31 replies to this topic

[Charalambos]

Well, the new Windows Vista is here with the Aero interface e.t.c. e.t.c. But are these new things essential? On the other hand Windows XP is an OS of, I could say, high completness. Windows vista has surely more capabilities( most of which can and many will be included in Windows XP service pack 3 of course) but is it really a better OS and working environment? As far as I am concerned I downloaded IE 7( Microsoft gave it a high-priority download status, probably due to safety reasons such as the anti-"phishing" element) and it is really good but I couldn't bear the boldness of the Clear Type fonts even for a second, so I disabled this feature. I fell in love with Windows XP the first time that I saw their desktop and I really doubt if the new Windows Vista are( and can) be essentially better( at least Aero doesn't mean much to me).

[2005]

The thing is that most people are skeptical against an OS before it has time to grow on you.

I hated XP up and down when it first came out. I stayed with 98 at least 12-15 months before I even tired XP and the changes were so great that I decided to stay with it.

At first glance I didn't like vista much either, although I've only run the 2nd beta. A lot of programs were incompatible and the security features were annoying at best. Perhaps in time they can get the minor quirks hammered out and I'm sure that I'll be using it before the years out.

For now, especially on my home personal box, xp pro is here to stay.

[MaLing]

The main difference is 64bit with Vista, I think that will increase the speed a lot, just like what Windows 95 did when it first came.

I also think that Vista will be more stable than XP, which is not easy to be felt when users firstly use it, but after using it a period of time and then using back XP, the effect will be apparent.

[Jito463]

Except XP is also available in an x64 version (which I use on both of my machines). From what I've been reading, Vista will be the last version to be offered as x86 (32-bit). Every version after Vista will be x64 only (or more accurately, x86-64).

[ptolomeus3]

I´m using XP Home & Pro x86 (32-bit) and staying with them until I must change (purchase of a new PC and/or Laptop).

[dacre40]

Looks like I am part of the minority and have been running vista ultimate (and office 07) for the last couple of months. Before anyone asks - Yes legal versions from MS Technetplus. I am no computer specialist but all seems to be ok so far. Approx. 20 minutes for full install.
A bit of work locating updated drivers but that's to be expected for a new OS.
All appears to be stable so far (even more so than XP) and had no problems with any games (Older graphic card) or programs. And Yes. Alcohol works fine! Just annoyed with the game companies copy protection schemes.

[duydaniel]

Well, the new Windows Vista is here with the Aero interface e.t.c. e.t.c. But are these new things essential? On the other hand Windows XP is an OS of, I could say, high completness. Windows vista has surely more capabilities( most of which can and many will be included in Windows XP service pack 3 of course) but is it really a better OS and working environment? As far as I am concerned I downloaded IE 7( Microsoft gave it a high-priority download status, probably due to safety reasons such as the anti-"phishing" element) and it is really good but I couldn't bear the boldness of the Clear Type fonts even for a second, so I disabled this feature. I fell in love with Windows XP the first time that I saw their desktop and I really doubt if the new Windows Vista are( and can) be essentially better( at least Aero doesn't mean much to me).

I have watched a serial of ad about Vista at MS website, and I found there is almost no thing convincing me to switch to Vista. There are some visual effects, which are demanding more from your PC's resource... I think, I better save these resources for my work rather than devote them to some kind of new looking.

Another thought is Vista may have more conflicted with software than XP. I better upgrade my hardware with the price of $100 than pay for the new Vista upgrade.

[ChiefNuts]

There are some features of Vista that are good from a Enterprise perspective. We are using Enterprise VLK, and it has a better firewall emplementation than XP. (we currently use symantec crap.) And you can lock down the machine much easier with AD policy. It also is much nicer to network install, and image than XP. It also has an agnostic HAL, so 1 image will work across any nth processor based machine. The XML imaging features are pushing us to deploy within the next 7-8 months.

As a home user, I have a copy of ultimate that I for the more robust MCE enhancements, and stability. MCE seems more stable, and has more features than MCE 2005. As far as compatibality with my tv tuners (ATI 550PRO and HDTV Wonder) they are working great. Other than that there isn't anything that i've been overly impressed with. Gaming, on the other hand is a VERY MIXED BAG. The only thing that works really well is company of heros (Gaming for windows Vista Logo'd box --go figure.) but there is still a frame-rate hit. I'm actually upgrading my MCE machine in the next couple of weeks to dual core, so i'll share more then.

