Windows

Vista Confusion


I opened the Sunday paper today to ad upon ad for Windows Vista. In fact, some stores were going to stay open till midnight Monday, January 29 in order for you to be one of the first to get your copy of Vista. PLEASE! It's not like this is a new game release. Furthermore, while I was once excited about Vista, I am dismayed about how Microsoft has gone out of its way not only to make purchasing Vista confusing, but also the price gouging associated with it.

According to my handy dandy sale ads from the Sunday paper, here is what I have to choose from:
·    Windows Vista Business Full $299.00
·    Windows Vista Business Upgrade $199.99
·    Windows Vista Home Basic $199.99
·    Windows Vista Home Upgrade $99.99
·    Windows Vista Home Premium $239.99
·    Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade $159.99
·    Windows Vista Ultimate Bill Gates Limited Edition $259.00 (I kid you not! This is for real)

Unbelievable! And then they go and release the new version(s) of Office at the same time. I'm not even going to go into those versions, but suffice it to say, it just adds to the confusion.

Now what in the heck do all these versions mean?

Windows Home Basic is a warmed over Windows XP Home with less features! In fact, after reviewing the features compared with XP, this is a step backwards for most people.

Windows Home Premium puts back most of the features you found in Windows XP Home SP2 (except faxing capability) and gives you a supposedly more stable OS and better graphics with Windows Aero (assuming you have the video card and horsepower to support it). Again, most people running XP at home (particularly XP Media Center) have the same or more features at the moment than if they installed this edition.

Windows Vista Business is essentially Windows Home Premium EXCLUDING DVD Maker, Media Center, and other goodies, in exchange for group policy support and roaming profiles and the ability to scan and fax!

Windows Vista Ultimate is the whole kit and caboodle that Vista can offer; however, I cannot imagine what extras come in the Bill Gates Limited Edition. Perhaps some stock options?

Here is an excellent chart that you can refer to compare the various versions available to the home and small business buyers:  It is also no coincidence that the advertisements for the new OS sit side by side with ads for RAM upgrades, video card upgrades, and hard drive upgrades. Vista is a hungry OS and wants a fast processor, lots of RAM, and lots of wiggle room. This is not an OS that you are going to plop on your old P4 machine and expect it to purr like a kitten. Not to mention that if you have a lot of legacy equipment strung on to your PC, there is a strong likelihood that there is not a Vista driver ready for it. So upgraders beware!


Speaking of upgrading--be prepared for the words "clean install" as the upgrade path to Vista can be complicated. Check out the following matrix from Microsoft:

Please note all the Yellow Dots in the matrix that require a clean install and also note that there is no way to upgrade from Windows 2000 without a clean install. Also note that if you are still running Windows 98 for some reason, upgrade pricing is not available to you.


Frankly, when I was shown a sneak peak at Vista from Microsoft several months ago, I was pretty pumped about the OS. However, what I was shown at the time was the Ultimate version and the Enterprise edition. At the time, the various versions of the product had not been discussed nor had the pricing been revealed.

Now that Vista is out, I am disappointed. As a home user, I would not consider anything less than Premium or Ultimate (or I would lose functionality) and the price vs. performance/functionality gain is not appealing enough until I require DirectX 10.

As a business user, Enterprise edition does offer some nice functionality for the enterprise, particularly regarding PC management.  However, as I have not yet engaged in pricing of the Enterprise edition, I can't say if the features I get with the newer edition warrants replacing XP with 3rd party tools that give you equivalent functionality.

Lastly though, I am disappointed in Microsoft's confusing marketing campaign, the fact that there really ought to be only two editions Ultimate and Enterprise, and saddened by the fact that for many of us, because Microsoft is a monopoly, that there will be no choice in the matter over time.

As a business user, you will eventually be forced into Vista if you wish to maintain a Microsoft environment.  However, organizations can and should use this time to re-evaluate Linux and Mac alternatives.

Home users that ONLY surf, do some multimedia, office stuff and the like, have the same decision and should also make the same investigation into Linux and Mac.

Gamers however are pretty much out of luck. If they wish to continue to run the latest release of new games, they will eventually have to upgrade--unless the gaming software industry starts to finally code for Linux or Mac with the same dedication they do for Windows.

In any case, you did not find me standing in line on Monday night at the computer store waiting for the clock to strike twelve to grab my copy of Vista. I was sleeping--Bill Gates Limited Edition be damned!

66 comments
vtassone
vtassone

If anybody is interested, there is a way of doing a clean install of Vista with an update disk. It takes about 20 min. extra to do but can save a bunch of money. The very basics are install Vista on a clean hard drive but don't put the registration in. Then reinstall from Vista. The full artical is at http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201 it's titled "get Vista upgrade, never pay full price" Haven't tryed it but it sounds good.

seadooboy
seadooboy

There is 1 reason and 1 reason only why Microsoft HAS (yes HAS) to have several versions of their next generation operating system Windows Vista and that is the European Union. Remember their anti-consumer rulings that force Microsoft to produce versions that no one wants? That is why you have these bottom level operating systems that have less features then XP Home.

psmithers
psmithers

Microsoft bashing is very trendy, but it really is getting old. There must be someone else we can blame all our troubles on - how about the devil?

