backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 355 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Aug 13 at 2:16 PM

Amid the rush to the ultra-low end bargain PC market, its amazing how cheap a fuller functional Vista machine is

Many people are eying the ultra-portable bargain notebook market thanks to up-and-comers like Lenovo's IdeaPad S10 and the MSI Wind.  Chipmakers like Intel and VIA are struggling to keep up with demand for the bargain machines.  However, lost amid the ruckus is an equally significant trend in slightly higher-end model pricing.

Going to Best Buy, Circuit City, or even Target; a plethora of machines from manufacturers like Dell and HP assault the eyes.  Many of these Vista machines have impressive muscle for modest prices.  Take HP -- the average sale price (ASP) of a notebook with 14.1-inch display, 2GHz processor, 4GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive is $699.   That kind of machine can not only replace a desktop, but also meet most users’ multimedia needs and even handle some less graphically intensive gaming.

Interestingly, prices seem to have hit a sweet spot and are quite low, though not moving up or down.  Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, who yielded the HP ASP information had this to say of the trend, "We aren't seeing any particularly substantive moves down in price on the Windows side, either in desktops or notebooks."

While obviously it’s comparing apples and oranges, and the products appeal to different markets, it’s interesting to look at how Mac prices have changed versus PC prices.  Macs have gone from an average price of $1,432 and $1,574, for desktops and laptops respectively in June '06 to $1,543 and $1,515 respectively in June '08.  While much lower to start, PCs are now even lower in average sale price. The average PC notebook went from $877 to $700, while the average desktop dipped just barely from $559 to $550.

Vista PCs have reached a sweet point with pricing that is appealing not just to the high end crowd, but to the masses.  And while prices are staying constant, hardware features are increasing, which is good for the consumer.  As Mr. Baker puts it, "Of course there is feature creep—there always is."

Another trend along these lines is the push to support 64-bit Vista.  While numbers are still small, HP is leading the way, and its strong sales are certainly making an impact in spreading 64-bit.  DailyTech went into this trend in more detail.  Mr. Baker alludes to this stating, "Forty-eight percent of June Windows notebooks are 3GB systems.  But 4GB RAM Windows notebook systems are 11.6 percent of sales in June, up from nothing [at the] beginning of [the] year."

So what exactly do the latest NPD figures on Windows PCs show?  It can be interpreted in many ways, but one major observation is that Windows PCs are clearly the champion at lower prices.  It also shows that a full featured machine can be found for a very reasonable price.  This is good news for many -- and even better news when you consider holiday sales may momentarily sink prices even further.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nice
By pauldovi on 8/6/2008 10:15:53 AM , Rating: 5
This is a good article. One of the largest fallacy that Steve Jobs worshipers make when comparing OSX to Windows is that they use $2000 Apple and $700 PC hardware and then come to the conclusion that OSX is faster. Well... Isn't that something.




RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 10:26:42 AM , Rating: 5
Have you used Windows Vista?

Go ahead, complain about UAC and all the other crap that you don't know how to turn off in Windows Vista.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By zsdersw on 8/6/2008 10:44:03 AM , Rating: 5
Then keep using XP and kwitcherbitchin'.


RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By KeypoX on 8/7/2008 7:30:33 PM , Rating: 1
your argument is almost valid about xp vs vista. Except it excludes the fact that vista is faster in loading programs and more secure then xp. Also vista doesnt slow down over time like xp does...

I use both 10.5.4 osx and vista. On my pc and laptop, and i gotta say osx is lacking in alot of areas. Such as dual monitor features. And many other places, osx is pretty much useless for power users. But fills it niche crowd well! It also has issues sometimes doing thins like office, web browsing and of course it has a tiny lineup of supported software.


RE: Nice
By kelmon on 8/8/2008 2:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
? What dual-monitor features is it missing? It's a lot easier to setup than Windows and I can't say I've ever found anything missing. Equally, I don't know what "power user" features you are lacking but can you explain further?

Seriously, if I thought OS X was lacking relative to Windows then I'd have switched back a couple of years ago and saved myself the money. The only reason why I have to run Windows as well is simply due to a number of IE-only web applications that my company runs. Aside from that I never found myself thinking "Gee, it was easier to do this under Windows". How much of an OS X power user do you consider yourself? I'm not trying to be insulting but there's usually a way of achieving pretty much anything on the Mac but how might not always be obvious if you are used to the Windows way of doing things.


RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 5
Uh....Vista IS more secure than XP. You may have your system set up right(as do I) but the average sheep doesn't know how. So for them it stays on the default settings. And in that regard Vista is FAR more secure. And for an experienced user it's even more secure than an XP computer in the hands of an experienced user.

And no, Vista won't run well on an old Athlon XP and little memory. But with an X2 costing as low as $60, 2GB of RAM costing around $50, and a quality motherboard with integrated graphics at around $75, hardware cost is hardly holding anyone back.

Nor is anyone here trying to convince you to upgrade anyway. An older PC running XP is just fine. We're saying that if you're building a new computer or buying a new computer, there's no reason NOT to use Vista.


RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 5
Go away little troll. Don't you have some children to frighten while hiding under the bridge?


RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By Chaser on 8/6/2008 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
Better than a Prius or bicycle.


RE: Nice
By anotherdude on 8/6/2008 11:32:31 AM , Rating: 5
you are so knee jerk anti-vista it is laughable. Vista simply isn't any slower than XP on a decent new system. This kind of mindless anti-vista bashing no longer plays. People know better. But keep screaming it anyway. A few uninformed sheep might still be listening. The tide has turned on Vista - suck it down.


RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 11:51:23 AM , Rating: 3
I already countered your blind criticism in plenty of other posts.

And I'm glad to know what car one drives is indicative of their intelligence. Nor do I drive a Camaro any longer (of course I hope to again in 2011).


RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 4:49:22 PM , Rating: 4
If it was fanaticism, that'd be one thing. But all I've ever said is that it is a perfectly capable OS. Is it bug free? No. But neither is OSX or Linux. Beyond the lack of drivers, Vista has had a relatively painless launch. There were no extremely critical security holes. There was a few issues with networking and file transfers (not nearly as bad as OSX's with files being lost).

But other than that the only real complaints were high system requirements (not really an issue with low hardware costs) and lack of/poor drivers. Drivers are not Microsoft's responsibility so I do not hold them accountable for that. Now that drivers are more mature and SP1 is here which fixed many of those non-driver related issues, the OS is quite good. Yes it still has higher requirements than XP but thats the way it always is. Not necessarily a good thing but I'm not going to complain when I can 4GB of RAM for $80 and even a modest $60 dual core CPU can handle it.

As far as your "apology" below for calling me a redneck, I could care less. I have a very good job. I don't really care what some ignorant fool, who blindly bashes an OS it sounds like he's never even used, thinks of me. I'd rather take the redneck comment. I use "ain't" on a regular basis, love "gas guzzling" sports cars, love blowing shit up, love guns, love our military, and am a loyal citizen of Texas who lives away from his homeland for now.


RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By abzillah on 8/6/2008 6:32:35 PM , Rating: 4
I bought Vista for $89 from newegg.com
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...


RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 7:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that's what I get for only using the prices I remember from last year. Guess you can totally retract my previous post.


RE: Nice
By Tamale on 8/7/2008 11:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
vista ultimate as an upgrade from XP was only $99 from circuit city last week


RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By DASQ on 8/6/2008 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 4
Well being that FIT Camaro has posted a comment in this article, it can't be him downrating you.


RE: Nice
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 2:00:47 PM , Rating: 4
I think everyone is down-rating your posts, not just him.


RE: Nice
By borismkv on 8/6/2008 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I know I would if he wasn't at -1 already. As for me, I'm getting more and more tempted to blow 500 bucks and throw a nice upper-mid range video card, 8gigs of RAM and Vista Ultimate 64 in my rig.


RE: Nice
By AnnihilatorX on 8/6/2008 2:46:24 PM , Rating: 4
Well I have been using vista for a while. To me both vista and XP are good, if your PC has right config. For any PCs with less than 2GB RAM, XP is the way to go. There's not much gain in dashing out money to switch, unless you have bought 4GB RAM (well avoid 64 bit XP). If you buy a new PC with more than 2GB RAM, I don't see why you should be put off by it being bundled with Vista,

Whereas I see no major cons of not using Vista for higher end computer, I also see not much reasons for switching to Vista if you are a XP user.

Prefetching I don't have much experience with, since I use SSDs. But running frequently programs on slower HDDs does seem to be quicker than in XP. There are good GUI improvements over XP, I especially like the quick search and launch start menu. The GUI also feels less sluggish and less likely to crash (explorer.exe needs to shut down, etc)
Another seldom mentioned feature is to be able to config volume (and stored as preference) independently for each applications. This is not possible in XP.

Voice recognition is improved and it's actually quite a nice system but that's a niche feature.

Vista do take up a lot more HDD space due to the Winsxs (Windows Side-by-Side) directory, which stores old copies of dlls for compatibility reasons. That folder can swallow to in excess of 5GBs. I had been able to reach reportedly 10GB, while some of them are actually hard links (not taking up physical space) but still significant.

Cold boot start up time is slower than XP. I can't give precise comparison because I am using SSDs.

And yes, vista is more secure. But a system is only as secure as its weakest link, which usually in these days in IT world, the users.


RE: Nice
By sld on 8/7/2008 4:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Cold boot on my Thinkpad T60 is faster on Vista SP1 than on XP SP3.

By any chance, did you disable the Readyboost service? That has to be kept on Automatic so Readyboot can gather boot data.


RE: Nice
By leexgx on 8/7/2008 9:58:04 AM , Rating: 1
not that i am jumping on his band waggonn

as overall use of all OS in my life time (from dos/3.11 up) all of them have had hardware requrements that seem silly,
out of all OS i think ever one agrees win ME was the worst os that thay have made, the windows NT core (4/2k/XP)has been M$ best, the main problem with secuerity problems with XP or any OS is that users do not think before saying yes i install win antivirusVista2008 (fraudware)
with vista you get now an UAC nag + the install activeX plugin and if the user ignores both and plods along with them

vista takes it to far this time as hard disk tech is not fast enough once it gets into one of its hard disk bashing modes (mostly at fault the new System Restor/Volume Shadow Copy that is linked into all of Vista vers) once SSD fully takes off (as it can handle random reads far better then HDDs as thats what ) SSD will be able to hide lots of random reads

on my next reload i most likey uses vista 64 on my gameing PC only and deal with the niggles but other pcs will be sticking with XP untill windows 7 i guess or beyond


RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 4
Vista runs like a breeze on my high end 1 year old Intel Core 2 Duo rig, 3 year old Dell Latitude D610 with a Pentium M, 3 year old AMD Opteron 165 rig and 6 year old Pentium 4 2.4B Dell Precision rig.

Gotta be an interface issue between the keyboard and chair for Vista to "run like garbage" for you.


RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Spivonious on 8/6/2008 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 5
Setting up my home network with Vista was cake.

1. plugged in the router
2. setup the WPA2 keyphrase
3. plugged in the ethernet cable into my desktop (vista HP x64)
4. turned on the Wii, setup WPA settings
5. turned on my laptop (Vista Ultimate x86), setup WPA settings
6. Go into Network Connection Center and turn off password-protected file sharing.

Oh look, everything works.

Sure, there's not any pressing reason to upgrade to Vista right now, but to say that setting up a network with it "is a headache" is flat out wrong.


RE: Nice
By danrien on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By othercents on 8/6/2008 1:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, I run two machines (1 desktop, 1 laptop) and both were purchased this year. The desktop runs Vista Premium and the laptop runs XP. Media Center on Vista is much better than the XP Media Center and since the desktop is mainly my media machine (I do other things too) I like using Vista.

My laptop is mainly my gaming machine and I also VPN into my office from time to time. The VPN software doesn't work on Vista and it is easier for me to use XP instead of spending money for firewall upgrades at my office. I have also had a better experience with the games I play on XP. They don't crash as often and I don't have the lag issues I had in Vista.

Vista works great and like I said I do use a Vista machine, but for my laptop I prefer XP. Telling me I should use only Vista is like telling me that I should be driving a Prius because of gas prices. Well my response is that I prefer feeding $280 per month into my 67 Mustang and buying new tires every year. Sure beats the hell out of having a $300 car payment and still putting $120 in gas into a Prius.

Other


RE: Nice
By kkwst2 on 8/6/2008 11:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
VPN issue must be related to version. It works beautifully on my T61 with Ultimate. I vaguely recall that you need Business or ultimate to get proper VPN and they removed it from Home Premium.

There must be 3rd party VPN software to solve your issue.


RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 5:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
I said it was a headache for *me* - I'm far to used to Networking in the age old Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2K/XP and when I tried performing the task on Vista I honestly got lost.
I like to set Static I.P's for everything, It took me a good 15 minuets clicking around in the network settings just to find my network adapters, call me silly but to me it was cosmetic changes that was not really required, and consequently became more trouble than it was worth.

The operating system in other respects looks rather good, I do miss some of the Run commands though like DXDIAG.

Lets be realistic though, If I can do everything fine in Windows XP, is there really any incentive for me to upgrade to Vista when it provides no benefit for my required Needs?


RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/2008 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
The incentive is to make Steve Ballmer and MS Stockholders happy.


