Windows Vista a reason to buy ECC memory?

This morning, we have posted an article about Microsoft's decision to gently recommend ECC memory for computers that come preinstalled with Vista. The benefit, according to Microsoft, is to receive a much more stable operating system.

What do you think? Is Windows XP not stable enough today and is it worth to upgrade to ECC for a more stable OS?

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

I thihk it is a continuation of the recent and quite alarming trend with MS.

In essence, they are extending their OS [virtual] monopoly into the hardware realm, thus really reducing consumer choice.

It began with the insanely steep hardware requirements (most notably, graphics) that would most likely cause people that would like to upgrade the OS upgrade their systems at some significant cost, then it affected teh next gen DVD format war, and now it is expanding into other areas of the system.

Plus, the DRMs that they are pushing are quite insane as well. I think I recall at some point they were proposing monitors with DRM?! So now users need to upgrade that, as well.

I think any shifts in the hardware markets should be driven by the hardware market, and not some OS gimmickry. If there is an argument to be made for natural monopoly in the OS segment, it definitely should not extend to hardware.

Reply to russki

If it's required, yes. But I think it's actually insane that Microsoft expects us to buy special hardware, just because they're too lazy to finish their software properly.

Reply to Heyyou27

Are you mad??? In what possible way would M$ benefit by forcing (or recommending) that people use ECC memory? Last I checked M$ doesn't make memory nor do they own an significant shares/interests in memory.

Everyone makes ECC memory. The statement that it somehow benefits M$ (both financially and strategically) to make people use ECC memory is insane.

Quote :

It began with the insanely steep hardware requirements (most notably, graphics) that would most likely cause people that would like to upgrade the OS upgrade their systems at some significant cost, then it affected teh next gen DVD format war, and now it is expanding into other areas of the system.

I think any shifts in the hardware markets should be driven by the hardware market, and not some OS gimmickry. If there is an argument to be made for natural monopoly in the OS segment, it definitely should not extend to hardware.

Hey, last time I checked every single computer sold in the world has some some sort of 3D acceleration. Every computer sold in the past 4 years has 3d acceleration. Explain to me how M$ has made this so! And please show me the "steep hardware requirements" that will be required to run Avalon. Do you even know what the minimum requirements are??? Probably not so I'll post them below.

An AGP or PCI-e video card with 64MB of VRAM. Wow... so steep. And even if some people don't have this, M$ has stated Vista will run in 2D mode w/ a WinXP look just fine. Here is a list of compatible chips/cards from ATI/nVidia/Intel:

http://www.ati.com/technology/windowsvista/index.html
http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_home.html
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/ [...] /index.htm

The evolution to a 3D accelerated GUI is a natural one. It's a complete waste of talent NOT to use 3D acceleration.

Quote :

In essence, they are extending their OS [virtual] monopoly into the hardware realm, thus really reducing consumer choice.

Please explain to me how M$ has a vritual monopoly in the hardware realm. Really, I want to know.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

I for one see this is a good thing.

Naturally, quality RAM is going to be almost as good as ECC memory. But the problem is the majority of system builders put cheap, crappy memory in the systems they sell. (the exception of course would be Dell, Gateway, and all the big boys- they tend to use name brand stuff)

Since system builders will never voluntarily put good memory in their systems, M$ wants them to use ECC. With ECC you can have it both ways- cheap memory with added stability. The price of ECC will fall as demand and production increases. It appears to me that M$ is trying to make system builders a little more accountable for stability.

Why is that bad?

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

this make me more...more...hated with Ms/vista. what are they thinking?. forcing people to buy this and that....upgrade this and that. just to load their junk. with all nonsense requirement....is vista worth of upgrade?. can vista run on laptop ?(as they stated "compatible vista laptop" ). with the insane requirement, can the laptop run in mobile mode (cpu with 800MHz) while preserving batery?.....I don't think so :evil:

Reply to zefiris2K5

Quote :

This morning, we have posted an article about Microsoft's decision to gently recommend ECC memory for computers that come preinstalled with Vista. The benefit, according to Microsoft, is to receive a much more stable operating system.

What do you think? Is Windows XP not stable enough today and is it worth to upgrade to ECC for a more stable OS?

Interesting how some speculate and act as if the speculation was pure gospel (refering to some of the uninformed replies). Anyways, I am speculating here, but it is my professional opinion that MS is doing this not because Vista needs ECC memory, but because ALL modern memory needs to be ECC. Back when memory modules where 256MB and less, non-ECC memory was fine. Fact is anything 512MB or larger *NEEDS* to be ECC to run stable. Chances are you are getting dozens of memory errors a day but they just go unnoticed as they rarely affect vital data. Memory needs to be ECC because it is getting larger. Even XP is less stable with my two 1GB RAM sticks than it was with a single 512MB stick. Faster, but less reliable. Just my opinion though.

Reply to bourgeoisdude

I have built about 20 systems with the AMD Athlong 64/Opteron platform and I never found the required ECC on the Opterons to provide any better stability than Corsair Non ECC memory. I have not noticed a difference between buffered and non buffered. NUMA is freaking cool, but programs crash or ignore avalible memory. Getting good code, stil seems like a harder proposition than getting good software. It is as such that I think MS has other reasons for the memory soft requirement.

I think this requirement is for other reasons:
1.)encryption keys stored only in ram
if windows vista is all about security and stability, it would make sense that some of these hardware keys are stored in ram, and they are accessed alot. It is just a guess, but I also think MS might be thinking about storing programs in an encrypted memory space making it really hard to hook code from another application. Things like these are already being done on MS's xbox consoles. It wouldn't suprise me if some of that will filter its way into Vista.

2.)non execute bits
i still kinda wonder how the NX bit works, but from what i know, the NX bit must be stored in memory before being sent to the processor for execution, if an NX bit was set in error or intentionally on a buffer overflow section of memory, I could be used to hook other processes. This could be another step in securing the software of an OS from easy hardware hacking.

3.)quick boots on laptops
it is another guess, but a likely one that as Intel and AMD make the push for INSTANT ON computing, a feature in Vista, they have found that to skip the step of reloading memory from the hard drive requires better memory for maintaining a system state. I still have not gotten a gaming box to work correctly with a suspend mode(its like a ram only hibernate) vs hibernate that writes to the hard drive and then shuts down.

4.)this could be a prerequirement for flash ram
agian, INSTANT ON computing, is a big movement right now and as flash memory merges with other memory types and serves as a cross gap between ram and hard drives, this ECC requirement might be a puch now for the XP version of Vista.

I don't plan on getting Vista at this point, DirectX 10 cards are not yet avalible and all of the new features will take some time to sort out. I will continue to evaluate it as a MSDN developer, but Mac OS X seems like a more usefull OS to learn, as it can bridge the gap between a working gui and linux/bsd platform with suported software on it.

Reply to jDavid_net

I'm sorry, were we reading the same article? Where does it say M$ is forcing anyone to do anything?

They are merely suggesting system builders use ECC.

Sheesh... chill out.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

I have built about 20 systems with the AMD Athlong 64/Opteron platform and I never found the required ECC on the Opterons to provide any better stability than Corsair Non ECC memory.

Yes, you are right. Corsair memory (even the cheap stuff) is probably just as good as ECC.

