Why Windows Vista failed (or so people say)

Here is an interesting article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1599

So, 1.6GHz CPU with 2GB of RAM is pokey? Vista runs fine on that, I've run it on a 1.6GHz Celeron D with 512MB of RAM, and it was decent. So, most people get Leopard with a new, fast PC, while people that get Vista, may upgrade, or buy a cheep PC, which has specs much worst than MacBook Air.

They shouldn't ship any computer with less than a 2 GHz processor anymore unless it's running legacy software or Linux. They're trying to do too much with too little, and it's just not going to work. The MBA is a decent machine, other than the price, and doing that to it just hurts the people who're paying for it. Good job Apple, another pile of sh!t you're shoveling out to us consumers.

Originally Posted by Kyle

They shouldn't ship any computer with less than a 2 GHz processor anymore unless it's running legacy software or Linux. They're trying to do too much with too little, and it's just not going to work. The MBA is a decent machine, other than the price, and doing that to it just hurts the people who're paying for it. Good job Apple, another pile of sh!t you're shoveling out to us consumers.

Well my laptop has a 1.73 Ghz processor, but I think 2 GB should now be the recommend amount of RAM for Vista.

But you can optimize Vista's performance without modifying your hardware. You can gain some performance by disabling Aero, for example.

Im running Windows 7 M1 R2 (Close to Vista) And it goes fast on my 1.6ghz and 512mb ram..

Originally Posted by OS Master

Originally Posted by Kyle

They shouldn't ship any computer with less than a 2 GHz processor anymore unless it's running legacy software or Linux. They're trying to do too much with too little, and it's just not going to work. The MBA is a decent machine, other than the price, and doing that to it just hurts the people who're paying for it. Good job Apple, another pile of sh!t you're shoveling out to us consumers.

Well my laptop has a 1.73 Ghz processor, but I think 2 GB should now be the recommend amount of RAM for Vista.

But you can optimize Vista's performance without modifying your hardware. You can gain some performance by disabling Aero, for example.

I got 2GB on my desktop, and 1GB in my dad's laptop (which I brought), and vista runs fine on both of them. But yeah, more ram, better experience. That's why people like macs, because they don't ship their bloated OS on underpowered machines. I tried running Leopard on a PC with a Celeron D 2.4GHz and 1GB of RAM, and vista is fine, but leopard is super slow.

Again, Thats true..

Originally Posted by ViennaX

Im running Windows 7 M1 R2 (Close to Vista) And it goes fast on my 1.6ghz and 512mb ram..

That's good, well about Windows 7 M1 R2 looks they reduce some bloat.
IMO one of the prob in vista is the backward compatibility on older hardwares and unsupported older drivers, but I think vista is not really a worst OS as I experience it. I recommend 2GB or more RAM for vista too, at least 1GB, especially if your running AERO.

Ok enough with the Vista whining already... if you want to make Vista look good, there's one simple trick.... remember Windows ME! (And yes I know people have compared Vista to ME and although Vista did suck pretty bad when it was first released, MS did manage to redeem themselves slightly with Vista whereas with ME there was absolutely no hope... and 7 will be the icing on the cake.. but in a very good way

Originally Posted by Radenight

Ok enough with the Vista whining already... if you want to make Vista look good, there's one simple trick.... remember Windows ME! (And yes I know people have compared Vista to ME and although Vista did suck pretty bad when it was first released, MS did manage to redeem themselves slightly with Vista whereas with ME there was absolutely no hope... and 7 will be the icing on the cake.. but in a very good way

Agreed ME was a complete disaster that no cover story, blanket, service pack could repair. People that think Windows XP is the greatest OS have to look back to when it was first released. There were serious problems with the OS that people did not like. In the case of XP though the software engineers from various companies actually FOLLOWED the directions set forth by Microsoft. Oh and with VISTA most companies did not and still have not followed the complete guidelines set forth by them. So literally VISTA and XP are merely the same disaster the only difference is in the fact that in XP other people helped by following the rules while in VISTA they didnt

Originally Posted by iroken22

Agreed ME was a complete disaster that no cover story, blanket, service pack could repair. People that think Windows XP is the greatest OS have to look back to when it was first released. There were serious problems with the OS that people did not like. In the case of XP though the software engineers from various companies actually FOLLOWED the directions set forth by Microsoft. Oh and with VISTA most companies did not and still have not followed the complete guidelines set forth by them. So literally VISTA and XP are merely the same disaster the only difference is in the fact that in XP other people helped by following the rules while in VISTA they didnt

Very well said.