Windows Vista - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

[KDLA]

Do you foresee any benefits?

[Jick]

I'm not really sure, considering I haven't tried it first-hand. However, from the screenshots I've seen it seems like it could be slightly cool. I like the new look if anything.

[Stephen Philbin]

Is it out now or are you referring to some beta type thing? I thought it wasn't supposed to be out for a while yet?

[KDLA]

The BETA. I've seen some blog postings rating it. I just wondered if anyone around here had downloaded/tested it, yet.

[NogDog]

I'm not really sure, considering I haven't tried it first-hand. However, from the screenshots I've seen it seems like it could be slightly cool. I like the new look if anything.
The look is my last concern (other than how it might affect ease of use). What I'm more interested in knowing about is reliability, security, memory usage, and speed. (For instance, would it even be worth considering installing it on my poor little notebook with 256MB of RAM and a 500MHz P3 processor?)

[KDLA]

The look is my last concern (other than how it might affect ease of use). What I'm more interested in knowing about is reliability, security, memory usage, and speed. (For instance, would it even be worth considering installing it on my poor little notebook with 256MB of RAM and a 500MHz P3 processor?)

Exactly!!!
I've finally got the near-perfect balance of speed and programs on my inexpensive HP laptop. I like to keep up-to-date, but not at the expense of performance. Thing is, I work with photos a lot on it, and the photo viewing option looks interesting.

I've read that Vista's security settings actually hamper productivity, rather than securing it. The blog entry I read suggested disabling the security option, if the user downloaded Vista. What benefit is that?

[Stephen Philbin]

I seem to remember reading that the suggested minimum specs for a PC running Vista were somewhere around 1.5Ghz cpu and 1GB RAM. Though I get the feeling they might have come from one of those anti-Vista rant type articles. Either a rant, or maybe just what you need to run it with all the graphical bells and whistles. I know Windows OSes tend to like being resource hogs, but 1.5Ghz and 1Gb for yer basic OS is just daft.

[Speedle]

Vista is defenetelly has some new abilities. But anyway I work more in XP... :P

[drhowarddrfine]

I know Windows OSes tend to like being resource hogs, but 1.5Ghz and 1Gb for yer basic OS is just daft.But true. Microsoft's "minimum" is less than that but those who have the final version say running with less than 1Gb and fast processor is unthinkable. There is a Microsoft blog I just read yesterday where a MS guy says something similar.

[drhowarddrfine]

Five new flaws in Vista, one more in IE7. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/technology/25vista.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[patenaudemat]

I rated it good, but only for the reason that it's an improvement over Windows XP. (For the record, I'm a Mac user, just to state my bias :p)

Let's start with the good. I've ready many reports saying that Vista is actually quite snappy compared to XP in many situations, especially with ReadyBoost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost) (I saw a video on Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5902090796342771727) too, looks pretty cool). Security has improved by leaps and bounds, the interface is (relatively) slick, and there are some pretty cool new features.

That being said, it's still Windows. :p I played with both Beta 2 and RC1. Vista is very strict about its power management, and you'd better have a fully ACPI-compliant BIOS if you want your PC to work. Whether it's Vista's fault or not, the computer I installed Beta 2 on still hasn't worked right, months after I wiped the hard drive and put XP back (multiple times)... looks like the RAM somehow got shot, or attempting to fix my BIOS somehow screwed up the motherboard. Qué será, será.

Key changes in the SMB protocol (which, for those not well-versed in networking, is the protocol Windows uses for file and print sharing) make it impossible (as of now) for computers with other operating systems to play nicely with it on a network, and most importantly, when you use it, you just get this feeling of... 5 years and this is the best they could do?

Mac users are ridiculed for paying $130 each year for what they call a "minor" upgrade. Well, consider this: over 5 years, the upgrades have cost $650 for us. If Vista Ultimate costs $500, that's only $150 more for about 10 times the functionality.

And as nice as Vista looks... OS X still looks better, I'm sorry.

Just my 2¢. ;)

-Matt

[chrismartz]

I see a great benefit in Vista just because of the IIS7 implementation. They have really changed how things work in IIS. They have made IIS management alot like that of apache. Everything can now be done through a command line as well as in a GUI.

I have only tested out the RC2 version and I do not like the fact that you have to approve everything you do. It just seems to slow your computer use down quite a bit when wanting to run/install applications. If I wanted to not install the application I think that I would just not install it. Do we really need to be asked?! Just my 2 cents though.

[drhowarddrfine]

They have made IIS management alot like that of apache. Everything can now be done through a command line as well as in a GUI. So after all these years, they finally caught up with Apache? Why not just use Apache in the first place? Then you'll be five years ahead of IIS.

[MstrBob]

First off, I will not think of switching to Vista until it is at least at SP1. Even then, it will most likely be bundled with a new computer. Because none of it seems worth the $250 upgrade. The things that set Vista apart from XP, really:

New GUI
Better Security
A boat load of DRM in the kernel (Probably hell bent on stopping me from watching new movies on my linux box)
Direct X 10.0 (Direct XX?)

It's not worth the upgrade to me, right now. Of course, there's also the tons of software that's been untested/won't work with Vista. Windows XP has been a sound, solid platform since SP2, and honestly it will be a year or two before Vista seems appealing to me.

[chrismartz]

So after all these years, they finally caught up with Apache? Why not just use Apache in the first place? Then you'll be five years ahead of IIS.
What would the world be without options :P I am an ASP/ASP.NET user and apache doesn't support it.

[Znupi]

I haven't tested Vista so far, and it won't be too soon. I've seen some screenshots and the GUI looks good, yes, but the whole OS (the GUI being the main problem) eats up all your PC's resources. I will not install Vista, since even on my XP I have the themes disabled, so it looks like ye old 98 or 2000 (2000 was my favorite Windows). Does Vista support disabling the themes and getting the look of 98? I don't care, why switch anyway? Security? I have Windows' security turned off anyway in XP. For IIS? I use Apache anyway. IE7? Firefox.

The only reason I see for someone to get Vista is its GUI. If you really want a cool GUI, get a Linux with Xgl [demo (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4337449404833566023)] :)

[grumpyoldtechs]

i think ill wait for SP2 on vista!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6198121.stm

was an interesting read. i can see it being insecure for a good 6 months to a year.

they are going to have a hard time getting people off XP as well with XP actually being a half decent Microsoft operating system

[eastwood4450]

I'll probably stick with XP until the price for vista comes way down. By then I'll have my AMD2000XP system upgraded to a 64 bit system to run vista. I like my computing on the cheap. Ahhhh, I miss the good old days of win 98.

[drhowarddrfine]

Then switch to Linux or FreeBSD and run on a PIII like I do.

