Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft May Delay Windows Vista Again
UltimaGuy writes to mention a Reuters report, stating that Vista may be delayed again, this time by up to three months. From the article: " The research note, released to clients [by the Gartner Group] on Monday, said the new Windows Vista operating system is too complex to be able to meet Microsoft's targeted November release for volume license customers and January launch for retail consumers. A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company disagreed with the Gartner report and it was still on track to meet its launch dates."
don't know what you think the Mac OS X specs are, but my wife is running Tiger (OS X 10.4.x) on a 5 year old 400MHz G4 laptop quite happily. 'Will run on 800MHz' sounds a bit stiff. Although it is relegated to a music server, I also have a 400MHz G3 laptop happily running Tiger with 512MB RAM.
What happened to the argument that G4mhz didn't equal Intel mhz?
We are running Vista on 400mhz systems with 128mb of RAM. (Systems slower than a G4 400mhz. PERIOD.
As for RAM, the more the better no matter what OS. Vista will run on lower than the 512mb of RAM MS recommends. Apple recommends 256mb for the current version of OSX, but the next version Apple has stated will also recommend 512mb of RAM. Even in your post you note you are running OSX on a G3, but state you are using 512mb of RAM.
RAM is cheap, it should not freak people out to see a 512mb recommended anymore.
Vista technically would run on a 1995 Pentium Processor, but who would want to run any OS on such an old processor, even if Vista's legacy compatibility goes back that far.
Also I'm not sure how you got OSX 'Tiger' to run a G3, unless you know of a trick I don't know of. I didn't think it would install, nor function properly without the altivec extensions.
This is kind of a silly debate. I'm not knocking OSX, it REALLY wasn't my point. I was just giving an example that Vista doesn't have that high of tech requirements, truly...
Take Care.
"It's about time Microsoft seriously thought about re-architecting their operating system from the ground up"
Actually that was the problem.
MS did decide to rewrite alot of it from scratch and then the performance and compatibility were not what Microsoft hoped for.
So they decided to use the XP code base and go back to square one and rewrite %60 of the code that was fresh. I knew it would be remade in 6 months! 60%?? Try a year, maybe 18 months? That is just huge.
For more info you can do a google search and slashdot covered it a month or two ago?
No wonder Elchin was fired. To me I would have just used the new code and not reverted back. Get the thing out the door!
So in other words it will use new security techniques on old code that dates back from Windows95 and NT3.1.
http://saveie6.com/
No, seriously. I'm testing it and it simply doesn't work very well for me. Not on my reasonable high-end system with reasonably standard components. It's unstable, lacks many drivers and hangs quite frequently. The system keeps prompting me for drivers for 'unknown devices' with no obvious way to turn it off. The GUI has so many changes that it's essentially a steep learning curve. Nothing is simple anymore.
The UAP 'feature' is very annoying, and dialogs fall all over eachother trying to warn you for yet another dangerous action that some piece of software is attempting to run.
My opinion: Back to the drawing board.
(System: Antec case, Asus A8N-SLI Premium, AMD64X2 3800+, 2GB Kingston RAM, ATI Radeon X800XL 256MB, 2x Maxtor 250GB SATA RAID-1, Maxtor 80GB PATA)
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB