anyone hear about it?
does it seem more advanced, or is it just the same old thing with a pretty name?
anyone hear about it?
does it seem more advanced, or is it just the same old thing with a pretty name?
It seems to be the most major upgrade windows has ever seen. It has a very different look/feel than XP.
Looks a lot like the Apple OS X
I have used the RC1 version of Windows Vista which I had downloaded from Microsoft. Then I installed it as a second OS alongside my current XP installation. The look of the OS blew me away, I was quite impressed with it. They did a major overhaul to the look of Windows, and I agree with the previous post that it does look a lot like MAC OS. At first I felt a bit lost until I knew where everything was.
To get all the bells and whistles of the new visual style you need a good 3D graphics card. My 128Mb ATI Radeon 9800 Pro managed just fine and it's a few years old now. I am using a Socket 478 Pentium IV 3.0 GHz processor and 2Gb of RAM with an SATA HD. I think the large amount of RAM helps alot since it's an older PC. I do think it's worth upgrading to, hopefully it won't be too expensive!
Dont forget to search for things using the built in search, especially in the control panel, there are a ton of options. The help system is pretty good to, they have these nice guided help things that show you on screen how to change settings and stuff, its rather neat.At first I felt a bit lost until I knew where everything was.
It seems like a lot of bloat or "feature creep" to me.
I hope I don't come across as some rabid anti-MS wingnut, but I have a lot of concerns about Vista.
It bothers me that the security patch for Vista that MS released in January 2006 addressed (in part) the SetAbortProc function vulnerability that was first incorporated into Windows 3.0 about 1990. MS had previously patched Win 2000 and Win XP for the same vulnerability.
It bothers me that MS has decided belatedly to incorporate the Microsoft Anti-Spyware Program into the Vista OS. It's not that I worry about MS destroying Norton or some other anti-spyware vendor. It looks like bad programming to me. You don't tack on another program to correct problems in your original code. You fix the original flaws before you release the program.
It bothers me that Vista contains more than 50 million lines of code. No human being can comprehend anywhere near that amount of complexity. And no group of people has ever proven adept at managing such a monster. I fear that Vista has become the new COBOL - spaghetti code that no one on Earth can fix, because no one on Earth understands it.
It bothers me that Vista's hardware requirements are so substantial. Vista doesn't really do anything more than OSs which occupy only one-fifth as much disk space, consume 10% as many processor cycles, and execute in a tiny fraction of the amount of RAM that Vista requires. I have the impression that MS is demanding we buy more powerful hardware because they aren't capable of (or aren't motivated enough?) making the code execute efficiently. One GB of RAM? Knoppix 5.0 requires 96 MB to execute in full graphics mode.
It bothers me that Vista's release keeps getting delayed. I am a firm believer that no program should be released before it is "ready", just to meet some artificial deadline. But MS's recent on-again/off-again behavior suggests to me that the monster is out of control - and MS knows it.
so u need a fast computer, with an expensive 3d card do u to run vista?
Well T-Rexx has summed up perfectly my views on MS. My main feeling is that their systems are now out of control. No properly written OS should need constant security updates and tweaks. It has got top heavy, consuming more and more resources just to keep the OS running, leaving less and less for the actual software you wish to run. When I was writing programs the object was to reduce and optimise the code as resources were limited at the time. I feel that software should still be written with those values to avoid the obsolescence of hardware because it can't cope with the OS. An example with my current laptop is that I downloaded a fix to make the mute light flash correctly, it was 64K, twice as much memory as my BBC computer had in total and that used to run a robot with six degrees of freedom and still had space to spare! I've now started playing with linux and am very impressed, the speed is phenomenal as it is small enough to all reside in Ram with no lengthy disk access and use of swap files. Any way not trying to hijack this thread just making a few observations about the way things seem to be going with MS.