SkatingZebra
SkatingZebra

Since the release of Vista all I've heard is complaints. No drivers, missing functionality, etc., etc., ad endless nauseum. Unfortunately, I haven't heard one single positive comment about Vista to offset the deluge of griping. Let's face it, folks, this isn't working. The first complaint I heard about Vista was about two months before the release. Someone had been sent a review copy that could be used to upgrade XP to Vista. They installed it...and reinstalled it...and tried it again...but the software never installed properly. BSOD, anyone? Some people who received Vista seem to be having no problems. From what I gather, these same people don't do any serious gaming, and they also have systems that are specifically designed for Vista. When you release an OS that doesn't have new (or accept existing) drivers for the most widely used video cards (NVidia, ATI), loses expected functionality from XP (where's the folder browswer in Windows Explorer?), has a multitude of pricing options (I still don't know what version I need), and can't seem to install properly on a significant number of machines, you've got kludge. Unsellable kludge. I am NOT a Microsoft basher. I use MS software in my job and in my home, I program with it, and I understand that when you release as much software as Microsoft does, when you try to get it to work all together you're going to run into some problems. But there is simply no excuse for an OS from this company not to be backward-compatible with applications, games, etc., that are currently on the market for XP. We're not talking about an obsolete OS being replaced, we're talking about a new OS that is supposed to be an OPTIONAL upgrade...at least for a while. When I use OS or server products (like SQL Server) from Microsoft, I never even bother with them until the first SP comes out. Then I'll finally beta test them on a "playground" box for myself. When I'm satisified that everything works the way it's supposed to (mostly), I'll finally implement the software. I guess we're going to have a Vista Version 2 very soon. Either that, or Vista is just going to disappear due to lack of interest.

techrepublic
techrepublic

I have just got off the phone with a fellow engineer. I was setting up an up/download account for him on my server (Fedora 3, ADSL) He had to call me back as his new Vista laptop had just got a trojan! I kid you not. Now, fair play: He had this machine since November and to Vista's credit it did tell him there was a problem, but he didn't have this permanently online. He thinks he may have downloaded it during browsing, but he's not sure. I couldn't help it, I had to rib. I don't have Windows, just Linux. I get used to the security and protection Linux gives me so I just never think about viruses and that ilk. I just never have those problems. Got a good firewalled server and Linux on my wifi Laptop. I have forgotton what problems viruses are. Poor Windows.

Will.Conner
Will.Conner

To add to some "facts" about Vista here is my run. I have a machine that I have upgraded two different ways to Vista and within 12 hours of use on the machine I fall victim to the dreaded BSOD. The motherboard vendor (even though it's a recent board) has no Vista drivers nor any mention of any. Same with sound and mouse. Video has Vista (fresh out of beta) and the sound drivers (X-Fi) are still beta. At this point the machine has the few updates available from MS and is so prone to crashes that I put my XP drive back in and have written Vista off until at least SP1 I guess. I tried both an upgrade from a clean XP Pro install from a clean drive, and a clean install from an XP Pro install in new folders and moving the old OS to the Windows.OLD folders. Seems that neither way is Vista going to be stable on this machine. I was very excited about getting the OS the day it arrived but now I'm just disappointed with it. Hopefully my hardware vendors will get in line and get some drivers out so this OS doesn't get relegated as junk just because of crappy hardware support. I like what I see so far but would love to be able to use it. Good luck to the rest.

jpainter
jpainter

I personally will be keeping my company at XP as long as I can. I do not like the prices and upgrades are always a pain. I will also be looking into linux. I know they did not get it right this time and there will be more holes and service paks to load. I am getting extremely tired of microsoft. That is from my bussiness stand point as a home user I will try it out to see the look and the functionality. I also will be doing this in a testing enviroment for my company. Should be fun but I know there will be issues because my vendors have not tested it yet with there products and there just will be issues. Gotta love microsoft.

jefferyp2100
jefferyp2100

How do the various versions of Vista compare to XP Pro and XP home? I'd like to see something like the referenced chart that shows how Vista compares to XP. Not everything listed in the chart is new for Vista. For instance IE 7 and Windows Defender are free download.

