I have already said YES, so i could not care less who will say no... :D

Having clunked around with Windows XP for the past three and a half years, then upgrading to XP Pro, I now see no reason to "upgrade" to Windows Vista, and besides, there is plenty of free or at least consumer friendly software available for prettying up XP and XP Pro.

XP Pro and I have become as one.

I will say NO.

Vista seems to be doing well where ever I go...yeehaw :). I will have Ult, my sis has Vist Hbasic...I have 3 other pcs...but 2 are a little bit too old for Vista...maybe ;)

But, if I could get some cheap additional licenses with my Ult, I would pop them on the old comps and just downgrade the visuals.

MS now just needs to get crackin on those lazy hardware makers with the drivers...that is the only real blockade to Vista adoption for the XP people.

dual booting ultimate now just so i can keep playing with it till I feel vista ecosystem is mature enough to warrent a switch. I just hope my xfi card regains all its functionality soon

Two-thirds of windows users are still confused from the last time their operating system was upgraded.

"I used to know where everything was."

"That's not going to work until the other one is upgraded too."

"But everything was setup just right."

"I had finally gotten used the last one."

"What did we need this for?"

I totally agree on the "I used to know where everything was"

Documents and Settings? Not any more

Right Click on Desktop to get display properties? Not the same

Add / Remove Programs - errr - nada

just not gonna cut it.

lmao..

Documents and settings? It's in the user directory. (Open 'Computer' and click on the folder containing the username...everything is there *and* much more)

Display properties? Already covered this one. Same number of clicks.

Windows XP:
Right click on Dekstop
Click Personalize
Click Display Settigns

Vist:

Right-Click on Desktop
Click Properties
Click the 'Settings' Tab

Change settings to background, themes, etc, still the same number of clicks.

Add/Remove Programs? It's in there. Called Programs and Features. Works the same way, just better organized.

You obviously haven't used Vista...so why are you even posting in this topic?

I run Ultimate on one workstation because I couldn't get proper recovery disks from HP. I have too many complaints about the system to list here. Lack of software support is my number one complaint.
Microsoft has a history of releasing beta OSs and it has done so again. Where the hell is Vista SP1?

How is that going to fix the support for your 3rd party software?

Magic, that is how computers work after all.

I thought the gremlins just broke stuff. Must be a union thing, never understood those. ;)

I don't see why people hate Vista. Everyone seems to think it is slow and requires 2 GB of RAM. I think this is because they used the Beta that had alot of Debug code in it. We are testing Vista on a machine with 512 MB of RAM it runs just fine, even with Aero Turned on. As far as the UAC that everyone is complaining about, You can turn it off, but you sacrifice convenience for security. Also try going to the Mac and you'll see the same thing. Vista is here to stay and eventually everyone will upgrade to it. We'll see this same thing happen when the next version comes out and everyone says they won't switch from Vista because they like Vista. Just as this Happened when XP came out and everyone said they don't like XP and they won't switch.

"Just as this Happened when XP came out and everyone said they don't like XP and they won't switch."

The difference is that XP was an easier transition for most people from Win2000 than Vista is from XP. Another problem is that XP does 99% of what people want it to do, and does it well. So they're not desperate for a new upgrade.

I've had 3 people who bought a new computer, ask me to remove Vista, and put XP on it.

One was an e-machine with 1 gb ram, dual core pentium 4, we had to throw out the modem that came with it, as it only had a vista driver (how unusual!) .

the other 2 were dell machines.

Everyone was so much happier to have XP than the ANNOYING Vista. I personally was in the beta program, and it seemed like a great O/S, however when it was released, something must have happened to it, because I can't stand it in its present form. Certain things can be harder to do under Vista. Vista is great at annoying uses to death as well as being slow and unresponsive. This is Microsoft's WORST, DRM Infested O/S ever. "Wow" I can't believe people would buy this crap.

This is Microsoft's WORST, DRM Infested O/S ever.

You obviously don't know the difference between DRM and support for DRM encoded content, so why would we trust your opinion again?

Vista has only been out for a couple months now ...the garbage you are spewing is the exact same thing everyone stated about XP when it came out...

Vista (IMO) out of the box is a better experience then XP was out of the box and it will get better because you cannot fault Microsoft for Hardware/Software companies from dragging their a** on issuing updates/new versions/compatibility fixes.

My PC from 4 years ago ran vista fine and you say a newer system cannot, bull chips

Nevermind, I see where it is now... didn't see pc_tool's response.

So basically any device that has drm into it if for example mac or linux doesn't have software or a download to view it well they don't get it is what I see?

Therefore cannot be used and therefore user will be mad and shop elsewhere.

Exactly. If they don't have support for the protected path (HDCP), then they will not be able to play protected Blu-Ray or HD DVD content.

The technology dont stop at 1 phase, as for the older Windows XP users that have a lower than 1024Mb of system memory, i highly recommend them for not to upgrade to Windows VISTA immediately. For running for the Windows VISTA 32bits, i recommend a minimum memory of 1024Mb and above and for Windows VISTA x64, I recommend for 1.5Gb of System memory or above.

For the existing Windows XP users (working at OFFICE) i recommend them to stay with current Windows XP. (because they are not play game, and direct X 10 is not required). If they insist on want to upgrade probably they Should wait for the VISTA SERVICE PACKAGE 1 for wider software and driver compatibility.

For users of installation new system, of course I recommend WINDOWS VISTA. Because the technology is keep on run ahead and never look back. For gamers, i would recommend the Windows VISTA x86, and for home and new office users with new printer and hardware peripherals, i would recommend them to upgrade to Windows VISTA x64, because for a SOLID SECURITY. (but remember U need to have at least a direct X 9 graphic card, 1.5Gb of Memory, and x64 dual core processor is recommend for maximum productivity under the 64 vista environment.

