Discussion on:

Don't be misled by these 10 Windows Vista myths

Here is a copy and paste from the very own Ubuntu's website called "ShipIt Request" where I placed my mail order:

"5 CDs requested in 2006-07-20. 5 CDs approved and sent to the shipping company in 2006-07-25. Please note requests usually take from 4 to 6 weeks to deliver, depending on the country of shipping."

You must have noticed by now that rickk has oppositional disorder

Didn't you spot that you have diametrically opposed avatars? Surely you'll never agree on any Windows vs. Linux issue.

Here's my take on the 5 or 6 CD Linux distros: you can install exactly what you want, when you want. For free. You don't have to install anything you don't want to, and if you use the distro's package management program you can select all the packages you want, their dependencies are indicated clearly to you and you are instructed which disk to put in the drive and when to put it in. I found this easy to do as a complete newbie with Red Hat and Mandrake - a no-brainer.

That brings me to my next point.

All this crap about it being hard work is really irksome. I have a lot of (barely computer literate) workmates who struggle to do anything more than the simplest things in Windows, and yet they can misuse Linux just as well... if that makes any sense. I work in a dual OS environment by the way, where we use Linux to do our core work and Windows for supporting tasks (but it's being phased out completely early next quarter).
These same people struggle to install most Windows apps properly, and if there are any configuration screens that pop up during or immediately after the installation they shriek and run away (or stay and make a mess of it). They download all sorts of dodgy warez that come bundled with toolbars and keyloggers and packet sniffers. And guess who has to clean it all up?

My own experience of Linux has been very positive. At work it's a Red Hat based "open" Linux that, naturally, utilises the rpm (easy enough to work with, even though I was a relative newbie). Debian - that's great, but I found it slightly more daunting, but at least it was rewarding (not like Red Hat or Mandrake!). Slackware was trickier, but Slax (the stripped down UFD-friendly bootable ISO distro based on Slackware) was child's play - better than Bart PE, but I guess Linux is completely modular, so it has an advantage. The clear winner for me was openSuse 10.x - outstanding in every way. But then, everyone has their personal favourite.

Still, Windows remains way ahead in market share for so many reasons. One reason is the lock-in factor: PowerPoint presentations, Excel spreadsheets and MS Word documents that are just slightly beyond the translational powers of Open Office. There are many third-party apps that Windows users and companies have become dependent on. Not because there is no viable alternative, but because the dependencies go back to a time when there was no real alternative. Now they think that the change would be too painful.

Of course, there are some great apps for Windows, such as Excel and Diskeeper. Thanks to the likes of sysinternals, us geeks have more control over Win2k/XP than ever before (not as sure about Vista as of yet).

Personally, I have a lot of time for Windows these days. Since Win98 it's been OK and since Win2K it's been very good. I'm using it now. Hurrah! But I have to say that having just a Windows XP disc is not going to get you very far. The included MS apps are, quite frankly, not very good at all. Notepad isn't going to do much for you, even though it's the staple of 99% of Windows users for jotting and too much more. The windows defragmenter is terrible. I'll stop there, because most of the other apps I can think of fall somewhere between those two extremes.
The third-party s/w on the other hand can be outstanding, but many of my lifesaving utilities started their lives out on Linux or Unix: PuTTY, Mozilla, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL, GIMP2, Open Office 2 and so on. Many other favourites have Linux equivalents. For other windows apps, there's always something that does the same job on Linux so there's nothing to stop anyone from switching over completely.

So why don't I switch, I hear you say? I suppose my WinXP is stable, secure and lean enough. It does what I need it to do and performs those tasks well. It came pre-installed on my laptop and after uninstalling all the junk I didn't need and cleaning up the registry, copying across all my favourite apps (either open source, free or "free"), I was happy as a pig in the proverbial. My PC's story was different, I installed Win2k on my PC before going dual boot with Debian, later I switched to WinXP Pro / openSuse 10.x. I primarily use openSuse when working on my PC.

