Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
Uh, Vista is the most secure OS on the market right now. Nice try though.
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
Actually check with anyone that deal with security, Vista is the most secure OS out on the market right now. Will the new design structure and GPO's it's tops right now. Then again, the fact that that you think security holes are fixed during services packs show how much you've looked into it.
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere...
*also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
You do realize that Microsoft just announced that they will be launching a new OS codenamed Seven in 3 years right ? Also you didn't even mention any of the "MUST HAVE" features of VISTA outside of DX10. Which by the way has only shown to be marginal at best in terms of performance and graphical quality over DX9.
Perhaps because no one has seen true DX10 yet? Everything has been DX9 with a few DX10 effects tossed on top. Main reason as well why DX10 performance has been crap.
AS for other features of Vista
Better security
Redesigned graphic and Audio API's for better performance/stability
Self healing capabilities for damage caused by malware
multithreaded to take advantage of dual/quad/etc. processors
is Vista worth getting right now for gaming. All the issues been worked out. Interested in hearing from those using vista for gaming.
Well my personal rule for new OS version releases is wait 3 after release for them to iron out the bugs. Not too many games support DirectX10 yet and most games played with Vista either 1.) suffer incompatibility problems 2.) has negligible increase in performance. I'd probably hold off upgrading to Vista until 2009.
No point in getting Windows Vista in 2009 with the scheduled release of Windows Vienna in that year
is Vista worth getting right now for gaming. All the issues been worked out. Interested in hearing from those using vista for gaming.
Well my personal rule for new OS version releases is wait 3 after release for them to iron out the bugs. Not too many games support DirectX10 yet and most games played with Vista either 1.) suffer incompatibility problems 2.) has negligible increase in performance. I'd probably hold off upgrading to Vista until 2009.
No point in getting Windows Vista in 2009 with the scheduled release of Windows Vienna in that year
These are just the weakest arguments, you can say that whit every release of an operating system...since there is a new one every 4 years whit delayes included, just stupid if you hold on to that you still be sitting in windows 95, and i highly doubth there will be a new one in 2009 if so it will be easy upgraded from vista, but the one still sitting whit xp will face even more problems then.
Playing:World of Warcraft. Played:Lord of the Rings Online, Starwars Galaxies. Tried:Starwars the Old Republic, Everquest 2, Guild Wars, Vanguard, Age of Conan, Aion.
Eh, Vista came with my new pc, so I've been using it. I had some memory issues in a few games (running 4 gigs of RAM), but that was largely fixed when Nvidia released a new set of drivers for the 8800 series a month or two ago. Really, I haven't had many complaints with the OS, though I'm not the sort of person who worries about benchmarks and overclocking and stuff. I'm very much a plug'n'play person, and it's been fine for that.
Here's the thing, you'll want to eventually upgrade since microsoft is pushing so much vista exclusive content in the future (not right now per-say, but that is how they force people out of their comfort zone to upgrade to a new OS). I've been running vista for I think 6 months now and it's been for the most part problem free. I've had one or two minor issue with video drivers in games such as TF2 beta, but they got resolved with a patch within 2 days.
Vista itself makes using my PC .. I dunno, more pleasant. The revamped UI feels less cold and my background animating (I know, this is dumb) is just relaxing. If I could get vista on my work PC I would, it has alot of little things which just enhance my work experience at home. But to echo the previous posters, if you have limited funds and have other stuff to spend it on, sure hold off. But eventually you'll want to get vista if not for the exclusive content then for DX10. Bioshock looks better in DX10, although I wouldn't cry if I had to play it in DX9, the game is awsome in both.
is Vista worth getting right now for gaming. All the issues been worked out. Interested in hearing from those using vista for gaming.
Well my personal rule for new OS version releases is wait 3 after release for them to iron out the bugs. Not too many games support DirectX10 yet and most games played with Vista either 1.) suffer incompatibility problems 2.) has negligible increase in performance. I'd probably hold off upgrading to Vista until 2009.
