I love my Vista Ultimate! No issues with my setup, I've got dual screens (one 19" normal and one 20" wide)... no issues with my screens. I love the ability to run Video in the background as my wallpaper. I do a lot of graphic and web editing and I have no issues with my tools/software. Roxio 9 did have an issue or two, but it seems to be fixed after an update. Touch screen would be nice for some... but I've told many folks to keep their freakin fingers off of my screen many times in the past while creating graphics! I can't see myself using touch screen much, because I don't like finger prints on my screen. I certainly will not be Down-grading to Linux anytime soon. I'd love a Mac as a second computer for graphic editing, but not as my main. For the record I've been using computers since 1982 and have used pretty much all of the different O/S's... DOS, Basic/QBasic, Noval, Win 3.0, Apple/Mac, 98/98se, Win NT workstation/server, Win 2000 pro/server, Win XP Home/Pro, Vista Ultimate - of all the O/S's I've used Vista is the Coolest hands down!

Basic/QBasic=Not an OS.

Noval=Novell?

I'm running 64bit Vista on a new HP and XP on an old Dell XPS. They both have 4Gig of ram. The Dell absolutely smokes the HP. The HP has a quad core processor. If Vista is Microsoft's future, they have serious problems. I've run various versions of 'nix in the past and it looks like I'll be doing so again.

*laughs*

This is what qualifies as a benchmark for you?

Two separate systems, two entirely different versions of Windows, and no comparison testing?

How cute...

If Vista is so wonderful then it wouldn't need people like you constantly saying how great it is to use. Shakespeare said: "Me thinks thou doth protest too much." Several sites have already done comparison testing. Why would I want to duplicate their efforts?

You're right about my being cute. I was always good at hustling women.

As a hardcore Mac user that has to use Windows to access x-rays and do remote access to the hospital, Windows XP SP3 seemed to be the "fastest" OS rather than Vista (pre-SP1).
Vista SP1 has changed that quite a bit. Not only is Vista FASTER now, but some of the compatibility issues are addressed.
Balmer is right about Vista as the focus at Microsoft. Windows 7 should just extend that compatibility enough to capture the more commonly used applications in business and medical circles to maintain its lead over Mac.
However, Mac is coming on strong. MacBook Air and whatever is next (? iPhone or Mac tablet) is sure to be a hit. What is nice about the current Mac lineup is it runs XP and Vista. So, you can still get the shiny new machine with the lit up logo on the lid and still run Windows as your main OS.
Overall, I am happy to use both OS's. Linux (Ubuntu 8.04) is nice to play with as well. To do work though, my suggestion is Mac OS 10.5 with dual booting to Windows AND running Windows in the Parallels or VMware solution. Currently, you can not really do better than having Vista SP1 as your virtual machine. Take it from someone who uses Macs to save lives.

oh happy day.

Just what I have always wanted, I come home after a hard days work now and kick back in my easy chair and use my cordless mouse and keyboard to check email etc..

Look like thats all going to be easier now that i will probably have to sit within arms length of my computer screen again. I see this as being more useless junk from microsoft.

I have been using Vista for over a year and I have never had a serious problem with it. I do however find XP perform faster and more stable in number of situation. However, I find myself booting into Vista 95% of the time.

To all XP users, what are you going to do when XP is no longer supported? Linux? oh yeah...there are so many but still I don't get the hang of it, I've tried too many versions of it an I keep going back to windows, because it really does what I want it to do, whenever I want it, however I want it and wherever I want it, complete freedom!. Yes, the software is free in Linux and only some surpass Windows software quality but gdamnit man, sometimes it can be a pain trying to figure out where everything goes. So in conclusion to this rant is that Windows is the best OS, Vista is superior and the next best thing over XP, I recently installed SP1 and everything is working great!, windows 7 bring it on, looking forward to it, touchscreen! hell yeah, sounds cool like hell!...wow, that was a long @$$ conclusion =)

Vista is a piece of crap. Theres a reason many people dont want to downgrade to this garbage. I laugh at people like you who brag about this louzy os.

Oh, this again, so what makes it crap?

Try not to use the same FUD though, in your own words and experience tells us why Vista was so terrible for YOU to use?

I think the computer is only an instrument, and any OS is valid for as long as it keeps being operative to run the needed apps. If you only play old games and run MS Office 97 in a single desktop, you may keep running Win9x. On the other side, for some users multi-touch interface may be a big step forward. IMO what most users fear is the lack of support and spare hardware parts due to the lifecycle policy, and it will also affect to Vista on due time.

good thing no one cares what you think :)

Windows 7 sounds like the way to go, unless I was buying a computer today. If going Windows, I would not go with XP on a new machine. It has been stable on my current five year old. Played with, but never lived with Linux. I suppose it is A-OK. How about Mac? May try Mac some day. Not sure where the religion of Mac meets reality of it being a more perfect solution to computing. Is it as billed?

:)

I like your attitude

I feel that's exacly the way we should feel about it . . not too excited . . and dont wine about it either . .

"bring it on, looking forward to it, touchscreen! hell yeah, sounds cool like hell!."

- haha

All I'm getting from this is that Vista is todays Win Me.

Except Win ME was horribly unstable and was abandoned rather quickly.

Vista runs well with a newer system and hardware that actually has drivers that work with Vista (I am looking at you Creative and Nvidia, its gotten better but still not all the way yet)

Ah, a touch-screen interface. Just what I needed to "give the finger" to M$. I just couldn't resist saying that. :P

I have a Palm Tungsten T2. As you all know it works with exactly that kind of interface. For that size of screen and with the use of the pen that come with it, that type of interface is perfect but on a computer monitor? Nothing to die for, unless it's for business use, like a cashier or something similar. I have a 19 inch flat screen right in front of me and a very comfortable chair. The only way I could use that flat screen as a touch interface is me either getting at arms lenght at the very least of it so I can touch the screen OR I could simply put the damn flat screen on my lap, which bring me to the following opinion. For a laptop that kind of interface could be awesome. Or, if you work on CNN and have to move maps around on a HUGE monitor then that type of interface IS awesome. But for simple websurfing or most of the usual programs like text editing? Nope! In some ways it reminds me of that "table monitor" M$ came up with. It looks awesome but, on the long run, the ergonomics are just wrong for the usual computer user.

How about you wait until its actually out before you go on and on about how useless it is.

Its still got at least another year, a lot can happen within that time...

Plus, it appears this is just a feature the entire OS is not going to only work with touchscreen...

all you have to do is browse the hardware forums to see what a disaster vista really is... nvidia, ati, creative labs, motherboard vendors like evga, etc... marginally stable drivers without many of the features available in XP... marginal performance on all but the most costly hardware...

now this... as someone so aptly put it about another bloated bug snot...

TURD POLISH

its funny to listen to those who dont understand vista. "vista and xp are basically the same." thats a riot. the only ones not happy with vista are those who dont use it or those who have tried to run it on a crappy computer. as for touch screen, it will be invaluable to manufacturing and buisness. its all leaning towards a touch talk interface. i for one look forward to it. ill be happy when i can say "computer, Movies." and touch the one i want and it starts. yes the keyboard and mouse will still be there. they just wont get used as often.

Why touch any of them? Vista already has a speech recognition engine and you should be able to tell it the movie you want.

But guess what? You can't!

I'll be impressed only if the range of touch includes a punch in the nose of the developers.

This type of demo has two effects on me:
1. Ugh. Cool.
2. Now what?

I can do everything in the demo without the touch feature, faster, and with *much* more versatility and dexterity. Our fingers are fat. They suck as precision instruments, which is why we don't put chalk on our hands and writer, and instead use precision interfaces... A mouse controller by a hand or a pen with a tablet is so much more precise, which is so important when manipulating graphical objects/items...

So then, you clean your monitor three times a day?
Sorry, but I just don't get it. Other than business use, what on earth would I do with such a system?

Other than business use, what on earth would I do with such a system?

Other than business use, what use does there need to be?

Amazingly, not every product ever conceived in the world was done so solely to cater to *your* needs and desires.

Imagine that...

After all, business is everything. [rollseyes]

My - my, did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Tell me now, just why would the average user of a PC need to touch the screen. And I am a consumer, an average consumer, in my estimation. Guess I am just not in touch with my computer ;-))

Why would the average user need to touch their phone screen either?

The lack of imagination some people defend on this forum without even realizing is just amusing.

oh look its a drive-by troll with nothing ever important to say other then snarky remarks, you need a new hobby.

I wish my life was so pathetic that I would go on message boards of products I hate just to leave a random comment with nothing pertaining to the discussion.

Tell me now, just why would the average user of a PC need to touch the screen.

*laughing my a** off*

Wow!

You need to change your nick to "Iwilltotallymissyourpoint".

Why should I? Why should they?

Why does *every* product have to have *anything* to do with you???

*gasp*

It doesn't!

Wake up and realize the world does not revolve around you and that there can be products that do wonders in the business world and have *zero* use or value in the consumer world.

Ya know, I'm sorry. You're probably an intelligent person and all, but your incessant cries of "what does it do for me???" are just so incredibly self-centered I couldn't resist.

After all sjc001 can completely miss any and every point just to get in a snarky jab at PC_Tool.

He likes me, folks...he really likes me!

*laughing*

You don't buy products which cater to you? That I find odd, if not so strange, impossible to believe. I agree the business world needs touch screens, and I thought they already had them. As for touch phone screen, I personally don't need them, but if lights someone's fire, so be it. I just kinda linger around my cave ya know, and don't care to own a lap top computer, and take all this stuff with me on the road. There is life beyond technology.

I just thought the topic was touch screen for desktops, so perhaps I got off base here. And I personally, as in one voice, see no need for such software. If touching the screen on your computer is a turn-on so be it, they have got you sold. There are others, perhaps us caveman, which have no desire to be that much in touch with our monitors. ;-))

Why doesn't the average user know about SAR numbers of their cell phones? Why do they let children use them? So what's that burning your ear? I rarely use the cell phone, and could care less about the Internet on a phone. I am sure others find it amusing and/or a work tool, so more power to them and a it is good they boost the economy by purchasing those items. I hope to God that cell phone use is not a ticking time bomb however as a health issue.

Now back inside my cave, waiting for the flames to show outside...

Sorry, let me put it more simply:

Other than business use, what on earth would I do with such a system?

Nothing.

:)

Unless you use a tabletPC. :)

Drawing in MS Paint via touch screen? Imagine that.

Why not call it MS FingerPaint? :)

LOL, that's funny!

or Ifinger . . .

The only way I can ever see this being of any use is for a kiosk operation, or something similar.

There is so much of a parallax problem and it is clearly impossible to get pixel-perfect accuracy. I doubt if you could point to a letter in a word, no matter draw in an accurate way.

Mind you, I still like the Windows keyboard short cuts I learnt back in the mid 1980s...

When Windows 7 gets released, you'll be able to put your computer into sleep mode with a swipe of the fingers, and then find out once again that it won't wake up correctly.

Touch is nice, but the other side of it, is that there needs to be good "feedback." When you press a piano key, it "presses" back upon release. Same with a physical keyboard. Or a physical button. You can feel a globe spinning when you're spinning a real one. Just some Accessibility issues to consider.

That is 100% the problem, no physical feedback. As a touch-typist I can feel F, J and 5.

"When Windows 7 gets released, you'll be able to put your computer into sleep mode with a swipe of the fingers, and then find out once again that it won't wake up correctly."

All possible right now with Vista and Intel graphics chipsets. :)

Windows 7 will be the best and Vista is the best OS out there

I like Vista and all, but come on...

Putting it on a little thick, don't you think?

Except that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in fixing the biggest gripes that people have with Vista. Not listening to the money for some reason.

Complain to the third-party manufacturers then, cos most of the problems can be attributed to them.

W7 will be based on Vista. God help us all....

Not surprising that they went with a non-critical feature to demo. It seems like an attempt to make MS come off as "innovative" in the UI deptartment like Apple. The problem is that it looks like they may already be falling into the eye candy marketing trap that has haunted Vista.

