Hollywood__,

if you think that people are stupid, why don't you extend you point of view and mention that they are stupid because they use Windows at all? Maybe they are stupid because they buy everything they are offered to?

People are not so stupid as you tell. They are voting by their wallets. Why should they buy Vista, which requires more resources and does not have any benefits over XP? That's the reason. "Eye-candy-glass-windows" is not the reason to upgrade hardware and software, acquiring incompatibility problems which still persist.

Nah Vista is getting better and more importantly software and drivers are slowly getting 64-bit versions out the door.

Would not go back to XP after trying Vista.

My only complaints is that its booting slow, the screen is black for 30-40 sec during boot.. possibly this is sloved in SP1 or it could be a Nvidia driver issue.. yeah ive got pre-sp1 since ive got a 2nd wave language version :(

But will get a Vista with SP1 in the mail in a few weeks.. yeah the english version but it seems to be in short supply right now.

There is nothing wrong with Vista, and you are all retarded. We got on the subject of Vista over the weekend with a bunch of people.

Everyone said "it sucked". The problem was not one of them even has it on thier computer. They all listened to everyone else b****ing and complaining who also don't own it.

People are idiots and listen to other idoits who don't have a clue about anything remotely technical. A lot of people think BOSE is good home theater and Dell makes good computers.

They heard that Vista had some compatibility problems early on and the word that Vista was terrible spread like wildfire to the uninformed, retarded masses.

None of you who say "I will never put Vista on a computer of mine" have a clue. I'm glad XP is going away because it truly sucks compared to Vista.

There are more important things to worry about these days than Microsoft and computers. Personally I will never put vista in my computer, I see no reason to do that silly thing as windows 7 may well come out in the next two years or less so they say today. But in all reality, what does it matter. I am sure that the world could live without Microsoft.

Bottom line, all OS's have thier goods and bads, but as far as the MS family is concerned, Windows XP is the most Stable Desktop OS they ever released, but the MS line of thought is:

"If it ain't Broke, don't support it"

The problem with the way that MS releases OS's is that by the time they get it stable enough for Person and Business to totally incorporate it, they then give up on it. Most of you have probably NEVER worked in a Big Company where you have to support 2000+ Users on one or Multiple OS's. Windows 2000 worked well as well, XP made it even better.

Vista is the Windows ME of it's time, a mistake. It still has so many compatibility issues. The fact that when you install / upgrade to it that it tell you to REMOVE hardware / software it does not like before you can continue. That simply put tells me that MS does not want to take responsibility for any backwards compatibility and more or less forces people to upgrade their Hardware / Software. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe (At times) that they need to be updated, but like the Madden Series of games, from year to year all you are really getting is a new Paint Job rather then new features.

Vista's Successor is scheduled to be out in late 2009 / early 2010. That means since the Vista Release, MS only planned on it having a 2 1/2 - 3 year lifespan. That has red flags all over it. They did the same thing with Windows ME. Windows ME was released not as a Major OS Upgrade, but for the simply reason that MAC has a new OS that year and MS simply wanted a Product to sell, hence you got the WORST OS EVER RELEASED!

Plus the fact that most PC / Hardware makers offer their customers to downgrade to XP from Vista. Again, RED FLAGS EVERYWHERE!

I have to ask too, all you people that ran out and bought Vista to upgrade your system on day one, then ended up with a PC that was glitchy and allot of your software / hardware and games did not work, I have to know, WHO PUT THE GUN TO YOUR HEAD TO MAKE YOU UPGRADE??? No one, you simply are people that want the latest, but that does not mean the greatest. It's like when Intel release the Quad Processor, you did not need it, but you needed your Solitaire to come up in 0.3 seconds rather then in 0.31 seconds. That's so worth an $800 upgrade!

I have worked in IT for 12+ Years and have seen my share of good / bad products. I am not saying that some version of Vista won't be good / better then XP, but the fact that is need a lot of help right now. It's not an issue for me to maintain my OS, but the people that really have no idea about PC's and just use their to get their Fantasy Sports (PORN) done will suffer.

Alot of people will switch to MAC or that word that phrase that MS hates: "FREE LINUX DISTROBUTIONS"

Plus, with Vista doing so good, why is the Public Face of it LEAVING!!! (http://www.betanews.com/...es_Microsoft/1207269085)

There hasn't been a decent alternative to Windows Vista until the recent release of Ubuntu Linux 8.04. Ubuntu has broader hardware support than any other *nix operating system. It also boots up much faster than Windows XP SP 3 or Vista SP 1 and has full read AND write support for NTFS partitions plus the free VirtualBox 1.5.6 software is available for easy installation through the Synaptic Package Manager for any Windows programs that don't have a Linux counterpart. Ubuntu Linux also has eye candy very similar to that found in Leopard.

You can't throw XP SP3 or Vista SP 1 into that for the simple reasons that BOTH Service Packs are still in BETA.

SP3 for XP will not have many (If any) new features. It will simply do a Cleanup of all the previous updates over the past years.

If it runs well and clean I would be one to Slipstream it onto my current install CD (Or will probably have to be a DVD now).

Vista SP1 will help, but it still need work. By the time Vista is more stable and usable, it will be time for Windows 7 (Late 2009 / Early 2010).

With Linux builds, they are hit and miss. I have tried several (Thanks god for VMWARE) and they have their good one and their bad ones. Unless you are using one that is specifically used for a process (I know RedHat was the only one that SQL would support years ago), then try a few to see if you like it and if you have the option, us a VM product!

