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

I finally got my desktop working properly again after installing XP SP2 last fall. Yes, I followed all of the directions, did all the preparation, waited till the kinks were worked out of SP2, backed up my hard drive, then installed SP2 ... and my computer was buggy for months. Although I could've reverted to a pre-SP2 state, I was determined to make things work, and it took quite awhile for me to figure out how to fix all of the problems (there were many of them). Now my PC is working perfectly, so I'm not about to mess with it again.

XP is 90% Linux/Unix code anyway, so what MS has to offer for the investment is even less than the "window" dressing. I don't need my computer to waste my time (or that of the CPU) fading in menus, sliding in options, and running pretty little animations. If I wanted that, I'ld go rent a movie.

Computers don't need to go faster, they just need to get on with the job. Get the data on the screen by the fastest, leanest code possible. A flashing cursor so that I know the system hasn't crashed is adequate, and for longer tasks (huge file copies, video compilation etc.), a simple time count does the job without the need for a "lack of progress" bar.

The trade media has become a Windows mall. That's where the money is, so it makes perfect business sense to focus on Windoze.

After all, patching the faults in Windoze keeps a LOT of people employed. Talking about the faults in Windoze keeps a lot of media folks employed. Thus, the only question on most of those folks' minds is when you will start buying the latest version of Windoze and provide them with another four years of job security.

I have been thinking about Linux for a while now, I have installed and used a few version but was unhappy due to Red Hat 6.0 not talking to my modem and Mandrak 8.x not being able to update.

And now I don't know how to create a new partition on my drive with XP, I used Presizer from DOS days to 98 but it stopped with FAT32.

So I want a new HD for Linux, Novel SUSE 10.0 or 10.1.

System MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum, AMD 64 3000+ 512 MB, 120 GB, FX5600 video with 128 MB.

I don't really even need Windows XP any more, so I don't see any reason to fork out the money for a product I don't need. For the last three years I have been running linux on my primary desktop computer, and my primary laptop. I have an older desktop and older laptop that are test machines, so I don't necessarily have any specific OS on them for more than a week or so. I have migrated through a few linux distributions over the years, but have stuck with mandrake/mandriva. It does everything I need and more. And with a lot less cost, too. I have a spare machine and XP cd laying around, so if the time should arrive that I HAVE TO USE XP for something, I can get by.

I am so disappointed with the Windows world. I had been 'hit' by the worms, spywares, virus, and trojan several times. I lost my projects several times when my Windows crashed, lost my essay(s) when the word processor hung without any reason, and lost my photos, music, and other files when the Windows was re-installed because of the virus attack. Enough...

I am too disappointed to continue investing in Micro$oft. I used Windows since Win 98. Upgraded to Win2000 with the promise of better stability. And upgraded to XP with the promise of better security. But still, I lost my files, dealing with crawling systems, and many other disappointment.

I have no trust in Microsoft, even with its latest Vista main features such as stability and security. I won't upgrade to Vista. I will (very soon) leave Windows world and switch to Mac.

I might consider going back to Windows only when I hear lots of people opinions on the new bright era of Windows.

I've been a Mac guy since system 7.5. I've got two desktops. One is an old G3 blue& white my 12 year old plays on 2-3 hours a day. The other is a Quicksilver G4 I've hot-rodded with every upgrade I can afford. I also have a 867Mhz Tibook. All these Macs runs OSX v. 10.4.4 FLAWLESSLY.
I spend about 2 minutes a month to mantain the OS on ALL these computers. The upgrades to the next version of OSX might add 30 minutes to this total.
Windows Vista is the next 'bright, shining lie' from Bill '' Sorry...I'll give you yet another software Patch'' Gates on his way to the bank with your hard-earned jack!
I guarantee you, the new system has flaws, holes, and will make Mr. Gates even richer while his paid flunkies and apologists try to make Mr. average user feel good about buying his POS Operating system.
Bill Gates can build something as stable as OSX but he won't until the PC buying public forces his hand.
Buyer beware!

I'd suggest reposting your question on Cnet's Mac forum by clicking here. Moderator MrMacFixIt or one of the other Mac gurus should be along shortly to help you out.

John

I always have to grin when people make the statement that Mac is not a real computer. The OS and hardware for Mac has always been a cleaner, thus better performing computing environment. Windows has always caused great pain for users, though most of those users have very short memories. The real difference is that the Mac is a true productivity tool, where a machine with Windows is a computer that requires a great deal of patience and attention. Steve is trying to help us, always has. Bill is trying sell us, always has.

Mac doesn't even have a graphics editing tool. My god. It is true that it is not a real computer with its compatibilty problems and its outdated hardware!

The troubles all Windows users have, are because they installed a piece of **** Windows. That thing would never be able to handle any computer.

Try OSX, Linux, Solaris or any other Unix Operating system.

I'll wait 'till Service Pack 6!

And I am not looking back. From what I have read Vista is just another service pack for XP. OSX is a generation ahead already and will have a new release out before Vista vaporware makes its first bug ridden appearance. Good luck with all that, I have moved on.

...when I can get it free from the trashcan at work, still shrink-wrapped and labeled "for distribution with a new PC only", like I've gotten Win95, WinME and XP Home. I'm still looking for a Win2K installation pack, maybe after Vista rolls out...

This is the same way I get my PCs. I welcome bloated, resource-hungry Vista. I know that nearby, some idiot will install it, his system will grind to a halt, and he'll go out and buy a new pc, putting his old system out at the curb where I'll find it. If its an upgrade from what I'm using I'll either mix and match components, part the rest out on ebay. I'm currently showing a gross profit $3400 over what I'd paid for ALL the computers combined that I owned before 2001 (7), so its a win-win situation for me. So g'wan, upgrade soon, and frequently.

All you Apple fanatics should read up on what Stevie did to the Apple II and Newton users and developers. If he did that to his loyalists, what'll you think he'll do if the opportunity to gain a huge market share comes along? He'll dump the Mackintosh minority in a heartbeat. He's the same creature as Gates, a soul-less capitalist.

Hi Today:
In the studio inviroment I operate, I have audio Hardware that have drivers that were only written for '98SE and before. The Hardware works fine so I'm hesitant to drop it because of Desk incompatibilities. So, to handle this, I've opted to create Dual Boot computers.. I have two Dual Boot computers running two different Desks, at the same time.. It becomes tough on the mental resolve, at times..

I'd like to see an Operating system that contains a Cross compatibility for drivers that were written for any Operating System..

How difficult would that idea be to CODE and what would be wrong with that Idea?

There are times that I have to post or mail my Product. To do that, I only have to know the Extension of the file(s) that the End User needs IT to be in..

So.. I'd like to see a NEW Operating System be compliant with any "Written Drivers and File Extensions"..