This is what is happening:

MS was doing real well with "XP." But then the guys there thought "Hu what about investing in other places, that could make us more money." Ever since MS has been going into other markets, they have been slowly been moving away from windows. As we can see in "Vista," this OS would take any right minded company 2 years to make. Yes it is true 2 years for MS if they devoted good attention to it, and not to the "zune" But not MS because they were way to busy with "Live Search" or "OneCare."

I have been a MS lover for a couple years now but now I am starting to look at other stuff (Not a mac.)

Thats right I am not looking at macs, though they are real good and better then MS at the moment. I see that they are going to fall into the same trap as MS has.

I wish we could have the days back when MS would care for each and every custemer like it did before. The good old days :), sadly that will probably never happen.

This is just my opinion so I may be very wrong.

~DL

"this OS would take any right minded company 2 years to make."

I wonder where you got that "2 years" estimate from. I'm pretty sure it needed more than 2 years in the hands of ANY company.

I mean, it ought to take a lot of time to come up with so many UAC dialogs, each with different text and all. :D

Impossible. Microsoft spent over 2 years on the stupid, un-needed activation alone, which incidentally won't even put a slight dent 'so-called' piracy. Woops! there goes 3+ billion dollars!

Sorry MS, no cigar.

The bottom line is: If you wan't Vista, use the Paradox Activation system. Never give 1 single red cent to Microsoft, ever.

You don't have to worry about price as Vista activation has already been circumvented FULLY (both x86 & x64) so rest easy all of you that "must" have DirectX 10.

Anyway enjoy. And remember, keep your money where it belongs IN YOUR F*CKING POCKET (or on cheap-but-good wh0res), never on software.

::edit for idiots who cannot comprehend::
"never on software" means COMMERCIAL software. donating is completely fine if one feels the coder(s) really deserve it. Hasn't anyone ever noticed the alarming fact that 9 out of 10 freeware/open source applications are FAR superior to their commercial counterparts!? and that the only reason people use Windows AT ALL is because..... you ALL know the answer to that one!

Not everyone is a lowlife thief.

Yes good idea, I mean...why reward developers for making a product? That's just silly, the world will be much better off when no one writes anymore software and works on things that will pay the bills instead. Tell me did you work out this plan all by yourself Einstein?

If the world wasn't full of dirtbags like c4p0ne, I doubt activation schemes would even exist. Of course that's unfortunately a fantasy world full of elves and gnomes.

I humbly request that you de-sheep yourselves.

for full x86 x64 Vista Activation:

hjjp://forum.andr.net/viewtopic.php?t=197347

If the world wasn't full of retarded sheep like uberfly, we wouldn't have to endure unprovoked insults of sub-par quality on sites like betanews. Of course that's unfortunately a fantasy world full of queer elves and gnomes.

Vista isn't worth more then the cost of a retail version of winzip. Honestly you think Vista developers deserve a reward? whoa. What plan are you talking about? This activation method is from the geniuses at Paradox. In fact this was so in-demand that Russian AND Chinese engineers joined forces to end this crazy STUPID vista activation menace that EXCLUSIVELY PUNISHES ONLY PAYING USERS OF THE VISTA OS!

You can't seriously have made that comment after viewing the price on a vista ultimate box. I don't know why people think they are being "noble" by paying for ANY ms software. Has the MS brainwashing gone that far? :(

.. And for those who are, we can thank Microsoft! =D =D =D

If this is true, people don't have a clue what they are putting on they computer

That's one semi-neutral comment I can agree with (assuming it isn't implying something completely different!) :)

This is bullcrap! There is absolutely NOTHING in Vista that we need, unless you can't live without the eye-candy, and even then, there are very nice theme packs available freely, such as Crystal XP Bricko pack!! (http://www.crystalxp.net/bricopack/en.htm)

Gamers > Forget Vista
Tweakers > Forget Vista
Graphic Artists > Forget Vista
Musicians > Forget Vista
Corporate f**s > Forget Vista
AND IT'S DEFINETLY NOT WORTH $400!
Come on, wake up people!

Are you insane? If you want any real security you need Vista. Windows XP and 2000 are just about as bad as Windows 98 in terms of security.

"If you want any real security you need Vista."

That's funny. Everyone said the same thing about XP. Microsoft can take their precious Vista and shove it up their collective posteriors for all I care.

"Windows XP and 2000 are just about as bad as Windows 98 in terms of security."

That is complete nonsense. The NT kernel is far more secure than the old 9x line of Windows. Not to mention the fact that 98 hasn't even been updated in a very long time.

Vista does have better security than XP, and as for gamers keep in mind that only Vista supports DirectX 10. So while it may not be ideal for games right now that will change in the future. Your other statements are just plain nonsense so I won't even go into those, and for the record it is not mandatory to buy the most expensive version.

"That's funny. Everyone said the same thing about XP."

Your point? They were quite right, compared to Windows Me, XP was light years ahead in security.

The point is that even though XP is far ahead of ME in security it is still laughable. Vista may be more secure now but in time it will be picked apart just like XP. I don't expect 100% secure but a promise from Microsoft of any security at all is empty and meaningless.

I don't expect 100% secure but a promise from Microsoft of any security at all is empty and meaningless.

Yes and no.

I say that because Microsoft could probaly come up with good fixes that work but if they break any competitors software they end up in court being acused of anti-competitive behavior.

So can you realy blame them for releasing inferior patches that break the least amount of third party software to avoid the court system.

For home use, the only real option on Windows XP is to make everyone an administrator since most software can't run under a limited user account which means that if a virus or spyware gets on your computer it can do whatever it wants. This was the exact same problem people faced in Windows 98. Windows Vista is the only version of Windows that fixes this problem.

dur

Our company uses Win 2000 Pro in the all 1420 computers , we haven't had any viruses.We all
have F-Secure IS 2007 and it works good. Win 2000 gets all it's updates too.

Does anyone know how many of these are 32-bit vs. 64-bit versions?

Also, are new PCs with 64-bit CPUs being sold with the 64-bit version of the OS?

Not all of them. Most are still being sold with the 32-bit.

I don;t think there's going to be a large migration to 64-bit OSes until MS pulls the plug on the 32-bit version.

I think you are right. The actual availibility of 64-bit software is pretty lean. I can say though that I am curious as how powerful(i.e. eye-candy) 64-bit gaming on the PC could be.

Hmm, more dodgy reporting from Betanews it seems (like the 200 BC PS2 titles article).

PS3 has the capability to do IPTV, and it will come, and it won't require a new version of the console to make it happen.

Seems to me that Microsoft are just releasing a PS3 Wannabe...

While that was a very fanboyish way to put it, this is true.

Microsoft are doing the slightly more sensible thing from a business point of view and selling all the good features as separate devices. Thereby getting the same amount of money from customers as those paying for the PS3 (presuming they want all the extra stuff).

Other than that, you posted in the wrong article.

Of course Microsoft sold more copies than of windows XP. Market on 6 years growed a LOT. And second, Micro$oft is forcing manufacturers to sell Vista, so if you buy a new Dell computer today, you can sign forms, petitions, talking with Micheal Dell but youhave no choice and you'll end in front of the pestilent Vista on your new computer. That's monopoly, and I think that's why big companies are already searching for windows replacement (Dell included), even if Windows still have market's 80%.
A religious person would say that Microsoft is THE devil company.
By the way, I'm still waiting XP SP3. Today you spend more time installing patches than the OS (even using Autopatcher or another patch compilation)... Ah, that VB, err, sorry: .NET framework is SO crappy. They released 3 versions and it still never worked, flawed from design. I just know one program that works ok programed with that piece of junk (by the way, it is PAINT.NET). Even big players ruined their good products using that (Autodesk included).

That was the lamest post I've read in quite some time (and keep in mind, you're competeing with zridling and 880GTXer, here).

youhave no choice and you'll end in front of the pestilent Vista on your new computer. That's monopoly,

Choosing to stop selling a product that has been replaced does *NOT* make you a monopoly, genius.

It's not a choice though - XP OEM licenses are almost impossible to purchase in quantity now. :P

here in Japan, Dell sells Vista only on like the high-end XPS computers, XP on the rest... sigh

I was trying to get a 9200 or something with a Vista, and they're not selling lol

"Microsoft is forcing manufacturers to sell Vista, so if you buy a new Dell computer today, you can sign forms, petitions, talking with Micheal Dell but youhave no choice and you'll end in front of the pestilent Vista on your new computer."

How about you head over to your local new car dealer and see how many 2006 cars are left on the lot. Get REAL. I suppose you also feel that Dell should be selling copies of Win 98 as well? XP is over, Microsoft doesn't make it any more...deal with it. Buy Vista, or buy some flavor of Linux or buy OSX...lots of choices.

Very easy to get, and Dell will sell them to you also. Don't know where you are getting this info from.

I already got real. That's why I don't want colored mirrors for breakfast or Vista on my computers.
If 2006 cars worked faster and safer than 2007's I'm sure I'll be looking for a 2006. But, Windows is not a car. The only thing they should do is keep selling the product, and see for themselves which sales go better. The fact they are retiring now XP from the streets is that they KNOW most people don't want Vista now. And big corps DO want it. Better trojan horse inside, maybe? Who knows... We already know that DRM is there not only avoiding the fair use, but slowing your PC like hell...
I'm sure my next computer will be a Mac, That's a 2007 computer with a nice OS! And I will recommend switching to all my clients. I'm tired of Windoze. EOF.

"If 2006 cars worked faster and safer than 2007's I'm sure I'll be looking for a 2006."

And you wouldn't find one...unless you bought used ofcourse.

"The only thing they should do is keep selling the product, and see for themselves which sales go better."

First of all, they are still selling it.

Why isn't mac selling OS9 anymore? Why can't I get old versions of Notes? Why is MS the only company that you're bashing for phasing out old product? You do realize it costs a company money to continue support on new products AND old products, right?

"And big corps DO want it."

Yea...and they can keep getting it. I also happen to know a few large law firms that are planning on rolling out Vista by mid next year. A few financial firms I work with are also beginning to test it with plans on rolling it out sometime next year.

"Better trojan horse inside, maybe?"

The world is out to get you, maybe?

"Who knows... We already know that DRM is there not only avoiding the fair use, but slowing your PC like hell..."

It's a conspiracy, right?

"I'm sure my next computer will be a Mac, That's a 2007 computer with a nice OS! And I will recommend switching to all my clients. I'm tired of Windoze. EOF."

You must have some very important clients who will switch to mac, I'm sure.

It's not *your* choice. It's Microsoft's. It's their product. They have *every* right to choose not to offer to sell a version that has been replaced.

Try Optiplex then...

clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap

"youhave no choice and you'll end in front of the pestilent Vista on your new computer. That's monopoly,

Choosing to stop selling a product that has been replaced does *NOT* make you a monopoly, genius."

Oh yeah, right. Except that's completely besides the point. Microsoft is a monopoly because if you want to use a PC in the "real world" you have to use an MS OS. If the PC market switches to Vista, then you will have to switch to Vista too. That means you have no choice but to buy Vista or pirate it. Still, you will be using Vista.

When a company controls the market like this, it is a monopoly and should not be treated the same as other companies.

Microsoft isn't "forcing" them to sell anything. If they want to sell Windows on their computers however, which naturally they do, they must use Vista because XP is no longer available for sell to them.

Edit: This reply was meant for floodland, I hit the wrong button. :)

You say that about all of MY post !

"if you want to use a PC in the "real world" you have to use an MS OS"

So I have to switch to the "fake world" when I want to use my linux box? Damn. Bad new for all those Apple fans out there too.

Simple solution: Think before posting. :)

Dude, l;ook up Monopoly. It does not mean what you think it means. It's also not illegal.

Bought one for testing the rest of our company with.

So far the test results are mixed, and we won't be able to migrate as quickly as we'd like.

For one the Nvidia driver stability isn't quite where we want it to be.

For another we have several business critical apps that aren't vista certified yet and experience stability issues on Vista. Doesn't matter the compatibility mode we run them at, nevertheless, we can't migrate to it until these are addressed.

For one the Nvidia driver stability isn't quite where we want it to be.


Tell me about it. I was quite disappointed with that. NVIDIA's driver releases have gotten worse and worse over the last year or two.

For another we have several business critical apps that aren't vista certified yet and experience stability issues on Vista

Only one app is being sticky here. Amusing thing is, it's a web-app, written for IE6. We're working on porting it to be 100% standards compliant. (we took a few shortcuts early on...and we're paying for it now. ) :/

Other than that (and we're using mostly Intel graphics chips here), it's doing well.

Having tried Vista, I recommend computer users wait until SP1 before they upgrade. Especially if you are a gamer.

Here are some noteworthy bits I have learned from experience:
- SP1 will hopefully correct some annoying oddities. Remember how easy it was to mute Line In in XP? Open a dialog right from the systray and there your volume controls are. Not in Vista! You have to go through two or three dialogs and tabs now to find the Line In controls. Charming.
- If you're a gamer you'll immediately see that Vista is noticeably slower than XP, even if you use process priority tricks to boost the game's process and disable eye candy. Hopefully SP1 will have speed fixes, but also by then we'll see some DX10 games which will hopefully run decently.
- Programs will be updated to support Vista, especially ones that rely on drivers. Despite Microsoft's claim of compatibility I find a frustrating number of programs refuse to run.

