If they did, they would be cutting XP's price and leaving Vista's as is. But as they know that Vista is so poor that most people would stick with XP they don't have the balls to do this.

if it came free with a packet of cornflakes. (prefer branflakes myself, must be getting old!)

"It's hard to believe that millions of Windows XP users were just waiting for Vista to get a little cheaper before committing themselves."

No. Were waiting for Micro$oft to do unto Vista as Toshiba have (finally) done unto HD-DVD!

By my reckoning using Micro$hafts usual exchange rate..

Thats £20 off the bloated one and £7.50 off the crippled ones.

Vista only versions of applications.

I think many users would like to see versions of software that even work at all with Vista.

It's always been about getting the product that you expect and having a product that shows that the people who made it have some respect for their customers.

I'm still waiting for Apple to release OSX to the general hardware population - there is some serious ping there.

No *@!$ing way.

Not without a 2lb bar of gold thrown in, along with Paris' phone number, and a disclaimer indicating I have no obligation to install the thing!!

<----MS Vista. What IS the IT angle????

I still don't know how they can sitll justify the price difference from home premium to the Ultimate edition (besides AD connectivity, which (most) home users wouldn't need anyway!). I would feel bitter and twisted about it if I'd had to pay for my copy instead of getting it through work.

I doubt that the dollar to sterling exchange rate would make the cuts in the UK though. Daylight robbery, hence the icon.

Yet it still is a blessing in disguise for the £99 computer makers and Linux. THe more they keep the prices up, the better penetration for other distros and hardware sellers of these cheap machines. It beats me now why software more expensive than hardware?

Keep it up MS. Doomsday nearing.

I've been using it for a year and it's pretty good. No problems, and IMO it's a far better experience than XP... or OS[uni]X.

I wouldn't pay for Ultimate, but Home Premium is good value... considering Apple manage to charge shedloads for a service pack, I mean.

Maybe the kids and fanbois will stop bitching someday, but I doubt it. Far easier to make cheap jokes.

HAH! It's not price cuts that are needed to drive user uptake, it's a non-crappy system. I have to support a couple of Vista Business machines at work and have a partition with it installed at home and it seems to be ok (still clunky, bloated and crap compared to XP SP2 though).

IF SP1 improves performance and reliability, people might move to it. I doubt that'll happen though...

Considering that as long as you don't install the overated Service Pack 1 you can still use a *cough* cracked version...

Mine's the 18th Century style one with tails, tri-cornered hat and black eye patch

Why is Vista so expensive?

Even at the 'discount' price of $319 it's still $190 more expensive than Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard at $129...

You can get a 5-user license of Mac OS X for just $199.

Surely economies of scale would normally mean that Mac OS X should cost more than Vista?

by several hundred dollars..

I played briefly with Vista on a brand new laptop. A week was quite long enough to tell me I needed to learn Linux. Vista was slow, annoyingly dialog filled, forced me to upgrade many other apps, didn't work with my wireless network, didn't work with a brand new supposedly vista-compatible printer, hid important stuff etc etc etc. Grrr.

So now I've been dual-boot Linux/XP for 5 months, and the only reason I drop into XP is because my office VPN requires it for a secure remote desktop. Everything else is either native Linux or runs under Wine. And Compiz rocks, way better than Aero...

Agreed - I've been using it for nearly a year and it's pretty good.

What would be nice is if MS (and Adobe, and everyone else) would bring EU and US pricing into line. It's painful to see US pricing (even without the current $:€ rate) and have to pay EU pricing...

Ultimate is the only version with the media center functionality and Remote Desktop available without hacking around with dodgy dlls. That's why I bought it last January. (I've been a happy vista user since)

I just wish they'd decrease the price of the anytime upgrade. I've got Vista Business installed on a new laptop. It's chock full of software and drivers specifically for the laptop that I want to keep, so I'd rather not install a fresh OS. However, to upgrade to Ultimate is around £140, which considering they already got paid for the original license is a complete rip off :(

Vista IS a joke, what do you expect? It's the Paris Hilton of software.

is that locally, a full install of XP Pro (as opposed to the upgrade, which you can't use to go from Vista to XP) sells for between $60 and $100 *more* than Vista Ultimate.

I did two months of hell on Vista. As a self-employed consulant/developer, I couldnt afford to have much downtime.

And so - after it had deleted my user area AGAIN, I switched to OS/X. And run XP in Parallels, and win2k3 test servers in VMWare. The old laptops now have Ubuntu and are quite happy.

