Vista OS

1. Jan 28, 2007

Mike628

is anyone actually gonna get it?

im hearing that you have to upgrade all your stuff in order to get the thing to just run :( thats a little to much, + the $700 dollars for the program (well every one bootlegs! (jk) ):tongue2: 2. Jan 28, 2007 verty Who told you it costs$700? Better check your facts.

3. Jan 28, 2007

Crosson

Expectations are very low, and for MS that is probably a good thing.

Apparently their profits tanked this past quarter, but not as badly as expected, which is again a good thing.

I still use Windows 2000 on my desktop, and I have my Averatec 2300 laptop with WindowsXP covered up completely by a facade of OS X (windowblinds, YzDock, etc).

MS will not catch up to Apple (or even KDE and GNOME) in the style and design department, so I wish they had focused on performance rather then clutter. I will be dodging Vista like the plague...since businesses could barely stand the visual crap overload in XP, MS will probably start to release a seperate business line of OS (like the NT days) and that is when I will upgrade.

I am also quite disturbed by the way MS has been forcing updates, I use NLITE to remove all of the auto-update components before my windows is even installed. I refer to this as the windows equivalent of castration, since WinXP is like a horny teenager when it comes to updates.

4. Jan 28, 2007

Mike628

hahaha, i meant 500 for the premium. but it looks like the price has changed again!! lol..but still...if you have to buy new hardware like a new graphics card and processor, its gonna be about 500-700 dont you you think?