[eastwood4450]

I've never tried building a Linux system because I use my computer for gaming but I was toying with the idea of having a Mac or Linux for internet and a Pc system for gaming. Nothing wrong with a pentium III, you don't need anything more than that if you aren't using resource eating applications. I aucually had a slot 1 PII that would load win98 just as fast or faster than my newer computer would xp.

[WebJoel]

I recently added a "PCLinuxOS" to my 2nd HDD, as duel-boot. I am amazed first off, at how easy it was to do. How cleanly the installation went, and at how fast Linux is. I had been using "Puppy Linux" for a month or two, but had messed something up and though it would run, it said that 'disk was full' when trying to download anything (not true, as the 'disk' was 20-GB. Must have been the SWAP partition or something? ).
Heck, -the "LiveCD" of PCLinuxOS that I tried was launching nearly as fast as WIN_XP from the primary HDD!

PCLinuxOS has a distinctive "Windows" look & feel to it. It has a clean desktop that resembles what I beleive to be how VISTA is supposed to look... what with it's semi-clear toolbar and top-border. And there is a 'multiple-destop' feature, so from any view you can click on another 'desktop' and go to a fresh destop, where you might have other apps running or launchable.

The requirements for VISTA are staggering... it requires how much RAM (512-MB??), -I forgot (from tech article I read in "technical communicators" mag, but I am running PCLinuxOS right now, with just 224-MB RAM (although it suggests that a minimumof 256-MB RAM be used).

You've got to see the screenshot for this, -search for "PCLinuxOS" and find a screenshot for the "big daddy" distro... it is amazing! :D My wife says that it has a very 'MAC'-look to it...

[drhowarddrfine]

If anyone is interested in FreeBSD, there is a PC-BSD you can google for. One advantage of FreeBSD is there is that and nothing else. No multiple distributions to decide among. Although there is NetBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is the leader there and not so different that you couldn't switch if you found a need.

[MstrBob]

What's so bad about multiple distributions? Besides, Linux distros are essentially the same thing. Your standard linux distro would be the Linux Kernel + some GNU tools + a Desktop like Gnome/KDE/Xfce + and any other software they want to include, such as Firefox, Apache, Perl, PHP, Python, Games, Gimp, Open Office, ect. Often times they'll include their own code to put everything together, an installer, and system update software to make managing everything easier.

There is absolutely nothing stopping people from making their own personal "distro". This actually happens quite routinely, and is why there are so many distros available. I find the plethora of choices as a great benefit. I have ready made distros customized for a particular use, e.g. a Desktop Workstation, Media Server, File Server, Web Server, Legacy Hardware, distros that can boot of a USB Flash Drive, LiveCD's, which are literally OS's that run off of CD's. Hell, there's even a linux distro for iPod's.

-linux fan

[wizzman49]

Windows Visita I belive will be horibable at first but I always wait until like 6 months or so to work out the buggs

[mergemedia]

I have a spare dell dimension 9100 which I've been running the Various Vista betas and now final on. The first beta was incredibly slow and buggy. The second was a bit better, but still pretty bad. I just last week installed the vista enterprise final release, and it's actually pretty nice. It's very fast, even faster than XP was on this machine, though that was with dells OEM install which is full of preinstalled crap.

Vista didn't come with opengl drivers, so my quake4 bombed out during setup. Nvidea released a Vista Pack the other day, which adds support for OpenGL, and now quake4 installs fine. Runs damn good too. I get higher framerates under vista, and am able to use the higher graphics settings.

However, I still won't be using this as my primary desktop. I <3 OSX.

[jaylaw1]

I just recently switched to a Mac and OS X six months ago and I must say that it has easily been one of the most intelligent decisions I've made. Microsoft refuses to fix their core problems. I've worked with all versions of Windows for years and gained a lot of troubleshooting experience...and that's just it. I am already hearing the collective groaning of people fighting with drivers trying to configure basic peripherals to their shiny new (OS X lite) OS. I also can't understand why they couldn't release just one VERSION! I feel that it was so they can continue to sell upgrades to the Home Basic version so many users would not have to upgrade their existing hardware...sounds almost thoughtful....until you realize that some of the most intriguing features added to Vista were left out of that version.?No Aero desktop, no improved data encryption, no media center features, and no improved backup utility which should be a must on an OS that has always been amd always will be...to put it mildly "vulnerable". So what's the next step, buy a new machine which to the typical consumer is probably overspec'd at 1.5GHz and 1GBof RAM...most of that additional horsepower being used to run new features that only marginally improve on XP aesthetically. Meanwhile, OS X and an Intel based mac have had most of these improvements incorporated since the release of OS X. Unix is way more efficient. Oh yeah!!! I almost forgot...if I had to, I could probably run Vista faster on my Mac thanks to Parallels. Try and do that with a Dell and Vista. With the need to upgrade the chipset to run Vista well, the gap in costs between the two systems should narrow and the decision will be all preference. Right now the bottom line is more and more applications are becoming web based and the OS will soon just be vessel to get to the web. I just would like the one I use to be clean, simple, and as hassle free as possible. That just doesn't sound like Vista. Vista sounds like Millennium Edition Part 2. Vista Compliant=Y2K compliant.

[LeeU]

I just purchased a laptop that had Vista on it. (It was i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-y slow - Vista, not the laptop.) I erased it and loaded Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/) Linux -- now that's fast! Vista took 45 minutes to set-up, Ubuntu took about 18 minutes. With Windows you have to configure networks, Ubuntu does it by itself.

[KDLA]

I just purchased a laptop that had Vista on it. (It was i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-y slow - Vista, not the laptop.) I erased it and loaded Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/) Linux -- now that's fast! Vista took 45 minutes to set-up, Ubuntu took about 18 minutes. With Windows you have to configure networks, Ubuntu does it by itself.

What was the memory/speed of the laptop?

[LeeU]

It's 1.6 GHz w/ 512 MB. I don't mean it was slow in that it took 20 minutes to do something, I just meant that, for a "new and improved" operating system, it seemed slower than XP. Plus, everything is changed. I couldn't find anything. (Let me also state that Vista was not my reason for getting the laptop. It was the price. I already had decided to load Linux.)

Interesting also is a recent report in E-Week states that most medium to large corporations in the U.S have said they will not switch to Vista for at least a year.

[KDLA]

It's those little annoyances, though, that make or break usability. I wonder about the performance of Vista coupled with Office 2007, when it comes out. Office grows in size each year. The two programs together might put a serious demand on resources.

[LeeU]

Yes, the report in E-Week said that was another reason corporations weren't quick to switch -- the retraining time for Office 2007 is said to be costly. I think the corps are getting smart to the fact that they, not Bill, control their resources. Bill is learning that it is us, not he, who dictates what we will use. Most people don't use the majority of the features in Office 2007 anyway. So why buy new machines to handle the new operating system, or seriously upgrade the older ones, and spend tens of thousands of dollars retraining your entire company staff? (Another reason many companies are switching to Linux.)

