The "Vista-Capable" Debacle Spreads To Acer

N!NJA writes in with a Register story on a lawsuit filed against Acer for selling Windows Vista on an underpowered notebook. Of course anybody can sue for anything; it will be interesting to see if this action goes forward in the courts. "With a lawsuit filed Wednesday in San Francisco, California, two residents of Fostoria, Ohio seek damages and relief from the world's third-largest computer maker after purchasing a sub-$600 Aspire notebook that included Windows Vista Premium and a gigabyte of shared system and graphics memory. In its official "recommended system requirements," Microsoft recommends that an additional 128MB is required to run the Premium incarnation of its latest desktop operating system. ... Microsoft says that the Premium, Business, and Ultimate editions of Vista will run on 512MB systems — with certain OS features disabled. In the beginning, Redmond called these 'Vista Capable' machines, and it's facing a separate lawsuit over this potentially misleading moniker."

Comments

512Meg?

[jawtheshark]

Probably even with shared graphics memory, resulting in something like 448Meg usable? Windows XP SP0 and SP1 ran on 256Meg RAM, SP2 seems to need 512Meg RAM, SP3 seems to need a bit more (but I never tried taht one on low-memory machines). Vista on such a machine? Eeeuh.... I don't think so.

That said, they seem to have paid quite a lot of money to get a RAM upgrade.

Linux runs fine tough on such "low-memory" (I had harddisks smaller than that, like 20Meg!) machines.

Re:512Meg?

[the_humeister]

Linux runs fine tough on such "low-memory" (I had harddisks smaller than that, like 20Meg!) machines.

It's a little disingenuous to say that "Linux" (aside from the fact that Linux is just a kernel and that the term "Linux" is now being used in the mainstream for almost any Unix-like OS; but that's another argument altogether) will run in low memory. While this is true, most people wouldn't use it like that. My WRT54g with 16 MB of RAM is running OpenWRT. I had a 386 that only had 12 MB of RAM and I had X running with twm, and it ran only slightly faster than Windows 95, which had a much better looking UI.

So yes, you can run "Linux" on a low memory computer, but you're sure as hell not going to be running KDE or GNOME or some other good-looking interface with it.

Re:512Meg?

[jawtheshark]

Yes, indeed... You are of course right. However, I implied (that wasn't perhaps clear) that a 512Meg machine runs a Full Linux-Based Desktop like Gnome just fine. On my Asus EEE PC 701 4G, I rarely exceed 300Meg used.

But your points are well taken....

Re:512Meg?

[Logic Worshiper]

I've run XP SP3 on 256MB RAM before, it worked fine. None of the machines at my office have more that 512MB Ram, and they're all current, running XP SP3 and IE7 (but IE is disabled on most of them, with Firefox set as default). They run fine, so long as they're kept clean, however crapware and tracking cookies slow them down if they're not maintained well.

SUSE, like Windows is slow on a machine with 512MB RAM, I'm going try installing Ubuntu to see if that's better. KDE is crabby like Vista, Gnome is much better (and that's on a laptop with 1GB RAM).

Re:512Meg?

[jawtheshark]

Oh, I remember when 1024KByte RAM was overkill (my first, okay, my dads first machine had that... and most people were at 512KByte then) Anyway, I must have pissed off someone. I don't think those Troll mods were deserved.

Re:512Meg?

[Anonymous Coward]

Im running Kubuntu on my home built atom 330 box. It has two gigs, but right now it's only using 0.47 gigs according to the system monitor.

And this is with KDE4, Kaffine playing a video, KTorrent pulling down ...distros...(cough) and of course firefox with a couple of slashdot tabs open.

I think it's fair to say that a modern linux desktop is perfectly usable with only half a gig.

Re:512Meg?

[morgan_greywolf]

256 Mb is enough for a lightly used Gnome desktop. My mom has one, and it's working fine for her.

Your mom should try XFCE. It's much more lightweight, and for light usage it can be configured to look and act almost exactly like GNOME. I run XFCE on Xubuntu on my 512 MB Dell Latitude with its puny 1.5 Ghz Pentium M processor, and it flys!

Re:512Meg?

[morgan_greywolf]

Is there anyway we could please let this meme drop? It's getting really old. Seriously.

Re:512Meg?

[Hognoxious]

In Soviet Russia, anybody is enough for 640k! So regarding your request, no.