No point in getting Windows Vista in 2009 with the scheduled release of Windows Vienna in that year
These are just the weakest arguments, you can say that whit every release of an operating system...since there is a new one every 4 years whit delayes included, just stupid if you hold on to that you still be sitting in windows 95, and i highly doubth there will be a new one in 2009 if so it will be easy upgraded from vista, but the one still sitting whit xp will face even more problems then.
I would even say that it's no use in getting Vista in 2007 or 2008 when Vienna is due for 2009
Stick with Windows XP until 2009 and then upgrade to Vienna
Uh, Vista is the most secure OS on the market right now. Nice try though.
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
I love this statment because it is utterly false, evidently you are not in any IT security field, Linux has more available hacks and security vulnerabilities than any OS, while MAC OS rarely gets hacked..who wants to hack an OS for hippies. Hacking of Linux web servers is on the rise. What it boils down to is a numbers game MACs don't get hcked often because Apple doesn't hold enough marketshare to make it worth it, Linux is in the same boat, If you re going to attack something you are going to attack where you get the most effect for your action and thats Windows any version because at any given time Microsoft holds a stranglehold on the market with 85 to 90% of the pc market. What to most businesses run for workstations...windows and there are a lot of servers out there running anything from NT to 2003. So when you bash microsoft remember that they deal with the vast majority of attacks an still manage to make a useable OS. Compatability across the board belongs to microsoft, MAC OS well if you got an older program you want to run on OS 10 tough buy a new one and while you are at it pay out your B-Side for it. Linux....no comment here because it would take too long.
Most of the complaints made about Vistta are driver issues or eneral compatability issues which is not Microsofts problem your favorite software and hardware vendors are dragging their feet not wanting to write the few lines of code necissary to make their prouct compatable I would say that Microsoft does a fantastic job all things considered.
I would even say that it's no use in getting Vista in 2007 or 2008 when Vienna is due for 2009 Stick with Windows XP until 2009 then upgrade to Vienna
haha yeah goodluck with that. Vista got pushed back so much and stripped of stuff as did the other OS's. Doesn't prove business savvy to throw a new OS on the public in two years. If they do then it will slap them right in the face. If you can't get the public to accept Vista now then what makes you think they will accept Vienna in 2009?
My guess another OS in 4-5yrs. Much like they do with the Office rollouts.
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista. People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
This is true - although I think most of what is wrong with Vista (or not right) has to do with MS trying to cater to their position and anti-trust issues rather than really understanding what people want and need. One thing that I though was a big mistake was not further developing the XP idea of a home and professional version. Given the inclination for MS to go with so damn many SKUs anyways they should really have offered a home, performance/enthusiast, and business version that had real configuration differences and not the existing lack or inclusion of a feature or two. Few homes users have need, for instance, for the extensive logging and auditing Vista does but such a feature is critical for businesses. Shadow copy is another such service as are others. At a minimum I think that each version could/should have shipped with a template of settings that steered it towards that market as there really are three distinct markets these days - home personal computers, enthusiasts, and office workstations - a fourth category would be portables and such a profile/version would fit there nicely too.
As it is - everybody running any version has to carry the weight of the processes intended almost exclusively for the other categories. Why does a business workstation want aero or even themes, why does grandma who does email and web browsing need advanced authentication services idling in the background or extensive auditing. Even without going full blown into differently configured versions for different roles I think it would have been a great feature to have a page or two of setup stuff that asked the user to identify their preferences for various services - something along the lines of how most Linux installers let you select and unselect packages but aimed more at performance/usage profiling than features.
Of course, as I said above - MS has issue with allot of this stuff due to the BS anti-trust action, that is why IE and XP have so many issues as MS had to build it in as a part of the OS in order to be allowed to include it. Think of Ford being told they are screwing over Alpine by including a stereo in the car when you buy it, if the regulators say it has to be removable if it isn't a critical part of the car then they will find a way to build it into the engine block even if that has side issues. Anyways, a bit off track but still part of the problem MS has these days - they are stuck in the middle of so many interests that they must serve and the regulators are checking everything they do to protect the whiners who cannot make it on thier own.