I guess that basically what I'm trying to say is that, in many ways, you're both right

Is Vista really going to push a significant number of users over to Linux or OSX? Hardly.
No matter how bad Vista turns out to be when the dust settles, people will stick with it and complain. It's like those people that complain constantly about high bank charges and never switch to a cheaper bank. Fear of change will keep these users put. It really doesn't matter how ready Linux is. As rickk said, it'll take a lot of marketing - not the forte of those open source GNU types!!!

From what I've seen of Vista, though, doesn't indicate that it's at all bad. It has a few new annoyances, but XP came with a few of its own. Some reg fixes and hacks and good ol' SP1 will most likely fix that. By the time SP2 comes out, I might just be ready to switch, especially if I'm in the market for a new laptop or PC by then. Unless I go MacBook Pro / OSX crazy.

Then you can learn to use something that is a more secure, faster, more stable working environment...

Rickk You need to try to find a different tune it is still off pitch...

It takes me 1/3 the time to build and I can install them with a kickstart server, or I can load them from CD with no issue... '

Only a couple of wirelkess card have made me slow down...

What is it
Linux v Windows
Windows v Linux
Off the Subject
O by the way a true professional would learn all they could about any OS available
Pleassse don't use time as an excuse

What about, for businesses, it's tight intregration with SharePoint Services and SharePoint Server?

That's just one huge difference and an enormous one for companies like the one I work for.

Sharepoint sucks

It is non intuitive for admin tasks and setup, along with many functions.
Secondly, Office 03 works well with sharepoint, as I use it all of the time.

Ok, I've been told in this thread to backup my opinions with facts.

Go ahead, you hate SharePoint and say it's not intuitive or whatever. Prove it and/or propose an alternative that is more intuitive and will integrated well with existing hardware, software, and tech support, etc in companies today.

Thanks for your opinion, but that's all it is. And you know the saying about opinions.

The only difference between you and me is that I have 90% of the desktop market agreeing with me and you have, I don't know, maybe 5%.

Not always is the majority right.

Often it is the man who goes against the grain who is right. The followers are just that followers.

The 5% probably are all in the top 50% of users...

Rick must have lawyers and accountants to support, not engineeers...

If you can't get Win 2k3 running fast on a dual core AM2 3800 then you obviously did something wrong.

I'm running Win 2k3 right now on the most generic of generics white box right now that is only a 1.2 Ghz processor, single core, with 1 GB of RAM. Nothing special, on-board video and audio, blah blah blah and it runs just fine.

Your arrogance and lies only can take you so far. But then again, for those of us that have been on TR awhile, we know your opinions...worthless.

it's SERVER 2k3 not win 2k3
and it's fully DEFAULT settings, exactly as the linux server was on the same hardware.

as soon as I test different distros for AD connectivity, I'll be removing the malware and putting linux back on.
[ 2 hous for server 2k3 to format a single 250 GB partition? 45 minutes to install, then add drivers? it only took linux a total of 25 minutes to format and install, with all drivers loaded out of the box, no adding them later ]

I meant Server 2003 and you know it. After all, I was responding to your comments.

Anyways, you're still full of crap and you know it.

I've installed Server 2003 at least 30 times in the last year and I've never seen it take that long to format a drive.

Our audience can decide for themselves. My opionion which is founded by working with MS products day in and day out, or your opinion which is founded on an intense hatred for MS and clearly a lack of recent experience with it...you even admit it yourself as you repeatedly say you'll never touch it unless you have to.

How can you be an expert or have an opinion worth listening to when you don't use the product day in and day out.

worth listening to when you don't use the product day in and day out."

This from someone who badmouths Linux and doesn't use it day in and day out.

"Hello, Mr. Pot."

"Hi, Mr. Kettle. My, you're looking black today."

You're right, I don't use Linux as I have repeatedly tried it again and again and find it to be a pain in my arse.

But I don't think any of my comments really questioned what his Linux "facts" were. I only pointed out that his "facts" about Windows were wrong.

