Microsoft does provide reaslistic requirements and has vast testing programs befor realse.
Also Vistas GUI is more advanced than any other O/S

depends on your definition of advanced. For me, a CLI is more advanced then a GUI if i can do what i need faster, and with less hassle, well just have to see how advanced vistas GUI really is, or if its just advanced in terms of new, useless eye candy that only adware will ever make use of.

also, about hardware, what happened to requiring new $$ graphics cards? Doesnt vista need TC hardware, and some graphics card that supports some DRM display (i forgot its name, sorry), along with a new monitor that also supports the DRM?

I wouldn't be surprised, and that's why I'm not buying it.

Not true. My PC is a P4 1.7GHz with 256MB and 256Kb cache. All kinds of live-CD's run smooth as well.

Again not true. Here's what you can do:
1- Recompile the kernel
2- Swap to another hard disk (if available) or leave it in the outer sectors of your hard disk.
3- Use hdparm(8)
4- Recompile your apps.

You may use OSes / distros that make it easy for you to use compiled stuff: Gentoo, Slackware, {Free|Net}BSD

Windows isn't really multitasking. With Linux and FreeBSD I can burn CD's and at the same time download stuff, listen to MP3's and surf the web.

Not true. If you meant Windows can't do that. I do this all the time and never had a problem.

i have used M$ products since dos6.2 ... that includes win3.1, wfw, win95, nt 3.51, win98, NT4.0, winME, win2k, winXP, win2k3 ... probably someday vista

but still the best thing that ever happened in windows was linux. they have gone as far as they have with other peoples technologies. personally if i wanted a computer i wouldnt use windows, if i wanted marketing i would.

windows didnt even have an automatic updater till redhat did, i use to write my own auto updater in slackware. MS is like a little annoying kid with a rich daddy.


Time will tell and until then ill keep slackin!!!

It all depends on personal experience. I find Linux is slower than Windows on old computers and faster than Windows on newer computers. But that's just me. For what Windows does it does it very well. But if you want a customizable operating system you can do practically anything with then you should use Linux on a more powerful computer. Remember, things like IE load faster on Windows because they are integrated with the kernel. I don't want that on Linux so I have to deal with slower Firefox startup times. It's worth it, though. I don't view this in black-and-white. Windows does perform faster out-of-the-box on PCs. But remember: that speed is only present because of highly proprietary application setups.

Ok, rolled. I got it from a PC magazine.

Sorry greeklegend. It was not only aimed at you but there're a lot of members posting requirements for Windows Vista here. I have even seen higher requirements than yours actually

I think the word requiring is a bit too strong here. A feature should be more appropriated. What I mean is, there's a lot of peoples mixing what Windows Vista will _support_ with what it _requires_. If it's not on MS homepage, don't trust it. And even if it is, don't take it too seriously, because it's still in Beta stages.

That's a good example of personal taste. Some think it's faster to use CLI and edit one word like true to false in a 1000 lines text file. Others prefer to have a check box and do the exactly same thing. There's nothing right or wrong about using or not a GUI.

I used to love CLI. But lately I have to little time to do things I like and reading text files take a lot of time for me. Have to say, GUI is quite good and it can be faster in many cases and it's way more friendly for many users.

@everybody:

Don't be to upset if you can't or don't want to upgrade to Vista. Bill Gates is not knocking on anyones door and forcing you to pay for his new OS. There're a bunch of peoples still using Win2k and are quite happy with it (I'm one of those, running Win2K as a file server at home).

Also, keep in mind that a newer Operating System will push hardware requirements a little up. There's nothing new here and we just have to live with it. Are you still using your 14 CRT black and white monitor? Are you still using a 8-inch double sided floppy disk from the late 70's? I highly doubt it (indeed, there will always be one freak using those).

It's enteresting that back in 99, ID Software said that a 3D accelerated card was required to play Quake 3 and I never saw anyone complaining. When MS said(actually, not MS officially, just peoples in forums and bloggers) that a good video card _may_ be required, peoples start screaming all over the net-jungle.

Anyway, this is my last post in this thread. It's so anti-microsoft that its not even funny anymore. LQ.org could consider changing its slogan to: LQ.org - where Linux users come for help and bash Microsoft...

