If you get vista, when will you get it?

[kcnychief]

I thought purple place was why it was $400... hmmm....

Anyway, I will have to say I haven't tested it but the ReadyBoost does sound like an interesting feature. I do like the new GUI, but I have to agree with the annoying 'security' pop ups. I have found that Vista will use some Windows XP drivers to opperate hardware which is somewhat disconcerting but also makes for somewhat of an easier change over on some machines with older integrated hardware. I'm still waiting to give the rest of my systems a go with Vista as I'm still not fully impressed with how it runs on my test laptop.

Not sure that is a fair judgement though, based on how it runs on your laptop. The question has to be asked - what is your Performance Score on your laptop? If your score is not that great, than you could understand why it doesn't run well.

I will agree 100% with people that it's discouraging retailers/OEMs haven't realesed many drivers. While I'm currently 100% operational with all devices I have, including external devices, I can only assume my performance will increase once I receive the drivers I need from the manufacturers.

Vista installed all my hardware out of the box with some of the built-in 12,000+ drivers that are on the DVD.

Quite possible hardware will have to be upgraded to run it, but you can run the Vista Upgrade Advisor to find out what lies in store for you regarding the upgrade.

 

[Evil Marge]

Probably never, cost too much

I forgot to say earlier I agree with Jewelzz point , money doesn't grow on trees sadly.

 

[Perris Calderon]

I'm going with what j79 said...I don't see a reason for the upgrade, it's not giving performance, security, stability gains, what exactly is the purpose?

 

[j79zlr]

I can't believe you would say performance as a reason to upgrade. Maybe if you turn all of the effects off, but but the PC I have it on is fast enough to run it, or at least should be, P4 2.53 1GB RAM and an ATI X700 w/ 256MB GDDR3, but it is noticeably sluggish. My performance score is a 3.6 and should run Aero just fine.

Drivers have never been a big issue for me, if you can get them, then thats fine, but getting my on board sound to work was a pain in the ass, I had to install a specific old version of the XP drivers for it in compatibility mode, not the latest ones. But again, that will change, I am not worried about that.

You keep mentioning security. Popping a confirmation box up three times you want to delete a file is not the answer. #1 it happens so often with the must mundane tasks, that you become accustomed to just clicking to make it go away and #2 you can disable it, and many will. IE7 running in a sandbox is a good idea, but time will tell if it actually works and isn't exploited, and of course the fact that IE7 is hands down the worst modern browser out at the moment. SA for the firewall, I've never once had it ask me permission to allow anything to connect out, I'm sure you can configure it, but it allows everything by default.

As for indexed searches and parental controls, I have no use for either, but users may like it.

Microsoft wasted 5 years on this, hell they had 20 guys working on the start menu, for months? What the hell?

I am disappointed because this was supposed to be a complete rewrite from the ground up, and it is not. A lot of the features promised like WinFS and monad shell were discarded. I guarantee that there will be exploits and spyware and rampant viruses just like XP in a few months after the full public release.

I don't see a lot of businesses upgrading either, XP and Win2k are still on lots of PC's and I couldn't imagine why a company would waste many thousands of dollars on new hardware, retraining employees that accustomed to those previous versions and upgrading their proprietary software to a version compatible with Vista.

 

[madmatt]

It's simple for enthusiasts; those of us who don't like running last years flavor. It is the latest and greatest. Sure, it needs some work, but what OS hasn't?

 

[Perris Calderon]

I can't believe you would say performance as a reason to upgrade. Maybe if you turn all of the effects off, but but the PC I have it on is fast enough to run it, or at least should be, P4 2.53 1GB RAM and an ATI X700 w/ 256MB GDDR3, but it is noticeably sluggish. My performance score is a 3.6 and should run Aero just fine.

Drivers have never been a big issue for me, if you can get them, then thats fine, but getting my on board sound to work was a pain in the ass, I had to install a specific old version of the XP drivers for it in compatibility mode, not the latest ones. But again, that will change, I am not worried about that.