You merely claimed they were wrong--you didn't demonstrate that they were. But for you, saying something is proof enough. There's no need to get things all messy with facts and those other inconvenient things that get in the way of your truthiness.

that's why I didn't bother replying.
I know it took server 2003 r2 two hours to format the 250 Gb partition, I timed it.
[ sata drive yet, I would hate to see what it would do with a pata drive ]

I have to wait for the default conf to load a window, or open a menu, when the same hardware powered by linux was fast.

and I changed nothing in either os, left them at defaults.

rickk is under the mistaken belief that everyone uses exhorbitant amounts of ram, because with ms products you need exhorbitant amounts of ram. I generally use minimal ram, since I don't enable bloat by default.
[ the system slow under server 2003 only has 512 mb ram, tons of ram for linux. ]

Ok, let me get this straight.

You have a AMD dual core 64 bit 3800+ processor (nice) and only 512 MB of RAM? Are you retarded or did you just run out of money?

Let me guess too, this is a PC instead of a server? And what exactly were you planning on doing with Server 2003 with only 512 MB of RAM?

I know, I know, with Linux you could conquer the world with 512 MB of RAM.

On the flip side, I have a 1.2 Ghz single core processor at home with 1 GB of RAM running Server 2003 with SharePoint, SQL, Exchange, AD, DHCP, hosting a very small website, etc and it seems to be running just fine.

Arguments aside, why don't you just spend the extra $60 and get the additional 512 MB of RAM just so we don't have to hear you whine all the damn time.

that Win environments are much more resource intensive than Linux.

Hey, he is a Linux Guru, you are not, obviously both of you are biased. I use both and have preferences for each ones use. But that still does not change the fact that Vista is huge and resource hungry and that Linux is much leaner/faster to do many of the same tasks.

1. If the box was anywhere close to swapping.

2. If there were apps written as poorly as windows.

3. I have used Vista for one month without more than the normal Windows reboot daily.

4 Vista promping me to accept is major league annoying.

5. Jacqui is right Linux and 512M is fine without X being active. For a DNS or SAMBA or other application server is more than fine.

hear you are spouting the defence of MS and at the same time spewing misinformation about linux all in the same breath. I have all the versions of Ubuntu going back to at least 5.04 and none are a "Six CD" release so try talking out both sides of you mouth instead of half. as for your postings they seem to be nothing more then a chance to be abusive to others (Not a good way to get a point across) and have led me to belive that you just like to get people worked up for your personal pleasure. Nothing wrong with that, but you should try telling facts instead of making stuff up!! perhaps you should try the new SUSE 10 it spouts about user friendlyness and also offers support as well, not only that it includes YAST which helps ease the installation of software (YAST is also included in the latest "1-CD" release of Ubuntu) as to server 2003 I have seen it take forever and a day to format large capacity scsi drives but still its worth the wait.( My pefered server by the way) All in all you make some good points but your attitude diminishes the value of those points. yes I know I cannot spell and I have no Spellcheck in this "p.o.s" that I am using so please feel free to attack me for it, As I am sure you'll get some pleasure from it and be leaving some other poor soul alone. smuck!

I just received a copy in the mail (I forget the website I requested it from or the version as I'm at work and it is at home) but it WAS on 6 CD's.

And yes, people like Apotheon are easy to work up and piss off and it is kind of fun, or at least funny.

No where in that post did he say it was a SCSI drive. In addition, he didn't mention a fast format or a complete format.

Virtually all browsers nowadays either have spell check built in or have a third party add-on. Poor excuse.

Lastly, you recommend SuSe and that's great. I may look into that. However, that's exactly the problem with Linux. You recommend one distro, someone else recommends another, still someone else recommends a third, so on and so forth.

Linux is too different, too confusing, has too many choices, etc for the average home user to use.

Oh, and then there's more. I say that Linux is too different or has too many choices and so someone else says, well, try Ubuntu...it's like Windows.

Then the Linux zealots come in a rip apart Ubuntu because it lacks choices, is too Windows like, etc.

It's like someone said in another post on here. The Linux crowd should thank MS because they have someone to attack all day, everyday. Otherwise, they'd end up eating each other's legs off.

At times, the one distro vs another distro conversations get even more violent than the Linux vs Windows conversations. Hell, the Linux camp can't even agree with themselves 90% of the time.