The problem is this: the majority of the computers sold with Windows XP use CRAP, GENERIC, CHEAP memory. Nearly no system builder ships their system with corsair! The only builders who do that are builders like Alienware who make up .001% of the market.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

I would REALLY like to see MS make it so I can tell what components are responsible for some random crashes. Granted, crash frequency is infrequent, but diagnosing the cause (Memory, video card mem, other hardware, etc) is still near impossible for some those odd crashes that leave absolutely nothing in the event logs or information that is otherwise useless for me the "user". I can't help but wonder if memory is getting a bad rap here. Its would seem much more likely the more complex components would be more prone to failure than the (relatively) simple memory sticks. (History of failures seem to point to this, too as, generally speaking, complexity fails and simplicity succeeds)

(just a scan through my event log pulled these 2 prime examples)

Event Type: Error
Event Source:
Event Category: None
Event ID: 0
Date: 11/1/2005
Time: 6:27:03 PM
User: N/A
Computer: G
Description:
The description for Event ID ( 0 ) in Source ( ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. You may be able to use the /AUXSOURCE= flag to retrieve this description; see Help and Support for details. The following information is part of the event: 6.
Data:
0000: 3f 3f d1 2a e3 ee 92 2d ??Ñ*ãî’-
0008: ae 39 d9 22 ee e9 9a e5 ®9Ù"îéšå
0010: 2e 2f c1 3a f3 f1 82 3d ./Á:óñ‚=
0018: e9 22 8d 32 f9 f9 8a 35 é"?2ùùŠ5
0020: 1f 1f f1 0a af bf f6 0a ..ñ.¯¿ö.
0028: 82 e0 eb 02 d7 c9 ba 05 ‚àë.×Éº.
0030: 6a 22 b8 f7 63 26 b0 1d j"¸÷c&°.
0038: 06 07 e9 12 cb f4 f3 f8 ..é.Ëôóø
0040: 41 7f 90 6a a3 a1 d2 6d A?j£¡Òm
0048: 76 77 99 62 ab a9 da 65 vw™b«©Úe
0050: 6e 6f 81 7a b3 b1 c2 7d no?z³±Â}
0058: 66 67 89 72 bb b9 ca 75 fg‰r»¹Êu

Ohhhhhh here's another one of my favorites...

Event Type: Error
Event Source: System Error
Event Category: (102)
Event ID: 1003
Date: 2/5/2006
Time: 12:44:38 PM
User: N/A
Computer: G
Description:
Error code 1000007f, parameter1 00000008, parameter2 f788ed70, parameter3 00000000, parameter4 00000000.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 53 79 73 74 65 6d 20 45 System E
0008: 72 72 6f 72 20 20 45 72 rror Er
0010: 72 6f 72 20 63 6f 64 65 ror code
0018: 20 31 30 30 30 30 30 37 1000007
0020: 66 20 20 50 61 72 61 6d f Param
0028: 65 74 65 72 73 20 30 30 eters 00
0030: 30 30 30 30 30 38 2c 20 000008,
0038: 66 37 38 38 65 64 37 30 f788ed70
0040: 2c 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 , 000000
0048: 30 30 2c 20 30 30 30 30 00, 0000
0050: 30 30 30 30 0000

Gotta love this:
http://www.anetforums.com/posts.aspx?ThreadIndex=29710

So I should replace my memory AND my video card and if that doesn't fix it AND my sound card and if that doesn't fix it AND my motherboard... jeeze. gimme a break. I prefer MS helping me determine what part is failing. Increase my ability to make educated CHOICES as opposed to baby proofing (aka nerfing) my system.

side note: memtest86 had seven flawless passes (non ECC) and i'm not about to go about buying random parts to replace what may or may not be failing... see my point?

Reply to grifonik

Last time I checked you'll aslo need 2 gigs of RAM too, and those graphics will require at least 256mb card. Sounds like a new motherboard and some nice expensive RAM. After service pack 12 though I think I'll look into getting it.

Reply to offgreen

Quote :

I would REALLY like to see MS make it so I can tell what components are responsible for some random crashes. Granted, crash frequency is infrequent, but diagnosing the cause (Memory, video card mem, other hardware, etc) is still near impossible for some those odd crashes that leave absolutely nothing in the event logs or information that is otherwise useless for me the "user". I can't help but wonder if memory is getting a bad rap here. Its would seem much more likely the more complex components would be more prone to failure than the (relatively) simple memory sticks. (History of failures seem to point to this, too as, generally speaking, complexity fails and simplicity succeeds)

The problem with linking between programs is it is sometimes hard to determine what the error is, and what caused it. At the kernel/process/embedded level of programming, program opperations perform executions related to memory addresses and the data that is directly in them. Hardware typically writes to and from memory using a DMA channel and is prompted from another software thread running on another asyncronous hardware element, and so if one piece of hardware or a driver missinforms the hardware, it will write to the wrong memory location without leaving a trail. The memory does not know who wrote the data, and so an exception is thrown. DLLs have the same problem, and as far as the OS is concerned they are asyncronous(event driven). Windows used a shared system memory space for OS and for program execution until windows NT.

In the switch to NT and later to XP(the latest version of the NT kernal) programs are virtualized by the operating system to run in a logical rather than a physical memory structure, meaning that when a program calls for a memory address, it is not a real one, it is one that has been replaced at run time with the actual memory address. All of these moving addresses makes it hard to determine who made an async call that wrote to the wrong memory. The error might have been made along time ago by a program, only to be executed by a program that does not run that often.

Moving to a registerd hardware enviroment(where hardware has encryption certs) will allow MS to restrict memory to legal actions based on hardware that has been certified by MS to work, the only problem being that if your key is transcoded wrong, the hardware will not be allowed to access system memory.

Agian I think this is just an assertion from MS that good memory is critical for windows to not break, I agree, but I don't think ECC is the answer, GOOD memory is. I bought value ram once, and my systems started crashing, I replaced it with Corsair and what do ya know, the computer work flawlessly. These days I would rather skimp on CPU power than on RAM.

Its also a way for MS to pass the buck on to the system builders, by asking "did you use ECC mem?" "oh, no, oh, it must be your problem we will not support it"

In one instance I built a computer with some stability issues and the MB company blamed the PS company, and then the PS company blamed the MB company only to find out that the Memory was the issue.

Reply to jDavid_net

Hey I have a brilliant idea, why not just keep windows XP and not bother with Vista at all? It's not like you really need it, come on now. Why spend all that money when windows XP can do most everything you want it to.

-Mark

Reply to maliszewski

Another thing to think about is that as memory goes from an average system size of 2GB to 32GB durring the life time of Windows Vista, and a production size of 65nm to 22nm the expected error rate of even good RAM may be an issue.

Reply to jDavid_net

Quote :

Last time I checked you'll aslo need 2 gigs of RAM too, and those graphics will require at least 256mb card. Sounds like a new motherboard and some nice expensive RAM.

Holy crap are you WAY off base. M$ says this directly from their Vista hardware requirements page:

Quote :

Memory
To take better advantage of Windows Vista functionality, you should have at least 512 MB of RAM, on your PC. This provides enough memory for both the operating system and a typical application workload. And while 512 MB is great for many scenarios, more advanced users will want 1 GB of memory or more. If your typical workload is heavy, you do a lot of image editing or development, or you run multiple applications all the time, then more memory is good. In general, an investment in additional memory is wise, and you should certainly make sure that the computer you buy has room to add additional memory later.

Quote :

If you are building or buying PC today, you probably want to avoid the low end of the current GPU range and make sure you get a GPU that supports DirectX 9 and has at least 64 MB of graphics memory.

Why don't actually try READING or googling before making such reckless statements. People in here actually believe what other people say in these forums.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/w [...] dware.mspx

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Dear all...

Oh man, 2 sticks of 512 non-ECC PC3200 are already way off lots of people's budget, and if ECC is gonna be more expensive and slower than non-ECC i think i'm gonna stick to XP until everything drops in price.

Reply to eyimbo

In my humble opinion, Vista is going to be a bit of a disappointment to M$, mainly becuase there isn't a lot of reasons to upgrade until they force you. From what I have seen (And I admit, I haven't been paying much attention, cause I don't plan on buying it), there are only minor improvements that aren't worth the hassle of changing OSes.