maxwell edison
maxwell edison

Last week, I received the TWO versions of Vista Ultimate [i]Signed Edition[/i] that I bought. The retail price of the [i]Signed Edition[/i] was no higher ($259) than the unsigned, but rather gave something extra to the first 25,000 buyers. What "extra" did it give me? Well, I installed one on my home computer today. I sold the other on ebay two days after I bought it for $349! (The highest ebay price I saw was $379!) Gotta love it! (Heck, I should have bought TEN!) There's not really anything "confusing" about Vista. Microsoft has always had both full versions and upgrade versions (for different prices, depending on whether or not you're upgrading or starting from scratch); and they've always had different levels -- the "standard" or "professional", etc. It's not really that difficult to understand what they're doing. It you ARE having a hard time understanding it, perhaps you should try a little harder. Heck, my teenage son understands just fine! And he's the one who even installed it, it went without any issue, and at first glance, we both love it. It ain't rocket science, dude. You shouldn't make it out to be.

pazmanpro
pazmanpro

I cannot say that i am surprised of the path that Microsoft is taking. I do agree with modularity in a way. I don't want to pay for features that i would never use (I don't use my PC for faxing, I have a fax machine for that). However, if I am paying for an upgrade, I do expect at least the same features as the previous versions. Microsoft is again showing how powerful they are and that they can get away with it. What can you do? I for one am looking at Linux once again.

jimrinflorida
jimrinflorida

Just installed my Upgrade Version ( Ultimate ) on a clean hard drive with no OS and no proof of previous MS OS. MS is so dumb to think they will ever sell the retail version once everyone finds about this backdoor. What I can't believe is after 20 plus years MS still can't put a useful firewall in their OS. Ultimate my ***.

roaming
roaming

That is a load of rubbish and you know it.

hmbower
hmbower

I've always been fond of blaming things on El Nino. ;) But I agree, MS bashing is pointless. There is always going to be someone who is not 100% satisfied who decides that it's MS's fault their 5 year old equipment doesn't work, or that since Linux makes a really nice server it should be used for a desktop as well, or a MacOS user who says "Microsoft ripped us off!" while sipping a latte and dancing in front of his iBook with Jeff Goldblum.

wineward
wineward

psmithers has it right. Bashing MS (especially Vista)has become very trendy as of late. Mostly by people who haven't even tried it or seen it yet. Funny how the same people who pointed out that Vista was nothing but a rip-off of Mac OS X features now complain that it doesn't look like or work quite like XP. Or how people who said MS didn't care about security, but are now complaining about UAC. Sure there is a learning curve. It took me a week or two to adjust to the new way of doing many things. Now that I have I can honestly say I like the new interface better. Besides, just like XP there are options to make everything look and behave much like it used to. (Windows Classic Folders, and Classic View in the Control Panel, for example). As to the whiners who complain about having to upgrade all their hardware, I am running Ultimate on a four-year-old computer. It has a PC-Chips motherboard with an XP 2400+ processor, 1 Gig of RAM, and an ATI 9550 video card. Not exactly cutting edge, but it runs Vista faster than it did XP. All that having been said, I don't blame anybody for waiting to upgrade. There is still a bunch of hardware without drivers. And some applications won't run properly under Vista. (Although I've found many of mine do run properly when using compatability mode). As for the enterprise, we hardly ever upgrade without months of testing and/or waiting for the first service packs anyway, so why all the fuss? This was true for every previous desktop OS upgrade. Even if you were considering the switch to Linux or Mac you'd still have to do months of testing, so Why should Vista be judged so harshly in this regard? Bottom line? A year from now I'd bet 98% of the naysayers will be running Vista on their home computers, and bragging about how they were early adopters. Quit complaining about Vista until you've actually given it a fair shake.