Not one of those issues will effect office and home users (who aren't gamers).

Your recommendation is great, but it only applies to one segment of the computer using public. Comparatively, it's a small one, even though it's the one that pushes the limits and the tech forward.

Dead on regarding gaming, though. Most games run fine, but the "eye-candy" DX9 games will not run as smoothly until they get a DX10 patch. (SP1 will not fix this issue. DX9 is dead, long live DX10!)

There are 2 obvious reasons for this:

1. OEM versions are being bought by IT people like you and I, which costs a lot less money.

2. There are a s*** load more computers around now since 2002 and XP. And more people behind them.

And heck:

3. The price of computers has dropped since 2002.

I've tested it on my friend's PC, didn't buy one though, it's basically a good OS especially for Office and Internet and home/small Networking use, it offers more stability than Windows XP surely and it's UI (and networking too) has better responsiveness than Windows XP, if you compare that with same PC spec, using default freshly installed settings (XP gets better than default if customized).

I was thinking about buying one, but since I've to upgrade my PC too, I decided to try Intel-Mac since I work mostly at graphics design anyway and I can install my old Windows XP OS on the Intel-Mac for occasional gaming.

I think you should weigh whether to upgrade (or not) based on your general use of the PC, if it's basically Internet, Office and home Networking, this is very interesting for you.

Trend appears to be: Upgrade = bad, but pre-installed on Vista certified pc = good reports for the msot part.

I've been using it for three weeks now and must say the backwards compatibility is still a little frustrating, but I expected worse. For the most part, games play fine on vista for me (though I admit I'm not a gamer so there's only been a handfull of titles I've tested, including Star Wars: EAW and the expansion, Star Wars: KOTR and KOTOR 2, Command and Conquer Genereals and Generals Zero Hour, Halo, Final Fantasy 7 ("fixed" the unofficial XP patch where it thought Vista was XP, and it works fine. It will have problems without the unofficial patch and a quick change back and forth in the registry, though), and Wow. No problems with any of those...

I am one of those guys who has themes completely turned off in Windows XP. Needless to say, those fancy new UI improvements and flashy icons in Vista failed to impress me. I don't need eye candy. I need a functional operating system that let's me do what I'm trying to do and not get in my way. The look and feel of Vista is okay, and the UI didn't bother me too much. What did bother me was the overall layout of all the menus and such. Vista to me feels like Windows XP for dummies + flashy icons + extra useless gadgets.

I'll give you an example. In Windows XP, if I want to make any changes to my Themes, Desktop Wallpaper, Screen Saver, Screen Resolution, Colour Depth, etc. I can simply right click my desktop and go to properties. This opens the Display Properties window with all those settings nicely arranged in a tabbed interface. Now if I want to do the same thing in Vista, I'll run into problems from the start. Right clicking the desktop does not provide you a properties option. There's some other thing instead, I forget what it's called. After clicking that, it opens this huge, full screen menu with several options. Each of those choices opens a new window, giving you even more choices. Your guess is as good as mine which one I'm supposed to choose if I want to adjust, say, my screen resolution. Eventually you figure out the right selection to get to the options screen you want. Guess what? It looks exactly the same as the Display Properties window in Windows XP, except there is no tabbed interface there. You just get the one screen. If you want to change something else, you have to go back to that clunky, ugly, annoying full screen menu at step one. How this is useful to anyone is beyond me. It's like, they took a nicely organized tabbed interface and ripped it apart, then hid all the different parts under several other layers of clicking.

No thanks. I'm not switching to Vista anytime soon.

Exactly one of the reasons I went back to XP. That and I can't remember how long it took me to find where to set a static IP address for my NIC in Vista. Oh, and as I use separate partitions for different data (one specifically for fragmentation prone p2p downloads), I kept having to give myself permissions for everything but the kitchen sink, and approve the p2p programs using those partitions. (I am sure there was a way around this, but as my data was structured for an XP style permission system and I didn't feel like wrestling with it; and I have a few pieces of lower end hardware that I am almost positive won't be getting support to make them compatible, it just wasn't worth the hassle.)

Genius.
Your guess is as good as mine which one I'm supposed to choose if I want to adjust, say, my screen resolution.

