When Vista Capable is not enough.

Linkage.

Damn - I never would have thought.


'core experiences' - Don't you just love these guys.

yeah lol, what is a core experience? An inner contact with God? Seeing your kids born? Finding true love? Wow Vista must be pretty damn good, and all I need is a new graphics card yeah?

Hello.

A core experience is when Bill Gates gets an Apple rammed up his Aero-shole.

Goodbye.

Core experiences means it can run basic Windows Vista without all the frontend or special features of Windows Vista, in other words with everything turned off.

More like a "Cor Blimey !" experience.

Lol at the same time getting a penguin stuck in his wind-owspipe

I dont get it,
All these Vista(in)capable machines are all very powerful PCs compared to my main PC (and its a crap PC). But, im achieving something (very similar) to this link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HLtNydndU&mode=related&search=
Im using an old generic GEforce 4MX 512Mb and a 2ghz celeron. However it is just as smooth when not too loaded down, like loads and loads of windows open.
(Doesnt matter though, i can turn all the fancyness on and off cleanly with one click to get more CPU/GPU/RAM if needed for modelling or video editing).

My laptop is much more powerful and is running XP/Vista. When running vista the performance for most everyday things (web,email,word,videos,mp3,blitzmax etc) is similar to my linux one (the crap PC) except the windows one doesnt look as good.

Those people who have bought expensive state of the art 'vista capable' machines and find they arent have a right to be PISSED especially when Mac and Linux are now making it look like s..t on half the hardware.

It(vista) actually works 99%(except the odd crash and 1 bluescreen on install) on mine and im still not impressed. Certainly no WOW!
So far for me its been Linux=WOW!, OSX=COOL!, XP=NICE, VISTA=WTF!

I don't see the problem with either of those blurbs. The original one in particular was very straightforward - ie Vista Capable PCs can run Vista, but can't necessarily run the fancy parts. I hope MS win this lawsuit in this case, because to think otherwise is stupid user error.

However, I do take objection to PC vendors advertising Vista on their PCs (complete with all that 'WOW', supposedly), when they are actually shipping Home Basic editions on their crappy ass PCs.

Pff, I'm running the Ubuntu Feisty beta on my 500 mHz Celeron Compaq Presario from ages ago. It has integrated i810 Intel Extreme Graphics and so little RAM that it is smothering the page file before I'm logged in. It can run Desktop Effects, which uses Compiz, which is the same thing as Beryl there (Beryl is split from Compiz, they're merging again soon).
It doesn't run well on there but it certainly goes beyond my expectations by actually running at all. Transparent windows worked, bouncy windows worked :) A few parts (for example, the Alt+Tab menu) really chugged, but they ended up working out in the end. It wasn't fantastic to operate Compiz on such an old machine and lots of effects looked less pretty than they're meant to look, but it did not die from it and in some cases it even felt faster than usual... (Some things, like dragging windows, seemed more responsive).
It's not running Compiz now ( in fact, they changed Desktop Effects so I couldn't! :( ), but it is fun to say that it can!

"Core experience" Vista......aka.....WinXP w/ more bloat and steeper requirements.

If I were Microsoft, I wouldn't have even bothered with the lower-end Vistas, they should have just made a push for the higher-end systems, and leave the old machines out in the cold.

OMG :O , Touche!... I would have thought that would be one for Xubuntu or DSL!

LOL! Just goes to show how munchy-munchy windows is.

I have a dozen or so Dell GX620 at work, and they only have a "Vista capable" logo on them. However, they do run Vista with Aero Glass and all its effects activated. I think this proves how misleading that Vista logo program can be and that this lawsuit has some justification.

They did. They just didn't tell anyone.

core experience - does that mean when you boot ms-dos from a floppy?

I can see why you said this, but its that kind of thinking thats sending this planet down the pan.
Why does vista NEED to be so high end. If it was coded more efficiently it would run regardless of hardware. As picklesworth so pointedly proved above.

When computers are replaced unneccassarily it generates MOUNTAINS of toxic waste, including freon, hex chromium, lead, a number of heavy metals, silicon... the list is endless.

In the oldskool days of the amiga, the programmers got better and developed new ways to push the hardware they had, with amazing results.

Now, its the other way round. I doubt any of the past pc platforms have ever really shone to their full potential, 2/3/486 pentium1234 etc. simply because the code gets lazier, bulkier and not as efficient as it can be.

At the end of the day, if i wasn't into graphics and games (ie. most people), most of the stuff, i would be using my new laptop
(which not long ago would be classed a 'supercomputer' with such power.)
for is now reduced to some eyecandy, email, word / spreadsheet and browsing the web. Most of which i might add was possible (ok, a lot more unrefined) on my olivetti 8086 pc1 with 512k ram and a 20mb harddisk (except the web as it didnt really exist back then).

(Ok very extreme examples but you an see my point.. i hope)

Im not against progress, but im against uncessacary progress in the name of making some already obscenely rich guys (and his 'friends') more money than the GDP of a small country.

I on the other hand have a Vista capable tablet (X41t) and all I can say: Lot but as long as you are hit by Intel shit GPU, definitely not capable.

Even on Win2k theme, the performance is FAR below WinXP!
(it has a P-M 778, 1GB RAM, 60GB HD and resolution of 1024x768 on a sucky GMA 900 which did not get any WDDM drivers from piss-tel as they don't see a reason in making sure that this card even meets the capable requirements which it definitely does not with XPDM drivers ...)

Hey hey, it's only about 8GB of bloat with no noticeable user improvements whatsoever ;]


So on one hand this lawsuit is based around the fact that some whinger got conned into buying a crappy PC with a Vista logo on it - and you're saying that's justified by the way that your work computers that are less crappy actually -deserve- to have the Vista logo on it? Is it still April Fools..?