You keep mentioning security. Popping a confirmation box up three times you want to delete a file is not the answer. #1 it happens so often with the must mundane tasks, that you become accustomed to just clicking to make it go away and #2 you can disable it, and many will. IE7 running in a sandbox is a good idea, but time will tell if it actually works and isn't exploited, and of course the fact that IE7 is hands down the worst modern browser out at the moment. SA for the firewall, I've never once had it ask me permission to allow anything to connect out, I'm sure you can configure it, but it allows everything by default.

As for indexed searches and parental controls, I have no use for either, but users may like it.

Microsoft wasted 5 years on this, hell they had 20 guys working on the start menu, for months? What the hell?

I am disappointed because this was supposed to be a complete rewrite from the ground up, and it is not. A lot of the features promised like WinFS and monad shell were discarded. I guarantee that there will be exploits and spyware and rampant viruses just like XP in a few months after the full public release.

I don't see a lot of businesses upgrading either, XP and Win2k are still on lots of PC's and I couldn't imagine why a company would waste many thousands of dollars on new hardware, retraining employees that accustomed to those previous versions and upgrading their proprietary software to a version compatible with Vista.

j79, I was in agreement with your post, did you think I was in dissagreement?

 

[j79zlr]

I was responding to KC's post, but there were a few posted between when I started to reply and actually posted

 

[American Zombie]

XP runs great for me and I see no advantage to go to Vista.

Saw this posted on Bink:

Well we took the plunge about 2 weeks ago. Downloaded Vista from Technet and installed it as a clean install on a system at home. True to all the promises, Vista installed well, with little assistance required from me at all. But that's about the only inspirational thing I can say about it. Sorry.

You see, soon after we installed it we let Microsoft Update go to work. The first driver it offered us was a driver for a SoundBlaster card. It blue-screened the machine on the next reboot - something I did not, in all honesty, expect to see - especially with a driver that Microsoft themselves offered up. So, with the help of Safe Mode and System Restore we are back in operation. Everything working well, a little sluggish, but working ok.

Here's the crunch, though. And I really can't get past this bit. From a Systems Administrator perspective, I see no really compelling reason to move any of our computers in the company over to Vista. Indeed even when we get new hardware that comes with Vista pre-loaded, we will most likely wipe it and put XP back on. This, I think, is going to be the biggest problem for Microsoft...the corporates.

I've been thinking a lot about this, ever since my son announced he'd need to update his computer to run Vista. My answer to him: "Why?". Think about it for a second. Would you go and update all your hardware (at substantial cost) just to run Vista? Isn't the computing experience about the applications that run on the computer and not so much the operating system? The simple fact of the matter is that Vista does not do a whole lot more than XP does. OK, before I get flamed, I know there are some differences, but there is not a sinlge app or game my son runs, or that I run in the office that won't run on XP. That said, arguably there are less things that will run with Vista at the moment.

So there you have it. Sure, it was nice and all but I just don't see us rolling it out in the office any time soon...and I guarantee I am not the only one. In time, sure, but not at the moment. I think Vista will end up being what XP was to Windows 2000, and there are still a heck of a lot of people working away happily on Windows 2000.

 

[Henyman]

will get it via dell with a free upgrade from media center edition

 

[NetRyder]

This thread gives me an idea. Between now and general availability, maybe those of us running Vista RTM should start a thread where all of us mention the things we like about it, one post per feature.

There are several things that I could list, but it's tedious and time-consuming to put them altogether into a single, coherent post. Derek already listed some things, but I'm sure he has more to add as well.

EDIT: Here - I've created a thread so we can get started.

 

[kcnychief]

I can't believe you would say performance as a reason to upgrade. Maybe if you turn all of the effects off, but but the PC I have it on is fast enough to run it, or at least should be, P4 2.53 1GB RAM and an ATI X700 w/ 256MB GDDR3, but it is noticeably sluggish. My performance score is a 3.6 and should run Aero just fine.

Believe it or not, Vista actually runs better with the effects turned ON, rather than if they are turned off. I have seen some statistical proof of that and will try to find it to post here. You say you had a 3.6 - what was your lowest component and what was the part by part score?

Drivers have never been a big issue for me, if you can get them, then thats fine, but getting my on board sound to work was a pain in the ass, I had to install a specific old version of the XP drivers for it in compatibility mode, not the latest ones. But again, that will change, I am not worried about that.

