Vista Release Date. (1 Viewer)

[AppleXY]

I like ur sig politik haha

 

[MuffinMan]

Somewhat so. But it has a redesigned core and a ram management system much better than XP. And the new graphics core is excellent. At it's core, Vista is a lot better than XP. Discounting the uberhawtness of Unix and OS X, Vista is the best incarnation of Windows yet. However, when comparing it to OS X, it falls below par on a few things.

id have to upgrade my graphics card in order to run vista...
not worth it

 

[Collin]

id have to upgrade my graphics card in order to run vista...
not worth it

You don't. As long as you've got a decent amount of system memory and a not too shabby processor, Vista will run fine. A reasonably robust discrete graphics solution is only required if you want the OS's Aero interface to run without a hitch.

Edit: I've read people claiming Aero runs reasonably satisfactory on an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 (what I have on my laptop actually.. I should try it out). Now that says something.

 

[withoutaface]

id have to upgrade my graphics card in order to run vista...
not worth it

Oh noes, you might have to spend a whole $50-70.

 

[MuffinMan]

Oh noes, you might have to spend a whole $50-70.

how much is a x1600?

 

[Captain Obvious 1]

http://news.com.com/1606-2-6133630.html?tag=st.rb

 

[Dumsum]

You know, reading this thread, I'm reminded of something: I'm reminded of when XP was released. People were bashing it, saying they're gonna stick with 98SE, that XP was filled with too much eye-candy, blah blah (you can turn that off. HEY GESS WAT U CAN DO IT IN VISTA 2!!!!!1). Now look, everyone runs XP, and people are saying the same things about Vista. I daresay everyone will be running Vista in 2 years. People just hate Microsoft for the sake of hating Microsoft.

But hey, you use what you believe to be the better OS, I'll use what I believe to be the better OS, and we'll all be happy.

And on a somewhat unrelated note, yes I have used MacOS X, many times. Computers in the library at high school had it. And I formed my opinion that it was shit.

 

[Dumsum]

I long for the day we have computers that you actually point at and move stuff around with your hands like they do in the movies

 

[Dumsum]

Minority Report, The Island....etc.

 

[Dumsum]

That's a lot of words that i can't be bothered reading right now.

 

[withoutaface]

You know, reading this thread, I'm reminded of something: I'm reminded of when XP was released. People were bashing it, saying they're gonna stick with 98SE, that XP was filled with too much eye-candy, blah blah (you can turn that off. HEY GESS WAT U CAN DO IT IN VISTA 2!!!!!1). Now look, everyone runs XP, and people are saying the same things about Vista. I daresay everyone will be running Vista in 2 years. People just hate Microsoft for the sake of hating Microsoft.

But hey, you use what you believe to be the better OS, I'll use what I believe to be the better OS, and we'll all be happy.

And on a somewhat unrelated note, yes I have used MacOS X, many times. Computers in the library at high school had it. And I formed my opinion that it was shit.

I'm saying this now: Windows Vista is shit. I will never install it on any of my computers except for a small amount of gaming (which will be a strict boot into OS, play game, reboot back into a real, *nix OS) and for my siblings who are retarded and cannot use a computer. The only other possible exception will be if I go into a workplace which mandates microsoft software be used on their computers, in which case I'll grit my teeth and bear it, because Windows is targeted at lowest common denominator users, and offers a general lack of power, a lot of freezing up, an inability to change things on a low level and they charge you $200+ for this brutal rape.

 

[withoutaface]

The irony of this simpler Setup is that users will later need to manually go and configure features that previously were prompted during XP's Setup (like choosing a workgroup name). But since the new Welcome Screen provides a handy front-end to these tasks, most users won't miss their omission during Setup. The point here is that simplicity trumps completeness, and it's almost certainly the right decision: If you require too much of users during Setup, they might never get the system set up correctly. They'll certainly get started with their new OS in a frustrating fashion.

I'm sorry, but I could set a windows system up when I was 9 or 10 years old. If you can't tell windows that you speak English, live in Sydney and are using a broadband internet connection, you should not be allowed to use a computer unsupervised. If anyone's gonna talk about partitioning, how many windows users who don't plan to install linux (i.e. who know nothing about computers) use more than one partition? None.

The rest was blabbing about how new wallpapers are cool (lol it's called the internet), how you could make windows transparent (I'm sure no other OS has done this before ) or how they have a simple boot screen (see: booting from CLI and 6-8 second start times, aka arch linux).

 

[withoutaface]

Microsoft isn't attributing the lack of a boot screen solely as the reason behind Vista's new quick bootup times - many pundits have dismissed this, since there are other OS' that can display something more than 256 colours at the same speed. There are other improvements to Windows' bootup that are attributable to the 6 second bootup time I get on 5744. And that will fall to 3-4 seconds one Samsung releases the first Hybrid drive in December.

And you may think that a few GUI advances are useless to you, but the majority of users base their opinions on the GUI - as it is the shell that they interact with the most. I couldn't care less what Vista looks like, and the Aero theme is no different to Windows Classic for me - but I can assure you that for Windows' 900m+ users it will. It doesn't matter if Vista doesn't match OS X on anything, it doesn't matter if it will be cracked tomorrow, it doesn't matter if it will be exploited within a week of 31/1/07, Windows Vista is going to outsell Windows XP, Windows Vista is going to woo all those home users with its myriad of useless home tools (few XP home users step outside the realm of WMP and WMM for media), Windows Vista is 'good enough' for millions of normal home users, and Windows Vista will be on every single x86 and x64 computer that Dell/IBM/HP/Lenovo/Acer/Asus/Whatever will make post-January 2007.

Microsoft, once again, has won.

EVERYONE KNOWS WINDOWS IS SHIT. EVERYONE KNOWS APPLE II WAS THE FIRST GUI OS. EVERYONE KNOWS OS X IS THE WORLD'S BEST OPERATING SYSTEM.

But, near-everyone uses Windows. That, was the point of the article I posted. Paul Thurrott acknowledges that Windows is not the best platform. But for the majority of the world's PC users, it's good enough.

Not every Lenovo. They're preloading SuSE onto some Thinkpad 60p's.

 

[withoutaface]

Well, 'tis a good idea. Dell wants to preload OS X on their Inspiron range, which I think would be awesome. If Apple ever wants to take Microsoft on at their own game (ie, their OS), then all they need to do is license OS X for other x86 machines. Hell, i'd buy it - it would be a good move from Windows for me.

Thing is they'd be seen as selling out, lose some fanboys and lose any point of differentiation on their hardware.

 

[AsyLum]

Thing is they'd be seen as selling out, lose some fanboys and lose any point of differentiation on their hardware.

Steve Jobs sold out long ago. The only person who didn't sell out was Bill Gates, and thats cause he was sold out from the beginning.