I've been using Vista since Alpha builds and now on B2. I may be in the minority but I just don't see a "gotta-have" to it. There's nothing I really need in it. It all seems cosmetic, even the under-the-hood upgrades. Many/most could have been done as a service pack to XP. I absolutely HATE what they did to the Explorer shell. Enough with changing the GUI for the sake of coolness! Quit moving things around for the sake of moving things around! Stop!

even the under-the-hood upgrades. Many/most could have been done as a service pack to XP

Considering it is *based* on MS Windows Server 2k3 code (Not Windows XP), I *highly* doubt a Service pack could cut it, my friend.

Which was based on XP, which was based on 2000, which was based on NT, which was based on UNIX.

2k3 was based on 2000.

NT was based on a joint development by IBM and MS.

Thanks.

No, not based on UNIX!

Parts of NT are minimally based on VMS (after all David Cutler was chief architect), but mostly was designed from scratch, really starting with the OS/2 team.

Uh...no it wasn't. It was meant to be, but the relationship was ended prior to anything becoming of it. NT was done totally inside MS, as stated earlier, by a team lead by Dave Cutler. Mr. Cutler was hired away from Digital by MS along with several engineers.

NT was originally to be called OS/2 3.00, back in 1990 when OS/2 2.00 development was first started. It was decided that IBM would take over OS/2 2.0 development and MS would do 3.00 development. The plan was to basically start from scratch with 3.00...and they did. The only thing is, by the time MS really got started on NT, they and IBM had pretty much parted ways. This explains the OS/2 1.x subsystem in Windows NT and Windows 2000. The reasoning to start from scratch with 3.0 was because of bad design decisions IBM made during 1.x development with how it deals with 32-bit code (and 386 processors). OS/2 2.0 is based on 1.x and so was a Frankinstein-like mixture of 16-bit and 32-bit code. The desktop code didn't go 32-bit until 2.1, and it wasn't really fixed right until 3.0 (Warp).

Windows 2000 IS Windows NT, version 5.0 actually. XP is Windows NT 5.1 and Vista is NT 6.0. The lineage is very clear when you look at fundamentals of the OSes. Microsoft has layered on new APIs, changed the kernel driver models, and moved things back and forth between kernel and user mode.

Much as changed, but much is still the same...which is a good thing. IMHO NT was a very well designed OS with a very effective hybrid microkernel design.

It's indeed nice to read something by someone who knows what he is talking about!

David Cutler and his team were indeed the architects of NT!

And a side note..., the project was originally named WNT by Cutler and crew as NT was to be a next generation VMS (of which he was also primarily responsible). Therefore, the initials were simply each incremented one letter from VMS to WNT. (Much like HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey was one letter decremented from IBM, which a court injuction had prevented them from using). Microsoft simply made up the "Windows New Technology" tag to fit Cutler and crew's label. ...This info was provided by Cutler himself in early 1995 in a speaking engagement where he spoke in Nashville.

And on another side note, allot of the ancillary code and advancements that became XP and will become Vista came from and are indeed are still coming from IBM, as they are porting/modifying large amounts of UNIX code for use in the MS projects.

In the later 90's we used to joke that if MS was smart that they would simply utilize reverse engineered proven UNIX code. The irony is that MS indeed was pursuing this course! Needless to say, when word got out, many in the AIX internal development team were not impressed! And ironically, for all of their disagreements and conflicting market interests, IBM has been the primary source of this effort (just as they are the largest developer of Linux code following the same pattern!). But this is old news.

oh no, someone just corrected you for the first time since I've been on these threads.PC

/me listens to all the people running tiger laughing themselves silly over this news and thread.

guess ill be switchin heh

Well..... I always wanted kearn Linux!

I think you need to learn to spell first ;-)

j/k I had to do it. Good luck with Linux. Too much work to get it function as good as Windows out of the box.

Fedora Core 5 out of the box is just as easy as windows. It actually supports all of my hardware unlike Windows XP 64bit edition. I even run Windows XP using VMPlayer so when I feel like seeing why I switched I can turn it on.

Easy isn't the same as support for the same OS.

Show me native RPM's for WOW, Need For speed, Office, Oblivion, or any other game on the market..

IF Linux is soooooo good, why don't game developers make RPM for the more popular games then? hmmmmm?

Answer that question and get back to me.

