Windows Vista

[Ian Taylor]

Do you think that Windows Vista affordable for those looking for an upgrade?

[AMC]

How much does it cost?? Ive heard that its pretty good, someone actually told me it was a lot more like some of the mac OS than previous windows products.

I have to say i think windows is going on a bit of a copy drive at the moment, their new IE is REMARKABLY similar to FF.

i do like the new windows media player, very stylish

sorry that was all a bit off topic, :)

[scottm]

windows vista is offically released today to business's and not the public

[themoose]

Not today, quite a few days ago.

[AMC]

yeah, thats what i thought, so does anyone have any impression of what it looks like. like i said , im working on rumours here.

[stuffradio]

I got an email from Microsoft, I'm a beta tester for Vista. They said the beta is supposed to be over on the 10th. So yeah, I think next month they're releasing.

[AMC]

so what does pt look like, or can't you say?

[Wojtek]

I've beta tested vista and I must admit I will not upgrade.
Besides the sugar coated interface and the more omni present noob-friendlyness, I don't see nothing new.
Sure the underlying code might have got a good facelift, stuff you'r used to find in a specific folder in pre-vista is rearanged, but that does not improve the functionality of anything for my needs.

Btw, where's the UP button in explorer? ugh.

[Matt8]

Ive also been testing it for a long time and am Vista-certified [Microsoft's new program for people in the tech field]

That being said, I would consider myself fairly knowledgeable about MS Vista. I am not 100% sure if I will upgrade, regardless if I do, it won't be an immediate upgrade. I was not impressed but a lot of things it had, and the biggest factor is that it doesn't really add anything that makes me desire it. As Wojtek mentioned, the functionality of many things has not changed much, for better or for worse depending on how you look at it. I would gain nothing from upgrading, except some features I don't need, a pretty style, and slightly more stable environment. My XP machines don't crash anyway, so im not too concerned with an immediate upgrade.

[TaiLZ]

Well i'm definatly going to upgrade, but will wait until programs are actually compatible and my drivers.

[[ih]Demetris]

I have been testing Vista for quite some to now and i have to agree with others on this one. They really havent changed to much besides the pretty interface and to be frank about it its a resource hog. 512mb or Ram is the bare bones minimun that it will run on and it crawls like a snail even on a machine with a 2.4ghz processor and 512 mb of RAM and you asked about the price. Its been said that the price of Vista (Home Basic) will start around $199.00 and the Ultimate Edition (Equivalent of Media Center) Is going to start around $499.00. I dont see myself upgrading to this OS and to be honest i see it as another ME disaster ahead..The driver support is still horrible and not all apps are Vista compatible..Im still going to be a XP man for a while at lease until the first SP and maybe they lower the resource usage as well..

Regards,

Demetris

[Wojtek]

the Ultimate Edition (Equivalent of Media Center) Is going to start around $499.00.
Hum, no. Ultimate edition is like XP Pro Pro.
Home Premium would be equal to media center. Can't remeber the price but I believe about 300-400$.

[stuffradio]

I want my old sound card to be supported :(

stupid Creative Labs being slow on my card :bkick:

[[ih]Demetris]

Hum, no. Ultimate edition is like XP Pro Pro.
Home Premium would be equal to media center. Can't remeber the price but I believe about 300-400$.

Yeah kinda had em backwards..thanks :) but i found this site if your looking for extensive vista info.

http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/

[utcrazy]

It hasn't changed enough for me to move, there's a couple tidbits of good stuff, but that's about it.

[AMC]

It does sound expensive, i guess ill stick with XP for a while, I hope MS dont back off on the XP upgrades and patches for a while yet, they could, in order to encourage people to purchase the new software

[stuffradio]

Nope, pretty sure they will continue with their XP updates. Look at W2k, and the older OS's. They still have updates don't they? :)

[Kratt]

Why are smoe mobos labelled 'vista ready' anyway?

[Tree]

Most likely because they don't have integrated video, as Vista won't go for that. Not sure though.

[Starcraftmazter]

I wouldn't use Vista if they paid me.
Just....why? Linux is infinitely better.

And like Linus Torvalds says, "Software is like sex - it's better when it's free".

It's also extremely insecure, my friend did a fresh Vista install, enabled all the security stuff on it, posted the IP on a hacking forum, and the comp was hacked within an hour and a half.

Plus the Vista Kernel is completely "closed off", which means you can only use AV software from M$, except hackers have already bypassed this new "security feature".

It also requires a supercomputer to run, and surely has an infinite number of bugs.


Just....why? Why would anyone want such rubbish?

[Tree]

I wouldn't use Vista if they paid me.
Just....why? Linux is infinitely better.

And like Linus Torvalds says, "Software is like sex - it's better when it's free".

It's also extremely insecure, my friend did a fresh Vista install, enabled all the security stuff on it, posted the IP on a hacking forum, and the comp was hacked within an hour and a half.

Plus the Vista Kernel is completely "closed off", which means you can only use AV software from M$, except hackers have already bypassed this new "security feature".

It also requires a supercomputer to run, and surely has an infinite number of bugs.


Just....why? Why would anyone want such rubbish?
Great. We need another blind basher of Microsoft around here.

[Starcraftmazter]

Blind? I've been using their products for 7 bloody years, I'm not blind thank you very much.

Just because the whole world doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're all blind.

Everything I said is indisputable fact, now deal with it.

[Tree]

Let's break down all your "facts", shall we?


It's also extremely insecure, my friend did a fresh Vista install, enabled all the security stuff on it, posted the IP on a hacking forum, and the comp was hacked within an hour and a half.
This can in no way be confirmed. What benefit would Microsoft get out of creating an insecure operating system? Exactly, none.


Plus the Vista Kernel is completely "closed off", which means you can only use AV software from M$, except hackers have already bypassed this new "security feature".
Again, no more factual than an opinion.


It also requires a supercomputer to run, and surely has an infinite number of bugs.

Minimum System Requirements
* A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

Recommended
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

Those speak for itself. Yes, I know you were exaggerating and being sarcastic. But it's quite a ridiculous claim.


Just....why? Why would anyone want such rubbish?
Perhaps because everything runs on Microsoft and because it is by far the best desktop operating system.

[Starcraftmazter]

This can in no way be confirmed.

Uhhh pardon? Are you calling me a liar?


What benefit would Microsoft get out of creating an insecure operating system? Exactly, none.

Like talking to yourself? They have heaps of benefits. They make it insecure so they can sell security software, etc.
And that's besides the point, their software engineers are incapable of making it secure, which was my point.


Again, no more factual than an opinion.

That's not an opinion, that's fact. Why don't you do some reading, all the major AV vendors are pissing off at Microsoft for this exact reason.


Those speak for itself. Yes, I know you were exaggerating and being sarcastic. But it's quite a ridiculous claim.

Uhhh no. Clearly, you know nothing about computers, as you so wrongly think minimum requirements actually mean something.

Simcity 4's minimum requirements are 1ghz cpu and 256mbs of ram. And recommended is 2ghz 512mb. Yet that is a joke, as anyone who knows simcity4 well, will tell you it needs a 3ghz+ and at the very least 2gbs of ram, and likewise same thing here.


Perhaps because everything runs on Microsoft and because it is by far the best desktop operating system.

The large majority of servers run on Linux, because it's by far the most stable OS. Google runs their 200,000 servers on Linux. Most webhosts run linux servers. You should know, just by being on FWS.

As for desktop, windows is a completely joke. Ubuntu is infinitely better AND easier to use than windows.

[Tree]

Uhhh pardon? Are you calling me a liar?
Of course not. I'm simply stating that that cannot be confirmed as "fact" by people on this forum.


Like talking to yourself? They have heaps of benefits. They make it insecure so they can sell security software, etc.
And that's besides the point, their software engineers are incapable of making it secure, which was my point.
Exactly. It's all a big conspiracy. And people who went to school for over 4 years studying programming and OS theory are completely incompetent of putting together a world-class OS.



That's not an opinion, that's fact. Why don't you do some reading, all the major AV vendors are pissing off at Microsoft for this exact reason.
I haven't done any reading, so I can't make any sort of witty retort.



Uhhh no. Clearly, you know nothing about computers, as you so wrongly think minimum requirements actually mean something.

Simcity 4's minimum requirements are 1ghz cpu and 256mbs of ram. And recommended is 2ghz 512mb. Yet that is a joke, as anyone who knows simcity4 well, will tell you it needs a 3ghz+ and at the very least 2gbs of ram, and likewise same thing here.
Yes, let's create an assumption about someone you have never met based on an opinion of yours over one thing. Quite logical, good move sir. I have a degree in computer science from Brigham Young University and am MCSE, CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certified. I know enough about computers to know that you cannot base anything off of one problem with one program, on one platform.



The large majority of servers run on Linux, because it's by far the most stable OS. Google runs their 200,000 servers on Linux. Most webhosts run linux servers. You should know, just by being on FWS.
Yes they do. They run it because it is indeed stable. I agree with this statement. While I prefer Linux to Windows for a server environment, Windows does an acceptable job when properly handled.