That's not the fault of Vista, that just means that your vendor for your motherboard hasn't released drivers that work with Vista yet. No shocker there, as most haven't - although most are saying sometime within January to push for when the general public can get their hands on it.

You keep mentioning security. Popping a confirmation box up three times you want to delete a file is not the answer. #1 it happens so often with the must mundane tasks, that you become accustomed to just clicking to make it go away and #2 you can disable it, and many will. IE7 running in a sandbox is a good idea, but time will tell if it actually works and isn't exploited, and of course the fact that IE7 is hands down the worst modern browser out at the moment. SA for the firewall, I've never once had it ask me permission to allow anything to connect out, I'm sure you can configure it, but it allows everything by default.

Your assumption of how UAC is handled doesn't make much sense to me. I know in the Betas it was as bad, but with the RTM it doesn't seem to be as convoluted. For example, I haven't had to go through such naggy pop-ups when deleting files, but that depends on how you are running per your own user account. I am running as an Administrator, with UAC enabled, and only get prompted sometimes (difference for a lower account is you have to enter credentials for an admin account) - and havne't found it to be too big of a pain. There are programs that are not "signed" - such as Ccleaner, that requires approval - but I think it's a step in the right direction. I can see your point how some people will fall into habits of just clicking "Approve" or "Accept" without thinking twice, but I'd like to think that once you tell people to pay attention, they would, at least to an extent. Regardless of that, however, in XP it just did everything anyways and the user most of the time didn't know anything was going on. Your open of IE is just that, your opinion. I'm not turning this into an IE vs. FF thread or any other browser. The question was differences between Vista and XP - wether you like it or not, IE comes with Windows. And, from that stand point, IE with Vista is MUCH better than the stand alone in XP simply because of Protected Mode.

As far as the firewall goes, I have been prompted to allow certain programs to access the internet - such as the updater for Adobe and for PerfectDisk - I have noticed at times, that some trusted programs (WOC for example), are recognized, and allowed to go through - thus not prompting me.

As for indexed searches and parental controls, I have no use for either, but users may like it.

Again, your call - I think this will go a long way with helping users find their files when most of the time they don't know where the heck they saved anything. By default, the indexing keeps an eye on anything within the current "users" folder - which is where most things will be saved. Seeing it in action is amazing how snippy/quick the results are.

Parental Controls is amazing, and about time they released it. In both cases, great additions that XP doesn't have - out of the box.

I don't see a lot of businesses upgrading either, XP and Win2k are still on lots of PC's and I couldn't imagine why a company would waste many thousands of dollars on new hardware, retraining employees that accustomed to those previous versions and upgrading their proprietary software to a version compatible with Vista.

I agree with you there. But then again, the reason why some companies are still on 2k in some small cases, is because the upgrade path takes time and money. I have been working on testing Vista for my company for 6 months, and we should start the small upgrade process sometime mid-to late summer. OS Upgrades won't be aggressivly pursued, the IT group willl go first and then pending the success of that, new machines that come in.

You have good points, don't get me wrong. I just feel that you are focusing on the negative instead of trying to look at the positives that it brings. Sure, the higher end version is $400, but there are upgrade paths, and basic home users don't need Ultimate Edition for all the Media Center functionality and advanced networking.

Another thing I like, and it will take time to see how successful this actually is - but vendors will start putting index scores on their hardware, which will make shopping easier for the normal consumers. Such as a PC that gives a performance score of 1.6, and the lowest is their video card (just an example) - they could go to a store, see a video card with 5.0, and know that's a good upgrade

 

[iceman7311]

for those of you running vista, how long does it take to boot up your computer?

 

[kcnychief]

XP runs great for me and I see no advantage to go to Vista.

Saw this posted on Bink:

That is a unique opinion, and I was going to bring up that point about the applications earlier not so much the OS, but couldn't quite recall where I had read it from and I wanted to source it. From an application stand point he's correct, and in some cases (such as PCAnywhere, which was a not-so-nice surprise) you need to upgrade the software (also in that case, Vista ready not yet available).

for those of you running vista, how long does it take to boot up your computer?

