O donnoknow much about Vista, but hey! Why to say Vista Sux? So was Windows Xp some years ago, and we thought Win2000 or Me was better than it. We should undesrstand Vista as it is still in develpment. I bet in a year more than 70% Xp users will go on Vista.
With so many different versions and everything else...I wouldn't be surprised if people don't seriously start taking a closer look at Macs. If I read things right, they might even be doing away with the server version and having just a single version of OS 10.5 for everything. The only difference now is that the server version comes with a few extra tools and interfaces to programs, like Xgrid. Features that most people will never use and if you know enough unix you can get most of those features to work without having OSX server. It's just that the tools do help make it easier.
As I said, my friend claims that if Mac and PC hardware aren't equal now, they will be soon, and that OSX is not better than PC operating systems, primarily because it has just the same security issues and other problems as PCs do, just with far less compatibility with commercial market software, such as games and the like.According to him, the only reason that Macs don't have the exact same number of security holes as Windows is simply because no one has bothered to look for them much yet, since the number of OSX machines are so much fewer than the number of Windows ones.As Tim of Ctrl+Alt+Del once put it, Mac: Nobody Gives a S**t
ive just got my copy of Vista RTM, its still a major resource hog using 435MB of RAM while idle, but it dies run smooth, and it looks sweet. security is good on it with it asking if you want to let it modify files before the program opens, also the games menu is handy detecting al my games except some new games like Battlefield 2142, and OpenGL still aint fixed for ATI, it is worth paying to upgrade, you just need to use it a bit and dig into every link to see its capabilitys
I don't think I'm ever getting Windows Vista. It's probably is going to be really expensive, will load my computer, there will be plenty of bugs (like any other versions) and everybody I talk to who have Vista said the better thing about it is the interface. Well I don't give a ... about the interface I want a good and stable OS so I can run everything I need just fine.
I believe there are an unheard of 6 different versions. What this means is less individual support and documentation for each one and a lot of confused consumers. Most people have no clue about the differences between the standard Vista, and Vista Ultimate, but will buy the most expensive one just because they think it'll be faster or safer somehow.Most of the features are copied off of Mac OS Tiger or whatever it is called, and overal I don't think it's going to be smart to get when it comes out. Most 3rd party software developers will tell you that looking at the BETA, Vista appears nearly impossible to complete before their release "date". You can see that Microsoft realizes this by constantly pushing back the release date.Sure, the graphical additions will be nice, but it's just going to make it slower and until it's been out for a while and patches are developed, it's going to be very buggy and potentially have some dangerous security exploits. For that reason, I refuse to switch right when it comes out. There are too many things I need to protect on my computer, and despite Microsoft telling us they have tested this OS more than any of their previous, their reputation for releasing buggy operating systems warns me otherwise.If you want the look, use window blinds. It's tons cheaper than buying a new operating system.
I wonder how easily microsoft will be able to bait the regular consumer into purchasing this product. The average soccer mom or granddad isn't going to care about an enhanced interface, (Paticularly when the one they have now works, ironically the adaption of xp's interface has made people entirely reliant upon an archaic GUI from which they are uncapable of change without signifigant difficulty.). Not to mention, the majority of consumers are not concerned with the software they have now, paticularly when now that xp is finally stable there is barely a reason to upgrade. The only people this will appeal to is prebundled packages with new operating systems installed and techies that want to fool around with the concept of a new OS. I don't believe there is anything major that constitutes the price point microsoft has made.All in all, I would not recommend this OS unless you want the latest games, or your bored with your OS and just want to fiddle around. I recommend you have a d3d9 ready graphics card and 2gigs of ram if you don't want to lag out in this OS, otherwise its just not worth it. (1gig users can use it, just remember that you'll probably dig in to paging file fast.)I'm sorry microsoft, but a new 3d GUI is not going to appeal to the majority of consumers. So I can't wait until they spin the 'its more secure' stuff when we really are dealing with barely out of beta software.I also dislike prepackaged software like the unremovable internet explorer and the new windows anti spyware technology. It's great for them to compete, but it's shotty business practices when these things run in the background, or "hide' in the internal OS without your knowledge. You are effectively trying to destroy competition unfairly, as the consumer should have the option to run software for themselves with their own choices... Sadly the ease of use is more important than security.
windows vista isn't anymore the most recent windows from microsoft, it looks like they're planning a better one
It's a new technology