Walt reviews Vista: Eh.
By Ryan Block 
posted Jan 18th 2007 2:03AM
posted Jan 18th 2007 2:03AM
We're willing to bet those among you that don't make gagging sounds whenever you're in eyeshot of a PC have probably already played with Vista a bit. Maybe you don't have the last beta installed on your machine, but you've sat down to a Vista box and at least logged a few minutes with oohs and ahhs at Aero and Flip 3D. So by this point you probably well understand that Vista, while being a major step forward for Microsoft, will for most users represent something more of a long overdue feature pack, finally bringing Windows up to date with OS X. Granted, Vista does diverge a bit with such features as tablet input and its best of breed Media Center interface (which we're absolutely stoked to start using), but we found ourselves largely agreeing with Unkie Walt's assessment that while this may be the strongest version of Windows yet, it's still got a ways to go to pull ahead of its competitors from a technological standpoint.
wtf did u expect? this is an os - they cant just throw everyone over board and be incompatible with everything that was before. And comparing with os X isnt realy correct, cus macos just supports expensive mac hardware, is a lot less customizable, it has only had 1 major release in like 6 years now(compared to ms like 7 major releases - xp, tablet, mce, ce, 64bit, 2003, vista, etc). Thats just to name a few points.
That would be more like 5 (soon to be 6) major releases of Mac OS X in 6 years (+server version but we don't count variants as separate releases ;-).
"wtf did u expect? this is an os - they cant just throw everyone over board and be incompatible with everything that was before. And comparing with os X isnt realy correct, cus macos just supports expensive mac hardware, is a lot less customizable, it has only had 1 major release in like 6 years now(compared to ms like 7 major releases - xp, tablet, mce, ce, 64bit, 2003, vista, etc). Thats just to name a few points."
You're kidding right? XP, tablet, MCE, and 64 bit are the same freakin thing (64 bit was just recompiled and is pretty much worthless). 2003 and vista are the same thing since they basically had to start over after they realized Longhorn was completely screwed. And Im not even going to address CE since it doesnt apply at all.
But hey, if you wanna be that technical, MS will be realeasing like.. what is it now? Seven versions of Vista? So that counts too right? So thats like 13 major releases in your eyes right? By the by.. I think thats the worst possible idea for selling an OS.. ever.
And yes, Jesper is correct. Apple has released 5 OS's (soon to be 6) even though they all look very similar but, ya know, not like windows 95, 98, me, 2000, xp, etc....
Not to mention that there really isn't such a thing as "Mac hardware" anymore: I share my Logitech USB headphones, my USB mouse, my USB printer and pretty much everything else between my Windows PC and my MacBook.
OSx has released the following versions since 10.0
10.0 cheetah march 2001
10.1 puma
10.2 jaguar
10.3 panther
10.4 Tiger
10.4.3 iLife 06
10.4.3.2 - Tiger with iLife 06 for Intel hardwarre
10.5 leopard is coming in the next few weeks.
so that's 8 completely different operating systems from apple in 5 years - not one
each one of these have massive new features
the versions of windows you listed are just versionsfor greater compatability.
This guy is clueless, only discussing visible changes while many things have been done under the hood. I also question his recommendation of hardware, I have Vista RC1 running on 3.5 year old Celeron 2.6GHz (this was a low-end computer back in 2003) with 768MB ram, while not blazing fast it is more than usable.
During the development of Vista, Microsoft threw so many things out of the release to get it out within the time frame they wanted it out in. Screw secure platform in the name of beating the next release of OS X to market. The result is pretty much Windows XP Service Pack Vista.
"So by this point you probably well understand that Vista, while being a major step forward for Microsoft, will for most users represent something more of a long overdue feature pack, finally bringing Windows up to date with OS X."
Gimme a break. MOST users don't know WTF OS X is. Vista will be a huge improvement for them. Hell, last time I check there were something like 25% of the people using Windows 98. Think they'll notice a difference when they buy a new computer? Me too.
Just because bloggers and journalists use Macs doesn't mean everyone else does. Perhaps you should pull your heads out and look around the real world.
