I also say "To Vista" - it runs fine for me and this is without optimised drivers - I don't see the need for people to continually go on about how crap it is.

0

Let them go on complaining about how crap Vista is. For myself, I quit criticizing Vista after I realized it's here to stay whether we like it or not. What choices do we have - M$ is the Lion & we are the mices, ya know. After all, Vista will be the mainstream OS by 2009. i_XpUser

0

Nothing to see here, keep moving folks. How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

0

"Nothing to see here, keep moving folks." Sabertooth, you have a way with words! ...if it ain't broke, then you ain't having fun...

0

It's inevitable that Vista will soon become mainstream, but IMO, the cons currently outweigh the pros. Eventually drivers & software will catch up & SP1 will be released...until then, I won't consider it. In the meantime, I'm experimenting with different Linux distros (Ubuntu, Knoppix, Puppy, Freespire). So far, I'm running Ubuntu 6.10 with an Athlon 900MHz T-bird (w/384MB RAM) & liking it but I plan on giving Vector Linux 5.8 a whirl on an even older box. If nothing else, Vista has forced me to look into other alternatives.

0

@ jam I'm not the only one M$ has made a little "Edgy" these days - eh! I must confess though that it's hard escaping & managing to stay completely out the darn Windows vortex, as I have since come to find out. Furthermore, I'm not too happy to state that not so long after creating the (XP Pro, Vista Ultimate & Kubuntu 6.10) triboot on this machine & using Edgy Eft as the primary OS, I seem to be back to using Windows (XP & Vista) but predominantly Vista on the machine............arggh.....must resist Windoze ;-( How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

0

You might want to give Simply Mepis a look. It's a GUI Linux distribution that's ready to rock right "out of the box" and has the best hardware recognition of any I've seen -- including Vista -- and it's FREE! It also comes with access to a ton of free programs via a package manager called Synaptic. In addition, Mepislovers.org provides free support. Try getting all of that out of MS. The real problem with Vista -- and all Windows -- IMHO is that by the time it does become mainstream another release is out and there goes another two or three hundred dollars not to mention a ton of time and frustration switching over and getting everything to work. Well, enough of the soap box. While Mepis is my primary OS I do still have XP. Heck, I even have Win2k on a dual boot with Mepis on my laptop. I've seen enough of Vista to know that I don't want it -- at least not now. But like jam said, they'll release a Service Pack soon. Then, probably another -- and another -- and another -- and so on. So, Go Vista . . . or Don't -- they're are plenty of alternatives out there. www.mepis.org is a good place to start looking.

0

I doubt I'll notice that much difference (if any at all) going from Edgy Eft to SimplyMEPIS considering it is based on Ubuntu. How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

0

SimplyMEPIS is another that I considered trying out & probably will eventually give it a look. But from reading up on the different distros, it seemed to me that Vector would work better on an older box such as a K6-2 400MHz w/96MB RAM. I haven't gotten around to it yet though.

0

Not familiar with Vector & had you not mentioned it, my first suggestion would have been Puppy or Damn Small Linux, if you are looking for something nimble. How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

0

My only complaint with Vista so far that's anything substantial was poor gaming performance, but since I installed the Nvidia drivers released 2/20, it's been great. Almost as fast as XP, enough so I don't feel the need to boot into XP to game. "Vista really isn’t a upgrade it is more of a continuation of Microsoft’s attempt to maintain control of the PC world." They addressed the main areas where XP needed to improve - *security*, better backups, better stability. While stability is a bit up in the air mainly due to rushed Vista drivers, etc. which you can't hold against Vista, the complete backup job finally gave Windows what it has needed for a long time - bare metal restores. And with IE7's sandbox and UAC, security is a lot better, too. As for Linux, yeah, I'm a Ubuntu fan. "The real problem with Vista -- and all Windows -- IMHO is that by the time it does become mainstream another release is out and there goes another two or three hundred dollars not to mention a ton of time and frustration switching over and getting everything to work." Uh, XP came out in 2002. Vista officially went public in 2007. That's by far a longer turn around than for example Ubuntu. I really don't agree with that at all. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

Actually, Vista (Longhorn) was originally expected to be released in late 2003: ("Development of Windows Vista occurred over the span of five and a half years, starting in earnest in May 2001,[1] prior to the release of Microsoft's Windows XP operating system, and continuing into 2006. It was originally expected to ship sometime late in 2003 as a minor step between Windows XP and "Blackcomb" (now known as Windows "Vienna"). Indeed, Longhorn, Vista's original codename, was an allusion to this plan."). look here for further info -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo... However, it met with several production / programming / testing delays. Even then it was only intended to be a step between XP and the already-in-the-works next MS OS called Blackcomb (Vienna). The plan was to hit the market with Vista only about two to three years after XP was released and then introduce yet another OS shortly thereafter. I call a bit much -- even for MS -- especially when you consider all the hardware, software, driver updates that usually have to be done with a change in OS. IMHO, that is.

