Even after the drivers are released it will still be 3-5 years before it all works right anyways. Microsoft wants us to buy it now, to finance the fixing of it in order to continue to show "good numbers" to their investors,(as allways)!!

I'll tell you why no one wants it:

it costs a bomb and adds little funtionality over XP if you install your own AV/ Firewall software and it's a resource hog so slows things down. It looks new but IMO it doesn't really add anything to make it much better than XP, other than DX10 which could have been built to work on XP if M$ wanted to.

yea i think its a waste i too used to xp but only time i will have to get it is when direct x 10 games go big otherwise i like xp alot

"Once Vista is being shipped by OEMs on all new PCs, we won’t be debating why people should move," said Andrew Brust, chief of new technology with consulting firm TwentySix New York. "It will be clear that they will need to do so, sooner or later. And honestly, people can argue until they’re blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it’s five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary."


It should also be noted that the man quoted above sleeps in Bill Gates sheets and jacks off to PCworld mags at night.

If you guys are going to complain about Microsoft so much, go buy a Mac. This isn't communist China - you don't have to buy MS products if you don't want to.

mout12This isn't communist China - you don't have to buy MS products if you don't want to.

:laugh: Well said, though in a way MS does kinda force us to buy their product. Sure you don't have to buy Vista, but you won't get Crysis, because DX10 is a Vista exclusive. Sure you don't have to buy Vista, but you'll have to compile the drivers for your everything from scratch, which'll take several hours, as opposed to Vista where you can install it in half an hour. Sure you don't have to buy Vista, but you won't run the Vista-exclusive programs...the list goes on and on. The one problem I have with MS.

the only vista only programmes comming out so far seem to be ones people can do without, continually updating your office packages make little sence i still use office xp with zero problems and as for Halo 2 for pc m$ can shove that right up themselves, trying to force people to upgrade will only make people resents the product hopefully 2007 is the year a company fully utilises linux ad brings in to the masses

Steevo"Once Vista is being shipped by OEMs on all new PCs, we won’t be debating why people should move," said Andrew Brust, chief of new technology with consulting firm TwentySix New York. "It will be clear that they will need to do so, sooner or later. And honestly, people can argue until they’re blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it’s five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary."


It should also be noted that the man quoted above sleeps in Bill Gates sheets and jacks off to PCworld mags at night.

HEY NOW! I jerk the gerkin to PC world mags also! Nah, actually it's PC Gamer.

I'm really torn on this whole Vista thing. I'm seriously debating getting Home Premium, as I just don't need the security features that Ultimate adds. The developer of nLite is also currently developing a new program called vLite for Vista. That would be a godsend if he gets it working properly. You should really be able to trim a lot of the unnecessary fat from Vista, making it run a lot like a standard XP install. The problem I have is with pricing. MS just flat out wants too much money for this thing. I mean, come on MS, if Apple can offer a fully featured operating system for only $130, why can't you?

Well if people don't buy it they'll be forced to reduce their price... problem is, businesses think they need the latest and they make up a huge chunk of the market, when in reality Vista will probably ruin the speed of their PCs. The average business computer won't have much better than a 2GHz Celeron and 512MB of RAM, and that will be very slow with Vista Ultimate, which is what most large businesses will go for I expect.

Found a VERY nice link: :)
www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

Jimmy 2004Well if people don't buy it they'll be forced to reduce their price... problem is, businesses think they need the latest and they make up a huge chunk of the market, when in reality Vista will probably ruin the speed of their PCs. The average business computer won't have much better than a 2GHz Celeron and 512MB of RAM, and that will be very slow with Vista Ultimate, which is what most large businesses will go for I expect.

Actually, most large businesses aren't going to make the switch for some time. Where I work (American Eagle in the distribution center), for example, runs a lot of web based and networked apps for reports and such. They won't even upgrade to IE7, for fear of compatibility issues. The prospect of Vista only compounds the matter. You also have to consider the amount of retraining time they would have to spend on the upgrade. As 90% of the people that use computers there, don't really know much about them, just the basics. So much time would be wasted on simple tech calls alone, what with Vista's new security pop-ups and such.