Um, chances are if they are still running 98, then (1) they will not be upgrading to Vista and (2) their computers were probably made for 98, so can't upgrade to Vista
"Gimme a break. MOST users don't know WTF OS X is. Vista will be a huge improvement for them. Hell, last time I check there were something like 25% of the people using Windows 98. Think they'll notice a difference when they buy a new computer? Me too."
You're right, most people DON'T know what OS X is. They DO know what a Macintosh is, though, and that comes with OS X. By the same token, most people don't know if they're running Windows XP or Windows 98. It says so at the splash screen, but no one pays attention to that.
As far as going from 98 to Vista, I happen to disagree. Most of the people I know who are still running Windows 98 (and that's VERY VERY FEW) don't upgrade because they're too scared to learn a new operating system. They're stuck in their ways, and don't want to learn anything new. Having a billion new UI tweaks in Vista will just turn them off from computing. My mother is much the same way, but I have her running XP. Interesting note is that she's had NO problems using my iBook.
"Just because bloggers and journalists use Macs doesn't mean everyone else does. Perhaps you should pull your heads out and look around the real world." Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, I only see Macs everywhere on my campus. And in the airports... and in coffee houses... Actually, now I don't see what you mean. My family was considering making their next computer a Mac, up until we were given one for free. But I know more than a few Windows users who bought Macs and never looked back. Face it, the number of Mac users is increasing. QuickJump's PSPUpdates recently decided to carry more news on Mac utilities because there was such a demand for it, in a field that's traditionally strongly PC.
"Gimme a break. MOST users don't know WTF OS X is. "
Hmm.. I believe this is the companion talking point to
"IF MAC SO GREAT WHY U GOT 2% MARKETSHARE HUH? LOLZ"
I'd even added that few end-users really understand what Windows is and how it is different from PC they have just bought.
Most people start knowing what Windows is when computer start crashing. Some geek comes over and says something like "OMG! It's Windows!! It sucks!!!". But not sooner.
All technology speak left aside, when people come to shop they ask "can I print photos with that thing?" or "is my DV camera compatible?" sort of questions. Not anything like "what build of windows it that?"/"when minor version of DCOM protocols come preinstalled?".
they have 5% actually
and so do mercedes and BMW and porche have only 5% put together.
and they are shit cars right :| (sarcasm)
market share means nothing. why suffer with viruses/malware/addware/poor programmes.
my mac can run windows software right in OSX without even looking at windows. but the problem is - even with this feature - the only programme for windows that there isn't a better alternative for the mac platform is AutoCAD and that runs a hell of a alot better on my mac than on any PC. in 2 years, my mac has never ever crashed.
you'OSX is the god of operating systems. windows is for idiots who are engulfed by people's opinions. Macs are for creative geniuses.lets see you and 50 people make the new king kong movie on yur PC - cos thats how far a mac can take you.
Lots of MS fans commenting here. XP 5 years old? Vista has about 7 obvious new features. Vista won't let you use them unless your machine gets a high enough score: you have to hack it. About 8 new ways of paying for it. Are you guys paying for it? There'd be some value if it were free. There's another OS out. Its features are as advanced, getting more advanced. It isn't affected by viruses, malware or bogged down with software to prevent the problem. And releases every 6 months. It is free. You're not stealing if you use install it and you won't get bugged by WGA messages. Know what it is yet?
Vista does look highly polished. No mattter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.
First you want to Zune me, now you want to Vista me? Blow. People are starting to wise up microshaft.
gadgets? that's innovative. Have you thought about making a phone...
Why am I even putting thought into this?
lol I love the "army of Darkness" reference!!! ;)
In the future apparently there will indeed be a Zune branded phone. And it probably won't cost 600 dollars.
The whole Mac Fanboy Vs. PC Fanboy is really kinda boring now. Mac's do Mac things, PC's do PC things. Sometimes they both do the same things. They both have pro's and con's, If you like OS X, buy a Mac. If you like Xp/Vista, Buy a PC. If you want both that badly go buy both! But for christ sake STFU with the whole: Mac 0wnz PC!!!111 | NOWAII!!! Mac Sux0rz thing. It really is boring.