Anti-Spyware is not ment to fix flaws in the system's security, but flaws in the people who use it. A system can only do so much to prevent a user from trying to install something they shouldnt.It bothers me that MS has decided belatedly to incorporate the Microsoft Anti-Spyware Program into the Vista OS.
Allow me:It bothers me that Vista contains more than 50 million lines of code. No human being can comprehend anywhere near that amount of complexity. And no group of people has ever proven adept at managing such a monster.
"The sixth release was the Intel version of Tiger, which as Jobs pointed out, was a port of 86 million lines of source code to an entirely different architecture."
And the hardware requirements with vista a perfectly inline with pratically every new computer on the market today. But really, XP came out 5 years ago, were you expecting the requirements to stay the same?
Knoppix and Windows are two very different operating systems. Your so worried about the amount of memory windows vista takes up, but it takes up alot of memory to improve performance. Perhaps you have heard of SuperFetch? Were commonly used applications are preloaded into ram to speed up how quickly they start? Does it have an file indexer running in the background? Vista's requirements are perfectly inline with that of Mac OSX.Knoppix 5.0 requires 96 MB to execute in full graphics mode.
It is also important to note Microsoft is making the shift to managed code. Now a days people have alot more ram then they use to. Thus programs are getting bigger, but at the same time much more secure.
Not really. Obviously the faster the computer the better, but I have found Vista to run smoothly on most systems once you give it a few days to speed itself up. and you only need a semi-decent graphics card if you want the special visual stuff to run. It just needs to be a DirectX 9 card.so u need a fast computer, with an expensive 3d card do u to run vista?
If you want to know how vista will run on your computer, you can always try this:
Its well known in the industry that MS and Intel work together. Intel makes better chips and MS makes an OS that uses the extra power etc. Its called the WinTel Conspiracy by some.
Many of the observations given above about linux (Knoppix etc.) are not fully accurate - if you install linux and all the added stuff (that comes built-in with Windows) the footprint of your linux installation is just as big and very often bigger than Windows.
It is possible to strip windows down to a barebones OS with various tools on the web (e.g. nLite) which I've done with great success in the past. I've managed to run XP SP2 in less than 300mb and with 64mb of ram (shared graphics also).
Much of the "bloat" in XP etc. is there because MS is trying to get around problems caused by users - PEBCAK (problem exists between chair and keyboard) and ID ten T (id10t) as we say in the industry
As for patches/fixes? One only has to do a Google search for the terms and you'll soon discover that there are hundreds if not thousands of patches and fixes for linux.
Google Search for patches fixes linux
Red Hat Desktop (v. 4) General Advisories
Suse Linux Security Advisories
SUSE Linux 10.1 (i386): patches, updates, bugfixes - 182 pages of them
Is that Microsoft's way of telling me my laptop won't run Vista?
Lol so this one time linux crashed. Is this it way of telling people you shouldnt use it?
- feature patches/updates
- patches for certain linux programs
unlike in windows, linux is in a constant development. microsoft makes it release, and after that it gets a feature freeze and all they do is security fixes.
Well many of the changes made in XP SP2 were new features, it just so happened that they were security related.microsoft makes it release, and after that it gets a feature freeze and all they do is security fixes.
I couldn't agree with you more. Absolutely stunningly scary. I just bought a fucking computer this past June, and I shouldn't have to upgrade just so I can run Vista.
I'm posting from it and it looks and feels really slick for a non-finished product. I also think the only thing about its look that resembles Mac OS X is the drop shadows for the windows.
The sidebar feels pretty useless to me but some people are going to like it, I guess.
By the way, you shouldn't have to upgrade to run Vista, it only feels a tad slower than XP in some ways (scrolling in browser windows, for example) with all the bells and whistles on.
I'm laughing to myself looking at your post - linux is in constant development?
What exactly is the difference then?
MS releases XP then continues working on it, releases SP1, continues working on it, then releases SP2.
