Quote:
Originally posted by Nikson@Nov 17 2005, 11:11 PM
Windows 98 needed more system resources than 95 did.
NT and 2000 needed way more than 98.
compared to both 98 and NT, windows XP was an awful resource hog (200MB+ of RAM being used just while idling on the desktop)
And you went from one to the other, didn't you?
And you don't know just how much of a resource hog its going to be. Yeah, there's preliminary minimum specs on the website, but nobody will know for sure until its released. Plus, it could have a very good memory management system, where it drastically reduces memory requirements for windows itself while you're in a full-screen application (game) to maximize efficiency.
Besides, its going to be the newest and supposedly bleeding edge operating system. It's obvioulsy not intended to run on a pentium 3 for example! And keep in mind that by this time next year, when Vista will still be brand new, buying a computer that meets the Vista minimum specs will cost something like $1000.
|
I did go from Windows 98 to windows XP, mainly because I couldn't find my w98 cd and had to install an OS.
Windows 98 was heavier than 95, but I am not so sure the difference was as big as from XP to Vista.
So, Vista will have better memory management system to manage the extra memory it needs? It doesn't sound very much of an upgrade to me.
If I remember correctly, the min specs from MS are usualy a bit of understatement, and you usualy do need quite a lot more than the quoted ones to run the OS at more than crawling speed. I am curious indeed as to what the realistic requirements for Vista will be, and think of all the time how many of those extra resources would better be spend on the actual games/applications than on running the OS itself.
As for the money, you can buy a sub $1000 PC now that passes the Vista requirements, that is not my point at all.