Printable View
Hi,
I just wanted to know how you plan on holding out unitll you get vista ?
Is it a good idea getting it when its released or will you hold off a bit until it gets more support (drivers,games etc)
I got windows XP a year after it came out, (mostly because of cost) however its all tax deductable now so it aint that bad :) Plus i need a new hard drive and they usualy do OEM with them.
So when do you plan on making the change and why ?
cheers
acidtone..:)
My personal preference would be to wait until it has demonstrated how stable it is. Possibly until SP1.
;)
I managed to get by with volume licenses for 2K and XP. Too bad volume licenses will never be the same.
:(
I guess there could be several trains of thought about how soon to acquire Vista. Some might say ASAP and help troubleshoot any problems, then again others might wait until any bugs are worked out, and finally some may never change for other reasons. I don't believe I can install Vista in my Commandore 64 vintage hardware so I guess Linux and XP will be around for a little while longer. (Might be a good reason to upgrade the HW...lol)
;)
This tool will check your hardware and software:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...r/default.mspx
:)
Probably won't make the move until my next pc.
Well I am happy with my 98\2000 and XP machines.....(home machines)
At work we still run some NT4...which is just fine for the function of the workstations
No need to change...
As stated....will probably wait til the first SP and new hardware ;)
MLF
I won't get it till I'm given one for free. I've never paid out of my own pocket for any OS. Why start now? I might get it at work just to learn it, but not for home.
Will stick with XP, until at least Vista's 3rd Service Pack...:D (2012)
Yes,
I would be reasonably happy with it on a new machine. I have been running the tool on a few boxes.............OK not the ones with 98/98SE/ME on them because I know they are not up to it.
Whilst it says that I can run it, I am getting some disturbing messages about software incompatibility. PC-Cillin, EWIDO, The Easy Office Suite and so on.
The real downside as I see it, is all but one of my machines that are capable of running it would need a new video card:( That I think is a bit of an oversight on MS's part as most office/small business deployments don't really need a fancy graphics card.
The software compatibility is a bit of a worry as well, given that MS haven't been exactly forthcoming when providing information to third party suppliers.
And that's precisely the reason i never jump at new versions of any software. I prefer to wait'll these kinds of issues are entirely worked out and gone. Forget about beta software altogether. Never touch it.
Well maybe when Super Ultra Mega Platinum yay PWNED buy it now ueber leet edition has proven itself somewhere...Obviously I'm making a pun on the naming scheme.
Yeah...I have found that also....video card issues...Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
Apps dont need it...but VISTA does....
AFAIK................the new UI is bloated and it needs all the resources you can through at it....dont want video pulling resources from other functions.....
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/abo..._092805_2.mspxQuote:
Windows Vista has a new User Interface (UI) called Aero, and if your system meets certain high-end graphics requirements, you get Aero Glass. In Aero Glass, elements of the windows are translucent, and dialog boxes open in an expanding fashion, starting off small and growing larger as if approaching.
MLF
edit> I cant get the fricken quotes to work properly...any tips????
edit edit>>>>>>never mind...I figured out what was wrong
What's wrong with the quotes? They appear ok to me
Ill get vista around the same time that I graduate from Law School. (Which will be in 3 years.) Then so I can actually understand wtf. M$ crazy license for this one is going to cover.
i'd wait till sometime..i ran windows 95 for 4 years, '98 for eight odd years and now xp for 2 years..each overlapping the latest release by atleast an year..i generally upgrade very late. But as and when i do, i'd assemble a new rig for myself..handmade.
It was interesting that a Dell senior executive said that Vista probably required 2Gb of RAM rather than the 1Gb that Microsoft claim.
:(
I'm running an official copy of RC1 64 bit version as a dual boot option on my spare PC and I have mixed views about it. Unless Biostar bring out fan control drivers, it will never be my OS on there because running the fans at 100% is not an acceptable option.
On the other hand, I'm happy enough with onboard graphics here - they're good as onboard graphics go, and I'm no gamer. I take objection to buying a 3D graphics card just to get the full potential out of Vista!
So really neither PC is great for Vista, but as soon as I'm able to get a copy of Ultimate, I'll probably use it. Since it's going to be early next year before it's officially released, I'm not even thinking about it yet. What puzzles me is why they've chosen to bring it out for businesses first? Don't they realize no business is going to install it on hundreds of PCs until it's at least proved itself stable? IT equipment usually works on roughly a 5 year turnaround and you'd be surprised what rubbish is out there :( I know, I have to use it!
I can't see that many businesses rushing out to upgrade all their users to Vista for quite some time and personally I'd have liked to see it available to Home users first.
Nevermind JPnyc...
I figures it out..
PEBKAC ;)
MLF
Well Moira, I think that the idea is that businesses generally have professional IT staff to test software before it is deployed. Naturally, MS would prefer to deal with them than with home users.
I guess that MS make more money out of corporate customers than home users.
Ohhhhhhh for just two gigs of RAM and a huge processor I can do with Windows what I do with Linux on a P3 with 384 MBs of RAM???? Oh Neat!!!!!!
I just sat here and typed out a long response as to why I wouldn't be getting Vista and when I posted it said invalid thread and I'm late so I'm just going to post two articles and leave it at that.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/420
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061030-8104.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by muert0
That's a bit odd... Did you try hitting back? Usually if something like that happens on a forum where I've been typing a long reply I don't want to do again I just hit the back button and once in a while it takes you back to the post you had typed out, or I copy and paste it so if it does happen I don't have to again.