I don't know if Windows 2k3 installation runs its badblocks utility when it formats a partition, but if the Linux mkfs ran badblocks then it would take much longer than 25 minutes to install Linux. That's one of the things that I do to prepare for a Linux installation on a new disk.

mkfs -t ext3 -c /dev/hdX

It takes a about 40 minutes to finish on a 60 GB partition. Or is it fsck that takes 40 minutes on a 60 GB partition? I forget. But badblocks takes a long time.

on this machine with linux, took 10 minutes.
[ for the 230 Gb partition ] total bad blocks tests was about 13 minutes, while making the filesystem.
like I said, this machine is screaming fast in linux, and slower than molasses in january with server 2003.

to make it worse, that linux was a distro bloated kernel, Mandriva 2007.
with tons of not needed crap built into the kernel for the install.
[ though the perl scripted installer runs without a perl installation on the media, so perl must be built into the system somewhere. ]

running fsck takes longer than testing for badblocks when using mkfs.
fsck usually takes about 20 minutes on this machine for the largest partition.
mkfs -t ext3 -c /dev/sda8 takes about 3 minutes in lfs build sequence, about 5 in Mandriva.

I have w2k3 server on a PIII-800Mhz,256MB ram. AD/DC/DHCP/DNS/File/Print all running on it. I wouldn't say it screams, but it certainly isn't Molasses slow. Wonder what the difference is?

Also, if you select quick format, Server will format much faster (less than a minute for .5TB).

Drive encryption and system backup are only available in Ultimate. These are functions that apparently, Microsoft considers too advanced for an end user. But how many people want to protect their laptop's data or back up their music?

Vista sucks.

All these "myths" are TRUE.

Stick with XP and when XP goes away, switch to OSX or a nice Linux distro.

Actually, drive encryption is available in Enterprise too, but that's only available on volume licensing. Just an FYI.

Number one: Drive encryption is not just protecting your laptop's data. It's Specifically, it is a process where the Operating System pairs with a TPM chip to encrypt every bit of data on your hard drive in real time. Now, let's pause for a second and think of what this means:

This means that your average home user or small biz user has to have hardware which is capable, number one. Number two, they have to be extremely vigilant with their encryption key/pass (i.e. don't forget your pass or lose your USB key which can store it) or their data is lost forever. That's right, if you can't access your encrypted data, there is NO-one who can help you. At that point, you format the drive and move on.

Is that a feature you want to disseminate to home users and small biz? It's much more oriented to medium to large corps and that's why it's only available on Ultimate and Enterprise.

As far as backup, you're completely wrong. Home Premium, Business and Ultimate all have backup built in. However, only Business and Ultimate have Shadow Copy, which may be what you're talking about. Personally, i'd love to see that feature on Home Premium, but is it required? I don't think so.

You know all the myths aren't true. It's funny that the folks who have been complaining the most about FUD coming FROM Microsoft all these years are now the first and the loudest to dish it out now that Vista's been released.

Bottom line: Vista is a great improvement over XP. It's not as much of one as i'd have liked to have seen a few years ago, but i'll definitely take it.

I've got nothing against MacOS, and have used Linux off and on over the years, but you're going to have to live with the fact that Windows isn't going anywhere. It's 90% of the installed base, and is much more usable now, with Vista.

That's why users are freaking out and calling up their "tech support" because they can't figure out simple things any more...

Right click on the desktop and go to properties....OMFG!! WTF DO I DO!!??

Brilliant.

backup is avaialbe in all versions of Vista, same as XP.
Filesystem encryption is available in Vist Biz, same as XP Pro.

BitLocker is a new technology, no comparable feature in XP. as is teh imaging tool (which I have bothered to see if it exist in any version besides Enterprise/Ultimate.)

I find the overall tone of the article disingenuous.

Finally, someone is standing up for the tiny Microsoft underdog.

Exactly how old was this "existing mid-range" machine?

How are you matching XP versions to Vista versions? Are there missing features or dissenting opinions on this point?

