Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"As someone who doesn't reside in the USA, I was wondering what would be the best way to get internet for my computer in the US for a couple of weeks? If it were Europe I know I'd look for some prepaid data. Is there anything similar offered by American carriers? A MiFi or a data SIM that I can tether from would work, but I'm trying to maintain a tight budget. Help!"
Yet again, it looks like my decision to stick with XP until Windows 7 arrives was the right one... :-)
MS changed ALOT of things when they went from XP to Vista. It just means you have missed out on all the new features for the past few years..even if it was at the expense of some system resources.
Windows 7 was not the release Windows was "supposed" to be. Its a refinement release. Just like Snow Leopard is a "refinement" of Leopard. Ive had kernal panics and freezing problems with Leopard, but i would NEVER go back to Tiger, i would be missing out on too many things.
Vista is a great update from XP...always was...to me...but im a person that can live with the odd problem or inconvenience, so i can experience all the new features and interface updates. I use Leopard as my main OS, and have Vista installed through bootcamp, im a happy camper.
You've had a kernel panic recently? I don't remember my last leopard kernel panic...
@LondonConsultant - skipping an OS release you don't find any worth or benefit from is always a bright idea. On the other hand, I'm sure those who have been using, enjoying, and finding productivity benefits from Vista are glad they took the plunge instead of waiting.
@ Adderz
Resources, boot time, and ESPECIALLY compatibility are all reasons not to upgrade to Vista. I play some older games, I'm quite into amateur indie game programming, etc, none of which has compatibility that has even come close to that of XP. Granted, XP had the same problem with compatibility when it came out, but Microsoft, as well as individual programmers, came up with fixes. Now we have an immense pool of fixes and patches for the compatibility issues on XP. Vista has a lower install base and a shorter life span, so the compatibility issues haven't been fixed. I couldn't even pay my phone bill on a Vista machine. I was online trying to pay the bill, it would just not work. I was no the phone with customer support to see if it was something on their end. It was not. I went, "hold on a sec," ran upstairs to my bro's XP machine, and it worked just fine. Same exact browser.
Let's talk about pricing. Why bother to upgrade if you don't feel like paying for it? Hell, I've been running a bootlegged copy of XP for years because I don't feel like paying for THAT, let alone the crazy prices for Vista. To enjoy any of Vista's nice features beyond widgets (available on XP btw) or the dynamic search, you'd have to get a more expensive edition, and I would have to upgrade my PC. Not worth it.
Vista is pretty much a bunch of unoptimized code layered on top of XP, whereas Windows 7 is a build from the ground up. This is how they are achieving the faster boot times, system performance, and lower system requirements.
I personally am actually interested in 7, and I'm keeping it on my radar. As someone with a P4 system, I'll still probably not have the need to upgrade, as I won't be able to enjoy any games that take advantage of DX10. I'll be interested to see what sets this apart from XP and Vista besides system performance, though.
@ Adderz
I've also missed out on shelling out a few hundred dollars to pay for the vista license and hardware upgrades to run the OS.
And really, I'm glad I missed out on that.
"I don't remember my last leopard kernel panic..."
Just like I can't remember my last Vista BSOD.
7, on the other hand, seems to loathe my ATI card...
@Levi: I don't know how you're experiencing it, but vista is not unoptimized code layered on top of winXP. WinXP is NT v5.1. For vista, they have rewritten a whole lot, and named the resulting kernel NT v6.0. This is exactly why there were so many compatibility issues. With Windows7, they took the vista kernel, en applied some optimisations, an fixed some issues. The result is kernel NT v6.1. The reason why people will be experiencing a smooth transition to windows 7, is because by now, developers have had the time to adjust, and make there programs and drivers decently compatible to this new kernel version.
Cheerz
Dracorius
"Vista is pretty much a bunch of unoptimized code layered on top of XP, whereas Windows 7 is a build from the ground up. This is how they are achieving the faster boot times, system performance, and lower system requirements."
This is the frontrunner for "the catastrophic failure in posting of the year" award so far.
I logged in just to reply to levi's comment.