0

"Ubuntu is a free, open source Linux-based operating system that starts with the breadth of Debian and adds regular releases (every six months), a clear focus on the user and usability (it should "Just Work", TM) and a commitment to security updates with 18 months of support for every release (and with 6.06 LTS you get 3 years on the desktop and 5 on the server!)." So, even with the intended time for Vista's launch, that would have been two years time between major releases. Again, I don't agree with your assessment at all. Linux distros often have shorter development cycles. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

Nor do you have to agree with it, heropsycho2177. It's just MHO, as stated, and to which I am entitled. That's one of the great things about this forum -- wouldn't you agree? Now, while it's true that many Linux distros have short development cycles, you are not compelled to upgrade -- you can keep the older system that works for you without losing support or security as with dropped Windows OS (Win98 being the most recent casualty). And even when you do, most Linux distros are still pocketbook friendly (free) along with the long, long list of program packages available that are also free. Linux developers release distros with the intent of getting the technology to users. Microsoft's intent, IMHO, is to get your money (which is what the are in business for). Should they create a good, solid, enduring OS they could not stay in your back pocket. Now, agree or don't agree -- it's your prerogative. I'll give you the last word. And, by the way, Great Computing to You!

0

"They addressed the main areas where XP needed to improve - *security*" The main security problem with all microsoft stuff is nothing they can fix. When there are so many skilled people out there devoting time to tearing M$ a new one, the flaws will always be found, and M$ will always be on their back foot. I say screw em' they brought this on themselves and maybe a few (very few) more people will see the light and move away from Windows. But with Vista already shipping as the pre-installed OS in many/most PCs, this is a mute argument. Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!

0

"Nor do you have to agree with it, heropsycho2177. It's just MHO, as stated, and to which I am entitled." Uhh, I didn't say you had to agree with me. I'm simply proving that what you said is not accurate. If you don't like it, tough. That's what discussion and debate is all about. And that IS what this forum is about. If you have a point, and someone else has one, it's perfectly acceptable in rational debate to prove the other person wrong, so long as it's done respectfully. I didn't call you a name or anything. "Now, while it's true that many Linux distros have short development cycles, you are not compelled to upgrade -- you can keep the older system that works for you without losing support or security as with dropped Windows OS (Win98 being the most recent casualty)." Red Hat 9 is no longer supported by Red Hat. It's been gone for quite sometime. Windows still provides support for Windows 2000 and XP, granted 2000 you need a support contract. And you're not compelled by Microsoft to upgrade, either. "And even when you do, most Linux distros are still pocketbook friendly (free) along with the long, long list of program packages available that are also free. Linux developers release distros with the intent of getting the technology to users. Microsoft's intent, IMHO, is to get your money (which is what the are in business for)." There's no argument about Linux being free for many distros, and Windows isn't. But to say Linux is done to get technology to people, like there's no selfish interest in it, that's not exactly true. Linux makes its money predominantly on support costs, and services. Nothing wrong with either business model. The funny thing I find is this argument that Windows is evil for trying to innovate to get your money. They're a software company. That's what they're supposed to do. Not that I agree with many many things Microsoft does. But the whole principle that they're bad for trying to get money by attracting buyers, or they should support OS's that are now a decade old such as in the case of Windows 98. The line must be drawn at some point. Every company does that. Even Ubuntu who will ship you a free CD of Ubuntu doesn't guarantee security updates beyond 18 months of a distro release. "Should they create a good, solid, enduring OS they could not stay in your back pocket." You do know what Windows Vista's biggest competitor is, right? It's not Linux. It's not MacOS. It's Windows XP. Facts are Windows XP is a very solid, enduring OS. And no OS is perfect, nor will it ever be perfect. There will always be more things you could do, more features, better security, etc. To say that they're purposefully building a neutered OS is preposterous. If that were true, then what would you call each successive version of any linux distro? Gosh, if they would just build it right from the get go! Sorry, programmers are human beings, even the ones who work for Microsoft. "When there are so many skilled people out there devoting time to tearing M$ a new one, the flaws will always be found, and M$ will always be on their back foot." It's not like there's this huge hacker community that hacks Microsoft for a political point. Some do, just as some are hacking MacOS because they see the ads that seem to claim that "Macs don't get viruses." That's not why most hacking occurs. Most hacking done is done for profit. They're looking to turn as many computers as possible into zombies to launch DDoS attacks, capture credit card info, or to send out spam. It's not like they're saying, "Oh, I hate Microsoft!" If everyone switched to linux overnight, they'd begin to target linux systems, and they'd still be successful. Since predominantly, most computers run Windows, Windows is targeted since it provides the highest potential yield. And it can be fixed. How is it that I've been able to run Windows predominantly since 1995, and I haven't had a security breach? It's not luck! Because I patch my OS. I don't run as an administrator. I run an updated anti-virus. These are things everyone should do, regardless which OS you run. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