In the meantime there are patches and fixes for different apps bundled with the OS as well as for the OS
The bad news is that as Knoppix was never designed to be installed to the hard drive, it doesn't have a security policy or procedure.Results 1 - 10 of about 1,050,000 for "security patches"+"linux". (0.18 seconds)
The good news is that it's based on Debian which does.
If you have installed Knoppix to your hard drive, there may be security updates you need to install. There is a basic Security Updates HowTo in the Documentation section of this website. Please keep your machine updated.
For security patches for a minimum of seven flavours of linux go here where they say:
UPDATED Security Patches for LinuxApple anyone?
This page includes some links to security update pages. We have covered Linux versions that have been requested. If you are using a different Linux version than listed below and would like us to include a security patch link please leave a message letting us know
We published this list to benefit all of those folks who need to get security updates, but don't have time to hunt them down all over the internet. This isn't an exhaustive list (yet) and we need your help to add new ones.
All Linux versions receive regular security patch updates. If you are operating a Linux web server and have not made security patch updates there is an increased risk of vulnerability to security violations. Also read the essential Administrator commands list to check your server.
Security Updates are usually incorporated into later Software Updates
Results 1 - 10 of about 383,000 for "security patches"+"apple". (0.17 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 178,000 for "security patches"+"os x". (0.27 seconds)
Apple releases OS X security patches | CNET News.comApple releases OS X security patches | Highly critical security updates address more than a dozen vulnerabilities in the Mac OS X operating system.
This is a no-brainer guys and no-one's gonna win
well what new features did windows xp get with sp1?
and do you understand the differences between "linux" as the buzzword, "linux" the os and do you know the difference between "linux" and a linux distribution?
oh and you started the whole patch/fix thing, so don't tell me i am turning this in a win vs something else discussion
however, the no1 reason for windows still is office. and interesting enough - if you have a look at the new office version, there they really threw over some of the old stuff and brought in a fresh wind.
they also had great ideas and plans for vista. but almost everything interesting was cutted, and now you merely get a fancy new windows more graphics
No, it has to do with the fact that enterprises dont want to have to upgrade every year. Could you imagine pushing out a new OS every single year to 50,000 computers?That's an interesting point! Do you suppose MS does it that way because, with their market share, they figure they don't have to offer on-going improvements?
Well, instand desktop searching was in longhorn before apple er..."innovated" it. But yes, some good stuff was cut, however its not just a pretty new face. Much of the core of Windows was completely re-written from the ground up. Like the network stack, and audio stack. They arnt surface changes, but will make a large difference to everyone that uses windows.but almost everything interesting was cutted, and now you merely get a fancy new windows more graphics
Anyhow, I've actually worked for Microsoft as a software tester so I'm very biased and I'm an MCP since the 90s.
That didn't stop me from using Red Hat and Suse linux distros (I even managed to 'patch' it by applying a new kernel). I've also used HP-UX, Solaris and OS2 Warp, along with trying to install OS X Tiger on a PC.
Finally, I've used XP 64 bit and I can honestly say that I've never seen any other OS run as fast. If there has been a conspiracy anywhere its been with 64bit computing
AMD has been hindered deliebrately by MS while Intel catches up on that one. I've seen the difference in speed and it is astounding. All my mates that I went to college with are using XP64 and will never go back.
ps. JUB Admin/Mod - I keep getting the error that my posts are too short even when they're not. It wipes out my post and so I go back, change a few words, submit and my changes are gone but my original post is there. I'm using the latest version of Firefox btw (yes Corny I'm using XPSP2 and you're using Linux and have no problems, I know I know )
pps. SP1 features & xtras:
My opinion about Vista is that it requires an expensive PC (outside the US and Japan, computers fast enough to run it are really expensive) to do the same that Linux or Mac OS accomplish in less powerful configurations.