Windows XP:
Right click Desktop
Click Properties
Click Settings Tab

Windows Vista
Right click desktop
Click Personalize(not full screen, unless you've maximized it)
Click Display Settings

Yeah, it's *so* much harder now. it's not Microsoft's fault you're apparently a complete moron.

You just get the one screen. If you want to change something else, you have to go back to that clunky, ugly, annoying full screen menu at step one.

Close the Display properties window and your options are, again, right there. You don't have to re-open anything.

Are you really this stupid, or are you hoping to get some folks who actually *haven't* seen Vista to believe your BS?

Except for the hardware bit, what did you expect from a new OS? If it operated the same as the old one, where's the improvement?

The figure includes Vista licenses sold to PC manufacturers,

This is a big part of it, I'm sure. I definitely don't see them flying off the shelves around here. Most folks will wait a while.

Of course, that's both good and bad. While it lets the lazier software/hardware manufacturers play catch-up, it also lets the hackers and malware devs.

Easy choice depending on your use. If it's for email, web, and Office, Vista would be better than XP right now simply due to the security. Gamers and hardware enthusiasts will probably want to wait a while.

WoW plays like a dog in Vista. Oddly, FlatOut 2 plays better in Vista than XP.

Well, once you copy over the DX9 lib. :p

Does anyone actually believe this? How much do you want to bet if you went to a graveyard in Redmond you'd find a bunch of names of people who bought Vista.

I've played with Vista for months and many of the UI enhancements are very nice and I've been attracted to a few of the features.. but largely the IT world is unimpressed with Windows Vista. It's working out pretty well in the Business world, that may be where they're getting their numbers. The gamer and hard core gamer segment is miffed due to terrible support from ATI & Nvidia.

Is this hype? Probably. Are people excited about Vista? A little.

I've bought Home Premium when i was buying my new PC (Ultimate was tempting but just too expensive). Was using XP-s for some time after but now i'm using just Vista. And so far i like it a lot.
Everything works fine and it looks damn nice.
Gadgets sidebar is a nice addition and there is bunch of cool features like fast search in every folder, integrated CD/DVD burning and stuff like that.

The question is what counts as a sale?
How MUCH Of that figure includes licenses to PC manufacturers? And remember that that simply replaces XP and so doesn't really make any difference to the bottom line.

I bought 4 copies of home premium, big mistake! I ended up putting XP back on the work machine, and the remaining machine that has Vista on it at home is slated to be wiped out and XP being put on it also. All my comps have at lease 2 gig mem, and 7200 or 10,000 rpm hard drives and all have at least 256mb video memory [XT1950 or 7900GTX], (no integrated crap). All dual core.

Things seem less irritating with XP than Vista.

I was a beta tester and couldn't wait for it as the beta seemed good, but somehow Vista is just a let-down. If only Steve Jobs would sell a version of OSX, I'd buy it at any price to avoid Vista. Honest.

Microsoft surprisingly resembles the State Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under the direction of Joseph Goebbels.

What do you mean "surprisingly"? It's not surprising at all.

What is surprising is that so many people still don't get it.

I wonder how they count Software Assurance customers in those numbers. Anyone requesting the media might count, which would inflate those numbers.

My agreement might be for 50 licenses and I request the media, so they count 50 copies?

That counts as 50 - the media cost is irrelevant!

True. Good example: 1 Action Pack subscription = 10 licenses > counted as 10 copies.

Hey, I bought an OEM copy of Vista--OEM versions are not just the ones that come with major manufacturor's PCs. That's one Vista sale that occurred in one month that XP did not have in the first month :)

Plus, looking at the fact that we finally just found our first critical update (arguably--it's in Windows Mail, anyway...see the article as posted on Tom's hardware Guide: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31347/108 Oh and Betanews dudes, note the little disclaimer they give below the article...) almost two months after Vista's public RTM, Vista is not one tenth as bad as some people are pretending it is at least as far as security goes. Look at how many XP issues there were after RTM but before the public release: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-274987.html

The business RTM of Vista was available in November of 2006, but we're just now getting a critical update. This to me speeks volumes about Vista's security--even XP SP2 had critical security flaws discovered just a few weeks after its release.

I bought two of those twenty million. Hey, and if you count piracy, Vista might be over 50 million right now. This is good news, as it's time for most of us to upgrade the hardware. Core 2 Duo chips are getting cheaper by the day, and $400 terabyte drives are coming this summer.