Like dacre40 said, I have been using office2007 as well for a while as well. I really like 2007. The ribbon takes getting used to, but the whole feel is dummed down, so i don't have to use my brain too much to figure things out. It a 'hold your hand through the work' type of dummed down. It's good for most users.

Edited by ChiefNuts, 12 February 2007 - 08:28 PM.

[MaLing]

Vista will be the last version to be offered as x86 (32-bit). Every version after Vista will be x64 only

I guess Microsoft will even drop 32 bit earlier. There will be probably service packs (or whatever) for Vista 32 bit and 64 bit, but after one, two servive packs, Microsoft will stop those for 32 bit and only provide to 64 bit, and ask users to upgrade to 64 bit, either free or with a price.

[Jito463]

Nah, I don't see that happening until well after their next OS is released that's 64-bit only. They still provide support for Windows 2000, and their OS retirement policy is 5 years before they stop support, though they have extended that further (such as Win98/WinME being supported until early-to-mid-2006).

[ChiefNuts]

Nah, I don't see that happening until well after their next OS is released that's 64-bit only. They still provide support for Windows 2000, and their OS retirement policy is 5 years before they stop support, though they have extended that further (such as Win98/WinME being supported until early-to-mid-2006).

I agree. One thing that microsoft has had a hard time shaking off is backward-compatibality. the dos Install just barley died with Vista. I think that's what makes Apple look so good, is when they release a new os, they don't do a lot of backward compatability like MS does. And before someone flames me for saying that, apple does do a lot of software bc, but hardware they don't. If microsoft would cut off old machines, then they could focus all that effort somewhere else.

[Jito463]

The problem is, Apple can do that because they control all the hardware. Of course, that's also part of the reason they have a whopping 3% of the market. Microsoft has such a huge share of the market BECAUSE they continue to support older hardware. They made a rather large leap with Vista, forcing people to have at least a DX9 compatible video card. But if they want to keep their place in the lead, they have to keep support around for older systems.

[MaLing]

Nah, I don't see that happening until well after their next OS is released that's 64-bit only. They still provide support for Windows 2000, and their OS retirement policy is 5 years before they stop support, though they have extended that further (such as Win98/WinME being supported until early-to-mid-2006).

The problem is, Apple can do that because they control all the hardware. Of course, that's also part of the reason they have a whopping 3% of the market. Microsoft has such a huge share of the market BECAUSE they continue to support older hardware. They made a rather large leap with Vista, forcing people to have at least a DX9 compatible video card. But if they want to keep their place in the lead, they have to keep support around for older systems.

Yes, I agree much.

I have heard one more thing about Vista: A user with either 32bit or 64bit licence can freely obtain the use of the other, i.e. a Vista licence, either 32 bit or 64 bit, is valid for both versions. Is that true?

[dacre40]

[
I have heard one more thing about Vista: A user with either 32bit or 64bit licence can freely obtain the use of the other, i.e. a Vista licence, either 32 bit or 64 bit, is valid for both versions. Is that true?

From what I understand (and I could well be wrong) that is correct. However, as per usual, only one OS is valid at a time.

[MaLing]

Thanks Dacre.

Then that is good for users, and it causes Wiindows XP to die sooner.

[Jito463]

The retail versions contain the x86 and x64 versions on the same disc from my understanding. The OEM versions are either x86 or x64, however I believe the key is valid for either version (you just have to choose which version you're buying on the disc).

[Charalambos]

and it causes Wiindows XP to die sooner

Not so soon. Don't forget that Windows 98 are still alive after all these years and they don't have the integrity and overall quality of Windows XP.

[MaLing]

Thanks Jito.

Charalambos, yes I agree too. Each version of newer Windows gets better and better, it stays longer and longer than the previous one, and XP is very good overal, so it is even harder to get rid of XP by Microsoft.

Just a little thing is different: Windows XP came after 98 only 2, 3 years, which is relatively short; now Vista comes after XP over 5 years.

[Jito463]

Close, but it was a bit longer than that. XP came out in late 2001, early 2002 (the exact date escapes me at the moment). That's over 4 years. However, it was only 2 years or so after the release of Windows 2000. Of course, Windows ME was also in that time frame, but I feel it's best left forgotten. That's one OS that would have been better off unreleased.

[Charalambos]

You may be right Jito since it was released together with the Windows 2000( Windows 5.0), however it participated to the production of Windows XP. At least the System Restore comes from Windows ME, which was the first Windows version that featured it.