For the existing Windows XP users (working at OFFICE) i recommend them to stay with current Windows XP. (because they are not play game, and direct X 10 is not required). If they insist on want to upgrade probably they Should wait for the VISTA SERVICE PACKAGE 1 for wider software and driver compatibility.

My advice would be the opposite. Home office users would benefit the most from the increased security and most office apps work just fine with Vista. It's the gamers and enthusiasts who would balk at incompatibility of older apps and games.

Especially when no released game that I know of uses DX10 yet. Games are the main reason I am not upgrading. That and my cheap a$$ tv tuner.

You really have no clue. You just make stuff up, don't you tool? Are you even USING Vista?

My advice would be for pc tool lamer to stop posting and go somewhere else or some of us will continue doing what we're doing. I'll stop posting when he does.

It's better for businesses to use linux and get rid of microshaft entirely. If you do need to use M$, just remember that torrents are your friends.

And remember that pc tool is a M$ fanboi lamer bending over for stevie lol

Have been for 2 months.

Do you have a point, or are you just flaming again?

Exactly what don't I have a clue about? That Office works fine in Vista, or that Gamers would probably do better sticking with XP for a while yet?

Really, I want to know. Of course, your only response to this, if any, will be the retarded flames we've all come come to expect from you, so I'm not holding the bar too high, I hope.

So you're trying to get me to leave by showing the world how incredibly lame and immature you are?

lmao...

Yeah, let me know how that works for ya.

Yeah, they do kinda have the ability to force you.

The get hardware folks to drop driver support, they decide to start compiling their apps so they only work on the latest OS, then they drop security patch support and you end up being screwed.

I held on to Win 98 SE for a long time. My Matrox G400-TV capture card only had drivers for 98 SE and didn't work at all in 2000 and was crippled in XP using the built-in stuff.

I'm just hoping I can hold off until 2014 when official support ends. :)

well no OS is going to last forever its not they are forcing you its that OS has reached its life span its time to move onto to newer technology.

Every OS does it I dont see Apple letting new software and hardware working on os 8.6

You will be forced to upgrade to VISTA eventually once MS discontinues support for XP and more and more software requires DX10.
I didn't upgrade to XP until service pack 1 - by then it was fairly stable and supported everything I needed. Of all the MS OS'es I have tested XP is the most stable and given me the least incompatibility issues..right now after 2 service packs. This was not always the case.
All the mindless lemmings that ran out and installed XP when it first came out so they could be the first ones on the block complained about this DVD burner not working and that software acting weird etc..
Same with VISTA...still lotsa kinks to work out..once the equivalent to VISTA service pack 2 is out I'll go buy it.

Hey I still have a Windows 98 partition for older stuff.

This is XP all over again, everyone said they would never move from 98/Me to XP but as new software/hardware evolves so does the need for an updated OS, like many comments i agree if you have an older system and XP is doing the job pretty well don't upgrade but like many users i would rather install the latest OS to get a head start in the industry i work in

Actually I was more than willing to snap up XP to get rid of ME. All my software that quit working when I downgraded fro 98 to ME suddenly began to work as it should when I upgraded to XP.

There were people that wanted to stay with WinME?!

I still can't figure out why DX10 would be compelling enough for someone to do a full upgrade to Vista just for it.

Unified Shader Architecture - ok - that's just a more efficient way of coding.

What actual graphical improvements in DX10 are so stunning that they blow DX9 out of the water?

I'm thinking Far Cry looks pretty darn awesome without any DX10 stuff, for example.

QUOTE> "In order to generate that 'WOW' factor, Microsoft will have to put forth a value proposition that will move the majority to the upgrade category in the years ahead," Harris Interactive vice president Milton Ellis said. "No doubt, Microsoft understands theses issues and will proceed accordingly."/>QUOTE

I think if Micro $oft would lower the prices of there Operating Systems They would acheve the WOW factor.

Yep, pricing of Windows is the bottom line. MS don't get that, though.

MICROSOFT IS ALWAYS A HOUR LATE AND THREE DOLLARS SHORT WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING PROGRAMS FOR COMPUTERS. THEY COULD HAVE MADE IT ROCK SOLID AS LINUX. COULD HAVE MADE VISTA A TOP NOTCH PROGRAM BUT IT WAS JUST A PAINT JOB TO WINDOWS, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WINDOWS IN THE FIRST PLACE

I don't know what people are b****ing about Vista works great for me. If you have Xp on an older computer upgrading won't make much sense but if you've got a newer computer I don't see any reason not to except for the bulls*** price they expect you to pay.

I love the idea behind it and as someone who uses a lot of the stuff in Komplete, being able to easily
categorize sounds would be a huge benefit.

VOB to Zune
http://www.vob-converter.com

I am not interested in Vista, I am quite content with my legal XP, so why waste $200 on a bug infected system?

You won't have to in two years time when you go to buy your new system.

If you get Vista bundled with your new PC, since you legally own a license, do you have the right to install and use XP instead if you wish to?

"since you legally own a license" Do you mean for Vista or XP?

If you mean XP I hope it was a rhetorical question.

If not: duh.

Even if you mean "you own a license to Vista, does that mean you can install any of the old versions for free" it's another "Duh" I'm afraid.

No.

Anyway, 66% of people wouldn't know *how* to go back to XP.

People won't say no to Vista when they *think* there's no choice.

Depends on the XP license. If it came with the computer, it was likely OEM, and thus not useable on a new system.

To check (on your XP system), right-click 'My Computer'. It should list your product key. If that string contains -OEM-, then you're out of luck.