hmbower
hmbower

"I haven't heard one single positive comment about Vista" Here's one: I like it. I haven't given it a full rundown yet, but so far I'm OK with it. The most annoying bit is the Administrators Group not actually being administrators, but I can see how that's really handy for users who shouldn't be running a computer as administrator. As for hearing nothing but complaints... there is a small minority of people who are very happy with Linux and Macs who are very loud. There will also be disillusioned Windows users who don't want to pay for the upgrade (which I can perfectly understand). Detractors always yell more loudly than supporters and often get a lot more press. "Some people who received Vista seem to be having no problems. From what I gather, these same people don't do any serious gaming, and they also have systems that are specifically designed for Vista." I haven't tried installing my games yet, but Battlefield 2142, Oblivion, Operation Flashpoint will all be going on soon. :) As for complaining about needing a system designed for Vista... If you have a few old parts for an engine lying around and expect to put them in your new Cadillac without any problems, then you're just not thinking straight. Microsoft, as much as they are marketing this as an off-the-shelf product, are more concerned with people buying new machines with the OS already installed. Again, I'm confused by the mentality that it's Microsoft's job to make sure your hardware works. They make an effort (I doubt any other OS supports as much hardware as Windows XP or Vista), but it's really up to your hardware vendor as to whether they will support a new OS or not for their products. Sometimes you just have to let the old stuff go. I have an ATI (Sapphire manufactured) X800 Pro. It's over two years old, and Vista picked it up with no problem whatsoever. "loses expected functionality from XP (where's the folder browser in Windows Explorer?)" Well, maybe it just does it differently. I'm not entirely sure what you're calling the "folder browser" - you mean Windows Explorer? It did take me a few minutes to find the equivalent functionality. Click the Start bubble, and click Computer. You then have access to browse your drives... if you mean something else, let me know and I'll see if I've run across it. "But there is simply no excuse for an OS from this company not to be backward-compatible with applications, games, etc., that are currently on the market for XP. We're not talking about an obsolete OS being replaced, we're talking about a new OS that is supposed to be an OPTIONAL upgrade...at least for a while." Why be backwards compatible? They are, to an extent. Microsoft Office 2003 Pro installed flawlessly, as did my Adobe CS2 suite (when the installer was run as administrator). This *is* an optional upgrade. If you're happy with the way XP is working with your games and software, then why would you bother upgrading? Nobody is taking that functionality away from you, and nobody is going to suddenly expire your version of Windows just because Vista is out. Do you go and buy a new car every year just because a new one came out? Probably not. I don't understand this point, since there is no pressure to change away from a WIndows XP install just because Vista exists. Heck, there are still people running Windows 98. "When I use OS or server products (like SQL Server) from Microsoft, I never even bother with them until the first SP comes out. Then I'll finally beta test them on a "playground" box for myself. When I'm satisified that everything works the way it's supposed to (mostly), I'll finally implement the software." Honestly that's just good practice for anything. Would you run out and snatch up the newest version of your accounting software and throw it into production without testing and research? I sincerely doubt it. You're not pointing out a shortcoming of Microsoft, you're pointing out the shoddiness of today's programming for every type of software. If you had to take your car in ever month for an upgrade so that it would run properly, would you consider that to be acceptable? Not likely. Why we accept that kind of shoddiness in software is beyond me, but it's become the norm and it's not likely to go away - from Microsoft or from any other company.

intj-astral
intj-astral

It was a Windows virus that drove me to Linux. I put my foot down one final time in protest to 20 plus years of Windows problems and went to Linux. Granted, I still have a Windows partition because 1)I have to deal with it for work and 2) not all my games run on Wine yet, but Linux gave me hope and it has delivered.

h3driver
h3driver

Assuming you ran the Vista compatibility check and your hardware passed, it might help to try one more installation method. The installation DVD you bought has all Vista versions on it, not just the particular upgrade version you paid for. So, try performing a full install from that DVD of any version of Vista to a freshly formatted hard drive. Don't try to authenticate it, because your authentication code won't work. But as soon as it's installed, put the DVD back in and UPGRADE this Vista installation to the version of Vista that you purchased. Yes, Vista will upgrade Vista! When the upgrade is complete and you are satisfied it is working, go ahead and authenticate it (it will have full functionality for 30 days without authentication). More details and step-by-step instructions at this site: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201#story1

hmbower
hmbower

OK... so you've basically said that it's your hardware vendor's fault... yet you still complain that the OS is at fault for bad hardware support? Let's be realistic. How old is your hardware? What brands are they? I have a computer at home that is two years old and I had absolutely no problem with any drivers. It's an MSI board, ATI (well, Sapphire) video card, onboard network, USB, and sound (which I did need to download a new driver for, but which worked with the stock windows driver), PIXMA ip4000 printer that worked just fine, hardware RAID controller that I didn't need the floppy disk to get going... I saw no problem at all with the hardware support for Vista. If you have components that are from odd vendors or are more than a couple of years old how realistic is it to expect brand new software to continue to support them? I always get a little confused by people who think that it's Microsoft's job to write hardware drivers for tens of thousands of pieces of hardware when the hardware vendors themselves aren't bothering to do so.

GSG
GSG

Sounds like this is another "Windows ME". I was supporting my parents on that piece of doo-doo. I couldn't get drivers, it BSOD'd if a butterfly farted in Venezuela, and dogged badly. I bought XP and did a clean install, and no more problems.

hmbower
hmbower

You should really run this on your existing system to see what needs to be "fixed" before you upgrade. It also gives you an outline of what the newer editions provide and don't. For instance, since I was running XPProSP2 it said that the Basic Home version would result in lost functionality because some things included in XP just weren't included in the Basic Home version. That's a little ridiculous to me, but there ya go. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Explain why MS: 1) Broke .Net in Vista (gotta wait for .Net 3.0 for everything to work properly) 2) Didn't ship DirectX10 with Vista to push the gaming market 3) Embedded tons of DRM sludge 4) Borked up usage of MSN Gaming in Vista etc, etc, etc. You know that the answer is? There is castle building going on at MS. No teams are working well with the others. That's why the Zune doesn't (or didn't) work with the XBox, why Vista doesn't play nice with MSN Gaming, and why we've yet to see the wonders of WinFS. My main question is why moron would pay that much for a "signed" version of an OS?

ostrich67
ostrich67

I'm not. I just bought a MacBook Pro. My first Mac. This article validates my decision.

