Merc said:

Reiteration, no one's forcing you to upgrade to Vista. Microsoft is not your God.

The only way people will be forced to upgrade to Vista is if they buy a new OEM computer from Dell, HP, eMachines, or whoever. Even then, you can always go buy a retail copy of XP. They're still around, no? Hell, you can still buy a copy of Windows 2000 if you'd like.

You know in every major U.S. city, Goodwill has a computer store. There's one here in L.A. and there's one in Anaheim near where my kid lived. They take computers donated to the charity and get them working and sell them. They seem to have a steady supply as companies are continually dumping their machines and re-upping the quality. Computer liquidators, the same story. It was AT's with 95, then baby AT's (the crossovers like mine) with 98 and 98SE, Then there were the ME's etc. etc.

There has never been a mass migration to new technology in the business sector. It ambles along at a snails pace. Regardless of the good and or bad points of Vista, the change will happen. Like someone said, a lot of businesses still use 2000. At the swap meet the other day I could have picked up a crap compaq for $35. Not of much interest for anyone aside from the fact that it had an XP license attached, which made it worth at least $40. No, the bottom line is there won't be a rush to Vista by businesses. The simple fact of the matter is they, do things at their own speed. And take orders from their old guy bosses, not the IT departments.

Then there's the other thing. We Americans, at any rate, have this war slogan thing. First it was "remember the alamo", then "remember the maine" and of course "remember pearl harbor". For us computer enthusiasts the slogan is a bit different. It's "remember ME"

I'm on dial-up. I hope this message posts.

Bobby Phillipps said:

Thanks for that Bobby. I'll take the shrine down. Build a really good OS that provides a whole slew of benefits and improves both performance and security and they will flock to your door. Build a half assed buggy piece of crapware that does very little to improve anyone's user experience and you have to force it on people, as M$ is doing by directing that OEMs can no longer sell XP after 2007.

There is something I have not seen mentioned here, as of yet.

A friend of mine is starting a new business. We have set them up with a nice little SBS2003 server with VPN enabled. While every XP machine we try can VPN into their server with little or no hassle, my Vista computer gave us about 5 minutes of halts and security alerts and certificate alerts before we just gave up and used a different computer.

I am sure there's a way to go in and loosen up the stranglehold Vista maintains on stuff like VPN connections, but is it really worth it to a system admin? We have all had that phone call from the guy on the sales team who isn't very computer savvy, but is 1000 miles away and just made a big deal at 9PM and can't VPN back home. Do you want to be the IT guy who got him a Vista laptop and now have to walk him through the steps - over the phone, mind you - to let him do his thing?

I think Vista is great for 90% of the people out there. Let's face it, the majority of computer users out there are the people who use their computers to watch movies, listen to music, and write e-mails. Then again, I also think MacOS is great for that same demographic. The more specialized the application becomes, the less likely that Vista will be the answer, at least for now.

Merc said:

So you make all of these supposed arguments, yet by your own admition you havent used it?

ALso, its not unreliable, turn aero off and it uses no more ram than XP, crappy support?? Well, considering its not buggy (as I stated) I havent had to call them, apart from re-activating it once, and it was done in a couple of minutes, on a freephone number.

Of course there are going to be issues with hardware support, as manufacturers wont support their older hardware anymore(e.g. Creative), just like when XP came out.

People are very quick to forget that XP was in a much worse state at launch. Proven by the fact that most companies havent even switched from Win2K yet, or are only now in the process. Why?? Because XP offers next to nothing over Win2K in most areas.

Hi all: I've read all the posts; and, I think this new thread is really the same as the other threads I've followed:

1) Vista Driver Woes, update or upgrade?
2) To Vista, or not to Vista, that's the question?
3) and this current one: Are You Vista Ready? No?

All are really about the same thing. Microsoft's way of doing business. Yep, already knowing the answer, I ran their little Vista Ready test. Not surprisingly the only thing that came back as being compatible with Vista was the motherboard. LOL. I simply bowed down 4 times to the WNW (Microsoft's direction from me) and thanked them for making everything purposefully incompatible with current hardware.

I think, to me, the main question is why did Microsoft change the way devices interface with the O/S? Will there be any improvement? Will I/O now be 10x faster, or simply different than now with the same speeds? Or will this simply be a ploy to force us to buy new hardware thereby prompting OEM manufacturers to jump on board and be happy with Vista. So should hardware makers spend their time in advance making drivers just in case Microsoft ever met a deadline; and, how many times did Microsoft change I/O speces between Longhorn and the other abortive attempts until now forcing hardware makers to keep redoing things? I bet most of them simply decided to sit out this ever changing "pre-market" until something was finally released. Whose fault was this? Microsoft who kept changing things (like a kid who could not decide which flavor ice cream), or was it the hardware makers who declined to provide drivers for every step of the way (particularly when most would never be used until Microsoft settled on what flavor to offer us)?

And, since Win95, if you follow the smoke and mirrors routine most of their sales pitches have been about graphics improvements rather than performance improvements anyway. In fact they have admitted using smoke and mirrors to confuse industry people where they really were in the development phases anyway.

