Topic: Vista capable machines NOT capable

[Panzergranate]

The 80286 lived on in industry as an embeded processor and ended up at 40 Mhz.

The fast 80286 PCs used NEAT technology and a 80286 16 Mhz. was twice as fast as a 80386 16 Mhz.  PC. I have an old 80286/25 NEAT PC board which I use for robotics.

80386s were always handicaped by thier 16 bit data bus despite the internal 32 bit data bus. The 80486 was a truw 32 bit processor and not a pseudo one like the 80386.

The Z80 is up to the E and F versions with 1 M.Byte of paged RAM (the Z80 was the first processro to run virtual memory actually), built in ROM, CTC, PIO, SIO, etc. and is the first one chip computer system. Clock speed are in excess of 50 Mhz. last time I looked.

I've run every version of Windows since Windows 1.03 and was always gripes about them.

[TFO KILLSWITCH]

the way i see it its buyer beware
vista is not a system hog as people think
here look at this
-----------
Machine name: -PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_FDR.070627-1500)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: INTEL_
       System Model: DP965LT_
               BIOS: Default System BIOS
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
          Memory: 807MB used, 3468MB available <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------im only using 807 out of 3468
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 64bit Unicode
----------------
its a 64bit machine

i play sfc3 and have the server runing on this machine
no problems

[Nemesis]

The fast 80286 PCs used NEAT technology and a 80286 16 Mhz. was twice as fast as a 80386 16 Mhz.  PC. I have an old 80286/25 NEAT PC board which I use for robotics.

That speed difference does not match what I recall.  My memory says that they ran neck and neck at the same mhz rating. 

80386s were always handicaped by thier 16 bit data bus despite the internal 32 bit data bus.

There were two models of the 386.  They paralleled the 8086 which was 16 bit with a 16 bit data bus and the 8088 which was 16 bit but an 8 bit bus.  The 386DX was 32 bit with a 32 bit data bus.  The 386SX was 32 bit internally but used a 16 bit data bus to allow cheaper motherboard. 

The 386SX being handicapped to allow cheaper motherboard is pretty much what AMD did with the socket 754 vs socket 939 chips.  Limit the chip to allow cheaper systems to be built.  Then as motherboard tech caught up switch on to the more advanced socket.

The 80486 was a truw 32 bit processor and not a pseudo one like the 80386.

Only true when compared to the 386SX not the 386DX.  The 386DX was fully 32 bit.

The 2 advantages of the 486DX were the internal L1 cache and the integrated math coprocessor.  The 486SX lacked the coprocessor.

[Commander Maxillius]

the way i see it its buyer beware
vista is not a system hog as people think
here look at this
-----------
Machine name: -PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_FDR.070627-1500)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: INTEL_
       System Model: DP965LT_
               BIOS: Default System BIOS
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
          Memory: 807MB used, 3468MB available <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------im only using 807 out of 3468
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 64bit Unicode
----------------
its a 64bit machine

i play sfc3 and have the server runing on this machine
no problems

How many programs are using that 807MB?  Besides, the issue isn't if top-kit rigs like yours can run Vista, it's whether upgraded older ones and low-kit new PCs can.  Of course you'll run Vista great with 3.5 GB of RAM.

[Panzergranate]

I've owned both 386 SX and DX versions and they were still slower than a 286 NEAT of the same speed.

I was lucky enough to pick up a broken Compaq 386 SX with the 387 and 4 M.Byte RAM modules in 1991 for Ł10. It took minutes to fix and I used this as the main PC until a sick 486 DX 66 fell into my lap a year later.

I used to run Win 3.11 NT with the Sparta override, which converted it into a Mac type desktop. It also stopped the crashes.

I think folks'll need to experiment and compile their findings as a guide rather than specualte on what'll run VISTA and what won't.

We'll need a new post for that.

[TFO KILLSWITCH]

the way i see it its buyer beware
vista is not a system hog as people think
here look at this
-----------
Machine name: -PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_FDR.070627-1500)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: INTEL_
       System Model: DP965LT_
               BIOS: Default System BIOS
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
          Memory: 807MB used, 3468MB available <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------im only using 807 out of 3468
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 64bit Unicode
----------------
its a 64bit machine

i play sfc3 and have the server runing on this machine
no problems

How many programs are using that 807MB?  Besides, the issue isn't if top-kit rigs like yours can run Vista, it's whether upgraded older ones and low-kit new PCs can.  Of course you'll run Vista great with 3.5 GB of RAM.

i was runing the sfc3 server kit.vintrillo, and playing bf2142

[Panzergranate]

One thought....

Now that Intel's Dual Core Processors have removed the problem of stack overflow, doe that mean that perhaps we're finally progressing towards a Microsoft crash proof computer??!!

Or has Microsoft have a team already looking into ways around this crash barrier??!!

[TFO KILLSWITCH]

8 muths  have gone buy no crashes
and i have put it threw  the ringer
ive hade up to 8 programes running at one time
bf2142,bf2,guild wars, vintrillo,sfc3,freelancer,battel stations midway,halo 2

[Commander Maxillius]

I regularly have 10+ programs going at once on my Mac Mini, one of which is the web browser and *that* typically has 15+ windows open. 

It's crashed once since January, and that's because it got bored (wasn't running anything but the OS).

[Age]

Regarding Vista.I was wondering if Direct X 10 will be able to play SFC 2 and 3 games or those that run on DX90C?