As for desktop, windows is a completely joke. Ubuntu is infinitely better AND easier to use than windows.
Oh yes. That would completely explain why I could find one instance of a Fortune 500 company using anything other than Windows.

[Starcraftmazter]

Of course not. I'm simply stating that that cannot be confirmed as "fact" by people on this forum.

Well thats their problem.


Exactly. It's all a big conspiracy. And people who went to school for over 4 years studying programming and OS theory are completely incompetent of putting together a world-class OS.

They have proved so, with the number of security exploits in every version of windows.


I haven't done any reading, so I can't make any sort of witty retort.

Then I suggest you make sure you know the facts next time, before referring to facts as opinions.


I have a degree in computer science from Brigham Young University and am MCSE, CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certified.

Well laa-dee-daa. All that didn't stop you from posting minimum and recommended requirements as said by microsoft, as proof that, that is actually all you need, now did it?


I know enough about computers to know that you cannot base anything off of one problem with one program, on one platform.

It was an example. The same principle applies to most pieces of software. I don't know if you've tested it, but people who have, told me it runs slow even on a a Intel core duo with 1gb.


Yes they do. They run it because it is indeed stable. I agree with this statement. While I prefer Linux to Windows for a server environment, Windows does an acceptable job when properly handled.

Why should people have the need to spend extra time to "properly handle" windows, only to have it do an "acceptable" job, while linux, without any effort whatsoever, does an outstanding job?


Oh yes. That would completely explain why I could find one instance of a Fortune 500 company using anything other than Windows.

It's all one big mob of money spending. There may be many reason why a company doesn't want to switch.

Regardless, the stupidity of any amount of people doesn't make windows any better than Linux.

The average PC user doesn't have the skills or the time to properly deal with viruses, hackers, spyware, adware, constant crashes, constant updates, problems, incompatibilities, etc.

With Linux, all they have to do is install it, and use it .They don't have to worry about anything you would on windows.

Want to browse the net? Bam, best browser in the world pre-installed. Want to check email? Bam, best mail client re-installed. Want to write a document? Do some database work? Analyse the costs of running a company? Well, you have the best Office Suite pre-installed.

It's all free, it's all easy to use, it's all secure, it's all open source.

How can Microsoft match this? How many software engineers does M$ employ? A few thousand high-school dropouts? All the best ones already left M$ for google, so how can M$ compete with millions of programmers worldwide fixing bugs and security issues in open source software?

The answer is....they simply can't.

[Tree]

Well sir, this all comes down to comparing opinions, which is of course a never-ending circle of opinion, counter-opinion. This has been reduced to a high school debate about how to pronounce GIF. It's been a pleasure.

[themoose]

Tree, stop blindly looking for ways to make it look like windows is better without knowing the facts. It's your opinion that some of what he said is opinion, but in fact most of them are facts.

When people use their computers nowadays to do whatever they want, the thing they're (usually) most concerned about is security of their data. Therefore security should be top of the list on any OS. It's too early to tell whether Vista is secure, from early reports it's not doing too good, but one thing's for sure - XP wasn't.

So you can stop praising Vista until it's been out for a good year and has had very little security bugs.

Also, they don't make it insecure on purpose. That'd just be stupid. They do it because they can't make it secure.

[Matt8]

Im not going to quote like all the rest of you cool cats, but wanted to point out something about the AV thing. You are NOT locked out from running other forms of anti-virus. I beta test Trend Micro products and have been testing a version of their AV designed for Vista on a vista test machine for months now.

[AMC]

I would also like to point out, that the arguement, is pointless anyway.

Linux is better at somethings

Microsoft is better at others

At the end of the day you cant really argue with numbers ( an while i respect all your opinions) you cant deny that microsoft covers just about 80% of the IT market online or not.

This has turned into a microsoft hater session, and its not really fair to argue about the effectiveness of a product most of us havent even used. Give Vista the chance it deserves, try it for yourself, then come to your own conclusions.

[stuffradio]

My sound card isn't supported yet :( :lol:

I've had Vista for about over a month now running on my AMD 64 Single Core 4000+, with a Nvidia 660GT, 1 GB RAM hehe

it's not all that bad, :)

[[ih]Demetris]

Theres always gonna be someone who loves linux over Windows and trust me i like it i dual boot with both windows and linux but lets face Microsoft is a Multi Billion dollar corporation and they have literally thousands of engineers working under them. They have the money and the resources to invest into cutting edge technology. The large problem with linux that i have seen in the time that ive been using it (7years) is its not very user (avg pc user) friendly. I mean have you tried to set up Nvidia on a linux box..grr that can take forever..lol. it boils down to this MONEY. MS has it so they can afford to invest millions into their product development. Just my 2 cents..

