Microsoft Vista from £64.61

Loosecannon_3

To respond to the chap about Dx10 graphics cards being available, yes they are but have you seen the price of them? To most people just short of £300 is not cheap, or money saving when ATI cards will be out to compete and will drive the price down within 6 months.

They way technology moves I will buy/build a whole new PC for Vista - that way I dont have to worry about upgrading parts and ringing microsoft to discuss changes.

If you are not a gamer then upgrading to Vista isnt really worth it unless you buy the memory and have a processor to go with it - or have it already.

psilocybe

Loosecannon wrote:

To respond to the chap about Dx10 graphics cards being available, yes they are but have you seen the price of them? To most people just short of £300 is not cheap, or money saving when ATI cards will be out to compete and will drive the price down within 6 months.

They way technology moves I will buy/build a whole new PC for Vista - that way I dont have to worry about upgrading parts and ringing microsoft to discuss changes.

If you are not a gamer then upgrading to Vista isnt really worth it unless you buy the memory and have a processor to go with it - or have it already.

Yes I have seen the price of them cos I own one. I know its not money saving but I'll prolly get a decentish price for my old DX9 card anyway, that way at least I will make some money back. The same goes for my CPU, i need to get rid of that pretty soon as I do believe they are rare and people will pay quite a good sum.

At least when u upgrade its incremental and not shelling out loads of money all at one time and like I said above, if the old parts are sold then its even less expensive than first imagined. I am a gamer but not hardcore atm.

Anyway back to the topic of this OEM, I still dont know which way to go since there are so many options available with Vista e.g Home, Premium, Ultimate, then OEM or retail. About the only thing I do know is that I shall be buying the 64 bit version since I have the hardware to support it. No point in buying 32bit now and then having to buy 64 bit later on.

smartway

C00kie wrote:

So, for a basic user.... Vista = good /bad? I've got XP on both a laptop and PC. It hurts my head just thinking of it all, is Vista an easy jump or another worthless costly update?

i tried Vista before and caused many problems with compitability
I,d keep XP, I think most of the change in the look

tbird3

smartway wrote:

i tried Vista before and caused many problems with compitability
I,d keep XP, I think most of the change in the look

Most of the change in the look, eh? Very open statement there- so no DX10, Aero, media player 11, bi-directional firewall, User Account Control, Live Icons, etc etc etc. I really get hacked off with someone who has looked at it, and if you did Beta it, then you would know all the differences. Did you use the 64-bit (still awaiting drivers from manufacturers), or the x86 derivative? I have been running the x86 derivative on my Media centre PC for 3 months now, but only for "the look".:mad:
If you are just a basic user, just doing e-mails, etc, stick to XP- if you want the full experience, then go for it as I have. Plus I got it free anyway, for bug reporting.:beer:

Lord_Jason_The_Invincible

Ive used Vista at work (I'm a software developer so have been using the beta versions)

So - some info you might find useful:
1. The EULA (End User License agreement) originally did specify that you would only be able to install the copy of windows vista once, but due to the outrage and negative publicity that caused - this restriction has been lifted though it will only ever be licenced to one machine (if you own two machines - you will require two operating systems, and that applies for virtual machines too)

2. You dont need a dx10 graphics card for windows - if you turn off some of the special effects such as aero, it actually runs quite well - though as a previous poster noted - it is well worth waiting for the better graphics cards to hit the market at cheaper prices becaus it does look nice with all the extra sfx

3. I would really not advise updating to windows vista until it is necessary... windows xp - microsoft's current flagship operating system wasn't all that safe to use (unstable and contained major security flaws) until sevice pack 2 - which was released 3 years after xp hit the market. It is well worth waiting to see what problems crop up for at least 6 months to a year after the uk release date to non-corporate parties (ie you and me - some time at the end of January) or you could end up with more problems than you bargined for!

4. If you are going to be upgrading our current machine - be aware that not al hardware makers have finished writing their vista device drivers - you may find that some of your peripherals don't work or aren't recognised correctly! Check to see that the hardware you have is supported before upgrading...

5. Be aware that even the most basic version of vista is BIG - a full install of the ultimate edition will be 15GB which is hideously bloated seeing as just 15 years ago their windows 3.1 operating system used to fit on 6 floppy disks (just under 9MB!) Thats without all the extra software such as office or your games!