Originally posted by Drewg
Uh, Vista is the most secure OS on the market right now. Nice try though.
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
Linux is a great OS in many respects, and it has matured so much over the last two years it is impressive. But don't go around repeating stuff you hear others say just because it sounds good. Linux is no more secure than anything else. MS is the big, big target so when it has issues people notice - but if tomorrow Linux or OSX where on 90% of the desktops out there rest assured hey would have the same, even more, problems than does Windows. And as far as zero day exploits and other vulnerabilities - it is absolutely false that Linux gets fixed faster - MS has a really excellent track record of fixing things fast, of course the large install base helps with that. XP and now Vista both have a better record in on this issue than Mac or Linux.
As for overall security - again, Windows does pretty good when you really look at it - when you consider its deployment and status as the biggest target it does very, very good. This is an older review but you can review the site for more recent surveys - they all show about the same thing, Windows has far, far fewer security issues than does most all of *nix based systems combined:
"This bulletin provides a year-end summary of software vulnerabilities that were identified between January 2005 and December 2005. The information is presented only as a index with links to the US-CERT Cyber Security Bulletin the information was published in. There were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities."
All in all each OS has its place - neither Linux nor Apple could take Windows place even if someone had the power to force it to happen. OSX is to rigid and too elitist, can you imagine if all computers cost what a Mac does - or if every desktop PC had to use the hardware specified by Stevo, not to mention software. Linux is just not ready yet, it is a great alternative and its inherit customizations makes it excellent for dedicated purpose systems or as an alternative to windows for certain situations. But the open source system is in no way capable of supporting or catering to large scale enterprises let alone the general public. Just look at how busted up Samba is due to the change from
These are just the weakest arguments, you can say that whit every release of an operating system...since there is a new one every 4 years whit delayes included, just stupid if you hold on to that you still be sitting in windows 95, and i highly doubth there will be a new one in 2009 if so it will be easy upgraded from vista, but the one still sitting whit xp will face even more problems then.
I think what people are getting at here is the issue if deployment. If Vista had released a bit more polished and OEMs and hardware companies had thier driver issues worked out and Vista had a good year the tune would be different. But vista had a bad year meaning that real development for it will be delayed as not too many folks have it. By the time it catches up I think it will be near the end of its cycle.
Vista, like any new operating system has continual driver problems. If you are buying all new hardware and software, it should not be too much of a problem. Far as I am concerned there is just zero reason at this point in time to upgrade. Vista offers no features that are must have. Even DX10 is not clear winner, the differences between DX9 and DX10 visually are minimal. The only games that are actually doing strictly DX10 development are Microsoft supported games, no other developer would be that dumb.
I bought a new system and after some driver problems, I wiped Vista and reinstalled XP. I have had zero problems since and my system runs better in my opinion.
Eventually Microsoft will get all the bugs out, right now, I would not recommend Vista to anyone, it is just not ready for public consumption.
Vista offers no features that are must have. Even DX10 is not clear winner, the differences between DX9 and DX10 visually are minimal.
True. Vista's problem is not really what is wrong with it but what isn't right. It is Windows 200 to Windows XP type of added functionality but with the Win9x to XP type of pain and problems. Understandable to be sure, but essentially not worth the trouble. MS should have done the version thing I mentioned before and sent x64 through the retail channel to really give us something worth the pain.
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere... *also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Vista, the OS for the year to come?
Microsoft said they would release a new one in like 2009. I won't get vista, I'll just wait a few more years.
It'll be out in roughly 3 years. What's worse is that they are still doing the 32bit and 64bit version of this OS as they did with VISTA. For goodness sakes if you haven't got a 64bit CPU already you are stuck in the freaking stone age !!
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
haha because we all know wikipedia is the truth? Vista had a lot of changes and they took out a lot of stuff and more delays. I will believe it when I see it.
If I could paste the email I have from MS from a month or so ago outlining this info i would.
They have to do a 32bit client - enterprise is to tied in to proprietary mission critical software that may not be so quick to upgrade, or may be very costly to upgrade. They should make 64 the default version and the 32bit optional - much as they did with Exchange 2007 and are going to do with future Windows Server SKUs.
Thanks for the links but still have many doubts it will get released in 3 years. The last link had a 2010 release date instead of the 2009 I keep hearing.
I do agree they should make the 64 bit the default OS and 32 bit optional. I enjoy 64bit quite well.
I am yet to upgrade to Vista, but I'm thinking about it. Please someone explain the benifit from a 32 bit to 64 bit OS. Is it that big of a difference? I thought the 64 bit would use up more resources for gaming?
Vista is still extremely new to gaming and not many games support Vista with DX10 yet. I'll wait until they iron out the bugs and upgrade when more games become available to play on it.
I am yet to upgrade to Vista, but I'm thinking about it. Please someone explain the benifit from a 32 bit to 64 bit OS. Is it that big of a difference? I thought the 64 bit would use up more resources for gaming?
Doubt we see much difference in games just in the difference between 32 and 64 bit. Most current applications is probably getting better performance in a 32 bit environment anyway. I did try the 32 bit version first, but I changed it to the 64 bit version within 2 weeks, and I had one reason. RAM. Maximum ram in a 32 bit environment are 4GB (graphic and system ram combined), and when Vista alone almost drain about 1GB ram doing nothing, I had to upgrade my amount of RAM to atleast 4GB. In Vista 32 bit version I could only use 3.3GB in RAM (with my gfx card), that's why I changed to the 64 bit version.
I haven't gotten any troubles of running any of the games I have tried. (Except a beta game I'm trying, but still NDA on that one)
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere...
*also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Vista, the OS for the year to come?
Microsoft said they would release a new one in like 2009.
I won't get vista, I'll just wait a few more years.
It'll be out in roughly 3 years. What's worse is that they are still doing the 32bit and 64bit version of this OS as they did with VISTA. For goodness sakes if you haven't got a 64bit CPU already you are stuck in the freaking stone age !!
Microsoft is talking late 2010, and it's supposed to be 64-bit only.
Comments
well im running vista on an alienware that cost my 2k and it works fine for me i even got diablo on this bad boy i love it feel sorry for every 1 else
People still buy alienware...
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
Actually check with anyone that deal with security, Vista is the most secure OS out on the market right now. Will the new design structure and GPO's it's tops right now. Then again, the fact that that you think security holes are fixed during services packs show how much you've looked into it.
member of imminst.org
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Perhaps because no one has seen true DX10 yet? Everything has been DX9 with a few DX10 effects tossed on top. Main reason as well why DX10 performance has been crap.You do realize that Microsoft just announced that they will be launching a new OS codenamed Seven in 3 years right ? Also you didn't even mention any of the "MUST HAVE" features of VISTA outside of DX10. Which by the way has only shown to be marginal at best in terms of performance and graphical quality over DX9.
AS for other features of Vista
Better security
Redesigned graphic and Audio API's for better performance/stability
Self healing capabilities for damage caused by malware
multithreaded to take advantage of dual/quad/etc. processors
better memory utilization
Should I go on?
member of imminst.org
Well my personal rule for new OS version releases is wait 3 after release for them to iron out the bugs. Not too many games support DirectX10 yet and most games played with Vista either 1.) suffer incompatibility problems 2.) has negligible increase in performance. I'd probably hold off upgrading to Vista until 2009.
No point in getting Windows Vista in 2009 with the scheduled release of Windows Vienna in that year
Well my personal rule for new OS version releases is wait 3 after release for them to iron out the bugs. Not too many games support DirectX10 yet and most games played with Vista either 1.) suffer incompatibility problems 2.) has negligible increase in performance. I'd probably hold off upgrading to Vista until 2009.