You see, it requires 15 GB of free hard disk space only for the operating system... compare that to the 4 GB of Ubuntu Linux with the most-commonly used applications (OpenOffice.org, GIMP, etc), the compositing engine, Xgl, the programs to manage a recording studio, and some other programs. And you can make Linux look as good (if not better) than Windows Vista, without any performance loss.
Vista looks intersting, but it's going to be expensive in it's most feature filled version. I probably won't upgrade my existing computer. More likely, I'll just buy a new one this Spring with Vista already on it.
Vista ultimate only takes up ~5 gigs on the disk, the actual install file is 2.52 gigs.You see, it requires 15 GB of free hard disk space only for the operating system...
The 15 GB figure is from Wikipedia's article on Windows Vista, check it out:
However, I still consider 5 GB far too big for an operating system. As I've said before, a Linux distro capable of doing the same as Vista, and with many applications installed (including two completely different desktop environments), only requires 4 GB. The standard installation of Ubuntu Linux needs 2 GB.
I got a Microsoft Windows E-Newsletter recently touting the benefits of VISTA. It included an opportunity to download a Beta version from MS, along with their "Vista Update Manager" or some such thing. Sooooo...I got the Update manager loaded and ran it and guess what??? the list of installed programs that "May not perform as expected" was a mile long. Vista suggested that I remove these programs (about sixteen in all), download Vista and then reload the programs...all this for a BETA version of an OS that I don't even think I want!!!!
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt
From MS's web site: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win.../vistarpc.mspx
Minimum Supported Hardware Requirements for running Windows Vista
Minimum Supported RequirementsProcessor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2
HDD 20 GB
HDD Free Space 15 GB
it would appear Vista takes up considerably more than just 5 GB.
^ The requirements mikey has posted above are the minimum requirements for running the "core" components of the Vista OS. If you want to do something exotic, like watch TV on your PC with a tuner card, you'll need more robust hardware. This is from Microsoft's own website:
It looks like Vista's hardware demands are rather substantial. Microsoft is urging everyone to upgrade their RAM to as much as possible to improve Vista's performance even more.All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista—like the new Windows Aero user experience—may require advanced or additional hardware.
Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs
Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware.
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.
They are encouraging PC manufacturers to switch to hard disk drives with integrated flash memory to try to speed up Vista's read/write access to the disk. Also, Microsoft has tacked a program onto Vista called "Windows ReadyBoost". This is an attempt to boost the OS's performance a bit by encouraging users to stick usb flash drives into the usb ports, so that Vista can use the flash memory as more swap space.Adding system memory (RAM) is often the best way to improve your PC's performance. More memory means applications can run without needing to access the hard drive.
Windows Vista introduces a new concept in adding memory to a system. Windows ReadyBoost lets users use a removable flash memory device, such as a USB thumb drive, to improve system performance without opening the box. Windows ReadyBoost can improve system performance because it can retrieve data kept on the flash memory more quickly than it can retrieve data kept on the hard disk.
Methinks Vista has some performance issues.
No, not it wouldnt. Thats the minimum you need to run the system reasonably. Ie, acutally have space to save things, and so on, which is different fromt eh amount of space it takes up on the disk. When you first install vista, you will see it only takes up around ~5 gigs. Trust me, i have it installed.it would appear Vista takes up considerably more than just 5 GB.
And so what? Any OS that supports that technology will be able to use tha to speed up their system. Vista runs just fine on a normal hard drive.They are encouraging PC manufacturers to switch to hard disk drives with integrated flash memory to try to speed up Vista's read/write access to the disk.
No. Readyboost doest not load the swap file, but Superfetch files. This improves the speed of loading programs, and is not endemic of a performance issue with the system. It is simply using the resources available to it to make it perform as fast as it can.This is an attempt to boost the OS's performance a bit by encouraging users to stick usb flash drives into the usb ports, so that Vista can use the flash memory as more swap space.