[Charles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6320865.stm

A few years back a good friend of mine talked me out of switching to Linux. But then that friend works for Microsoft. I'll be switching to Linux soon.

[JPnyc]

I won't be switching to vista anytime soon. I never do betas or 1st releases. I would've gone to Ubuntu long ago but for the fact that all the programs I depend on for work won't run (or won't run well) on it.

[David Harrison]

Some schools and businesses over here are only just switching to XP, it takes a LONG time before it can be trusted (though no-one ever does trust Windows OS's, hence everyone installs anti-virus software).

For the short term at least, Vista is a no-fly zone. Microsoft plan to release a service pack in roughly a months time to fix some critical bugs. Why they're waiting a month I have no idea, why they even released it with such bugs is just beyond me, because they DID know about them. On top of that, many of the promised features didn't make it, and won't make it for some time *cough*WinFS*cough*.

Windows Vista is an absolute mess, I think I'm going to stick with the slightly-less-of-a-mess XP until either Vista gets an overhaul, or the next MS OS comes out (and just pray it's better).

[KDLA]

To me, Vista seems more like a public relations ploy and need to meet a marketing demand, rather than a legitimate software program. Gates says that this software was developed in response to focus groups responses. He was very proud to say that 800 things were added due to the input.
But when does the general public know enough about programming to steer a project?

[Stephen Philbin]

I would've gone to Ubuntu long ago but for the fact that all the programs I depend on for work won't run (or won't run well) on it.


I had problems with Ubuntu too. A few folks had been telling me to try it out for ages. I've mostly been using Suse, but that deal Novell struck with Microsoft doesn't sit very well with me and they made some changes to Suse that I don't like. So when I finally got all my files together and backed up for installing the next version of Suse I thought I'd switch to Ubuntu instead. I popped in the disc and installed it, but I didn't like it. It ran very slowly and clumsily, I couldn't seem to get anything installed, and that "no root user by default" thing just seemed weird. So I just switched back to Suse.

[JPnyc]

Well odds are I'd never actually do it, except perhaps on an older box as purely an experiment. Like I said, I depend on too many programs that are windows only, and I don't like the alternatives to them that run on 'nix or Mac OS's. It's still a windows world.

[LeeU]

I had problems with Ubuntu too. A few folks had been telling me to try it out for ages. I've mostly been using Suse, but that deal Novell struck with Microsoft doesn't sit very well with me and they made some changes to Suse that I don't like. So when I finally got all my files together and backed up for installing the next version of Suse I thought I'd switch to Ubuntu instead. I popped in the disc and installed it, but I didn't like it. It ran very slowly and clumsily, I couldn't seem to get anything installed, and that "no root user by default" thing just seemed weird. So I just switched back to Suse.

Interesting. I had the exact opposite experience (so far). It runs very fast, and everything loads just fine. How long ago was it you installed it? From what I understand it's changed quite a bit in the past year or so. I'll still keep Windows on one machine for reviews, etc. but the Linux will be my main one.

KDLA: I agree. I think Microsoft feels it needs to come out with a new operating system everynow and then to generate more sales of their products in order to maintain market dominence. Interesting that they would listen to the general public but not those who are trying to work with the standards (or "recommendations") but that is the way Microsoft works. It will be interesting to see how long the company lasts when Gates and Balmer leave.

[JPnyc]

We shouldn't look forward TOO much to the demise of MS. At least their presence and domination in the tech world has forced a certain amount of standardization, even such as it is. Once they're no longer the giant in the biz, we might find ourselves mired in incompatability hell.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

[jaylaw1]

At least their presence and domination in the tech world has forced a certain amount of standardization, even such as it is.


In the browser world, it seems like we're always waiting for IE to comply with standards. I was always comfortable w/ MS "dominance", as long as they were building the BETTER mousetrap. However, I think those days are just about done.

[LeeU]

I would shudder to think that the balance of the IT world depends on a company that, if it made cars, would have been out of business within a year. People are seeing other avenues and are tired of Microsoft's dictates. Many nations, large nations, have dumped MS and moved to Linux. The U.S. government is in the process of switching over also. Microsoft has tried to dictate standards from the beginning but people are beginning to wake up. I'm sure they will always be there but, like any other industry, there is a leader for a while and then someone else rises to the top.

[JPnyc]

In the browser world, it seems like we're always waiting for IE to comply with standards. I was always comfortable w/ MS "dominance", as long as they were building the BETTER mousetrap. However, I think those days are just about done.
The writing may be on the wall, but they're far from done. Alternative browsers grab well under half the market (30 to 35%?) and it's hailed as a victory and MS IE is done, but let's be realistic, 60 to 70% is a considerable majority.

[JPnyc]

But my point Lee is, who is going to take over? Probably no one, just a constant state of different protocol tech wars, and the casualties will be US.

[drhowarddrfine]

We shouldn't look forward TOO much to the demise of MS. At least their presence and domination in the tech world has forced a certain amount of standardization, even such as it is. Once they're no longer the giant in the biz, we might find ourselves mired in incompatability hell.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Before MS there was Unix. Unix and it's variations still rule the internet and large systems.

[JPnyc]

But unix didn't seem to translate well to the end user. Mac's OS is proprietary and their boxes are so much $$$. So what'll become the new standard when windows no longer is?

[jaylaw1]

Mac's OS is proprietary and their boxes are so much $$$. So what'll become the new standard when windows no longer is?

Mac prices are tied to the cost of the high quality components required to receive the branding from apple. With the release of Vista, and it's need for faster processors and larger and faster ram and other hardware upgrades, Microsoft will be inherently forcing users to pay more for their machines. Thus, doing their part to help close the gap between themselves and Apple. Not to mention, marketing (multiple???) versions of Vista by highlighting features that are drawing striking comparisons to features that Apple seems to have already mastered in OS X! No doubt, MS will be around for sometime, and the fall from the top may be long but they're definitely on their way without more creativty and innovativeness. If they continue to look at their market share, and let those stats allow them to continue releasing products like the "Zune" and Vista instead of using those numbers to reveal their vulnerability and need to impress the public with something different, it will be sooner than later.

[LeeU]

But my point Lee is, who is going to take over? Probably no one, just a constant state of different protocol tech wars, and the casualties will be US.

That's the interesting (exciting?) part of tech, who knows what will be the technology in 5-10 years? It was only 27 years ago that many "knowledgeable" people said that home computers were just a fad. The new operating system is always just around the corner, and MS knows it. (Seriously, how hard could it be for a few guys like the Google boys who are focused on operating systems to make something better than Windows?)