tony.meredith
tony.meredith

Guys, I see complaints about pricing in Dollars, OK. At present rates ?1 = $1.95. Vista Ultimate is ?356.00. Anyone want to do the math as to who is being gauged!

loveable_angel_5
loveable_angel_5

why is the vista so confusing???? it looks really really good!!! I don't understand!! im really looking foward to getting it!! i no it maybe missing some stuff from XP but im sure you will be able to get them on Vista and Vista will have other features etc!!

carlsf
carlsf

NO way MS I and my company will be sticking to XP PRO SP2. REASONS: Hardware upgrades Drivers even on a nearly new system Upgrades to Application software Pricing is a rip off And as for the NEW Office it is NOT fully backward compatable and the majority of my clients are not able to upgrade or use the VISTA or Office on their existing systems. And on NEW system we will be continuing to recommend XP PRO and Office 2003 PRO.

yogeshimac
yogeshimac

come on ..why dont you try os X!?

vtassone
vtassone

I don't know about the firewall they "gave" us this time. From what I've read it is a least a two way now. Correct me if Im wrong. I've only played with the beta versions of Vista up untill now and haven't even touched the firewall. I have to deal with the end user every day on my job and most of them don't even know what a firewall is. A few of them have installed zonealarm and had nothing but trouble with it. They don't take the time to learn it. The same with Norton internet security. They haven't got a clue. I tell um to get rid of Norton or zonealarm and put on AVG and use the Windows firewall if they don't want to take the time to learn. I also tell them to stay off the porn sites;-) if they do. Hey, I went to a consulting job the other day and found a pc way back in the shop running win3.1. It was happily running along with some propritary software that the company needed. Ugggg.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

many are valid, and by people who have used/tested the SW. I have made comments from early beta versions which I did have, and many of the problems that I had found were either fixed, or lessened in later versions. But some are still problems and have not been addressed at all. Mostly, MS did a good job at lessening the processor/RAM usage from the original beta. What you may be reading may still be comments that are being read from older dates, or beta's. Although I agree that there is a bit more bashing than previous versions of Win, but much of it is from those who have used/tested it and many points are valid.

hmbower
hmbower

If you're basing your comparison on the comments read here, you really need to try another source. :) Forums are good places to start for information, but don't rely on them too heavily for actual facts or more than anecdotal reports of how something works or doesn't work. Windows Me was something that should never have made it out of Microsoft's building and those responsible for releasing it should have been fired (if they weren't). As far as I can tell, after only a few days of use, I quite like it. It's fast (faster startup than Windows XP for me, at which I was surprised because XP started up lightning quick for me), and it runs smoothly. There are a couple of new things to get used to, but once that happens it's smooth sailing. I had no missing drivers after installation (which I did on a brand new hard drive), and only had to update a couple of them (my onboard sound was working, but didn't realise it was a 5.1 system, and my monitor driver). Office 2003 and Adobe CS2 installed and work very well. I have a few other utilities installed that I use frequently, and they are also working flawlessly. I have no complaints so far.

stress junkie
stress junkie

As Max said "...The retail price of the Signed Edition was no higher ($259) than the unsigned..." Even if it cost more than the unsigned edition you could ask the same question about any special edition of anything. Why do people pay anything at all for the Hummel dealer statues? They're just for dealers, but non dealers buy them. It's because they're special, if you like Hummels. :D Or, for something with real value, how about the first printing of Aerosmith's first album, (in vinyl not CD)? The cover art had an orange background. The following printings had a blue background. Aerosmith fans might pay more for the first printing copy than they would pay for second printing copy. I suppose the discussion could get to the level of asking why anyone pays anything for anything. Anyway, I don't think that your last sentence was very fair to Max.

hmbower
hmbower

If you use a single article filled mostly with people who are Windows detractors to validate your decision to buy a non-windows computer then you probably should buy a Mac.

hmbower
hmbower

For some reason, even with the huge conversion to the much more valuable pound, it seems like people in the UK pay much more for things even if you considered it on par. Perfect example is what you quoted for the price of Ultimate - even if that was in USD it would be more than people are paying for it in the US (or Canada, where I am).

dustypenguin
dustypenguin

... has to be the reason for the gap! It's a long way to the UK from Redmond! ;-)

Kostaghus
Kostaghus

Can you please tell me why should I pay good money to get it!?! Just in order to be forced to upgrade my system's hardware to get the same working performance I used to have before buying VISTA... Yeap! Pretty damn smart I'd say! :))

driv101
driv101

its big and bulky takes up 32 gigs on busness side and 12 0n the home side both sides take a gig of ram just to get it running smooth

techrepublic
techrepublic

I'm sure OpenOffice 2 will work on Vista and is compatible with current MS Office formats. Are Microsoft pushing customers to open source? Interesting.