I've never, ever heard anyone say that Vista DRM will prevent music from playing. This is a straw-man attack. There are some very disturbing things about the Vista DRM subsystem that requires expensive, closed, and revocable hardware and driver support to play "premium content". This is a disturbing trend, and Peter Gutmann has discussed the costs better than I can. It is irresponsible to pretend that the concern over Vista DRM has anything to do with ripped music, and not mention what the argument *IS* about.

There is also serious concern about nVidia's Vista drivers (see ars technica, or search Google News for "nvidia vista"), which somehow got missed in the article. That certainly counts as a major hardware incompatibility.

To support the idea that the interface isn't all that's new by mentioning improved search (something the Mac has had for many years), a calendar (something all other OSes have included for many years), a screen capture program (ditto), and minor enhancements to explorer (stuff that GNOME has had for years) and the address book seems wholly inadequate. These are all things you can do with other OSes (for free), or with freeware, and they are being used to justify a $100-$400 upgrade? Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

Major evidence to support the assertion that Vista security is imperfect was omitted, too. For example, most of the significant improvements are only available in the 64-bit version (which *will* require many people to upgrade their hardware, BTW). Also missing: the major consequence of rewriting a network stack: immature code. Leo Laporte's Security Now! podcast has covered this stuff pretty well.

There is absolutely no truth to that whatsoever. The same features are available in the 32-bit versions.

Also, to blame Microsoft for Nvidia's driver shortcomings is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

You're also leaving out other improvements in the OS, but i'm not going to list them. Just go to MS's pages, there's a lot of information there for yourself.

Lets face it, Vista is not for everyone. I have my own opinions, and they do not match yours.
I have also tested it deeper than a few common programs, and have had mixed luck at best. Furthermore, I have tested recovery options that MS claims to work, but they still fail in my book. Personally, I have shunned Linux UNTIL I installed Vista the first time, now I am moving over to Linux where I can.
Granted, many things are still easier in Win than Linux, but I dont want to be an MS B!tch anymore, and good alternative options are available.
All OS's have problems, and require learning. There are many things that I would like to change in this world, but cannot do it all, but Vista needs a good revamp. And wasnt it the project manager for MS who stated that 60% of the code for Vista needed to be re-written. What was the response, a few weeks later MS replaced him. Then a few weeks later Vista was on schedule again. Do you really think that 60% of the code was re-written? Do you trust MS that much? If so, you will be let down sooner or later

You're partially right. Allchin stuck around the whole way through Vista development, and actually is the main reason that it took so long to release.

He was ready for retirement, but wanted to make sure that Vista didn't have the security issues that XP has had. So yes, I actually do believe that a good chunk of the code was run over. Otherwise, it would have been released three years ago.

I trust my own experiences. I've been running Windows since 3.1, and with the exception of Millenium (yikes!), every version has been a step forward.

Personally, I think XP has been a great system. I've never had major problems with it, and my experience in IT and now as an OEM has been pretty good. I've been using Vista in various versions since early '06 and it's gotten nothing but better.

Sure, Windows has its issues, but so does MacOS and Linux. They all require a certain amount of common sense and vigilance to keep them operating.

It does nobody any good for all this FUD and out-of-ass conjecture. Hell, half the comments on here are nowhere NEAR reality.

I see your points, and many are valid. But it appeared that you were trying too hard to defend Vista. I had the impression of someone who installed it and said OOOh, yes, and decided to defend it from then on.

I agree, so far windows has gotten better and better, but there aer still al ot of problems with Vista. I still am recommending to everyone to wait at minimum 6 months to buy it, and to try to wait until at least SP1, but SP2 preferred.
Funny thing though, in the past, when a new OS was released you could go to the major vendors and pick an older version of Windows to go with a new PC. But MS has stopped that altogether, the only options are to buy XP seperate, and get your system with Vista. For a new OS that still has so many problems, this is a bad idea.
I already know 2 people who need new notebooks and were looking them up, but could only get a refurb with XP. Both people decided NOT to purchase a new notebook right now because of it.

I currently am not installing Vista by default on any of my systems. My installation of choice as of today until about March-April or so is XP.

