Is Vista Any Good?

[oniongarden 0]

Vista it`s good but i dont like it now has many bugs left. And you need a good computer for it. I have used beta but .. i tink thats is the problems. I wait the final version and i what to upgrade for windows xp license. its 99$ for me.

[Alegis 0]

Alright, this is from someone who has been using betas well over a year and now trying out additional downloadable content.

 

 

Should you wait for a service pack? In my opinion - no. If you plan on switching, sooner you make the switch the better. Vista has been postponed long enough, and I have no issues at all with Vista. Driver support for 32 bit (I'm not sure of the status of 64 bit) is excellent.

 

I herd that vista will be virus proof, but there probably just saying that to get more sells.

I highly doubt Microsoft stated something along those lines. But there are plentiful of other improvements on security.

Just like any other system can't be 100% foolproof.

Foolproof, never. As there is no patch for human stupidity. But for applications that do malicious things - for someone with the User Account Control (god forbid) enabled it reduces risk. But that's too much of a pain in the *bottom* anyways and was the first option I disabled. Intel is working now though on smarter chipsets with permissions on programs to disable unwanted background behaviour. But yeah, no code is perfect.

And even if one seems near to perfect, adding code will only increase the risk.

 

That said, Vista is not really XP on steroids. It's not quite the shift in core programming that would have been nice, but it is fundamentally different than XP

Agreed. Many ignorant people will shout out it's merely a theme change from XP because the only word they read was Aero.

 

The release of Vista definitely has better driver support and fewer bugs than XP. It is understandable that people want to wait, but Vista is not a defective product now. If you want to switch, I highly recommend to do it now.

A slimmed-down version of Vista would be nice, at a much cheaper price, because that's the one thing that makes Vista a stupid choice. Who wants to shell out $500 just to use an OS?

There are different versions for that. And most people will want to make use of the cheaper upgrade packs. Vista is actually much cheaper than the different OS X versions Apple releases in the same time period, and forces you to buy to make use of basic things like Safari with proper Java support or Airport features. Highly annoying, at least Microsoft releases free patches for extra features.

 

Beta 1 and 2 aren't really comparable to for example, RC1/2 which were much more representable of the final product.

Windows Vista is just a copy of MacOS X. I rather get myself a Mac or stick to Linux.

seriously think Microsoft finally learn that UNIX is the superior system and they are trying to transition their NT system to work more like the UNIX system.

I believe he asked for tech feedback, not your attempts at being funny.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

sorry, I meant RC1 actually.Anyways, I never thought my comments were interpreted ask jokes. I seriously think that Microsoft is finally learning their lesson.xboxrulz

[leeuss 0]

As I usually say, I don't even want to try Vista until I don't see at least Service Pack 1, because it will really be unstable and the main thing for me I think is a Stable Operating System. I have managed to make my XP installation quite stable and don't really have problems with it.. To use Vista normally I would need to upgrade my Hardware which I don't want to because it is really enough for me, Internet, webdesign, studies...
If you really want to have something better than XP, just install some Linux distribution or MacOS and learn how to use it, you won't want to get back to Windows unless you are a gamer and want to play games, on Vista Games will be even more slower, I remember when people didn't really liked XP, because it was resource hungry.. they still used win98 and said Games run better on that system, for two years now I don't really hear thins kind of stuff or they stopped playing old games or something like that, so I don't think that you won't have problems using Vista for the first year, I don't like problems - I won't use it.

what is the diff between xp & vista.
seems vista is looks like follow the linux way.

[Alegis 0]

Anyways, I never thought my comments were interpreted ask jokes. I seriously think that Microsoft is finally learning their lesson.

Their lesson? What is your problem with MS (that's an S). Reason Bill Gates is/was richest man on earth while being the single most charity donating person on earth is by starting a business riddled with failures in the past. It seems you lot that represent the company as leeches should do some history. Certainly there is an extensive bad side of their way with formats etc in the past, but by far done more good than bad.

What is their lesson. Your assumption of them changing file systems because Linux does so and their idea of trying to imitate them is ludicrous. Especially with Vista they've gone a grand other way than Linux.

 

what is the diff between xp & vista.

seems vista is looks like follow the linux way.

 

Which is the reason for both your assumptions. Ignorance. Which can be fixed by actually reading lists to know the changes. I know you have almost no idea of the OS by making that file system comment xboxrulz, even though you claim you've tried RC1.

 

For an indepth changelog and review see Paul Thurrott's site. Not everything is done, because it is so extensive. Yes, there are a lot more changes than merely look and Aero.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

And roughly summarised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

 

On the contrary to Apple, they tend to release the omitted features in free patches. Microsoft releases an OS every ~4 years, while Apple tends to release smaller OS versions. In total, MS is cheaper and they do not force you to move. While Direct X 10 is a great change integrated in the OS, Safari for example is not. Yet apple forces you to buy the new OS X version for features such as Airport and proper Safari versiosn which work perfectly well int he current OS version instead of free patches. That is ripping off people. I don't see where this $ comes from in M$, backed by anything reasonable. Do tell me.

 

Because "microsoft is finally learning their lesson" is yet another ludicrous statement. You have no idea what you mean by it yourself. That linux is superior? How come this change with Vista then (the way they take the OS on a new path) which is definitely different. Much more integrated features (no hassle manually installing flash, printers and so on in linux) and graphically even more pleasing. Saying they are going the way of Linux is bs. Even if they changed one feature that is similiar to Linux, so do the new distributions.

 

Consider 2 products with different features and them upgrading their next versions taking the best of the other. Some may call this stealing, especially if they're more or less 'fanboy' and it's the other company doing it - but I applaud this doing. It is all in the interest of the customer. And it is certainly not unique to MS in this business, every distrubution has their share in doing so. Which, again, is good for us.

 

 

It is okay to love Linux and embrace it because it is, for example, Open-source. It becomes wrong however when bashing another product and abandoning reason by doing so. If you made your choice of OS be happy with it. You shouldn't only feel happy after claiming the other products are inferior. I think this is mostly plaguing new Linux users. It's actually funny you're still using "m$" with such a nickname. Actually it isn't funny but as sad as the fervent window users taking all their opportunity to bash on microsoft, yet complimenting Apple's farts on its lovely smell.

 

Notice I'm only taking a defensive position and not attacking anything business wise of Apple/Linux. I state that just in advance if you care to reply. If you feel offended you may feel that, but it is not my intention to impress or insult. It's not as if this is the only topic where you're spouting nonsense about MS/Windows - it's as if you hunt every opportunity.

 

In summary:

Stating Vista is heading the way of Linux is demonstration of very poor judgement.

No reason to bash MS and abandon reason just because one loves apple/linux.

Gates isn't evil

Competition is good.

[Grafitti 0]

In summary:

Stating Vista is heading the way of Linux is demonstration of very poor judgement.

No reason to bash MS and abandon reason just because one loves apple/linux.

Gates isn't evil

Competition is good.

I'm a Microsoft user as well. I would like to have a Mac, and get a bit lost in Linux. I don't bash Microsoft, but i do think that they could do better. With all the money behind them, the years of planning and coding, you'd think they could release a relatively bug-free OS. Simple exploits that are discovered -- why didn't Microsoft catch them. I don't have any issue with their being the biggest company and basically monopolizing everything, as long as they don't sit back and figure that because they're already the market leader, they don't need to bother writing proper code and making a proper system. People buy MS because it's easy to use and compatible with lots of programs, but definitely not because it's fast or secure. That's the problem.

[nathaniel1405241538 0]

I had visa for the trial period of 15 days for the trial period I thought it was heaven. It made me feel that my computer was a space machine. But after the trial period expired it locked my computer making me having to re-format it which was hell but overloooking what it gives you is a rip off they just made vista so that they could make games only compatible with vista to make you spend more money which makes microsoft probally get there income trippled. The whole vista operating system is desined so niceley so that you dont question if there is anything it give you more than looks. Like I thought it should help create a stronger virus protection and not based it on everyone getting media centre. It is really fast and reliable because they made a fast drive or a cpu boost w.e they called it. When i heard it might not be released anymore I was happy because Vista is a peice of crap.!

