Do you recomend Win Vista?yes,no. Why?

[CruzReal]

I have heard awful things about vista but ive heard aful things about almost any OS so i wonder why should i get vista and why shouldnt ?

[insane_alien]

no, i don't recommend vista. it is a bit of a resource hog and if you want to run it with better than XP you've got to buy a powerful machine. stick with XP if you've already got it as that still does everything well enough and with a good AV, firewall and common sense, is just as secure.

 

Personally, i would recommend either OSX or a distro of linux but they might not be for you. if you tell me what you use your computer for then i, or someone else, can tell you which one would be best for you.

[ecoli]

IF that hasn't convinced you, I recomend you wait. A lot of programs still aren't vista-compatable, especially anti-viral and spyware programs, who haven't updated their drivers.

[the tree]

Just like when XP came out, I think the sensible thing is to wait a couple of years until the product is actually ready to be released rather than when it is released de facto.

[Klaynos]

If you've got a working OS with security updates et al, wait. It'd pretty much just be a waste of your money. ALWAYS a good plan to give a new OS some bedding in time.

[bluesmudge]

Waiting a couple of years is definitely a good idea.

Vista has potential - BUT there are some serious problems, the strongest and most common argument is the amount of RAM needed to run the machine.

 

- I've had XP run on 128 MB ok it wasn't the fastest but it worked. Vista needs 1GB, then needs at least 512 MB to run applications - if you do anything remotely heavy like running games, development applications etc etc then you need another 1 GB basically the first gig is used by starting your machine!

 

Now i know RAM is cheap, and not difficult to upgrade but 2 GB is HUGE i have machine still running 512MB and i refuse to buy more!

 

- There are far too many variants, and the cost is far too high.

 

- Digital rights management - though from what i read it won't affect the majority of people, there will be times when i does cause a problem . . . though admittedly i need to research this area properly.

 

un undoubtedly you will own a vista machine one day, lets face it we have no choice - its hard to buy a new machine without it and if you want to remain fully compatible with the rest of the world then you have no choice.

 

**and before Klaynos has a poke at that YES linux is compatible with the rest of the world but people only trust what they know.

[the tree]

undoubtedly you will own a vista machine one day

That's not a wager is it?

[Pangloss]

Vista's memory profile expands or contracts to fit the total memory load. It'll actually run on a 256mb machine, just poorly. It has a nice sweet spot at 4gb, or so I keep reading. I'm running it on a 2gb machine as I write this, and it's consuming about half a gig at the moment. I've read that on a 4gb machine it'll expand to 1.5gb. But on a smaller machine it'll use less.

 

XP does the same thing, btw (shrinking and expanding), just not as effectively.

 

Almost everything about Vista is better than XP, but I concur with the advice to wait. Many programs and peripherals are problematic or just plain broken at the moment. Some software suppliers are actively fighting or resisting upgrades and patches to their products. And all the technical support chores are falling on guys like us (people who know something about computers) to deal with. It's a nightmare. Best to wait a while.

 

That having been said, if you're a bleeding-edge kind of person or just enjoy toying with operating systems, by all means, grab and load.

 

Incidentally, OS X versions 10.3 and earlier don't compare well with Vista. Only 10.4 (the latest) is comparable, and from what I understand 10.5 may turn out to be better in a number of ways. I run Vista on one machine and 10.3 on another, so I have some personal experience here.

 

KDE and Gnome don't really compare very well with either product in terms of HCI, IMO. But they do look decent and your experience may vary. They certainly have their fanatics... er, I mean fans.

[bluesmudge]

It'll actually run on a 256mb machine, just poorly.

 

but to get what you paid for you need 2gb - which is unfair.

[the tree]

but to get what you paid for you need 2gb - which is unfair.

I gather that what you pay for is quite impressive, weather it is fair that you should run it on a crazy-high-memory computer is pretty subjective. And well, the hardware specs are written on the back and no-one's making you buy it.

[bluesmudge]

but no other OS requires that much - why does vista?

[the tree]

My computer (Linux) could certainly make use of that much memory, and it could easily survive on half of what I've got. What it "requires" is just a reflection of what you consider to be acceptable performance.