If it is a retail copy, you can install it on the new PC so long as you're getting rid of the old one.

Hope that helps.

I am not Anti-vista, in fact I think Vista have some nice features, but I don't see the point in buying Vista just for the sake of it when the OS I have got does the same job. I use my desktop for video editing, graphics, browsing the net, emailing, a bit of publishing, listening to music and the odd podcast and also running openoffice, I may play the odd game, but it is very rare. so Vista would not really offer me anything.

I did try vista on here, the RC1 version and a full retail version, but I had problems with my video editing software and a couple of other things not working. My email software won't work on vista.

I got myself a Acer Laptop a couple of months ago and that had an free update for Vista, even though it is not really free as I had to pay £14 for postage and admin, anyway I decided to get it, if I will use it is another thing, again the laptop is working fine with Xp, but since I use different software ont he laptop than I do on my desktop, I I may give vista a try on it.

I expect I will be staying with Xp on the desktop for a good few years yet, nothing in Vista have got me thinking that I must update and to do so the price in the U.k would have to drop, because it is just a rip off as normal when things are imported to this country.

I am afraid the Vista WOw factor did not affect me.

From what I've seen, ppl who are into computers (like most who read this site) are waiting a while, and the rest don't really care one way or another and will end up with Vista eventually after an upgrade or new purchase. These kind of poles are pretty stupid anyway. Tomorrow there'll be a new slant.

The same thing happened with XP but all new computers come with Vista. I didnt want it either but every notebook in the store came with Vista so I said **** it and bought one.

I will never go back to XP, even Vistas free email client formerly known as Outlook Express, now called Windows Mail gets 99.999% of all spam. Evrything starts up faster than it ever did with XP.

I wouldn't pay to upgrade to Vista, but when you don't have a choice, you'll see it's not so bad. I havent had a single problem installing anything or getting hardware to work with Vista.

Of course Vista runs faster on a system you purchased two weeks ago than XP does on a system you purchased two years ago. Put Vista on the machine you used to run XP on and see what you get for performance. Vista has much higher system requirements but you got that with the new computer.

XP was made for systems purchased 6 years ago.

Latz, SB

Geez, Hollywood! What version of Vista are you using? Remember mate, the only change is the file system.
What many seem to forget is the lazy coding of MS apps, indeed they not only create, but encourage the "ease of use" tools.
And, no! Before anyone starts flaming. I'm using a modified legit version of server (made my moi), now this is a truly great OS!

My point is the same. It is the hardware improvements achieved over the last two or six years that accounts for any perception of improved performance when upgrading from XP to Vista.

My new notebook is a 1.8 Ghz AMD Turion 64X2 and my last one was a 2.8 P4.

I don't have any complaints about Vista so far was my point. I though I was going to hate it.

Incorrect, as the software will eventually limit you and the hardware will surpass it.

You must move forward with both.Try running Win9x with 2 gigs of RAM :p.

Latz, SB

Heres a Question for everyone anti-Vista. In the more then 3 months that its been since RTM, name one remote root exploit. Just one.

Mouse pointer BSOD? An inconvenient DOS attack, *and* XP was also vulnerable to when first released.

Voice recognition Exploit? Thats a PEBKAC issue, I'm surprised security firms didn't post it on April 1st.

Sticky-fingers cmd.exe exploit? Well besides not being a remote exploit, this one absolutely doesn't count - security rule number 1, if you leave your computer alone - it is not your computer anymore.

Heck, I can't even think of any other newsworthy "Exploits" that was in the media.

So none of those "exploits" measure up, Please someone correct me if there is even one and I missed it, I'm dieing to know.

Now think how many exploits hit XP - on a monthly basis. How many ways have there been since Vista was released? If I keep hearing more XP-loving vista basher's at this pace I'm going to have to go and count, and the statistics won't be pretty.

People don't want to admit that much of the change is in the code. They want shiny, Hollywood GUIs.

A very valid point Jim. Thanks for a sensible post finally...

I have a question for you Jim. Name one gain in FUNCTIONALITY that over rides the loss in PERFORMANCE it is going to cause on my current system.

If functionality is all you care for then stick with XP, 2000, or even Linux/BSD/Mac OS. The only reason I use Vista is for the security and privacy it provides, if that doesn't matter to you then don't upgrade, those who it does matter to, I believe should[upgrade]. If your one of the latter people, here's some more compelling reasons to offset your accused loss in performance.

1st) I don't know what your system has, but benchmarks show that while older computers are slower in Vista then XP, newer ones perform faster faster in Vista.

2nd) Vista doesn't perform as bad as you think it does, so long as you turn off all the Fancy Rendered 3d graphics. If you have a 64bit capable system Vista has brought widespread 64bit driver support, which brings with it performance increases if your someone who was holding back from 64bit xp for that reason.

3rd) The new search feature is tons faster and allows people to be a lot more lazy, heck this is about the closest you can get to picking up your mouse, saying "hello computer" and telling it what to do.

so long as you turn off all the Fancy Rendered 3d graphics
Except, since Vista actually uses the advanced features of modern graphics cards; you can turn on "all the Fancy Rendered 3d graphics" and see increased performance because of it...if you have a graphics card worth more than $25.

I think much of the press coverage on Windows Vista sales has been wrong and biased. I work as an account sales representative promoting products for one of the large computer manufacturers - so I work every weekend in Best Buy.

After Best Buy started to sell computers with the Vista operating sales they had more traffic in sales after Christmas than during Christmas.

My perception is that people are just looking for a reason to buy a new computer. The new computers are loaded with Windows Vista. As people see and become comfortable with Vista there is a good chance they will upgrade other computers, show off their new computer to friends, etc - and they too will upgrade.