[JPnyc]

You can get an extremely fast pc for 1500, how much does a comparable mac cost?

[jaylaw1]

You're probably asking for a relatively? comparable machine seeing as there are no specs to compare except for price.First immediate comparison I can think of is the 20 inch iMac ...$1499 fantastic machine with name brand components that start working as soon as you turn it on. No patching, no updating, no service packs. In two words, simple and powerful.

I also think LeeU is right in a way, the guys at Google and others are totally bypassing the operating system all together and putting really powerful applications on the WEB! Soon it doesn't matter what OS you're using. This is the creativity and innovation that I was speaking of earlier.

[JPnyc]

Well I mean you can get a p4@3.4ghz and a gig of ram and all the trimmings for that price. Can you get a mac with comparable performance to that?

[jaylaw1]

Again, 20 inch iMac $1500. 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (DUAL CORE 64 bit) benchmarks beat 3.46 P4 all day. The core 2 duo is the best chip on the market. It's not about GHz anymore. They're advanced and they're efficient and it also happens to be the only chip you can get in a new Mac today (at various speeds of course.)All the trimmings is still being vague. It does include:

-20-inch (viewable) widescreen 1680 x 1050 pixels
-250 GB HD
-Built In wireless and bluetooth
-8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
-Built-in iSight camera
-DVI video out with support for DVI, VGA, S-video, and composite video output (requires adapter, sold separately)
-Support for external display with digital resolution up to 1920 x 1200, analog resolution up to 2048 x 1536

Not to shabby, huh!!!

Again not to mention, the stability and efficiency that the UNIX under the hood supplies you. Simple and Powerful.


You should think about building one for yourself, here! (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=C1211F78&nclm=iMac)

[Jick]

Bah, I'll still take a good ol' PC any day... Just because you like PC's doesn't automatically mean you like Windows. I just like the flexibility a PC offers. You can completely customize every aspect of a PC whereas Mac's are kind of "This is what you get, take it or leave it".

[KDLA]

That's the interesting (exciting?) part of tech, who knows what will be the technology in 5-10 years? It was only 27 years ago that many "knowledgeable" people said that home computers were just a fad.
I'd say that was true even 15-20 years ago. I was in college and thought computers a fad, only taking one required course in them. :eek: I'd never heard of email, and got a typewriter as my graduation gift.

'd guess that it's my generation and those before me who are the ones giving credance to Microsoft's infalibility. However, as more of the younger and more tech. educated generations take dominance in the workplace, I think Microsoft will be struggling to stay in the forefront. Sort of like a gas-guzzling Cadillac trying to make it in the world of Hybrids. There will be some who'll stick with it, but more as a luxury rather than necessity.

KDLA

[David Harrison]

Sorry jaylaw1, but it's posible to get a much better PC than that Mac, for less.

Here's a parts list I put together for Jick in the last few days:
http://david.hddkillers.com/Jick2.html

It doesn't include:
320GB HDD - $95 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148139)
20" monitor (not crappy "widescreen" aka shortscreen) - $355 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001226)
Logitech G15 keyboard - $72 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16823126179)
Logitech G5 mouse - $46 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16826104191)


However what is there costs a little over $800. If we bump the CPU up to the 2.13GHz version that brings it to $843.33, if we ignore delivery for a fair comparison, that makes it $816.96. Adding in the componants I just listed, that brings the total to $1384.92 for a pretty awesome gamer system. Note the ZOMGWTFBBQ graphics card that can support dual 30" monitors (2560x1600 resolution each), and it has twice the RAM and at a higher frequency of the Apple system, a bigger HDD, and finally, it's still over $100 cheaper.

Edit: jaylaw1, here is your $1500 dream system in PC form (http://david.hddkillers.com/jaylaw1.html) ... for $850.88. ;)

[Stephen Philbin]

Interesting. I had the exact opposite experience (so far). It runs very fast, and everything loads just fine. How long ago was it you installed it? From what I understand it's changed quite a bit in the past year or so. I'll still keep Windows on one machine for reviews, etc. but the Linux will be my main one.

I tried it out about 4 weeks ago. Though to be fair I think the poor performance is as much, if not more, to do with my hardware than it is a problem with the software. Dave informs me that my CPU is pretty crap. From what I've seen from this machine so far, I think it's much more than just my CPU that's crap because the performance on this thing is dire. I bought this box because my previous one lost a fight with a thunder storm. To this day, I maintain my best hardware/OS combination was Suse Linux 9.3 on my previous box. My previous box has a 32 bit 2.66 Ghz AMD Athlon xp CPU; it ran Suse like a dream. The box I currently use has a 64 bit Intel Celleron D which I'm told is supposed to be 3.2 Ghz. I first installed Suse 10 (a supposedly even better performing version of the OS I've been using for years) and it ran like crap. I'm currently on Suse 10.2 now, and the performance has gradually improved, but my opinion of the OS is still dropping gradually and I can't see Suse ever coming close to the performance I enjoyed on a supposedly much slower CPU.

As for someone filling the gap that might be left by a lowering in Microsoft's standing, I wouldn't worry. Most of the other operating systems are surprisingly interoperable. It's mainly compatability with Windows that's really been the major problem. If it was in the minority, there wouldn't be a problem.

[jaylaw1]

Mr. Harrison, I think you might be helping me make my point in a couple of different ways. The system you parted out albeit fits within our price spec. The additional RAM and slightly upgraded video card are a nice touch, but once you reduce the ram back to 1GB and drop the hard drive size down to 250GB and find the $100 dollars you "saved" on that system you may just have enough cash leftover to buy one of the only worthwhile versions VISTA released (the topic of this thread and basis of all my previous posts). If you're thinking I'll go open source, good for you, it's that logic that continues to makes my point "MS won't be ruling the computer world for long." That being said, you'd still be missing the little touches that mean a lot to the majority of consumers who want do more than game... built in wi-fi and bluetooth, video cam, speakers and OS X that includes software suite that provides powerful applications for productivity and digital entertainment. I also have to disagree that the system above is an "awesome gaming machine" when you consider that advances in video card technology has left us with cards that cost as much as everything in your box! I'l settle for capable gaming machine. I'm not trying to start a war here. Someone made a comment about the prices of Macs. I just feel that the misconception that Macs are so much more expensive has been exaggerated too far, and with the release of Vista and it's need for various hardware upgrades, PC users will be experiencing a similar fate. I consider these two machines to be comparable, others may not. The PC still requires some assembly and some hassle with drivers and BIOS, nothing to difficult for someone who doesn't mind putting a computer together. The person who buys the Mac will just open the box and turn it on.

