Anyone here using the new Vista

[KHURRAM SERAJ 0]

Anyone here using Windows Vista? Which version? whats your opinion? is it worth it to upgrade

Edited April 16, 2007 by KHURRAM SERAJ

[JayJay 4]

I am - it's not bad at all. Very pretty. Is it worth an upgrad - probably not 'til all the bugs are out... I have this because the computer I'm using is new

[KHURRAM SERAJ 0]

I am - it's not bad at all. Very pretty. Is it worth an upgrad - probably not 'til all the bugs are out... I have this because the computer I'm using is new

Cool, good to know

[Heracles 417]

I am looking at building / purchasing a new system myself but am finding it a little difficult to find hardware that is Vista compatible..

[Niels Bohr 72]

Vista is too expensive. It can do the same things as Linux, except, it's a little bit harder to customize it. Linux can do a lot of things. It has better memory management, and supports SMP (symmetric multi-processing). With Windows, I have never done clusters with them. But, with Linux, clustering three computers to act as one is simple.

I know with Windows, if you have a dual core or quad core, you can tell what application to use what core. But, you cannot have it do parallel processing.

[Dan J 277]

Most of the improvments are eye candy at best. So dont go out of your way to secifically upgrade to windows vista. Look into upgrading when you get a new computer or need to run applications that require Windows Vista. Its better in some ways, and worse in others. But likely if you keep your applications current, you will probably need to keep your OS current.

The major problems right now are poor driver (software that lets windows talk to the computer) support and some applications not installing or not running correctly.

[pedroh 21]

vista home basic sucks ####### big time!! the only worth vista is professional, which costs a lot of money, plus as infidel said, a lot of compatibility issues with either hardware or software.. lots of patches to download, u need a ton of RAM just for vista..

Win XP professional ftw.. or even home edition lol

[rebeccajo 14]

My husband and I were talking new 'puters yesterday. He says if we get the one we are looking at, he's gonna wipe the Windows Vista Home Basic it comes with and install XP. (Of course he would rather I run Linux....but oh well I just haven't converted yet....)

He's also telling me that Microsoft is going to stop making XP available for new computers after January 2008 (per BBC news). So the only choice on new machines after that time will be Vista.

Edited April 16, 2007 by rebeccajo

[homesick_american 1]

Vista is a ram hog and has a lot of issues with bugs, like any new version of Windows. I'd stick with XP given the choice...or even switch to Linux.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

According to some reviews I read - its still a poor man's version of Apple O/S X (which strangely costs a lot more).

There are also some things to be concerned about going on under the hood as it were. Specifically the integration of digital rights management software.... I'll keep XP SP2 for a while I think...

[KHURRAM SERAJ 0]

I am looking at building / purchasing a new system myself but am finding it a little difficult to find hardware that is Vista compatible..

Why not get a dell or something as it is now coming with Vista anyway

Vista is too expensive. It can do the same things as Linux, except, it's a little bit harder to customize it. Linux can do a lot of things. It has better memory management, and supports SMP (symmetric multi-processing). With Windows, I have never done clusters with them. But, with Linux, clustering three computers to act as one is simple.

I know with Windows, if you have a dual core or quad core, you can tell what application to use what core. But, you cannot have it do parallel processing.

Windows is capable of Clustering and can be done very easily as compared to Linux, but I agree that it is more Customizable since it's open sourse

Windows is capable of Clustering and can be done very easily as compared to Linux, but I agree that it is more Customizable since it's open sourse

Vista is a ram hog and has a lot of issues with bugs, like any new version of Windows. I'd stick with XP given the choice...or even switch to Linux.

thanks for your input

Vista is too expensive. It can do the same things as Linux, except, it's a little bit harder to customize it. Linux can do a lot of things. It has better memory management, and supports SMP (symmetric multi-processing). With Windows, I have never done clusters with them. But, with Linux, clustering three computers to act as one is simple.

I know with Windows, if you have a dual core or quad core, you can tell what application to use what core. But, you cannot have it do parallel processing.

Windows is capable of Clustering and can be done very easily as compared to Linux, but I agree that it is more Customizable since it's open sourse

Windows is capable of Clustering and can be done very easily as compared to Linux, but I agree that it is more Customizable since it's open sourse

[homesick_american 1]

I am looking at building / purchasing a new system myself but am finding it a little difficult to find hardware that is Vista compatible..

Why not get a dell or something as it is now coming with Vista anyway

Oh god, don't do that...Dells suck and so does Dell's service, particularly since they outsourced it.

[KHURRAM SERAJ 0]

My husband and I were talking new 'puters yesterday. He says if we get the one we are looking at, he's gonna wipe the Windows Vista Home Basic it comes with and install XP. (Of course he would rather I run Linux....but oh well I just haven't converted yet....)

He's also telling me that Microsoft is going to stop making XP available for new computers after January 2008 (per BBC news). So the only choice on new machines after that time will be Vista.

Ill stick with XP for now

According to some reviews I read - its still a poor man's version of Apple O/S X (which strangely costs a lot more).

There are also some things to be concerned about going on under the hood as it were. Specifically the integration of digital rights management software.... I'll keep XP SP2 for a while I think...

thanks for your input

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To revise what I wrote above - Vista is more expensive that OS X

[Niels Bohr 72]

MAC O/S X and above can run Linux applications. It has the same tools as UNIX. VI editor and eMacs. You can build custom scripts too. Very good.

My only machine that has Windows is my Dell Laptop.

I thought I saw deja vu earlier.