I beta tested Vista and the earlier candidates did have bugs. However, the average home user, first time user, etc. will have relatively few issues compared to more advanced users with unique requirements. The last release candidate of Vista worked very well for me, and over time I am finding more and more software.

I have a variety of operating systems in the home including Windows XP, MAC OSX, Ubuntu, and Vista. Have also used Red Hat, Suse, Fedora, etc. and they all have strengths and weaknesses. Windows Vista's strength is that the computer manufacturers include the OS on the computers, their exists strong retail channels that push the operating system to increase their sales, and a general level of comfort with the buying public due to the fact that they likely use some version of a Microsoft OS at work.

Much of the current press on Vista appears to be more wishful thinking that it won't sell, rather than based on any facts. Somebody may dislodge Microsoft at some point, but Microsoft has always tried to make incremental improvements, often based on what the competition is doing, to expand - or at least maintain - their market position. For now though, Vista is selling. It will likely continue to sell briskly since their is public demand for it, and a symbiosis between Microsoft, computer manufacturers and retailers who all have a common interest to sell Vista.

Price is not a factor, since we have a site license to Vista. Likewise, we have a site license to Office 2007. No Windows bashing, as my users have XP and Office 2003 without problems. For the business and academic world, I feel Vista AND Office 2007 do not warrant an upgrade. And yes, I am running both on my computers. There have been problems running SAS and other software on Vista.
- If I want my users to take advantage of the advanced graphics, perhaps I can buy them XBOX or PS3s. It won't help them with their work, but neither will Vista.
- Office 2007 should have come with a classical view of menuing, to ease transition.
- I hate that MS has gone to docx. They did this before (forget which versions) and messed up formatting of documents back and forth.
- Yes, eventually most XP users will migrate to Vista as new PCs come installed with the OS, but I think this acceptance will be slower than MS would have hoped for.
I ran Windows XP 64 and had to revert back to XP when I couldn't find the drivers and critical sw would not run on the OS. I'm reading the same problems with Vista 64-bit. After Vista has matured, drivers are available, and sw can take advantage of the 64-bit environment, then it might make sense. Meanwhile, am I correct that Office will run on Vista 64 but are not actually 64-bit programs? And the advantages? It increases the amount of data the CPU can process. Will that help your average Word user? No. Access? Yes. Games and videos will take advantage, but pretty much of little practical use to the business and academic world (with exceptions such as virtual learning, major data crunching, etc).

I started on platforms and moved to the PC for flexability and graphics.(and for the power to stop pc users from makeing platforms users lives miserable online). No way I would ever go back to platforms. DX 10 will blow away PS3 or XBOX360 graphics. PCs offers so much more. I view platforms as for newbies.

Well no wonder you want to back up 5 years... you're in Kentucky!

So you dont want to upgrade beacuse new software and new computers wont increase your typing speed?

Maybe the next version of WIndows or MACOS can help you with that.

Keep us posted.

Latz, SB

Yeah, that's pretty f'in funny. I'm from NYC, if that makes a difference. If you want to dis Ky, you can start with basketball since we've lost our head coach. But back to Vista. Would you mind addressing the actual post? Do you really think the academic world can benefit from Vista in it's current form, including lack of drivers, and problems with 3rd party sw? I mentioned SAS, which is a statical analysis software. This is a major sw, similar to SPSS.
As if I need to defend myself, it has nothing to do with fear of technology. U.K. has a new supercomputer that have few rivals. IBM System Cluster 1350 can handle up to 16.3 trillion calculations per second. Hey, and it's not even running Vista. Yeah, and we're running MS, Solaris, Linux, and (boo) Netware servers at my center. Now see if you can follow this - the article is about why 2/3 will say no to Vista. All our hardware will support the OS. I'm just explaining why I'm currently saying no for my users. Eventually I will be forced to migrate. Overall, it will not increase productivity for the AVERAGE user. And if I read another post about how someone can build a Vista system for $49.95 ...

You'll what?

Stop speaking nonsense?

If so I will personally make that post RIGHT now!

Latz, SB

Agreed! I REALLY REALLY HATE VISTA AND IT HAS MADE ME LOOSE HOURS I WILL NEVER GET BACK!

This is usually a symptom of UE ( User Error ).

Please remove PAK ( Person at Keyboard ) and retry running the application.

If problem persists, remove vomputer from premisses and refrain from using any other technology.

Latz, SB

You should go back to school while you're at it.

English is an important language to learn.

vomputer is spelled computer.
Premisses is spelled premises.
I assume latz means later but I realise you're probably 12 years old.

Retry running the application = retry the application OR re-run the application.

This is usually a symptom of a 12 year old in mommy's basement or a 40 year old adolescent.

If the problem persists, remove the lamer at the keyboard and send them back to school for a better education.

Lamer isnt a word either...

Lets move on.

Latz, SB

lmao...

The troll trying to educate the masses..

The irony is killing me.

Actually premisses is spelled premisses.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premisses

And vomputer is a typo.

ALso you should know what people say about assuming.

SInce the "application" was already ran, it would indeed be grammatically correct to "re-try running the application."

And if you persist with your weak attempt at ridicule ( which is a symptom of a 50 year old whose wife left him for another woman ), the only remedy for that problem is to pity you.

Lots and lots of pity.

Latz, SB

It's ironic that everyone says Vista is nothing more than Windows 2003 Server with a nice new GUI on it. To be honest thats kinda true, but is that a bad thing? Is that not what 98 was with respect to 95? Or what XP was to 2000?

Your argument is that there is nothing you can do on Vista that you can't do on XP... right?

However your arguement is flawed because you are running XP....