"IF Linux is soooooo good, why don't game developers make RPM for the more popular games then? hmmmmm?"

That's a lousy argument. Game companies make games where there is a big enough market. Lots of "geeks" may run Linux, but not enough of the consumer market runs Linux and therefore, the market isn't there. RPM could use better support too. Why don't you ask some game companies why they don't release games for Linux?

This test doesn't work in windows xp x64 .. Well done MS.. :s

I have been using XP64 with great success. I have tried both versons of Vista, 32 & 64 bit, and have to take a wait and see position. Right at the moment I don't think the developer support is there.

This is my experience with Vista Beta 2. All installs were clean on a separtate hard drive.

Intellipoint 5.5, failed to install on 32 bit would work on 64 bit.

Creative X-Fi drivers, installed on 32 bit but not on 64 bit. (drivers are beta and still rough) Realtek onboard sound drivers work.

Raxco Perfect Disk 7.0, fails to install on 32 or 64. Version 8 will be out the first of the year.

Acronis True Image 9.1, installed on 32 but not 64.

Zip Utilities, Quick Zip worked the best, many others failed.

One of my favorite file mangers, Drag & File, was marginally stable on 64bit

Nvidia Beta Video drivers worked but also are still rough on the edges.

The Nvidia NF4 chipset drivers have no install other that using the .inf files. I think Vista natively covers some of this.

Printr /Scanner drivers, I only used the built in HP 4 Plus drivers in Vista, which worked OK. I use a Canon 8400F Scanner and an Epson 200 in XP64, should have tried them but I gave up at this point.

Overall Vista is pretty, it seems a little slower than XP, either version. (probably related to drivers) Maybe after the first of the year.

Hey.

Was bummed about PD7, myself. (Just booted back into XP to defrag).

PD will work. I doubt, actually, that there's a device listed there that won't have working drivers by 2008. They got plenty of time. Not really MS's fault, either...as stated several times, MS doesn't write the drivers. ;)

As for the apps, yeah...we'll wait and see. I wouldn't expect to see the smaller ones make it over really quick, but the larger ones should have "beta" support by now, if not shortly.

HD Audio support! What a steaming crock of ****! Nice buzzword for audio that still uses crappy DACs for output and thus can't ever hope to match up to even the cheapest quality audio card (AudioTrak Prodigy? Chaintech ENVY24 offering maybe?).

XP is the end of the line for me. I'll run it until it drops and hopefully by then Linux support for quality audio will have matured enough to make it viable for me. Vista (and yes I have experienced Beta 2) is essentially a security redesign and window dressing that offers me (and a LOT of other people) nothing tangible. For that privelege, one must play the ever-necessary upgrade game, thus doing the standard MS / OEM mutual admiration / dollar fleecing two-step, except that now it has risen from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Better is the enemy of good enough - unless of course you need to invent reasons, however intangible, to bolster your profit line and that of your partners.

Vista? Nothing to see here, move along...

To those who would construe this as bashing MS, many will note that I've supported them in the past. however, the continual unnecessary upgrade fodder fed to us in the form of office suites (how many new features can you cram into an already overstuffed word processor?) and a new OS that really doesn't change much in terms of usable user experience but requires more money from both a hardware and licensing perspective smell unerringly of snake oil.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em - YMMV.

Why would you have to upgrade? My 3 year old system runs Vista B2 just fine. :)

Not that I'd buy it for that system, but I will *definately* be buying it for my gaming rig.

Moving IE into protected mode, pushing drivers into user-mode. Pretty big changes. Definately worth it on a new system.

Well, IMHO.

Consider:

Vista is like its two predecessors in one characteristic.

Win2k "ran" in 128Mb but required 256 to get decent performance. XP "ran" in 256Mb but needed 512Mb to get decent performance. Vista "runs" in 1Gb but requires 2Gb *and* a 512Mb video card to get decent performance with all the bells and whistles turned on (at least this was my experience with Beta 2, one I don't expect to change with the final). Bear in mind, I've been involved in more than a few technical and marketing Microsoft Betas over the years, going back all the way to the original NT 3.1 so I've paid my dues, so to speak.

Back to Vista, it also doesn't offer me anything that I can't get with XP right now, Many of the new improvements (completely redesigned audio and graphics subsystems) aren't particularly obvious to me even though I use my system for a reasonable amount of audio editing and multimedia (I'm not a musician so latency is irrelevant to me and besides, even if it were I have ASIO). The vast majority of my apps are freeware / open source so I'm not on the upgrade bandwagon there either.

I've observed the enforced upgrade policy prevalent in the industry (upgrade or you won't get service packs / support) and it's a complete crock. While one has to pay lip service to that as a corporation (small businesses coul be immune of they chose to be), as an individual user it's very easy to see that the emperor is NOT wearing new clothes and bypass the fluff and window dressing (pun intended). MS is here to serve ME and not the other way around and they're doing so just fine right now without me having to spend more money unnecessarily (for the record, my home system is an Athlon XP 2600+ w/1Gb and a Radeon 9550 w/256Mb and my work system is an Athlon64 Dual Core 4400+ w/4Gb OCZ Performance RAM and a Radeon X800 w/512Mb). Most will not see it that way (especially since it is my understanding that most people south of the Canadian border tend to buy OEM garbage like Dell / HP / etc.) and thus will play squarely into vendor's hands with upgrade-itis while others will mindlessly upgrade to the latest-and-greatest. MS of course is counting on that - that's what fuels their profit margin.

Bottom line:

If I thought it was worth it, I would upgrade. I don't. Many I have talked to don't and won't. I'm predicting that Vista will likely be the worst received OS of its magnitude in MS corporate history. Time will tell.

"Moving IE into protected mode, pushing drivers into user-mode. Pretty big changes."

Missed the above the first time around. Upon re-reading, all I could think of was "OOOHHHHHHHHHHHH, let's go back to doing it right like we did in NT 3.1 before the endless compromises started to deal with a hardware base that wasn't up to the job".

*derisive snort*

If I thought it was worth it, I would upgrade. I don't. Many I have talked to don't and won't. I'm predicting that Vista will likely be the worst received OS of its magnitude in MS corporate history. Time will tell.

----------------------------------------------
This could probably because XP's success could be it's precessor failure. Honestly, XP is so stable and runs everything. There hardware nowaday is cheap and powerful. There is no point for most People to upgrade to Vista or upgrade hardware in general. Unless it's a must or the hardware break down.

"I'm predicting that Vista will likely be the worst received OS of its magnitude in MS corporate history."

don't forget windows me

I agree with you wholeheartedly. What may force many to upgrade though is the *artificial* (and yes, that word was chosen most carefully) shortage of XP drivers that will immediately become aparrent upon Vista's release.

While I understand that hardware vendors will maximize their efforts in the area that nets them the most profit, that will not be the case for Vista upon its release. The reason? No market penetration upon release - that will be yet to come.

Nevertheless, I am predicting a marked paucity of XP driver revisions and new drivers immediately following the release of the OS as vendors scramble to jump on the lucrative "new OS and thus new hardware" bandwagon that will essentially be rammed down the throat of consumers whether they like it or not.

I've been in this industry a long time and I know how it works. Review history - the pattern is inescapable and obvious.

no one is being forced to upgrade...if you want new features then by all means you need to upgrade...no company supports their product forever...it doesn't make sense to

"no one is being forced to upgrade"

Technically no. But then there's the nonsense spewed at corporate North America that *forced* upgrades of Office. There's more than one way to "effect" an upgrade.

Windows ME was a bit different. That was an upgrade demanded by your friends and mine, the OEMs, as a stopgap measure because they weren't ready for 2K. MS did NOT want to do that upgrade but were pretty much strong-armed into it by OEMs, the same OEMs who love to jump on te "new OS, new hardware" bandwagon and who are the main source of MS OS revenue.

Vista "runs" in 1Gb but requires 2Gb *and* a 512Mb video card to get decent performance with all the bells and whistles

That is *complete* bullsh1t.

As stated below, Vista runs *fine* on a 1.5 Ghz with 768MB of RAM and a 128MB video card. Aero, bells and whistles, you name it.

It's almost like you're *trying* to troll.

well said.

I have vista Beta 2 and run it on a Pentium 4 3ghz HT, 1GB ram, 6200AGP 256 Meg. Those stats are almost the low end of the spectrum of computers these days. The OS works amazing. The OS it self is outstanding! Most people that are going to piss and moan about this OS are people that are hell bent on bashing Microsoft. This is microsofts best peice of work, download the beta from Microsoft (which you can do now) and see for yourself - its great. It has MAC OS like quality and smoothness.

lmao..

Nice specs.

