Top deals on CNET here
Windows Vista: Should you go for Windows Vista
Same here
by chroshak - 7/28/06 4:47 AM In reply to: Vista by ciggieoxoI'm with you. I never jump on the newest incarnation of anything, too many bugs and glitches. It will take, as you say, a couple of service pack upgrades to work out the difficulties. But some of you are computer junkies and must have the newest of everything, thank god for you people who like the newest and are willing to suffer through the experience for us wusses! 
For the moment, I'm happy enough with XP and will wait and watch the response to Vista.
Cheryl
Yeah, me too!
by Kat4547 - 7/28/06 4:59 AM In reply to: Same here by chroshakThe only way I've ever gotten a new OS is when it came on the newest computer I was buying! In fact, I went from 3.1 to '98! Just didn't happen to need a new computer with '95. LOL!
On the other hand, I have a relative that has to have everything new that comes out, and believe me, he's had some gigantic headaches doing that.
As for ever upgrading the OS on a computer, no way. I'll buy a new computer before I'll put myself in that situation.
I get my techie thrills just trying to tweak them!
Kat
Same here
by CWatkinsNash - 7/28/06 6:45 AM In reply to: Yeah, me too! by Kat4547I've never upgraded the OS on an existing machine either. I'm looking forward to the price drops on non-Vista-compatible hardware that will come.
agree
by ellis feigenbaum - 7/28/06 9:05 AM In reply to: Vista by ciggieoxoI wont be getting vista till at least sp1- however i will definitely make sure any new pc or laptop I buy in the interim will be vista compatible.
with the correct graphics card and the right amount of memory.
Agreed
by TimmyD - 7/28/06 9:18 AM In reply to: Vista by ciggieoxoThere's no way I'm going to pay tons of money for a new computer (because one is an older desktop past upgrading, the other's a laptop...no room) and then shell out all the money needed to buy the operating system when it first comes out. Besides monetary reasons, Vista will have way too many bugs, I'm sure, and the flashy new interface just isn't worth the headache to me.
I'm happy in my own little XP land for now.
Eventually
by retribution17 - 7/28/06 5:10 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhI want the new experience. Not just Aero Glass, but the OS as a whole. I've been with Windows since 3.0 and I'm just a Microsoft junkie. They're not perfect, but I believe their accomplishments far outweigh most of the negative.
Sure IE7 & WMP 11 are available for XP SP2, but that seems like playing a Nintendo 64 game that was ported to SNES.
There are hardware considerations (mainly DirectX10/WDDM 2.0 cards), but I'm more concerned about cost. How much will Vista Premium cost? $300? $400? Do I think it will be worth $400? Yes. Will I pay $400? Heck no.
I'll also be waiting till at least SP1. Hopefully by then my money tree will have shed its bills.
It's all about the new experience. What's new, what's changed, what isn't available anymore. I can't get a new wife, but I may as well get a sleek, young, sexy OS.
Waiting for Preinstalled...
by john55440 - 7/28/06 6:54 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhI'll get Vista, when it comes preinstalled on my next computer.
I just hope that my current, 2002, computer doesn't die before the release of Vista-preinstalled.
Yeah I would but I don't know
by jprkenny - 7/28/06 6:59 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhAlthough you will probably find me criticising Windows Vista in other forums I would get it when it comes out, why? I am getting kind of tired of Windows XP and not to mention security, Vista has some nifty features such as searching files on your computer and probably Aero Glass. All I know is that I am dying to get vista but I don’t own a credit card and I don’t have a high speed connection.
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by bubbathecat - 7/28/06 8:12 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhI have the beta ISO on a test system and it crap.
I have a 2.8 gig with 512ram and a FX5200 vidcard with 128mb on it and the system runs like a 486 with 16mb and win 98 they should have stoped at win 2000
I have goten used to XP Pro but VISTA is pure hell
the hardware folks will love it they will go nuts upgradeing like crazzy!
Hardware Company Will Make Out
by islandporgy - 7/28/06 6:46 PM In reply to: NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by bubbathecatHardware companys will make out when Vista gets turned lose. (Fact)
Thank You
Wendell H
Vista Views
by joel5555 - 7/28/06 9:05 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhAfter recieving our MS Action Pack..I couldn't wait to get a hands on run with Vista. Here's my take:
Install took an hour and a half, and took 8gb of space(DVD drive required).
