General discussion


Vista, is it really worth it?

By Dave the Computer Guy ·
Ok so I have to say I?ve been reading all the articles on Vista. I see all the visual improvement and hear about all the security enhancements and I have to ask myself is it really worth it?

First off there are these really cool new window effects. Ok I have to say they look very cool. But from what I?ve been reading I?ll need a 256 Meg video card just to use them. Then if this is the case how are my games going to react? If I need a 256 Meg video card for a game I?m trying to play do I then need a 512 card to accommodate both my game and windows? Or am I going to have to drop my windows display into a lower mode every time I want to do something graphical?

Then there are all these comments about how secure Vista will be. I?m sorry it?s a Microsoft operating system and I don?t care how secure they make it some one is going to crack it. Then I read about how the new Windows Defender will help block Spyware and prevent viruses. Well I have a Antivirus / Firewall / Spyware removal software that works just fine for that now.

Finally what version of the new Windows will I buy? There are seven to choose from and the question then becomes how expensive is this venture going to be?

Don?t get me wrong, I?m not going to just ship to Linux (though I thought about it). I like windows; I just wish Microsoft would take the time and produce something original. Even the new Windows effects look just like a combination of the new Mac OS and an OS by Sun called project looking glass.

I guess I?d like to hear other people?s opinions on Vista and see if I'm just a radical or if others agree.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by Choppit In reply to Vista, is it really worth ...

Personally, the only way I'll use Vista is if it's preinstalled and the only reasons I'll buy an off the shelf box is as a gaming machine for my son, (he's a 2 1/2 year old Linux user at present so I've got a few years yet). I'm predominantly a Linux user myself and ceased to be impressed by eye candy a long time ago (particularly where it imposes a performance penalty). I can understand the marketing drive behind Vista but personally I've found W2K and XP to be stable and secure enough for (my) home use. At work however, we're likely to stick with MS on the desktop for the foreseeable future so will inevitably move to Vista as systems get replaced.

Collapse -

I'm with you guys

by Lesmond In reply to Vista

I agree totally with you - it's a Microsoft OS, and will without question be hacked. Of all the recent MS offerings, I personally prefer 2K, as all the XP eye candy is a pain, and I shouldn't have to go to all that bother to turn it off. I offer PC support services, so will probably have to have a copy or two of Vista to get to know it, but I'm migrating to Linux for personal use. Few of my clients use XP in an office setting, 98 and 2K would be the most widely used, and I won't be recommending moving. I can't understand why I need 1GB of RAM and a 256MB video card to type a letter, when I can do the same job on my ThinkPad 701CS running Windows 95.

Collapse -

Eye candy?

by NickNielsen In reply to I'm with you guys

But just think of how GOOD all the new effects will make your word processor look while you are typing your letter!

Collapse -


by K12Linux In reply to I'm with you guys

I've been heavily in the tech field for quite a while. I've worked with Windows and attended "vendor information" sessions from MS since the Windows 3.0 era.

*Every* version of Windows released has been accompanied by an army of marketing folk telling everyone how "this version" (3.1, NT v3.51, 95, NT v4, 98, ME, 2000, XP) of windows was developed with security and stability as it's primary goals.

We're told that "this version" fixes all those design mistakes in the currently available versions. "This version" has the best performance ever. "This version" will kill UNIX and any other operating system because it is so secure. "This version" is so secure that the NSA and DoD have certified it. Etc.

Yet nearly every version has included new features which security experts warned (well in advance) would expose the system to unacceptable risk. The experts explained why these things were bad ideas and how they could open a security hole yet MS went ahead and implemented them anyhow.

Perhaps MS got it right this time. Maybe Vista really will be super-secure, super-stable, super-fast and super easy to use all at once. I won't hold my breath. I'll wait for it to be on the market for a while and see how it fairs in real life. THEN maybe I'll consider upgrading if there are any confirmed compelling reasons to do so.