FYI:

I'm running it on my Dell 340. Runs great. (1.5 Ghz, 768MB RAM, 128MB ATI Radeon (Upgrade), and SBLive! (Upgrade).

This system is ancient, and it's running Aero, Office 2007, and most of my normal apps.

It'll be good to go on any *new* system, of that I have no doubts.

heh I am running similar specs for vista and it runs quite well...boots up in the same amount of time xp does except when aims crashes on vista...
Athlon 2500 XP (1.83 Ghz)
1.5 Gig ram
same card (do you get an error under the performance that states one of the ati drivers is causing windows to resume slowly?)

also running aero as well and office 2007 and a few other apps

Yup. Updated to the ATI drivers, told the performance app it was fixed, and things were golden.

Why do you have to post that every freakin time BetaNews has a news report about Windows Vista beta 2. You nimrod.

Look at his name.

Look at the first three letters of the site addy.

Make more sense now? He's trying to generate hits for his site.

oh...and he's a flaming moron, but you probably figured that one out already...especially if you've been to his site. (Which I do not suggest.)

All this seems to be reasonable - match the expectations of the OS. We had all this before,though this might be a bit more to details.

I just wonder, if with VISTA, it will be the same as with XP - in spite of all branded and tested stuff. I have two versions of that OS constantly backed up, and the one with all the Chabang (latest updates to the brim, latest certified drivers etc.) always gives me loads of trouble - while the other version with no update at all just runs flawlessly...THis is a constant experience for four years of about 12 hours of daily use.

So I think my question is more than justified:

Will all these efforts be crowned by an OS, running smoothly and without hassel?????

Well obviously this "green" badge for drivers is BS. They have WHQL right now and it has proven to be nothing more solid than a fart in the wind.

Whats wrong with WHQL? I have never once had a problem with a drive that was WHDL'd. When a drive is WHQL'd you can be happy knowing that the drive is stable and it is one les thing you need to worry about going wrong on your system. Thats all its designed for and it works fine. I doubt many home users care about it but for businesses its very important.

I've had WIFI nic drivers that wouldn't connect to an access point that were considered certified (installed by windows update even).

Changed them for vendor drivers and all was well again.

Why would you use windows drivers over manufacturer drivers? Dont be a lazy admin!

Because Windows update will recommend older, WHQL'd drivers when you visit. WHQL is no guarantee of actual driver quality, just that they have passed MS's stability tests. For example, HP's 42xx laserjet business line of printers windowsupdate recommends WHQL drivers that are stable, but a year outdated. These drivers don't print complex pages properly, and often will print extra pages out the printer, or other rendering errors. They have been up since mid 2005, and I shake my head because I know there are thousands of businesses that have been using these because they are too lazy. It's a shame.

Let's go into other reasons why manufacturer's don't like the "green" program:
1. Manufacturer must pay to submit for WHQL drivers. Each time. so if a driver update is released, the manufacturers must pay MS again for submission.
2. The process takes time, up to a month. This is especially vital as products are developed and produced easily within this timeframe.
3. WHQL is no guarantee of quality: I must reeiterate this point that an earlier poster made. I've also seen WHQL drivers BSOD or bring a lack of functionality to the table. They are NOT historically a mark of quality, just of testing under MS's driver program.

There is nothing lazy about using certified drivers.

Try using non-certified drivers with MSCS..

LOL

Out of curiosity, why did you use drive instead of driver? And les is spelled less.

He also forgot the apostraphe in [its] and in [thats].

And a new wave of English teacher's was born.

What's wrong with WHQL? Companies like Creative Labs can BUY their way into certification and slap the label on the same old broken garbage they always table. It's a sham, pure and simple.

One might hope this "green" initiative might help to *fix* that.

There wouldn't be an apostrophe in 'teachers' and starting a sentence with a conjunction? That's truly a sinful act!

it's cool. you spelled "apostrophe" wrong.

Why?

Because the Windows drivers are regression tested with the OS during the Beta cycle and are generally rock solid while the manufacturer's drivers can be pure s***e *cough*3Com*cough*.

He's not a lazy admin - he's a prudent and intelligent one.

Good God, there coming out of the woodwork!

You mean: They're coming out of the woodwork

Wow, all this education and we still elected Bush.

You meant to end that sentence with a period.