RE: Nice
By AnnihilatorX on 8/6/2008 2:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the network sharing centre is a pain in the ass by hiding the "Manage network connections" link. Trying to be user friendly there but it's just made it much less user friendly. Since you can't do much on the network centre without going to the network connections akin to the XP network connections.

However, you can manually create a shortcut to network connections page. This will eliminate the need to use the network and sharing centre, and problem solved.


RE: Nice
By allajunaki on 8/6/2008 9:47:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, Network center is a real pain.... But for ordinary people this can be great, coz Vista identifies if we are on the just network, or if the network extends to Internet.
Also, Wifi setup is much more simpler on vista as compared to XP. Other day we were struggling to get an XP machine onto our LAN.
However, like others pointed out; Advanced tasks are little harder, coz they are buried deeper than XP.

Well, I have heard from others Vista is slow, but 2 machines in my home is quite fast, does its job, requires no pampering and runs quietly enough for us to do whatever we are doing.
And people who think they are smarter than UAC and bugged by it, well if u are, how come u havent figured it out on how to turn it off yet? ( Hint : Click Start -> Typer "User" -> Click User Accounts -> Click "Turn User Account Control", Reboot. Work done)


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By zyren on 8/6/2008 2:38:31 PM , Rating: 5
no choice? its your own fault that you only have 512mb of ram. I find that kind of foolish and slightly masochistic that anyone would go through the grief of running 512mb of ram on a computer when you could easily spend $50-60 to upgrade to 2gb.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By DeuceHalo on 8/6/2008 3:33:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You could easily spend $60 to upgrade. At the moment I cannot and do not consider it a priority by any stretch.


Apparently you don't even consider paying for your OS a priority either, but believe Microsoft owes it to you for free.

BTW - 512MB of DDR can be had for less than $20 off Newegg. If you're still too cheap to buy it, then you don't need Vista.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By audiomaniaca on 8/7/2008 11:10:59 AM , Rating: 2
512? This must be a joke!

I used to have 512 back in 2004 or something.
Who's wasting time to reply to someone using 512? He shouldn't even be posting here with his 512.


RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 4:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it works, doesn't it? I upgraded from 1GB to 2GB not long ago. Only photo/videoedtiting gained from that. Windows XP itself actually feels more sluggish with 2GB.


RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:17:03 PM , Rating: 5
If you're fine with what you have then stop crying over what you can't apparently afford. If you used a real version of vista on a decent $600 computer (from the last year or two), you might think differently. The only thing that's keeping you from having an open opinion is that you don't want to have an open opinion.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/7/2008 8:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I use Windows XP and never see this 512 in full use.


I use Windows XP at work and with only Outlook 2003, IE7 with a few tabs, the AD Users & Computers MMC and maybe VNC or MSTSC open and it goes well above 512MB in physical memory usage. Sometimes I get up to 900MB+ when McAfee is running it's bloated scans here. Thankfully my Dell Precision 390 here at work has 2GB DDR2 in it. That's what it takes to run Windows XP and it could easily handle Vista as well.

If you are using 512MB RAM with Windows XP then I doubt you are doing anything beyond using Notepad or the Calculator. Start browsing some serious websites and watch your system come to a crawl with that little of memory.


RE: Nice
By bigjaicher on 8/6/2008 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 5
leeched a lighter copy of Vista off TPB

...

That may explain it?


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By DeuceHalo on 8/6/2008 3:29:01 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft doesn't recommend pre-DX9 cards in Vista, but you expect them to have full functionality with obsolete hardware?


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 4:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
Vista uses DX9 for windows and stuff regardless of whether Aero is on. Hence the requirement for DX9. XP supported cards pre-2001 because its graphics used DX7 and were all handled on the CPU. Vista uses the GPU.

And DirectX9 was released in 2002. I think 9.0c came out in 2004. I guess they figured people would have upgraded their GPU in the past 4-6 years.

And the way I see it just stick with XP for a system using that old a GPU. My parents have a system still using a Ti4200. But since its using an old Athlon XP 2400+ S754, it definitely wouldn't be switched to Vista anyyway.


RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 5:57:14 PM , Rating: 1
Vista still supports dial-up because much of the US still runs on it, and they likely will be on it for a long LONG time.


RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
You can enable Aero under Vista simply by modding your drivers yourself so that the Graphics card is compatible with the operating system, or you could use already modded drivers from Omega or NGOHQ. (Google is your friend on the process on how to do it)

Then apply the registry tweaks to enable Aero on Pre- Direct X 9 cards, some people have had success others have had failure but here is a good thread with the various tweaks and additional links: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archi...