You sir, are a legend!
and it took them 5 years to create this OS and the major things they are associating vista is the aero interface.. they should have created somethin g revolutionary. but oh well.. its still a good OS. but not revolutionary as they said..
Paid to surf is back
Five years of work.. to create a new interface. God forbid they focus on securing the OS before they slap a new coat of paint on XP/2003 and send it back out to the masses. So it's really more of an Aesthetics pack than a Service pack.
justelise - Have you read one word about Vista or used it at all?
There are HUGE improvements in security. User Account Control, Bitlocker, low rights IE7, Defender built in, two-way firewall on by default and others.
Yes it has a pretty new face, but there are huge changes under the hood too.
actually if u want to use both os x and windows, buy a mac. Bootcamp negates PCs, sorry.
Vista's under-the-hood changes are what make this OS such a great leap forward, and the Flip 3D interface is definitely better than Apple has on the table. The only thing that ever gets me hyped about OS-X over a Windows platform is the object dock, which I can remedy with products like, well, ObjectDock by Stardock. Otherwise, they're pretty much the same UI OS: windows with buttons to minimize (apple+W or Alt+N), completely quit the program (apple+Q or Alt+F4) and quick launch abilities. Folder architecture, at the very least in the UI, is similar. So if you're the average consumer, you're bsaically looking at two incredibly similar technologies. Mac seems easier for you, you get a Mac. PC seems easier, you get a PC. The technical details--the stuff in the background--is for self-confessed losers that read Engadget religiously.
And to everyone who says Leopard, Tiger, Panther, et cetera are new OS's from Apple: bull shit. Do you know why they're referred to as different "builds" of OS-X. I'll give you a hint: because they're the same OS. That's right, their built on the OS-X architecture, just as XP was built on the 2003 architecture, Me and '98 was built on the Windows 95 architecture and 2000 and the Server OS's were built on the NT architecture. Windows and Apple have done pretty much the same thing: release cool new service packs for the same OS architecture. Just give Microsoft credit for having the balls to call them what they were: service packs.
I agree with you, but to a point. Just some technical stuff. 2K was built on NT, as was XP. I don't know about 2K3, but I'm pretty sure it's still NT, just a far more advanced version. And you're right, in that OS X is done much the same way. The only difference between the two is the pace they develop at, and the features they introduce (though, MS is trying to blur that line).
Miguel, your lack of knowledge about Mac and OS X is glaring. Not one thing you said about OS X is correct. And funny enough, you were even incorrect about your own os (windows). For a windows fanboy, I expect a little more.
And me being a complete newbie to Engadget forgot to leave the quoted text in! That was directed at Gary!
Actually , no Bombaclott, youre the sortof virus that will kill of high amounts of intelligence in comments..
Anyhoo, Vista's way overdue a non-beta release - I'm fed up of playing around with the beta we've had at work for a while and have enjoyed that immensely, but I want the nice shiny finished one..
I cannae wait Captain!
Im not really impressed by the Aero interface, I used it for like 2 mins and changed back to norman interface.
Why bother? GET A MAC
Ryan:
"Granted, Vista does diverge a bit with such features as tablet input and its best of breed Media Center interface"
You seem to have overlooked the fact that Inkwell allows for tablet input and FrontRow allows for media centre usage. (Unless you want TV recording, but then you can just go to the open source CenterStage or iTheatre apps). I'm surprised you overlooked these, given that Engadget has written stories about both the ModBook Mac Tablet and a how-to guide for turning a Mac Mini into a HTPC. - I know about them, and I don't even have a mac! :p
Miguel:
"And to everyone who says Leopard, Tiger, Panther, et cetera are new OS's from Apple: bull shit. Do you know why they're referred to as different "builds" of OS-X. I'll give you a hint: because they're the same OS. That's right, their built on the OS-X architecture, just as XP was built on the 2003 architecture, Me and '98 was built on the Windows 95 architecture and 2000 and the Server OS's were built on the NT architecture. Windows and Apple have done pretty much the same thing: release cool new service packs for the same OS architecture. Just give Microsoft credit for having the balls to call them what they were: service packs."