[Alegis 0]

nathaniel,They're offering Windows Live OneCare (free beta now) and every version comes with firewall and malware protection (Windows defender), while leaving opportunity for better third-party applications.If you think VIsta is merely looks you haven't really used it, or checked lists as previously mentioned. Although you did state it gave you a much better experience, then you claim it is but a mere theme change.In other words, I have troubles understanding your post because of some illogical constructions, as well as incorrect statements (virus/protection wise). Else you'd have noticed it offers far more better features for protection/security.Grafitti,define relatively bug-free. I have no troubles using it, and have yet to discover something that even looks like a BSOD. I call that bug-free. No software, especially not when it is as extensive and huge as an OS - is perfect. I don't see which errors in Vista you mean, or how you can conclude that because of the size of the company the software would be perfect. I'm of opinion that stating Vista isn't relatively bug-free (it is especially vs XP) is incorrect. They make improvements in every version on speed/security and it is no less than that for the xp/vista change. Of course, including several features (plug & play ...) and being automatically compatible takes resources, but it handles it efficiently. Linux will remain better in mere speed because of that, I like linux on systems with fewer resources as it was originally made for that purpose.It's not as if big bugs float around on the OS, terrorizing early adapters and MS sitting ducks. With an application as extensive as this, so are bug reports and as bug tester I can guarantee you they aren't just sitting ducks. When you study coding you'll get a better idea of how it works, and why it cannot be perfect.Again, vista is much more than just looks or DirectX 10 for games.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Their lesson? What is your problem with MS (that's an S). Reason Bill Gates is/was richest man on earth while being the single most charity donating person on earth is by starting a business riddled with failures in the past. It seems you lot that represent the company as leeches should do some history. Certainly there is an extensive bad side of their way with formats etc in the past, but by far done more good than bad.

What is their lesson. Your assumption of them changing file systems because Linux does so and their idea of trying to imitate them is ludicrous. Especially with Vista they've gone a grand other way than Linux.

Which is the reason for both your assumptions. Ignorance. Which can be fixed by actually reading lists to know the changes. I know you have almost no idea of the OS by making that file system comment xboxrulz, even though you claim you've tried RC1.

 

For an indepth changelog and review see Paul Thurrott's site. Not everything is done, because it is so extensive. Yes, there are a lot more changes than merely look and Aero.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

And roughly summarised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

 

On the contrary to Apple, they tend to release the omitted features in free patches. Microsoft releases an OS every ~4 years, while Apple tends to release smaller OS versions. In total, MS is cheaper and they do not force you to move. While Direct X 10 is a great change integrated in the OS, Safari for example is not. Yet apple forces you to buy the new OS X version for features such as Airport and proper Safari versiosn which work perfectly well int he current OS version instead of free patches. That is ripping off people. I don't see where this $ comes from in M$, backed by anything reasonable. Do tell me.

 

Because "microsoft is finally learning their lesson" is yet another ludicrous statement. You have no idea what you mean by it yourself. That linux is superior? How come this change with Vista then (the way they take the OS on a new path) which is definitely different. Much more integrated features (no hassle manually installing flash, printers and so on in linux) and graphically even more pleasing. Saying they are going the way of Linux is bs. Even if they changed one feature that is similiar to Linux, so do the new distributions.

 

Consider 2 products with different features and them upgrading their next versions taking the best of the other. Some may call this stealing, especially if they're more or less 'fanboy' and it's the other company doing it - but I applaud this doing. It is all in the interest of the customer. And it is certainly not unique to MS in this business, every distrubution has their share in doing so. Which, again, is good for us.

It is okay to love Linux and embrace it because it is, for example, Open-source. It becomes wrong however when bashing another product and abandoning reason by doing so. If you made your choice of OS be happy with it. You shouldn't only feel happy after claiming the other products are inferior. I think this is mostly plaguing new Linux users. It's actually funny you're still using "m$" with such a nickname. Actually it isn't funny but as sad as the fervent window users taking all their opportunity to bash on microsoft, yet complimenting Apple's farts on its lovely smell.