5. Jan 28, 2007

Mike628

6. Jan 28, 2007

I wouldn't call $2b+ in profits exactly a crisis. 7. Jan 28, 2007 Anttech I suppose thats why SAP is one of the most distributed ERP systems in the world? 8. Jan 28, 2007 Dr Transport Some of Vista's components are a direct response to Mac going to the Intel chip-set. The next version of the Mac OS will have multi-booting capability integral, whereas in the past Windows has made it quite difficult to add other operating systems to the computer. My brother-in-law went back to Mac's when they changed over. The beauty of it is that you can buy a Mac, the machine has the ability to run Mac but also Linux and Microsoft, not something you an do with a windows box right now very easily. Not much of a market share, but enough for Microsoft to react. I was going to wait on my next purchase of a laptop to get Vista, but from what I've heard elsewhere I might wait for a while and see how easy their multi-boot capability is to actually implement. 9. Jan 29, 2007 Moonbear Staff Emeritus I've heard it's really not worth an upgrade if you aren't getting a new machine, because it'll actually slow down performance on older machines. But, I didn't get information on what is defined as "older" or what sort of specs you should have to run it. As with any new OS, I'd wait a while for them to work out the big bugs. Again, unless you're desperately in need of a new machine and can't avoid the upgrade, I wouldn't jump to be one of the first to try it (then again, I'm biased against Microsoft software, so keep that in mind as you read my suggestions). 10. Jan 30, 2007 moe darklight I have the original release of vista and it works great, I would recommend you get that one instead of the new version as it runs much smoother (even on slower machines) and has all the same new features (actually, a couple more, I think they took some out of the original release). they still sell it in stores under the name of "MAC OS X." Last edited: Jan 30, 2007 11. Mar 31, 2007 Astronuc Staff Emeritus http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2408037.ece [Broken] Microsoft's new system is streets ahead of XP, but is not without its problems, says James Daley Published: 31 March 2007 It's the problems I have a problem with. :grumpy: And why should the third parties cooperate? Why doesn't MS offer to cooperate? Oh yeah - they have a near monopoly on the OS. It's perhaps advisable to consider other OS's. Also, I strongly recommend at least two HD's with a third as backup. One of two HD's contains OS and Apps, the other has all of one's data files (e.g. reports, projects, images, mp3's, jpegs). Also make them removable. And do periodic backup because HD's can wear out. Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017 12. Mar 31, 2007 neutrino Use this flowchart[PDF] to decide if you want to upgrade to vista. 13. Mar 31, 2007 Your.Master Just so not everybody is offering a dissenting opinion: I upgraded to Vista on my machine. Vista was free for me (in fact, for unrelated reasons received a free copy of Vista Business and a free copy of Vista Ultimate). I would not ever want to go back to Windows XP if I can help it. However, some major caveats: My machine is quite modern, under a year old and cutting edge when I got it. I would not recommend that even experienced users install it themselves. Too much of a pain in the ass, at least until there are updated drivers for some things. I don't like what they've done to the start menu. Instead of flying out, it shuffles around in a fixed-size area. You can get the old behaviour back, but for some reason, that means you have to get rid of the search bar -- a feature which, btw, is, no matter what, better than you think (unless you're used to spotlight on a Mac). I don't like the look of the new Windows Explorer -- vaguely like IE7. Both look cluttered and disorganized to me -- gone are the neat lines in favour of these bubbles and curved lines and vanished menus (until you hit ALT). That said, the new Windows Explorer and IE7 are more functional than their predecessors (the new Explorer has things like metadata tagging built into the UI). The sidebar is more useful than you might think, so long as you have screen real-estate to spare. Flip 3d isn't totally useless, and I gather that's part of the useless eye-candy that I often hear complaints of. I still use alt+tab more. Moreso than big features like the search bar, it's a lot of little things that make me prefer Vista. The way, for instance, all windows can span dual-monitors without a problem and not just snapping to one monitor unless the application is dual-aware. The little taskbar previews can help with selecting windows. An overall quicker "feel" on a modern enough computer (I have lots of RAM so the memory prefetching works out well for me). The way that when Vista does have a problem, it also presents you with information specific to your problem from the manufacturer -- even if it's logitech saying "we're never making Vista drivers for your webcam, sorry" -- and then weeks later if it finds a solution, it will tell you -- in this specific case, apparently logitech changed their mind, and Vista said, over a month after I'd given up on my webcam "hey! I can make it work now, you know, if you want". The way that HD I/O intensive processes like virus scans no longer slow everything else down to a crawl, even on single HD systems, because of I/O prioritization. Per-application volume settings (I have wanted this for SO long). The way the UI as a whole never really freezes under Aero (except when waiting for UAC permissions -- which I disabled, even though I know better, because it's a huge pain in the ass), and the responsiveness advantage of offloading some of the UI to the graphics card (which is otherwise just idling) instead of the CPU. The way the date-time thing in the bottom right corner of the screen (by default) lets you navigate quickly and easily through months and years and decades through a fairly intuitive interface without opening any actual dialogues. The non-crippled search feature. The way that moving multiple files and finding one could not be copied lets you skip that one and continue with the rest, or a bunch of other options (although that also means when copying large amounts of files that even with "yes to all" you might have to navigate 5 or 6 boxes identifying slightly different file transfer conflicts -- file with same name already there, destination file cannot be overwritten, source file in use, etc.). Of course, I'll be looking for applications to take advantage of the 3d interface hooks and for games to eventually use DirectX 10. But there's really nothing for now, and I don't expect there to be for quite some time yet. I know a lot of OS's had a lot to all of these features already. My point is that these are advantages *over Windows XP*, and I don't seek to address every version of every OS from every organization running every kernel. In this field they do, actually. But there are a lot of drivers and they contain a lot of proprietary code that MS cannot touch. Besides which, it is a somewhat unfair perspective -- it doesn't make much sense for Microsoft to say that Microsoft should start cooperating. Microsoft needs 3rd parties to cooperate with them. Cooperation is two-way, and I think you're chopping words a bit to complain about that one. That's simply not true. Mac OSX has some features Vista doesn't, and beat Vista to market on some of them, and -- surprise! -- Vista has some Mac OSX doesn't have. To say otherwise is ignorance. Which is better? I don't really know. Nobody offered me a free Mac to try out ;), though I have played with OSX a bit. As it happens, if you want to play games, then you want some version of Windows. There are exceptions and WINE and Cedega, and a Mac user can dual-boot or parallels themselves Windows, but for the main thrust it doesn't change the point. If you want to do other things, then there are probably app-equivalents so long as you can deal with format conversion problems with those you work with. As for bootlegging, that will be a bigger pain with Vista. Not to say it won't happen, just that with WGA and all, bootlegging XP was painful enough. I can see why a person might not want this -- I'm a power user too -- but in the vast majority of cases I think the default behaviour is easily the wisest decision. Except when the *$@&!% installs an update and restarts while I'm in the bathroom without saving anything. Thank god Firefox and MS Office and OpenOffice.org all have very serviceable auto-recovery.