Actually, Apple clearly labels Leapard, Tiger, Panther &c. as updated versions of the same OS - They are all referred to as "OS X" and given version numbers - 10.5, 10.4 and 10.3, respectively. However, as you said; "XP was built on the 2003 architecture, Me and '98 was built on the Windows 95 architecture and 2000 and the Server OS's were built on the NT architecture"... so what you're saying is; it's actually Microsoft who is releasing updated architectures as different OS's, not Apple.
Rynth:
"Anyhoo, Vista's way overdue a non-beta release - I'm fed up of playing around with the beta we've had at work for a while and have enjoyed that immensely, but I want the nice shiny finished one.."
I hope you're not assuming that just because the "beta" tag is removed, this latest Microsoft product is suddenly going to be come more stable, usable, or in any way better...
Peter "There are HUGE improvements in security. User Account Control, Bitlocker, low rights IE7, Defender built in, two-way firewall on by default and others.
Yes it has a pretty new face, but there are huge changes under the hood too."
HUGE? I think not. Vista has been reviewed numerous times and most of the time is referred to as an XP service pack with a pretty GUI (IF you shell out the $499 price tag!)
As for User Account Control (UAC), many have referred to it as User Annoyance Control because it only prompts you to click "OK" and not actually verify anything. The messages are vague, and you know most users are just going to blindly click ok just to get the window out of the way. Thats why Mac and Linux force you to enter a password to install software or make system changes.
I honestly believe that MS is making too many mistakes and you are going to see them lose a TON of marketshare when users start to realize what the truth is about upgrading to Vista.
I just installed Freespire on my aunts and my mothers computer and they use it with no problems and I dont have to worry about spyware/viruses/etc etc.. So long MS. Its been fun... well.. no actually.. it hasnt.
Odd, because Defender is already available for XP, so it's not new, UAC pops up TOO often, and Windows Firewall is junk.
I had to use OSX last night to teach a class. WTF, it drives me crazy. Why can't I resize a window by dragging any of the 4 sides? Why can't I right click on a file and rename it? I agree that OSX has nice features but come on. I wish someone could take the best of both and make one really good os.
I use a Windows machine 8-12 hours a day. I have no problems with it and am highly productive. I'm no fanboy and don't give a f*ck about Microsoft or any other money hungry company. They can all burn, just get out of my way and let me do my work. The machine is my slave and it should do what I want it to!
The big advantage of Vista to me was the removal of the dependence on the hardware abstraction layer. To me, that is a big leap forward for this OS. I have enjoyed using Vista on my laptop and look forward to release.
Beryl beats the shit out of Aero, so Vista's got nothing on the eyecandy front. Tie in all the DRM-infested bullshit, add licensing to taste, and you've got yourself a mediocre and highly overpriced box of crap.
LOL! Not one person here has mentioned X, let alone Linux, and you just toss out Beryl figuring people here would know what you are talking about?
I agree with you though. All this Mac PC crap is garbage. Ubuntu and other contemporary Linux distro's have gained major ground against both OSX and XP.Vista. The only thing that would completely sever the link from MS and Mac for me would be software support from game developers for Linux. There should be no arguement. There is no reason people should pay for an OS when superior products can be had for free.
F*ck DRM!
"There are HUGE improvements in security. User Account Control, Bitlocker, low rights IE7, Defender built in, two-way firewall"
Umm... no. User Account Control is a consumer nightmare (give me Unix/Linux/OSX anyday), Bitlocker was removed for business reasons, IE7 barely catches up to Firefox (the security model is silly, because Firefox will run the same way on Vista), Defender is silly and the two way firewall? I mean seriously, you're touting a firewall?
Here's how Vista fails:
1. A stupid amount of horsepower required to run a OSX clone that isn't even that good.
2. User Account Control: let's experiment with a completely new and foreign security model instead of going with industry standards. Yes, and let's do this on every PC that's shipped out. No reason to roll this out slowly. Now everyone will know we're serious about profits. Whoops, I mean security.
