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 -

Eye candy already on the way for Linux

by K12Linux In reply to Similar with OSX

> And you Linux guys? You'll likely get yours soon enough
> - and we'll ALL be drowning in Eye Candy!

Take a look at the (cool) videos at:

Collapse -

not likely

by apotheon In reply to Similar with OSX

With Linux, sure, we'll have some serious eye candy interface issues . . . except that with Linux you avoid these issues by just not installing the eye candy crap in the first place. It'll probably be another ten years before a Linux kernel is developed that can't run on an old Intel 386.

No worries about drowning in eye candy on Linux. Just don't jump in the eye candy pool, and you'll be fine. I like to go wading in the two inches of eye candy called WindowMaker, and avoid the fat, bloated desktop environments like KDE and GNOME (both of which are feather-light in comparison to the Windows Explorer desktop for Windows XP).

Collapse -

Eye candy

by craig In reply to not likely

Being a graphic designer by trade , I am guilty of enjoying the odd bit of eye candy... I used to support MS systems in Advocates chambers but have recently completed the Novell clp certification and have been blown away by how powerful linux is , so much so I have not even booted my MS machine since completing the course, by all accounts I'm still a newbie in the world of Linux but so far I'm extremely impressed .

I really do not see the attraction for a pretty looking gui anymore if the performance does not justify it being there.At least with Linux you can do away with the frills , if you eliminate the frills in Vista what do you have?... yup you have a resource intensive win2K.

Collapse -

A little too early for that question

by jchapple In reply to I'm with you guys

No point to talk about it now. Vista will not be out for a while. Just read up on the features, and see if there is a business justification to move. Right now, I cannot find one, especially since I will have to replace all my hardware to get it to run.

Collapse -

XP is fine

by davmax In reply to Vista

Personally I too can see little benefit in Vista at this stage. XP gets attacked but it really is not difficult to be well protected. Yes hard for the uninitiated.

Collapse -

Too much trouble...

by Ian Lewis In reply to Vista

I look after a network with Win2k (pro and Server), XP and Server 2003.

Quite frankly the whole Vista thing looks like a waste of my time at this point. Microsoft have got themselves into a really odd position with multiple flavours of OS. (Yes Linux has it too but the development paths are by different groups).

As it is there are a large number of Server 2003 options available. Is that strictly necessary? Having two versions of XP was on odd decision especially as Home is so lame, even weirder that so many suppliers 'recommend' XP Pro and sell Home by default.

I'm happy to stick with Server 2003 for now. Windows 2000 and XP are fine too. The users are happy so I'm happy. Vista is just going to create a whole new (W)industry for Microsoft to use as a cash cow (they hope).

In the meantime I'll be keeping my eyes open and if, and only if, Vista is the best tool for the job will I use it. Maybe when it's been out for two or three years, but by then Linux may well have sorted out the desktop.

Collapse -

Wait for the 'final' Vista Service Pack

by Chief Makota In reply to Too much trouble...

History has taught me that when dealing with Microsoft OS you gotta wait for their 'final' service pack before you touch it. I can guarantee you that there are lots of 'holes' in Vista that will need patching up as soon as it hits the market. I certainly am not going to upgrade to something that needs extra resources when I am doing just fine with Xp. Frankly I think Bill is trying hard to re-invent himself. Peace!

Collapse -

Seen this type of thread before...

by andrew.lawlor In reply to Wait for the 'final' Vist ...

Some people are always pushing to have the latest and greatest regardless of the costs and despite the fact that there is no need for the upgrade.

Like the guy above, I run a network that has about 90 workstations with probably a 70 / 30 split betwee Win2K Pro and WinXP Pro.

WinXP offers nothing more to my users than Win2K. Granted, I've come to like XP -- but it took a long time to get used to it. Having some legit training towards certifications in Win2000 Pro and Server I found that adding WinXP machines to the network offered a few challenges that took some time to overcome.

I'm comfortable enough with WinXP now that I've worked the kinks out and got things set up the way I like. As time goes by I plan to replace the Win2K machines with XP pro.

The last time I participated in one of these threads a guy said that "people like me" are just cheap and lazy but he failed to offer any technical justification for the undertaking the project.

It's the same argument I have about upgrading to the latest version of MS Office.

Tell me what people NEED that they don't currently have with Office 2000 and/or office 2002?

Give me some reasonable justification to spend the money and I'll consider it.

Collapse -

Yeah Right... Office updates

by geeck In reply to Seen this type of thread ...

Bill has often pulled update "OR ELSE" with many of his Office updates. From 95 to 97 there was an incompatibility between Word that forced an update of all Office 95 suites to Office 97 in a workgroup. Then another incompatibility in Excel from 97 to Office 2000 that forced another upgrade... To me this is absolutly crimminal in nature. He trys extends this same philosophy into OS development. Hey, they don't call it the WIN-TEL cartel for nothing... "A Windows O/S forcing us to buy bigger and "better" Intel processors.

Collapse -


by DarkTearz2005 In reply to Yeah Right... Office upda ...

I agree with you geeck, I started out on win98 then upgraded to ME to fix all the so called glitches, then I went to 2000...then bought a brand new computer. And as we know anything you buy new comes with the "new" OS, to make a long story short, I have gotten used to WinXP and I dont plan on upgrading unless I have no other choice. Hence the reason for Vista, eventually Microsoft will stop supporting XP then no one will have a choice but to upgrade. Its just a way to make more money and make people buy, I myself have been considering going to a Linux based system, I think it would be less trouble.

Related Discussions

Related Forums