Windows 2006 screen shots!!!

Quad Master said:
Fantastic pics , when is it coming guys.
Ne one tried the Beta Developer release.
Thanks for sharing.
And this is the right section :)
Click to expand...

lol...the thread was originally posted in "Open Source".

so..moved it here...

now to topic...the first 2 pics are frm vista (first release)

a lot has changed since then. dunno abt the rest of the pics

though..i doubt they're frm vista.
 
Blame me for Argus not being able to Install it properly - Gave him an improperly burnt media - I installed it, but it was taking waay too many resources and even with over 1GB of RAM, it was making the system crawl.... (All eyecandy turned on Of course).

Will post some proper screenshots as soon as i get a more stable build.
 
Looks like Vista is very very demanding.
System not working properly even with 1GB ram is like too much.

Seriously how many people inthe world have more than 1GB of Ram on there
rigs , currently most of the people i know most of them have max 512MB most of the people on TE have 1GB as standard very few people on TE
might be having 2GB of Ram.

Donno what did microsoft think when they designed Vista.
Design a OS or a 3D Game [infact its more demanding than current 3d games of the Ram part].
 
Take a look firstly at the dvd release sizes.
(Windows Vista Beta 1 x32 DVD 2.46 GB,Windows Vista Beta 1 x64 DVD 1.73 GB)
okey ! Well firstly if the beta dvd sizes are to give any hint,get ready for some awesome upgrades and tremendous slashes in the pirice of anything thats not vista compatable !

"Vista would work best on a video card with more than 256MB RAM, 2GB of DDR3 memory and a S-ATA 2 hard drive. " Moreover "Your PC will run faster with dual core, really it will." says a microsoft employee from australia.check out the same read for more details.

But the bottom line is that ,it is a part of the evolution ,blame it on Moores law,or corporate beuocracy of the see saws between gfz and processor companies,but it is and has a alwaye been a unavoidable situation that we find configs getting otdated and newer modelscoming up faster than they used to. COming back...theres an interesting read that says asserts Vista is indeed a hardware beast
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.

CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.

HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.

Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.

Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Yay.
Click to expand...
pretty contradictary to what this article titled Which decisions to make now so that you're ready for Windows Vista on the MS website, had to say though.Atleast they can/should warn us early enough !
 
Well yeah that kinda rig is going to support Vista and there will be people with such PC's soon.

No use buying it now as those components are going to get cheaper in the next 10 months, so right now is the worst time to buy a new rig.
 
imagine the fools at microsoft. with minimum requirements of 2gb i wonder if the future releases of microsoft will have us buying high end dual core proccy's for home use, with lotsa ram maybe in tera bytes.
 
Everyone who has a beginning has an end.
This is going to be the end of microsoft .

How can they expect us to upgrade to 2GB RAM just for their piece of crap?
It is illogical , and I am pretty sure , it is not worth buying a 2GB piece.

Longtime we have been surrendering to their fancies , it is time others take over with some solid reason in desktop market.
 
Noone expected people to upgrade to 64mb for win98 and 256mb for winxp and everyone still did it.

Even so I can bet it will run easily on 1gb and good enough on 512mb.
Hell xp runs totally smooth with just 128mb with all the effects turned on if you don't have a lot of useless apps loading at startup.
 
Back
Top