60% of Windows Vista to be Rewritten

Damn, 60%? What the hell did they do all these years? With the way Vista is going, I might not opt to spend extra on a 64bit processor when I upgrade my PC. Hopefully Vista will have some improvement over XP, I'm tired of using a five year old OS that has glaring security holes. Since I don't even use most media features built into Vista, I really don't care about any multimedia enchancements, I just want a more stable and secure OS.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by evilboris

I don't see a problem with the minimum resourcements. This is for an OS intended to be released a year from now on, and also intended to be the standard OS for 5-6 years ahead.

1 GB of RAM was ridiculous in 2001 too yet XP needs that much to run fluidly with games.

There are tiers to the RAM and Windows experience:

Minimal (128MB RAM on XP, 512MB on Vista)- You can run everything fine, after waiting 10 minutes for the hard drive to cache all the excess RAM to the page file.

Minimum Recommendation (256MB on XP, 1GB on Vista)- Same as above, just not nearly as bad as with the Minimal RAM

Recommended (512MB on XP, 2GB on Vista)- Every thing runs smooth and fast, great for multitasking and the latest games

Power User (1GB+ on XP, 4GB+ on Vista)- Programs load extremely fast, possibly more RAM than you'll need to use for a perfect experience. Only with the highest end, most demanding programs could you ever experience any slowdown.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Kalekkan

This sounds all too familiar to me. Now you also have to consider the fact that you were using Linux which is relatively easy to work with. Take a look at API for the NT kernel and you will cry your eyes out with tears of blood. Things tend to be a bit bloated looking and overcomplicated in my opinion. Process control isn't as simple as just using fork() in Windows. Nope... it's gotta be like 15 lines of code to do that one simple task.


Am I correct in assuming that Vista will be coming bundled with DX10? That's a feature that might be something worth looking forward to. I'm also being hopeful like Eleo and wishing that their main problems are modular and not the core of the OS... but yeah, that's probably just wishful thinking.

I remember hearing that DX10 won't be compatible with DX9 and lower hardware/software APIs, so that means your shiny 7800GTX won't be able to run DX10 games (though I assume you'll be able to install DX9 alongside DX10).

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by evilboris

I will actually install a copy of Vista just to play Halo 2, and if it doesn't suck I may even use it as my primary OS. The Aero skin is sexy, admit it.

Pretty much the only thing bothering me is Vista being over DRMed to hell, and being so "user friendly" that you cannot actually configure anything right because its hidden behind too much bloat.

On top of what XP uses, what sevices will Vista add to the pile? I'd be surprised to see what they add to Vista.

If I ever do use Vista (I might install it just to try the OS, like I did with XP back in late 2001), I'm going to dual-boot (so I don't have to worry about breaking programs that work in XP). Is anyone else going to do this? I'll just download a copy of Win98SE and run it in tandem with the 64bit version of Vista. I might as well, I have too many DOS games aching to be given another try.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?