I'm going to get crucified for this, but I'm going to give you guys my first (and very frank) impressions of Vista RC1:
1) I disagree with those who claim Vista looks like OS X. It has a very classic Windows look and feel. In fact, except for some style changes to the window borders and some color changes, I have difficulty telling if from Windows XP. One of the biggest changes I've noticed, for example, is that the “Start” button is now round instead of square, and it no longer says “Start” inside it. (I bet Microsoft got tired of all the jokes!).
2) Hardware compatibility has always been Windows' forte. I was therefore surprised to discover that RC1 had a lot of trouble with my hardware. It seems to have particular trouble with sound cards, and it refused to install on a lot of (very capable) motherboards. I have a vague impression that it likes Intel-based motherboards better than AMD, but I didn't keep an official tally. Weirdly, the keyboard driver on my test machine keeps randomly (and annoyingly) uninstalling itself! I need to re-install the keyboard about every 15 min, or I can't type. (Fortunately, it's not necessary to type anything on the keyboard to re-install the driver! -- And no, this is not a hardware problem with the keyboard). I still don't have sound on my test machine.
3) Vista is not as slow as I had feared. My test machine has a 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium IV with 2.0 GB RAM, a 256 MB/128 bit graphics accelerator, and a 250 GB SATA hard drive. That's pretty average hardware, and the “core” components of Vista run acceptably fast on this machine. It's not a speed demon, but it's not bad.
4) Local area networking ran somewhat slower than I expected, but this might be a driver issue with the network card. Interestingly, Vista identified ALL of the Windows and Mac boxes on my lan, but FAILED to identify virtually EVERY Linux machine on the lan. Vista would not acknowledge the presence of the Linux server from which it accepted a DHCP number, nor would it acknowledge the Linux firewall machine through which it nevertheless automatically configured access to the Internet.
5) I suspect Vista will be significantly more secure than Win XP. I say this only because it will occasionally block me from trying to do things because I do not have the appropriate user privileges, very much as does Linux. I have not attempted to test Vista's security measures in any formal way. It does let an awful lot of adware through when surfing the internet, however, something which doesn't happen, of course, with Mac and Linux.
I'm having some trouble understanding the point of the Vista OS. I had assumed Microsoft wanted to offer a new and more intuitive look and feel to Windows, but it is too similar to XP for this to be the case. It may be worth upgrading if the security really is improved, but only if hardware compatibility gets a lot better fast. I had had a fear that Vista would be as slow as molasses, but it runs about as fast as Win XP does, as long as the hardware is reasonably powerful, and as long as you keep to using the “core” components of the OS (I haven't tested any multimedia stuff).
I will not be using Vista. The new Vista licensing scheme allows transfer of the license to a new “machine” only once. It is expected that individual copies of Vista will cost up to $400. Around here, we are CONSTANTLY upgrading motherboards, drives, processors, etc. Even "Windows Genuine Advantage" with XP is a phenomenal headache for us. The new licensing scheme makes Windows outrageously expensive for us. As we are not big enough to manage a site license, we think phasing out Windows to be our best option. In fact, we had already made the decision to phase out Windows entirely over the next two years, as our analysis shows this will cut our operating costs dramatically. The new licensing scheme just nailed the Windows coffin shut for us. I had expected our laptops to be a last “holdout”, as it is practically impossible to buy a laptop without Win XP already installed on it. We've already formatted Ubuntu over the Win XP installations on virtually all of our laptops, however, and that is now the first thing we do with new machines when they arrive.
Appreciate that my impressions are only my own worthless opinions, and are based in this case on a Beta version of Vista (RC1). There is a reason they call it a Beta. I have every expectation that RC2 already offers much better hardware compatibility and maybe even a sleeker interface. I wasn't able to download it during the tiny window of opportunity last weekend, however, so I can't offer any comparisons in this regard.