U kut hem too the kore' baxter

I think the new os after using beta 2 for awhile now is definitely a big improvement over xp. I hope they continue to improve it. Yes there are bugs, that is the nature of beta software. If they do a good job I may reverse my negative opinion of Microsoft. The new
office beta is pretty neat as well. I love how fast it is, the new interface is taking awhile to get used to. I know microsoft is still sticking to their old habits of bolting everything to the os. Why, unfair competition no doubt. They are only bothering to implement and weld the products they know they have competition in. So, antispyware vendors will be going down very shortly after vista is released. Now yes it will take some time for vista to get adapted so that will buy them some time. But only a few years at most. Find a new business model guys.

As for antivirus vendors? Well the new onecare live really wasn't very impressive. It seems like a beta product to me. But it will get adapted because microsoft will heavily promote it both within the os, and on their website. So symantec and mcafee and others will get stung, but they may service. I do predict some merging happening. Mcafee buying trend or symantec buying mcafee. Something like that will happen.

Ain't nobody else buying symantec, it eclipses their revenue many times over.

O K You Guys get busy and crack the darn thing so us cheap'oos can get a free copy

You can get a free copy, just download the beta 2 that MS released for free to the general public. There is no point in someone working to get a free coy of beta 2, no doubt the code in beta 2 especially in regards to activation will be the same as the final release.

I love MS and I love Vista!
You MS haters, stick with Linux and OpenOffice! hahahahahahahah

I like windows also. I'd use linux if there were any games for it. Like all the games that come out for windows. and if it supported all my hardware. and if I didn't have to compile a downloaded program before I used it. I do like open office though myself.

You say that as if it's a bad thing, child.

Not a big Microsoft supporter, and I don't have to much faith in the privacy features offered in Vista, but I will say that Microsoft may be mending a few mistakes that they have made in the past.

Requiring drivers to be held to a standard of sorts is a good idea. I also think the premium requirements are a shot in the right direction because with new technology emerging from the gaming and audio/video industries you will need some serious power under the hood to handle whatever the entertainment industry is planning to unleash. Microsoft may also be trying to establish Vista for the next four to six years as their main platform considering the development time Vista consumed, their next offering may be six to eight years away, so a high-end Vista premium system could take you several years into the future.

"The Man" wrote: these aren't even out yet

What you don’t consider is that hardware companies and software development companies already have this "new" hardware before the public gets to consume it. Microsoft makes the requirements, vendors and development take the hardware and meet the requirements, then it is released to the public. You make yourself sound like a real dips*** with comments like that. There’s a bigger world out there beyond your local BestBuy.

""The Man" wrote: these aren't even out yet"

"You make yourself sound like a real dips*** with comments like that."

ummm, yah, ok
you just keep buying into that corporate $hit, waiting for MS or whatever other corp. you look to for direction to tell you what to do next. i'll make up my own mind on what hardware and software work well together. without the corporate labeling.
MS just wants to make their OS run at a decent speed. they're trying to hide the fact that it's going to take next gen hardware to do it.

"There’s a bigger world out there beyond your local BestBuy. "

you make a good point there, but i think you were just trying to distract from the fact that you had no real point in insulting me other than your own ignorance.

after all "the grass is greener on the other side" a$$hole

all i know is that Vista sucks big time...
lets see...at first was supposed to be a 3d system? those ideas kinda went away...
and..running an 800mhz minimum for vista?
s***ttttt...i can run Xorg using a *unix based system like Linux or *Bsd on a 300/400mhz really nice...microsoft needs to start stripping s*** down...let's see..if i don't use domain controllers..why do i need messenger? if i use adsl what do i need dhcp for? if i don't have a lan..what do i need the computer browser for? people should have choices..and not have different versions of the OS..remember win9x? u could choose stuff...i want this this and that..but i don't want this...nowadays its like...windows home/windows pro/windows enterprise....so if i decide to use a lan and manage stuff from a windows box..i'll have to buy an upgrade version or maybe even a cd of that version? i call that stealing from people's pockets...and as for hardware requirements..its a joke...they ask for a faster cpu etc...so it can cover the slowness of the OS it self...if u ppl take a look at open-source software for eg..there's always hundreds of people sending patches and trying to improve it..as in stability, user frienddlyness and most important speed...microsoft only cares about user friendlyness... stability? every OS microsoft made was a joke, the only one that was kinda stable would be NT or the NT BASED Windows 2000
when it comes to speed microsoft comes out with s*** like...well people, to run the new version of windows u gotta pay 300 bucks and buy a new computer or upgrade it cose we're too ****ing lazy to care about making our s*** run fast
i wonder why bill gates is leaving microsoft in 2008, i'd guess is when vista will be released..and when critics start talking s***...billy will just say: "go b**** at someone else..i'm done with M$"