 

Notice I'm only taking a defensive position and not attacking anything business wise of Apple/Linux. I state that just in advance if you care to reply. If you feel offended you may feel that, but it is not my intention to impress or insult. It's not as if this is the only topic where you're spouting nonsense about MS/Windows - it's as if you hunt every opportunity.

 

In summary:

Stating Vista is heading the way of Linux is demonstration of very poor judgement.

No reason to bash MS and abandon reason just because one loves apple/linux.

Gates isn't evil

Competition is good.

Bill Gates is smart and charitable, that I can give to you as kudos. However, his smarts got many people, including me hating him. Why? He uses vendor lock-in, suppressive market control and using poor codes make new releases.

 

Vendor lock-in is a major blockade in competition. When you lock a customer to only your product, you have essentially took out competition, take a look at EU and how many court cases it had fired against Microsoft.

 

Poor codes has been used for "compatibility" and they have never been actually patched. All the patches they release will need a repatch on top of that patch. When you get too many patches in the code, it gets enormous and hard to navigate and patch the actual problem in the first place.

 

I never stated that they're heading the Linux way, I'm just saying that it starts to handle like a UNIX system with all it's security layouts quite similar. There is and maybe will always have the NT/UNIX difference. Windows will always be based on DOS.

 

Also, on a Mac, you DON'T have to upgrade like on Windows. You can still be running MacOS X 10.3.9 and Apple wouldn't give a crap because the software are still compatible. However, for Windows, most new software must be running Windows XP (and at least Windows 2000). Windows Vista is just one of those rogue OSes that takes longer than their usual product cycle of around 2-4 years. Windows ME came out in 1999, Windows XP came out in 2001. You can't run new apps on Windows ME anymore, Microsoft had forced them to go to Windows XP.

 

On free UNIX, no one cares if you're running a very old version of their operating system, the software would still most likely work. For example, most Linux software works with Linux kernel 2.2+ (latest kernel: 2.6.19.1). Linux kernel 2.2 was introduced in 1999 and it still works with brand new software.

 

My point of making this statement is not because I absolutely hate Microsoft Windows, I still use it quite often, I just don't like how people can be misleaded by Microsoft and Microsoft backers about how Windows is so safe and that it is cheaper than open source alternatives. It's because it's not!

 

UNIX/UNIX-clones are technically superior to Microsoft Windows, but on the desktop market, it's the other way around.

 

*P.S: Note my name, xboxrulz .... XBOX is a product of Microsoft, and I love it. I have the 360 and play it regularly. Therefore, I'm not totally against Microsoft on some aspects.*

 

xboxrulz

[Alegis 0]

*P.S: Note my name, xboxrulz .... XBOX is a product of Microsoft, and I love it. I have the 360 and play it regularly. Therefore, I'm not totally against Microsoft on some aspects.*

yeah, but you certainly make it sound like it when you're using acronyms like M$. Please be more consequent then in your thinking.

Bill Gates is smart and charitable, that I can give to you as kudos. However, his smarts got many people, including me hating him. Why? He uses vendor lock-in, suppressive market control and using poor codes make new releases.

Again, they weren't leeches. They set great standards in a business riddled with failures. They revolutionized. Afterwards some of the sinister market techniques (format ****ing up), which is a little while ago and they've grown away from I'd say. As well as poor code being your point of view. Let me see some of that code please and your corrections on why it is piss poor design.

Poor codes has been used for "compatibility" and they have never been actually patched. All the patches they release will need a repatch on top of that patch. When you get too many patches in the code, it gets enormous and hard to navigate and patch the actual problem in the first place.

What? What the hell are you raving about. You make it sound like a rant on their doing, while you know you're ranting about something that isn't there (future tense).

I never stated that they're heading the Linux way, I'm just saying that it starts to handle like a UNIX system with all it's security layouts quite similar. There is and maybe will always have the NT/UNIX difference. Windows will always be based on DOS.

See, you did. "Blahblah now is similiar to Linux, they're learning now what is superior (..)" and so on, as if they finally found a role model to shape their product to. Again, doubt with the use of 'maybe' while you want to state the opposite as truth.

Also, on a Mac, you DON'T have to upgrade like on Windows. You can still be running MacOS X 10.3.9 and Apple wouldn't give a crap because the software are still compatible.

That is a lie, and I can tell from a macbook here in house from my mother, by which it refuses to install latest Safari so I could make use of a banking program to login to bank account (java, all the other programs had piss poor handling of it), as well as Airport admin for configuring Apple's own wireless internet "made easy".

However, for Windows, most new software must be running Windows XP (and at least Windows 2000)

And that as well. OS'es get support for at least 10 years. Notice that "you must be running XP" is not comparable to OS X10.3 to 10.4. It is as saying, you need Mac OS X 10 for macintosh and upgrade from OS 9.
As well that there is still IE and other basic stuff like Wireless internet for ME, and you are not forced to upgrade to XP.

On free UNIX, no one cares if you're running a very old version of their operating system, the software would still most likely work. For example, most Linux software works with Linux kernel 2.2+ (latest kernel: 2.6.19.1). Linux kernel 2.2 was introduced in 1999 and it still works with brand new software.

Define, brand new software? You claim new software for windows only works on XP because you're forced (which again is a lie, you may have noticed on websites that on windows it states "For windows 98/ME/XP ..") and on Apple not while I provide great arguments to the contrary which seem to be ignored.

My point of making this statement is not because I absolutely hate Microsoft Windows, I still use it quite often, I just don't like how people can be misleaded by Microsoft and Microsoft backers about how Windows is so safe and that it is cheaper than open source alternatives. It's because it's not!

Maybe because safe and cheaper are not the compelling arguments for an OS choice? Of course an enterprise product is not cheaper than open source, it is defined in the definition of open source and no one stated that here. The thing is that someone asks about Vista, gets flamed down because it is windows, lacking convincing arguments. Vista is a better product, there is a lot of improvement and it is not Linux. It is about vista versus XP, and it is safer and worth it.

[sparkx 0]

The vista isn't out yet so I really don't know. In my opinion it is going to be anouther windows xp, starts out with many errors and open to viriuses. I love apple computers and for windows vista to match up with the new apple, the microsoft owners (Bill Gates) are going to have to do something big. The vista is going to be like a powerful XP. Nothing new. I could compair the diffrances to the xbox and the xbox 360 (not to much exept more powerful) I would like to see more changes like the nintindo wii, stuff that will actually be a BIG diffrance not just small upgrades. I suggest you wait until next year to get the vista and see the reviews. You pobably shouldn't get it in Janurary 2007 just because of the risk that the vista is just a windows xp sp3 lol. Thanks for reading,Sparkx

Edited December 27, 2006 by sparkx (see edit history)