I don't much care about how slick the MS desktop is (I can always change the one I have); I do care about actual improvements in processing and handling things (I do a lot of video). A real world increase in speed is what would tempt me; not Microsoft telling me how much better things will look and promising the sky.

Now, all you MS apologists can try to pass the buck to others; but, it all starts with MS as they are the ones that institute the changes to make everything else obsolete. Once Microsoft decides it will be the "Pink and Chartreuse" version of Vista that hits the streets (not Longhorn or all the others), then I am sure manufacturers (and car dealers) will jump on the bandwagon and offer the "Pink and Chartreuse" version of drivers, hardware and new cars once they are sure there will be a demand and they are not wasting money on obsolete intermediate steps.

Maybe Vista SP1 or SP2 will be stable with no problems for anyone; but, will it be a big improvement? Or simply something a bit different to keep the sales snowball running? Will it run faster, or simply take more resources to stay even? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this; but, as usual in the long run you will be forced to go the way Microsoft goes whether you want to or not, whether there are performance improvements or not, you will migrate to Vista down the line.

For those of you who have to have the latest and the greatest, be my guest, step right up and open your wallets. Since I spend little time admiring my desktops graphics I will stick with where I am until I see speed improvements and performance increases.

I use a consumer type video editor, Pinnacle Studio 10.5 (which uses multithreading). I have a 2.4 Ghz CPU and what takes a 2-hour render on my machine takes only 1 hour 25 minutes on my nephew's dual 2.2 Ghz CPU setup (now there is a performance increase I would like to have). I have not had the opportunity to compare a dual core CPU machne nor a Vista machine as no one I know has one yet. If I have the opportunity to compare further I will.

For now, or until my motherboard goes up in smoke (then I may have to try the new Microsoft smoke and mirror O/S), I am staying with XP.

Harry

Dublin-
Nope, I haven't used it. At $220 a copy I'll go and look at the hundreds of reviews and talk to the folks that now use the software before opening my wallet and buying Vista. The majority of those reviews and the opinions of the vast majority of my friends who use Vista range from underwhelming to an absolute nightmare. It also kills your benchmark scores and with Forum Wars coming uop I don't need that handicap.

Based on the above input I have decided to hold off on purchasing what seems to be an average to below average product. Sorry. If everybody was exclaiming about all the great things Vista gives you I'd open the wallet. To date, the best I have heard is "It isn't all that bad. My_______ didn't work and I can't _______ but it isn't near as bad as everyone says." Not exactly a glowing recommendation and certainly not enough to induce me to send $220 to the Egg for a copy.

All of that is fine. I have no worries about whaever M$ releases. What has me fired up is the fact that they have ordered OEMs to no longer selll XP. No discounts, no sale prices. Nothing. Our product isn't that good but we own 90% of the market so guess what, you guys will sell only Vista in order to increase our sales.

The product pretty much is a flop so sell it at flop prices M$. You screwed up after years of work and released a less than underwhelming product. Drop the price by 50% or more as that is where you can get the market to consider buying it. My advice is buy copies of XP now and horde them. If and when M$ succeeds in shutting down furher sales of XP at the end of 2007 you will be able to make a nice profit.

Merc said:
Do us all a favor. Download a release candidate copy, or get one from a buddy, install it on a separate partition or hard drive, and run it for a week or two. Then come back and tell us if it's buggy. I had no troubles whatsoever, except for a few network glitches that were remedied with a driver update, when I was running both RC1 and RC2. Until then, I believe you have no right to complain about something you haven't even used personally.

John Winker said:

there are actually very nice tools for the vista sidebar for vpn vcn and rcp.
the first set up is really a headache but once done, it's good to go

Bobby-
Why? Is it a great OS that is well worth the time and effort? Will it speed up my system and offer a simplified user experience? Is it rock stable and the definitive answer to XP's weaknesses? Say absolutely to all of the above and I'll go and take my valuable time to play with it. If the answer is "Well, no, but it isn't hat bad and you should just shut up if you haven't tried it." then I'll skip the experience for now.

I am not complaining about Vista. Not in anyway. Like you said, I have never used it and therefore has had no effect on my life, so no complaints, regarding Vista the software, from me. What I am complaining about is M$, who owns the OS market, strong arming OEMs into forcing an underwhelming OS onto the general public. That is what I am p**sed about. Read my posts.

Vista simply isn't all that great. It is an upgrade with a lot of bugs for many users that have tried it. M$ should not be able to force it down the publics throat. They have a near monopoly on the market right now and are using that power to force this OS onto people who do not want it. Call me full of Sh** but I see this policy attracting SEC attention. The EU and others have already warned M$ about such behavior and this policy that Sander wrote about shows a mindless arrogance on the part of M$.

