who dared, but I'd almost wager not one would use the word good to explain the experience.

Wyvern:

While it is a brilliant idea that Linux and Apple have been doing for years, UAC sucks in Vista. App writers still write as though everyone is an administrator.

I see most home users and may OEM builders turning this feature off in favour of user satisfaction. Domain life is still a headache because of UAC and, until we find a way of manipulating it so that users aren't asked for admin rights every time they want to scratch their nose, we won't be implementing it for at least 12 months.

With over 3000 policies to go through and working out what apps and plugins we use that require admin rights we have a long way to go.

As far as hardware goes, my test bed is a 2GHz HP. Although the video doesn't meet Aero specs it runs fine.

Anonymous:

Whats all the fuss about the minimum specs to run vista??? even the APC recomended Minimum specs are below average, I Dont know anyone that has a hard drive less ten 80 gig or is running any processesor slower than a P4 1.7 I'm sure that thee $500 PC I saw at Target would run Vista so bring it on I say.

FiretrUCK:

You mean that old PIII that I chucked out years ago with my 14" monitor is all I need for Vista....Damn it. If I was just a tight arsed, penny pinching, scummy scab, I would have an extra PC to load an OS that costs hundreds of times the value of such a PC. I think only Linux geeks hang onto ancient PC's such as the minimum spec for Vista.

bill_15:

Why should people blow there money just for a bit of the action. Seriously you pay over $2000 for all the computer parts compatible with vista. Your next problem is finding all the right drivers for all the hardware you bought. After discovering that vista cost like $1000 your even more angry. So i say that you might as well buy a top on the line computer that suits your needs.

Disgruntled:

Unix/Linux started the heavy handed user control in corporate environments. To some degree OS-X has always insisted that few users have access to it's inner workings as well. All the battles to keep ultimate control of our own machines out of our hands, like a Hal in 2001 Space Odessey. Robotic inhuman outlaw incapable of any rational common sense making all the decisions.

Now comes the newest and greatest force in denieing us access and complete use of our own computers. Microsoft's newest attempt to Robotically Control our systems without us ever knowing it. Yep they are too busy telling it's for our own good. They think they somehow know better what we should and shouldn't do with our own files on our own hardware.

Somehow Linux has in some ways progressed in the right direction of freedom and the others keep trying to convince us it's not our computer to do with as we wish. It's why Open Source was invented, so we the people who use computers can change them to fit us!

Vista is an afront to our freedom, especially in regards to it's UAC invasion, flimflam bamboozling, and other unneeded reconfiguring already screwed up enough. This system sees all users as nimwits incapable of making a decision not in line with our needs, but in line with controlling our machines via robotic remote control.

So we're constantly battling to gain control of our own data, yet allowing Microsoft themselves a freehand with it. Not only that, but because they are being so nosey and bossy with our systems many more of the criminals we want out, get in because of the doors they leave open for themselves!

Funny I have over 6 computers in my home. What I find interesting is that the 1.6ghz, AMD 512mgs, with Windows 98 is the fastest machine of the lot in running my windows applications. Next is my 2.8ghz P4, 1gig ram, WinXP and finally coming in last is my 3.4 ghz, 2gigs ram, running Vista! Why? Why is newer, faster, better slower, more complicated, strange and incapable allowing (the Owner) to access data and run programs like the owner, instead of an illegal alien on my own system????

I've tried to get used to just how terribly slow it is and how at every corner while attempting to access data you are met with a roadblock of some sort.

Finally I resorted to installing Sabayon 3.2 Linux for a dual boot machine. The difference between the two is amazing considering that both are sporting full tilt Eye Candy. Beryl/Xgl for Linux and Aeroglass on Vista! No doubt that Linux in this case wins hands down, simply in user friendlyness alone.

I rarely if ever boot into Vista now and the primary reason is not simply because Beryl/Linux is faster (which it is), but because it still has the most unbeatable security for allowing YOU access and keeping others out! The best part is it's a Free and Open system where the Owner has the only yes or no access to their data and programs.

Absolutely none of the added security for Vista is meant to protect us as much as it is to control us and lead to a state of Despotism garnered by Microsoft since it's inception by the theif and spoiled rich brat, Bill Gates!

V vs X:

I know, how good an 1,6 GHz Mac mini runs Mac OS X.
I tried with the Paralels test version Win XP.
Now the question, how does Vista work on Mac mini?
With the Mac OS X look or with Win XP look?

Anonymous:

Parallels Desktop For Mac Emulates something else instead of the specifications of the host computer. I think it emulates 1.5 GB of RAM and emulates other hardware.

Morgan:

Parallels really sucks - it is nowhere near the Virtual solution that vmWare or Virtual PC are.

So to really test Vista on a Mac Mini scenario you should use Boot Camp. My experience on a Core Duo Mac Mini with 1GB or RAM is that the OS is quite impressive. Now, I am not an OS zealot, so I won't say that Vista is Better/Worse than OS X - they are both just TOOLS afterall. But I will say that Vista runs very well on the Mac Mini. Even with Office 2007 the perfomance is snappy and quite usable.

Now if you really want ot see Vista rock - you should perform the same experiment on a Mac Pro. My Experience Index on my Mac Pro is 5.3 out of 5.9! And it actually runs many applications FASTER than the same apps on OS X (on the same machine).

Anonymous:

This has been my motto for every incarnation of Windows since 3.1

Take whatever Microsoft say are the basic specs required to run their OS and

DOUBLE IT..

The best rule of thumb i know of.