The reason I say this and in reality there is very little that you can do on XP that you can't do on Windows 2000, so if your only argument is that you can't do anything new on Vista that you couldn't do on XP then what possessed you to upgrade to XP back in the day? If that was your argument you are now just foolish for using XP according to your own standard.

The GUI of Vista is simply much better than XP and you will eventually switch to it just like you did with XP back in the day and you will ask yourself how you ever lived without it.

The most major changes I have noticed is how Vista uses the advanced capabilities of you're video card to render everything. The graphics capabilities of Vista as far as the GUI is concerned is something that XP DOESN'T HAVE!!! Window Blinds and programs of the like don't even come close to what the AERO GUI has to offer. I know because I've used windows Blinds for 8 years now. The most basic example of the advanced graphics capabilities that Vista has to offer is when you have Windows media player open playing a DVD and you use the fancy window switcher. Notice that while you're selecting the 'Slide' of which program you want to use, the WMP Slide is still updating playing the movie. You could literately watch the movie on the slide and the 45* angle that it puts the slide at. The window switcher actively updates as opposed to just using an icon or taking a snapshot at the time you press the button to bring up the window switcher. I know this seems small but its allot easier said that done. XP could in NO WAY do ANYTHING AT ALL LIKE THIS. They had programs that tried and the most they could do was take a snapshot.

Vista has a lot of under the hood changes especially to the graphics engine of the GUI and it makes for a much more esthetically pleasing and intuitive experience.

As for people complaining about hardware I am running it on my A7n8X Deluxe with a Athlon XP processor running at 2.5GHz, with a Radeon 9700Pro Graphics card. It runs fine. The only thing is it uses a LOT more ram. With XP I could get by with 512MB of ram just fine. Now I am upgrading to 1.5GB, but such is the nature of the beast. Its a new operating system. Every operating system that has ever been released has required more than the predecessor. The programmers of new software are just as guilty as Microsoft on this one. The new version of NERO for example is a 150MB download and uses 60MB of ram. I remember back in the day when Nero was a 10MB download and it did the exact same thing it does now... burn CDs!

The only bad thing I have found with vista is the "User Account Control" feature that asks you if you want to do "critical system" stuff... Great for work and school computers annoying for power users. The mac commercial pretty much sums it up. But you can turn it off and if you don't know how to turn if off (its simple). Then you should probably just leave it on so that windows can protect you from yourself.

Anyway this rant has gone on long enough...

You will all one day be using Vista and you will enjoy it. The only reason you are throwing such a fit about it now is because it costs $200+ to upgrade instead of the usual $99 like past versions. That and the fact that Microsoft has made is such a hassle to pirate you're mad because you can't get it for free.

Vista's so bad that if Steve Jobs just got un-stubborn and released OS X for all hardware platforms, he might gain some serious market share.

More people need to install OpenSuse 10.2, at least in a virtual machine...

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm talking out of my a** but wouldn't releasing OS X for all hardware be extraordinarily bad for Apple? I mean it's my understanding that Apple makes most of it's profits from hardware. So if Apple released OS X for all hardware, where's the incentive to buy Apple's hardware. Oh and lets not forget the possible security ramifications from that kind of hardware support.

Ya... the main reason is that their hardware failure rate is on the high side, though within the norm. People would love to put OSX on something they already have, but Apple would then be in the business of selling operating systems, vs. Microsoft. Once you get out of hardware, you can't go back.

Not sure how that might affect them. More of their business comes of iPOD hardware than ever before, I believe, and they still make very cool machines. I think they can be successful enough and diverse enough so that they can ween off of the systems for revenue.

With dropping DRM from the EMI part of the iTunes store, that means that anybody with a regular MP3 player can download the AAC, convert it to MP3 and does not need an iPOD at all.

But if Apple offers innovative hardware that is attractive and perhaps more reasonably priced, folks will probably continue to buy, just maybe not as much as before.

But they can sell many more copies of the OS and perhaps OS X apps.

For enterprise use, there's absolutely no reason to upgrade to Vista NOW, for all the reasons mentioned by most responders here.

64bit and all its inherent advantages would be the ONLY reason, but i don't see drivers & software extensively for it before 2010.

Vista 32 bit lags in performance to its predecessors xp pro & 2k3-- I have fully tweaked it, but some of my apps run faster on older systems-- not to mention that quite a few peripherals still doh't have Vista drivers yet...or that Vista(along w/ ie7, live mail, et al) still has many kinks to worked out yet. Its memory addressing is too limited, and its memory handling / releasing is bad-- necessitating periodic reboots. Plus, there are still too many bugs, as is to be expected of any new OS.
And it ain't even cheap....

Why exactly should anyone "upgrade" to Vista?

Thats the point, there is no REAL reason why you should upgrade! It is so similar to XP! No reason at all!

I can hardly believe all this DX10 hype. As if DX9 isn't awesome enough?

If only the world's population would settle for good enough, and not aspire for better...

Latz, SB

Then we'd all be like you... and life wouldn't be worth living.

Isn't this the same crowd of people who complained about Microsoft not coming out with updated versions of its Operating system ... and now that it has you hypocrites want to stay with XP?

Seems like the unneeded hatred for everything microsoft has hit a new low. "Oh the system requirements for Vista are too high" ...

Really? You guys want to stick with your 1 ghz pieces of dung? Not even the over-glorified OS X will run on that (especially the new version which will be as useless as the previous version, WOWWIE MOMMY WIDGETS!)

I think its time people move on from their Museum-ware PC's .. I can build a vista ready pc for less than 500$.