Reply to hergieburbur

I know, I always get like this before a M$ OS release, cause I know half of what they say will turn out to be completely inaccurate once the OS is released and the real enthusiasts get their hands on it.

I will probably find a way to evaluate it anyway.

Reply to hergieburbur

oh my gawsh ...MS made me upgrade my 8086 computer.

how i miss that godly device.

*sniffle*

Reply to redStar

LOL

Thank god the world isn't controlled by visionless people.

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Thats not what I was getting at at all. I would have no problem running Vista with what I've got. I am saying that with XP (at least after SP1) we got the best of 98 and 2000 combined. With Vista, I see no reason to upgrade and deal with everything they are dictating, nor the whole new batch of bugs, driver troubles, and general issues associated with it. I am sure I will test it out when its released as my second os, since I will probably be completely on XP x64 by then, I am just not going to spend any additional money on hardware to get it.

Maybe I'll make them get me a new laptop at work when it comes out :wink:

Reply to hergieburbur

"ECC is recommended"
"64/128 MB GPU recommended"
"1GB Ram recommended"
"20 GB HDD recommended"

I wonder what will happen to the "simple PC" you can build today ?
200 250€ Computers sold like Candy in france around christmass.
(60GB / 512 Ram / Sempron or Celeron)

Hell even Dell makes these :
http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/ [...] l=fr&s=dhs

Why ?
1) Surf / Download
2) DVD / Audio
3) Word / Excel

The only reason for M$ for this arms race is :
- Special deals with hardware manufacturers (very plausible)
(We all know how mass distribution and reverse discout works)
- DRM Management
(No comment needed there)

There have been ZERO improvement from 95 to XP SP2.

ECC ? Gimme a break

Reply to DASTRAL

I don't see this affecting the overcost as much as the basic requirements of vista.

I think that an OS that you can use in a "full bells and whistles" mode is good as a lot of poeple have very powerful computers these days and I see no reason why the OS should not give something to these users.

The fact that Microsoft have included a WinXP style for lower spec systems is a great idea and should help people transition.

Microsoft are in no way forcing people to use ECC but they're saying if you do you can expect a more stable experience. Sounds fair enough to me.

BTW my current main Rig has 2GB ECC corsair RAM

Reply to f0cus

Quote :

LOL

Thank god the world isn't controlled by visionless people.

-mpjesse

mpjesse is completely right. I've been reading this forum for a while now and find it quite funny how people post absolute rubbish and try to pass it off as fact.

The company I work for build their own clone machines and sells these alongside the corporate versions of HP/Compaq's. Our machines use cheap crappy RAM whereas the HP's use good quality RAM. Our clones are a fair bit cheaper but use cheap shoddy RAM and break down a lot more....

Guess what most of the problems with our units are.... you guessed it... failed RAM :roll: Personally I wouldn't put anything other than Kingston ValueRam or Corsiar Value Select in a system.

P.S mpjesse I salute you for putting up with people like this and staying civil :wink: At least you recognise that jumping on the M$ bashing bandwagon is not cool unless it's justified.

Reply to 306maxi

My understanding is that, from a business' point of view, it is in Microsofts best interest to bring the price of required hardware down. I think that they raised the recommended specifications to enhance the user experience in general. It has always been an advantage for Apple to be able to know exactly what kind of hardware OSX will be running on and people really liked OSX.

And when did overclockers start caring about the "Vista Ready" logo or the recommended specifications, let alone "soft requirements". Vistall will still run on non-ECC.

Even cheap machines with crappy on baord everything will probably still run Vista as good as they could run XP.

Reply to AhmadH

I'd love to know how many of you Microsoft lambasters actually have legal copies of Windows. You steal then complain about it, or in this case, complain about it before you even steal it. No one holds a gun to your head to use anything from Microsoft. Go use Linux, then post your complaints to the open source community who will fix everything and make all of your dreams come true. My apologies to all who have legal copies of Windows, but that doesn't give you the right to go bashing without the facts, or even more, without even seeing the finished product. We're custom system builders and always use good, name-brand RAM with our systems, and actually recommend ECC to certain clients based on their usage. We will have no qualms about following Microsoft's recommendation. Let me know when you find anything that is perfect.

Reply to INeedCache

Quote :

I wonder what will happen to the "simple PC" you can build today ?
200 250€ Computers sold like Candy in france around christmass.
(60GB / 512 Ram / Sempron or Celeron)

dastral you are an idiot. if you think back only a couple of years even, there is no way the system you describe could be bought for that money, why?. the reason is that as always, newer products have come out and forced the price down of other products. if you use a bit of foresight you will realise that mid- low end technology that is required to run windows vista will become the ultra low end tech that you speak of.

people like you probably go with the pcworld view. i.e instead of offering a wide range to suit everybodys range they offer comps that they think the public thinks they want. may sound a strange thing to say but i once seen this in a shop. amd athlon 3800+, 512mb ram, 128mb shared graphics and 300GB's of hard drives. now tell me this would it not better if it was a sempron or at least a 3000+ and if it had 1GB of ram, a dedicated 128mb graphics card and only a 80gb hard drive.

sorry to digress from the topic at hand but i think that system builders should cater to all tastes and offer all round low, mid, or high end machines and not mostly one kind with one part of a different quality to catch peoples eye. heaven forbid microsoft for trying to get people to by the right hardware to run the program rather than the hardware forced on them by mainstram computer retailers. run a stable system, god what an outrageous thng to do!!!!!.

another thing i'd like to say to any body who doesnt like progress is that i personally want to see everything as good as it can be. sure things should be scalable but the cap on things should be set by the high end tech not the low end mainstream. i dont mean just in games but in all apps. this sort of attitiude would not be accepted in a game so why should windows be crucified for moving with the times. no one is forcing them to upgrade anyway just like you can keep running windows xp

windows aint going to be out until Q1 2007 at least. the requirement will be easily met. lets not forget that when windows 2000 came out people said they'd stay with 98 and when xp came out it was the same story with 2000. why some people think we should be bound by a 2-D interface rather than a 3-D one is illogical to say the least. logically if you can get a better experience from one thing over another and you are capable of doing it you should go with the better one.

finally although someones mentioned this i thought id mention a thing about supply and demand. if the demand is greater than the supply of a product the price is high (512MB 7800GTX anyone) but if the supply is increased to meet or exceed the demand the price falls (lcd monitors ) so it follows that products which are more server or specialist orientated will fall in price once they are accepted by the mainstream.

i hate to rant and im sure there are alot of holes in my arguments but to hell with it i dont want to be held back by the philistines with no prescience.

Reply to strangestranger

So you want to pay 200-300 dollars for an operating system that is very much like what you can get today? That is your vision? I say come out with a revolutionary operating system that would make me WANT to upgrade, not because I have to or are supposed to. Give me a break with this vision stuff.

If windows XP does everything I want it to do, what reason is there for me to upgrade, tell me that? What is so damn compelling about Vista?

And I didn't go run out and buy Windows XP either, I just got it when I bought a cheapo Emachines for like 350 dollars after rebates, so why do I care about Vista. Hardware upgrades are moving at a much slower pace nowadays, then it was back then. And there isn't much need to upgrade, unless it is just a hobby or yours.

-Mark

Reply to maliszewski

ec would be a pain in my ass. it is slower and more expensive

Reply to ak47is1337

i wasnt speaking just about ecc ram, but in general peoples reaction to a the thought of other people getting more out of an OS. you both missed my point completely. ak47 you probably know more about ECC ram than i do but again my point about supply and demand in relation to prices is valid.

maliszewski, did you even read my post. if so you completely misunderstood it. my point was that people shouldnt be dictated to by people like you but that software should allow all users to enjoy a product

Quote :

sure things should be scalable but the cap on things should be set by the high end tech not the low end mainstream

the above quote is from my other post and you obviously missed that part. i should also add that you nor i can fully know what vista is going to be like. if microsoft is to be believed then a 3-D enviroment will lead to better functionality and vista should be friendlier to developers( may be wrong about that) of other software.