My machine boots rather quickly, and shuts down even quicker (compared to XP on same hardware). Rather impressed with how both are handled, I can time it next time I do it.

 

[dave holbon]

My PC is now a two year old Pentium 4 3 GHz, I gig ram type machine so I’m going to upgrade it very soon however I face the following issues. If I purchase the 32 bit version of Vista now (which will run on my current machine as I have RC1 already installed) will I have to purchase it again (64 bit version) for the new PC which will be based on the Intel core 2 Duo? And if I install Vista as an upgrade to XP Home will it overwrite the existing XP operating system negating a dual boot system? And is there an upgrade path from 32 bit to 64 bit and if so how much does it cost?

By the way I disabled my network card the other day and upon re-boot XP told me that I had only three days to activate windows (yet again) which I did however upon re-enabling the network card the same message came up again. This is madness so lets hope Vista does not suffer from this type of behaviour.

 

[kcnychief]

I could be wrong, but from what I understand there is no upgrade path from 32-bit to 64-bit versions.

I hate to beat a dead issue though, but you won't be getting true benefit from the 64-bit OS unless there are applications out there that support it, which currently there aren't many. In regards to the C2D, 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista deal with it the same, at least from what I have seen/read - there are nominal differences at best wrt performance.

 

[LeeJend]

Another aspect I tend to like is performance. I think my machine, on the same hardware that I ran XP with, runs a bit snappier even compared to a fresh install of XP (else an argument could be made that my previous XP install needed a fresh start).

Ok, this one I'm interested in. When I went from 98 to Xp I had a 25-28% performance improvement in multiple benchmarks.

So, has anyone done an XP 64 Bit to Vista 64 BIT or XP 32 BIT to Vista 32 BIT benchmark comparison on their machine?

32 BIT XP to 64 BIT VISTA changeover does not count!

By the way I disabled my network card the other day and upon re-boot XP told me that I had only three days to activate windows (yet again) which I did however upon re-enabling the network card the same message came up again. This is madness so lets hope Vista does not suffer from this type of behaviour.

LMAO. Same deal. My MB LAN died last week and I had to do a telephone reactivation. LAN accounts for most of the points in the "changed computer" calculations so any other little change you made in the last 180 days will cause a reactivation notice with 3 days grace.

If you are going to mess with hardware make a backup of the wpa.dbl file in windows/system32 directory and copy it back into the directory after you are done making changes. It will avoid the nuisance reactivation.

VISTA will have the same behavior, but I'm not sure if the wpa.dbl file trick works with Vista. Anyone else know? Vista does have a limit on the number of reactivations allowed so this could get ugly. MS changed those VISTA EULA terms a few weeks ago and I'm not sure if that Vista issue has been closed now or not.

Remember though that the EULA allows the terms of the EULA to be changed at any time at MS's whim.

 

[j79zlr]

Believe it or not, Vista actually runs better with the effects turned ON, rather than if they are turned off. I have seen some statistical proof of that and will try to find it to post here. You say you had a 3.6 - what was your lowest component and what was the part by part score?

It was the processor, which is plenty fast enough at 2.5GHz to run Linux and all of the Beryl eye candy stuff, and XP, but vista just feels slow. Opening programs, booting and just overall it feels sluggish. Transferring relatively small [200MB] files also takes about 5 times as long as it does with XP or linux. Everything else rated between 4.1 & 4.2, disk space a 5.

That's not the fault of Vista, that just means that your vendor for your motherboard hasn't released drivers that work with Vista yet. No shocker there, as most haven't - although most are saying sometime within January to push for when the general public can get their hands on it.

I know, I said that wasn't their fault and I know it will get better. As far as ASUS releasing updates for my P4PE, I'm not holding my breath, no updates for 2 years from them.

