When are you upgrading to Windows Vista?

[SamBeaven]

I clicked 'Never'. I'm actually a mac user, but I don't think vista necessarily sucks. Different strokes for different blokes. Eventually I'll probably install it on Parallels for testing.

[boris]

DirectX 10 is not going to be ported back. There are a lot of changes in the OS itself to make things possible in it. This has been stated by the team developing it several times already.

There are countless reasons to go Vista. Since it was developed for so long, the features and improvements just piled up If you are using Windows, you will anyways. It is a matter of time.

The same discussions were held for XP. Now 5 years later, just 2-3% of people use Windows 98 or older.

[Cron]

I use Ubuntu Linux which was free, I never have to worry about viruses, I never have to worry about spy bots, I never have to worry about migrating my files when I upgrade ( I just issue a command and the new stuff comes to me ), it was easy to set up, it is easy to use, and I didn't have to pay a ton of money for a mac.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by boris

DirectX 10 is not going to be ported back. There are a lot of changes in the OS itself to make things possible in it. This has been stated by the team developing it several times already.

It won't be ported by Microsoft but this doesn't mean that somebody else won't do it. As I said before, the Wine team has plans to create a port of their Linux implementation of DX 10 to pre-Vista Windows. The fact is that DX 10 has nothing special to make it only work on Vista. I heard directly from a Microsoft employee that restricting DX 10 to Vista was done for the sole purpose of pushing Vista.

Originally Posted by boris

The same discussions were held for XP. Now 5 years later, just 2-3% of people use Windows 98 or older.

Windows 2000 (not XP) is actually the successor to Windows 9x and NT 4. WinXP is just a rebranded version of it. But either way, upgrading from Win98 to Win2K/XP made a lot of sense because 2K/XP were based on the NT kernel and purely 32-bit unlike the DOS based Win9x. They are in fact counted by MS as Windows NT 5.0 and 5.1 respectively. The point is that the difference between XP and Vista is not that great in terms of usefulness, especially considering that there's a 64-bit version of XP.

Originally Posted by boris

There are countless reasons to go Vista. Since it was developed for so long, the features and improvements just piled up If you are using Windows, you will anyways. It is a matter of time.

If you count insane memory requirements as a feature or improvement then sure, Vista's got lots of them. Vista requires a minimum of 512 MB RAM and for "Vista Premium" it's 1 GB, while the current Ubuntu Linux requires 256 MB. Windows 2000/XP by the way, can run on 128 MB (or even 64 MB with some restrictions). But you're right that most people who use Windows will eventually use Vista. Thankfully though, Linux is finally a viable alternative. I think many power users will be switching to Linux instead of upgrading to Vista. General consumers will just use whatever their computer came with, but I think more OEMs will start shipping Linux in the future so it should gain market share.

[Lucas]

When Windows uses a journaling file system and impliments a real permissions system, as well as drops the registry and ActiveX...and IE becomes W3C compliant, I will again purchase and use Windows. Until then, I refuse to buy or pirate it.

We live in an Ubuntu/MacOS household.

[Greg]

Still waiting for Leopard to come out - then I'll decide whether to go Max with OS X or PC with Vista

[AndrewJ]

I'm in no rush to upgrade.

Andrew

[boris]

Originally Posted by Baltar

If you count insane memory requirements as a feature or improvement then sure, Vista's got lots of them. Vista requires a minimum of 512 MB RAM and for "Vista Premium" it's 1 GB, while the current Ubuntu Linux requires 256 MB. Windows 2000/XP by the way, can run on 128 MB (or even 64 MB with some restrictions).

The OS itself is just one of the many things that need memory. Microsoft are just being honest with their memory recommendations. If you run Photoshop or any other 'serious' app, you will need to go over 1GB anyways.

Windows 3.1 after all ran well on 4MB of RAM.

In Vista, you have an anti-spyware app (Defender), a firewall and many other things running by default, that you didn't have in older versions (XP had the firewall).

No OS on its own is very useful. It matters what software you run on it. I use lots of software and run lots at the same time (plus virtual machines), that's why I went to 2GB. It had nothing to do with the about 100Mb (not 2x or 4x from XP) more that Vista requires.


And as a developer who has deep understanding of DX10, it really is hard to back port. There are a lot of changes on the driver side (it has been moved out of the kernel). This is not just a simple new version with few changes. And that's why both NVidia and ATI took long to provide OK drivers for DX10 - lots of changes.

[Scott Bird]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm basically going to get Vista when it ships with the PC I buy. I don't expect this to happen anytime soon, though. Nothing about Vista seems very appealing.

Same here. Whenever I buy my next PC (which probably won't be for a while), I'll get Vista. The 64-bit version should have reasonable driver support by then.

[scottyp]

XP is fine for the momment. My computer is not the fastest and I don't want to bog it down with Vista. My next system will be a mac so I don't see myself using vista much at all. I will need to learn it for doing system support though.

In general I am dissapointed in microsoft and the delays in this new system. Apple seems to have really shot past them lately.

[Ann]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

I'm in no rush to upgrade.

Andrew

Same here

I just bought my laptop this summer with XP while Microsoft was in the process of releasing Vista so I'll probably get it when Microsoft releases another version and I need a new laptop

[Minsc]

Originally Posted by tropicality

I think I will ASAP but only for one very specific reason: Its ability to use external memory connections as RAM.

Can't you put a page file on the stick with Control panel -> System -> Advanced -> Settings(under Performance) -> Advanced -> Change?

(Then you'd select your flash drive, check custom, set both fields to the size of the drive(minus a megabyte or so), and hit set)

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by boris

The OS itself is just one of the many things that need memory. Microsoft are just being honest with their memory recommendations. If you run Photoshop or any other 'serious' app, you will need to go over 1GB anyways.

Windows 3.1 after all ran well on 4MB of RAM.

In Vista, you have an anti-spyware app (Defender), a firewall and many other things running by default, that you didn't have in older versions (XP had the firewall).

No OS on its own is very useful. It matters what software you run on it. I use lots of software and run lots at the same time (plus virtual machines), that's why I went to 2GB. It had nothing to do with the about 100Mb (not 2x or 4x from XP) more that Vista requires.

You're right of course that an OS is useless without software. And of course power users and software developers need a lot more RAM than an average user. But Vista system requirements are intended for for average users! Average users don't need 1 GB of RAM. They don't use Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, Visual Studio, 3D Studio Max, etc.

I have personally seen Windows 2000 use as little as 80 MB of RAM without any software running. With that memory usage, 256 MB of RAM would be more than enough for an average user running Windows 2000. If Vista uses a lot more than Windows 2000 out of the box then it's very bloated. As a comparison, Ubuntu Linux requires just 256 MB of RAM, and it's a very modern OS.

Originally Posted by boris

And as a developer who has deep understanding of DX10, it really is hard to back port. There are a lot of changes on the driver side (it has been moved out of the kernel). This is not just a simple new version with few changes. And that's why both NVidia and ATI took long to provide OK drivers for DX10 - lots of changes.

I don't know much about the low level implementation of DirectX 10 so I can't argue about that. I just know that they dropped everything but Direct3D, and as I understand it doesn't use COM anymore. However, if the Wine team is able to create a working implementation of DX 10 for pre-Vista Windows, this will reflect very poorly on Microsoft.

[boris]

I think Vista will run OK on 256MB of RAM. It will be enough for IMing, browsing web sites etc.

Actually if you open several web sites, both IE and Firefox may use something like 200MB RAM. If you decide to play a game, it might require 200-400MB on its own.

With every Windows release, Microsoft targets more powerful PCs, and that's a good thing.

[mrpinto]

As a software developer and computer power-user, I have a pretty detailed view of Microsofts products. From a technical and ethical standpoint, I find that many (though not all) of their products and services are wanting. As a giant company, Microsoft tends to be a slow-moving behemoth. As a monopolist, Microsoft tends to use its size to squash the competitors. The result is that MS tends to slow, stop or even reverse technological progress in a number of areas.

Although I work on a handful of windows-only applications at work, my main machines have for some time been Mac and Linux boxes. Just as my vegetarian diet is both healthier and more ethically harmonious, I find my "no-MS" diet to be better, both in terms of technical merit and business ethics. Also like the vegetarian move, I feel generally better and more productive. =)

My diet and OS choice however are just my choice. In both cases, I decline to judge or criticize those who find themselves in different situations or who act differently. I wouldn't want to (and don't aim to) channel this thread into a Mac vs PC argument. It's just that my situation and my preference for mindful consumption have led me away from Microsoft.

Just a thought.

[DerekNewland]

Well, as a computer technician I don't have much of a choice when it comes to upgrading. I have to be familiar with Vista in order to provide support for it. When I do finally decide to purchase Vista I'll most likely go with the home premium edition. I'm not looking forward to it, though. Linux provides everything I need in an OS and more.

