Concidering Windows 7's system requirements should be roughly the same as Vista's, I think I can say my PC is ready for the new OS when it arrives, although I doubt it'll be out next year; look at how often MS delays it's releases.

Figuratively speaking, imagine that the price of DDR2 RAM just went to 150-200$ for 2GB. Who will buy then Vista PC, when just memory department will cost 400$. Those companies like Micron, Elpida, Powerchips, Infineon are not happy with 400% loss of value for their products in a year or so. They are financing Vista business for free now.

R_1Figuratively speaking, imagine that the price of DDR2 RAM just went to 150-200$ for 2GB. Who will buy then Vista PC, when just memory department will cost 400$. Those companies like Micron, Elpida, Powerchips, Infineon are not happy with 400% loss of value for their products in a year or so. They are financing Vista business for free now.

Really? I thought that DDR2 just suddenly got cheap because the costs of making it dropped... I imagine it would not be the first time that MS encouraged price drops though, while they make fat sacks of cash off of Windows and Office.

RAM manufacturers are like diamond traders. They are building big depots of cut up silicon wafers and packed them up when needed. If the sudden drop in prices means that their new production is 4 time cheaper and they are ready to share it with consumers, then they are going to depreciate their stockpile too. I think that only the high price of DDR3 is holding back some of them to say that they are near bankrupt and to rise up prices.

R_1RAM manufacturers are like diamond traders. They are building big depots of cut up silicon wafers and packed them up when needed. If the sudden drop in prices means that their new production is 4 time cheaper and they are ready to share it with consumers, then they are going to depreciate their stockpile too. I think that only the high price of DDR3 is holding back some of them to say that they are near bankrupt and to rise up prices.

IIRC, RAM manufacturers were sued badly for doing that.

Easy Rhinomaybe they will offer free upgrades to those who bought vista. if not, im never buying an OS again :laugh:

I hope they do, I got vista and never installed it

ms offer something otha than a sp for free not likely id say but ya never no

I said all long id stick with xp till windows 7.
vista bugs the hell out of me.

does it include efi and winfs? without them the hardware is useless...:D

Makes me glad that my copy of Vista was free through my school.

yup and once your done with school you cant have it anymore.

Nope. As long as you graduate, you get to keep it. If you drop out or transfer, then you lose it. Although I think the school wants to change its policy so that you can't keep it when you graduate.

this is for everyone who says that Vista was rushed and is buggy and whatnot

If this OS is being pushed so hard, and expected to be out so soon, dont you think that you all are gonna say the exact same thing about it?

I agree totally with Solaris and a few others here, Vista is what your hardware can make of it. I use Vista x64, with no problems. Games run fine, the OS is FAST and smooth. With my crossfire I ran into many more issues with XP! Vista worked no problems at all!

Vista is SWEET with all the drivers built in, it makes life much much easier. Also the UI is clean and simple, stuff is easier to find.

I do agree that it can run like garbage without the right hardware. But with a decent computer (~600 total cost) you can have a rig that runs Vista smooth as butter!

smooth operation under vista requires 2 gigs of Ram, XP ran fine with 512.

eidairaman1smooth operation under vista requires 2 gigs of Ram, XP ran fine with 512.

boo woo, 2 gbs of ram costs all of 35 dollars now

eidairaman1smooth operation under vista requires 2 gigs of Ram, XP ran fine with 512.

Windows 2000 Pro ran fine with 512MB. I wouldn't run Windows XP with 512MB at all. I'd recommend 1GB minimum if you want "smooth operation". My desktop at work had 1GB RAM in it. I only run the AD Users and Computers MMC, IE7 with a few tabs for web based applications that we run, and Outlook. I found my system going well above 512MB physical memory used and sometimes as much as 1GB. I upgraded to 2GB just to really smooth things out.

A big no-no to 512MB on Windows XP...

XP likes 768

I think I probably have Windows 7 beta 1 somewhere (edit: hmmmm nope just looked, anyone know if it came in any ms supbscriptions?)
the next beta will have a new desktop... probably lighter and faster than vistas

asb2106boo woo, 2 gbs of ram costs all of 35 dollars now

Yup and that 35 dollar ram probably fails within the same week.

eidairaman1Yup and that 35 dollar ram probably fails within the same week.

not a chance, you can get kingston, corsair, pretty much any brand you want around that price. I use the corsair value select for all my builds. I have never had one stick fail on me.

agreed my Kingston Valueram is great. As for XP, it ran fine on 512mb untill SP2. 2000 runs fine on 256mb, over 256mb XP is actully faster.

Some (most?) 'expensive boutique' RAM is just older slower spec chips overclocked. When they do this it allows them to drop latencies. It is smarter to just get the correct spec for your motherboard from the people who make the chips like Hynix or Samsung, never looked at Kingston so have no idea there.

SpathiSome (most?) 'expensive boutique' RAM is just older slower spec chips overclocked. When they do this it allows them to drop latencies. It is smarter to just get the correct spec for your motherboard from the people who make the chips like Hynix or Samsung, never looked at Kingston so have no idea there.

MOST, yes, and its just the cheap ram that can run higher, they stick some heat spreaders on it with the flashy stickers and charge you 3 times more.


Im not too excited about this windows 7.

I guess its because I like Vista, I know alot of people dont, probably quite a few here, but for me it has worked great. I honestly have more troubles getting my hardware to work in XP than I do in Vista.

My hardware is more than adiquite to run Vista lightning fast, I score a 5.9 in the vista rating(shows the scale is almost useless)

My only complaint is transfer speeds when moving large data packets. It can handle a large amount of small packets pretty easily, but it has a hard time with large packets. I have noticed though that SP1 did alot to fix this.

I think its a bad move for MS to dump Vista after all the work they did on it. Its not a bad OS, its just that MS put out way to much hype for it, and they could not deliver.

I see this just like XP back in the day, everyone hated it, but MS stuck with it and did a great job updating and delivering what we needed.

SUMMARY : I like Vista, it will be sad to see it go so fast.:toast:

I like vista too apparently it might be back till 2010 or later for windows 7 so who nos how long vista will be before its gone.

Why would they release their "greatest ever os" then rplace it a year later.If they did work on it for 5 years it would be dumb to release another one a year later.

How long have they been working on windows 7 then? 1 yr....

And i've been using vista a long time now,and its not buggy or unresponsive.You wait till you get a bsod on xp and it restarts losing all the work you have open,vista dont do that.

tigger69Why would they release their "greatest ever os" then rplace it a year later.If they did work on it for 5 years it would be dumb to release another one a year later.

How long have they been working on windows 7 then? 1 yr....

And i've been using vista a long time now,and its not buggy or unresponsive.You wait till you get a bsod on xp and it restarts losing all the work you have open,vista dont do that.

They work independently (one reason why the blow, no communication) and parallel, so it's probably been being jacked up for a couple years now haha.

Vista doesn't usually BSOD, but hanging and being unresponsive is just as good haha. Using it for word and email doesn't count as win95 can do that.