Collapse -

SSDD - got thar right!!

by Lesmond In reply to SSDD

Personally I don't bother with a "new" Windows release until at least the first service pack. I've only installed XP on one of my "work" PCs (which hides behind a very secure hardware firewall) about three weeks ago, although its been on a test bench machine for a year or so now.

It amazes me that they get away with it. Suppoes a massive marketing budget always helps.

Collapse -

Marketing budget

by K12Linux In reply to SSDD - got thar right!!

> It amazes me that they get away with it. Suppoes a massive marketing budget always helps.

I remember when the XBOX was coming out around the same time Gates introduced "Trustworthy Computing" and vowed to end computer security woes in Windows. (2002 I think.) Security would become THE number one priority.

Anyhow, I thought that their real commitments were pretty clear when they spent $100 million on trustworthy computing over the next year but $500 million on the XBOX launch alone.

Collapse -

Security has always been BG's greatest concern

by mjwx In reply to Marketing budget

We are just a little confused about what BG wants secured: the M$ profit margin, all other priorities are secondary.

Collapse -

Poor old Bill

by a_fairb In reply to Security has always been ...

Poor old Bill is riding a runaway train which needs huge cash injections at regular intervals. Trouble is 90% or more of the apps users actually need/use worked fine on 95, 98, 2k... The driver as always will be Office. The main reason our NT4 clients are being replaced is that they can't run better than office 2000. Some users have bought Office XP or 2k3 and now we have to upgrade for compatibility. If we all just got off the train quietly and stuck to Office 2000 or OpenOffice, we would save a fortune and MS would have to find another way to part us from our cash.

Collapse -

Vista is so far away

by ITPERFORMANCE In reply to SSDD - got thar right!!

I have been running the latest build for Vista from MSDN. So far I am not impressed at all. I am running this on a an athlon xp 2800 processor clocked at 2.2 ghz, 3 gigs of ram and 300 gb SATA drive with a 256mb nvidia card. So far I am very discouraged. I remember running the bet a version of xp and it was a much better performer than this release of vista. The operating system looks pretty but functionally it is terrible. It is extremely slow does not interface well with or at all with most applications, which means you'll have to wait for patches and or next versions of all of your applications. The hardware drivers are getting better from previous builds but still not there either. There are way to many clicks involved for simple tasks. Their are duplicative icons in control panel. The only positive so far is no BSODs. The security features are more of a nuisance then a sense of a security. It it is microsoft be sure that every hacker will be after it. I'm staying with XP it is solid does what it needs too, if you have good sense when using your pc and have firewalls hardware and software security should not be an issue. Of course there is always linux.

Collapse -

Similar with OSX

by dlmeyer In reply to I'm with you guys

Lesmond says:
"I agree totally with you - it's a Microsoft OS, and will without
question be hacked.
I can't understand why I need 1GB of RAM and a 256MB video
card to type a letter."
All right, now. First point ... Vista could be the most secure
consumer OS in the world and, because it's from Redmond it
WILL be hacked. This is what happens when folks HATE you. I
don't see a solution to this unless Bill Gates can hire Dr Who to
help heal old wounds.
The latest OSX (Tiger, 10.4) requires 256MB (512MB is
noticeably better) RAM and a graphics card twice as buff as the
previous version (Panther, 10.3) needed ... for EYE CANDY. I've
never seen a Mac in the wild with the eye candy turned ON!
Maybe you can't do anything about some of it, but folk turn OFF
what they can. There are plenty of wonderful USEFUL features in
Tiger, what's this thing with genie-effects and the like?

So ... my sympathies, Windows guys. It's one thing to chuckle
and say silly things like "your new OS stole its ideas from our old
one" and quite another to say "Oh, GAWD, not you, too!" And
you Linux guys? You'll likely get yours soon enough - and we'll
ALL be drowning in Eye Candy!

Related Discussions

Related Forums