14. Mar 31, 2007

ShawnD

You may want to double check this. I'm fairly certain that MS spent a lot more time on performance while Apple spent time on a bunch of eye candy that lags the hell out of the system. While Apple was working on OS X, MS was releasing Windows XP with Prefetch. While Apple is working on more eye candy for Tiger, MS was working on Superfetch and Readyboost

I have yet to use an Apple computer that wasn't slow as a dog. Linux is just as fast as Vista because it uses the same or similar technology as superfetch; the memory monitor in Kubuntu often shows an overwhelming amount of ram (over 1gb) set aside for cache when no programs are running.

I should also include that anybody who believes the price is more than $400 should just kill themselves right now. They'll eventually die when trying to use scissors or something equally simple. Windows Vista Ultimate:$195

Last edited: Mar 31, 2007
15. Mar 31, 2007

abdo375

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
16. Mar 31, 2007

ShawnD

I have the OEM version of Windows XP Pro and Microsoft seems to support it. Updates are always free, phone support is always free, sending emails to Microsoft is always free. What exactly is not supported in the OEM version? You buy the retail version if you want some pretty box and like paying money.

Linux has the same deal with its free download version and the version you can buy in a store. I don't see anybody complaining about how Linux costs $60 at a place like Best Buy. Suse Linux is$48 retail (free OEM), Kubuntu is \$10 retail (free OEM)
Linux at Amazon.com

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
17. Mar 31, 2007

abdo375

Quote from amazon:

NOTE: This OEM software is intended for system builders only and cannot be transferred to another PC once it is installed. The purchaser of this software is required to comply with the terms of the System Builder license, including the responsibility of providing all end-user support for the software.

and also if you change the motherboard/Processor on your PC you can't reactivate this copy.

Last edited: Mar 31, 2007
18. Mar 31, 2007

BoredNL

You know what I think would be cool? A desktop that works just like a 3d video game. You can pick up files and drop with with a HL2 style grabber and then you can delete them up by shooting at them.

Then the viruses jump in..

Ninja warriors!

You have to shoot them all!

Oh no! Watch out! NINJA! *runs into a corner*

*a few files get deleted*

DIE DIE! *sustaining fire*

OH NO! They're attacking the hard drive! APPLY MEDIC PATCH!

(I'm not crazy.. I swear.. *looks around* You're crazy! YOU'RE CRAZY! *hysterical laughter*)

19. Mar 31, 2007

ShawnD

Legally speaking this is true, but realistic it is not. OEM is the exact same software as Retail, but it follows different licensing.
-OEM can legally be installed on 1 computer ever
-Retail can be installed on any computer, but only 1 computer at a time

In a house with 5 computers, most people will buy 1 OEM copy and install it on 5 computers. Legally speaking you should be buying 5 copies, OEM or Retail doesn't matter as long as you have 5 different product keys.
The idea that you can't reactive after you change the motherboard is not true. What happens is that windows has a number of activations before it thinks something is fishy. For my XP Pro OEM, it was probably about 5 installs before it stopped activating properly. After that point you need to call the 1800 number on the activation screen in order to activate your copy. It's annoying as hell but it still activates; there's nobody forcing you to buy a new copy whenever your copy of Windows gets screwed up due to viruses/stupidity/other.

Last edited: Mar 31, 2007
20. Apr 1, 2007