People need to look at it like this. Even thought MS has a rep of making a virus, adware, trojan.....piece of software, it still goes through extensive testing before a release. It is not possible for a company to think of every last possible thing that might happen before it's released. Linux users are a lucky group right now, because we are a minority in the OS world. If and when we get huge, there will be exploites in linux. There are alot of computer users who open emails and what not and just click to see what it is. Now picture those people using linux.?? Those people would also run as root, because of ignorance. Really there is nothing more to say to that.

I see your point, but at the same time (for me anyway) I really don't want to have to upgrade my hardware for the OPERATING SYSTEM. The OS is supposed to (again in my mind anyway) conform to my existing hardware in order to support/run/manage it. If I'm wanting to play a new game that's something totally different, I'm the one going out and trying to push my computer, I don't need my OS to be doing that at the same time. I realize that in order to support those games that my OS may need to be a little more robust than a DOS command line, but having to upgrade my hardware just to upgrade my OS when I have a perfectly working one already just seems a little off to me. Of course, those are just my

I agree that it sometimes is a little over the top, but what do you expect really? I try to keep a level head and remain objective about M$ when it comes to this kind of stuff, but there's a reason we're here. I agree that some of the senseless bashing really should stop, makes us all look like bitter anti-establishment wackos, (as a friend so eloquently put it to me one day ) but M$ should be taken to task just like anyone else when they overstep their bounds (poor word choice but that's all I can come up with at 11:30 on a Sunday morning ). They probably get bashed a little more here than they would at an M$ forum, but do you really think they look at us and aren't thinking the same thing? Again, must my

wtf?! that's b/s Mac OS X interface Aqua is well ahead Windows GUI, even compared to Vista. KDE 4 seems promising and Project Glass by Sun is the first project for a usable ZUI (search in wikipedia).

Yeah, I'd have to say Mac's is more advanced. It depends on what you mean by advanced. I'd tend to think KDE would be just as advanced if not more.

Anyhow, addressing the original question in this post, the reason Vista is being released so much later than the Linux distros (such as SuSE) is simply because of the difference in the way things are made between the two. Remember, Linux is open source, which means that there is a potentially larger number of developers and testers for it than there is for Microsoft. Linux follows the release often philosophy, and let users be able to test it, while windows keeps everything secret. When a major bug is found, a patch is created and sent via autoupdate.

To use a metaphor, Linux would be like a rubberband ball, while Windows a baseball. If there is a hole found in the baseball, windows will sew it up. The ball may look a bit more uglier, but at least it is still a baseball. If there is a hole in the rubberband ball, the rubberband is replaced by another rubberband, and the ball continues to grow. Often times a "Linux ball" is different from the other rubberband balls. It all depends on what is used to "make" the ball (yes, pun intended), such as a starting marble, multicolored rubberbands, and so on. If someone claims to have windows, then you know exactly what they have; a baseball. The ball doesn't change from user to user because it is made once for everyone.

It can be harder to test a baseball than it is a rubberband ball. Sure, they are both balls, and can be used for the same thing, but a baseball is something that more people are familiar with. Its use is very intuitive, and a newbie could pick it up and have a good idea on what to do. Because of this, several things are done to ensure that the baseball feels right, will curve the same way, ricochets off a bat, and still have the seams in place. A rubberband ball is not so intuitive. Yes, it's easy to make it bigger, but what exactly are you supposed to do with it? Fact is, you could do the same things with it as you do a baseball, but it's not going to be the same game. However, there is so much more you can use a rubberband ball for. Because of its bounce, you could attempt to play tennis with it, or ping pong if it's not too big. You could even just bounce it off a wall and catch it. Some people make their own and stick it on a shelf, just to prove to themselves and everyone else that they can do it.

So which one is better? The baseball is a standard made by a company, and probably costs some money if you head on over to a sporting goods store. The rubberband ball, while the bands themselves were made by someone, are further constructed by everyone around the world. Yes, you could buy some good quality rubberbands from the store at a much cheaper price than the baseball, or you could look around and find some rubberbands, and get your rubberband ball for free. With the baseball, you are stuck with it, playing baseball. With the rubberband ball, from its creation to its use, you have a choice, and while the rubberband ball will not replace the baseball, it is an alternative to it.