Originally posted on June 1, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
In my 3D, or real, life many times I get asked ‘What about Vista? Is it worth it? and Will my computer/laptop run it?’.
Over the last months I have installed Windows on many computers, different configurations. Personally I admit loving Windows Vista, but maybe this is because I know what Windows can do.
I have no exotic software, most software I use comes from well known manufacturers and already worked in Vista Beta times. But I disgress.
Here are some of my observations on Windows Vista and its hardware requirements.
It’s all about the memory!
The Windows Vista system requirements page says it won’t run under 512MB, and also the upgrade advisor will flag your configuration.
This means that if you have a laptop older than 1 year, probably your configuration already excludes Vista, which puts everyone with a 2-3 years old laptop in doubt. Until recently most laptops were released with 512MB RAM, and shared graphics memory.
But, it will work! Fluently even.
I have Vista installed on a [desktop] PC with only 512MB and 64MB shared graphics chip. It runs on a P4 2.4 Ghz and it works pretty fine actually. Of course, especially, network operations can be slower at times. When downloading files to my desktop over the network, the combination of anti-virus software, Windows Defender and Firefox with many open tabs can annoy and slow down.
Of course that configuration has no Windows Aero interface.
Although it works, as power user, I would not advice it to anyone. But if speed (and the Aero interface) doesn’t matter to you… go ahead! Think about how you use your computer, if you’re no multitasker, it will be enough, especially if you deactivate certain processes.
IMO the processor speed is less important. I have Vista running on two other machines, both with 1GB memory, one with a Pentium D 3.4Ghz (the ones they sell as Pentium 6.8Ghz, two Pentium Cores with 3.4Ghz) and one older laptop with a Pentium 1.6Ghz. Vista runs as well on both machines. Of course there’s a huge difference in speed, when starting programs, but this isn’t Vista related.
Problems only start when I want to do what I was used to do under Windows XP: Firefox with 20+ tabs open hours long, Opera in the background, WMP11, with more than 1300 albums with cover art, running and scrobbling to last.fm… and then open Adobe Photoshop. This operating mode generally uses around 700MB of memory (music is stored on a remote drive, otherwise WMP would have a memory usage of around 180MB and now only 25MB for this number of tracks).
From the moment I open PSD, I’ll start to get annoyed by ‘program not responding’ notifications. Firefox will regularly crash on sites with JS and I’ll soon be annoyed. Especially because the CPU usage still is in acceptable ranges: around 60% on the laptop and only 20% on the Pentium D.
When I bought my new laptop, I jumped ship. For the first time I bought a pretty recent CPU, an Intel Core 2 Duo, and the laptop has 2GB memory on board. While observing Windows task manager, I noticed that for the same usage, the CPU wasn’t charged more, but the memory usage passed 1.15GB. Smart memory recognition, usage by Vista?
Gone are all the problems with with programs not responding anymore. Running Flash apps in separate Windows doesn’t cause any problems anymore. JS responds quickly.
At first I thought this was all due to the better processor, but it isn’t. The Pentium D has the page file on a separate, fast HD, to increase reading and writing speed to the page file, the Core 2 Duo has only one HD. But uses around 450MB more RAM.
MS managed it to improve the memory management in Windows Vista.
Graphics, Areo works or it doesn’t
The Windows Aero interface is not that damanding as people claim. Your graphics card/chip supports it or it doesn’t. Period. All said.
Forget claims about needing at least 256MB Memory on your graphics card. They are irrelevant, the Aero interface has high hardware requirements, but they aren’t memory based.
I see no difference between an ATI X800XT All-In-Wonder Platinum Edition graphics card with 256MB and the NVidia Go 7300 card in the laptop, when it comes to the Windows graphics.
Of course when playing games there’s a difference. A huge one. But the Vista Aero interface works fluently on both. And to game, I use the ATI x800XT, which is rated at 4.3/6.0 in the Windows Vista Experience Index. The NVidia Go 7300 only has 2.0/6.0.
Another system with an ATI 9800 AIW with only 128MB and Aero performs just as well. The rating for graphics also is 2.0/6.0.
Anything with less hardware specs, didn’t work and was rated 1.0/6.0. No matter how big the memory was.
Don’t fall in the trap of Intel GMA950, low end cards such as the ATI X1150 or NVidia TurboCache 6200. No matter how much memory they promise you, 224MB, 256MB or more even, they won’t work properly with the Aero requirements, who are more hardware specific than memory related.
My conclusion.
If you’re a multi tasker and want to enjoy Windows Vista, you’ll need recent, or powerful, graphics card, but more even more than 1GB of memory. Any CPU above 1.5Ghz (I haven’t installed Vista on anything slower) will be sufficient, provided you’ve got more than 1GB of memory.
And last but not least, is it worth it?
If you ask me, yes! But I don’t think there are already enough of reasons for the regular home user to switch. The power of Vista surely is in the network capabilities and if you never dig into the deeper core of Windows XP, you don’t need Vista. The average user will only see a XP with nicer looks.
Until Service Pack 2, when the advanced new features will be implemented more and more and new features for Vista will be implemented. SP1, which is expected to be released this year, will majorly be a bugfix release and also better implementation of new hardware platforms, such as the new TB big hard drives, new flash drive standards if there are, aso. And many more new divers.
And get Windows Desktop Search for XP SP2 to improve the Windows Search. :)