Re:512Meg?

[icannotthinkofaname]

So the humankind hates computer geeks, scientists and any people that look smart. They just want to kill you on a very painful way and not have to call you to install another desktop manager.

Fine. Be that way. Just don't come cryin' to us when Brawndo doesn't actually have what plants crave.

Re:512Meg?

[Maelwryth]

"my 512 MB Dell Latitude with its puny 1.5 Ghz Pentium M processor, and it flys!"
Oh, f%$k me! Now I feel old. :(

Re:512Meg?

[ion.simon.c]

...will need the same or higher computer specs to run a configuration that gets close to what the Windows experience offers...

Check out the SVN trunk version of KDE 4 some day. [0]
When you combine that with an ATI card, the open source drivers, and OpenRC, you get a desktop experience that (IMO) blows the doors off of anything coming out of Redmond.
With this configuration, I have a Linux machine that goes from GRUB bootloader to a usable [1] desktop in ~45 seconds. (Time spent typing username/password not included. Time spent starting X is included.) Server 2K3 on the same hardware (with nothing else happening on startup) takes nearly a minute and a half. [2]
My Linux desktop gives me an OpenGL accelerated desktop. [3] (Hello translucent windows, zoomable desktop, and live preview of window contents on ALT-Tab [or the Expose knockoff]). I get a faster USB stack... faster USB mass storage device recognition, mount, and unmount times... transparent access to network (and other exotic) resources... [4] the Lancelot launcher... fine-grained control over users and applications with PolicyKit and grsecurity... network-transparent audio. The list goes on and on.

It sounds like you haven't tried out a Linux distro in a while. You might wanna grab a couple of six-packs, and spend some afternoons over the next month checking out what's available these days.

[0] SVN KDE 4 won't eat your data, but you might not wanna install the dev packages required to build it. So, you could also check out KDE 4.2 (or 4.3 when it is released.) What I've said here about KDE SVN also holds for KDE 4.2 and later.
[1] By usable, I mean the time that ipv6.google.com comes up in Firefox and I can type a query into the search box. And no. I'm not restoring any previously saved FFox sessions.
[2] Guess what? My Linux installation also brings up Postgres, mysql, apache, an svn server, the BOINC client, and the usual host of remote access daemons on startup. The Server 2k3 install does none of that... it doesn't even start IIS.
[3] Do I get shader support? No. IIRC, we're waiting on the Gallium3D project to mature.
[4] There's nothing quite like being able to mounting a network resource (or ISO image, or...) inside a directory in your filesystem and being able to use it just as if it were local data. No fussing with UNC path handling. No bitching from CMD.EXE about being unable to handle UNC working directories. Nothing like that. :)

Re:512Meg?

[hairyfeet]

While I think your idea of bringing back plus packs is a GREAT idea, as it would cut the bloat without having 400 fricking versions of the OS, there is another idea from that time I believe they desperately need to bring back as well: The WinNT/Win9x divide. Remember how if you remember how if you wanted a HOME OS you could actually BUY a home OS, and if you just wanted to get your work done there was an actual business OS? Now they put out the same bloated as hell, multimedia choked, bling bling to the top, I want to be OSX so damned bad it hurts OS and just cripple a few features for the home market.

That is NOT a business OS. A Windows business OS is a fugly, plain, low resource using, backwards compatible OS with minimum bells and wells and good GPO management. That is why to this day I still say Win2K Pro was the best business OS MSFT has ever made, and frankly everything since then has been downhill. There wasn't any added themes support or multimedia bling bling junk in the Win2K of goodness. Nope, just fugly Grey solid as a rock business goodness. Of course that is why you have tons of sites that show you how to turn Win2K8 server into a workstation. It is because ever since Vista all the business user(one of the most lucrative and largest markets MSFT has) has gotten from MSFT is the finger. It is also why infoworld is declaring Win7 is going to be yet another dud to the enterprise and SMB markets.

That is why I am making this prediction: Win7 is going to be another dud. MSFT has seemed to forgotten that folks want to use at home what they use at the office. That is why I have many customers that still insist on Win2K or WinXP, because that is what they use at work and that is what they want at home. The only good I foresee coming from Win7 is that they may finally fire that damned monkey Ballmer. He has had the company hopping from one boneheaded idea to another like they have ADHD, and his Apple and Google envy is frankly dragging the company down the toilet. If folks wanted an Apple they would BUY a bloody Apple! But of course I'm not the only one that thinks the best thing that can happen is Ballmer be given his walking papers. Bring back the plus packs and for the love of Deity bring back actual Business OSes. Because the shit they are shoveling now sure as hell don't cut it.

