Microsoft Vista

[RogerS]

Just wondered how many of you are goig to upgrade?

£350 seems a tad expensive to me. Personally I reckon that it won't have the take-up that XP had. Corporates will delay since they won't necessarily want to make the huge investment in new hardware. I can't see many private buyers (apart from a few geeks) shelling out £350 and so that leaves only those who buy a new computer.

 

[LyNx]

whats the advantage of vista over Xp pro or Xp64?

 

[wizer]

I wont upgrade properly until the 1st or 2nd service pack. It's just too buggy atm. I have it on a test machine and I may put it on my laptop for a bit.

BTW Roger: I work for a very large media company, we have about 6000 users in London alone. We will roll out vista across the board by July.

 

[MrJay]

whats the advantage of vista over Xp pro or Xp64?

[nerd talk]Vista has changed the user model to something more Unixy, the smartest thing they've done in years, though I hear that they've windowsified it and its annoying as hell[/nerd talk] which ought to make Vista much less of a soft target for catching nasty things off the internet. For that reason I'd recommend it to my mum.

Personally though, XP hasn't been so bad on my PC and if I want a proper grown up Unixy operating system I've got Linux. I'm not in a big hurry to buy yet another Microsoft OS.

 

[RogerS]

I wont upgrade properly until the 1st or 2nd service pack. It's just too buggy atm. I have it on a test machine and I may put it on my laptop for a bit.

BTW Roger: I work for a very large media company, we have about 6000 users in London alone. We will roll out vista across the board by July.

I can see the logic for doing that if it coincides with any company long-term migration strategy. But....I wont upgrade properly until the 1st or 2nd service pack. It's just too buggy atm. and We will roll out vista across the board by July Does not compute Does not compute. Does not compute :lol:

 

[Adam]

You don't have an option for E) No thankyou, I'm fine with XP.

Adam

 

[wizer]

Personally though, XP hasn't been so bad on my PC and if I want a proper grown up Unixy operating system I've got Linux. I'm not in a big hurry to buy yet another Microsoft OS.

Totally agree with that statement. XP is fine.

 

[LyNx]

You don't have an option for E) No thankyou, I'm fine with XP

I second that one. XP64 rocks :lol:

 

[woodshavings]

I have upgraded one pc, not used for business and accounting, with Vista. The cost was about £80 (Novatech) for the OEM Home Premium version.

I like the new interface and the (yet to be proven) improved security but would not pay £300.

I will not be changing the remaining pcs, critical for my business, until I am sure of the stability of Vista but so far, so good.

John

 

[wizer]

another issue with Vista is hardware. My newest, highest spec PC is 'underspecced' for vista.

 

[mr]

One option missing from the poll is " no thanks, I run Linux" which is where I fall. Having said that if my clients start using it or take up is large then I will have to install it on a spare machine in the same way that I have XP currently installed for testing etc. I have a feeling the corporates will upgrade sooner rather than later, and I suspect the real geeks won't balk at the price (seeing as they won't be paying) and very possibly have it installed already.

Cheers Mike

 

[Anonymous]

It's a joke and a rip off. I personally have never had any security issues with XP or 2000 for that matter. Viruses? Trojans? never had one. Security is easy with a modicum of common sense.
And a new interface. Who cares a jot what the OS looks like ?????????


I personally won't upgrade (maybe defect though) but work will no doubt upgrade in a year or so

Microsoft needs to release new versions of windows every 3-4 years or they die.
Unfortunately, we don't need their new versions as Windows - operating systems should support and run other (useful) apps, not take up all your RAM and CPU cycles :roll:

Bring back DOS 2.0 :lol: :lol: :lol: (and that hair shirt)

 

[duncanh]

I found this interesting article benchmarking Vista and XP on Tom's Hardware last night http://tinyurl.com/2dbx86. Basically it says that XP will run your apps faster.
I didn't want Vista beforehand and after reading this I certainly don't. I'm perfectly happy with XP.

The problem will be that most PCs bought from now on will have it pre-installed. This was one of the reasons that I just bought a new machine.

Duncan

(there doesn't appear to be an option for not wanting Vista at all in the poll so I choose nothing)

 

[Roger]

Here's your link Duncan (the one you posted doesn't go through):

Vista - XP Benchmark

Vista IMO is just a paint job on the engine. Not a lot of point in spending the money if the latest of everything works just fine and as fast as it can right now.

 

[mr]

I think, though I may be wrong not having seen Vista up close as yet, that it's a bit more than just a paintjob. For example the DRM elements would appear to offer content providers a much greater level of control over their content which may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. It's not impossible that Msoft will attempt to lock down the (corporate) market meaning that there may eventually be a fork in hardware platforms as hardware becomes specificly linked to the DRM controls meaning that hardware will only work on pc platforms as the DRM elements cannot be released to provide interoperability due to the dangers of reverse engineering. Anyone for a graphics card that will only run in a pc? Hmm didn't think so

Mike

 

[Roger]

For example the DRM elements would appear to offer content providers a much greater level of control over their content which may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view. It's not impossible that Msoft will attempt to lock down the (corporate) market meaning that there may eventually be a fork in hardware platforms as hardware becomes specifically linked to the DRM controls

That's one that I definitely think is a minus against Vista. It will be interesting to see what a SP or two relax in view of the fuss it's already causing ....

 

[RogerS]

as hardware becomes specificly linked to the DRM controls meaning that hardware will only work on pc platforms as the DRM elements cannot be released
Mike

It's already there at the software level since you can only use Windows Media Player DRM on PCs and no other platform. It is my current pet peeve that media providers such as the BBC/Channel4/Channel5/Lovefilm and many others insist that I have to go and buy a PC if I want to download their stuff.

 

[mr]

Steve Jobs is already saying that DRM control should be removed from content. Whether one takes the cynical view that thats a business led statement as I'm sure it is, it would seem to make sense both for users and content providers. On the surface of things it would appear that MSoft is moving in the opposite direction.

Roger the BBC news content will work on other platforms, I can view it on my linux box - no experience of the others Im afraid. At software level that sort of lockdown doesnt matter too much as there will always be a software option. The problem arises I think when the hardware becomes tied into the system which then means that hardware is manufactured only to work with one system. Obviously thats currently the case with some hardware but if the hardware development tree forks as a result of something like this I don't see that as being particularly useful.


Mike

 

[Sailor]

Evening,
Steve Jobs is only trying to 'pass the buck'; as Norway has said that the iTunes DRM is illegal and must be made operable on other devices.
Jobs is saying 'it's not me it's the big record labels' but the Scandinavians have said that that cuts no ice and are now discussing a time line for either compliance or fines.
Bill Gates has also said that DRM is against the interests of consumers, so maybe there is a slight ***** opening up!

ps no chance of 'upgrading', only use Windows on one out of eight computers in the house/workshop.

Colin

 

[tigerturnings]

I'm not likely to ever use Vista on any of my PCs. Like mr, I'm running Linux which fills all my needs. I cannot ever imagine paying for software with potentially less functionality than that of my current, free software.

In those rare cases where I have needed Windows, I have the choice of using an ancient NT4 system or booting 2000 on my main workstation, which has proved totally adequate so far.

Cheers

Neil