"i can run Xorg using a *unix based system like Linux or *Bsd on a 300/400mhz really nice"

people who would use vista prem would want the special features you could not do on a 300 mhz machine no matter what OS you are using...you cannot do graphics and gaming on a 300 Mhz machine its just not going to happen...people that are using just a 300/400 Mhz machine are either:
A. using it as a server or
B. just typical web surfing.

Also Swearing makes you seem a lot less intelligent as well...

"running an 800mhz minimum for vista"

Vista requirements are high because of the graphic content...

If you want just a command line with a simple interface (or complicated depends what flavor you go with) then by all means go linux...

The common user doesn't want this...they want color and vibrance and things that move and talk to them...they want objects in 3d

Obviousily, windows went this way because its what the common user wants...they didnt just decide this on their own...whether you believe it or not Microsoft does listen to the people because if they didn't no one would buy it if it didnt suit their needs
You never hear anyone complain about Mac when it comes to upgrades and expenses though...I am not saying anything bad about Mac (its a great OS for graphics and music) but you could not perform tracks and create pictures like pixar with a 300 Mhz machine

"well people, to run the new version of windows u gotta pay 300 bucks and buy a new computer or upgrade it cose we're too ****ing lazy to care about making our s*** run fast"

My PC (Xp 2500, 1.83 Ghz, Video Card 128 Mb Radeon 9600, 1.5 gig of Ram) that I built is roughly about 3 1/2 years old (but the parts very well could be older) and runs vista ultimate fine

"50MB NV cache on a hybrid hard drive"

WTF

these aren't even out yet
and premium will require one?
they must have $$$ invested in them
nothing like making people feel they need to buy new over priced technology
typical MS

Additionally, Vista Premium PCs would need to support the following by June 1, 2007"

It won't be required when vista comes out... read more carefully

did you read the part that says

"in mobile devices"

?????????????

yes, i read the article
thanks for asking -edit-

"It won't be required when vista comes out"

of coarse not

HHD drives won't be on the market until next year
vista was supposed to be out this year
tells you why MS has been delaying (1 of the millon reasons at least)

It's only for certification. You can still run it on whatever you damn well want to.

yah, but you wouldn't be "cool"

Your one of the twits out there who dont read the article.

"Serial ATA 2.5 and hybrid hard drive support are requirements aimed at the storage side of Windows Vista."

"Microsoft officials indicated at TechEd 2006 in Boston that hybrid hard drives will be a requirement in Vista Premium laptops starting next year."

^^Notice how they will be required in LAPTOPS ONLY.

Apparintly you didn't read it. Get some glasses, you moron!

good to know you can read too

what's your point?

again, what's your point, -edit-?

Where can I get me one of these "labtops"?

Are they heavy? Do you have to use them on top of your lab, or can you move them indoors?

Ask me in a year or so when they are released and ill show you.

So critical.

That you didnt read it obviously.

That you read wrong.

i did?
thanks for telling me

...

you know, the fact that they were talking about laptops doesn't change my point, or my original statement. maybe you didn't understand.
this corporate labeling (premium qualified)is just to cover their a$$e$, and make you feel better about buying their product.
do you happen to own a viiv?
lol

"Serial ATA 2.5 and hybrid hard drive support are requirements aimed at the storage side of Windows Vista. HHDs are said to offer several benefits, including faster read and write speeds, as well as shorter boot times. However, there is some confusion as to whether hybrid hard drives will be required, or simply meet a specific performance standard if optionally included."

this is exactly what i'm talking about
what storage side of Vista?
storage preference isn't so optional anymore or what?
does Vista have some guaranteed boot time it has to live up to?
or does it not work properly with standard storage devices? (not serious)

No,

humor. Should have added the "heh" at the end I suppose.

If a manufacturer wants the "Vista Premium" logo, this is what they need. It in *no* way forces any company, manufacturer, or market to *do* anything.

You don't need the logo to sell hardware.

They are simply trying to promote the manufacture of devices that will work well with and/or enhance Windows Vista.