3. Widgets? I can get more mature products for free.
4. Desktop Search? Ditto.
So let's see, I'm paying more for software(aero is only in deluxe models) and hardware (heavy system requirements) to run an OS that's old, inferior and can't even do basics (my experience with every Windows PC).
How can anyone think that adding another graphics layer and more background tasks are an improvement? It's only an improvement for Dell's stockholders.
btw, love the new Office. Real feature improvements were added. This is a big deal. I'm being fair.
There IS a reason they're firing Vista's leader. It's overpriced, underwhelming crap.
Wow mj, your RDF is showing! If you'd used the word "silly" a few more times, I'd have believed we were hearing from Apple's executive.
@Ben, that's the point. Comparing Windows to Mac from a UI point of view for the average consumer IS pointless, because of the learning curve. Most people use here OS by rote, and if you too many things are different, the user will feel helpless and blame the interface for being horrible. Since most people have an intuitive feel for how to use their computer (like you said, resizing windows by borders, or for example, in OS X, the single menu for every app), once things get changed, people start getting pissed. So basically Vista is the only way to get the average consumer Os-X type capabilities with a Windows feel.
Me and my 2 daughters each have pc's, theres no way im gonna pay 3 x 400$ to intall vista on every machine
and, and i wouldnt even contemplate spending 400$ for a minute on software unless it cleaned my house, did dishes, and drove me to work. The irritating mandatory registration crap is mental. And besides IE 7 is surely just another a virus magnet that keeps the antivirus companies afloat! Vista UE at 150$ with no support would be fine but at 400$ a pop? im in no mood to feed the rich.
kurtis,
If you have 3 PCs, you wouldn't be paying $400x3 for vista. Your two daughters mostlikely have no need for ultimate. Your options are, $260 for ultimate upgrade if you want ultimate plus 2x$50 for home premium licenses (the family pack)($360). or $160 for home premium upgrade plus 2x10% off $160 ($145) for 2 additional licenses (450).
I don't know why people who currently have XP are worried about the full price, when you can just buy the upgrade. You can even do a full fresh reinstall with the upgrade. you don't have to have XP already installed, just a XP cd handy to prove that you own an older version of windows when it asks for it. The full version is for people who have never owned a windows OS before, or are upgrading for an outdated version like 98, in which case they're prolly going to buy new computers anyway with vista preinstalled.
Wow, this site seems to be full of IT people who hate Macs because they knew if their company had them, they wouldn't have a job, and people who've never tried them before. The reason Apple doesn't have as much market share is because Microsoft is huge, and because Apple doesn't prostitute its OS to other companies, so it can control the product better and make sure that it works well. Windows will always be behind because its based on MS DOS, which was made in the 80's, when the only Music on computers were beeps, photo had yet to be digitized, and video wasn't even imaginable, so Microsoft has to modify the code to make MS DOS support all this stuff it was never designed for, which takes a lot of time. I really don't care if you hate Macs, more viruses for you! Msft is very good at one thing: Mass marketing a crappy product to stupid people and then making them their "Windows slaves" with the help of IT people. Anyway, the biggest threat to Windows is Linux. The reason that engadget compares everything to Apple is because they're the best. They fill everything with innovation and make sure it works the best as possible. Mac OS X is light years ahead of Windows and Vista won't change that. Leopard is due to come out soon anyway. The reason its better is because Apple engineer's can innovate and secure Mac OS X while the Microsoft people have to convert all the new stuff to MS DOS and also fill in the holes in their OS and battle against viruses. Why do these people think Apple is the evil one? Are they just jealous?
Umm, ok, Windows hasn't been based on Dos in years. If you meant backward compatibility, thats something different. The difference is that Windows is built for any x86 type computer built from any configuration of parts.
Mac Os isn't secure, its simply obscure, from the hacker/virus writer perspective. Os X does have security flaws, but Apple have become a little complacent over the years, and responds very slowly to security issues. as the Mac grows in popularity (thankyou ipod), it will become more of a target. I'm not a MS fanboy either, I have a Mac, and a PC with XP and Ubuntu.