[David Harrison]

jaylaw1, when I rolled back the componants to the same spec as the Mac system, the price came to $850.88. A copy of Windows, a software suite, wifi and some speakers will easily fit into the $1500 price bracket.

But my problem with Mac's isn't the price, I just felt the need to respond to your $1500 Mac with a better PC for less. ;)

Personally I don't like Mac's, I'm also not a fan of white plastic because I think it looks kinda boring. I don't particularly like the Mac OS, and I like to have as many buttons as possible on my mouse. I understand that there are people who do like the Mac OS and do like white plastic, even if their reasons escape me.

I prefer PC's because of the infinite customisability, I can choose any componant I want and add it in (within reason).

As far as operating systems go, I can exist on Linux. I can install and configure most things that I want on most distributions (incidentally, both SUSE and Ubuntu ran flawlessly for me). However I simply prefer using XP. I know all the ins and outs of XP, I like not having to use the command line (everything in Linux seems to involve it some how), I like not having to su to root to install stuff, and I prefer MSN Messenger by FAR over any and all other IM clients.

Yes Windows is prone to all sorts of nasty stuff, yes Office gets filled with new junk to slow down computers with each successive release. But I can cope with all the problems, because I don't download miscellaneous email attachments from people I don't know and I have AVG run a scan while I sleep every night, and I only use quickish computers, so I don't notice any slowdown from the couple of bloatware programs I need. Windows PC's aren't hard to keep clean, you just have to be smart about it.

[Stephen Philbin]

...one of the only worthwhile versions VISTA released...

That would be Vista XP?

[a.g.r.c]

Macs although they are portrayed as the creative ingenuity behind the computer arts industry, seriously lack any evidence to strengthen this chain of thought once "out the box".

The little web cam trinket.... you can get that built into any half decent laptop for way less than the mac. Merely what mac users would call a gimic.

You get way more for your money with a PC hardware wise, not to mention the potential it has. All PCS of the modern genre are more than future proof for the current generation.

Personally I found the so called driving power behind macs to be insulting to any of its competitors. Stephen Jobs has made it clear to the nation how his company feel about any opposition.

Not put up or down by Bill Gates in any way shape or form, all i know is he gets things done.

All software for the mac, has been done 100 times over with PC.

Never will i spend the money on a mac, unless they take heed of their own advice and make things more your own and give it the ability to upgrade progressively as you feel.

VISTA ULTIMATE OEM £120 http://dabs.com

[jaylaw1]

All my comments prior to this one were based on an assumption that Microsoft will always dominate the computer world. The premise, was that even if the long awaited release of Vista (all 4 of them) turned out to be a bigger dud than... let's say Windows Millennium Edition no one could ever take over their position at the top. I suggested that their were many developers providing strong competition even before Vista was released. I also made suggestions in previous posts that the winds of change blowing towards powerful web based applications could seriously affect their position at the top, reducing all operating systems to merely a gateway to the internet. Google made $7 Billion last year alone! Providing a whole bevy of applications apart from their search engine that has become just as much a fixture in computing today as Windows ever was. Apple was brought into the picture just because they are also providing products that people just can't seem to live without, and I'm not just talking about the iPod. I have no allegiance to Macs, but I don't feel that anyone is wasting their money nor LIMITING themselves by purchasing one. The idea that Microsoft, which people tend to equate to "PC", will always be the best just because it was the world's only viable OS in years past, may be turning a blind eye to what the future truly holds. There are some serious competitors out there, and like it or not Apple is one of them.

[drhowarddrfine]

Macs although they are portrayed as the creative ingenuity behind the computer arts industryNo, the graphic artists are the creative ingenuity. Macs are just one of their tools.The little web cam trinket.... you can get that built into any half decent laptop for way less than the mac.But if you don't have the laptop then it's just as expensive as the Mac.All PCS of the modern genre are more than future proof for the current generation.None of my PCs will run Vista well, including my one year old box. So I would have to buy 10 PCs. So much for future proofing.Stephen Jobs has made it clear to the nation how his company feel about any opposition. And the US Justice Department is well aware of how Microsoft feels about any opposition. And it's Steven Jobs.All software for the mac, has been done 100 times over with PC.Yes. MS only copies, never creates.

jaylaw1,
The idea that Microsoft, which people tend to equate to "PC", will always be the best just because it was the world's only viable OS in years pastI'm sure you meant "desktop OS". Unix and VAX were viable long before then. Interestingly, we are returning to the idea of the central computer and remote dumb terminals. You don't need a Vista or quad core processors to surf the net or even do word processing and spreadsheets. Just a fast internet connection. So the "terminal" becomes a black box that never needs upgrading. It becomes an appliance like a microwave oven. No need to open it up or upgrade it. Like a Mac.

I've never owned a Mac and I only used them when I worked at Silicon Graphics and Pixar in the 80s. Haven't touched one since.

[a.g.r.c]

Not all designers prefer macs. Its the magazines that give it a good rep. A good designer can work on whatever platform.

For a meager 20 quid, you can buy an eyeball web cam, that can wait for it......rotate AND pivot!!

You must be buying old spec machines....keep with the times....you are a mac user! Current socket AM2 :)

Steven Jobs is a patronising man, who goes about his business taking the hierarchy in any non bias convo. Take webhec 1999 when the Microsoft, Apple merger took place. He introduced Bill Gates in a very condescending way. (That doesnt seem very moralistic to me)

Media Centre, VB.net, ASP....need more? Google it.

UNIX/Linux will never get the backing it deserves. Thus gaming, a major factor for the everyday computer user will never see the light of day with the OSs available. So we use the great DX and get any game we want.

Ok I get the dumb terminal part....personal question though if I might? Have you lived on campus your whole life?

Woah man you worked at Pixar!!! Think you could get me a job? This decade?

Ho hum

[KDLA]

Interestingly, we are returning to the idea of the central computer and remote dumb terminals. You don't need a Vista or quad core processors to surf the net or even do word processing and spreadsheets. Just a fast internet connection. So the "terminal" becomes a black box that never needs upgrading. It becomes an appliance like a microwave oven. No need to open it up or upgrade it.
I'd say you're really close to predicting the future of computers. With wireless and mobile technologies being such a huge marketshare, I can see the in future that the general user may never have an actual PC/laptop with programs. They'll hook up to the "possibilities" via the Internet, without ever having to decide what to install.

[bathurst_guy]

Personally I don't like Mac's, I'm also not a fan of white plastic because I think it looks kinda boring.Get a black MacBook :)
I like to have as many buttons as possible on my mouse I have a mighty-mouse. It has left and right button, scroll wheel (which scrolls all directions including diagonal, a button on the scroll wheel and a "squeeze mouse" button, 4 in total).

As far as operating systems go, I can exist on Linux. I can install and configure most things that I want on most distributions (incidentally, both SUSE and Ubuntu ran flawlessly for me). However I simply prefer using XP. I know all the ins and outs of XP, I like not having to use the command line (everything in Linux seems to involve it some how), I like not having to su to root to install stuff, and I prefer MSN Messenger by FAR over any and all other IM clients. All these can run on a Mac...

[David Harrison]

All the ins and outs of XP work on a Mac do they? Interesting... ;)

[drhowarddrfine]

They'll hook up to the "possibilities" via the Internet, without ever having to decide what to install."Possibilities.net - Never having to decide what to install." That has a good sound to it.Take webhec 1999 when the Microsoft, Apple merger took place. Microsoft/Apple did not merge. It was only an announcement of software Microsoft was going to make available on the Mac. He introduced Bill Gates in a very condescending way. Oh? After he quieted the boos from the crowd, he admonished them for thinking "for us to win you think Microsoft has to lose". Doesn't sound condescending to me.(That doesnt seem very moralistic to me)Apple hasn't been brought before the US Justice Department and the European Union for their business practices and fined millions of dollars over years and years. Microsoft has and it's still ongoing.

[drhowarddrfine]

Woah man you worked at Pixar!!! Think you could get me a job? This decade?Yep. And was at Silicon Graphics when they were working with the "Jurassic Park" movie. I can get you a copy of the movie at full price but not a job.

[the tree]

All these can run on a Mac...Have you tried the MSN client for Mac? It's awful,
That said, I use GAIM which is pretty lousy for MSNing but it runs very nicely on Debian-ish OSs so I'm happy.

As far as dumb terminals go, I don't like the idea, so long as some people want to use FreeBSD variants (e.g OSX), and I still want to use Kubuntu, we each have our own software installed and our own individuality. Hell if I'm going to tell anyone in my house what software to be using.

[bathurst_guy]

All the ins and outs of XP work on a Mac do they? Interesting... ;)
Yes. I am referring to still using XP, just installing it on a partition or through parallels.

[wamboid]

As far as dumb terminals go, I don't like the idea, so long as some people want to use FreeBSD variants (e.g OSX), and I still want to use Kubuntu, we each have our own software installed and our own individuality. Hell if I'm going to tell anyone in my house what software to be using.
I would think that would be more in a corporate environment than home, but who says they couldn't advance enough that when you log on to your dumb terminal, it knows your preferences, including OS.

[drhowarddrfine]

I would think that would be more in a corporate environment than home, but who says they couldn't advance enough that when you log on to your dumb terminal, it knows your preferences, including OS.
Like my Gmail account. It also can store my docs and spreadsheets, or download/upload/save them wherever I wish.

Some of these comparisons can't be done. Some are comparing prices for a Mac and PC but are forgetting the difference in OS requirements. I'm running FreeBSD on a PIII and 256MB of ram with the same tools, including openoffice and firefox, that I did when this same box was running WindowsXP. Windows worked OK but was agonizingly slow at times. Other programs, like Opera run blazingly fast compared to when it was on Windows.

So my point is, since OSX is FreeBSD, in part, maybe you don't need the same power as a XP machine. So a $2000 Mac compared to a $2000 PC doesn't relate if the Mac doesn't have as speedy a processor because it doesn't need it. If you only need the extra power to run the OS then it's a wash. Now some may wonder why they have to pay the same price for a lesser processor/ram combination if they perform the same but the argument is Mac is better quality.

I don't know. I've never owned one.

[nitrexoxide]

I have been using vista ultimate final for about a month. It is stable, much more secure, incredibly networkible and it even solves its own problems! As for 1gb min, nah it runs fine or 512, which is minimum, but it is a still large requirement. As for performance, out of the box it is quite draining but a few quick tweaks can bring it back to xp-levels. Starting with killing services (default with 40-50!), transparency and the sidebar. As for compatiably I am yet to find a program or driver thet cant run on vista.

[Stephen Philbin]

I have been using vista ultimate final for about a month. It is stable, much more secure...

That seems like one heck of a conclusion to draw after using it for only one month. Didn't someone crack Vista's kernel before it was even on general release?

[russell]

he admonished them for thinking "for us to win you think Microsoft has to lose". Doesn't sound condescending to me.

one of the few times i agree with pretty much everything you've said.

anyway, while Steve Jobs rightfully deserves a place in history as one of the great innovators of our time, he is, ultimitely a businessman. i don't remember the specifics of their venture anymore, and i'm too lazy to research it much, but i do remember that it had the distinct flavor of microsoft bailing out apple to some extent.

anyway, back to your point, i think this article (from 1997) is interesting -- though you likely remember much of this.

Steve Jobs, then and now (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-202235.html)

[Celeste]

Well I voted Bad as there was no other option that would fit .

For the past week I have had my copy of Vista Ultimate sitting on my desk.

Went through the whole Vista Beta thing only to come to the conclusion that Vista is just a rip off of the MAC GUI.

Eye candy with 3 layers of security , well big deal , they have finally caught up with Apache.

Only problem is they still haven’t got it right .

Last week Microsoft released a heap of updates for XP yet the dirty dozen vulnerabilities still remain in Vista with no release date.

[sleven]

I think it's good . but in the future. It has a good chassis even it runs thickheaded like a koala. nice!

[drhowarddrfine]

Scripps New Services is reporting Vista sales are down 56% compared to XP when it was introduced.

[wh666-666]

Im really not suprised at that figure, if anything im suprised they're getting as many sales as they are

[KDLA]

Scripps New Services is reporting Vista sales are down 56% compared to XP when it was introduced.

This might be a dumb reason, but the marketing of the product seems to be geared towards the name "Vista," rather than "Windows Vista." Without the identifier (indicating systems operation, rather than an add-on/supplemental program) , perhaps Joe User doesn't even understand its usage. If it were marketed as Windows 2007 or some such, maybe it would be more popular.

Microsoft doesn't seem to be emphasizing the benefits of having it, either, other than it is the "ultimate user experience." And, really, I don't see the benefit, other than the additional layers of security that may or may not be helpful, depending on the task at hand.

KDLA

[LeeU]

Two things I have noticed abut the Vista release:

1. A number of large corporations have stated they would wait at least a year before changing to Vista (if at all). As they see it: it's a large security risk as it's virtually unknown; it would cost a large chunk to upgrade existing hardware; it would be a lot of retraining; and, with many companies having thousands of computers, that is a very large chunk of money to upgrade to a shaky system.

2. Many large retailers (Walmart, Circuit City, etc.) have extremely low prices for new machines with Vista. I have to believe that MS is giving some sort of "incentive". (Personally, I think this goes back to the argument of MS being concerned that it may begin to lose market share. It's no longer the only game in town.)