Haha....so true! You'd think computer enthusiasts wouldn't complain so much about the pricing for upgrading their systems. And I'm guessing if you're subscribed to this site, there's a good chance you are an enthusiast. You don't hear auto enthusiasts whining about how much their parts cost. And computer hardware is stupid cheap for the most part. One similarity to the auto enthusiasts though: Just like the Ford vs Chevy people (with Calvin pissing on one or the other by way of stickers), it's funny to watch the losers fighting for Mac vs Windows vs Linux.

Perhaps it is the crowd I'm in:

3 year old Sony Vaio Desk Top, Pentium IV processor running at 2.66 GHz, 1 Gig Ram, 20 Gig C drive with an additional 100 Gig D drive, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5500 with 256 Mb graphics card. I simply don't want to buy a new computer (for $500 or at any other price) or pay $100 in order to use an OS that, in all probability, will not work fully on my machine and is going to have severe operational and security issues for the next year until they get at least one or more service packs issued.

"I can build a vista ready pc for less than 500$."

As long as you don't plan on watching HD movies that is. Of course watching movies isn't a priority for everyone but I'm just saying.

If it wasnt for Direct X needs I would still be running Win95, 98 or Windows 2000. I hate the bloat they add to every OS. Seems every new OS is three steps backwards to take 2 steps foward. My 1 gig sticks of OC ram can handle anything I can throw at them plus Vista. 64 bit to me seems redundent unless you need multi-core CPU parallelism and/or(over 4) up to 128 gigs of ram.

There are still lots of people that can't afford a new computer. I know a few people that still have older machines, ones of them a 233 running windows 98.
In the U.K at least anything that is capable of running running at a decent speed will cost you over £350 and they are normally Dell rubbish with built in graphics.
I build my own machines and have got a pretty poky AMD dual core machine, but I would still not use Vista. I can't see the point in updating if there is no need tol.

Out of curiosity, how long AFTER Windows XP came out did you purchase it?

Curious since all the things you are worried about were more prolific in that version of WIndows than in Vista, and also the hardware costs for an XP-ready system were higher than it is now for a Vista-redy system.

Please respond with any legitimate complaints about Vista, other than the fact that you are a miser and prefer outdated technology and fear change.

Latz, SB

Let me see 2007-3=2004. 2004-2001=3. It isn't higher math.

And that was legitimate complaint about Vista and a very direct response to phenomnaruto's claim to be able to make a Vista ready machine for $500. I didn't mention the separate CD reader and DVD Read/Write drives that are included in my current machine because they really don't have any direct effect on performance. If he can build me Computer with all these features (listed by Microsoft as minimum to operate Vista optimally): a 3.5 GHZ CPU, at least 2 Gigs of RAM (4 would be preferable) and a PCI Express card (256 Mb minimum, 512 preferred) for $500, then he can post the comments he made. Oh and I don't want crappy off the shelf, no name components or mother boards. And please don't forget the Dual CD/DVD drives or the 20 GB C: and 100 GB D: drives I have in my current computer

As to the miser/afraid of new technology comment, I bought my first home computer over 25 years ago when people were saying the new technology would never take hold in the average American home and have kept up with new technology ever since. WHEN IT MADE SENSE TO UPGRADE. Aside from that, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Jim above. Exactly what are the short to mid term gains in FUNCTIONALITY I am going to receive by buying Vista now rather than waiting until I need to buy a new machine?

Asus M2NPV-VM
AMD 64 x2 4400+
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM

Keep your current hard drives and cd/dvd equipment.

Problem solved, for less than $350 (Mwave.com)

..and still enough left over for a more than decent PCI-E video card if you're a hardcore gamer. (The on-board NVIDIA 6150 256MB graphics chipset handles Vista and most games just fine.) You can get a 512MB PCI-E GeForce 7300 for under $100.

I personally added 2 250GB SATA drives, a new case, and an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate to the above config and *still* paid under $850.

Vista is a champ on this system. I also have XP installed, but have completely migrated to Vista. I can burn cds, dvds, play my games (required the installation of DX9), and haven't had a single problem with it.

i got xp right after it was out.I had me on 3 machines and hated it.Vista sounds like me all over again

No need to buy a new system, just upgrade your current.

And it makes sense to upgrade when a major step forward in technology is available.

You dont wait for 20 core CPU simply because 1 core is "enough".

At the cost you are looking at ( even $1000 ) you are still talking about less money than the computer bought 25 years ago, and how much added functionality did THAT give you?

http://www.bestbuy.com/s...ct&id=1165610936534

Not exactly $500 ( especially with tax ) but close enough, and that is not off brand, warrantied, and gauranteed to work. And also just a quick look with no tries for a rebate or special or sale.

And of course the added functionality comes to the fact that you not only upgrade the software, but the hardware that goes with it, which makes everything improve its functionality ( as far as the OS is concerned ).

As for third party functionality, that is NOT the responsibility of MS. And if your question is if Vista will let you type faster than XP or other OS, then you really have not needed to upgrade for a long time.

Latz, SB

These people who can afford the Vista with limited drivers an programs, who have to upgrade their computers to 2 gig of ram perhaps a 512 meg graphics card which also means a new motherboard duocore processor..I say go for that unstable over amped piece of bloatware.
I'll say with xp till I can afford a computer like that..my 2 cents

It would be nice if you could afford a keyboard that wasn't flaky. ;)

I tested Vista on my machine for a while, and there were programs and drivers that were incompatible. Still, it was fun, and I'm going to move to it in a little bit. Basically, I see Windows as nothing more than a platform for my software, and I'm comfortable with Windows software. So even though it's not free like Linux, it's worth it to me to spend time with Windows issues rather than figure out how to do everything I like over again with Linux. I don't want to spend THAT much time on the computer. As more software and hardware becomes compatible, I doubt people will have as many qualms about the s***, especially with the resources it consumes, as hardware power is progressing quickly as usual. Having said that, I can definitely see people's point of view who aren't like me....XP really is fine.