Harry Porter said:
it's for security, to seperate hardware from software. more and more hardware is running
it's own lil os or app which can be infected with rootkits and viruses etc, which in turn can effect your os. it also helps the os to remain stable if any of the hardware crashes. it won't
take down the whole system, that why it appears to many people that vista is more stable.

survival of the fittest. ms is not affraid to step on peoples neck if they are on the ground.
i don't understand why anybody is ranting or is suprised about it.
and sorry that i am just quating you right now but it's directed to anybody who made similar
statements. ms has always been doing business that and always will. thats how they
started doing business and it won't change.

i remeber a couple of years ago, fueding with some of the members about ms's business
practices and it's pretty pointless unless you are actually planning on doing something
about it.


i highly doubt it, sp's rarly fix compatability issues.
fact is vista requires new or updated hardware, like it or not.
the hardware is on the door step, single core processors will soon be a thing of the past
and nvidia's 8500 and 8600 will soon be in the market, ram prices are dropping by the
minute as well as hdd prices, while capacity is rising.

also in vista x64 you will see some improvements for video editing and graphics rendering
if you have a cpu that supports it as well.

Merc said:
Just one example: Compare boot times in Vista vs XP. You will be amazed. Not to mention, most programs open before you can even blink. Trillian, for instance, takes a bit of time on XP to load everything and start the program. 20 seconds at most, maybe. On Vista, 2 seconds. So, yes, your system will speed up.

Of course, Vista uses half of my RAM, I cannot deny that, but I never actually noticed the slowdown.

Yet, you refuse to "experience" it. Way to keep an open mind.

Are you Vista Ready? No?

the question is not if it vista will be mainstream/ standard, but when.
it will take time but there is no way around it.

I'm Vista ready and so are my schools computers. The main reason my school isn't using the new OS is due to the price.

I would get it, but I do not have an incentive at the moment. I will when more DX10 games are released.

Brendan Gonsalves said:
Ditto, plus when I can afford a major hardware upgrade (read: new computer)

When you install an OS, it's nice to know that some base drivers are there to help with the install. They're not going to be robust like the drivers from third-party vendors, yet they'll get the job done..... at least until the OS install is in place.

Yes, even with so-called "Vista Ready" hardware, I've been hearing horror stories of people, with perfectly working XP hardware, unable to get Vista to recognize or use their PC setup. Granted, hardware vendors should be doing more. However, Microsoft has a previous history of making moving targets; the "beta OS" drivers won't work with the "gold release" OS. Who's fault is it, then, that manufacturers decide to sit on the sidelines until the final release?

Besides, previously CD-ROM and DVD drives were united under a simple driver. Why is it that difficult for Vista to see them now? It makes no sense!

I am sick and tired of people complaining about vista. Sure if you own a machine that isn't ~2 ghz and doesn't have a gig of ram or a direct x 9 video card with 256 megs of ram, vista will run slow. However if you do have the specs then vista will run better than xp did. Especially in my case. If you have 2 gigs of ram every thing loads nearly instantly and its a wonderful thing.

I do think that the video requirement is way to much for business users, but that is only if they want to run Aero, with superfetch. If you disable it, which is easy, then the memory footprint decreases and all of the special effects go away which is exactly what business users want.

Lets see. First I disabled Aero. Then I disabled the users security whatever pop-up thing that you have to deal with every other move. Next it was the firewall because the only bloatware that ran an AV on it had a firewall. Then I just shut down the firewall period. Then I spent a whole day finding all the different folders the all programs menu was spread across, and managed to get them into one folder. Then after the second day, I just shut down every security protocol, took ownership of the whole damn drive it was running on, and ran as an administrator. Then it wasn't half bad. My gig of memory was plenty for it. And I was more than thankful of the highly touted added security Vista had to offer.

I ran 4 or 5 different builds. Even pared down to fighting size, it wasn't very impressive. Yes eventually we will all be running Vista, after the security community stops making patches for XP after MS has killed support. I gotta tell you I really hated the start/all programs config so bad, the choice being their new fangled design or the old school 98 menu style, that that is probably the one thing more than anything that would keep me from getting it. It sucks The small increase of speed when surfing, that I noticed, was more than lost by the poor management and maneuverability of over all use.

I'd rather save up for the next gen Intel CPU's coming later this year. What are they called Phlegm or something?

bot said:

Additional comment here: I guess I should be forced to buy a 64-bit version now.

I don't mind your opinions and feelings on the matter Bot; and, you shouldn't mind mine. And because either you or I state an opinion doesn't make it either true or fact.

And I don't mind restating mine, "I do not like Microsoft's business practices". I have and will do what I can. However, since you like their business practices, I think you should start a business and operate the way Microsoft does. Good luck.

Harry

Bobby Phillipps said:

Actually they are forcing people to move to vista. Soon, the games will start to ask the user for DX10. I think that pretty much is "forcing".

Not only they are forcing you to buy Vista, but to upgrade your hardware. Taking myself as an example, I would need at least $300 and that is to upgrade my video card. That money will probably get you 8600GTS or even less than that.

So, $300 + $250 (for vista) = 550 dollars..whichI would be forced to pay to play a DX10 game.
--------------------------

Now, I am not saying that Vista is bad...but it is not really quite encouraging to upgrade to.
Putting aside DX10 and the shiny graphics..
What else is vista offering to me as a gamer or user?