Anyway though I looked over the first link and it does appear to me and I'm sure others, that the lisence for this thing is going to make lawyers scream at night. (Heh, I know you like Acid Bath so I'll compare it to the live versions of some of their demo stuff ;) ).
Who needs Linux?.................you can do it with Windows so long as it isn't Vista. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gore
This is what I really don't follow. In a business/institutional environment or a casual home situation you just don't need all this eye candy?
I am put in mind of all the hardware I have seen in business environments over the years. Apart from CAD deployments, the kit was always pretty minimalistic compared to home multimedia setups.
Vista seems to be the complete opposite............the business versions seem to require more resources that the basic home editions?
Weird IMHO?
Yea that is a little strange to me. TCO and ROI in business usually means "Make this thing so bare bones that it makes Paris Hilton look fat and make it run the software we need without doing what she does after each meal"...Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
Microsoft has set November 30 as the release date for Vista (and Office 2007) to business customers and January 30, 2007 as the date for the official launch to consumers and The World At Large.
http://apcmag.com/node/4258
full story.
i wasn't going to try it, or not right away at least. but now that Microsoft and Novell have teamed up and have some virtualization tools on the way to run Microsoft on linux and linux on windows, i'll try out vista, on linux.
Oh great they pick MY Birthday as a release date for this thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by chizra
Well at least you'll always know when it was released, in case you're ever a contestant on Jeopardy, and it comes up.
I'm good at that show, I need to go on there. My knowledge of BS is astounding. :) lol. I can't believe I'm going to be 24....
Thanks lady's and Gent's for all the good responses, i was hoping for this thread to get a bit of action, maybe a little debate.
Keep the good responses coming etc, this is making out to be a really good read.
cheers
acidtone..:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
I have quite a collection of BS knowledge too. My parents have always told me that I know a little bit about everything.....
2 friggin gigs of memory just for the OS? Thats amazing......
What is M$ thinking....
"hey, lets make an opperating system that may flop, make it so that everyone, even basic users, have to get a brand new machine, spend hundreds of dollars on memory, a few thousand on a graphics card, and then call it Vista.....We'll then charge a cool thousand for the OS, make a merger with the leading Open Source distro, and watch as our sales plummit and SuSe grows due to users realizing that our products are too overpriced, and do the same things, but while less resource friendly, as FREE OS's can........."
or maybe I'm just paranoid ;-)
Maybe they're taking their cues from our gov. and figuring, "Hey, bloated sells!".
Hi Z3,
I do not think that you are paranoid at all old chap................this is a very strange change in direction for Microsoft IMHO.
I possibly mislead you? I believe that the 2Gb of RAM was to run the OS and your applications (yes you can have notepad and the calculator ............. but not at the same time:p)
The reason that I find this strange is that in the past, MS have been very careful to ensure that their business products did not demand massive hardware upgrades? I run Win 2000 pro and server and don't have any real issues with resources. Win ME is a real resource pig and comes in around the same as XP, but they will both do fine with 512Mb of RAM (I do prefer 1 Gb for XP and have always put that into Win 2000 boxes because it will handle the addressing OK)
gore mentioned total cost of ownership and return on investment. This is the bit we cannot understand.............if I have a secretary or accounts clerk running basic office type apps and some stuff on a server, what in hell do I need this "AERO" crap for?
I am looking at spending maybe $400 per machine for stuff I have absolutely no use for? (video card + RAM)
Yet the "dumbed down" versions are for home users, who will either stay with what they have got or buy new?
I must admit to being totally confused by this strategy:confused:
I just got in a brand new laptop from Dell. Its got a 1.6ghz dual core proc and 1gb of ram. Its got a fancy little sticker on it that says "vista compatable". I ran that tool that someone linked to a few pages back and acording to MS I am going to loose my sound capabilties if I upgrade. Hmmmmmm I think i will stay with XP for a while. At least 6 months.
I have to say that I don't have 2 gigs of RAM on the PC running Vista and the 1 gig I have is perfectly adequate, ie looking at how much is being consumed I don't think I need 2 gig. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a nice addition, but necessary? I don't think so unless you're using apps that particularly need large amounts of RAM anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
Depends how impatient you are. For some users, waiting 20 seconds for an app to open and be fully ready for use is just fine. For others, it's an eternity. Being a native NYer, I would probably fall into the latter category. :D
That's what I'm trying to say though - I'm not waiting anything like that length of time for an app to open and it's debatable whether more RAM would even reduce the time I do wait. Possibly a faster processor would, but since the RAM isn't even anywhere near all being used, then what good would adding another 1 gig do? Particularly in what is my spare computer - I'm tempted to add more RAM here if I can afford it, particularly as the dual channel mode is utilised well with dual core which I have on this PC.
You have a point. I do feel that memory is WAY behind processor speed in terms of performance importance. But we always hear it said that adding more memory is the most significant upgrade you can make to your system. Frankly, like you, I don't see it being true.
At work, I'll switch to Vista fairly soon after it's released - at some point, Vista will be the OS in which my users are working on, so I'll get in on the ground floor so I can be ready to work with the users when they have issues. At home, it's a different story - I'm quite content with my main box at WinXP, so I probably won't be using Vista at home until I purchase a new system.