[Isis Kali]

I'm hearing that Vista blows dead monkey balls. I think Mr. Gates just had a leak come out that pretty much guaranteed that I won't be touching it for a good year or two.

[jpfieber]

Originally Posted by Isis Kali

I'm hearing that Vista blows dead monkey balls. I think Mr. Gates just had a leak come out that pretty much guaranteed that I won't be touching it for a good year or two.

You sound well informed, perhaps I should change my Vista strategy...

[DanielSmith]

i think i need to upgrade my computer to install vista...

[Johanka]

Whoever says they are trapped in Windows because of certain apps with no comparable equivallent in Linux, which ones do you have in mind specifically?

I'm a pretty much non-technical user of desktop Linux and though it's true that I had to RTFM a lot at the beginning I'm fine now. :-) I can even run some translation memory software (which is generally very Windows-centric) on it.

[investorblogger]

I'm planning to try Windows Seven when I get a replacement in 2010. Other than i'm giving Vista a huge pass. It's XP all the way, baby!

[YourHumbleNarrator]

I'm gonna get Windows 7 on my gaming rig when I get around to replacing my current computer, and then I want to get a laptop with Ubuntu for everything else. If a competing operating system ever becomes as good with gaming as Windows is, I'll be done with Windows for good.

[Dreamline]

The poll didn't have "I'm already using Vista" as a choice. My husband and I participated in the Beta and loved it from day one. Still using it. Still loving it. No problems. No concerns.

If I were buying a netbook or inexpensive, low-powered laptop, I would choose XP but most newer PCs are more than beefy enough for Vista.

Don't believe the anti-hype.

Jennifer

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

Don't believe the anti-hype.

I do, because every experience I've had with Vista has been less than stellar.

[Dreamline]

Sorry then. I've never had trouble with any Windows products, to be honest.

But, like with mammograms, the vast majority of people don't have issues. But the ones that do, or hate it, never shut up about it. So, you are much more likely to HEAR a negative report than a glowing one. But that doesn't mean the product sucks. It's a sampling error.

Jennifer

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of any Microsoft product. I think Windows XP is probably the best thing they've ever made and it's hardly flawless. The biggest issue I have with Vista is that it treats the user like an idiot and the bloat is hard to remove. To me it feels like a glossed-up XP that's even harder to customize and uses up way more computing power than it should. That's why I'm going to use different OSes when I don't need to use Windows.

[Trezker]

Yeah, after Windows XP I upgraded to Ubuntu.
Getting rid of the fundamental flaws of Windows (read complete lack of security) is awesome and definitely worth living with less games and hardware support.
I get both the OS and support for free. As well as hardware accelerated desktop with advanced usability features and lightweight eyecandy.

[Dreamline]

Maybe it's because I just use it. I don't try to mess with it, take away, put back. I just use it. I have, since 1993, never had a virus or an intrusion.

If you own a crap computer, it's not going to work correctly with many newer Windows products. But it's unlikely that a crap computer is going to work properly with many things. If you use crap anti-virus, or don't update even your stellar anti-virus, and don't have a nice hardware firewall, you will have security issues. If you are a click freak, and push any link that's put before you, you will have security issues.

I think most people create their own problems and like to blame Windows.

Jennifer

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

Sorry then. I've never had trouble with any Windows products, to be honest.

But, like with mammograms, the vast majority of people don't have issues. But the ones that do, or hate it, never shut up about it. So, you are much more likely to HEAR a negative report than a glowing one. But that doesn't mean the product sucks. It's a sampling error.

Jennifer

The reason you don't hear about a glowing report is because Microsoft products don't strive for excellence; they strive for mediocrity and adequacy. Good products get a following of both extremely pro-product and extremely anti-product, because they actually push things a little. Microsoft merely sets the baseline.

It's like being an average person. Yes, you function in society. But no one cares. And sometimes you screw up, and that makes the news. But still, no one cares. And then some above-average people try to make the world a better place... and all you end up being is inertia. Not a problem. Just an obstacle. That's Microsoft.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

The reason you don't hear about a glowing report is because Microsoft products don't strive for excellence; they strive for mediocrity and adequacy.

I think that's a bit harsh. One doesn't become the #1 software company in the world by striving for mediocrity. Microsoft hires some of the brightest minds on the planet.

I'll be using my free upgrade to Windows 7 soon.