Vista has its share of annoyances, but just like in XP most of these can be disabled (yeah, remember how the default XP config sucks?). There are a number legitately good improvements that often go unmentioned since the marketing got caught up in only promoting the eye candy. The biggest mistake though was not making Vista scalable enough (within reason) to run well on low end machines. It's a terrible experience running it on the low end of the reqs. Then the artificially low hardware reqs only served to sour people.

There is a pretty nice touch screen mode in Vista which I imagine is expanded upon in this demo of Windows 7. Its usefulness is limited to particular applications, namely running as a console or kiosk.

I would think that your big paws would get in the way of seeing the little icons you are trying to manipulate.
I don't let people touch my screen as it is now.
What are all the women going to do that just had their nails done?

It's nothing more than a gimmick.

Agreed. I thought it was a gimmick with the iphone (a $2000 phone that lets you touch it, when all fees and contract is paid out.)

Yea, wouldn't work too well in the desktop experience.

Also, as we can see the GUI is the same as Vista. Well, nothing new under the sun... Don't those people think at all?

The UI is one of the last things to change. See the progress of all recent versions of Windows.

Diam0nd:
Don't know what you're talking about? No problem! Spew your ignorance all over BetaNews with reckless abandon. If it works for El Dingo and Zaine, it will work for *you*!

/sarcasm

Proving once again you've *never* seen a version of Windows prior to a release candidate.

not a big fan of touch screens, I have one in my car and it can be a pain in the ass.

touch screens are gimmicky toys.
and it's going to be a long long long time before anything replaces the mouse/keyboard.

as for vista, love it since SP1 came out.
fast, no crashes, just have to set UAC to silent mode.

My Tom Tom touch screen in my car is perfect. Couldn't imagine replacing it with a mouse and a keyboard.

I have a Magellan Maestro 3200 GPS unit (uses Windows CE 5.0) with a 3.5-inch screen. The "buttons" on the screen are so tiny it makes it very difficult to spell things out accurately. It's too bad the voice activated GPS units haven't dropped to the $150 price point.

I don't have much faith in credibility of MS being able to make decent touch interface.

They have introduced this supposedbly great tablet platform they love so much, and then it's quite crappy for left handed person.

They've already screwed up in two different platforms, Tablet PC, and Windows CE, wonder if this will be any better.

Windows CE is screwed up yet is still being used..

So must not be too much of a screwup if new services are using it such as At&t U - Verse

The tablet pc they integrated those functions into Vista which I hear is a lot better but not using a tablet I cannot comment on its validity.

Microsoft has been working on touch interfaces for a great many years. I'd venture to guess they have more developers in this field than any other company. The problem remains that touch is very dependent on hardware and microsoft does not control the hardware in the same way that some other companies do. I'm hoping that all comes together with new Win7 products.

It is true that Vista has received some negative comments. As far as I am concerned, most off the problems are due to, either hardware misconfiguration or people insisting in using dual boot with XP, without knowing how to do this correctly. I have even seen negative comments from self appointed "experts" that have not even used Vista, yet...How stupid is that!!
I have been using Vista for nearly a year, and have no problems with it. I would never go back to XP. I believe Vista is the best OS around.

+1 on that. vista is running fine for a ~year on HTPC in the living room(the only OS to support audio over HDMI feature of the hardware at that time)
no complains.

And Windows7 will be another major flop just like Vista... If Microsoft really believes that all Windows users will start trashing their old CRT and LCD montitors as well as notebooks to replace them with new touch screen capable ones, then they will face reality and see that it just won't happen.
If Windows7 major selling point is to force people to change the monitors and working notebooks then it will fail badly.

Instead a clever approach and a major selling point would be to release USB2.0 and USB3.0 Graphics Tablets alike products with an LCD panel where a copy of the screen appears in realtime and allows interaction both with human fingers and a pen stylus.
That would make sense and it could allow Windows7 to sell along with new hardware.
USB3.0 surely has more bandwidth to make it work but USB2.0 could be enough given a downsized, filtered version of the realtime desktop is sent thru it.

These "touch screens" will be IN ADDITION to keyboards and mice. No one is expecting touch screens to replace them entirely.

*rolls eyes*

The only people that complain about Vista are those who can't afford descent hardware. So instead of making the investment on a dual-core processor and at least 2G of Ram, they b**** and moan. Then they pretend like they know what they’re talking about without even using it. Vista is an excellent operating system and I have never had an issue with it. Unfortunately there are a lot of morons out there like aredo who are probably still using Windows 98 SE because they make 7 bucks an hour working at Taco Bell.

What happens to all the existing dumb screens. most of the users use MS office applications and i cannot imagine writing or entering data or even foregoing a mouse for commands . Certainlly for some applications touch may be fine , but does that make ergonomic sence imagine reaching out to the screen for icons and how about the comfortable viewing distance . MS needs to sort these issues out

Touch UI is basically the future, I'd love some touch functionality on my desktop.

It wouldn't take over my PC experience but it will definitely enhance it.

I don't know about most of you, I still like using my mouse to click on the screen. Yes, it's cool to touch the screen, but I am not about to bend forward to turn the screen while I am sitting comfortably while click with a mouse.

If you mean touch UI in minority report, yes, it's the feature. I am hoping we will have it by the end of the century.

And who is going to clean all the smear marks from the display?

Same people willing to clean the smears off their Touch Phones and MP3 players

Multi touch is awesome for phones and junk - but would be annoying as hell on my desktop. Might be okay on a laptop...

If you don't think you like Vista then install Linux. You will be back to Vista in no time flat - unless of course you are tech savvy, have a CS degree, or happen to LIKE seeing directories all over the place named things like etc, bin, lib, sbin, usr/sbin, dev, var, mnt, ad nauseum... Or maybe you like .config file hell? How about install instructions like "extract the gz'd tarball and run /config, make, then make install".

If you think Vista has bad driver support just try Linux! Maybe you just like being part of the 1ee7 crowd that can talk in cool words like "shell, grub, lilo, bash". Maybe you are one of those VI hags that think they own the world.

Maybe you hate PC gaming.

Everyone hates Vista for NO REASON.

It's media and articles like this that perpetuate this unjustified bias.

Yeah, the only thing wrong with Vista is that nVidia doesn't know how to write drivers anymore.

Umm, I hate Vista because it has a terrible interface, annoying and useless security, ridiculous overhead, terrible driver support and incompatibility with a large amount of legacy software thats no longer updated. I think those are what thinking people call "reasons". As to the whole multi-touch thing..yeah, nice for laptops, tablets, phones and possibly kiosk or industrial design PCs..but for Joe Desktop? Not so much. I hope they have more than that to carry Windows 7 or the days of Wintel domination are numbered.

"Multi touch is awesome for phones and junk - but would be annoying as hell on my desktop. Might be okay on a laptop."

Nuff said.

"Everyone hates Vista for NO REASON."

Well almost nuff said. You made such a good post right up until that point. Shame.

well said bro!

Don't really hate Vista per say. I just decided if half my legacy apps were going to be incompatible with it I might as well check out the other side of the fence as it were. So far I am liking Linux and do not plan on moving back to Vista in the foreseeable future.

No reason? Are blind AND deaf??? For one, Vista is basically the same XP with a few minor additions, drivers, fixed bugs and new annoyances (UAC). WHY do they charge for it at all? Secondly, the prices they charge are amazingly high. WHY is that, again? Thirdly, Vista being a near-clone of XP requires a sh*tload of power, like a nice cpu and a lot of memory so even IF someone wanted to update to it they would probably need a hardware tweak. WHY do I have to upgrade my hardware if Vista offers virtually nothing new? Forthly, one of the major additions Vista Ultimate supposedly offers is its additional features called Windows Ultimate Extras. Well, at the moment there are 4 gay extras available.

You are obviosly don't get the critique behind Vista. People don't hate vista because it doesnt work. It does work and it is stable. People don't like vista because it costs so damn much; because it offers virtually nothing new over xp, BUT at the same time cost a fortune; because while being so similar to xp, it requires pretty powerful hardware too. So its totally NOT about vista not working, its about vista giving users almost nothing, while TAKING a lot from them and their pockets.

The thing about Windows-series OSs is that, unlike MacOS, the last time it offered an original feature was back in Windows 95. Since then it's been all the same really. And that whats pissing me and a lot of other people off.

Let me start of my saying Vista is not a power hungry OS. I have it on my 1.5Ghz with 768MB ram laptop. It runs perfectly!!

As far UAC, TURN IT OFF!!!
Second of all, most of the complaints are the slowness of it unless you got power, 75% of the services and processes, can be disabled. Its called a little bit of knowledge and not taking the product face on.

Driver support is not Microsofts fault, its the damn lazy manufacturers. The SAME EXACT thing happened with XP and people complained then. Face it, its here and its here to stay.

If you have no clue why don't you shut up instead of advertising it on a public forum?

No, leave UAC on. Turning it off turns off the security, the "virtual folders" (I think it's called Junction Points) and other things that will mean if you have a problem instead of the prompt coming up Vista will simply deny you access.

Lets face facts: in normal use (e.g. word processing and surfing the internet) you will hardly encounter it. If you must turn it off, don't do that but run TweakUAC (http://www.tweakuac.com) to suppress prompts while keeping the security.

Heh...

Beat me to it.

incompatibility with a large amount of legacy software thats no longer updated

*laughing*

I'm thinking the problem here isn't quite what you think it is....

My point EXACTLY Diamond!

"People don't hate vista because it doesnt work. It does work and it is stable. People don't like vista because it costs so damn much; because it offers virtually nothing new over xp, BUT at the same time cost a fortune; because while being so similar to xp, it requires pretty powerful hardware too. So its totally NOT about vista not working, its about vista giving users almost nothing, while TAKING a lot from them and their pockets.

The thing about Windows-series OSs is that, unlike MacOS, the last time it offered an original feature was back in Windows 95. Since then it's been all the same really. And that whats pissing me and a lot of other people off."

UAC is not "security." UAC is Microsoft covering their asses.

Security is not a technology, it is a process and training mindset.

If a prompt stops you from running britney.exe on your pc it is security as its telling you "hey, you might want to think twice before continuing"

There is no security in this entire world that will protect you from stupid.

Most common problems and the case of the zombie pc is from users not reading and clicking on damn near everything.

Is it MS fault that the user ignores the warning? Is it MS fault that people who never passed middle school use the PC? Same thing with phishing schemes, is it said companies fault that someone is masquerading as them when its clearly obvious that you never give out personal info over the internet, yet people do time and again even when the site says "steal your password.com"

They had a test a while ago and the ad read "want to get a virus click, here." The sad thing is many people did...

Linux uses a similar method as well and if you don't run in full admin mode you get the annoying popups for just changing display on ubuntu 7.10 - now if thats changed I dunno in the newer versions.

DiamOnd, you have to be smoking crack if you think Vista is basically XP. lol... Vista Home Upgrade costs $94.99; if you can't afford Vista you have a problem. You’re a idiot...

I can see hundreds of applications for touch technology - so it makes sense Microsoft jumps on that bandwagon. That said, surely the desktop PC isn't dead yet? Touch isn't really a practical interface for many of the things we do with desktop computers today: it's just not precise enough for what we want to do. I seriously doubt MS is putting all it's eggs in the touch basket and abandoning the average PC desktop in their next OS - after all, that really is the bread and butter for their expensive OS.

Personally, I just can't see CoD4 or Crysis having the same playability when you're playing on a multi-touch coffee table by smacking the bad guys repeatedly with your hands when you spot them. :p

Sounds like you just invented a new genre of video games, first person whack-a-mole.

They jumped on the bandwagon? Funny, I seem to remember pocket PCs being around for about a decade (not to mention tablet PCs) before apple made a touch screen device, why is everyone pretending that Apple is the innovator? They're just a hype machine.