I tried RC1. I couldn't keep it long because the network I'm using to connect to the internet doesn't recognize Vista. I definentely liked how it looked. Looked a lot smoother and, futuristic if you will. lol. But I also didn't like how many things aren't compatible with Vista (hardware and software alike). Although I'm sure (and hope) that will change as we get closer to the official release.
Unfortunately, Vista is just warmed-over Windows Server 2003, SP1. From PC Magazine:
Vista is built on top of the code that made up Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1.
Microsoft has tried to tweak the kernel a bit, but it's still more than 99.999% Windows 2003. That is why the delays have made so much news. They suggest MS is having significant problems internally.
The first security patch for Vista was released in January 2006. That patch repaired, in part, the SetAbortProc function vulnerability first introduced into Windows 3.0 around 1990! All previous versions of Windows had already been patched for this same vulnerability.
I have tried Vista RC1 and I actually like it. I think it will be more secure than Win XP. But the code is astonishingly bloated (Win XP requires 1.5 GB of hard drive space to install; Vista needs 15 GB - 10X as much!), and I can't tell that Vista will do anything Win XP isn't already doing.
So I'm trying to figure out why we "need" Vista. It looks exactly like Win XP, to my eyes.
At the current rate of software bloat, MS's next OS in 2012 will require 150 GB of free disk space to install!
I call bullshit. Ive been running vista for more then 6 months and havent had one bit of spyware/adware/viruses get installed.I have not attempted to test Vista's security measures in any formal way. It does let an awful lot of adware through when surfing the internet, however, something which doesn't happen, of course, with Mac and Linux.
That is only for the ultimate edition and such. Normal consumer versions will be in line with that of Windows XP.It is expected that individual copies of Vista will cost up to $400.
And where is this 5 nines figure coming from? Or do we just like making up numbers? And they did restart it. It was being built using the Windows XP codebase, however they switched midway through to use the Windows 2003 codebase.Microsoft has tried to tweak the kernel a bit, but it's still more than 99.999% Windows 2003. That is why the delays have made so much news. They suggest MS is having significant problems internally.
Vista does NOT take up 15 gigs. That is the minimum for it to run properly. The actual code itself its under 5 gigs. There is a difference.I have tried Vista RC1 and I actually like it. I think it will be more secure than Win XP. But the code is astonishingly bloated (Win XP requires 1.5 GB of hard drive space to install; Vista needs 15 GB - 10X as much!
The DRM in vista, mainly the protected video path stuff was added so Vista would be complient with HDDVD and BluRay, and had to be added if they wanted to say it was compatable with next-gen formats. Everyone else will have to add the EXACT same technology, including Apple and Linux, if they want to be fully complient with next gen standards.Having said that...i'm very afraid of all the whispers and what not about a lot of DRM in Vista. I don't like the idea of DRM and i wont buy or run Vista if it implements a lot of DRM.
Perhaps you should read this then:So I'm trying to figure out why we "need" Vista. It looks exactly like Win XP, to my eyes.
Microsoft refuses to release any figures in this regard. Everything at MS is top secret, so everyone who comments on this takes a guess at the numbers. Many sources are saying there has been no change, but I don't believe that. It's always been curious to me why MS never wants to discuss stuff like this. As a company, they've always had a strange fear of telling the public the truth about what's going on, even when it couldn't possibly matter. That behavior has always impressed me as counterproductive, since it just encourages wild speculation, and makes them less credible when they do make statements.
If MS actually had to compete for business, that company would be dead!
/\ I wish soooo bad that i could recall where i had heard that...i never believe rumors, i just help spread them around.
I may have found the reference you were looking for. Maximum PC magazine, “Holiday” edition 2006, pg. 26, paragraph 2:
A New Look
Microsoft didn't exactly throw out the baby with the bathwater when it started developing Windows Vista, but it came pretty close. Rather than simply add new features to the same old pile of legacy code we've all been using for years, the Redmond gang got back to basics and developed this OS from the ground up. And while you're not likely to get lost looking for your favorite programs in the interface, the code underlying it all is vastly different than in Windows XP – making it a faster, smarter computing experience.