No point in getting Windows Vista in 2009 with the scheduled release of Windows Vienna in that year
These are just the weakest arguments, you can say that whit every release of an operating system...since there is a new one every 4 years whit delayes included, just stupid if you hold on to that you still be sitting in windows 95, and i highly doubth there will be a new one in 2009 if so it will be easy upgraded from vista, but the one still sitting whit xp will face even more problems then.
Playing: World of Warcraft.
Played: Lord of the Rings Online, Starwars Galaxies.
Tried: Starwars the Old Republic, Everquest 2, Guild Wars, Vanguard, Age of Conan, Aion.
Eh, Vista came with my new pc, so I've been using it. I had some memory issues in a few games (running 4 gigs of RAM), but that was largely fixed when Nvidia released a new set of drivers for the 8800 series a month or two ago. Really, I haven't had many complaints with the OS, though I'm not the sort of person who worries about benchmarks and overclocking and stuff. I'm very much a plug'n'play person, and it's been fine for that.
I got vista x64 on my pc and i would say.. stick with xp. There is better things to spend money on and the pefrmence decreas is to big.
Here's the thing, you'll want to eventually upgrade since microsoft is pushing so much vista exclusive content in the future (not right now per-say, but that is how they force people out of their comfort zone to upgrade to a new OS). I've been running vista for I think 6 months now and it's been for the most part problem free. I've had one or two minor issue with video drivers in games such as TF2 beta, but they got resolved with a patch within 2 days.
Vista itself makes using my PC .. I dunno, more pleasant. The revamped UI feels less cold and my background animating (I know, this is dumb) is just relaxing. If I could get vista on my work PC I would, it has alot of little things which just enhance my work experience at home. But to echo the previous posters, if you have limited funds and have other stuff to spend it on, sure hold off. But eventually you'll want to get vista if not for the exclusive content then for DX10. Bioshock looks better in DX10, although I wouldn't cry if I had to play it in DX9, the game is awsome in both.
Arioc Murkwood
Environment Artist
Sad but true.
Well my personal rule for new OS version releases is wait 3 after release for them to iron out the bugs. Not too many games support DirectX10 yet and most games played with Vista either 1.) suffer incompatibility problems 2.) has negligible increase in performance. I'd probably hold off upgrading to Vista until 2009.
No point in getting Windows Vista in 2009 with the scheduled release of Windows Vienna in that year
These are just the weakest arguments, you can say that whit every release of an operating system...since there is a new one every 4 years whit delayes included, just stupid if you hold on to that you still be sitting in windows 95, and i highly doubth there will be a new one in 2009 if so it will be easy upgraded from vista, but the one still sitting whit xp will face even more problems then.
I would even say that it's no use in getting Vista in 2007 or 2008 when Vienna is due for 2009
Stick with Windows XP until 2009 and then upgrade to Vienna
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
I love this statment because it is utterly false, evidently you are not in any IT security field, Linux has more available hacks and security vulnerabilities than any OS, while MAC OS rarely gets hacked..who wants to hack an OS for hippies. Hacking of Linux web servers is on the rise. What it boils down to is a numbers game MACs don't get hcked often because Apple doesn't hold enough marketshare to make it worth it, Linux is in the same boat, If you re going to attack something you are going to attack where you get the most effect for your action and thats Windows any version because at any given time Microsoft holds a stranglehold on the market with 85 to 90% of the pc market. What to most businesses run for workstations...windows and there are a lot of servers out there running anything from NT to 2003. So when you bash microsoft remember that they deal with the vast majority of attacks an still manage to make a useable OS. Compatability across the board belongs to microsoft, MAC OS well if you got an older program you want to run on OS 10 tough buy a new one and while you are at it pay out your B-Side for it. Linux....no comment here because it would take too long.
Most of the complaints made about Vistta are driver issues or eneral compatability issues which is not Microsofts problem your favorite software and hardware vendors are dragging their feet not wanting to write the few lines of code necissary to make their prouct compatable I would say that Microsoft does a fantastic job all things considered.
haha yeah goodluck with that. Vista got pushed back so much and stripped of stuff as did the other OS's. Doesn't prove business savvy to throw a new OS on the public in two years. If they do then it will slap them right in the face. If you can't get the public to accept Vista now then what makes you think they will accept Vienna in 2009?
