yup...

Sorry for my English.

As a computer enthusiast, with many years of experience, I can say that Vista (not Ultimate of Basic edition) is worth buying.
For one, I have a high-end custom build PC (I paid around 3k after taxes), purchased in Jan 2006. And I can tell you WinXP doesn't like it one bit. Unlike many, I adopted XP when it shortly got released, with its SP1 pack. Due to my PCI-E Ethernet card, PCI-e video card, SATA HDD, and Dual Core CPU's, WinX SP1 gives you problems like you never seen before. Until you upgrade to SP2, you see the fallowing:
- Messages: "File is corrupted", "Invalid Win32 application", and blank message with an OK button.
- Random lock-ups, and downloaded files off the net is corrupted (stops at 2-5%) 9 on 10 times. This is VERY annoying when you try to upgrade to SP2, as you have to successfully download and run the SP2 package.

You may think that my computer is broken (that is what I thought when I got it). Yet, it is not the case, as the mili-second you have SP2, everything works PERFECTLY, and fast as it should. And runs even better when you do the after updates of SP2. If you install Linux on it, you also have *no* issues.
Please note I do have a genuine copy of Windows XP Pro.

When I tried Vista Beta 1, 2, RC1, and RC2, the second it got installed, my printer worked, applications runs and startup visually faster, thanks to it's improved (frankly I find it better then Linux) resource management. And has a huge amount of XP bugs fixed and improvements, like: programs don't steal focus, while Windows starts your startup application you can access the Start menu, improved window management (under XP I need a dual screen. Yet it is not the case for Vista), certain objects like the Start menu, improved setup, do not hide tool tip (finally I do not need to remember to press F6, and install the SATA driver on FLOPPIES (does not allow any other media)! (yea, else Windows will fail to startup))

-------------------------------------
The usability of Vista seems to be much better, as my parents, which are real computer illiterates, can do things that really surprised me, like starting up application without me doing it for them, open/close the computer, insert media and access the directories. For some psychological reason, they have no problem with Vista. When I got back to XP as public beta ended, they were back to scare 1, and complained to put back Vista.

Moreover, many people do not like change. When something is different they get lost and instead to dig a tiny bit, automatically they go in their "Oh it sucks!" mode. Something that I found very idiotic.

In addition, many users just look at the overview of Vista; it is more than just some bug fixes and a new skin. It has A LOT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

And let's not forget people that don't get what DRM is, and think it ads it on their media when it clearly does not.


Vista was design for NEW 2 000$CDN computers or better. Like Macs, it's good and have *no* issues due that you pay ~2-3k for the hardware part. I bet if you install MacOS on a dell 200$ laptop, which seams to be the case for many, it will be just as horrible or even worst then Windows.

I would like to add: what is the point of all the RAM you have, if you you don't use it.
If you don't use it, then you don't need that much RAM. and you waisted money.
Something else I don't get. With DX10 games coming out, you need a powerful computer, so even if Vista would work under your specs, games won't. I don't know for you, but for me, games are not worth playing on low settings or medium settings. It's not that I look for graphics in games, but I mean when you buy a game, where a lot was invested in graphics, why not use it.

Vista is like when XP came out, it will have a slow start, but it will be greatly appreciated with many as they get new, proper specs, computers.

My computer:
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ S939
- ASUS A8N32-SLI *Deluxe* (Nforce 4 16xSLI)
- 2GB of Corsair XMS RAM
- W.D 250GB SATA-II with 16MB of buffer
- Geforce 8800 GTS 768MB RAM (used to be on a Geforce 6600GT 256MB of RAM)
- Creative X-Fi XtermMusic
- Windows Vista Business ed. (~ of Pro version of XP with TabletPC (tablet PC features is on all edition of Vista))

Your experience with Linux is limited. Out of curiousity, which distro did you use? I have none of the described problems with Ubuntu.

As to the upgrades, note I am not saying Vista is a bad OS, not at all. Just that it is not a PRACTICAL solution as of yet for many people, and that I would not recommend it on a network I was managing. Windows XP Pro is a very good O/S, especially for anyone who remembers the Windows 9x days.

You're happy with Vista, that's good. But my goal on my home network is to find the ideal O/S for the hardware that I have. That's really what it's all about, isn't it? And as has been pointed out on other articles, most people don't have a need for 64 bit computing, so the upgrading is not as of yet essential. It would be like upgrading to HDTV 5 years ago; nice in theory, but where's it going in practice?

Yes, you can buy the 32 bit version of Vista. But when I have $200 worth of O/S on my computer, why would I want to dump it for a shinier new operating system that would cause conflicts with much of my software? My upcoming build will be constructed for Vista. And my XP apps will run on my XP machine. And my Linux apps will run on my Linux machine, 2000 apps on 2000, etc, etc, etc. ANd I have a hunch I'll be happy with all of them.

Hmmmmmmm......at least everybody got to install the bugger......it took me an hour to get the box open.....also a nasty cut......next after a new install I tried to get an Authorization (or whatever it is) number and the software acussed me of having a counterfiet copy....needless to say I'm back with XP......for quite awhile.      

In part, I do agree that it costs a bit much - especially here in South Africa.
I don't know how the ideas of Windows Vista came about, but surely MS did some sort of survey system that gathered enough information for what the MAJORITY wanted.

Vista, at the end of the day, is a great OS. It will be for a while. We've said that we should let it gain steam for a while and see what happens - and I agree.

The styles and designs (in terms of Aero) of Vista are also great, and some people think that's why it costs so much. There are many new features in Vista, and yet some of them are system software changes, ones that most people do not see. Things like reliablility and structure changes.

Yes, Vista is great - but why pay for it now when we can wait for prices to drop and service packs to be released. That's what I did with XP.

XP was crash city when it first came out.

And so is Vista, which is why I made my point. Well, I have only experienced games constantly crashing. But still is true.

The point is that it's not true.....I've had Vista Ultimate for the past 7 months now and not one single crash, BSOD or freeze up. Vista is quite stable on a capable machine and is reliable enough now to run as a primary OS. Many of the complaints I've come across have been from people trying to run Vista on a lower end or older machine which is not adequate, so of course it's going to be unstable, but that's more the fault of the user than it is of the OS.

While I've heard complaints from people with below par machines - because they didn't understand Vista's hardware requirements - I also hear from detractors, whingers and denigrators who've never even seen Vista, much less used it, and all because they've listened to all the anti-hype instead of trying it for themselves.

To me, that's just as idiotic as buying a product, sight unseen, based purely on the hype of the day....but decidedly worse, because the negativity may influence the naive (other fools) not to try a stable/reliable product.