Tech_Monkey
Tech_Monkey

When the time comes, I'll be seriously considering an alternative OS.

techrepublic
techrepublic

No matter which camp you are coming from, Microsoft are taking a huge gamble with this new OS. If you think about it, they don't really have a choice either. They have to keep ahead of the competition with Linux and Mac somehow or there will be an avalanche of migration. They also have to compete with XP since when everyone has it, they don't have a product to sell. Of course, with any gamble there are winners and losers. Sure, Microsoft is telling us they are the winners, but then they are biased Good luck with the gamble.

Kostaghus
Kostaghus

That's right! And well they should not! I know a lot of people still running older WIN versions from 3.1 to 98SE and feeling pretty damn good about it! I mean if all you need to do is print invoices at a hardware store... I really don't see why one should upgrade to VISTA and buy a new 1000 USD computer and 500 worth of OS just to find that you also need a new invoicing software... and a new barcode scanner... and a new printer... and a new...

intj-astral
intj-astral

What kind of chance? A snowball's chance in hell. Ah, yes, memories... the transition from Dos to Windows... the first crash... A menu to choose between Dos or Windows, titles like Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom wad editors, ws_ftp ( I still use the old version!), Windows backup that actually worked, lean mean and functional Norton utilities; remember that DOS magazine? wow.

vtassone
vtassone

Gotta love this job. The stuff "Sh$$" you find out in the trenches. If it ain't broke, don't fix it..... Or, If you can't fix it,,, Get a bigger hammer.

oz_ollie
oz_ollie

I'm in the process of doing a Service Level Agreement that includes MS-DOS 6.2 on two systems! It also needs a serial port to run the associated hardware. Vista hasn't got a hope in cases like this.

techrepublic
techrepublic

I have a recent laptop: Centrino 2G, 1.25G RAM, 80G HDD, nVidia, etc Vista didn't recognise my Intel Pro/Wireless Wifi card. I though it's just a case of downloading and installing, but no: Intel only have a BETA driver available for Vista (fully supported under XP, no drivers required) I have a multi-partition set for Linux/Vista/Windows 2000. The Linux partition I use the most, but I can't really use the Vista partition since it is really quite slow. It's appears to be a fast start-up and the desktop seems to run smoothly, but as soon as I start using applications the animations got quite jerky. I installed a graphic intensive app and it didn't run too smoothly. To compare it with Windows 2000: I never noticed any jerkyness and the same graphic intensive app runs very well. I conclude that the new kernel in Vista has a different driver API which means some machines may like it but some don't. Like I say, you were lucky. Now try installing a copy of Office and get back to me. It will be interesting.

JRLBell
JRLBell

When RC Vista came out I ran the Vista compatibility utility on my brand new system. There were no issues according to the utility report. It was dead wrong. I couldn't even install Vista on the system because it had VIA chipset and, at the time, there were no drivers in Vista for the VIA Serial ATA Controller. I thought at first it was because I was trying to install 64 bit Vista, so I reformatted and tried 32 bit--same problem. Vista just wouldn't install because it couldn't recognize the harddrives. Had no problem installing Ubuntu or Windows XP (even 64 bit). Granted that Vista might have fixed a few things between RC and now, but I'm not taking any chances. The moral of the story: don't rely on the compatibility utility to be totally accurate.

dseifert7
dseifert7

When I used and sometimes still do use Windows Vista Beta there were no drivers for my Minolta Page Works Pro/20. The only way I could install the driver for this printer was to share the printer from a computer running Windows XP. I then could add the printer and install the drivers from a Windows XP CD. I then could delete the shared printer and print directly to the printer. I since have installed a broadband router with a parallel printer port and use that to print through. I could install the driver in Windows Vista Beta just by adding a new port to print with and when it asked for the print driver disk I could use the Window XP disk to retrieve the driver. Maybe you could use one of these methods to be able to install the drivers you need. You also may be able to use "add new hardware" and manually select your hardware. Then you may be able to get your drivers installed this way. It appears to me that you have to fool Windows Vista into installing some drivers that it would not normally find or use. Please let me know if this information helped you and if you were able to install your drivers.

maxwell edison
maxwell edison

I verified my hardware, and everything installed just fine -- printer scanner, camera, and even the comfort control system for my house. (Okay, so I was kidding about that last one.)

hmeltzer
hmeltzer

You better run the Mirosoft. Vista ck out before you buy. I did and now I won't buy it I need 4 drivers and a new scanner. HP said there will not be a Vista driver for the 5370C

maxwell edison
maxwell edison

....was the one who paid me $90 more than I paid for it myself, and some others who were paying $100+ more. At least, that's how I took it. (If not, a lot of people might think I'm a moron for buying anything Microsoft; in which case, I don't really care.) For example: http://cgi.ebay.com/Windows-Vista-Ultimate-Bill-Gates-Signed-Edition_W0QQitemZ260081976686QQihZ016QQcategoryZ11229QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.com/Windows-Vista-Ultimate-Bill-Gates-Signed-Edition_W0QQitemZ110086176644QQihZ001QQcategoryZ11229QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Neither of those were my auction, by the way, but others that made me decide to make a quick buck -- My Buy-it-Now for $349 was gone in a matter of hours. They paid the premium just for the ##### / 25000 and the signature. I sold it to reduce my cost. Like I said, I should have bought ten -- heck, I should have broke out all the credit cards and bought 100! Personally, I wouldn't have paid more for the "signed and numbered limited edition". (I am keeping the one I still have, however -- number nine thousand and something out of 25000.) By the way, I think I have that first printing of Aerosmith's first album. How much will you pay me for it?

