Community poll forum: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system?

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

It'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.

For 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.

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

The 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.

The 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!

I 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.

What is the point? It takes Microsoft a year or more after an new OS release to "get it right".I am not a tester for Bill Gates or Microsoft.
Others can "run to their slaughter" but not me!

XP serves me well and most of my friends still are using Win98. I don't buy something just because it is new as evidenced by the fact that my automobile is over 30 years old. (1974 Dodge - no computer parts). I have been tempted to move to Linux but it is hard to teach this old dog new tricks.

Jayfin

I just bought a Media Center PC a few months ago and haven't come close to paying it off yet. It works fine for my purposes, so why should I switch to a new OS just because it's new?

I have upgraded severl systems/laptops to the next higher version of Windows, and have never been satisfied with the performance afterward...a Win95 runs monstrously slow with Win98, a Win98 hesitates very greatly with WinXP. Granted, both of these are old with 100 to 400 MHz processors, but since my current desktop is 666 MHz and runs fine with XP, WHY UPGRADE???? And the laptop I just got last year, with WinXP TabletPC isn't going to change just because "Mr. Bill"'s guys have made a new version...KJR

I may install it on a backup computer, but it won't go on my main home computer until after the first service pack is out, and after I ensure all of the manufacturers have drivers updated for Vista.

XP is just fine. I'm not going through all the crap I went through with XP on another OS, NO WAY! Period!

Win XP it's cool, and it sufficient to my client's in my Cyber-Coffe, and, the mayor part of my clients, don't know XP yet! (only IE6 and...).
Of course, they are some minority but, except me and the 10% of my clients, the rest don't need XP or Vista to check-up e-mail's messages.

Sorry for my english, i talk Spanish

GO XP, GO GO GO

After having to get a faster computer in order to do anything online, I have been making friends with XP for almost a year. I don't really like it that much. I really, really miss Win98, which is what I was using up until April 2004.