My guess another OS in 4-5yrs. Much like they do with the Office rollouts.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
This is true - although I think most of what is wrong with Vista (or not right) has to do with MS trying to cater to their position and anti-trust issues rather than really understanding what people want and need. One thing that I though was a big mistake was not further developing the XP idea of a home and professional version. Given the inclination for MS to go with so damn many SKUs anyways they should really have offered a home, performance/enthusiast, and business version that had real configuration differences and not the existing lack or inclusion of a feature or two. Few homes users have need, for instance, for the extensive logging and auditing Vista does but such a feature is critical for businesses. Shadow copy is another such service as are others. At a minimum I think that each version could/should have shipped with a template of settings that steered it towards that market as there really are three distinct markets these days - home personal computers, enthusiasts, and office workstations - a fourth category would be portables and such a profile/version would fit there nicely too.
As it is - everybody running any version has to carry the weight of the processes intended almost exclusively for the other categories. Why does a business workstation want aero or even themes, why does grandma who does email and web browsing need advanced authentication services idling in the background or extensive auditing. Even without going full blown into differently configured versions for different roles I think it would have been a great feature to have a page or two of setup stuff that asked the user to identify their preferences for various services - something along the lines of how most Linux installers let you select and unselect packages but aimed more at performance/usage profiling than features.
Of course, as I said above - MS has issue with allot of this stuff due to the BS anti-trust action, that is why IE and XP have so many issues as MS had to build it in as a part of the OS in order to be allowed to include it. Think of Ford being told they are screwing over Alpine by including a stereo in the car when you buy it, if the regulators say it has to be removable if it isn't a critical part of the car then they will find a way to build it into the engine block even if that has side issues. Anyways, a bit off track but still part of the problem MS has these days - they are stuck in the middle of so many interests that they must serve and the regulators are checking everything they do to protect the whiners who cannot make it on thier own.
Originally posted by Drewg
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
Linux is a great OS in many respects, and it has matured so much over the last two years it is impressive. But don't go around repeating stuff you hear others say just because it sounds good. Linux is no more secure than anything else. MS is the big, big target so when it has issues people notice - but if tomorrow Linux or OSX where on 90% of the desktops out there rest assured hey would have the same, even more, problems than does Windows. And as far as zero day exploits and other vulnerabilities - it is absolutely false that Linux gets fixed faster - MS has a really excellent track record of fixing things fast, of course the large install base helps with that. XP and now Vista both have a better record in on this issue than Mac or Linux.
As for overall security - again, Windows does pretty good when you really look at it - when you consider its deployment and status as the biggest target it does very, very good. This is an older review but you can review the site for more recent surveys - they all show about the same thing, Windows has far, far fewer security issues than does most all of *nix based systems combined:
"This bulletin provides a year-end summary of software vulnerabilities that were identified between January 2005 and December 2005. The information is presented only as a index with links to the US-CERT Cyber Security Bulletin the information was published in. There were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities."
All in all each OS has its place - neither Linux nor Apple could take Windows place even if someone had the power to force it to happen. OSX is to rigid and too elitist, can you imagine if all computers cost what a Mac does - or if every desktop PC had to use the hardware specified by Stevo, not to mention software. Linux is just not ready yet, it is a great alternative and its inherit customizations makes it excellent for dedicated purpose systems or as an alternative to windows for certain situations. But the open source system is in no way capable of supporting or catering to large scale enterprises let alone the general public. Just look at how busted up Samba is due to the change from
You have to remember the first rule of security, the 'because that's where the money is' rule.