P.S. - It will be a while before they stop updating and patching XP theres still alot of major corporations floating around that either hasnt upgraded or refuses to..

[Starcraftmazter]

Im not going to quote like all the rest of you cool cats, but wanted to point out something about the AV thing. You are NOT locked out from running other forms of anti-virus. I beta test Trend Micro products and have been testing a version of their AV designed for Vista on a vista test machine for months now.

They aren't completely locked out, but AVs use windows' kernel for real-time protection, and now they aren't able to.


I would also like to point out, that the arguement, is pointless anyway.

Linux is better at somethings

Microsoft is better at others

Nay, Linux is good at everything, Microsoft is bad at everything....well maybe except ripping features Linux had for ever, and branding them as "new" in their next OS :lol:

[Darknight]

How much does it cost?? Ive heard that its pretty good, someone actually told me it was a lot more like some of the mac OS than previous windows products.

I have to say i think windows is going on a bit of a copy drive at the moment, their new IE is REMARKABLY similar to FF.

i do like the new windows media player, very stylish

sorry that was all a bit off topic, :)

thats ok since ff pretty much copyed opera

[Keagle]

Opera Rocks. So Microsoft Copied Opera tbh.

[Starcraftmazter]

Windows is 4 n00bs
It's Linux 4 teh win!!!!

[Gregr]

I've beta tested Vista and i don't really like it, it looks good but thats about it.
I will not be upgrading, well not for a while anyway

[Dini]

Windows is 4 n00bs
It's Linux 4 teh win!!!!

so you're running linux I assume?

basicaly, windows is worst than linux because most people say it. I agree too, but it doesn't mean windows is that bad. Otherwise, it wouldnt be so popular all of this time

[influct]

The huge major whacking great asscracking flaw of linux is this:
software.
(and ms proper gander)
I have experienced both of these OS's and i can safely say that if i buy a piece of software it will WORK with windows, sadly the same cannot be said for linux.
While it truly is an exceptional desktop it cannot compete with microsofts millions which allows it to create contracts.

If commercial software was released for linux more often and linux came bundled on more pcs it would be more popular, lets be honest for your average computer user the thought of doing a reformat or a partition and installing a new OS is quite a scary one.

Now back on topic:
XP does fine for me, i see no need to upgrade, the difference doesn't look the money. However I'm buying a new laptop come next year so no doubt that will come bundled with vista.

[Dini]

If commercial software was released for linux more often and linux came bundled on more pcs it would be more popular, lets be honest for your average computer user the thought of doing a reformat or a partition and installing a new OS is quite a scary one.

There's some paid distros out there, and also commercial software for linux, not as much as for windows, but there is.

Also, some ACER portables are bundled with Linux to save costs, justlike in India with some budget PCs

Back on topic again, Windows XP can work in very slow computers and very fast ones, it's all in customization. That's why Vista will be a failure if it asks too much out of a computer

[Starcraftmazter]

so you're running linux I assume?

Duuuh!


The huge major whacking great asscracking flaw of linux is this:
software.
(and ms proper gander)
I have experienced both of these OS's and i can safely say that if i buy a piece of software it will WORK with windows, sadly the same cannot be said for linux.
While it truly is an exceptional desktop it cannot compete with microsofts millions which allows it to create contracts.

Buy? Why do you need to buy anything for linux? There are free alternatives avaliable, always - always.


If commercial software was released for linux more often

OMG, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you have some weird fetich, with having to pay for software, which has better, free alternatives?


Anyway, windows just can't compete with Linux, it has one click program installation, automatically updates all software on your system, and it's features are insane.

How do people on windows survive without multiple workspaces, how? I'll never know....

[Decker]

Been testing Vista Enterprise and I hope to 'enter deity here' that it doesn't take off till it's something more than a nice way to increase system resource requirements. Tested on a 2G Intel Duo with 2Gb RAM and it really doesn't merit an upgrade (the ME reference in IMO is quite accurate), admittedly the Ent version is stripped for commercial use but I still can't find anything redeeming. 2K was a good update to NT4 which was long overdue an overhaul so that one worked for me, XP brought 2K to the masses, Vista - jury still out deliberating oldman2

For the *NIX & MS bashers alike, if you like your OS then good for you, but appreciate other peoples opinions, simply saying one is bad compared to another just shows a lack of exposure to both over many differing situations. :-)

[influct]

Duuuh!



Buy? Why do you need to buy anything for linux? There are free alternatives avaliable, always - always.



OMG, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you have some weird fetich, with having to pay for software, which has better, free alternatives?


Anyway, windows just can't compete with Linux, it has one click program installation, automatically updates all software on your system, and it's features are insane.

How do people on windows survive without multiple workspaces, how? I'll never know....

fetish dear, fetish. (surely you should know that since i assume your running firefox 2.0 with built in spell checker?:angel:)
But b.o.t
There are free alternatives but they are not as good.
openoffice, its good and great but my copy of office 2004 was £20 and most people will agree, its better.
adobe photoshop, i paid a fair bit for this but it was worth it! Nothing else compares
Macromedia suite - I plan on buying this. Nothing compares

The fact is you get what you pay for and while the price difference is not always worth it when you buy everything second hand or OEM its much more sensible and it is worth it.

Yeh my bad i forgot about some of the far cheaper stuff. But the majority are bundled with windows, just look at dell.

The an add-on from Microsoft that allows multiple workstations (yes i know its an obvious rip)
but I use that.

[Keagle]

I'm not going to upgrade to Vista until the Games demand it, so, pretty much instantly, i'm going to be forced to upgrade -.- DirectX 10 looks sweet though.

[Starcraftmazter]

Yer, but I don't have any dictionaries installed, and I know how to spell fetish, just not type it, anyway.....

openoffice is easily better.
photoshop, well you can do all the same with gimp if you 'gots teh skill'.

I've never heard of this ad-on, and I wouldn't want to use microsoft's crappy ports.

And thats another thing....everything runs slower on windows, because it's designed to run on linux, and larer ported to windows.

Some good examples are;
openoffice
firefox
thunderbird
apache
php
mysql!!!

Huh? Huh?

[influct]

I'll grant you the web dev stuff. I guess it really depends on what you want it to do. But i promise you photoshop is better than gimp end of its not a question of skills, its the industry standard and with good reason. There is so much that just works. I'll grant you though, there not a cat in hells chance you'd catch me running windows on a server, where as i do own a linux pc (dosn't get used much though)

[Starcraftmazter]

There is a special wine-like thing called codeweavers I think, specifically for things like dreamweaver and photoshop, it costs - but if you own software like that it's not a problem, and it works very well.

[Nug]

Uhhh pardon? Are you calling me a liar?



Like talking to yourself? They have heaps of benefits. They make it insecure so they can sell security software, etc.
And that's besides the point, their software engineers are incapable of making it secure, which was my point.



That's not an opinion, that's fact. Why don't you do some reading, all the major AV vendors are pissing off at Microsoft for this exact reason.



Uhhh no. Clearly, you know nothing about computers, as you so wrongly think minimum requirements actually mean something.

Simcity 4's minimum requirements are 1ghz cpu and 256mbs of ram. And recommended is 2ghz 512mb. Yet that is a joke, as anyone who knows simcity4 well, will tell you it needs a 3ghz+ and at the very least 2gbs of ram, and likewise same thing here.



The large majority of servers run on Linux, because it's by far the most stable OS. Google runs their 200,000 servers on Linux. Most webhosts run linux servers. You should know, just by being on FWS.

As for desktop, windows is a completely joke. Ubuntu is infinitely better AND easier to use than windows.

Google runs on google os?:o

[Keagle]

Here we go again..

[Starcraftmazter]

Google runs on google os?:o

Google servers run linux.

[Tree]

Google servers run linux.
Theoretically, yes. It's a highly modified version of Linux, as is OS X.

[Starcraftmazter]

Theoretically, yes. It's a highly modified version of Linux, as is OS X.

No.
It runs on linux full stop.

Linux OS is something built on the linux kernel, it doesn't matter how modified it is.....it's still linux.
The whole idea of linux distros, is that you take the linux kernel, and then your build an OS to your specific needs using it. This is exactly what google has done, and this is exactly what hundreds of other groups/people have done, and it's still all called linux. There are no different "levels" of modification.

OS X isn't built on the linux kernel, it's built on the XNU kernel.

[Tree]

OS X isn't built on the linux kernel, it's built on the XNU kernel.

Unix > Linux > BSD + Mach > XNU > OS X

So, we're both right.

[Starcraftmazter]

Unix > Linux > BSD + Mach > XNU > OS X

So, we're both right.

In a way, perhaps.

I would say that's a history tree more than anything.

I mean, you can't say that the linux kernel was build over or is a modified version of the unix kernel.

You can say it was inspired by it, you can say it was designed to work in a similar way - in fact that's it's exact purpose, but saying much more than that I think would be taking things a little too far.

Likewise, xnu I believe is quite some distance from having much to do with linux.