Remember when a gigabyte of memory was a lot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Vista for making that a thing of the past.

Re:Remember when a gigabyte of memory was a lot?

[Jurily]

How about when a 40MHz 386 with 4MB of RAM, 40MB Hard drive, a 128kb video card was a "killer" machine ;)

Ah yes. Back when they used CPU speed for timing purposes. You bought a new computer, suddenly your favorite game ran 8x as fast, and you died almost immediately. Killer machine indeed.

Vista's not too bad with 512Mb of RAM

[tjstork]

I've actually had Vista running in a 512mb virtual machine on my Linux box. My whole Linux box had but a gig at the time, and I had Ubuntu, KDevelop, the virtual box, Vista in it, running Visual Studio 2008 to develop an Excel application. I was rather impressed that it all worked.

Re:with certain OS features disabled

[Jurily]

More like "DOS".

capable? sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

It works fine with 512... Its just incredibly slow!

Strange story

[Kupfernigk]

Why can't they reduce the memory allocation of the graphics to 256 or 128Mbyte? Why did an extra SODIMM cost so much? And how much is the lawsuit going to cost them?

If the machine kept freezing and crashing, why didn't they return it under warranty rather than go to law? If I buy a computer and it is obviously faulty, I should expect to exhaust the warranty process before starting a lawsuit, and I should not have to provide a technical explanation of what the supplier did wrong. It's broke, fix it.

Nowadays the concept that you get what you pay for seems obscure to some people. But then, looking at the number of rich and famous people who thought Bernie Madoff's "too good to be true" interest rates were somehow possible, it looks like stupidity is no respecter of class, celebrity or even IQ.

Re:Strange story

[jawtheshark]

Why can't they reduce the memory allocation of the graphics to 256 or 128Mbyte?

Doesn't that depend on the laptop/BIOS/Chipset? I have Fujitsu-Siemens Pa1510 and it reserves 256Meg by default for the graphics card. Originally the machine had 1Gig, I upgraded it to 2Gig, which results in me having 1.8Gig available (still enough...) I only use it for 2D stuff, so I would be more than comfortable with 16Meg Framebuffer (1280x800x24bit=24576000bit=3072000Byte ~= 3MByte required) The BIOS has next to no options and under Linux I can't seem to adapt it (please, if you know how to, tell me!) I think I saw the option on Windows, but that's long ago and I might be mistaken. It's an ATI X1100 chipset.

Anyway, my point is that these cheapo machines (mine was an el-cheapo machine) usually don't give you such options.

Re:"Premium" edition?

[icebike]

But all of those versions run like crap on a small machine.

Turning off Aero helps some, but the machine was underspeced for ANY version of Vista, and the manufacturer should have realized that.

By simply bundling in another 512meg of memory the manufacture could steal a march on their competition. Yet they chose to knuckle under to Microsoft and Intel.

Re:It's that damned theme engine

[hechacker1]

Aero offloads the GUI onto your graphics card if it is capable of DirectX 9. It provides a faster, tear free interface, and if you notice DWM.exe (Desktop Window Manager) uses only 0-1% of CPU during use.
If you disable Aero and fall back to GDI, DWM.exe will disappear, and explorer.exe instead takes the load, usually using 1-5% of my CPU (at least on this machine).
In general, you should get better performance if you have a decent video card. If you are using the desktop anyways, why not utilize the GPU?
A couple of considerations:
1. Vista uses more GPU ram with each window. If you have a shared memory GPU, it's conceivable that it would be too slow when you start opening many windows. Or if your GPU just doesn't have a lot of RAM.
2. Maybe your GPU isn't as power efficient as using the CPU for rendering the windows. Battery life could be affected.
3. Windows 7 with driver model 1.1 uses a constant amount of GPU ram for any amount of windows (steaming in textures instead of keeping them loaded). It also re-enables GDI 2D HW acceleration which was disabled in Vista, but available in XP. Windows 7 also accelerates Cleartype text.

Acer 5315 - Mandriva Linux, WinXP

[hduff]

I purchased 4 of these at Wal-Mart. Mine got Mandriva Linux; I can run compiz with all the gee-whiz effects with no problems. The system is fast and reliable.