Quote :

So you want to pay 200-300 dollars for an operating system that is very much like what you can get today

finally can you lend me the copy of vista you obviously have to make such a definite statement.

Reply to strangestranger

he was correct stranger. vista is going to be much like XP, visually and otherwise. it's main implement will be to look nicer and be more secure, things i can already do with a theme pack and anti virus or anything linux. the idea that windows wants us to use more stable ram because they are too stupid and lazy to program anything that doesn't require a directx 9 graphics card, a gig of ram, a powerful processor and registered memory is insane. nobody is going to tell me that the memory i payed top dollar for is "low quality" and needs to be registered for the screw-offs over at microsoft to go ahead and get lazier with programming

Reply to ak47is1337

Why an idiot ?

Because i see many people new to computers who try and get the best they can for 200€ ?
You know the type that make 800-950€ a Month working hard ?
And just want to Surf / DVD / Word ? Beginners

I had 95, The only reason i went to 98 was for the PnP & USB
The only reason i went to XP was to have an easy time our Lan Parties.
All my OS were either OEM or original (95-98-NT4-ME-XP).

Whats WinXP SP2 ?
A Win95 with PnP USB2 & LAN.

Does that Explain the 200MB -) 2GB Install or 32MB -) 256MB Ram ??
Or the Stress on the CPU ?

Take XP, Copy & Paste, add a nifty 3D interface, DRM and VOILA : VISTA !
(And double all the hardware requirements of course)

Please explain to me why i had to do 95-98-ME-XP just for that ?
(As an ex Gamer i did upgrade often, but what about the average joe ?)

New fuctionalities in OS are awesome.
But they should not come at the expense of hardware.

I am against the "Arms Race" Microsoft has decided to make with its OS.

Reply to DASTRAL

that and its possible they will make us buy a new monitor! how retarded is that? in addition to possibly buying a server motherboard with ecc ram, i have to get a new monitor too possibly. and then theres the new format wars between dvd high def...its just pissing me off more and more...there won't be any new functions either, everything you need is already there, it will just be less screwy unlike XP without a bug every 20 lines of code. i might just switch to linux altogther, i am sick of this crap.

Reply to ak47is1337

Quote :

he was correct stranger. vista is going to be much like XP, visually and otherwise. it's main implement will be to look nicer and be more secure, things i can already do with a theme pack and anti virus or anything linux. the idea that windows wants us to use more stable ram because they are too stupid and lazy to program anything that doesn't require a directx 9 graphics card, a gig of ram, a powerful processor and registered memory is insane. nobody is going to tell me that the memory i payed top dollar for is "low quality" and needs to be registered for the screw-offs over at microsoft to go ahead and get lazier with programming

You obviously don't understand what the difference between a DX8 and a DX9 card. It's not a matter of horsepower as such.... DX9 cards have features which DX8 cards don't have. That's why for the full "Vista experience" you will need a DX9 card.

For all those mums and dads out there who just want to browse the web and send email..... They will be fine with a fairly low spec machine becuse Vista will still do all those things but just won't be as pretty.

The main thrust of Vista will be the interface. If you don't understand how important an interface is to the productivity of a user why don't you install windows 3.0 on your PC and see how easy it is to use when compared to XP.

It's called progression and evolution. Get over it!

Reply to 306maxi

i am well aware of that, as an intel extreme edition with directx9.0c is developed specifically for vista. however, i am more than certain you could do the same things on a directx7 chipset, and i think it is a bit accessive. you don't think the recommendation of ram is insane? what about the minimum requirement of a gigabyte, when xp only requires 128mb?

