Vista REQUIRES new hardware, but what does it actually do with it? Other than "looking pretty".

The shadows, transparency, and translucency that Vista requires a 2GHz CPU and 256MB graphics card have already been done on Mac OS X 5 years ago with a 500MHz CPU and 16MB graphics card. Sit down and use Mac OS X for about 15 minutes and you will realize what the inspiration was for all of the graphical touches in Vista. Although IMO they are done better in Mac OS X.

Also, everyone mentions DirectX 10. There are already projects out for 1 year now that show that DirectX 10 will run on Windows XP.

I use vista and have for a while. The first thing I did was disable the UAC and bubble pop up windows. I got Vista because I got new hardware that Vista's able to take advantage of. I loved XP and it worked great, but again I was upgrading my hardware and needed Vista to take advantage of the hardware.

Can I ask what hardware Vista takes advantage of?

I was hoping for more of a response to my post above. Not trying to start an argument, just trying to get an understanding of what feature Vista has that people want. It seems intangible. Like someone forgot the bullet point list.

The one thing that I REALLY like about Vista is that it starts up so quickly. From a cold start, my Vista machine is ready for work in 35 seconds. With all my other machines, I press the start button, then go take a shower or have breakfast, and we're both ready to work at about the same time.

One way or the other,Jim has to make MA3 compatible with Vista and Windows 7 anyway. http://e.imagehost.org/0038/duh_6b.gif


http://e.imagehost.org/0229/terminator.gif

I was hoping everyone would just skip Vista and go to Windows 7. Just like the vast majority of people skipped Windows Me.

Just to be clear - MA3 works fine with the normal 32-bit version of Vista. A few difficult-to-duplicate issues have arisen with Vista64.

I'm running this screensaver (v3.0 beta) on Vista 64 bit, and have no issues at all. Looks stunning on a Dell Ultrasharp 24" widescreen LCD at 1920 x 1200.

As far as Vista goes, I'm very happy with it. I was a big XP fan, but no way would I go back to it. Vista is just much better now.......running 32 bit on my laptop and 64 bit on my gaming rig.

That's the plan for me . Even the sales people in stores are saying the same thing . What clinched it for me was a page on a Microsoft website saying that if you disable enough features Vista can be made to run as fast as XP . Uh , what ??? As far as startup times with XP , it's a minute and forty five seconds for me from pressing the on button to surfing the net . I've removed all the unecessary startup items ( just firewall and AV left ) plus disabled a few of the services I never use .

I too had hoped to skip Vista and go straight to Windows-7 BUT my motherboard died last week and now here I am on a 64-bit Vista machine. Seems OK so far but is a little frustrating when all of the software I used to use and want now doesn't work (even in compatability mode).

I have problems getting my old Marine Aquarium 1.1 to run - it installs fine BUT will only run manually and is not present in the Screensavers list (see other thread). However, I have downloaded the demo for Marine Aquarium 3 and it works perfectly. So other users should not be afraid of Vista the upgrade of Aquarium is fine - absolutely stunning on my new 22 inch LG Flatron screen.

By the way, I too have ended up turning off UAC - a royal pain in the backside - a shame the implementation was so poor as the basic idea is good.

Steve :)