The other family members got WindowsXP "upgrades" using TinyXP after they complained about Vista slowness. Wow, what a difference! Fastest Windows machines I have seen since 98Lite.

Re:Acer sucks

[Z34107]

At work, we have an old, repurposed desktop at our help desk for doing troubleshooting over the phone. It's either an old HP D310 or DC5000; I forget which. Has the worst kind of horrible, integrated Intel graphics and a gigabyte of RAM. 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor.

The Vista partition runs fine on it, and in fact runs faster than the XP partition. (Although that's due to all the garbage the other help desk workers have thrown on the machine; they stay away from the Vista partition because "Vista is slow.")

Mind you that we're not running Aero Glass or gaming on that machine - all we have to do is pull up a web browser to enter support tickets, we have to manage iPrint printeres and NetWare shares, and we boot up Office 2003 and 2007 to step people through the horribly complicated process of double-spacing their paper. But, it's pretty snappy for those kinds of tasks - and this desktop has got to be running on 5 years old.

Will Vista run on less than a gigabyte? Haven't tried it and wouldn't want to, but my friend got it running on the "Linux version" of the Acer AspireOne netbook - the one with 512 MB of RAM (he upgraded it to 1.5 GB), the Intel 945 GMA graphics, and the ridiculously slow 8 GB SSD drive. He vLited the crap out of an installer ISO and got Home Premium (minus Aero) running on there, and installed any programs he needed to a 16 GB SD card.

So, it is possible, and it will work, and it will do 99% of common word-processing-web-browsing tasks. His biggest complaint was that it wouldn't run Finale well, but Finale is about as memory-hungry as Photoshop.

Now, our 5-year-old work computer had no bloatware (we have VLK copies of Vista and XP, and the machine at one point had a fresh image.) The netbook also came without bloatware (it was the 8 GB Linux model after all; we did a fresh copy of Vista.)

Perhaps a more appropriate reason for a lawsuit (if any) would be for bundling bloatware, rather than selling an "underpowered" computer.

1 GB for $9.99

[cskrat]

According to Acer this laptop ships with 1GB from the factory. And according to NewEgg upgrading to 2GB would be about $9.99 plus $2.99 shipping or going to 4GB would be just under $40.00. How the hell did she spend $157.40 on an upgrade that maxes out at $40 in parts and $30 in labor?

Vista does run reasonably with 872MB available to it as long as you stick to basic applications. OpenOffice, Firefox, Windows Media Player and etc. all run well enough. Crysis, Fallout 3, Photoshop CS4 and Visual Studio will run like dogs, if at all.

Vista capable is just like a DOT highway safety rating, just because your Kia is roadworthy doesn't mean that it will compete with a BMW for either performance or luxury.

Bah

[wildBoar]

thing that pissed me off was the so called free upgrade to Vista that was advertised. When I went to get it I was asked for 80 euros. Dirty robbing thieving bastards. Service charge and postage - absolutely mad and a total con.

So I'm still happily using XP (and Centos)

Re:Can someone explain why it needs all the memory

[ubergeek2009]

There is one problem with vista though. On my brother's machine It only uses half the ram, but it has the swap file full and is swapping in and out like crazy. Any suggestions as to what the hell is wrong?

I can second this...

[ShadowSystems]

I *just* bought an HP HDX-18.
* Windows Vista Home Premium with Service Pack 1
* Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad Processor Q9100 (2.26 GHz)
* 4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
* 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 130M
* 500GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
* 18.4" diagonal High Definition HP Ultra BrightView Infinity Display (1920x1080p)
* Blu-Ray +/-R/RW with SuperMulti

The Vista experience meter gives it a *THREE POINT EIGHT* on the usability scale.
If this less-than-a-year-old, Quad-core 2.26GHz, 4Gb System RAM, 1Gb VRAM, 5400RPM SATA HD system can't rate better than that, then why bother with Vista at all?
I sure as hell didn't.
I swapped the original drive for another 500Gb 5400 RPM SATA drive, installed Ubuntu, and haven't looked back.

YES I tweaked Vista to run better, I spent two days doing exactly that, and it really, honestly didn't make enough of a difference.
I shouldn't have to turn off half the OS in order to make a machine (especially one with specs like this) run like it's supposed to.