The reasons why are pretty much what we've gone over. As far as desktops go, my stock PCs are completely Vista Ready, and short of a bit of driver-fu on my end, are pretty painless for my customers IF they go that route.

However, and this is where the big guys have dropped off, i'm still offering the Express Upgrade until it is over. So, anyone who buys one of my PCs right now with XP can get their Vista shipped to them, and I'll upgrade it at no cost for them. That way, MS can work the bugs out and they're not FORCED to upgrade.

As far as the notebooks go, though, none of our whitebooks are currently supporting Vista officially, so i'm most definitely taking that route. It's not even an option except for the upgrade.

As far as the defending goes, i'm sick of seeing all the false statements and such, so i'm playing correction guy right now.

and you do seem knowledgeable about Vista, so I am glad that you are trying to straighten it all out a bit. However, I just want to mention that you came off a bit strong and arrogant about Vista being so much better, that it seemed like you were just rambling for the sake of argumentations.

After reading a few more of your posts, and re-reading some of them my opinion of you has changed a bit.
But, I am still sticking with XP cause I still do not like Vista. And I would hop ehtat you and others like you would also realize that not everything about Vista was done or thought out well. Basic tasks that we all knew how to do since earlier versions of Win, are now hard to find, and MS calls this progress.

I think though (at least I hope) that my responses usually stick to the tone that the original post deserves.

Basically, if someone has an honest point, makes it intelligently, and doesn't just parrot the latest FUD out of their ass while trashing folks they have no reason to trash, my response should be just as intelligent and well-reasoned.

However, if someone starts out arrogant, putting down a large group of people, and bsically making statements that have no basis in reality, and either not bothering to find out for sure, or not caring...

...well, i'll stomp on 'em.

Usually those kind of folks don't respond well to reason anyway. It's much more fun to give 'em hell. Especially when they're wrong.

When i'm wrong though, i'll admit it. And as far as Vista goes, yes, it definitely has its flaws. Overall, though, I think it's a big improvement and I will eventually be building it into my builds.

As of yet, though, MS is still selling XP, and they're still offering the Express Upgrade (which gets you a pretty much free upgrade in most cases) program, so my customers aren't losing anything.

Now, if the driver and software issues aren't ironed out to my satisfaction by the end of the upgrade program, then i'll have to re-evaluate.

In general though, my experience has been pretty good, except for with the notebooks like i've said elsewhere.

'Funny thing though, in the past, when a new OS was released you could go to the major vendors and pick an older version of Windows to go with a new PC.But MS has stopped that altogether, the only options are to buy XP seperate, and get your system with Vista.'
I ordered a computer toDAY with XP Pro

YES MR. Microsoft Puppeteer.

Let us hear from the Great Alchin himself about what he thinks of vista.

"I am not sure how the company lost sight of what matters to our customers (both business and home) the most, but in my view we lost our way. I think our teams lost sight of what bug-free means, what resilience means, what full scenarios mean, what security means, what performance means, how important current applications are, and really understanding what the most important problems [our] customers face are. I see lots of random features and some great vision, but that doesn't translate onto great products.

I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft. If you run the equivalent of VPC on a MAC you get access to basically all Windows application software (although not the hardware). Apple did not lose their way. You must watch this new video below. I know this doesn't show anything for businesses, but my point is about the philosophy that Apple uses. They think scenario. They think simple. They think fast. I know there is nothing hugely deep in this.

I must tell you everything in my soul tells me that we should do what I called plan (b) yesterday We need a simple fast storage system. LH is a pig and I don't see any solution to this problem. If we are to rise to the challenge of Linux and Apple, we need to start taking the lessons of "scenario, simple, fast" to heart."

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/110354.asp

See, Vista rocks!

Right.

Follow the link to Allchin's blog and it plainly says that statement was intended to carry out major changes to Vista's development, which it did.

So, thanks for proving my point. Ass.

And my name is Angelina Jolie

Follow about a zillion links and you'll see that he started saying that ex post facto, once some legal pressure was being put on Microsoft for their continued monopolistic practices. So the title of your post was appropriate: Allchin was covering his ass about his prior remarks.