techrepublic
techrepublic

All you can do is flame other peoples decisions I use Linux because it is a good, cheap, reliable, dependable OS. I have all the Windows OS's from 3.1 to Vista Ultimate but I use Linux. I have used a Mac G5 but found it not to be very useful for me. To me it is form over function but I can understand why people like the Mac. It's simple and sexy. I can understand why people use Windows. The ubiquity of Windows is unquestionable. As is the technical superiority of Linux. There are people who do question it as there are people who question the ubiquity of Windows. To say that Windows is a good operating system is subjective. You like it presumably because of the ubiquity. But then, you probably don't know any better.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

but it has been in the air for some time. Also take note of MS's stance once it looked as if Vista was not going to be the big seller that was anticipated. They made a deal with Novell which pays each other on a sliding scale of how many OS's each has in use.

techrepublic
techrepublic

'As to the recompiled kernel and all that UNIX bla-bla... Basing an OS on a good OS "with modifications and recompiling" does not necessarily make it good.' Most distros work out of the box without recompiling just like Windows. 'My father was a marathon runner but I'm overweight and use the car to drive for the newspaper. So... heredity is never a warranty!' You really don't know about computers do you. You father could have been a fat marathon runner who finished last. OK to compare Vista to ..say Ubuntu (for the non-computer types) Vista is like a high end Jag. Ubuntu is like an Honda NSX. How? The high end Jag is thirsty. It can go fast but you need to tow a fuel truck. Whereas the Honda (which is not necessarily economical) can go very fast if you want without draining the tank and it's more fun to drive since that was what the designers intended. The Jag is more desirable to the business exec types (like Vista) whereas the Honda appeals to the boy racer (like Linux appeals to the techie types) The Jag comes from a long line of high end executive cars and really would have to work hard to market a boy racer car. Honda would find it hard to market a high end business saloon. If you were to use the car comparison I guess OSX would be like The new Honda Civic. The one with the triangular tailpipes. Looks great and really fancy, but underneath it's still a Honda. Like Mac is UNIX based. Your the Jag owner. I'm the Honda owner. There's nothing wrong with the Jag, it's just I don't want one in the same way that there's nothing wrong with the Honda it's just you prefer the Jag (hypothetically, or course) You prefer Vista (or Windows in general). I don't. I like an OS which is reliable and dependable out of the box, doesn't require tinkering and poking to get it to work and can run all the software I need to do what I want (which is considerable). Oh and can look fantastic (see YouTube search for XGL) You like Windows. Nuff said from my point of view.

techrepublic
techrepublic

Do you still use Windows 3.11?! Since when has Ubuntu bee a hackers OS? Since when has OS X suffered from virus attack? "non-computer consultant" is true. You don't know about computers and Microsoft is welcome to _ALL_ your hard earned cash!

Kostaghus
Kostaghus

I understand you haven't had a problem in more than 2 years. Well, that's 'cause you work with them for more than 10 years. As to those who work with them for less, let me tell you, they have A LOT of problems! Much more than those working on Windows for the same amount of time. As to the recompiled kernel and all that UNIX bla-bla... Basing an OS on a good OS "with modifications and recompiling" does not necessarily make it good. My father was a marathon runner but I'm overweight and use the car to drive for the newspaper. So... heredity is never a warranty! Besides, a thing which has been tested and used by 10 million has definitely more chances to be good than one that has been tested and tried by 100.000. Frankly, in my world (that's printing and graphic creation) I don't know of anyone CURRENTLY using a MAC that would not gladly switch to a PC should he be allowed too. Nor do I know of anyone who did not already do it if he was allowed or afforded it! I think that should be the end of it!

driv101
driv101

try suse it will self install and its easy to use no mount or dismount stuff all grafic and easy to use

WorldBFree
WorldBFree

Just converted my Win98 machine on the home LAN to Debian via one ISO image burned to CD. Up and running in about an hour. OpenOffice for doing Word and such, running two DNS servers, Apache web server, mail server, using SAMBA and CUPS to share files and printers with the 3 WinXP machines on the LAN, back everything up to a USB external drive connected to a 433Mh eMachine running Linux, NFS to share files between the Linux boxes. Fix problems myself if I feel like it or file bug reports if I don't (there are not many showstoppers, the blackjack game was broken after an upgrade). A large online community to help out with understanding things. So many drivers for so much hardware I can't imagine a single piece of hardware I couldn't get to work. AND IT'S ALL FREE. Maybe the biggest plus is the FREEDOM from the seemingly ENDLESS service packs/hot fixes/updates/security fixes/MINDLESS TREADMILL ADMINISTRATION that plague M$ bloatware.