6. There are (or will be as I understand it) 4 different vista products out there.... (there were 6, but I think that got too confusing so now there are 4) make sure you pick the right one for you as the cheaper editions may not have all the functionality you will expect! see this link to find out which is right for you... http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

:beer: Jason

pardal51

Correct me if I'm wrong:

I think you need to order a system to be able to buy an OEM copy....

Also, I wouldn't upgrade to Vista right now...wait till SP1 at least....XP is a very robust OS....Another good option is Linux. They've become very user friendly....try Suse 10...

gromituk

BarGin wrote:

I recently downloaded the latest Ubuntu cd and tried booting my Acer laptop from it. It took about 10 mins to get to a desktop.

That's a long time, but it will obviously take a lot longer to boot than from a hard disk, because the hard disk is so much faster. It also has to store everything in the limited amount of internal RAM, because it can't write temporary data to the hard disk. It has to decompress everything because it is compressed on the CD, unlike when installed on a hard disk. Moreover, it has to probe all the hardware and decide what to do, unlike booting an installed OS which already knows about the machine. It is unfair to complain about this first boot time, I feel, especially when you can't load Windows as a live CD, you have to install it (wiping your existing operating system) - and how long does that take to get a desktop? A live CD is a very clever concept and uses some of the underlying flexibility of Linux to work.

Of the things I tried, there was no sound, no wireless and my wide screen was only offered 4:3 resolutions. I don't know if it would have been any different if I had installed it but I was hardly tempted to.

No, I don't think it would be very different unless you had tweaked it. I'm sorry to hear about that - your complaints are valid. But if you feel you want to contribute to the open-source world, the thing you can do is send bug reports back to Ubuntu. That is how things get fixed, unlike in the Windows world where the hardware manufacturers go first, and money is poured into the solution in the knowledge that it will be recovered in sales later.

I was possibly luckier because my laptop is a couple of years old now. Is yours newer? With manufacturers unwilling to provide information about and drivers for new hardware to anyone except Microsoft, the Linux world is at a disadvantage and has to use the brilliance of its voluntary and paid-for programmers to come up with solutions to these problems, often with no examples of the hardware to work on.

The only thing that didn't work straight out of the box with my RC2 version of Vista was the multi card reader.

Did it work with Ubuntu? It should have worked with Vista!

gromituk

tbird3 wrote:

Most of the change in the look, eh? Very open statement there- so no DX10

What's that and what does it do?

Aero

Is that the 3D desktop that MacOS has had for years and Linux has had for, erm, years too? And isn't that just about the look?

media player 11

You mean further efforts to control your use of music and video that you have legitimately purchased, with ever more restrictive "digital restrictions management"?

bi-directional firewall

What does that do? Linux has had firewalls for many years now - MS is still catching up after the panic about its insecurity

User Account Control

Wow - you mean like Linux has had since its very first version, 15 years ago?

Live Icons

What's that?

etc etc etc.

Exactly - all sorts of stuff being pushed at you not for your benefit (apart from security because the OS was so badly designed from this point of view) but for Microsoft's benefit, because it is in business to sell software and its business is built on sand now that software is mature enough to do all that you want it to do.

I really get hacked off with someone who has looked at it, and if you did Beta it, then you would know all the differences.

Yes - eye candy (you mentioned Aero after criticising the earlier poster for talking about the desktop look), and a catch-up on security.

Did you use the 64-bit (still awaiting drivers from manufacturers), or the x86 derivative?

Wow - how long has there been 64-bit Linux? And all for free.

If you are just a basic user, just doing e-mails, etc, stick to XP

and catch a cold every three minutes. No - migrate to Linux, get off the Microsoft treadmill, and continue to get enhancements, for nothing, if you want them. MS will do all it can to whean you off XP, because XP is no longer where the money is.

Plus I got it free anyway, for bug reporting.:beer:

With Linux, you get it free anyway - bug reporting is entirely up to you, but many people do it because they believe in the concept, rather than because they have been bribed to do so. And if you want, you can even fix the bugs yourself, because you have access to the source code.

BettiePage

We've been using Vista on the main pc for a couple of months. Main problems we've had with it was getting drivers for AOL (got a Beta version), Lexmark and a couple of other things. We still have problems with media player too.
I'd say that personally it's not yet worth forking out for (sprog got a 360 for xmas, so that's being used by DH for gaming at the moment).

everythingblogcast

Remember the OEM means that you have to build your own PC however you can buy any OEM part for example a new hard drive or more RAM and you can legal install and use OEM software.