Took me a long time to get comfortable with XP and Service Pack 2. Took a long time for drivers to stabilize. Took a long time for apps to be patched and utilities to be updated.

After all that time invested in reaching a situation where you have a stable, functional and fairly well performing Windows XP system, why would anyone want to give that up for Vista?

Simply beacuase the rest of the software world wil move ahead, not stay stuck in a rut.

Latz, SB

XP till 2014!
Nobody I know even considered upgrading to Vista with all of its bugs, bloatware services, and exploits. Even after 5yrs of developement, Vista is still only a tenth of the way there...sad.

For christ sake, the small *nix distros are more usable than Vista...

XP is going to be supported until 2014, right? If so, why is there a need to switch to Vista?

Is XP not established enough? Is XP not capable of running all your key apps as well as your games?

XP will no longer serve my gaming needs when DX10 games come out. At that time I will upgrade to Vista and will no longer buy DX9 games. I simply have to much money invested in my DX10 Video card not to exploit DX10 to its fullest. XP just wont cut it anymore. Nor would I upgrade to Vista for any other reason. Compared to the price of my World Class DX10 Video Card, price of Vista is just peanuts.

oh R'ly ??

well, im not using vista because the computer
on my ferrari is not compatible
maybe the one in my lambo is but im to lazy to walk out and check,..
maybe ill just pay bill gates to write me a whole new OS that will patch my ferrari's computer
and give it vista's features while leaving XP's look ....
not to mention how good it looks on my 103 inch LASER dlp backlit LCD plasma projection screen

oh, and BTW .... the computer trough which i typed this reply is 10 minutes old already ....
gotta go buy me a new alienware with quad double super mega SLI "animal style" ....

I wish!!! I am still using DDR 400 and a single core. But I did finally make the move from CRT to LCD. But I see your point, even if I bought a new alienware with quad double super mega SLI "animal style" in 6 months it would become DUAL quad double super giga quad SLI "Manmoth style"

joking aside, you're right ....
an upgrade is due only when is worth it ...
if there's no DX10 games ... why bother with vista

Plus I dont have to be a BETA tester for Microsoft for 8 months.

Just because Microsoft will support it, does not mean other companies will.

Same happaned with 98, Me, and 2000.

You will surely be upgrading befor 2014.

I gaurantee or Ill spend a night wit your wife / gf.

And trust me im not the winner in that scenario.

Latz, SB

Here we go again, I have to share my experiences in the I.T. industry, so that any confusion and disarray that may evolve from this article will become clear and concise.

First, I started testing Windows 2000 when it was still in beta (called Windows NT 5) when I was working at AMD. At that time, when I was testing processor and motherboard compatability / reliability, Microsoft had just previously released Windows 98, and Windows 95 had gained in home user popularity, but the majority of businesses who were using Microsoft operating systems were using Windows NT 4. Of course Microsoft had to release an updated version of Windows 98, calling it Windows ME, but in my professional opinion, Windows ME was worse than the first version of Windows 98 (not Windows 98 SE).

N E Ways, I then moved to Dell (briefly) and tested Windows 2000 with their Optiplex series workstations. At that time, if you were a business running Windows clients, you were probably using Windows NT and had some flavor of linux as your server operating system. Sure, maybe a few businesses were using NT Server, but Microsoft didn't start excelling in the server operating system department until Windows 2000 Server. From this point I remember when Windows XP was still in beta (called "Whistler"). After XP was released, Microsoft gained an enormous boost with XP Home thanks to alliances from companies like Dell and HP. Most average computer users had no knowledge of linux or unix, and Apple had not fully started it's restructuring with Mac until right around this time.

When Microsoft released Windows Server 2003, it changed the game for server operating systems. There were a lot of features included in Server 2003 that were not available in Server 2000. Active Directory started taking hold, and more businesses began to migrate their networks to a complete "Windows" platform. Still most businesses who had Windows clients (using XP Pro) were still using linux or unix based server operating systems such as Red Hat or SCO.

4 years later, after Microsoft had delayed Vista's release for a few years (supposedly fixing bugs and problems), Microsoft began a massive advertising campaign to educate it's clients of it's new operating system. So here we are today, Microsoft still claiming Vista is the most secure, reliable operating system they have ever released, yet Vista continues to be brought down with simple things like an animated cursor, and Windows Live Onecare continues to fail virus tests with Vista.

In the end, I, as an I.T. professional who has more than 13 years experience in the I.T. industry, would not recommend anyone upgrade to Vista. I would recommend more people become aware of Linux (specifically Fedora), which can be downloaded for free. It has everything you would ever want and need (even for businesses needing e-commerce in the enterprise). If you don't know how to use Linux, it's not as difficult as you may think. Now adays, everything's as simple as point and click.

Microsoft continues to lie to the general public, to "lure" more people into buying the most expensive software flop they have ever released. However, Vista continues to be full of problems and hassles. Hardware restrictions are so tight that most users who want to benefit from Vista's full capabilities (such as the Windows Aero GUI) will need to upgrade their hardware, or even buy a whole new computer.

Even the upgrade version of Home Basic isn't worth the $99 Microsoft is charging for it, and the Vista Ultimate Retail is definitely not worth the $380 Microsoft is charging for that version.

I speak as an I.T. professional who has enough experience in the field to prove my words.

Don't waist your money!

Whilst I would agree that Vista is not ready for prime time, I wouldn't recommend people move to Linux.