[Pangloss]

"Unfair" seems like an odd word to apply to a commercial product. It's not like they don't sell it to black people. Are we going to need some federal laws to determine fairness in operating systems now? Maybe handicap Microsoft a few gigabytes of HD footprint and set them a federally mandated memory size, just so Linux can compete? (grin)

 

But sure, I understand your point. It's reasonable to wonder why Vista's footprint has to be so large compared with other operating systems, and based on that chagrin decide that another operating system is better suited to your needs. Go for it. We all benefit from that competition.

 

But that question should be answered correctly, not through assumptions. It's pretty silly to assume that Vista's large footprint means one thing or another. Asking = good. Assuming = agenda/prejudice/fanboyness = poor choices.

 

What's also silly is to, as some people do, remonstrate Microsoft for making a product that caters to the lowest common denominator. Catering to the lowest common denominator is what lead to the cheap computer you're running Linux on right now. (You're welcome.)

 

Competition is good for everyone. Putting ANY one product on a platform, regardless how politically correct its technical features may be, is a bad thing.

 

So my advice is: Worry less about buzz words and more about what you need to get your job done. That's what leads to better computers, not popular fanboyisms.

 

(And btw, for those of you whose "job" is downloading illegal music and going to class, then sit back, pay attention, STFU, and let the grownups sort it out. When you can pay for your own computer, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say.)

[the tree]

I'm fairly sure that BlueSmudge was using "unfair" for lack of a better word. And whilst assumptions are generally not great, I'm sure that it is safe to assume that Vista is using all that memory for something and it's not a recommendation just to piss people off.

[Pangloss]

My computer (Linux) could certainly make use of that much memory, and it could easily survive on half of what I've got. What it "requires" is just a reflection of what you consider to be acceptable performance.

 

You read my mind, I was just about to follow up on that very thread (so to speak).

 

I was about to point out that much of what's happening in Vista's expanding and contracting footprint is about managing permanent storage media. Improving the performance of Virtual Memory has been a thorn in everyone's side (regardless of the OS) for years now. Buffering more information from the hard drive is one approach.

 

Vista (and OS X 10.4 or 10.5, one of the two, iirc) also have the ability to use Flash memory either poked into a USB slot or as part of a hard drive equipped with such on its controller card. This is an important advance in dealing with this bottleneck and while it may seem silly at first glance (the throughput of USB 2.0 being somewhat less than that of SATA, for example), it actually turns out to be quite beneficial (mainly due to virtually instantaneous seek times).

 

In addition, Vista is probably the most advanced operating system on the table right now with regard to working with multithreaded applications in multiple-core configurations. Linux has always had a natural edge in this area, but when a company with tens of billions of dollars in cash and zero debt throws a thousand engineers at a problem, things tend to happen.

 

Whatever we learn from all of this will benefit ALL operating systems, not just Windows. All of this stuff will be studied by academia over the next few years and important advances will pass back and forth between the Windows, Linux and Apple worlds, benefiting all of us.

 

But that's computer science, not casual usage. As I said above, I recommend casual users hold off on Vista for now. It's actually a pretty good time for a smart casual user to check out Fedora or Debian or some other popular distro, or snap up a good deal on a used iMac and check out OS X 10.4 or the 10.5 release due next month. Then try out Vista this fall (or if it comes with a new computer). See which one suits YOUR needs best.

[the tree]

In addition, Vista is probably the most advanced operating system on the table right now with regard to working with multithreaded applications in multiple-core configurations. Linux has always had a natural edge in this area, but when a company with tens of billions of dollars in cash and zero debt throws a thousand engineers at a problem, things tend to happen.

I've never heard of Linux having an edge on multiple core computers, I have got the impression that it's better at handling resources but I never knew how true that was. Personally I use Linux because it just, for whatever reason, frustrates me a lot less than the other big two, I don't seriously pretend to know that much about hardware.

[ecoli]

Out of curiosity, how are vista sales doing?

 

I was in Best buy the other day, and I heard all the geek squad people advising customers to wait before they buy it. That can't be helping Microsoft's sales any.

[Pangloss]

That's actually one of those questions that's almost moot when it comes to Windows. Almost every single computer sold today goes out with either XP and a Vista coupon, or Vista already installed. That's millions of computers per month. It'd be the most successful operating system launch in the history of the planet even if it didn't sell a single unit.