[trepidity]

Two things I have noticed abut the Vista release:

1. A number of large corporations have stated they would wait at least a year before changing to Vista (if at all). As they see it: it's a large security risk as it's virtually unknown; it would cost a large chunk to upgrade existing hardware; it would be a lot of retraining; and, with many companies having thousands of computers, that is a very large chunk of money to upgrade to a shaky system.

2. Many large retailers (Walmart, Circuit City, etc.) have extremely low prices for new machines with Vista. I have to believe that MS is giving some sort of "incentive". (Personally, I think this goes back to the argument of MS being concerned that it may begin to lose market share. It's no longer the only game in town.)

These are great points. The reason for the second one I would see as this: The corporate market, and the average end user market are two separate markets that are tied together. What I mean is that for those of us who truly understand the computer, what the OS is and does and how it works as well, the descision to move to the new operating system is much more complicated and well thought out. For the corporate world point 1 is the obvious smart descision. Moving to a new and not sufficiently tested OS is the equivilent of playing a game of Russian rullette., on top of very costly. We see it the same way, I personally would never do it untill the product has undergone enough time and testing to work out all the bugs and proven itself as a worthy upgrade for the price. The problem is that majority of the people in the world who use computers really don't have a clue what the computer is doing or why. The term OS is greek to them. Unfortuanently for those of us in this field those people are our end users, and represent the majority of clients. They will make the descision to upgrade if the new operating system looks cool and still does what they like to do. Even worse, because they don't know the the importance of the OS, they will just accept whatever they are given for the best price. Overtime, Vista will dominate the market with the average user because of this. That will cause any company writing applications web based or not to have to make the jump as well in order to maintain market share and accesability. A corporation who's majority of employees have computers at home running vista will then see that the time and cost of training for the new OS will lessen, and possibly even become cheaper than using a totally different platform in the work environment. For high level purposes I would worry about windows or mac OS ever taking over unix's domain completely. But we will have to maintain standards to allow interoperability between the systems.
Look at IE, Netscape was clearly the better browser back when it came out, but by Microsoft packaging IE with all copies of windows the average user began to use it due to lack of knowledge of anything else, or lack of even caring because IE was already there. Now we web developers are forced to write code to adhere to the mess ups in that browser simply to allow everyone to access our sites without issue. It's def sad that such a messed up OS and Browser could dominate the market, most most people just don't understand that. Microsoft knows this and is capitalizing on it.

[LeeU]

For high level purposes I would worry about windows or mac OS ever taking over unix's domain completely.

I don't ever see that happening. Actually, quite the opposite. More and more end users are understanding computers. It's like it was ten years ago. Many government around the globe (e.g., India, Japan, even the U.S.), are moving their operations to Linux as they are tired of being forced to upgrade anytime MS wants more money. Windows may always be around, but their days of domination are slowing coming to an end. It may take time but it will happen. Just like the auto industry (or any other business, for that matter). Ford, GM, and Chrysler are closing their doors. They are losing out to better-made products. Soon, Toyota and others will also lose out to new business. Look at retailers: Once there were retailers, i.e. Montgomery Ward, then, Sears and JC Penny defined the business. Now it's Target and Walmart. Soon, somebody else.

Users today are very savy. We're now moving into the generation that grew up with computers. We're also coming to a point where Linux is becoming user-friendly to the point you no longer need to be a high-level- programmer to use it. Soon it will be ready for home use.

[trepidity]

Yeah your right, lol that was a typo. Should have read I wouldn't worry about it. I was just about to edit that when you posted this. Good points though. We are moving to a new generation of computer savvy home users. However my generation is the one currently taking charge. I am only 22. I know for a fact that although alot more people are starting to see this, it is still the vast majority of people that still don't get it. I'd give it another 10 years or so for those who are still too young to make the descisions that would fully affect the market. I think that Vista will be a success, just not at the level of XP. Then the next generation of OS's will be a completely new direction. I go to a technical school and majority of our students still don't meet the level of understanding to make this change a quick one.

[LeeU]

I figured that's what you meant (but took the opportunity to spout off a bit ;-> )

[LeeU]

Just thought I'd share this link (http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3660661).

[CrazyMerlin]

I have been using Vista Ultimate full install for about 3 weeks now and I can honestly say that it seems to operate faster.
I do however have a HT processor so that always helps ;)

There is however one thing I noticed that I have not seen in a long, long, long, long etc etc time: GPF!

Yes, in Vista, the blue screen of death is back.
I don't think I got that once using XP!

And it is not only myself. Another member of my development team has also been getting TBSD, and he also has a full install of Vista Ultimate.

It looks sexy (not TBSD, but Vista), and it looks sassy, and it looks like a brand new blow-up doll with real hair...and then it refuses to inflate.

In the 3 weeks I have been using Vista, I have been forced to use Task Manager to close a dead process, approx 100 times.
I have also had to rebbot from a freeze at least 30 times. And IE7 crashes at least once a day...to which Microsoft has a solution:
Make sure your homepage is set about:blank, make sure your internet settings are reset to their default, and make sure you load IE with no add-ons!

Now if that isn't a solution to a problem I don't know what is...lmfao!

On the plus side...you get 90 days free customer service (you'll need it) and that customer service is A++.

My developer buddy was having problems using a printer connected to a win box running XP, from his laptop running Vista on a local network.
He called tech support and they rigged up the exact setup he was using, and spent hours trying different combinations of drivers on the 2 boxes. The next morning, they called him back and told him they had found a solution.

Now that is dedicated Support....if only Vista actually worked!

Is Vista worth the money: NO WAY!
Is Vista worth the hassle of not being able to find the correct drivers: NO WAY!
Is Vista sexy: Yes sir ;)

So if you just want a pretty looking box, go Vista. If you use your PC for work, stick with XP!


One very curious thing with Vista:
When I was running XP, my gfx card (256meg Radeon Sapphire) was fine using DX9.0c, but after installing Vista I was told I needed to upgrade my gfx card because it was not capable of using....DX9.0c!



//erlin!

[trepidity]

Just thought I'd share this link (http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3660661).

B A Utiful. Check this out (http://www.mono-project.com/) and forget about Windows IIS server dependency for ASP.NET

[LeeU]

Just thought I would throw this one (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3669701) out there.

[JPnyc]

Well I specifically ordered my new laptop with XP pro, which should say it all.