The initial setup was painstaking slow...and the security prompt asks you for permission to do everything. Drivers were installed by a utility that ran in the background..and it found and installed every device in our test bed PC. It seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to setup things like Media Center, but their inclusion is worth the extra time. Boot time seems a bit longer than XP..but shut down is insantaneous..a definite improvement over XP.
Overall..I can say that I will be an early adopter. The GUI is very nice...and the OS gives much more information about the system than any other OS to date. It doesnt make computing ant easier..but much more functional.
I will not buy vista, or any windows after that
by doctorcrack - 7/28/06 9:45 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhI've been using computers since 11 years now, and I'm worried about the cost of Microsoft operating systems. Especially as an unemployed student, I wouldn't like buying vista for few hundred dollars, when alternatives work well for me.
Alternatives?
I'm using Ubuntu Linux and Mac OS X Tiger on a macbook, and it's the ultimate thing. At least I don't have to bother about security, cost, hardware upgrades, viruses, proprietary software or anything else. Both these OS's come with tonnes of free built-in tools to edit photos, record a soundtrack, make a website, burn DVDs, play videos and sound... and so on...
I was introduced to Linux one year back, and Mac OS X six months back. And now I've experienced both, they've effectively erased the influence of windows from my mind.
Thank you Bill Gates, I love you, but I wont pay you.
To Vista or Not
by oo3menace - 7/28/06 9:46 AM In reply to: Should you go for Windows Vista by sumukhWell the pc and software industries are very much like the US auto industry. Their marketing strategies have paid off convincing everyone they need to buy new all the time. PC makers and software makers are selling the power of their new products to the gamers' markets.
Let's face it for the majority of computer users the PI and PII class pc will still work just fine for web email, surfing, word processing, business apps etc.
So if you are not a gamer why buy up? Makes no sense. Oh they try to convince you that you need this new multi-media capable pc.....bagh.
VISTA.....no go for me. I fought going up to XP....and looking back really 98SE would still suit me fine for my needs.
VISTA is all fluff.
Why wa$te money on poorly written, inefficient "bloatware"?
by farhansyed - 7/28/06 11:32 AM In reply to: To Vista or Not by oo3menaceI've read a lot about Vista recently, and most of what I've heard makes me not want to run Vista even if Microsoft PAID me to do it, let alone me shelling out money for the "privilege" of running this bloated, ineficient OS.
I agree furthermore with the above statement that most of what people do with a computer COULD be done just fine on a Pentium II or even an old Pentium MMX running Windows 98.
Personally, the only reason I'd entertain the idea of "upgrading" my operating system is if I needed to use software or peripherals that just could not function on the OS I'm currently running.
For example, when Windows 95 OSR2 came out back in 1996, the main tangible benefit was the FAT32 file system, allowing hard disks over 2 GB to be formatted as a single partition. When Windows 98 came out, the main tangible benefit was support for USB peripherals. And when Windows XP came out, the main tangible benefit was support for wireless networking.
So for a user that does not use any USB peripherals, and does not need wireless networking capability, there really is not a whole lot of incentive to "upgrade" to XP, let alone to Vista.
Of course one way that Microsoft and the hardware vendors "force" upgrades to a new OS is by releasing peripherals and chipsets that cannot run the older versions.
I know that when I bought a new computer right after Windows XP came out, I thought it was very bloated and inefficient, and ended up reformatting the hard disk and using the Windows 98SE disc from my previous computter. I was able to do that, because all the hardware devices in that computer were capable of running Windows 98, even if I had to download device drivers from sources other than the PC manufacturer's own website.
But after Windows XP was out for a few years, new computers started using processors and chipsets that just were not compatible with Windows 98 anymore. I suggest the same thing will occur with Windows XP after Vista is out for a year or 2.
Of course the thing that most people fail to understand--or else MS would be out of business--is that if your current computer is working fine, then why purchase another one unless it does something that you want to do but your current one cannot? If people thought like this, then the new OS and the new computers that require it would languish on the shelves unless consumers can see some tangible benefit to "upgrading".
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