 

That's one of my personal pet peeves about the situation -- the fact that millions of people are going to start using it (and demanding my time to fix their problems, with no help from Microsoft) right away, in spite of being advised to the contrary.

[ecoli]

That's actually one of those questions that's almost moot when it comes to Windows. Almost every single computer sold today goes out with either XP and a Vista coupon, or Vista already installed. That's millions of computers per month. It'd be the most successful operating system launch in the history of the planet even if it didn't sell a single unit.

 

That's one of my personal pet peeves about the situation -- the fact that millions of people are going to start using it (and demanding my time to fix their problems, with no help from Microsoft) right away, in spite of being advised to the contrary.

 

Well, unfortunately I might not have much of a choice in the matter.

 

About a 1.5 years ago, I bought a laptop. The past couple of months, I've been having so many hardware problems, that I was able to send it back to the company under their "no lemon" policy with the warrunty that I bought.

 

So, they should be reimbursing me for a new computer. Which, means, there's a chance that it will come with Vista.

 

I have a copy of XP pro that I could use instead, or perhaps even Linux, but idk... if I'm getting it for free anyway, it may be worth to keep Vista.

 

Of course, I may be getting ahead of myself, because I have yet to hear back from the company.

[Klaynos]

Well, unfortunately I might not have much of a choice in the matter.

 

About a 1.5 years ago, I bought a laptop. The past couple of months, I've been having so many hardware problems, that I was able to send it back to the company under their "no lemon" policy with the warrunty that I bought.

 

So, they should be reimbursing me for a new computer. Which, means, there's a chance that it will come with Vista.

 

I have a copy of XP pro that I could use instead, or perhaps even Linux, but idk... if I'm getting it for free anyway, it may be worth to keep Vista.

 

Of course, I may be getting ahead of myself, because I have yet to hear back from the company.

 

Just to point out that in most cases where you buy a PC with vista installed you're not getting it for free, (cheaper than an normal lisence yes) as the price is tied up in the price of the computer.

[ecoli]

Just to point out that in most cases where you buy a PC with vista installed you're not getting it for free, (cheaper than an normal lisence yes) as the price is tied up in the price of the computer.

 

yeah I know, but free in the sense that I'm not handing them any money for my new computer, because under their no lemon policy they either have to send me a new computer or give me store credit, for the amount that I paid a year and a half ago... which, on the plus side, no matter what I'm getting a machine with better specs.

[Genecks]

After reading the requirements of Vista, I decided it was a big resource hog.

 

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space.

- http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

 

That's just too freaking much memory. I don't know what the operating system could offer me. I rather have a faster computer, not a large operating system. When it comes to operating systems, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

 

I will continue to use Windows XP and Linux. Until I can figure out how to setup wifi in linux, I use Windows XP. But given the time and ability, I would readily stay with Linux.

 

Only get VISTA if you are forced to because of consumer products. I like to stick to old programs and whatnot. However, nobody ever archives old programs. People should start doing that.

[CPL.Luke]

thats the problem that has plagued linux for as long as its been around, to do the most basic things requires hours of reading tutorials, downloading programs, compiing, and finally debugging.

 

thats why I made the switch to OSX, its simply the most intuitive interface I've ever seen on a computer. to install something all you need to do is download it and place it in your applications folder, or any folder for that matter, as the file format comes ready to go. and the view all windows feature is really nice.

[bascule]

I spend 95% of my time in OS X now (I say as I post this from an XP machine)

 

Vista's attempts to bring OS X niceties to the Windows world, but does it with immense bloat. Or, I can run XP in Parallels on my Mac and run Windows applications side-by-side with my OS X ones, and even dock them. It's awesome! Who needs Windows, really?

[ecoli]

I spend 95% of my time in OS X now (I say as I post this from an XP machine)

 

Vista's attempts to bring OS X niceties to the Windows world, but does it with immense bloat. Or, I can run XP in Parallels on my Mac and run Windows applications side-by-side with my OS X ones, and even dock them. It's awesome! Who needs Windows, really?

 

there are programs that don't work with Macs, though. Or is that not much of a problem anymore? Also, if you're used to a windows interface, than mac can be a bit getting used to. I know how to manipulate settings in windows much more easily than I can in Macs.

 

PS- I'm considering getting a Mac laptop, especially if the alternative is Vista.