I fail to see an issue here.

these aren't even out yet

...and neither is Vista. :)

If people wanted to be "cool" they would jump on the hype of the new mac commercials and ditch windows altogether... vista works and the new features will be great for the common person...People do not upgrade their pcs to be "cool" they upgrade them to perform better and to do the tasks they normally do more efficiently...

you're obviously not "cool"

you wouldn't understand

by the way, mac's aren't "cool", they're girly

macs are "cool" for music performance and graphics....something linux and open source has not yet accomplished

Nothing shocking here.

I'll never be purchasing a Vista Premium system, though.

Still prefer to build 'em myself.

Will definately be buying products with "Green" drivers though. (Anyone else see this as a blatant ploy to be seen in the same positive light as 'Green' energy?)

Driver support in every other release in windows has been hit or miss, due to the lack of vigilance by MS. This should go a long way into making devices that *say* they support Vista actually *do*.

It should also cut back on a *lot* of driver incompatibility issues (The casue of most of the infamous BSoDs).

It's the product manufacturer's responsibility to provide compatiable drivers within Microsoft's guidelines. Microsoft shouldn't have to and doesn't write drivers for every piece of hardware out there. I'm confused by your drivers statement.

Still prefer to build 'em myself.
Same here, most manufacturers cut corners somewhere.

Anyone else see this as a blatant ploy to be seen in the same positive light as 'Green' energy?
I was thinking more like it has been given the "Go".
Or, "green, the official color of my ugly winxp start button".

I think PC_Tool was talking about making sure they keep better tabs on who they let use the Vista logo. (i.e. If it says it works with Vista, it better work with Vista.)

Yup, will defenitly do the same thing.

Yah, hopefully it will fix many of the issues. I think its smart of Microsoft to do that. Its about time!

well...
Windows 7 (~ year 2019) Basic Requirements Detailed:

RAM: 100 GB (128 GB reccomended);

Stereo Dual Head HyperAGP Video Card: Memory: 16 GB, Clock @ 32 GHz;

DirectX 12: Live Online Hardware Support;

HDD: 2048 GB;

---
User IQ < 96;

***
stay cool.

Let me spell it out for ya, there, cowboy:

FTFA:

Microsoft is demanding more accountability from device makers and manufacturers on driver quality.

From my Comment:

Driver support in every other release in windows has been hit or miss, due to the lack of vigilance by MS.

Never said MS should write, or has ever written drivers. I merely stated that it as about damn time they started being more vigilant about manufacturers, devices, and drivers they allow to claim "compatibility".

It's their biggest issue. Their software works damn near flawlessly on hardware within their HCL.

It will solve one of their biggest issues (Driver incompatibility BSoDs), and cause another (Slower performance because drivers must pass certification, thus usually not allowing performance hacks that "break" guidlines).

Personally, With Apple joining the x86 lineup, it's something they definately need to work on. I'm sure it will be hit-or-miss, much like the UAC crap going on in Beta right now. Might take them a bit to figure out what will work best for them.

Look mom look! its a troll!

What are all the complaints for?
Why complain about having to buy another Office, even though the old on is still fine (that is, if 2003 is good for you stick with it). Previous versions had 16 bit code so 2003 is a good drop off point...

If you don't want Vista, don't get it. Microsoft will still support XP for a couple of years after Vista is out, and by that time if you're still using the same computer in 2010 then its definately time for an upgrade.

Oh thats right, hardware in 2010 won't work in XP :D

Don't complain about hardware support. Its the manufacturers that suck, not Microsoft. If people can't find drivers for Windows x64 edition for example its because companies are too lazy to write drivers for them. Its not as simple in most cases to simply recompile the drivers&programs, but it doesn't take that much modification either!

This is true. I have written Hewlett Packard a few nasty emails about not making 64bit drivers for XP64bit.. If people don't want to pay for office, why don't they just use OpenOffice? http://www.OpenOffice.org It is compatible with all Office documents and other word processors. Everything is possible in open source if you want it... or... you can pay Microsoft for the same thing. Just make sure you have a good virus scanner.

Saying OpenOffice is the same thing as Microsoft Office is stretching the truth a bit.

to me the equilivant of openoffice would be microsoft works... which is like 40 dollars

the only time I ever got a bsod in xp was when I tried to do a manual install and force xp to use the driver then found out I was updating the wrong device