Reply to ak47is1337

Quote :

that and its possible they will make us buy a new monitor! how retarded is that? in addition to possibly buying a server motherboard with ecc ram, i have to get a new monitor too possibly. and then theres the new format wars between dvd high def...its just pissing me off more and more...there won't be any new functions either, everything you need is already there, it will just be less screwy unlike XP without a bug every 20 lines of code. i might just switch to linux altogther, i am sick of this crap.

What are you smoking? HDCP compliance isn't something that Microsoft is forcing on anyone. You just won't be able to get proper HD res without having a HDCP compliant display. Blame the movie makers for this......

It's uninformed dribble like yours that makes forums displeasurable to use :roll:

Reply to 306maxi

windows is still going along with it, rather than defending its current users. moving the blame to somebody else doesn't mean that microsoft isn't partly responsible.

Reply to ak47is1337

Quote :

i am well aware of that, as an intel extreme edition with directx9.0c is developed specifically for vista. however, i am more than certain you could do the same things on a directx7 chipset, and i think it is a bit accessive. you don't think the recommendation of ram is insane? what about the minimum requirement of a gigabyte, when xp only requires 128mb?

Direct X is not a chipset at all either....... perhaps you need to Google the topic a little and understand what you're talking about.

Read the page below and tell me that as Direct X has progressed it hasn't transformed the way things are rendered on your screen......

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] s_in_2006/

I don't see why the minimum requirements of operating systems should seemingly stand still for people who don't upgrade. If the hardware can handle it then someone is going to write software to exploit those capabilities. Sadly this is going to make older machines chug.... it's the nature of the PC

When we first got a PC in '92it has 2 megs of RAM, when we got another one in 98 it had 64, when I build my mum a PC in 2002 it had 256 megs, I built my PC in 2004 and it had 512 megs ... now it has 1 gig. It's progression. As hardware becomes faster, programs start to require more memory and use up more of your CPU's power if you're running an older machine.

Progression.... evolution... whatever you want to call it. It's good and you should get used to it instead of bashing it.

Reply to 306maxi

Quote :

windows is still going along with it, rather than defending its current users. moving the blame to somebody else doesn't mean that microsoft isn't partly responsible.

You don't understand do you :lol:

Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's built into the discs themselves that they must be displaying their image on a HDCP compliant screen to display at full HD resolution. If anything else is plugged in it's not going to display at full HD resolution.

Stop bashing Microsoft for something that's in no way their fault.

Reply to 306maxi

I am runing Windows Vista Beta 1 on my computer without any problems...

I have got:
Pentium 4 530 @ 3,82GHz
2x 512Mb Corsair DDR-400 @ 510MHz
GeForce FX5950Ultra 256Mb

It works great...

Reply to falsterbo

when i said "chipset", i meant the type of chip on the graphics card. but anyway, i think a recommended 2 gigs is quite a lot of money, even for today...

Reply to ak47is1337

StrangeStranger,

I wasn't replying to your post at all, I was replying to mpjesse's post about how people who don't care about upgrading to Vista are Visionless.

Are any of you going to actually go out and buy Vista? I have never even bought a stand alone operating system, never had a need to. Why buy a windows stand alone OS for 80-200 dollars when you can get it in a manufactures PC for about 10-15 dollars? Maybe two or three years from now when I see a need to get Vista, I will probably just buy another computer. Fair enough? I'll say it again, Vista doesn't have anything compelling enough at this time to make me run out and buy a copy. When Microsoft does provide me something worth buying over windows XP I will buy it.

Whoever thinks Vista is so compelling, can you please tell me why? And please include specific features, don't just say, "because it is the next best thing is OS!!!!" Don't just upgrade for the sake of upgrading, that is kind of ignorant is it not? Have a reason at least.

-Mark

Reply to maliszewski

yeah, im with you on that note. what makes vista worth 50 bucks more than xp pro?

Reply to ak47is1337

OMG....after you buy Vista, Aliens will land and suck your brains out from your ears!!!!!...

Reply to Finneus

Forum Motherboard & Memory : Memory - Windows Vista a reason to buy ECC memory?

Please mind