[PeOfEo]

I have a lot of major problems with windows vista. Like the fact that it is loaded up with tons of yummy DRM that I have to circumvent. Or the fact that API's weren't released until the 11th hour so I still can't get drivers for some of my hardware. Also I have never seen worse memory management, I can run Beryl smoother with only 256mb of ram, Aero wont even run with under a gig! I installed vista on my box to preview it and took it right off when I discovered that my wifi and tv vard weren't going to work. I also had to turn off that retarded sidebar and aero because it really did slow down my machine. If I wanted a sidebar I would just use google desktop, atleast then I can have my google calendar and gmail displayed there. Beryl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eDI4-IH58s) makes Aero look like a child's work anyway. I may cave run Vista on my work machine if it's mandated, but when I go home, I am using SABAYON LINUX! (http://www.sabayonlinux.org/)
(All of my hardware works out of the box on sabayon just like on Ubuntu, but Sabayon get's compiled like gentoo and has portage!)

[JPnyc]

^ and that's why I chose XP, all the reasons you just mentioned. Even though the box I bought should be quite capable of running it, it will still run XP FASTER than vista, and who knows what programs will not work with vista, including my wi-fi

[PeOfEo]

If you strip vista down so it is running in a bare mode it should in theory run a little faster if you are on a dual core / ht / multi-processor setup, because a lot more of vista is multi-threadded than xp. But I haven't seen a difference and XP still boots faster for me on my systems.

[ACE86]

well how are yall all doing. i just installed vista on my new computer that i have just got done building and got say that i will be moveing to a linux system but keeping windows. Its all right but i hate one little if i even open a system program IT ASK IF YOU WANT TO CONTUINE. and does not reads all the pci cards i have and will not find them from the web if any question email them to me @ spinxdady@yahoo.com

[wh666-666]

Hey, welcome Ace ..

Driver support so far sucks for vista, but depending what pci cards you have they may not all work correctly in linux even though a linux distro will blister in comparison. I disliked that as well in vista about it questioning every single action. XP does it but not anywhere near as badly as vista does. Things will improve soon especially near the end of this year as a new service pack should be around and hardware manufactuers should have written alot more drivers for hardware.

[trooperbill]

Vista does make certain things easier... however it only took me 6 hours to crash it from a fresh install and i wasnt doing anything more than average surfing and moving/installing files

i have a problem with the GUI - its just not come along enough for my likings - id have liked to see some inovation instead of the same old crap with a little bit of mac styling

im not fussy i just expect to be able to open programs and files quickly and reliably which isnt too much to ask

currently running Vista in optimal mode with everything turned off :)

mark
web design (http://www.neue.co.uk) | seo blog (http://www.markrushworth.com)

[PeOfEo]

currently running Vista in optimal mode with everything turned off :)
web design (http://www.neue.co.uk) | seo blog (http://www.markrushworth.com)
so you are running windows xp with a royale noir (http://www.istartedsomething.com/20061029/royale-noir/) shin? :p

[EricG1793]

Visa is good.

However there are some minor faults with it. It seems as though Windows Explorer (NOT Internet Explorer) is slow to respond. And after the bar goes through the tube (that's the best I can describe it) at startup there's a blank screen for ten seconds or so before it goes to the welcome screen. However on the Internet it's a lot faster and I like it when the window comes up and asks me if it should perform a certain action. I upgraded the day before yesterday and I've cancelled three or four operations.

The looks are amazing. The sounds are nice as well.

[Znupi]

To me, Vista is just OS X with a crappy skin and huge hardware requirements and with loads of stupid "Are you sure?" questions.

The only reason I see for someone to use Vista is its appearance (it seems some people really like it :-/)... but that's stupid, since you can get Linux with a Vista theme (there are loads) and you'll get the same appearance, but with much, MUCH better performance :).

[EricG1793]

LeeU, as I said in the thread that I started... and I have to say it again... no use quoting myself... that this thread here was for people's predictions about what Vista would be like, where people who've never used it could say what they think of it based on other people's opinions, advertising, etc.

The one I made was for people who own Vista and who know what it's like to give an accurate opinion.

Sigh. You know what, I'm officially going to disappear now... I'm only a pest to the Webdeveloper community. It's better that I go. But if anybody besides DTR_Wii wants me to stay maybe I'll consider coming back. I'm discouraged... I was saying in another thread today that I like Webdeveloper a lot and the people (98%) are very nice and helpful and are pleasant to discuss with in threads. I'm going to post but one more message until I disappear for good unless people want me back. Farewell! Have good lives everybody.

[Znupi]

I think we all want you to stay. As I said before: more people = more points of view / perspectives = a better outcome. That's what this forum is about, at least for me.

But seriously, this is getting offtopic. We could continue the discussion of Vista here. I don't see any problem with that, everybody knows Vista is out so why not go on here? :-/

[LeeU]

EricG1793,

Yes, it did start that way but if you follow the thread, many people then began adding their comments when it came out. And that is how it has progressed, as to how people now like it. I just felt it best to keep it all here as people were still posting to this one and we had two conversations going, that's all. Plus, here you can see the development of what people thought it would be and how it actually turned out.

You don't need to leave. People want you to stay. Keep 'em coming!

BTW, my two cents ... I think Vista is great ... for Linux! Vista has driven many people to use a much better, quicker, and more reliable system than Windows. (But, that's just my opinion, ;-> )

[wh666-666]

You don't need to leave. People want you to stay. Keep 'em coming!

BTW, my two cents ... I think Vista is great ... for Linux! Vista has driven many people to use a much better, quicker, and more reliable system than Windows. (But, that's just my opinion, ;-> )

Yea i think you bring a valuable point of view to the forums eric. If there is a thread open no need to duplicate. Have you explored jupitermedia from the bottom of the page? There are many other JM forums, im a member of several and slightly addicted to posting like you mentioned ;) For example if you want to talk about really technical details for your rig there is sharkyforums, if like other here your a linux user and want to talk indepth about it there is the justlinux forums as well as many others all with a different community/personality but still helpful people.

Lol and i love your two cents comment leeu, classic!

[nshiell]

I thing Vista is not good cos' it is despiratly trying to mirror UNIX/LINUX/Mac in terms of OS archetecture and falling short.

I think Vista is bad cos of it's in built DRM and the fact that configuring still relies to heavily on old propertiy windows with a seemingly endless path of "click here for advanced options" buttons

I think Vista is ugly cos' it has and ugly black startbar which reminds me too much of the old days of white-on-black command line (DOS). I think that the whole look and feel of the OS has completely ignored modern design ideas.


By the way if you get an app called topdesk you can get the alt-tab windows flip thing on XP!!

[Raged]

why wont you let me select bad and ugly!
lol damn vista all the way!

[LeeU]

Not to resurrect a dead issue but you have got to see this story (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070708-popularity-of-windows-xp-continues-in-spite-of-vista.html). I like this quote -- it says it all:

If the likes of Dell are finding that support calls stemming from frustrations with Vista are too high, it's in their interest for customers to end up with the OS they want, not the OS Microsoft wants to sell them.
And so the consumer wakes up and decides he's in charge ...

[lynn]

?........