Carlos said,
"Wow, this site seems to be full of IT people who hate Macs because they knew if their company had them, they wouldn't have a job, and people who've never tried them before..."
WRONG. You obviously have no idea what I.T. means. Macs will eliminate jobs? So according to you, somehow, with Macs, no one needs to build/maintain/administer the file servers, mail servers, databases, firewalls, network infrastructure, network security, etc.? And you really are kidding yourself if you think Macs will not need a desktop support staff. And ask I.T. folks how much they love servicing Mac hardware vs. PCs.
"The reason Apple doesn't have as much market share is because Microsoft is huge..."
WRONG. Apple caters to consumers. Microsoft caters to businesses. Businesses, especially large multinational ones, like to plan ahead, especially when deploying to thousands of users. Planning, wow, what a concept. But Apple is all about secrets.
Hardware is a huge issue. If your company has a presence in over 100 countries, you want to be able to buy hardware in each country. Also, zero competition with hardware means a bigger bottom line. Having to buy 50,000 Macs vs. 50,000 Dells/HPs/Lenovos/etc. is not chump change.
Software is a huge issue. I'm not talking about games, either. I'm talking about software that helps people get their job done, not some iWhatever consumer software.
"Windows will always be behind because its based on MS DOS..."
WRONG, yet again. Your credibility goes straight out the window from this single statement.
Carlos said,
"Wow, this site seems to be full of IT people who hate Macs because they knew if their company had them, they wouldn't have a job, and people who've never tried them before..."
WRONG. You obviously have no idea what I.T. means. Macs will eliminate jobs? So according to you, somehow, with Macs, no one needs to build/maintain/administer the file servers, mail servers, databases, firewalls, network infrastructure, network security, etc.? And you really are kidding yourself if you think Macs will not need a desktop support staff. And ask I.T. folks how much they love servicing Mac hardware vs. PCs.
"The reason Apple doesn't have as much market share is because Microsoft is huge..."
WRONG. Apple caters to consumers. Microsoft caters to businesses. Businesses, especially large multinational ones, like to plan ahead, especially when deploying to thousands of users. Planning, wow, what a concept. But Apple is all about secrets.
Hardware is a huge issue. If your company has a presence in over 100 countries, you want to be able to buy hardware in each country. Also, zero competition with hardware means a bigger bottom line. Having to buy 50,000 Macs vs. 50,000 Dells/HPs/Lenovos/etc. is not chump change.
Software is a huge issue. I'm not talking about games, either. I'm talking about software that helps people get their job done, not some iWhatever consumer software.
"Windows will always be behind because its based on MS DOS..."
WRONG, yet again. Your credibility goes straight out the window from this single statement.
still expensive for bells and whistles, watch this o.s turnout to be a nightmare for clone pc buyers who swap drives and boards, and if your drive fails your doomed to pay vista again. 'imagine if is its the same for reformats!? microsoft has become oppressive and intrusive, you 'd think that such a filthy rich company wouldnt be such agressive penny pinching misers and stiffs. Im thankfull that there are other alternatives to windows.
Kurtis,
I don't know if I even understood what you're talking about, but if I did...
If you drive fails, you buy a new one and reinstall the OS, you don't have to pay MS again, if it says you've activated too many times, you call MS and tell them that you replaced your HDD, and they say "ok you're reactived." reformats... you wouldn't need to with vista unless you turn off the security features and leave yourself open to getting hammered. I've been running RC1 since it came out, with no need to reformat.
I'm starting to think there are too many people in here with wrong assumptions about vista. That it is not an improvement over XP. If anyone in here wants to know vista seriously, go check out Paul Thurrott's extensive review at www.winsupersite.com. I'm not saying that Vista is all that is holy, but at least I give it credit where it is due, and my express upgrade to home premium should be coming shortly after the release.