Heh you guys. What about the fun part of all this. I enjoyed going into the store and buying the latest OS from MS. Went out with a shiny package in my hand. Always get pleasure from buying something new, does not really matter too much, if it does not work 100 per cent. Have got XP on my other comp. Impressed that Redmond has 10,000 employees all beavering away. Understand Vista has 50 million lines of code.Beyond human ability to get that entirely right. To compare general prices, here in the UK Gas is 97 pence a litre (USD 4 dollars a gallon). Cigarettes for twenty, £4 (USD 7 dollars). Vista cost me £150 (USD 270 dollars), 17.5% of that price went to the Government!!!!!!!.I anticipate hours of Fun and no doubt aggravation when I install Vista.

0

It's impossible to get any OS completely right. There are patches to Linux distros and components all the time. Not slamming Linux at all about that. That's just how OS's or any other program for that matter work. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

I tend to agree with dahlin, I think. His overall point, as I read it, is two-fold . . . 1) Vista is really not quite ready for prime-time yet. Maybe they'll catch up with a few Service Packs. 2) There are viable alternatives out there -- better alternatives, maybe. I don't see where there's a right or wrong here , just a difference of opinion which, to a great degree, is what forums are created for. No need to get personal. And, as heropsycho2177 said, no OS is perfect. Some are just better. But even that is subjective. Bottom line? Use what you want to use. Have fun, get your work done, enjoy the game! Express your humble opinion and don't get your feathers ruffled when others do the same.

0

"1) Vista is really not quite ready for prime-time yet." It really depends. I'm already using it as my main OS. Like I said, even games now for me are running virtually as well as Windows XP. Obviously, everyone's mileage may vary, but I wouldn't say Vista isn't ready for prime time. "2) There are viable alternatives out there -- better alternatives, maybe." Absolutely agree, although that may surprise some people in this thread. I never intended any of what I said to mean I'm crapping on linux or any other non-microsoft OS. This thread turned into a crap on Microsoft thread even for no good reason. Quick turn around support lifecycles as I pointed out is no more true for Microsoft OS's than it is for many of the popular linux distros out there, so it's completely unfair to say that. And I never took any of this personally. :-) TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

"If everyone switched to linux overnight, they'd begin to target linux systems, and they'd still be successful." I never really thought about that, good point. But I personally know several people who spend their spare time finding problems in Windows, just because they like to. I'm not saying they should, but they are a couple of the most technically aware people I know. You're right though heropsycho, most of it is done for cash. But I still don't like Microsoft. Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!

0

"But I personally know several people who spend their spare time finding problems in Windows, just because they like to." I personally know a few people who do that, too. I also know a few who do that to MacOS and Linux, too. Some things I would like to point out. C language is susceptible to buffer overflows, which is more often than not the underlying way most hacks work. Windows, linux, and unix are all written mostly in C. That would therefore include MacOS X, since it is unix based. The very first hacks/bugs from buffer overflows were common on unix machines. In fact, forms of Data Execution Prevention, which prevents buffer overruns and is now on current gen Intel and AMD processors, were on previous processors used on unix servers. Go look at vulnerabilities found in linux, mac, and windows, and you'll see buffer overrun vulnerabilities are found routinely. I just don't see how a wholesale switch to a different OS is going to change anything. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

OK, so Linux/Unix/MacOS are fundamently no more secure than Windows, Windows attracts more flak smply because it's so widespread. So as long as you don't use the standard OS, you're a lot safer from hackers, even if it is because your OS has such a small market share, rather than any inherent security in your OS. Summed up about right? Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!

0

I think it's a false sense of security. There's no preventing hackers from targeting a different operating system if they feel it's worthwhile. There are certain things everyone should do, regardless of your OS. Patch your OS and apps, run a current AV, use firewalls, etc. If you do those things, you're safe regardless what OS you use. To me, using an obscure OS is like driving a Volvo, supposedly one of the safest cars on the road. Regardless how good the airbags are, etc. it doesn't mean you should talk on your cell phone while driving, shouldn't wear a seatbelt, should tailgate, etc. Again, I point out I've been on the internet for many years, and have not once gotten hit by a virus or have been hacked, and I'm running Windows predominantly. On the flip side, I know a guy who is a Linux nut and got hacked. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

Yeah, it's good advice to have a Firewall/AV and keep everything updated. I'd certainly agree on that. Sort of "better safe than sorry" huh? :)

0

I have no problems with Microsoft developing an operating system and making money from it. Just can't understand why a round piece of shiny plastic with some code etched onto it in a glossy cardboard box needs to be so frickin expensive? Okay, so they have development costs etc, but considering the volume they would be selling, surely they would make more money by dropping the price, instead of spending a fortune on anti-piracy. If Vista Ultimate Retail was £50 instead of £300+ maybe I might just buy it? Surely most peoples gripe is Microsoft is always charging far too much for something which isn't much better (if at all) than stuff that is available for free?

0

"Surely most peoples gripe is Microsoft is always charging far too much for something which isn't much better (if at all) than stuff that is available for free?" If it isn't much better for most people's uses, you have to wonder why it keeps selling. Everybody talks about the high cost of Microsoft Office, which in my opinion is far worse. People are now talking how Google's Office package is going to bring death eventually to Office, or at least the premium price of office. But OpenOffice has been around for years now, and it has made very little in roads in Mac or Windows user populations. I don't see Google being able to dethrone Microsoft Office, especially with the enthusiastic reception of the new UI in Office 2007. Granted, some of the reasons why Microsoft products aren't dropped are things that are not market forces, but one must conclude some of it is. People by enlarge prefer Microsoft Office over even free solutions. And remember computer users are the same people who will buy eMachines over a reputable brand to save $50. I remember even Wal-Mart trying to sell linux based PC's at a fraction of the cost of a Windows PC, and included OpenOffice, etc. They barely sold any, even when most PC's sold with Windows there did not have an office suite included. That tells you something. Linux, despite it's better stability, despite its security advantages, despite the lower initial monetary costs, loses out to Windows in the consumer market because it pales in comparison at least according to consumers in ease of use, compatibility, ease of getting technical support, etc. While I'm sympathetic about some of these issues for linux (to some degree, linux being "harder to use" is due to people already being familiar with Windows, so it "seems easier", and those users seem to forget Windows was alien to them once), often things in Linux are genuinely far more difficult than they ever should be. I just saw an email from the local linux user's group here where a guy who has been using linux for a a year couldn't get his USB pen drive to allow data to be written. LOL... TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

I normally confine myself to the Unix area of operations, but I must say that Vista truly sucks. I purchased an HP dv6205us laptop with 512MB and a bizarre chip (the T-2060) for which there is little information on Intel's website. Anyway, Vista Home Basic runs like Windows 3.1 on a 386 with 640KB of RAM. Opening a window is sort of like using Prodigy over a 1200 baud modem back in the 80s. Upgrading to 1GB helped a little bit. Lexmark will not be providing drivers for any comsumer printer made before 2003, so a perfectly functional X83 has to go to the landfill. The system freezes up on occasion for no particular reason. The fact that Microsoft is asking an additional $89.00 to update to the Vista Home Premium version takes a lot of gall. An additional $89.00 for software that should still be in beta testing. I sent an email to HP and told them they should drop that "HP recommends Windows Vista" stuff from their ads. I also sent an email to MS with some suggestions regarding what they could do with Vista, the box it comes in and a light coat of grease.

0

"Lexmark will not be providing drivers for any comsumer printer made before 2003" I thought that it was still possible to use XP drivers, though Vista drivers would be more stable. ??? Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!

0

"Anyway, Vista Home Basic runs like Windows 3.1 on a 386 with 640KB of RAM." And XP runs like crap with 256M RAM. Heck, even fully patched, it doesn't run particularly well with 512M anymore, either. So what? Vista is 5 years newer than XP. Also, Vista on my machine I'm dual booting with 2GB of RAM runs better than XP does aside from a bit longer boot time, and games don't run quite as well. Windows itself however does run better. "Lexmark will not be providing drivers for any comsumer printer made before 2003, so a perfectly functional X83 has to go to the landfill." That's not Vista's fault. Direct your anger at Lexmark for abandoning support of your product. "The system freezes up on occasion for no particular reason." There's got to be a reason. You have an app that's not very compatible, a bad driver, possibly might look into new firmware for devices, particularly your BIOS. Did you do an upgrade installation? "The fact that Microsoft is asking an additional $89.00 to update to the Vista Home Premium version takes a lot of gall." You don't HAVE to have Home Premium. If you don't like the price, by all means don't spend the money. I have Vista Business, and as a Microsoft partner, I can get a discount to upgrade to Vista Ultimate. Guess what? I'm not doing it. I don't need those features. "An additional $89.00 for software that should still be in beta testing." You can't deny Vista is running solidly for most users. You are having difficulties as an early adopter. Happens with most OS's. The actual Windows Vista beta program was the largest beta testing program ever in computer software. Most people had very good results even in the releases leading up to the last beta. I completely understand a reluctance to upgrade, but so far, Vista has been less of a problem to migrate to for me than any other Windows OS migration I've done. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