For every failing in Vista, there are 1,000 in Linux. Like having to resort to command shells, having to know pipes and grep etc.. Linux is a great operating system, but it's run by geeks, with no real interest in making it desktop friendly.

exactly ....

while the computer savvy consider Linux consider it to be THE operating system
it has a BIIIIIG learning curve ....
a curve that requires time
time that most (if not ALL) everyday users
do not have or want to spend
besides the fact that the average joe only requires an OS for word documents, powerpoint presentantions, emails, and the casual red eye photo correction ...

do they need a stable OS for this ? NO
is linux better at this ? NO
is Vista more than enough for doing such tasks ? YES,
most definitely and is because of appealing looks and "gotta have it" factor that people will adopt it.

Most everyday users think that by switching to Linux, they wont be compatible with the rest of computers in the world.
Whats even worse, most of those same users have never heard or even know what "Linux" is

Good comments... but your poor spelling at the end makes me wonder if you are really a "professional"! LOL

yeah,
seeing you write
"waist"
im almost compelled to think you're a
linux fan boy.

And don't forget "N E Ways", lol. Some professional.

Curious - why is this story not covered? According to BB vista is doing well:

http://retail.seekingalpha.com/article/31551

Like they would say anything else. They want to sell people new computers, I'd take what they say with a grain of salt. Besides, isn't Vista on all new PCs now? It's not like people have a choice so of course they are selling it (on computers).

I have not seen anything in Vista yet that makes me say to myself "I need that".

Reason I am not upgrading is simple. No DX10 games.

..."No doubt, Microsoft understands these issues and will proceed accordingly."
_______________
Obviously not. People don't want that watered-down, limp, half-enabled crap. The biggest single factor crippling Vista adoption — beyond the near complete lack of driver creation — is virtualization. Virtualization is what users want and need, and lots of little Microsofties are now bolting for the snake oil that Apple sells called OS X, which sells ONE version for $130 (not 6) and lets you virtualize the holy crap out of it. For anyone buying or building a new system, Don’t be fooled: Vista wants new hardware. The only real justification to move to Vista is going full 64-bit. Otherwise, Vista is noticeably slower than XP on your present computer. Anyone who says otherwise either isn't using Vista or they're lying.

What Microsoft doesn't tell you is that very few companies have written drivers for Vista (HP has about a dozen printers they've written drivers for, the jerks), and there are also very few 64-bit programs, which is understandable. But you can imagine how a 64-bit program runs on 64-bit hardware.

Just because Microsoft spits out a bad product, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Whatever evil idiot conceived of Vista Explorer will be the king of hell. (Meanwhile I'm using Vista x64 on one machine, and dual-booting the 32-bit version on another with Linux. Go figure.)

The biggest single factor crippling Vista adoption — beyond the near complete lack of driver creation — is virtualization.

Maybe...and this is a big maybe...in the tech/enthusiast sector. It has little to no bearing whatsoever to the majority of computer users.

Yeah, my mom can barely turn a computer on and she is super pissed about not being able to use virtualization. She told me the other day

Mom: "this linux thing keeps popping up on your screen is this a virus?!"
Me: "No, mom thats another operating system being run in a seperate application that doesn't require me to install it over my existing configuration"
Mom: "Oh, well why would you use another operating system on top of another?"
Me: just trying to see what all the fuss is about these better operating systems that the only people that tend to use them don't know what sun is"
Mom: "Oh, so spending hours working on a computer just to get little things to work whereas your existing one just works and if I download a new program I just click on it and it installs"
Me: "Yup"
Mom: "That sounds like a waste of time"
Me: "Yeah but then I dont have to worry about viruses and spyware because I am too stupid to not click on porn links and read emails that tell me to send money to Buddha Ri Alfafa Sprout"
Mom: "you mean people think Windows is so bad because they are also stupid and shouldn't be near a pc"
Me: " Yes, mom"

Because the fact remains should these other operating systems get the same market share as Windows you will run into the exact same problems because all operating systems are built by humans who are prone to error and therefore not perfect.

When XP came out I was one of the first to upgrade and was immediately pleased with the results. I have no interest currently in upgrading to Vista. For one thing my pc can't handle it, but another is it doesn't have much of a spark for me to get it. I hear more about troubles than about people enjoying their experience with it. Since I have no need or desire to switch, I won't and I am sure I am not alone there.

Even tho my local computer shop sells Vista, and has a Vista PC at the front of the shop.

The guys working there are recommending that people DO NOT buy Vista.

A large number of people who bought new PCs, from the same shop, have reported that a large number of popular software will not work on Vista.
Some software is causing crashes, which often result in an endless loop.

Oh, and no. It's $259, not $295. Uoy yam evah aixelsyd.

Uoy yam evah aixelsyd.

Having a seizure, are we? :p

This was the same thing that happened circa 2001 with XP. No one really expects people to go crazy buying upgrades; this is about a better OEM product. You won't get Vista until you buy your new Dell.

Microsoft has always relied on brute strength of hardware to get them by, in both sales and specs. This isn't unexpected.

What a concidence, I am in the process of putting my laptop back from Vista to XP.

Vista on the laptop really was a horribe experience, applications that used to open in an instant on XP, took 10 seconds on Vista. Even Control Panel takes AGES to load.. The whole Vista experience was horrible.

Fortunatly, It was a complementary copy of Vista Ultimate, so no finantial loss, I may try it again post-SP1.

The laptop in question, is not particularly old (early 2006, Core Duo 1.66, 1GB RAM, Gefore GFX card)

My laptop performs better with Vista, little less than 1 year old HP Pavilion dv8280us.

I am happy with Vista and have moved to Vista on 4 home machines, all perform as well or better than on XP. All have been "upgrades" rather than clean installs as well.

I've had a good vista experience as well. What is really interesting is awhy this story get such big headline play and this one, concerning actually performance not a poll, doesn't:

http://retail.seekingalpha.com/article/31551