Considering how stable the original Windows XP SP 3 public beta is, chances are Microsoft won't need to make any changes before SP 3 is released to manufacturing. Vista SP 1 is not in beta anymore. The final version of SP 1 for Vista has been available for download for several weeks. In any case, no version of Windows even begins to compare to Ubuntu Linux 8.04 in terms of reliability, security and speed. Ubuntu Linux version 8.04 is easier to install and use than Apple's own Mac OS X and it has all of the same visual effects to boot. It's the only desktop operating system available that matches Mac OS X's ease of use, security and reliability.

100,000 morons who are stuck in the past. Hey why not just go back to Windows 3.1 or Windows 95? XP is more than 6 1/2 years old!!!!!! Yes Vista sucks and yes it's a Mac rip gone horribly wrong but one way or the other you have to move along. It's time to come out of the stone ages of computing and get up to date and for that you'll need Mac OS X...

"Microsoft was not swayed by the "Save Windows XP" petition, which has been signed by over 100,000 people asking the company to continue sales of the now 6 and a half year old operating system."

Good. I don't believe MS should be forced to continue supporting or offering an OS that is nearing the end of its life cycle. Vista is out, its on SP1 now. If you want to stick with XP, stick with it. Otherwise, get with the times and upgrade if you want to be supported by MS. Watch, I can all but guarantee this will happen with Vista when Windows 7 comes out. Its just like anything else in this world, you can't be afraid to change and adapt. If you remain static, you'll be left behind.

I agree with you. This is all the more reason to get a Mac. So you won't be left behind as you are now with Windows, about 8 years behind.

Agreed. Which is why just a few weeks ago I ordered my first MacBook. And after that short time on OS X and getting used to its environment and software, I don't see a reason to go back to Windows. After using OS X it does seem like Windows is behind in a lot of ways.

Oh God.

Correct, when I first sat in front of a Mac, that was my very expression, "Oh God!" as in, Macs must be designed and manufactured in heaven. ^__^

wow, what a horribly b1tchy mac fanboy!

nerd

You don't have to be a loser your whole life. Just go out and get a Mac and see what all of the excitement is about. It sure beats your outdated XP and sluggish Vista. :)

Yes, get a Mac, but don't plan on using any of your current software unless you put Windows on it, which defeats the whole idea of buying a Mac.

I see your point, but doesn't the Parallels virtualization software have support for running seamless 32-bit Windows XP and Vista programs like OS/2 Warp did for 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs? This wouldn't be any different than Apple's own solution for running Mac OS 9 software on PowerPC models that used Mac OS X.

I think vista is still a work in progress since it's basically MS's way of fundamentally changing many under the cover architectures while at the same time being compatible enough with todays xp centric stuff.

It's more of an OS created to set the stage for their next OS. (idk if MS actually intended for that)

also, this has been said by many before but many people seem to not get it. EVERY NEW OS HAS BEEN SLOWER THAN ITS PREDISSESOR.(at least with windows)

someone said this already but it was a good point. A big reason people got soo much gripe with vista is because xp was out for so long. They got too used to it. Before that windows came out much quicker. 95 98 98se ME(barf)....

xp is king conpared to that vista crap when will m wake up

mancubs,

Another brainwashed person who has never tried it, you ****ing idiot.

R.I.P XP. You were a good OS.
But you knew the day would come.
All hail Vista! Wait'll w7 comes out.

I hope MS releases new version every 2 years. I like new, improved things.

LOL. Not likely. For that you'll need to look to the Mac.

L.M.A.O.

At least MS is still supporting XP. Apple tends to cut off support fairly quickly when they tweak their operating system.

Because Apple INNOVATES while M$ IMITATES. Also new Mac OS's NEVER cost more than $129 while M$ charges far more for a Windows OS that is always years behind the Mac. Simple.

Ha Ha!!! I needed a good laugh, and then you woke up!

fyi apple is just as evil as ms. and from what i remember , doesn't what apple charges as an "update" equate to a free service pack in a ms OS??

I would try apple if they officially allow me to run it on hardware i built myself

"Apple tends to cut off support fairly quickly when they tweak their operating system."

Actually, OSX has its equivalent of the Windows SPs. OSX versions usually have three numbers. The first indicates the kernel (ie. kernal 10, as in the BSD kernel), the second set indicates the current incarnation (4 for Tiger, 5 for Leopard, etc.), and the third set indicates the current build. And actually, in OSX you get A HELL LOT MORE "service packs" than with Windows (though less security patches, as it's not your favorite hacker target, and its BSD kernel is more secure than Windows.) Heck, Tiger went all the way to its 10th build (10.4.10.) Leopard is already in its second build (10.5.2) So, yes, Apple does update its OS without charging users.

And, by the way, old hardware tends to last longer with OSX than it does with Vista. A 2001 867Mhz G4 with 512Mb of RAM can run Leopard - And I mean RUN IT, not simply boot it and make you sit while it drags. We're talking about 7-year old hardware! Try even installing Vista in a 7-year old PC with a less-than-1Ghz CPU and 512Mb of RAM. Good luck with that!

Also you can install Leopard on three machines. M$ forces you to buy a new license for each machine.

I just wonder if Mac OS could survive if Apple were to release it to run on any hardware. I mean I know Apple's computer sales would drop like a rock because where would be the incentive but would the OS survive competing against Microsoft on it's own turf.

No, it wouldn't survive. Consumers want Windows because that's what most major commercial software is written for. Most people would gladly take a slightly less stable and slightly less secure OS if it meant being able to run their favorite software applications.

Woo hoo! finally! GOODBYE XP you will be missed! now stop whining about Vista and get with the program people, it's the same sh!t and better!

That depends.I got a version with my laptop and it ran very slow, things kept crashing and programs wouldn't shut down right.I went and got a lite version of vista and used a program to tweak that one out a bit.Now i have an ok running os.
But it runs like xp and just has a few upgrades (drivers,skin)

PSX gets it. Finally a free thinker with an IQ over 100.

What do you mean by a "lite" version of Vista? If you're referring to Vista Home Basic, then your "lite" version is less stable than the real Home Premium version due in large part to its lack of support for Vista's new graphics driver architecture. In Vista Home Premium and later, if the graphics driver crashes then Windows can simply reload the display driver without losing your unsaved work. In Vista Home Basic you get a BSOD just like in Windows XP since they both use the exact same graphics driver architecture.

Well the cost of advancement me thinks, Windows XP is relaible, less prone to breakdowns and easier for the masses to understand. Vista on the other hand is eye candy, with various tricks etc that confuses the masses.. Apple, well thats an OS alright, overated and overpriced.

My point is only this, its a marketing disaster for microsoft, XP was accepted all be it over time , but accepted and used by millions of peeps across the world.. why change something that doesnt work.

Linux is not ready for prime time, Apple is just Apple and Windows X is reliabele if nothing else.

You have nothing to back that up. Vista itself is stable. If I to put an XP box (just the OS) in a corner and a Vista box (just the OS) in a corner - I'll bet on the Vista Box, as it's based on Server 2003 (and they say Vista SP1 updated the kernal to Server 2007 - but I can't prove that). As for easier - simply not true, even all the magazine say Vista is easier to use, navigate and more importanly install (as it pretty much ask 3 quetsions...name, computer name and time zone).

interesting that since i have vista home pri, its been a sack of s...t give me xp any day and i am getting ready to move linex

I have a lot to back that up.Me and a few people have vista on laptops and it has too many bugs to even compare to xp.There is one where some machines couldn't rename their folder.This was right out of the box.Then some ran extremely slow.
I went ahead and got a program to tweak out someones already lighter version of vista.It ran much better but the end result is xp with updated drivers and a glass skin.

Vista doesn't run like server 2003.It couldve been built upon it but def. doesn't run like it.server 2003 was as fast as 2000 but with the look of xp.

I have a lot to back that up.Me and a few people have vista on laptops and it has too many bugs to even compare to xp.

You're serious...? "You and a few people" are alot to back that up?

There are so many factors affecting your experience that Vista may not even have anything to do with. Your renaming a folder experience just shows how little you understand about how Windows works. I haven't had to tweak Vista at all, other than me setting it to look like the Windows Classic interface I have made little or no changes to mine and it works fine.

Off subject from this post but also I've seen many comments about games being slower. This is simply not true anymore. With the updated drivers even older games for me run the same or faster, and I even get comparable/better 3dmarks than I had with XP (granted I am comparing to year-old XP drivers now as I have not had XP on my machine for a year).

Most people read comments in other forums about outdated information regarding Vista. For the first 6 months, everything was slower. With better drivers, however, everything is much, much better.

Also the EAX complaint: Many updated drivers now allow EAX support on older games through Creative Alchemy, while newer games support EAX through Vista directly. Since May of last year all of my games are working with Vista fine, including full EAX support.

Next time you read a review of Vista make sure it is a review that is fairly recent before believing it as truth--there have been many changes not only to Vista but through the app vendors that fix things that back in February of 2007 Vista simply did not work with. Compatability is getting better and better weekly.

Vista doesn't support EAX directly. Even Service Pack 1 doesn't change this. Microsoft ditched their plans at the last minute during development of Vista to provide direct support for hardware accelerated features like EAX for sound cards such as Creative Labs.

last say that nobody wants to buy vista because it is a donkey so they will stop making xp ,so folks lets all migraet to linex its just as good and is getting better vista sucks

Truly they could have just kept XP. Rename it though XP 2004, XP 2005, XP 2006 and so on. If you over look the kernal and foundation of the OS, they easily could have added the eye candy and gadgets, directx 10, breadcrums and so on to XP. then again in the end you would have what we call Vista (minus the new kernal and foundation...the heart of the OS). Maybe they should follow Apple's OSX, medium upgrades every year to two and charge money. They just don't call it a service pak. But maybe we could just have vista 2007, vista 2008 and so on :)

If you over look the kernal and foundation of the OS, they easily could have added the eye candy and gadgets, directx 10, breadcrums and so on to XP

You apparently haven't looked. DX10 would require moving the XP drivers to usermode, which would have required a new kernel.

Maybe they should follow Apple's OSX, medium upgrades every year to two and charge money.

As opposed to one major revision in 8 years? Give me a break.

Minor revisions every 2 years, major every 4 to 6 if tech keeps moving forward at it's current pace.

Nice try M$ fanboy but XP to Vista is considered by many to be a downgrade. The exact opposite of going from Tiger to Leopard. Also Leopard is a major update to Mac OS X, if it weren't it wouldn't be the best selling OS to date on the Mac. Can you say the same about Vista on Windows? Didn't think so.

Vista is Mac OS X for Windows done horribly. Maybe M$ will get it right this time for Windows 7. I'm sure they'll do a better job ripping the Mac this time.

If they were smart, they would continue to sell XP. You have a product people want. It makes you money. Why not give people the option to which os they want. They could sell there higher end os's like Vista, but also keep xp. Heck, if people wanted windows 95 for some reason, sell that too. I said this a year ago, They jumped the shark and its not looking good over there in Washington state.

Except that if they carry on selling the product, they are legally obliged to keep on providing support as well!

^This^

"If they were smart, they would continue to sell XP. You have a product people want. It makes you money. Why not give people the option to which os they want. . ."

They are smart because they will make money either way. If XP isn't available then people will buy Vista, assuming they don't migrate to another platform.

To use your example, Selling Win95 and having to support such a dated product only stagnates the market. If you want to run a Windows product then you should have something capable of handling an OS at least in the same decade. Win95? Name one benefit that Win95 has over any of the later versions?

Personally, Vista does the job for me. The minor speed issue is inconsequential as I am neither a raving FPS fan nor hardware challenged. For those who are, I wish you well for things will change in time whether planned or not.

The final day for XP is not in the hands of MS: they simply created Vista, a step forward in the search for network security, and consequently they stop selling XP. Nevertheless I'm sure they will keep WindowsUpdate open and MS will never force you to stop using your present OS. I'd rather say that the final day for XP is in the hands of the hardware providers, most of them working in asian countries (nobody knows where the investments come from) and therefore not subject to american laws and tribunals. IMHO it allows them the use of any unethical procedure to make you constantly buy new hardware, such as using the Internet for permanent and aggresive anonymous virus attacks or stopping the supply of essential spare parts. That is IMO more or less the procedure they so successfully used to kill Win98.

Considering most of these ULCPCs come with Linux pre-installed, it's got to be one hell of a kick in the teeth to the Linux community that sufficient amounts want to put XP on that MS has effectively re-written the rules.

As long as MS provides updates, I am ok with them putting an end date on OEMs. Yes, Vista has some problems but MS will work them out and Vista has more potential than XP to be more secure. As far as Apple is concern, their need to release 13-15 security fixes over the last month shows that no OS is secure and if Apple’s share continues to rise, the hackers are going to go after Apple and succeed like they have against MS. Don't think that just because the core of Apple is based on a 70's operating code that it isn't vulnerable, it is but it's market share hasn't made it worth the hackers time. That is changing and as the lord god Jobs flies around in his fancy jet and thinks more about new products than securing his new operating system, the hackers job will be even easier. Open Source will have the same problems.
Finally, the big problem with Apple is that the only security software that is compatible is Norton and I think we all know how everyone feels about this piece of sh** security software. Even Apple people use Norton. If Apple was so secure they wouldn't so that tells you a lot. I am not advocating one OS over another but just pointing out the oblivious and that is no OS is ever going to be produced that is completely secure and if you believe there is one, then I have some swamp land in Florida that I'll sell you though the Boas in the swamp land will cost you extra.

The decision makes me laugh because it sounds like Orwell and "The Animal Farm": "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

You guys are just sad. Lets bring back Windows 3.1 and 95 then, just because XP was great doesn't mean that's where we stop. Lets bring back Mac OS 4.1 or 9 - my god - Oh wait all these new people here that love OSX forgot how bad the first 2 years where migrating to OSX from Mac OS 9. It was horrible and now it's Great. Vista has some huge, huge cool features. SP1 has helped most slow down issues, and yes, games run 5-10% slower then XP. But the Graphics engine has been pulled from the Kernal - which makes it more stable. I have it on four PCS at home (1 main, 1 latpop, 2 media centers). the Media Centers just run (something XP Media Center needed restarts every 2 weeks). Ubuntu is impressive - but all the great free apps...run on Vista (openoffice, firefox so on). Personally, I don't understand how you can't just buy a copy of XP and run all those great free apps and have access to some ofthe coolest games (and other great windows only software) - but hey, free is free. Now business are different, hard to justify, but really I have tested Vista with Office 2003, SAP 4.7, SnagIt, Photoshop..the list goes on - it works. I'm sure some big companies with office 97, 2000 and custom apps would choke. I am an IT guy, maybe I'm lucky. Then again, as an IT guy, hard to justify Vista at work now. We get Vista on our new PC's, ghost them back to XP. Once enough PC's can run Vista, we will migrate - same plan we did with 98SE to XP (no service packs). Same plan we did with OSX (but that took longer as it was visually great but crap the first two years). Anyway, Vista as a tech standpoint is the right direction, I just wish they could do it in half the code :)

You guys are just sad.

Sad to prefer XP over Vista? Hmmm.

Lets bring back Windows 3.1 and 95 then, just because XP was great doesn't mean that's where we stop.

Lets bring back Windows 3.1 and 95? Ahh a joke I presume. But you're right, just because XP was great doesn't mean that's where we stop.

Lets bring back Mac OS 4.1 or 9 - my god - Oh wait all these new people here that love OSX forgot how bad the first 2 years where migrating to OSX from Mac OS 9. It was horrible and now it's Great.

(Don't use a Mac so I couldn't comment on that).

Vista has some huge, huge cool features.

Really? And what are they? Why are they so much 'cooler' than XPs features that I should prefer Vista?

SP1 has helped most slow down issues, and yes, games run 5-10% slower then XP.

Not really of that much use if you're a gamer though is it.

But the Graphics engine has been pulled from the Kernal - which makes it more stable.

Speed vs stability - which would a gamer choose?

I have it on four PCS at home (1 main, 1 latpop, 2 media centers). the Media Centers just run (something XP Media Center needed restarts every 2 weeks).

That's great for you and others but Media Center isn't something I use or would ever need.

Ubuntu is impressive - but all the great free apps...run on Vista (openoffice, firefox so on).

Right okay, that's fair enough. But all those great free apps already run on XP. :~

Personally, I don't understand how you can't just buy a copy of XP and run all those great free apps and have access to some ofthe coolest games (and other great windows only software) - but hey, free is free.

Didn't I just say that? :~

Now business are different, hard to justify, but really I have tested Vista with Office 2003, SAP 4.7, SnagIt, Photoshop..the list goes on - it works. I'm sure some big companies with office 97, 2000 and custom apps would choke. I am an IT guy, maybe I'm lucky. Then again, as an IT guy, hard to justify Vista at work now. We get Vista on our new PC's, ghost them back to XP. Once enough PC's can run Vista, we will migrate - same plan we did with 98SE to XP (no service packs). Same plan we did with OSX (but that took longer as it was visually great but crap the first two years). Anyway, Vista as a tech standpoint is the right direction, I just wish they could do it in half the code :)

Totally agree with you. I've spoken to an IT guy at our work and they won't be recommending an upgrade to Vista anytime soon as there's no benefit to our business to do so.

And that leads me right back to me. I have XP and it works. With SP3 it will be faster than Vista SP1 and I can live with any instabilities. I am not upgrading my prefectly more than adequate hardware just to run so called 'cool' features in Vista. You haven't sold the idea to me, but then you didn't really try. I am very much interested in the next version of Windows after Vista, but I am in no way interested in Vista itself.

I will be buying a brand new laptop (notebook) this year and I will be buying it with XP - not Vista.

LOL OK what is mine and I think most people objections to Vista is all the Bloat and Fluff that Microsoft put in Vista. Almost all of the features in Vista have been provided by 3rd party vendors for years, and in most cases use less resources and work better then what Microsoft's Vista does. Vista is more secure? a good anti-virus, firewall and common sense can provide just as much or more security then Vista or any OS can provide.

What most people forget is that all this fluff that Microsoft puts in Vista takes more resources from the program you really want. The more resources that Windows Vista takes the more and faster hardware that is required just to do the same you did before Vista. If you take a race car and hitch a trailer to it, it requires more horsepower just to do the same work.

I have been a IT manager for over 20 years and do side work for small companies. I advise all my customers that Vista is not there yet and not to worry about upgrading right now. In my main job I was one of many IT personal authorized to test Vista. 98% of all of us advised not to upgrade to Vista. We have many in house developed software that just brakes under Vista. When we get new systems and if it comes with Vista we will wipe the hard-drives and install Windows XP.

Microsoft thinks that every one makes lots of money and can afford to run out and buy new hardware just to run there new application. Window is supposed to be a OS not a application. A OS is a program to allow you to run the programs that you want to use. A OS is a means to an end. Do you need Aero Glass to run WOW, NO.

My company is a fortune 100 company and we still have several systems ruining Windows for Workgroups 3.11, OS/2 and CP/M just to name a few. A OS with in reason should work on any hardware you put it on. There is no reason why a modern OS should not run if in at lease a basic form run on a P2. The next time you have to run out to buy a new Quad-Core processor or more RAM just to run that application Microsoft tries to pass off as a OS, think about how much better that hardware would run if it could run well on a P2. Look at Microsoft trying to rework Windows XP just to run on OLPC, if Vista is so great why aren't they trying to rework Vista to work on OLPC's. If Vista wasn't so Bloated, Microsoft could had talked OLPC in to putting Vista on their systems. I would say that 90% of most computer users do a small list of things with their computers and does not need more then a 1 GHz processor. You don't need a Quad-Core to check email, get on to the net or write a letter and some of the other things people use their systems for. I have several systems for every day use and several gaming systems. Most real gamers have 2 or more systems, one for every day use and one for gaming.

Also I think that Microsoft should provide support for XP for at lease 1 year after the release of Windows 7.

Not sad that people like XP. Sad because I am seeing people, not liking change. MS problem really, people were all for 3.1, NT, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP when they came out every two years. I think after 6 years people have just trained their brains not to learn :)

As for features, Eye Candy (no reason to change but it is nice), the new event viwer is awesome, bread crumbs is the best, better task manager, icons showing the preview of the item, Volume control for each app. As I sad the list just goes on an on. BUT the question a person has to ask, it's it work 115 dollars for Home Premium (OEM - newegg) and more RAM. Or just go spend 500 dollars on a new PC (750 for a great one). Seems to be a good "investment" as it should last 5 years. The next MS OS will also require these "higher" resources. And compared to years ago when you had to spend 1500 to 2000 to get an 98 PC or even an XP PC for 1000, 500 is cheap. If I just don't eat my daily bag of M&Ms for a year and a 1/2 I have it :) But I do agree, I have the money. Someone like my sister doesn't... then again she most likly will get one next tax return.

You said:
Not really of that much use if you're a gamer though is it.

Speed vs stability - which would a gamer choose?

I want both :) But stable first. Many times, while playing a game (currently Team Fortress 2), my main systems is copying a DVD to the family room Media Center, while I have oovoo running, outlook, my ftp server. So I don't want to crash at all. As for 5-10% loss in speed, I just went out and got a new video card, but I do that every year anyway (I sell my old high in one though).

Well remember there are some people out there that bought some cheap PC's just a year ago that can't really run Vista except for the basic versions.

This is just my opinion but I think Microsoft is doing its self a disservice by discounting Windows XP. I know of people myself included that has PC's that are 10 years old or older, and these systems are just not able to run Vista. I gave my mom one of my old PC's to play her card games and MahJong. To someone like her even a dual-core system is a wast.

I think after 6 years people have just trained their brains not to learn :)

I believe you hit the nail on the head with that comment.

And that is Microsoft's fault :)
Seriously though - I do agree, and PC Manufactures knowing a new OS is coming out, should identify that PC as compatibility with the new OS. I know...they did (Vista Ready stickers and stuff), I'm not talking drivers, but truly ready - usable in speed (2 gigs of ram, the processor, not comparing speed to the previous OS, as we all know 95 and 98 fly on an XP box).
But remember, all these older boxes run XP, most came with XP and have the OEM sticker and serial number on them, you can always reinstall XP. Maybe replace a fan or power supply. I think most people are upset with buying a new PC with Vista.

Here are the spec's on my new Dell XPS M1530 (arrived less than 48 hours ago).
Vista Ultimate Red. Intel Core 2 Duo (R) T9300 with 6mb cache, 4gb ram, 7200rpm 200gb high performance HD. Nvidia Gforce 8600M GT (R).
And so it goes, here's a link for the full spec's.

But its a crock o s***e, even purchased Passmark to see what it's score was, they had only tested one Vista machine with with a score this low, hence would not give me a rating, yet according to the Vista performance index is supposed to be 5.9.
This is the clunkiest OS I've ever used by a long way, and as it's soon to be the fourth Vista native notebook I've reverted to XP Pro, already have an "nlite" disk next my beer, ready & willing to go.
As an aside this was $2,118.00AUD, so it was a very good deal, but it's going to be an even better one with XP installed.

SP1 fixed a huge about of the slow down. But again, not comparing apples to apples. You are using nlite for your XP. Try vLite for your vista - Your problem too is the video card if you are game player (find for XP..I guess), but you need an 8800 GT or higher if you play an game from 2007 on.

TKC,
Since making the above post, I decided, and this was prior to reading yours, that I will indeed do a "vlite" disk, and see if that improves its performance.
I should also point out this rig was delivered without SP1, much to my surprise. Readily assumed Dell would supply a new rig with SP1 installed.
Will let you know how it goes.

Have finally got around to doing a "vlite" disk and install, reduced it's size to 12gb, is working a treat. Have only 4 apps running on startup, boots in a matter of seconds. Still some tweaks to be done re services, these are mainly security, however there are some like disk scanning on startup and the like.
Have not yet done a benchmark, but its performance rating has not changed, yet did not expect it to.
As and aside, before benchmarking it the last time, had already removed all the bloatware and disabled any residual services, will be interesting to see what the result is now.

lmao...

I have aan AMD 64 x2 4400+ system with 2GB of RAM and an ON BOARD NVIDIA 6150LE.

System scored a 3 (video), but ran quite well.

Upgraded the video (ATI 2900 XT) and I now score a 5. System still runs fine. HL2,FarCry,Crysis...all play quite well.

I have to believe your comments fall quite in line with the quoted bit above your post considering my own experiences.

The only thing I can think of is that you didn't install the OS without all the crapware from Dell and your audio is software-based.

Try a clean install of the OS. It's the first thing you should do on any brand-name system, XP or Vista. (Order that same system with XP and you'll likely get similar results with all the BS they send loaded on those things)

Wooohooo! Thank you M$! Windows is holding back innovation and technology advancements anyway. Good riddance.
--
Time for Apple to take over...?

"holding back innovation"...you make no sense. They are pushing there new "innovation" call Vista. Apple can't take over - until they allow there great OS to run all any PC. You guys are b****ing about a hundred or two to get Vista working, yet talk about a 1000+ plus to change to Apple.

Vista is "innovation"? LOL. Please tell me you're a professional comedian? Here, let me show you exactly what I mean by innovation on the Mac side of things and how Microsoft DOESN'T innovate but IMITATES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNuq94Zg_8
http://www.youtube.com/w...2CQ&feature=related

Vista is not innovations, it is primarily worthless bloat. Much of what it has added was already on Linux.

And most of what is now in Linux was already on XP....

When Linux can run a fully featured Gnome or KDE GUI on 256MB RAM as XP can its GUI, come back and tell me it's worth bothering with.

Is that before or after your Mac box gets p0wnd?

Don't forget, Mac OS X was the first to fall in the recent hacker conference challenge and Vista only fell by hacking a 3rd party Adobe application...

Linux does it better and one important little fact you've left out. Linux is FREE. There is no activation, and no WGA-type security either. It is much more stable and reliable (You don't have to reboot after almost every update). When an app craps out it doesn't take the entire OS with it. Linux is now beyond XP and Vista in many areas.

BTW, XP needs at least 512 Megs to run properly.

Linux has it's place but again. Spending 85-115 dollars on a OS (XP or Vista on newegg...OEM version) really 100 bucks is nothing knowing I can walk into a store get almost any PC hardware and it just works. I like Linux and it's getting better, but I don't want to walk my mom though a new scanner setup, or off brand video card or Canon Digital Camera. When you think XP was 90 dollars and it's 6.5 years old, you can get a couple more years out of it, that's like 10 dollars a year.
Again though, i would rather have a solid OS (XP for now) and then run all the same crap Linux can for free. it just gives me more options. And if you are a game player, you really need 1 to 2 gigs in XP.

and OSX was hacked by a Safari exploit...not a direct hit on the OS. Try again M$ fanboi.

lol. ever run XP on 256 MB of RAM? It is unusable. Why would you?

Can i run XP from the command line? Can i run other Window Managers on Windows?

I can run one of many Window Managers on top of Linux in well under 256MB of RAM. You fail yet again PC_Troll.

Are you slow? I run Xp on 256 ram pretty fine.

Why would any one except those selected few want to run on command line? You just don't make sense.

Sorry, Linux is not free. If you don't consider your time valuable, then it is free. How much time do you have to put in in order to learn properly install it and run it?

Pitdingo2,

That's about as close to an oranges-to-onions comment as it gets. I like Linux as well as XP, but you really can't compare the two OS's when it comes to the fundamental design differences prevent a true 1 to 1 comparison in a particular feature.

Windows wasn't designed to run without a gui at a command line. Or maybe the name "WINDOWS" threw you off?

So yes, you can't run XP purely from a command line because it's designed to run from a gui. Linux can be, it's designed to do that because unlike XP, it's also able to be configured in a Server role. Windows 2008 Server would be a more apt comparison maybe, but again core differences matter.

As far as a "window manager", if you're talking about a shell replacement, there are shell replacements for Windows: Aston, Stardock's DesktopX, to just name 2. Some are actually leaner than MS's own shell.

OSX itself has exploits. I think everyone on this site agrees there is no unhackable OS yet.

Here's the lastest for apples
http://www.computerworld...4559&intsrc=hm_list

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't safari the equivalent of Internet Explorer for Mac? Your basically implying that Safari is third party, and not built into Mac OS.

Those are great video's though. Then again only shows that Vista and OSX are ...almost the same. You can jut play a crap load more games and access to more software on Vista :)

Safari IS NOT integrated into OS X like IE on Windows. Big difference. Also, do you really want to compare the history of security on a Mac vs PC? Didn't think so. Don't get your panties in a wad over an exploit that would have no success in a real world setting. Mac OS X is still the most secure OS on the planet and you know this.

Again, nice try M$ fanboy. The OS's are not the same. Vista is a poor implementation of Mac OS X, in short: A Mac rip. Microsoft claims "innovation" but as evidenced by the two videos above, it's more like IMITATION. :)

hack is still a hack, and vista didn't get hacked until the rules we're relaxed, fanboy

"Don't get your panties in a wad"

i think you just did :)

Can you answer his question?

....apparently not.

Hmm, I'll have to tell my users that thier PC's are unusable. I still have about 1/2 dozen boxes with P4 1.8GHz 256MB Ram running XP and a mix of Office XP/2003 plus a few other apps. We are in the process of slowly upgrading them, but they still work.

"Can i run other Window Managers on Windows?"

Yes you can.

YYYYYAHHHHHHH,LOL.
WITHOUT SP1
More details about my computer
Component Details Subscore Base score
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz 5.9 5.9
Determined by lowest subscore
Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB 5.9
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra 5.9
Gaming graphics 1535 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 55GB Free (140GB Total) 5.9
Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate
System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer System manufacturer
Model Maximus Extreme
Total amount of system memory 2.00 GB RAM
System type 32-bit operating system
Number of processor cores 4
64-bit capable Yes
Storage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total size of hard disk(s) 140 GB
Disk partition (C:) 55 GB Free (140 GB Total)
Media drive (D:) CD/DVD
Media drive (E:) CD/DVDCD/DVD
Graphics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra
Total available graphics memory 1535 MB
Dedicated graphics memory 768 MB
Dedicated system memory 0 MB
Shared system memory 767 MB
Display adapter driver version 7.15.11.6925
Primary monitor resolution 1360x768
DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better
Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Adapter Marvell Yukon 88E8056 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller
Network Adapter Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter

Next time write a book, not a post.

It makes one wonder, will Microsoft ever learn. Obviously not, as they keep making the same mistakes over and over...I have worked on Vista and I can tell you, it has many bugs and I am not (as the person below me said) going to spend hundreds of dollar to make my software that works with XP quite nicely compatible with Vista. Just about every OS Microsoft has put out since windows 98 has be slip shod in one way or another and the people should wake up and stop buying their junk. I am just about ready to move over to another OS now....

It really is too bad that you cannot put a Mac OS on a PC, that is something they really should think about, and you can bet, if they try it, Microsoft will have a blippen fit and no doubt try to sue them for doing it.

www.ubuntu.com

You'll love it. After nearly 25 years of using Microsoft's "junk" with the last straw being Vista, and its many many many problems, I gradually moved over to Linux and I'm loving it for its stability, reliability, and security. The only thing that Windows ever had over it are games. I can get just about ALL of Vista's features WITHOUT its overhead and problems. Also, as you can see from some of the other articles on here, many big companies are starting to put out Linux versions of their software.

Even Linux's Compiz-Fusion beats the crap out of Vista's Aero. I no longer dread turning my system on each day. Don't believe any of the myths the naysayers go on about Linux.

P.S.

Actually you can put Mac OS (for Intel macs) on a PC, but it requires a patch to get it to work.

All OS with a GUI have issues period. Once you hit that GUI and driver galore - Lets just say there are sites dedicated to issue with Linux. On that, Ubuntu is my favorite :)

True. I never said that it was perfect, but it doesn't have to be to be better than Windows.

"Just about every OS Microsoft has put out since windows 98 has be slip shod in one way or another"

Obviously you've not been into IT long otherwise you'd have said "every version of Windows". Do you not know why 98SE came about?

Anyway, no other OS is any different. Linux has some major show stopping bugs and so does OS X. Pull your head out of your arse, fanboi.

I find it funny that you bleat on about Vistas overheads and then tell us you use Compiz-Fusion which serves no other purpose than to put pretty pointless effects on the GUI. ROFL.

You may want to check that Ubuntu isn't killing your hard drive.

This is still active as of Gutsy...
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/104535

Windows doesn't try and kill my HDD...

I've had far less trouble in that regard as well since I switched than before. Linux doesn't really need to defrag your hard drive.

What sort of hd do you have?

I think the point is Compiz-Fusion works on lower end hardware too. I do not need to buy a new computer to use it like you do with Vista.

LOL. Only a M$ fanboi would blame Ubuntu for a default hardware setting set by hard drive manufacturers and has nothing to do with the OS.

I do not have Vista on my computer, but after trying to help some friends of mine w/ theirs, I don't want it. They need to work the bugs out of it first. It uses too much memory, looses entries for searches in the middle of typing, and more. What a pain, and that is being nice. It is not compatible w/ many software programs on the market. Why should I have to spend thousands of dollars for all new software/upgrades just to use Vista. I do have 2 computers 1 of which is a Ubuntu/Linux OS. I am very happy w/ it and only have 1 issue I have yet to resolve. Not a biggie though. Any music file that I download in wav I can move to an external hard drive and use my XP to change the format. Too bad MS, I am moving on to a better/free OS than you have out now. Guess we will be seeing you in the tech graveyard before too long.

Looks like another victory for Apple! and UNIX and Linux...

roj said:

Keep trying to kill it, M$.

It's not getting you anywhere. :)

Too many customers know better - and we the customers will get what we want, one way or another.
---------------------------------------------
Fortunately, roj, Microsoft is not a democracy. In the end, you'll get what Microsoft wants you to get. As the Borg say, "Resistance is futile."

In the end, you'll get what Microsoft wants you to get.

Microsoft can't force anyone to use a certain OS. They aren't a democracy, but they aren't a dictatorship either. Consumers are perfectly free to tell them to go to he**.

If I want Windows NT 3.51 on my computer it will be so. ;-)

In a way they did force people to use their OS. Gates had written a contract for PC manufacturers who want to include a copy of Windows on their systems, but the contract made it so that they had to pay M$ a royalty on each system whether they included a copy or not. So they included and nothing else. This is why so many think that PC and Windows are the same thing since that is what comes with the computer. They believe that it is like with Apple and its computer/OS combination.

I see someone is still stuck in the 90's. Come sjc001...join us in 2008, it's not that bad, really.

Mock if you will, but that is how M$ got its success in the first place. Not because it made a better OS, but because of its unethical business practices.

Corporate license.

We buy a Vista license but XP goes on the box.

They can't prevent that.

Most corps are doing Just That.

Makes the whole fanboi claim that "most corporate users are switching" a laughable sham.

Apple and MS have "unethical" business practices in the past. Nothing new though in the business world - right or wrong. If Linux becomes mainstream, we will start to see the same thing between the flavors of Linux - I'm sure. Best doesn't always when - which means consumers don't always when. HD DVD would be a good example.

Keep trying to kill it, M$.

It's not getting you anywhere. :)

Too many customers know better - and we the customers will get what we want, one way or another.

yea, ppl hate change :)

Get with the times losers. Vista is not going away. XP sucks a fat bag of crap.

Could you be any more of an arrogant douchebag troll? I use Vista on my main PC myself and it's ok but I don't call people who prefer XP losers. It's still a very good OS.

arrogant douchebag troll ... I love it when someone gets it so perfect. Yes, I could be lot more condescending.

The large businesses use VLK licencing. You can downgrade to any prior version of windows to the amount of licences you buy. So this is a push to ensure everyone gets Vista on all new purchases of windows installed computers.

MS have the right to not sell something it retails, should it decide to do so. If this is a good business practice, when other free alternatives are available is debatable.

To be honest, after SP1, most of the problems with Vista have been smoothed out and the average user will probably have more to benefit than lose.

They may have been "smothered", but SP1 has created many new problems of its own instead.

Like...?

Deactivations, BSODs, not working with drivers that were already written for Vista, etc, etc, etc.

My Vista has never yet crashed. Its never blue screened either.

ditto for me, vista has run very smooth

Isn't giving the customer what it wants something a company should want to do?

....I don't see why they won't offer something the customer wants. Looks like I'll have to stock up on XP before the end is near...

When I hear the phrase....and that shall be their undoing...I think of Vista.

"Looks like I'll have to stock up on XP before the end is near..." HERE here!!

This seems reasonable. For a software company to sell an OS for nearly 7 years (and 1.5 years after it successor is released) doesn't seem like such a disturbing move that people need to petition for its continued sale to OEMs and retail stores. What other software from late 2001 can you find in most computer stores?

"For a software company to sell an OS for nearly 7 years (and 1.5 years after it successor is released)" That says loads about their "new" software.

Or people have a if its not broke dont fix it additude...

Which is where *MOST* IT folks live.

Yea it seems just a necessary move so people start updating and throw away windows XP one less windows to fight. For me the best solution is Linux which its updated every 6 months not years!! for god sake I hate they try to fix their crappy OS with band aids called SPs.

Not really, just that their old software was bloody good. It must really sack the Linux fanbois off that a 7 year old OS still outsells a free one that's undergone radical changes in the time.

But most good IT people should also have the moto "Everything can be improved". Vista is that - just sad it's not released perfect. SP1 helps, SP2 will then make it they it should have been shipped.

Also all good IT people know, we sell and need problems to keep in business :)

We sell only when we're getting a cut of the selling profits. I don't get a kickback for selling Vista over XP, so that's one thing I don't have to lie about.
There's also plenty of other problems that crop up (hello migration from Server 2003 to 2008 for starters) that keeps enough calls coming in that I don't need additional problems from Vista to compound it.

Agreed, but by stating Server 2003 to 2008 you are talking about a business. Most agree Vista isn't fully ready for business. And even if it was, it would be difficult to justify the cost of migrating (and fully testing) for the benifits.