I agree that Linux is not in any position to rival Windows in the consumer market yet, I think that part of the problem with Linux is that there are too many distributions. Microsoft also have sortware and hardware vendors writing software/drivers for them, whereas Linux drivers need to be hashed together by people in their free time. The other problem with linux is the community which is often elitist. Nothing worse than posting a straight foward question on a Linux forum and not being able to get a straight forward answer back. You're either blinded with jargon or a smug 'Don't you know that already?' kind of answer. Plus, just try downloading something from most of the sites, you usually end up following a download link to a scruffy page with tens of files scattered in no particular order and no naming structure to allow you to find the file you were looking for in the first place. Linux is by no means perfect, still, it's not bad for free. The trouble is that almost nobody seems to be writing hardware drivers, modern games and applications specifically for Linux. I wouldn't say that Open Office is totally unpopular. I work for a large courier firm, and probably 80% of the PC's on our network of maybe 1400 PC's have Open Office rather than the overpriced Microsoft eqivalent. You'd be suprised how many people can't even tell the difference. For most people, it does everything that you'd need. Linux has already started replacing Microsoft products in networking. Redhat is particularly big these days. Windows would be fine if it was a lot cheaper. Maybe if it offered the choice of whether you want technical support or not. Linux would be fine if hardware vendors and software houses supported it.

0

"Linux is by no means perfect, still, it's not bad for free." Linux is great. I really like it when it's done right. I love IPCop for my firewall/router. I've used linux servers as SMTP smarthosts in Exchange networks, etc. I like Ubuntu as well. But even Ubuntu, I'd never have a normal user run. "I wouldn't say that Open Office is totally unpopular." I'd say it is if you look at market share. It's the preferred office suite on the top two desktop OS's in the world - Mac and Windows. OpenOffice is a very very distant second. Don't get me wrong, I like OpenOffice, but it's pretty clear they won't be catching up to Microsoft Office any time soon in popularity. And the exceptionally warm reception to the UI in Office 2007 is not gonna help OpenOffice at all, either. "Linux has already started replacing Microsoft products in networking. Redhat is particularly big these days." Yes and no. It's not a serious threat to replace Windows at this point. I also think honestly Suse is a bigger threat if there is one. TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

hey! i just bought windows vista, and it runs perfectly! no problems, all of my hardware was supported right away, and all of my software works just fine! i don't get what so many people are complaining about. it's a new os, and it just works! all of you nay-sayers must be pretty dumb to have problems with this super simple os. btw, zero244 and all of you other whiners out there: try rubbing those two brains cells of your together and come up with a thought process and try using the new os! platinum Custom Build: Pentium 4 3GHz 1MB L2 1GB DDR400 2-Channel RAM 2x80GB WD SATA HDD RAID0 DVD+/-RW CDRW DVD-RAM

0

"all of you nay-sayers must be pretty dumb to have problems with this super simple os." Pretty easy to call them dumb just because you were fortunate to have all your hardware and software work fine. I obviously like Vista, but for the same reasons I criticized people who made blanket unjustified remarks about Vista's alleged poor quality because of their isolated bad experience, I'm gonna criticize you for making a very ignorant statement that everything is "supported right away" and "all software works just fine" just because it worked that well for you. "try rubbing those two brains cells of your together and come up with a thought process and try using the new os!" Why don't you rub your two brain cells together and realize not all software and hardware work that well with Vista? DUH! Why do you think they have an upgrade advisor utility that flat out tells you some stuff won't work? *rolling eyes* Grow up! TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0

w/e i now have a few systems running vista (i got the basic one again), and they all run well too. i said all **my** software is supported, not just **all** software so w/e. it works for me :D Custom Build: Pentium 4 3GHz 1MB L2 1GB DDR400 2-Channel RAM 2x80GB WD SATA HDD RAID0 DVD+/-RW CDRW DVD-RAM

0

"all of you nay-sayers must be pretty dumb to have problems with this super simple os." So if you recognize some stuff doesn't work, who's the dumb one - them because their stuff doesn't work, or you for calling them dumb? TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE! http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

0