Go to Windows 7 Insider Guide
Community weekly poll: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system?
- 2/1/06 4:32 PM
Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system?
by Marc Bennett - 2/1/06 4:32 PM
Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system this year?
Yes, as soon as the final version is released.
I'm already on the beta version. (How do you like it?)
After it's been out for a few months. (How long will you wait?)
No way! (Why not?)
I will buy a new system with it already installed.
I don't even have XP yet!
I'm on a Mac and will never go to the dark side.
Don't know yet.
Definately...
by John.Wilkinson - 2/1/06 4:51 PM
In reply to: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system? by Marc Bennett
Aside from AERO there really isn't much of a reason to upgrade since most of the other new key features will be ported to Windows XP through SP3 and individual downloads. However, now that Microsoft has finally committed to releasing Vista in time for Thanksgiving, and is willing to chope parts out if necessary in order to keep that deadline, I can safely say that the final release version will be on my computer before the end of the year. I've liked what I've seen of Vista, replicated the new layout, icons, boot screen, glass effects, etc on my Windows XP computers, and look forward to receiving my copy of Vista Beta 2 in April.
John
Why bother? Still doesn't have a security features promised
by cellphonejunkie - 2/3/06 4:07 AM In reply to: Definately... by John.Wilkinson
Why bother? All those things you talk about Vista having, I've had for the past 5 YEARS on OSX!
Besides,m the most NEEDED features (a secure file system, no registry (it sohludn't have EVER needed this!)) aren't even part of Vista!
This is just a 2 year old, bloated rehash of a creeky, out-of-date OS, w/ a total rip off of OSX as the GUI (just read the NYT column)
All the spyware, adware, viruses, trojans and other malware will be able to infect this machine just as easily as XP...
Micro$oft still hasn't addessed the major problems w/ Windoze, and considering how long Vista (a.k.a. SP3) has taken, they never will!
Waiting is better
by NYBRN - 2/3/06 8:51 AM In reply to: Why bother? Still doesn't have a security features promised by cellphonejunkieIt's always been better to wait for any MS operating system to be launched, used, abused and tested by a broader user base than the beta testers. The concern has to be if application developers and hardware manufacturers are ready for Vista? Since MS is truly a global company, is the rest of the planet that we all deal with ready for Vista? Incompaatibility and performance issues have always been a problem for MS, thus waiting until the "kinks" are worked out is better.
VISTA -- Please excuse me, I can wait.
by Batchain - 2/13/06 8:23 PM In reply to: Waiting is better by NYBRNFor the PC I'm getting very soon I'll be sure to wait a good long time before loading Vista, once enough of the ''field reports'' are in. In fact, I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro here because of the machine's limitations (Pentium III 600 MHz, 512 RAM, 12MB internal) even though the OS requirements of XP say, "Oh, what you've got, that's quite fine!'' Very little *serious* difference with XP (''Longhorn'').
I'm still a Mac guy as much as I *have* to use Windows and Apple's release of OS X v 1.x was a bug-ridden, unstable mess until the *stable* Mac OS X v.2.x was released and the *fun additives* came out with v 3.x and 4.x. Those versions (2.x on up) weren't called ''patches'' but they might as well have been -- that's merely the difference between the naming conventions used by Apple and Microsoft. Who cares what they're called? I'll be watching for a *stable version* of Vista to show itself in ''patches'' before putting it on the new PC. I'd sure rather do that than curse all hell out of Microsoft as I did Apple before *they* released a stable OS.
VISTA -- Please excuse me, I can wait.
by Batchain - 2/13/06 8:24 PM In reply to: Waiting is better by NYBRNFor the PC I'm getting very soon I'll be sure to wait a good long time before loading Vista, once enough of the ''field reports'' are in. In fact, I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro here because of the machine's limitations (Pentium III 600 MHz, 512 RAM, 12MB internal) even though the OS requirements of XP say, ''Oh, what you've got, that's quite fine!'' Very little *serious* difference with XP (''Longhorn'').
I'm still a Mac guy as much as I *have* to use Windows and Apple's release of OS X v 1.x was a bug-ridden, unstable mess until the *stable* Mac OS X v.2.x was released and the *fun additives* came out with v 3.x and 4.x. Those versions (2.x on up) weren't called ''patches'' but they might as well have been -- that's merely the difference between the naming conventions used by Apple and Microsoft. Who cares what they're called? I'll be watching for a *stable version* of Vista to show itself in ''patches'' before putting it on the new PC. I'd sure rather do that than curse all hell out of Microsoft as I did Apple before *they* released a stable OS.
vista- to view Is this a hint?
by rtsphoto - 2/3/06 9:07 PM In reply to: Why bother? Still doesn't have a security features promised by cellphonejunkieNobody has brought up the usb key, talk about taking over.
