so far from what i have read vista is going to make linux look very appealing and make linux market share shoot through the roof
Before you make such a sweeping comment I suggest you try Vista rather than reading about it. I am using it and very happy and surprised at the features:)
most machines that are vista capable or vista ready are $1500.00 or more or so i've seen. solution: run it in vmware? wrong i can't seem to get it going in vmware it takes too long to start up even in an upgrade with the vmware drivers already there
so since my machine meets the minimum requirements but is my main machine and i cant' afford to lose it i won't install vista catch my drift. so what i can do is read about it my machine only has 2hd 1 160gb samsung s1604n (already broke the previous exact same model and size and had to have it replaced) and a failing (if not failed already) 40gb maxtor. in case your wondering i broke the first hard drive (before i had to have it replaced) by trying to install linux. so what i am afraid will happen is that it won't take too happily to vista and i will end up breaking this one.
ps: i intend no offense by this post.
What you just wrote is not the fault of Microsoft! I have an eMachine T6212 bought over 1 year ago. I had already upgraded my memory to 1.5meg and installed a decent graphics card and power supply. My total cost including original machine....$750...where did you get $1500 from? I think you are wearing a blindfold and are just anti-Microsoft:)
Buy an of the shelf machine that is upgradable and just open the box and throw in some upgrades. It is the cheapest way, or go to cyberpower.com and build one for WAY less than $1500!
* Actually even most current budget models are capable of running Vista, though that would be in 'reduced graphics mode.' (No glass effect.) They're just not all marked as such yet and stores are pumping the more expensive models for greater profits. For $600 (after rebates) you can find full package deals that can even handle Aero.
* The major thing with running Vista in a virtual machine is that your computer must meet the combined requirements of Windows XP and Windows Vista since they are both essentially running at the same time. Thus, you should have 1GB or more of RAM and even then depending on what software you are running it may be slow and jerky. Performance is much better if you install it normally or in a dual-boot setup.
* Installing on OS onto a hard drive cannot actually break it. If you encounter data corruption you can use a program to completely wipe the entire hard drive and start over. The only thing that can render a drive unusable is physical damage, which isn't a result of software. Thus, I hate to tell you this but either something else caused the drive to die or you replaced a perfectly fine hard drive.
Regards,
John
what should i do if i have to uninstall vista. with its boot manager and all
If you decide to dual-boot Vista with Windows XP and then wish to remove Vista you can click here for instructions. On the other hand, if you upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista and then want to go back to XP click here.
Hope this helps,
John
that have me saying that
think about after vista other than a true 3d enviroment what major improvements are left to be done on windows. is it a strong possibility that maybe the windows base has been stretched to its improvement limit?
Windows codename Vienna (the eventual successor to Vista) will feature a completely redesigned user interface, which was at one point supposed to be done in Vista. Details are sketchy but it will either be a pie-style interface or a completely 3D interface.
Aside from that they are still deciding what major innovations can set Vienna apart from Vista, aside from updates supporting new technologies. Of course we probably won't hear much for at least a year or two there's always room for improvement. (Five years ago who thought you'd be able to insert a flash drive to speed up your computer or that hybrid drives could cut boot time down to a few seconds?)
John
and support alternative graphical user interfaces
by adding a terminal level under the gui
The new interface was planned for Vienna, then bumped to Vista, but they realized they wouldn't be able to get it done in time so they bumped it back to Vienna. When it does finally come out they will probably give users a choice, just like they do now between the default and the 'Windows Classic' layout.
John
Google for palladium and you will know.
combine that with the elimination on volume license keys and the constant checking that will eat up everyone's bandwidth and force them to switch to a cheaper less band width intensive os or switch to cable internet on a T3 connection.
also there is also the possibility that all this palladium and drm and software protection platform junk will steer people back towards more primitive ways of entertainment like tv and console gaming.
eventually all this will trigger a complete and total downfall of the computer market aside from business use thus drastically changing everyday life.of course that is most likely years off and won't happen until the public gets a voice and rebels against corporate control of their lives.
You have read what John and others have to say, but choose to remain on the negative offensive. Sounds like you are on dial up the way you refer to Cable and T3. T3 is a phone line...Cable is your neighborhood cable TV provider, which I use.
You could wonder away into the open source world of Linux and stay happy, but your comments say you wish you were in the world of M$, but tailored just for you:)
Computer people (including myself) are strange beasts. We gripe and moan about how each successive version of Microsoft Windows is more bloated and demands new hardware purchases. We complain about how Product Activation and Digital Restrictions Managment complicate our lives and remove capabilities upon which we used to rely (think about backup, restore, and hardware upgrades). We know that running a machine with Microsoft Windows is more risky for the simple fact that it is a bigger target for the hackers. Many techs will joke about not being able to keep a Windows machine running for more than 30 days - even if it somehow manages not to crash, the constant barrage of security updates will usually require a reboot (very uncommon with Linux).
Yet, for all our knowledge, we continue to follow Microsoft like sheep. Every CEO is naturally reluctant to leave the pack, strike out on their own, and take a chance on a different o/s. There are good, solid reasons for staying with the Windows monoculture - especially for business.
Lately, it seems that whenever Microsoft takes away more 'rights' that we thought were ours, some brave soul will point out that we should all switch to Linux (or Macintosh) and we'd be out from under the cruel dictatorship of Redmond . . . and that person is absolutely right (though a little bit naive).
It doesn't take long for the Microsoft fanboys to trounce all over our brave soul with arguments, both good and bad, about how Microsoft is the only logical choice.
Frankly, I don't believe that any of these operating systems are the right choice for *everyone*. I will continue to use both Linux and Windows at work, but I chose Linux for my new PC at home. Here are the arguments that convinced me:
1. I like to tinker with my PCs. Upgrading components, trying new devices. This immediately ruled out buying a prebuilt PC with XP. As soon as you change too many things, your license becomes invalid. Just try convincing Microsoft that they should reactivate your license when you've upgraded your motherboard.
2. Cost. Have you ever priced a boxed copy of Windows? !!
3. Trust. Let's face it, Microsoft doesn't trust their customers. Their actions, based on that distrust, are causing enormous grief for us. How can they justify pushing Genuine Advantage Notification out as a 'critical' patch? What makes them think it is okay to use up my CPU and bandwidth with spyware? (spyware: any software that sends information back to the programmer without my consent and express knowledge of the contents of that information)
4. Security. The default security model for Linux is better because the user has limited rights. Moreover, there just aren't as many people attacking Linux - yet.
5. Performance. I'm a member of a grid computing project similar to Folding At Home. My new CPU is nominally 460 MHz faster than my old CPU. That's about a 19% improvement - but my linux machine is processing more than 10 times the tasks each day.
6. Licensing. This may seem like a repeat of argument #1 - but the Vista model deserves special mention. Activating XP was inconvenient. They've announced that Vista will be worse since they'll only let you activate it twice.
7. Freedom. It seems that Microsoft has been transitioning to a model where they'll let you use your computer as long as you follow their rules. It's *my* computer and Internet connection - not Microsoft's. They don't have the right to suck up my resources with services that spy on me or prevent me from using my machine as I wish.
I won't sugarcoat it. Not everything under Linux is smooth sailing. Sometimes I have to skip websites that refuse to work with anything but Microsoft (like CnetTV.com). But overall, my transition to Linux has been easy and fun. I'm still learning, but Linux was the right choice for me.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |