What do you think about 2007 in the computing industry?

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
17,059
502
548
45
Marklar
₥1,014
I would put this in Mass Debate, but I wasn't going to debate anything, just have a discussion. If a mod would like, this can be moved.

I have been reading about and using Vista as well as hardware releases down the pipeline and I am getting a bit worried.

The system requirements for Vista using Aero (from what I can gather is the only functionality different enough to warrent picking up Vista over XP) are pretty steep. Even the minimum to run it is 1ghz with 1gb of RAM. That's ok, but if someone was looking to upgrade the whole system and to get a gaming system, the outlook is bleak.

ATi and nVidia are claiming to release cards with in excess of 250W of heat dissipation. Now it is known that if you are an extreme gamer, you will go with the greatest and get two for SLI or Crossfire action. And early next year, both are releasing drivers to use their GPU to do physics calculations for games that run the Havok engine. Both companies support the use of two video cards (250W + 250W) for SLI/Crossfire graphics and a third (250W more) for physics calculation. It can be argued that one does not need the third card to be the full blown high powered model for physics calculations, but then again, no one knows the effectiveness of the drivers with DX10 games or not. And since ATi and nVidia are calling for more power connectors through the PCIe slot, it doesn't look like this heat will let up any time soon.

Then you have the CPU. Yes they are better with power than previous models, but a quad core will still ring in at 200W+ and $1000 price tag. And let's not forget the price of a mobo that you will have to get because of the socket change. Intel boards are not cheap (think $150 for a decent board).

Then the RAM. Since AM2 and C2D need DDR2, you will have to get some new sticks. These sticks, however, will run you $200+ a stick for 1gb, which Vista will recommend as bare minimum. Also don't forget that these chips at stock voltage have about 40W heat dissipation per stick.

So not even looking into other hard drives or sound card options, you will be needing 1000W+ efficient power supply to power this mess. And I would love to see the cooling solution that has to be developed to keep this from melting. Now of course this is if everytihng was running 100% full bore, but you can't spec a system for under that in case you do hit 100% that one time and blow a power supply.


Cliffs:
- A new machine is going to get real expensive to run Vista
- Power concerns will reach a new high with newer hardware

Any comments?
 
Comment #1: I think you are blurring the lines between 'new Vista machine' and 'new top of the line gaming machine'. You won't need the Havok physics engine to render a desktop in Vista.

Comment #2: Vista is a resource hog, I won't be upgrading (even for free) until XP is completely non-supported. I did it with 98SE, why change tactics now?
 
Comment #1: I think you are blurring the lines between 'new Vista machine' and 'new top of the line gaming machine'. You won't need the Havok physics engine to render a desktop in Vista.

Comment #2: Vista is a resource hog, I won't be upgrading (even for free) until XP is completely non-supported. I did it with 98SE, why change tactics now?

I think I might have fudged the line a little, yes. Vista is going to be a resource hog, but my point is those resources it requires are not looking too good. And if someone wants to replace a high end system, the situation is even more dire.
 
I have a shitty old machine with an old graphics card and nearly no ram, I can still play css and work on it, thats all I will need for the next 4 years. Only thing I plan on doing is getting a little more ram by xmas
 
How many of you have actually used Vista?

*raises hand*

Last build I tried runs fine on a 4 year old machine when you don't use the most strenuous features of Aero. And no, the transparent windows and crap aren't really a reason to upgrade to Vista. Its all just eye candy and not terribly helpful. Hell, 90% of the visual features included in Vista are available now for XP if you use programs like XPize and Alt-Tab Replacement. Can't speak to DX10 games and whatnot, but the security features and new API will rock for corporate users.
 
How many of you have actually used Vista?

*raises hand*

Last build I tried runs fine on a 4 year old machine when you don't use the most strenuous features of Aero. And no, the transparent windows and crap aren't really a reason to upgrade to Vista. Its all just eye candy and not terribly helpful. Hell, 90% of the visual features included in Vista are available now for XP if you use programs like XPize and Alt-Tab Replacement. Can't speak to DX10 games and whatnot, but the security features and new API will rock for corporate users.
*continues using BSD on the 866 P3 router box*
 
How many of you have actually used Vista?

*raises hand*

We are evaluating Vista for use in our environment, and the current build has come a long way in terms of stability, functionality and overall general 'usefulness'. However, it still runs like a three legged dog on the systems specified on our standards list.

Our current corporate initiative will be to support Vista on the newest of the new machines, designed with Vista in mind. But we will be supporting XP until the machines currently running it fall out of support (based on a 3-year deprecation cycle).

As it stands I'd rather use a pared down version of XP at home rather than a pared down version of Vista, the perks just aren't there for home use.