RE: Nice
By masouth on 8/6/2008 3:16:00 PM , Rating: 4
If you are using the basic MS graphics driver then Vista was not to blame for your stuttering while scrolling webpages, the driver was.

This happens in XP as well. That basic driver is pretty much just enough to see the screen untilyou can load a real driver.


RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 8/6/2008 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 3
I think he was aware of that. His idiocy lies in not running Vista on the right software for the Aero interface - and then trying to blame the OS for not doing something it wasn't designed for. Windows 95 barely ran on a 486 either.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:20:53 PM , Rating: 5
But would it run Crysis?

Yes, you did "state [your] issue correctly," but logically, people aren't allowed to complain about things they don't/can't have. So stop. Do you critique cars you don't drive as well? What about other people?

I want to send you a complimentary "Jump to Conclusions" mat.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
Logically? no, you'd have to make sense first. Morally, I can't stop you, nor can anyone else, from exercising your right to free speech. But just because you have an opinion doesn't make it valid, nor does it mean you put any thought into it, thus a lack of logic in coming to that opinion.

Also, I don't take returns on my "Jump to Conclusions" mat.

Reference: http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2...


RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Many people critique things they've never used/watched/touched/etc before. It's exactly why it's called an opinion and not an experience or cold hard fact.

As far as people.... it's been shown that we make up our own judgment on them within the first 30 seconds of even seeing them. Course, that's probably just an average.. but it's a basic instinct that we all have. It's how we identify things that can be a threat to us.... though that was back in the day before they came up with the saying "don't judge people by the way they look."


RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 8:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you answered you own question there. Just because it is, doesn't make it right. Here's to not judging people based on the way they look.


RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
I Critique large 4 wheel drives/SUV's because they are a pain to see around when parked next to while reversing out of a car park.


RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 10:02:21 PM , Rating: 1
I'll give You that a 486DX4-100MHz could do an OK job with 95 - at the time it wasn't bad. I remember...


RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 10:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
This was for larsson...


RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 10:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not this 20 seconds after I post downrating shi. again. Don't You have anything else to do.....


RE: Nice
By rykerabel on 8/7/2008 10:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
forget what you know about antiquated memory management, Vista does it different.

Vista doesn't actually use that much RAM. It actually claims it and allocates it in reserve to keep it ready to run applications. So it may look like you only had 120MB left, you actually had most of your RAM left.

that and go ahead and blow that $10 for another GB of ram.


RE: Nice
By jvillaro on 8/6/2008 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 3
Oh come on! Of coarse it's not going to run faster than XP. Get over it, it does runs nicely anyway.
By your comparison in your own bizarre world, it won't run faster that win 98, win 95, and DOS. Tell you what, XP won't run faster than those either.
Get a life, get a job, get whatever you want but stop your b!ching.


RE: Nice
By ecktt on 8/6/2008 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
My 6 year old Dell Precision runs Vista Ultimate 32 better than XP ever did. By better I mean every thing is more responsive. My pc must be some sort of paradox.


RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/2008 3:45:08 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, why would I want my Quad Core2 to run slower?

When 8core CPUs hit the market with 8GB of system RAM, then Vista should feel like a 16Mhz Amiga. ;)

Gotta love the "Turbo Cache Feature" of Visa that no other OS needs.


RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give that one to you. (especially with the average sheep part)

The common issue around here is folks having little to work with and not wanting to spend to upgrade. In that regard, I hook them up with a lite reinstall and lock it down.

But yeah, if I bought a new machine I'd probably keep Vista and shut off as much as I could.


RE: Nice
By wallijonn on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 2:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with NVIDIA chipsets, AMD processors, XP SP3, and SiS (hey.. 761GX is a good cheap solution, just no one better than ECS uses it)?

GP was right on with the costs. You can , believe it or not, get quality parts on the cheap. Vista is just fine with an IGP so long as it's either got the backing of a powerful CPU, or it's DX10.

For a small system (no dual graphics, etc.) 300 to 350W is more than enough, and most are sourced from Seasonic anyway. That won't run you any more than $60, if you've managed to buy a case that didn't already come with one (Antec or Apevia).

And I've never had parts die on me after a year, that's just the luck of the draw. I have a Biostar board, AMD processor, two hard drives, and a Geforce3. All from 2003. None dead.

If you're that concerned over the cost of Vista, pirate it or don't get it at all, since we know you won't suck it up and make the investment.

BTW that plasma would suck more power than your PC. Good thinking.