kpak44wh
kpak44wh

Quit crapping on os x,it's a unix based system. I've heard many claims of os x's security, but in the real world I haven't seen one. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is better than windows. If you say os x sucks, why not linux or unix, they're all from the same family. os x has a recompiled and changed bsd kernel, and it will run many linux apps with very little compile. Os 10.4 has been claimed by many professionals has one of the most secure operating systems. I know, I work with macs all day long, and haven't had any problems for over 2 years.

oz_ollie
oz_ollie

Linux actually prevents normal users from accessing things they shouldn't access. Unlike many Windows applications (Adobe CS springs to mind!) applications in Linux (and OS X for that matter) don't need Administrator privileges just to run. Of course applications written for OS 9 and below don't work on OS X. This is well known and very well publicised by Apple when the change over was in progress ... about 5 years ago! The graphical interfaces available in Linux and OS X are where Vista is trying to get. Just make sure you upgrade your CPU, RAM, hard drive, graphics card and you buy Ultimate or Enterprise versions of Windows for a few of the features promised by Microsoft. They still haven't got journaled file systems which is standard on Linux and OS X.

Kostaghus
Kostaghus

I mean.. OS X is just as bad... Linux is for hackers (lets normal users access to things they should not have access to) and furthermore for someone coming from the windows world and trying to get a computer to work on not tweak, is rather embezzled about the whole mount-dismount drive.... Whatever...

Larry the Security Guy
Larry the Security Guy

Illustrator for OS 9 may rely on undocumented hooks or other "tricks" that are simply not present in OS X. I wouldn't blame Apple because Adobe decided to make Illustrator platform-specific. There are a number of Windows 9x programs that don't work in 2k or XP, possibly for the same reason.

Kostaghus
Kostaghus

Yeah, sure... Of course I don't! In case you haven't noticed, I'm NOT the IT manager! I don't even work on the darned things... As to generic drivers and doing your own... He's tried that too! Try doing it with colour calibration on monitor, printer and scanner. And the scanners and printers plus software I'm talking about are worth several tens of thousand dollars. How's that? Besides, as to PC compatibility suffise to tell that I am using Photoshop 5 on a Pentium 4/ 3500 machine running Windows XP. That's a software made for Win98 still running perfectly on WINXP. Try running Illustrator for OS9 on OSX regardless of flavor... Huh! Upgrading all software and INCOMPATIBLE hardware has a proforma invoice of around 16000 USD. We've had no problem with switching our PC hardware from WIN2000 to XP 2 years ago... Still running smoothly. And some of the scanners are more than 5 years old (on the PC's! The oldest MAC scanner is 2 years old!) The IT guy has also been working in Macs for more than 10 years and has some kind of diploma in computer engineering so I take it he knows his business. Macs are not in my department though so I don't exactly care about it... I'm in an "all PC" zone thanks goodness! The guys at DTP (MAC users) however are sick and tired of them and would gladly switch to PC's if only the management would give them the stack of cash they need to do it! Which they don't ...

kpak44wh
kpak44wh

You really don't know much about Macs, I never had a problem with changing over to os x. As far as printers and scanners, unless they are over 5 years old , they're probably usb. There are generic drivers for os x, and you can make your own driver with just a little reading from googling. By the way, if your adobe photoshop and others are either very old programs, because the newer programs were universal, that means they can run in os 9 and x. If you have problems with drivers just email me. I'll get them for you. I've worked with macs for over 13 years, and I have very little problems with them. I have never had a problem doing updates with a mac. You do know you could download the update pkgs for all your macs and do them without being on the internet. If your hardware is 2 years old and runs in os 9, they'll run in os x. Even if you could run that scanner in 10.4, you could run it in the os 9 window.

Kostaghus
Kostaghus

OS X is just as bad as Vista. I have at work a herd of Apples of all generations, starting from Quadras to G4's. The IT manager has made the idiotic decision of trying to migrate them all to OS X. Dumb thing to do! First of all, the software versions (I mean Freehand, Illustrator, Photoshop and such) for OS 9, are not working in OS X. They won't even install for Christ's sake! Then, almost all the periferals are no good! 2 year old scanners do not have OS X drivers. Not even on the Internet. Same with printers. Same with drawing tablets. Furthermore, they will try to run on the Internet and upgrade instantly just like their MS counterpart. As to the stability... We've left one of the computers to download updates during the night and we've found it blocked to the point we had to reinstall the next morning. No... APPLE OS X is no better than Vista! They're just plain 'ol crap! An OS is supposed to be just a simple application launcher, that would run on any computer...