And here I rolled my work desktop back to Windows 2000.
by R. Proffitt - 2/2/06 7:26 AM
In reply to: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system? by Marc Bennett
I'm currently working on projects that Windows 2000 is the base OS so I use that day to day. It also is cheaper since we have many licenses to it.
The laptops are on XP Pro so they serve as a checkpoint that the software works there too.
When Vista rolls, the new laptops will either have that or we'll try Vista on new Mactels since Vista has boot support for EFI.
Bob
No reason to.
by bknowledge - 2/2/06 11:27 AM In reply to: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system? by Marc Bennett
There is nothing thats causes you to want to upgrade. Anyway if I was going to I would at least wait until the first service pack came out for it. I still use Win 2000 at work and one of the PCs at home.
Ditto.
by chammi - 2/3/06 2:29 AM In reply to: No reason to. by bknowledgeThe aggressive activation policies that Microsoft pushed in XP have forced my away from that OS.
Case in point: Right now my father can't start his laptop because somehow Windows decided to lock him out. No apparent reason-- he has a licensed OEM copy, and hasn't upgraded his system to my knowledge. Plus, he's been using that copy of XP for over a year now, so it has to have already been activated and not just in trial. Anyway, now he's got to hunt for the original install materials, call MS and then deal with their pre-recorded menus.
None of that for me! Rather than forking over any more money to MS to upgrade, I just switched to Linux. I can always boot back into my outdated copy of windows for anything that requires it. (an unintentional benefit is that nobody's writing viruses for Win 9X anymore. Remember the Blaster Worm? Didn't touch me.) So I let my pre-XP copy of Windows handle the legacy stuff--and let Linux satisfy my craving for new apps and eye candy.
I'm not going to be elitist about it: I still use Windows PCs at work and school--but then I also use Macs if I need to. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows apps. In XP, activation was such a huge turn-off: I don't see why I should have to suffer to help MS fight piracy. I buy Windows software first and foremost for MY use, not for Microsoft's benefit. But MS has a history of forging on with its plans--be they bundled software or anti-piracy initiatives. It takes an awful lot of public outcry for them to scrap consumer-unfriendly policies, so I fully expect Vista to include most of what I've come to dislike about XP. At any rate, the early OS adopters have all sorts of headaches to deal with--remember when Win 95 and 98 first came out? Let the rest wait until the first Service Pack when the bugs are ironed out.
As for me, until MS re-earns my trust, I see no reason to invest in them.
Total agreement
by ghost77y - 2/10/06 12:16 PM In reply to: Ditto. by chammiI have the same idea about the opportunity to try and adopt Vista for every day using. This new Microsoft OS need some expensive hardware resources, offering for that great satisfactions just for gamers and those gays interested in professionally video editing. None of that is going to be part of my business in the next 20 years. I use Linux at home, and an Windows98 SE at work, because this is what the company I working for want. I decided to use Linux at home because I was seek to scan over and over again the system, trying desperately to clean out all kind of malicious applications coming from Internet. I don't trust much in Windows security, but I have to accept that there are some very good programes running on it.
. . .and many many reasons NOT to . . !
by CaptainX - 2/3/06 3:44 AM In reply to: No reason to. by bknowledgeThe Redmond Rangers have yet to produce stable, secure software. The closest that they ever came was DOS 3.21, and since then, their "security upgrades" are just bug rotation. What good is it to close some doors while opening others to attack? With that kind of track record, unless there is some significant reason to sidegrade (you can't call it an "upgrade"), why waste the money?
After all that I've had to invest in the attempt to armor up MickeySoft's junk (which I'm forced to use at work), there is no way that I'm going to load the newest version of hackerbait on any computer that I own.
I miss OS/2!
No , greedy world !
by moeness86 - 2/3/06 3:45 AM In reply to: No reason to. by bknowledgeI will definitely NEVER install this system ..
no reason at all to consume the resources of my system in some 3D silly interface .. especially that I'm deprived of the luxury of upgrade because of the greed and stupidity of dealers in my place ..
NO WAY , BILLY
Why? I Don't need the speed for my applications.
by xNtx - 2/3/06 7:46 AM In reply to: No reason to. by bknowledgeI don't work with math models, nor do I play computer games that require the speed and support beyond where I already reside - Windows XP. I just rebuilt my desktop last year, and it should suffice for a couple of years just fine, thank you. By the time I need to rebuild again, hopefully Microsoft will have the kinks worked out of Vista, and we'll see.
Xp is fine for me
by Irene1956 - 2/4/06 6:20 AM In reply to: Why? I Don't need the speed for my applications. by xNtxWhen I bought my PC it had the dreadful Me operating system, so I upgraded to Xp a couple of years ago. I use my PC mainly for desk top publishing, letters, the odd, but not *********** complex, spreadsheet, and other assorted bits and pieces. I enjoy playing games like Scrabble and Rummi, so don't need anything that can cope with super fast 3D action games. The machine is about 6 years old now, but it does exactly what I need it to do, so why the heck should I even consider an upgrade ???
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
