I was reading Ed Bott’s blog today about Vista Mythbusters #1. He sure knows how to stir the pot with a platinum spoon. Comments were coming out of the woodwork like carpenter ants. Just how much computer does one need to run Vista? Of course the rumors are scary enough to elicit panic in the average Joe Blow out there. How much more money must I invest into my machine…i.e. RAM, graphics card, etc…or should I just buy a new computer with the Vista OS already installed? Many friends of mine have made arguments for both routes, saying that the makers of their computers they already have should provide low-cost upgrade solutions for graphics and processor speed and RAM; and by the same token, those friends of mine who are in the market for a new computer at the moment say that a good desktop with plenty of oomph for running Vista won’t cost over $800 [not a gaming system].
UPDATE: see my latest post “…and, yet, more mythology…“
But there is one fact that sticks in my craw. Will Vista be a more viably stable system? [XP definetly was more stable than previous Windows versions] Or does it just look pretty? Will it be the kind of upgrade we all need without the doomed “WinFS” embedded in it? [I, for one, am disappointed over this] I’m pretty sceptical. The supposed enhanced security will be a selling point for many, but they are already finding holes…don’t they always?
But, inevitably, there will be those folks who do not upgrade their systems even one iota, then complain that Vista slows down their computer…well, duh! I can’t begin to tell you how many friends’ computers I’ve worked on that shouldn’t even be running Windows XP on them. And when you suggest that they buy another stick of RAM, or call Dell [or Gateway, or HP, etc] and see what upgrades are available for their computer model, they look at you like you’re looney tunes.
So, that’s the rub, then, isn’t it? Money. And getting the facts……..thanks, Ed for an informative article! I’m looking forward to Vista Mythbusters #2!