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

true, when we pull our topics back on Windows XP vs. Windows Vista, of course Windows Vista is much safer than Windows XP. You will be asked to double check your actions in order to execute commands that will alter the system's state. However, if the changes are large enough, it'll start asking you for your administrator password. This security layout is one of the aspects why I said that it was close to UNIX and not necessarily Linux. Linux is a free clone of UNIX, so when we talk about security, it'll fall under the "UNIX" name as it also encompasses MacOS X, Darwin, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, AIX, and etc.When I talk about the latest software, I meant software that were created within a few months to a year. All the latest tools like the latest iTunes, the latest RealPlayer and etc. stuff that the "regular" consumers would use. Also, the best example is Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work with Windows 2000 and lower operating systems. Windows Live Messenger is the basic of all of these software. Even the latest games require Windows XP to work. I haven't seen any new games allowing Windows ME/Windows 2000 for it to run. A great example of this is that on the System Requirements of Battlefield 2142, it specifically states Windows XP, same with Battle for Middle Earth II. Let's talk about a game that works on Windows 2000 on the XBOX (yes, that's what the XBOX runs on) being ported to the PC. Microsoft had forced gamers who wants Halo 2 on PC to first upgrade to Windows Vista before they can run the game. Note that the underlying technologies are still quite similar. DirectX and Windows NT codebase. Still, Microsoft forces you to run on a more recent version. Battlefield 2142 and Battle for Middle Earth II can both run on the NT kernel with DirectX, but their latest APIs forced developers to only develop for the latest version of Windows and leave the ones who couldn't upgrade, behind.I give you kudos for your argument for Safari, it uses an old version of KHTML (the core of Safari from the KDE project), it may have things that may not be compatible with the 10.3.9 release. I don't have an old version of MacOS X as I push for the latest software. However, my school still runs MacOS X 10.3.9. Also, other software still can run on MacOS X 10.3.9 like iTunes and games like Starcraft, and Quake 4. Remember, the Darwin core for MacOS X 10.4 and 10.3.9 are different. Although they're still BSD/Mach mixed, they include several major changes. They include speed difference, difference in the use of different shells, better Airport support, different gcc versions, and major hole patches. As Apple stated in their release notes for Darwin 7.0.1 (MacOSX 10.3.x) "AirPort wireless cards are detected, but cannot be configured." However, this has been fixed in Darwin 8.0.1 (10.4.x). Anyways, that's beside the point. Both are different kernels and they can still run the exact same software. In contrast to Microsoft, with the exclusion of Windows Vista, runs the same kernel (with different revisions 5.0, 5.1, 5.2) but yet, Microsoft still forces you to upgrade to the latest version of their operating system to run many of the software. In the end, it's going to be expensive for a regular user to run it in the long run. I can still keep MacOS X (although, it wouldn't be a good idea since there's a lot of good add-ons on MacOS X 10.4).When we talk about security patches, with the patches piling on top of each other, and it didn't even do anything good for the users. Also, with the compatibility of codes, Microsoft did specifically said that they supported older binaries for older DOS users for their 16-bit compatibility. By including this compatibility, it did open many holes on the Windows versions prior to Windows Vista (yes, they have removed it in Vista for security purposes). For example, SP2 was a huge let down. Of course it came with "goodies", a pop-up blocker and Windows Firewall (which in fact is a waste of space). However, how about things like Windows Genuine "Advantage"? and that SP2 crashes computers when you install it on top of computers still running SP1 and rendering them useless? How is that secure and peace of mind for the regular users?However, if you are still willing to spend money on Windows Vista, by all means, go ahead, it is very stable for regular use, but it's not the best secured system out there for the lowest price and that's all for now.xboxrulz

[Alegis 0]

true, when we pull our topics back on Windows XP vs. Windows Vista, of course Windows Vista is much safer than Windows XP. You will be asked to double check your actions in order to execute commands that will alter the system's state. However, if the changes are large enough, it'll start asking you for your administrator password.

You must be talking about User Account Control. Which is goddamn annoying and the first thing I turned off.

When I talk about the latest software, I meant software that were created within a few months to a year. All the latest tools like the latest iTunes, the latest RealPlayer and etc. stuff that the "regular" consumers would use.

It is rather silly this discussion on whether or not software is forced. When I bypass the limitations set by Apple (which did took a while and is in no way intended) to force them to work, rather than pay for an upgrade, I consider it forced since it did work after all on the system. One could say Apple was so kind to alert me I have to upgrade as the previous version is unsupported but I don't believe it to be so. Of course many software with changes have been coded to run on newer technology, it is imminent in tech evolution.

Also, the best example is Windows Live Messenger doesn't even work with Windows 2000 and lower operating systems. Windows Live Messenger is the basic of all of these software. Even the latest games require Windows XP to work.

Older Windows Messenger versions that don't make use of XP technology on the other side can still be used to communicate with those running Windows Live Messenger. Upgrade is not necessary. And I would hardly consider Live Messenger a basic of software. You can try running those games on older versions, deprived from features that rely on XP code. It would be sad if games wouldn't make use of newer technology. Of course they will only work on a version from 2001. Again, it's as if the Mac ports would run on Mac os 8/9. So what is your point here. I said apple forces them because the software works fine on older versions. This software does not because it makes use of the new technology.
Your apple code recital is interesting but beside the point - I dislike their upgrade techniques much more than MS with Windows. Coding limitations. One of the reasons I don't like working with the OSes, it's not made for customization.