There's an interview on page 103 of the Jan 07 issue of CPU with Joe Wilcox. He's a senior analyst for JupiterResearch, who does work for Microsoft. In it, his firm's research says that 20% of businesses with 100 or more employees, don't even have plans to upgrade at all. (I'm assuming they mean until it's absolutely necessary) Another 30% said it will be more than a year before they consider it, and half of those 30% said more than 2 years. He went on to say that the biggest push is going to be from the OEM builders. Come late January, Vista will be the only thing being sold on new machines. Microsoft is basically forcing the upgrade to those that prefer the easier route, or don't know enough to build their own pc.

:goodpost:



I foresee some nice tools becoming available to sysadmins built on the server side of Vista, but not much on the user side. Forced compliance is one I have been wanting to get a breakdown on for awhile, and it sucks that they took it out of the release, big time loss of clients there.

i wish that dx10 would run on XP

Of course not. Costs too damn much to upgrade and to make pcs come with it. Too much proprietary and shit needed for it. Its ridiculous

ok for those of u not minding spending the money for vista but dont like that it cant run all your applications but yet still want it... just run two partitions on your computer 1 with vista and 1 with xp thats what i did to my computer and i can switch with a simple restart of my computer

Funny me too. But it doesn't mean that I have to like it.



Or the shit driver support, as MS wasn't releasing the architecture of the OS untill recently, then they want to throw it to the public?

SteevoFunny me too. But it doesn't mean that I have to like it.



Or the shit driver support, as MS wasn't releasing the architecture of the OS untill recently, then they want to throw it to the public?

They wouldn't even release the low level specs to the security app makers.

Vista isnt all that bad, this complaining and shit happens practically every windows release, mabey slightly more this time since there are more computer users

Wile EThey wouldn't even release the low level specs to the security app makers.

If you are referring to the fact that MS denied kernel access to anti virus makers (they gave them access now though) it's not MS at fault. Denying the access would be good, in fact other anti virus software does work, so it seems Symantec and whichever company was crying about it (I think it was mcafee) are at fault themselves. Oddly enough it was the makers of the crappy bloated packages that were complaining. I see a link there...

MS tried to maker Vista safer, other companies sued. Next people will complain about all kinds of bugs in Vista which could have been prevented if companies like Symantec would just learn how to program.

BIOHazard87Vista isnt all that bad, this complaining and shit happens practically every windows release, mabey slightly more this time since there are more computer users

Well I think XP works great, but Vista just uses too much RAM, which is why I don't intend to upgrade to it until I have a better system. In all fairness, although compared to people on these forums my PC isn't too quick, it's a lot faster than the average PC. I mean it still kicks the sh*t out of most PCs that somewhere like PC World sells, and your average user will go there... those PCs will run so slow with Vista at its default setup.

Jimmy 2004Well I think XP works great, but Vista just uses too much RAM, which is why I don't intend to upgrade to it until I have a better system. In all fairness, although compared to people on these forums my PC isn't too quick, it's a lot faster than the average PC. I mean it still kicks the sh*t out of most PCs that somewhere like PC World sells, and your average user will go there... those PCs will run so slow with Vista at its default setup.

XP with 128MB isn't heaven either. In 2-3 years everyone has 4GB of RAM and nobody will care about the RAM Vista uses. It's how the market works.

Did you read about the tilt bits in my link above?
It´s also a CPU sucker for ridiculous reasons!

Damned "premium content" :banghead:

DanTheBanjomanXP with 128MB isn't heaven either. In 2-3 years everyone has 4GB of RAM and nobody will care about the RAM Vista uses. It's how the market works.

The good old days of Windows 95... only needed 8MB of RAM didn't you? My Win95 PC had 16MB but got upgraded to 80MB - that was when PCs used SIMMs so you bought the RAM in pairs. It was really quick for a Windows 95 PC after that and it was still working more or less ok in 2003 when the CD drive messed and I didn't see the point repairing it so got rid of it.

Peach - don't trust that link too far, it's written by a local disgruntled university techie type...

I don't get this 'five years old', 'due for replacement' mentality, although I don't think Vista is a bad idea. The 9x platform lasted six years and is still in use on many older machines to this day in its three guises. MacOS has spent basically its whole lifespan looking and performing much the same, with the major releases giving very minor updates to the code and slight UI changes - even they were sparse, System 7 looks exactly the same to me as MacOS 9.2 does, and performs much the same with much the same drawbacks.

Hell, Microsoft are considerably more proactive in that respect. When they build another OS they usually build something that's almost all new, or at least overhauled enough that it's effectively new (98... it's 95OSR2.5 with all the updates and patches preapplied and smoothed!). Things could be worse. And I will eventually migrate to Vista. Just not yet.