Your assumption of how UAC is handled doesn't make much sense to me. I know in the Betas it was as bad, but with the RTM it doesn't seem to be as convoluted. For example, I haven't had to go through such naggy pop-ups when deleting files, but that depends on how you are running per your own user account. I am running as an Administrator, with UAC enabled, and only get prompted sometimes (difference for a lower account is you have to enter credentials for an admin account) - and havne't found it to be too big of a pain. There are programs that are not "signed" - such as Ccleaner, that requires approval - but I think it's a step in the right direction. I can see your point how some people will fall into habits of just clicking "Approve" or "Accept" without thinking twice, but I'd like to think that once you tell people to pay attention, they would, at least to an extent. Regardless of that, however, in XP it just did everything anyways and the user most of the time didn't know anything was going on. Your open of IE is just that, your opinion. I'm not turning this into an IE vs. FF thread or any other browser. The question was differences between Vista and XP - wether you like it or not, IE comes with Windows. And, from that stand point, IE with Vista is MUCH better than the stand alone in XP simply because of Protected Mode.

There are two apps that really bug with it, AVG & Spyware blaster both prompt you like three times to let it continue. Its just annoying. You still don't really know whats going on, just some generic prompt asking permission, then some other prompt asking you permission. Time will tell if the malware authors can get around this and my money would go with YES.

As far as the firewall goes, I have been prompted to allow certain programs to access the internet - such as the updater for Adobe and for PerfectDisk - I have noticed at times, that some trusted programs (WOC for example), are recognized, and allowed to go through - thus not prompting me.

Never had it prompt me, so I don't know. I wouldn't trust a built in firewall because it will allow any and all Microsoft apps to phone home without asking.

Again, your call - I think this will go a long way with helping users find their files when most of the time they don't know where the heck they saved anything. By default, the indexing keeps an eye on anything within the current "users" folder - which is where most things will be saved. Seeing it in action is amazing how snippy/quick the results are.

Parental Controls is amazing, and about time they released it. In both cases, great additions that XP doesn't have - out of the box.

Like I said, I just don't have a use for this, it could be the best thing since sliced bread.

I agree with you there. But then again, the reason why some companies are still on 2k in some small cases, is because the upgrade path takes time and money. I have been working on testing Vista for my company for 6 months, and we should start the small upgrade process sometime mid-to late summer. OS Upgrades won't be aggressivly pursued, the IT group willl go first and then pending the success of that, new machines that come in.

You have good points, don't get me wrong. I just feel that you are focusing on the negative instead of trying to look at the positives that it brings. Sure, the higher end version is $400, but there are upgrade paths, and basic home users don't need Ultimate Edition for all the Media Center functionality and advanced networking.

Thats just it, I don't really see anything positive about it at all. There is not much new, the GUI is a little more polished at best. There are supposedly a bunch more GPO to make administration easier, but I think an IT department would be insane to roll Vista out any time soon. Besides AFAIK the new SMB sharing breaks some Linux compatibility so if you are in a mixed network this could be a big nightmare.

 

[NetRyder]

LeeJend, what kind of benchmark are you interested in seeing?
My desktop has already transitioned over, but I might be able to give you some before and after numbers on my Tablet PC.

 

[Grandmaster]

I'm enjoying using XP and my laptop the way it is right now.

If Vista came out 5 years ago, I would have been on it as soon as it leaked. I don't feel like I have to be bleeding edge anymore...so I might even just wait till SP1 comes out for Vista.

 

[LeeJend]

LeeJend, what kind of benchmark are you interested in seeing?
My desktop has already transitioned over, but I might be able to give you some before and after numbers on my Tablet PC.

General business app's for now.

Gaming if available. NOT anything from "3dmark" family for gaming! I no longer consider them reliable due to the way they weight CPU vs FPS. Mostly the business app benchmarks for I think it unfair to test Vista for gaming at this early stage of driver and hardware development. (And I haven't been keeping up with who's gaming benchmark is trustworthy these days.

The VISTA feedback I'm getting from the non-techie people I know at work about VISTA adoption are:
1) What's that?
2) Why, what I have works fine?
3) I just learned XP (or in some cases 98, ME, etc).

I think MS (and the stock market) are going to be badly disapointed about VISTA uptake. I remember the long lines when 98 came out, 2000 was ho-hum, then XP was barely noticed. AND 2000 and XP had substantial improvements (speed, plug and play, remote assitance).