I don't know why people write crap like this, which is pretty blatantly false. The article doesn't even have a “by” line – it just says “by Maximum PC Staff”! I can understand why no one was willing to accept credit for this. Microsoft was quite proud of the fact, early on, that they were using the Windows Server 2003 code base for Vista. Later they backed off from emphasizing that fact as if there was something wrong with it. Everybody knows that, so how could a journalist of even phenomenal incompetence write that they “ developed this OS from the ground up”? Not even Microsoft is making claims like that.
I do love the line, “ you're not likely to get lost looking for your favorite programs in the new interface.” English translation: “It looks exactly like Win XP”!
The upgrade from any semi-recent Windows os to Xp home is sub $99.If prices are "in line" with XP, then I would expect to have to pay $400. Every copy of XP I ever bought cost me $300, and that was a few years ago. I have bought a few copies of SuSE at $70 to $100 each, but almost all of the Linux I have used has been free.
Perhaps you should check out:Microsoft refuses to release any figures in this regard. Everything at MS is top secret, so everyone who comments on this takes a guess at the numbers. Many sources are saying there has been no change, but I don't believe that. It's always been curious to me why MS never wants to discuss stuff like this
Could it be your not looking for their information?
Well for those of us who dont run our OS from a RAM Disk, I should think the amount of space vista takes up is not an issue.I'm not sure who you think said Vista "takes up 15 gigs", but it wasn't me! As I said, you need 15 GB of free hard drive space to install Vista. Because Win XP executes so slowly, I have always run it from a RAM disk, when I have used XP. My RAM disk is only 4 GB, of which XP uses about 1.5 GB. I wouldn't be able to install Vista to my primary system if I wanted to. That's an important consideration to me.
Not really. There is a difference between look and feel, and the interface.English translation: “It looks exactly like Win XP”!
Sigh, once again the DRM is for BluRay and HDDVD support. Second aside from crappy youtube videos, the voice recognition works pretty well.There's not one thing in that article that I need, except better security. In fact, a lot of it really turned me off. More DRM? Voice recognition that doesn't work? Can someone please explain to me why we need Vista?
Well I cant tell you why you'd want vista, but I know why I do. Im a big fan of media center, especially having an Xbox 360. It is more stable then XP from what i have seen, the performance is also better, World of Warcraft runs much more smoothly on Vista. Previous Versions/Shadow copy is amazing, and I like the idea of Bitlocker, which I currently have running on my Vista partition. And tha changes they have made to Audio/Video playback are very nice, they work much better if your system is under stress then they did in Xp.
Security is also very nice in vista, especially if your running the 64 bit version. And so on, there are alot of nice things if you take the time to learn about them.
Just found out about cablecard support--you can't even copy or view files recorded by Media Center to another PC. *claps*
Seems like MS is beholden to too many content providers these days. That's what, HD-DVD, Bluray, WMV , WMA, Protected Video, Protected Audio Paths? Nt just one or two things here. Nevermind that I doubt these things that exist on XP will be cracked as easily as on vista (Patchguard etc). CableLabs is notorious about their encryption (which is why you couldn't use Cablecard in a Windows Media Center prior to vista) and if it's cracked we'll probably see an automatic update similar to the Windows Media Player "critical update" when Janis was cracked a few months ago.
So, these don't benefit the user in any way unless you prefer DRM over a file that (Gasp) can actually be copied to another computer. The security benefits are more for content distributors than the user, because when Joe 6pack things "security", they don't want spyware, adware, etc.
With my new ThinkPad, I am receiving an "ExpressUpgrade" to Vista Business. I will be installing it, simply because I am so not fond of XP at this point. Hopefully everything will go well, but the Vista Upgrade Advisor so far says that basically nothing I have (track pad, printers, sound card, etc) is known to be compatible or not. Not very promising.