crc-ict Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Is this another nail in Vista's coffin? If people are already advising to wait at least six months for the evolutional upgrade to Vista, what is the point when a revolutional upgrade is expected in another 18 months? I for one would baulk at paying almost £200 retail for a product which will be superseded by a major new technology upgrade in only 18 months, neccessitating another similarly large outlay! Can't see the sense. Having said that, I can't see what's wrong with XP - on the other hand, I can - I don't need to pay M$ another £200 to keep on using XP Call me a cynic if you will.
SimpleSi Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Is this another nail in XP's coffin? If people are already advising to wait at least six months for the evolutional upgrade to XP, what is the point when a revolutional upgrade is expected in another 18 months? I for one would baulk at paying almost £200 retail for a product which will be superseded by a major new technology upgrade in only 18 months, neccessitating another similarly large outlay! Can't see the sense. Having said that, I can't see what's wrong with Win98 - on the other hand, I can - I don't need to pay M$ another £200 to keep on using Win98 Wink Call me a cynic if you will. Sorry - duplicate post
webman Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 crc-ict: They're saying 2009 now... we won't see it until atleast Q4 2011
Geoff Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Vista, to my mind, is rapidly turning into XP SP3. With the added insult that you have to pay for it. I have started to recommend to my non-technical friends and family who ask that they should get a Mac. For my technical friends, I point them in the direction of Ubuntu. I mean, lets face it, an upgrade to vista will be just as painful/painless as moving to Mac/Linux.
mattx Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I am not singing MS praises as I am more a believer in OS than anyone however, Vista is nothing like XP. There are stark differences.
Dos_Box Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Yes, XP currently works and does not question you when tying to adjust your desktop settings etc. As you can tell, I'm currently underwhelmed by Vista after 9 days use. Oh, and Windows update is broken in Vista too.
Geoff Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I thought it was supported via WSUS (certainly looking at WSUS I get that impression)?
Dos_Box Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 There was speculation in the IT industry late last year that Vista was headed for an April release. I now belive it should have been. There are still too many 'obvious' bugs which would have been iron out by then. The current people taking up Vista are still beta testing IMHO. Mind you, an April release would have been very humiliating for Microsoft.
Guest metalmonkey Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 @Dos_Box Have to say, i've been using Vista for about the same amount of time as your good self, and i'm extremely impressed with it. I won't go into particulars on the positives as they are all written down somewhere on the web. The only downside is the speed. But then, I think we all knew we would have to bulk up our PC's to get the best out of it. The one thing that made a massive difference in speed for me was upgrading to a seagate perpendicular drive. I previously had the WD Caviar SE and in comparision with the seagate, it was very slow. Overall, I'm really pleased with it. Well worth the £109 price for OEM. Btw, i've not noticed a problem with Windows update on it. Works fine for me.
mattx Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Indeed, not had a problem with the updates - the new poker game they introduced in the updates has me hooked !!
SimpleSi Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Well worth the £109 price for OEM. And that included your new hard drive to run it IF this new OS (with new server software) made mass configuration of our systems much easier then it would good - but I'll bet any money that in 3-4 years times people will still be here trying to work out why the desktop icon for Word 2009 disappears from desktops of pupils with Rs in their name on Tuesdays and Fridays Vista is 99% a money making thing for MS (and as a by-product hardware suppliers) and if you believe in technological and capitalist growth and sod the eco community then its a good thing regards Simon
webman Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Well it's good to see they overhauled the Windows 3.1 font installation dialog... not.
Midget Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Why can't they make a good Business OS, JUST for business, none of the fancy stuff, just a raw stable easy to install (via RIS) OS, like Win2000. An OS that is designed from scratch to be put onto a domain and have sufficent security out of the box to stop roaming profile bloat.
mattx Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Why can't they make a good Business OS, JUST for business You are talking about OS/2.....
Midget Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Why can't they make a good Business OS, JUST for business You are talking about OS/2..... Go sit in the corner
ChrisC Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Why can't they make a good Business OS, JUST for business, none of the fancy stuff, just a raw stable easy to install (via RIS) OS, like Win2000. An OS that is designed from scratch to be put onto a domain and have sufficent security out of the box to stop roaming profile bloat. You pretty much mean linux then? Chris
Midget Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 since when has linux been a straight forward, easy to mass install, secure desktop OS?
Midget Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I'll be honest and say i've never tried fedora since the first Core release ~4years ago and never tried distributing in a way similar to RIS, only ghosting.
ChrisC Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Thinking about it, surely ms could water down windows server as a client OS for business? I'm thinking the cost of developing a totally different version of windows would cost quite a bit.... Chris
Guest metalmonkey Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 >>Quote: >>Well worth the £109 price for OEM. >And that included your new hard drive to run it Razz No, but I was buying a new HDD anyway which was why I opted to get Vista at the cheapo price. In terms of Vista being 99% based on money - I would hope so. MS are a business. They'd fail big time if it wasn't based on money. For me, the content of Vista was worth the money (for OEM). Would it be worth the £300+ retail price? I don't personally think so.
SimpleSi Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 There's no "was" in Win2000 - its still runs fine here The only problem is MS deciding to not let their free products run on it any more - like Defender and latest Messenger and Photostory etc I'm pretty certain they just asked the programmers to insert a check for Win2000 and if found - don't install - rather than it actually won't work on it regards Simon
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now