Last couple of customer on-site jobs - they were quite happy with me imaging the shonky old laptop they *wanted* me to use. They now sit on the Mac, and give me remote access, etc.

Daughters boyfriend - VistaBoy - is a HUGE vista fan. Well, he was till Vista ate his hard drive.

I cant think of ever letting an MS operating system actually get to the hardware anymore, such is my lack of faith in them.

Given that Ballmer is still there (even after the $13b fine from EU), I cant see it getting any better...

---* Bill

There's a very pertinent saying that I think completely applies to this- "It's impossible to polish a turd"

"Considering that as long as you don't install the overated Service Pack 1 you can still use a *cough* cracked version..."

Yes you can... i'm running an er... 'legimitate' copy of SP1, fully activated. ;)

Sorry to disagree but Home Premium does include all Media Center functionality.

Works pretty well streaming to extenders too

Happy Vista user here :)

I can get the OEM version of XP Pro for about $140 (NewEgg, ZipZoomFly, etc). When VISTA Ultimate drops into that neighborhood, I would upgrade my home PC. Otherwise, I can find better uses for $300+

why not let market forces decide?

ebay?

50p sounds about right....

A student brings in a Vista laptop and tries to do some work with it.

And isn't an elephant a mouse with an Operating System?

I wouldn't pay for Ultimate, but Home Premium is good value... considering Apple manage to charge shedloads for a service pack, I mean.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What??!!!

Apple has never charged a penny for any update, ever. Upgrades, yes. Updates, never.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on:

What I believe that the entire industry is missing, is that enough is enough. Whether we are on Windows or OSX, there is vastly more functionality than most people can handle, let alone, understand. Simply throwing more and more features at any OS does not hack it any longer.

"OOOh look at that!" The window spins!"

"Oh man! That is sOO yesterday! Where's my Evian water, and Burberry condom?"

In terms of a GUI, OS 10.5 still beats Vista, yet as a lifelong Mac user I will neither be upgrading to 10.5.x, nor switching boxes. As far as I am concerned I have exactly what I want: a stable platform. a suite of (expensive) applications, and a small but valuable host of very satisfied clients serviced by my 10.4.x. box, if you will pardon the expression.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Leopard offers this die-hard Mac user nothing other than cost of upgrade, grief in getting early releases to work properly, and expensive upgrades to several applications to get them to work on 10.5, only to discover they work just like they did before. And what is the benefit to my customers?

Four fifths of five eighths of FA as far as I can see.

Apart from spinning windows, when I demo a new marketing campaign. I can anticipate the yawns right now.

Client: "Wow! The window spins! Cool! Now how does this solve my problem?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cut to scene 2:

Vista?: Exactly the same.

Been using it for well over 18 months now and its been brillient. Yes the whiners will no doubt whine, but stability wise it's been fantastic.

XP at launch was a hugely bigger pain in the backside, and 2k before it was much worse in comparison yet everyone heralds them for being so wonderful. Quiet simply, they weren't. Just look at XP, it was slated by many for years, and really didn't work properly till SP2.

The only issues really are those caused by software from third parties which do some half arsed codge to make something work *cough* Symantec...which let's face it, aren't worth installing anyhow.

Price wise is pretty ignorable as I don't believe I've ever spoken to anyone who has ever bought a retail boxed Windows. It just doesn't happen when the online bucket shops give open access to the OEM copies. And an OEM price v Apple's subscription fee to the OS *cough* lets add some crappy feature and call it a new version, frankly doesn't cut it. But as Craig said above, the price for upgrading from one version to another is way to high. The idea of the feature is great, the pricing for it isn't.

Vista's big problem though is why do we need it. We have XP, and its "good enough". Not perfect, but it does. That is the real issue MS is facing with it, and one which will only really change over time as machines are replaced.

History suggests that to establish an OS against a monopoly incumbent you have to give it away. Are M$ about to discover this cold truth? Pigs take off tomorrow at 0900 sharp.

$399 for VIsta Ultimate!? Does it come with an Nvidia 8800GT?

Hell, even $319 is utterly stupid for an operating system for a PC. There are PCs that cost less than that. $399 can get you a system plus flat panel display! Who the hell do they think they're kidding with this crap?

For that matter, does this price cut make Vista better, faster or more likely to work? Does it reduce the memory or disc requirement? Does it make the fancy new GUI work on my formerly top of the range video card? Nope. Nor does it fix any number of the faults that Vista features, nor does it remove any of the crappy DRM that they integrated through to the core.