When we talk about security patches, with the patches piling on top of each other, and it didn't even do anything good for the users.

Supposedly security loopholes fixed.

For example, SP2 was a huge let down. Of course it came with "goodies", a pop-up blocker and Windows Firewall (which in fact is a waste of space). However, how about things like Windows Genuine "Advantage"? and that SP2 crashes computers when you install it on top of computers still running SP1 and rendering them useless? How is that secure and peace of mind for the regular users?

I hated SP2 as well, was not fast and definitely not stable. They did force for things like WMP 11 beta for SP2 to be installed for general security. That is a practice I do not like, such as the airport/safari thing. Although WMP 10 can still play all the media formats 11 does so it wasn't such a big deal.Windows Genuine Advantage means that pirated versions don't get extra features online. I don't suppose pirates should feel entitled to those.
Firewall is a waste of space for you and me, as we know alternatives. The majority of windows users however is the "dumb mass" who for example still use IE because they don't know Firefox and all that.

However, if you are still willing to spend money on Windows Vista, by all means, go ahead, it is very stable for regular use, but it's not the best secured system out there for the lowest price and that's all for now.

If that was mentioned for me, you aren't reading. I do use it. Edited December 27, 2006 by Alegis (see edit history)

[HellFire121 0]

Even though vista looks interesting and everything i'm not going to change my xp computer over to vista straight away. First off i don't think you can get the full upgrade version if you are on home edition or professional for windows xp (none of the upgrade paths actually lead to vista ultimate as far as i know) so if you want evey feature of vista you're going to have to go out and buy the full version.Secondly i like the way my files are organised at the moment and i've heard vista includes the dynamic virtual folders and that's going to be the 'default' way of finding and storing your data. I'd prefer the way i have it now just with normal files and folders.Then you've got the system requirements, only thing i'd have to upgrade is my video card and ram if i want to experience the aero theme. (i currently have a 256mb geforce 6600 and 1gb of ram). I would like to see how vista plays with games and stuff, if vista needs alot of resourses and your games do too, wonder what will happen. Vista might just let the game use the resoures or it might share them causing lag.Overall, i like my setup as it is now and i won't be upgrading to vista in a hurry because of price (and lack of upgrades), system requirements and different hard disk structure.-HellFire

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Alegis, I too am using Windows Vista, but right now I'm running RC1 as there are no other ways of obtaining the full version anyways, and I don't know if I'm going to blow CAD $499 just for gaming on my PC. Anyways, back to the Mac thing. I am definitely not trying to defend Apple here at all. I like their products and such, but I don't think they may necessarily be better than Microsoft Windows, however, I am defending UNIX, which of course MacOS X is part of that family and Apple is the only company successfully placed UNIX on the home computing market.Many people use Windows Live Messenger a lot, especially teenagers, they use it all the time. I know that as a fact because I am one. We love goodies available to us on these programs to chat with our friends. However, if a corporation forces us to upgrade by restricting a software that works perfectly fine on the older system to only work on a new system, then it is not good for the consumer.Furthermore, there weren't much of a difference between XP/2000 technologies. They used the same code-base. Both still have DirectX and both use the same driver system. Both still uses the same API with different identification (One as Windows 2000 and the other as Windows XP). However, Microsoft had deliberately cut off game developers to develop new games for the Windows 2000 platform, to ensure that they get money from upgrades. Of course one can argue that it makes "innovation" and "evolution" of code. However, one must remember that both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are essentially the same operating system with a different GUI and directory layout with essentially the same core. It's like having a Linux distribution with a Linux kernel of 2.6.19.1 with GNOME calling it version 1 and then the next "version" bundled with KDE instead. It's still the same core system, applications should still run regardless and users shouldn't be forced to upgrade for profit reasons.Windows Genuine Advantage not only blocked out pirates, but even legitimate customers, how is this giving the customer a peace of mind by buying the rights to run Windows?xboxrulz