News Vista RC2 on Friday?

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/03/Vista_RC2_on_Friday/

 

So its only for beta testers etc... and your asking if we are looking forward to getting it from somewhere? lol
Not really, I wont be getting it, don't have the hardware to run it. What I am looking forward to is the final release, as by that timme I should have a rig.
A question for those who have used it, What does it run like with games compared to XP?

 

i am an msdn subscriber and my key will let me test on 10 computers


"insert grovel here"

 

do you have 10 pcs that can run vista?

 

Of course

 

i had rc1 for about 15mins. got bored of it and removed it, needed the hdd space to backup stuff.

 

DIE VISTA!!!!!!

*more serious note*
Vista is not the worst operating system we have ever seen. But it could quickly become another windows ME.... Until microsoft officially drops support for XP and then well after I shall continue using it. If anyone thinks they have a good argument for using Vista let us all know. Until then XP will run faster on all of my machines. And increase HDD lifetime as far as I am concerned.

 

How can you make that assumption on a beta OS compared to an OS that already has 2 service packs?
What evidence have you got that the final version of Vista is going to be slower on your PC hardware?

 

hmmmmm.... high minimum specs.

 

whats with the my hdd will die sooner comment?

i doubt ms would get away with throwing in a hardware killin app just to make some more money for the hdd manufacturers

 

Well it's not always that simple you see. For instance, if you compared to identical specification computers, that meets the minimum requirements of Windows Vista, and one of them is running Windows XP and the other Windows Vista, the computer running Vista would run faster due to several reasons which there isn't enough time for me to go through.

 

do i smell a conspiracy? and do i smell the bs? maybe..... maybe not..... only bill and EK-MDi knows.

 

What evidence? heh... It is slower on my pc. I have a p4 3.0E and 1gb of corsiar xms. Thats all the evidence I really need...

Also service packs be darned. If vista had released when it was supposed to it would already be on its first service pack. Furthermroe XP vanilla seemed to run smoothly as well. Just updated security features and added wireless support.

I beta'd XP when it was whistler and I was really excited about it. Ran great on the hardware I had at the time. Cannot say the same for vista on my current hardware at the time.

Windows XP runs like a charm on my IBM Thinkpad a20m 700mhz 512mb ram. 1/4 the processor speed, half the ram? and it runs great?

Unless I am totally wrong the more you use an HDD the quicker it will eventually start to develop bad sectors, start to fail. With vista my HDD was being used 4x as much as when I run XP.

 

Yes, but you see... release candidate isn't the same thing as a beta. And what build was it at the time when you were testing out Vista? Beta?

 

I completely agree that RC is not the same thing as beta. I have tried to play with every release of vista to see when/if it gets better, rc1 much improved still lacks, rc2 will make up my mind

I am not bashing vista 100% Just bringing to light my experiences with it.

 

I'm gonna try and get a copy of RC2 from one of the MSDN subscribers at work. I've been testing Vista since Beta 2 on my media center test rig and I've seen improvements with each new release. However, the media center parts of RC1 seemed to run worse for me than they did in Beta 2, so I'm hoping MS have fixed those problems.

 

Once I buy my new right next year with DX10 support. I will be using XP at first but I will also have a seperate HDD for vista to test games.
I understand DX10 will run better on vista and I am sure when we all have fully supported hardware then it would run great.
I am just going to wait for peopel to figure out how to turn off all the crap that vista will probably come with before I start to use it as my main.

 

Well I have to say your pc aint setup right somewhere. I have a P4 3.2EEGhz with 1Gb of Corsair and ATI 9800 and I find Vista runs a lot more smoothly than XP i have also noticed better performance in games, wheter this is in part due to DX10 someway running DX9 code better I do not know.

But I will be trialling this out next week, and for one will get it when it comes out since I find it is a improvment over XP for a few of following reasons:

It boots quicker
Installs quicker
More secure in terms of stopping tardish users from breaking it
More secure network stack than a standard XP install

Perhaps if Vista had been released on time then maybe it would be in its first SP but who cares, Id rather them get the bugs iroend out first, while granted some will make it to RTM I would like you to show me a single peice of software that has never been patched/updraded withing the same point release.

From a business point of view we have been evaluating it, and when you revert it to the 2K menu style and apperence it seems to run slightly better than XP on the Dell GX100 and Optilex 150/170s we have here.

Kimbie

 

Ok, lets sort this out:

It's slower? A beta, non final release is slower. FYI: XP was slower than 98se for a good 6 months after it was released until drivers matured. You're only using a single gig of ram and a single core CPU. Vista is built for multi gigs of ram and a "highly" threaded OS. Many people are reporting Vista is as fast as XP in gaming.

What were you running in 2001 when XP was released? I bet a 700MHz CPU and 128meg of ram cost the same as some high end stuff now.

Your harddisk theory is nonsense. Compared to people who use 95% of their harddisks you're more likely to have your PC suffer a lightening strike.

XP was an evolution of win2k, (nt 5.1 versus 5) there was nothing to be excited about, unlike Vista which has lots of new features and is a whole new NT evolution (6.0). Incidently XP only took until build 2600 to make it to retail, whereas Vista is currently on 5800ish.

It's commonly known that an MS OS usually needs 2 service packs to really become usable: NT4, win2k, XP all became more user friendly after their SP2s.

 

An HP with a 1.5ghz p4, 256mb pc2100

I get your points bindi, but I guess it all has to do with they eye of the beholder. My IBM made in 1999 runs XPsp2 like a champ without a hitch. Boots just as fast and runs just as smooth as it would for its designed os windows 98se.

Just because my PC is setup differently than yours does mean it is setup wrong. Recall windows ME running perfect on some machines and having a BSOD every day on others.