I think what people are getting at here is the issue if deployment. If Vista had released a bit more polished and OEMs and hardware companies had thier driver issues worked out and Vista had a good year the tune would be different. But vista had a bad year meaning that real development for it will be delayed as not too many folks have it. By the time it catches up I think it will be near the end of its cycle.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Vista, like any new operating system has continual driver problems. If you are buying all new hardware and software, it should not be too much of a problem. Far as I am concerned there is just zero reason at this point in time to upgrade. Vista offers no features that are must have. Even DX10 is not clear winner, the differences between DX9 and DX10 visually are minimal. The only games that are actually doing strictly DX10 development are Microsoft supported games, no other developer would be that dumb.
I bought a new system and after some driver problems, I wiped Vista and reinstalled XP. I have had zero problems since and my system runs better in my opinion.
Eventually Microsoft will get all the bugs out, right now, I would not recommend Vista to anyone, it is just not ready for public consumption.
True. Vista's problem is not really what is wrong with it but what isn't right. It is Windows 200 to Windows XP type of added functionality but with the Win9x to XP type of pain and problems. Understandable to be sure, but essentially not worth the trouble. MS should have done the version thing I mentioned before and sent x64 through the retail channel to really give us something worth the pain.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
You know what this thread needs? A discussion about religion.
----------------------------------------------
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb." -- Batman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
It'll be out in roughly 3 years. What's worse is that they are still doing the 32bit and 64bit version of this OS as they did with VISTA. For goodness sakes if you haven't got a 64bit CPU already you are stuck in the freaking stone age !!
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
haha because we all know wikipedia is the truth? Vista had a lot of changes and they took out a lot of stuff and more delays. I will believe it when I see it.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9027559
http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-6197943.html
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp
If I could paste the email I have from MS from a month or so ago outlining this info i would.
They have to do a 32bit client - enterprise is to tied in to proprietary mission critical software that may not be so quick to upgrade, or may be very costly to upgrade. They should make 64 the default version and the 32bit optional - much as they did with Exchange 2007 and are going to do with future Windows Server SKUs.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Thanks for the links but still have many doubts it will get released in 3 years. The last link had a 2010 release date instead of the 2009 I keep hearing.
I do agree they should make the 64 bit the default OS and 32 bit optional. I enjoy 64bit quite well.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
I am yet to upgrade to Vista, but I'm thinking about it. Please someone explain the benifit from a 32 bit to 64 bit OS. Is it that big of a difference? I thought the 64 bit would use up more resources for gaming?
well..it can recognize more ram.......and this plays faster too! http://www.funnyjunk.com/movies/607/Bohemian+Rapshody/
Warning: you'll NEVER get those minutes back~! ;p
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
<insert gloat of ubar toon here>
<insert random game here>
<insert gloat of ubar toon here>
<insert gloat of ubar toon here>
<insert random game here>
---------------------------
<insert witty anecdote here>
<political/religious agenda here>
Vista is still extremely new to gaming and not many games support Vista with DX10 yet. I'll wait until they iron out the bugs and upgrade when more games become available to play on it.
Doubt we see much difference in games just in the difference between 32 and 64 bit. Most current applications is probably getting better performance in a 32 bit environment anyway. I did try the 32 bit version first, but I changed it to the 64 bit version within 2 weeks, and I had one reason. RAM. Maximum ram in a 32 bit environment are 4GB (graphic and system ram combined), and when Vista alone almost drain about 1GB ram doing nothing, I had to upgrade my amount of RAM to atleast 4GB. In Vista 32 bit version I could only use 3.3GB in RAM (with my gfx card), that's why I changed to the 64 bit version.
I haven't gotten any troubles of running any of the games I have tried. (Except a beta game I'm trying, but still NDA on that one)
--
Leemeg.
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Vista, the OS for the year to come?
Microsoft said they would release a new one in like 2009.
I won't get vista, I'll just wait a few more years.
Well were are your facts then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
It'll be out in roughly 3 years. What's worse is that they are still doing the 32bit and 64bit version of this OS as they did with VISTA. For goodness sakes if you haven't got a 64bit CPU already you are stuck in the freaking stone age !!
Microsoft is talking late 2010, and it's supposed to be 64-bit only.
member of imminst.org