"Vista is pretty much a bunch of unoptimized code layered on top of XP, whereas Windows 7 is a build from the ground up. This is how they are achieving the faster boot times, system performance, and lower system requirements."
WTF. Where have you been?! The ENTIRE internet has been saying the exact opposite for about 3 months now.
Vista was where they changed everything and made XP programs uncompilable.
As for windows 7, all the linux fanboys have been constantly complaining about how windows 7 IS windows vista with some minor adjustments. Not "built from the ground up".
I agree this is the single biggest fail comment I've heard all year.
This guy sounds like he wanted to jump on the bandwagon but got it 100% wrong. He cant even follow correctly. My advice, uninstall windows. Unplug your computer. Don't even use a computer again.
on second thought this guy is probably trolling us, nobody is that stupid. Right? right?
@ Levi again and maybe late:
Windows 7 is the same kernal as windows vista. Seriously, you should probably do some research before you go talking smack about an operating system you know nothing about. I do all of those things that you said you couldn't do on windows vista (literally every single one). Maybe the problem lies in you, not the operating system.
PwNeD
@Levi
If you are using a bootlegged version of XP, then that means you installed it yourself. That also means, that in all likelihood, unless you are using "bootlegged" hardware as well, that you qualify to use this version of Vista. (they never check anyway)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480
For only $89, I highly doubt that this is what you consider to be "crazy prices".
As far as the reasons why you stay with XP, compatibility for example, doesn't apply to most PC users. I really don't feel that my grandmother/mom/uncle/sister/friends/clients need the ability to do things like "amateur indie game programming". In most instances, Vista has provided a more intuitive way for many of my non-techie clients to learn to use a PC for the first time. Most of these Vista users immediately told me when shopping for a computer that Vista wasn't an option. When I asked them why, they couldn't give an answer. After comparing XP and vista, guess what they chose?
Most of us who visit Engadget are the techie type. We probably have needs that sometimes cannot be met by the newest OS. That doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that it won't meet the needs of anyone else.
BTW, I'm typing this on a machine that dual boots XP and Vista. As a systems integrator/IT consultant, I have only run into a couple of programs that I use day to day that I need XP for.
You DO see that that is an OEM version, right? That means you legally MUST buy a hard drive with it or you are breaking the law. Tack on about $50 or more to that price.
@Andir3.0
Actually, all you have to do is buy any piece of hardware, a USB Cable will do. If he built his own machine then he also qualifies.
@Adderz
I've been waiting for 7 on XP also, I look that any OS that is 3 to 4 times the requirements no matter how many features is not right. It was like when I was on 3.1 and went to 95. True was a lot of differences but when I went to 98 was just a improved version of 95. When i saw ME on my friends PC there was no way I would get on there and jumped on XP. Now the way I look at Vista is just like 95 and 7 is 98 so in my theory I have waited for the right time to redo a whole new computer and be ready for Starcraft 2 and Diablo III on Windows 7.
@Reece:
Perhaps you need to read the license again... Here is a review of what it takes to make an OEM license legal:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=885079
Another way in which a user can obtain an OEM copy of Windows is by simply purchasing it from a vendor. The vendor must still follow the “sellers” EULA when selling a single copy of the OS. The EULA states the vendor must sell the OS bundled with a “non-peripheral component” that is “essential” to running the PC. Microsoft has a FAQ on this as well:
Quoted from Microsoft's OEM Builder FAQs:
"Q. The current System Builder license states that I may distribute an operating system license with a "non-peripheral hardware component". What hardware components are considered "non-peripheral"?
A. A non-peripheral hardware component is a hardware component that is considered to be essential to running a computer system, and includes components such as memory, internal devices and drives, mice, keyboards, and power supplies. Examples of components that are not considered essential are external modems, networking devices, cameras, printers, and scanners. "
So no, you have to buy something essential to the operation of the computer. A cable won't cut it. A keyboard will. (Which I did not know previously...)
So essentially andir, you're saying that Reece was fundamentally correct while you were wrong, yet you're still pretending to be an expert by quoting the MS site directly. Fail.