...how's it feel to be pwned? Does Brad nurse you through your tears at night?

Regardless of whose to blame, it does suggest a cetain amount of truth to the hardware compatibility 'myth'. Now, taken as a percentage of all hardwar it is probably a small percentage, so yes, you can get away with calling this myth, but since a fairly significant number of PC's use Nvidia Cards, the issue of hardware compatibility is significant, dont' you think?

Spare us the sales pitch. Some sphincter doing a scripted dog-and-pony show demo in tune to a chorus of ooohs and aaahs does not equate to customer satisfaction. Nothing beats several hours down the drain installing Vista, setting up programs and peripherals, then repeating with XP-Pro.

My Vista compatibility experience:
Creative Nomad Zen - DEAD Forever
Textpad License Import - DEAD Forever
Cisco VPN - Find somewhere to steal a beta because 'latest' NFG
What a blast installing a printer on a Netgear PS110 print server. This was one situation I handled easier in Linux and I don't even consider myself a Linux expert.

Plug in your shiny new box, then realize you're hosed because a two year old 'something' you take for granted needs to be replaced. I don't suppose an XP install comes with a new computer. Wow, what fun.

MS has offered up a tool to evaluate your system prior to attempting to upgrade to vista. The Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor will tell you exactly where your current system stands before you attempt your upgrade.

My system, home built, sports some very impressive hardware and software features. I use Symantec security products as well.

Advisor warned me that several pieces of hardware WOULD NOT WORK after vista. Investigation showed that there were no vendor drivers for these products.

Software, forced buying new symantec products all around. Also, many of the media playing pieces were also not compatible. Rhapsody, DVD players, etc. also require re-purchasing products to work with vista.

After all said and done, the total cost of upgrading my 'way above average' computer would add an additional 150.00 plus to the cost of the upgrade.

I don't care that vista will install and run on my computer. I care that all things I currently have and use will continue to work for me in Vista. This is NOT the case, and I will NOT upgrade to vista, no matter the version until I am forced to purchase a new computer somewhere down the road.

As a support Tech, I do not recommend that the average computer user even consider upgrading to vista, until they too are ready to purchase another computer.

Also, I have 4 computers in my home, networked together, and the overall cost to me to upgrade all computers to vista would be way above and beyond what should be expected.

Booo to MS on a product that so many looked forward to the release of. Dissapointment awaits many who think this will be 'fun' and exciting to upgrade to the new os.

Linux guru's vs. MS Buffs. Honestly a healthy approach for a Vista upgrade consideration requires techs and home users alike to research for weeks if not months. This article along with opposition articles are fair game and helps one decide for themselves. Just don't settle for a few Microsoft articles and certainly Don't settle on a few anti-Microsoft articles. Incorporate everything you read then simplify it down to cost vs. necessity. Vista is a superior OS from previous versions, whether it copies MAC's interface or incorporates Linux like securities. None of that, in the end, will matter. I have an academic version of Business but have yet to install it (over 2 weeks now). I would hope that sooner or later there will be a third party site that list all incompatible software that won't run on Vista. Of course you can run the hardware/software compatibility test but it would be much simpler to research a site with honest intentions. I say...let someone start it on wikipedia and begin listing KNOWN hardware and software incompatibility issues and allow for confirmation(yeah my version doesn't work either) or disputes(workarounds that don't include purchasing other software) for each entry. This is all healthy debating...honestly, encore. Less personal attacks and more facts!!! But in the end break it down to cost vs. necessity.

Not exactly the most computer savvy person here but it just doesn?t make sense to get vista unless you really enjoy having the newest thing just for the sake of having it. Even if you dual boot with XP to try it out you end up spending alot of money for something to play around with.
As long as you have XP with upto date upgrades stick it out until you need the new computer, by then most of the bugs will be worked out.
90% of the people that I have seen with posts saying that they have had problems with vista are the ones that try to upgrade from XP. Sure your system may be compatiple with and capable for Vista but that just seems to me to be asking for problems.
I got my new compuer with Vista and the only problem I have had is with a few program installations.