Also for those that think I'm biased towards windows, I'm not. I've used Mac OS X tiger a lot when it was available to me, and it's a good OS too. I just don't think people understand that yes vista is getting windows up to snuff on security, reliability, and pure ability. It has so many advancements in multimedia, including the ability to control the volume of every program separately, having it automatically set up EQ and dB levels for each speaker in a surround environment. A huge jump with the Windows Presentation Foundation, and all them others. It kinda like OSX's core audio, graphics, animation or whatever else they have. Leaps and bounds on security and perfomance with features that even OS X doesn't have, or haven't annouced because they're so tight lipped on Leopard. Such as that memory randomization one. performance enhancers such as super fetch, readyboost, auto defraging, etc. I can't think of them all, but all those that doubt, you can check out paul's review.
oh... not to mention, there is no sideshow for mac os X, which is shaping up to be a great platform from all the sideshow enabled devices that showed up at CES.
LOL ROFL VISTA
@GUI:
Go to youtube, search for "Beryl" watch the vids and be ashamed...
@security:
Do we really have to discuss this? Go get yourself Linux... not a single Virus, not a single service pack to patch that... firewall built into the kernel, blabla...
@hardware requirements:
LOL ROFL... Linux can do better with less
@price:
Linux is FREE and comes with TONS of useful extra software
@DRM:
ROFL ROFL ROFL
I will NEVER let an OS tell me what I can do and what I can't do...
Still think Vista is the top of the Operating Systems? Then you deserve it!!!
Oh and I forgot, to clear it up. Vista is based on Windows Server 2003, instead of XP which it was originally being built on top of. And the Vista kernel is going to be updated in SP1 to match the longhorn server kernel.
As far as I can tell, there are only three good reasons to upgrade to Vista: directx10, cablecards, and improved security. Directx10 won't be important until late-2007 or 2008 and with cablecard totally locked down to approved oems only, that feature becomes useless for now too. It remains to be seen how effective the new security features are. I suspect many inexperienced computer users will just click OK through every security prompt in Vista without reading or understanding it, rendering much of the new security ineffective for most people. I'm currently recommending to all my friends that they not buy Vista yet. Perhaps it will become more compelling by the end of the year.
i hear ya mike, still its too expensive, chronic registration for whatever reason is totally frustrating and pathethically penny pinching, and MS has always said it would make internet explorer secure and it NEVER EVER did, MS says that at every release of its new OS as a sales pitch. Rest assured it will be a virus magnet like all the other versions of windows.
it keeps the antivirus industry afloat at the expense of consumer happiness wich is unnaceptable pressure in my opinion. Microsoft makes people pay for support most computer users dont even need. 400 dollars for an OS is almost extorsion! 250$ of that amount all goes towards microsoft staff customer support fees. That customer support is a huge staff examining registrations, answering phone calls and emails & info on the site ect. i NEVER NEED TO USE THAT. why should i pay 400$ for the windows challenged , non sense. I keep reading Vista requires a huge hardware upgrade that will cost you 300$ of ram, An OS that needs 5 times the ressources to do the same job dosnt feel like an upgrade much. 400$ is wack! plus having to report yourself to MS at every install is really deplorable.
Kurtis,
I can get into more and more details, but I think you've been misinformed.
You really do not need hardware that powerful to run vista. If you want to use Aero glass, you don't even need anything more than GMA950. 512MB ram is the minimum requirement or recommended i don't remember. 1GB(about $100) should be more than enough for it to run smoothly XP only needed 128MB. I even got XP pro to run on a 166MHz Pentium that had 128MB.
You may not even need more than home premium yourself, if you want media center and glass. I mean, I know that I don't need more than home premium myself. Which is $240 full, or $160 upgrade. If you think about it, if you had a mac, you'd pay $130 for upgrading to the next .x version of OS X. Yes upgrading because OSX would only install on a Mac, and that Mac came with a version of OS X, so you already have paid for a license of OS X. So all releases are upgrade versions, and there are no full versions. Even Home Premium has all the features in ultimate that OS X has, i think (unless you can come up with an example). So you'd only be paying $30 more for Vista than OS X. And the support that you're paying for isn't only customer service over the phone. They are also supporting you by releasing patches for you.
But for real. Everyone on here should check out Paul T's Review at www.winsupersite.com. I'm not affiliated with him or the site. But he is very well connected within MS and tells all.
Oh Malarky, Windows has plenty of more friendliness and usability over Linux, if not stability, and by God, it has everything over OS X except various editing applications and a few specific other ones, "catch up", why doesn't OS X "catch up" to Windows and stop treating it's users like blind paraplegic babies? I don't need every single fathomable function to be so obtuse and dumbed down, I'm not a buffoon. Linux, well it doesn't need the average consumer, it has plenty of corporate and small business support to grow on.
I reiterate, Malarky.
*sigh*. To all the Mac fanboys, yes, there is Mac hardware. Logic boards die, pram batteries die, power failures result in the motherboard power manager to be reset, and the list goes on.
To the ones who think we should all buy macs and dual-boot or parallel Windows, I would advise you buy a much cheaper but equivalent pc and put osx on it.
To anyone who accuses the I.T. world of disliking macs because they fear the 'stability' will ruin their jobs, I say this: at least in my experience, I've had to spend more time fixing macs than fixing pc's -- and our pc's outnumber our macs.
To anyone who says anything about Vista: Have you personally tried it out? Do you know how it works? Or are you basing your opinion on reviews written by some mac-toting blogger, linux-loving hacker, or hard-core windows fan? Because each of those might be a little biased. You'll know if you like it only after you've tried it.
Jesus...That had to of been the most Biases article I've ever read reguarding Vista.
Nearly every other line is like "Like OS X". *rolls eyes*
THIS ARTICLE IS SIMPLY A APPLE FANBOY REVIEWING VISTA......NOTHING MORE.
I'm buying Vista Home Premium the day it comes out....So F*ck you Apple.
@BeaverlyLove
"Oh Malarky, Windows has plenty of more friendliness and usability over Linux, if not stability,[...]"
err... WRONG
You've never come to really use anything else but Windows. And with "really use" I don't mean to just install a Linux, play for it a few days and then go back to windows.
Every OS has its own learning curve, you'll have to get through it to really use it.
It takes time and a strong will to go from Windows to any other OS.
"[...]and stop treating it's users like blind paraplegic babies? "
Funny, that's what every Linux user says about Windows users.
The only reason everybody uses Windows is, because you're used to it. And you're used to it, because it comes preinstalled on almost every computer. That's good marketing, and marketing is everything that M$ is good at.
In other words, Windows users are fashion victims.
And for a Windows user, Vista really is a step forward. For a computer user, Vista is just another annoying thing on the list.
vistas DRM is a media files nightmare!
and it eats up 800 mb of ram doing nothing!
Its a privacy invasion to have to report to
microsoft's police officers every time you need to
do an install if your drive fails or if you want to swap it.
Linux is the freedom choice more than ever.
Why do so many of feel you have the right to comment on vista when you have not used it or even bothered to do any research on it(other than from Apple/Linux fanboy sites). When you talk about it needing really powerfull hardware or that it's a clone of crappy OS-X (screenshots disprove that) or when you say the security improvments are limited to UAC, it's very clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I wonder if you realise that both OSX and Linux have just as many security vulnerbilities that windows does (in fact they both have a lot more). The only reason virus's and malware are created for windows is because that's the number one platform, 96% of the planet runs windows, what's the point in creating a virus for the remaining 4% of alternative platforms?
I for one thing Vista is one of the best things to happen to windows in a long time. The only downside I've found so far is that OpenGL support is a bit buggy and the whole signed driver issue is a problem with no adequate solution at present. Vista also has terrible native bluetooth support currently.
Having said that, Vista is a very nice OS. Aero looks great, the OS seems very stable, and the interface is intuitive. Vista is a genuine pleasure to use.
When will people actually learn that there arent viruses for unix based OS's like OS X and Linux?
I ran windows for a long time, then I was given a new intel mac book with os x, and i love it. Not saying there are no problems, but its easier to fix the problems then on windows.
Ive ran different linux distros as well, the thing that gets me is that sometimes, I just want my computer to work and not have to mess with anything.