They could drop the retail price of Vista Home premium to $99 or less and it wouldn't move many more copies. I mean just how many retail copies of this stinker have they sold? 5? From what I have observed the majority (vast majority) of Vista Victims had no choice in the matter thanks to the 'support' of vendors who started shipping their PCs exclusively with Vista. Worse still is the fact that in many cases (Toshiba I'm looking at YOU) the vendor refuses to make XP drivers available making it hard to upgrade (downgrade?) back to XP.

Microsoft has jumped the shark. The jump is a big one and started years ago. Microsoft started drifting further from customers and consumers a long time ago, but Vista is a high water mark of sorts showing How much Microsoft's understanding of what consumers/customers want/need from an OS has diverged from reality. Microsoft has become too used to domination and thought that they could force the pace. They were wrong.

Most people are well aware that buying a PC now gets a system with a process that has a clock speed 100 times that of the Windows 3.11 & OS/2 systems they bought back in the early 90's. The systems have hard disks that are 100 times more capacious and system memory that is similarly 100 times larger. So, our PCs today are at minimum 100 times faster and more capable than those we bought in the mid 90's, why then is it that Windows doesn't respond instantly? I mean if it used to take 20 seconds to open word, then it really ought to take less than a second now. 100 times faster remember....and all those other ordinary operations that Windows performs on our PCs, why are they so slow? Windows is running the show, why on a system that is at least 100 times faster and more capable than before, does it take as long or longer to open a browser, check your email or print a document?

Most people want their PC to be faster, and don't expect to have to upgrade the memory/HDD/video card just to run Windows.They don't expect things to get slower or harder when moving to a new OS. Power users/Geeks and sys admins *hate* the constant introduction of intrusive admin wizards that make it damn near impossible to find configuration settings, or set up network connections because some twit at Microsoft had this idea to make it 'easier'. Vista goes against all of this. It's bigger, slower and less functional than what went before it. It's harder to use and configure and frustrates admin attempts at every turn. Frankly I hate, hate with a passion, all the crappy wizards that Microsoft continues to impose. Time was when someone who know what they were doing could configure a PC to talk to the net. Now you have to pray that the twit implementing the connection wizard didn't screw up, and that your network configuration matches on of the several pre-defined types that the wizard can cope with. Otherwise you may as well start hitting your head against the wall, because that's what it will feel like while you find a way to force Vista to do what NT, 2000 and XP could do with ease.

Microsoft is clearly showing desperation here. Frankly they'd be better off simply throwing in the towel and refocusing on keeping XP alive until the next Windows iteration is ready. Drop Vista and make it possible for everyone to upgrade back to XP in the mean time.

It's quite obvious now that most people don't want to upgrade their operating systems every few years. They just occasionally want small useful bits added to what they've already got. They don't want radical redesigns where nothing works properly any more.

And the problem Microsoft and the whole PC industry has is that people are hanging on to their PCs longer. You don't need a computer with the power to predict weather patterns just to send a few emails and surf the net. So even sales of operating systems that come with new PCs may start to fall soon..certainly in the West.

Microsoft needs a new business plan!

The reason that Vista is £91 more expensive that OS X is that no other operating system expects the end user to pay for a service pack. 10.5.1 is £85, but 10.6.1 will also be £85. As will 10.7.1.

Vista is Windows 6.0 compared to XP which was Windows 5.0.

Leopard is OS X 10.5 compared to Tiger which was OS X 10.4.

Going from OS X 10 to OS X 11 will cost you a lot more than going from Windows 5.0 to Windows 6.0.

As others have said (above) it is about usability and quality. A dud is a dud, whether it's a cheap dud or an expensive one.

I suspect Vista is going the way of Win ME. Knocking a few quid off the price won't make a blind bit of difference.

these vendors have to pay full price to be legal and at those prices, there are huge motivations to install a full Linux distro instead.

The reason why OSX is more stable is because the hardware it is installed on is very strictly controlled and tested. Vista, XP, et al have to deal with an almost infinite set of hardware configurations, third party drivers etc that it's hardly any wonder there are stability issues.

If OSX was available for the more 'general hardware population' then it would face the same problems, if not worse given the lack of drivers.

What exactly would you gain? If your PC came bundled with XP, you'll most likely need to shove in more RAM just to get Vista out of bed and start playing. Then hunt around for all the drivers for your hardware that worked just fine under XP and inevitably find that one or more of them isn't available for Vista. And then cope with sluggish performance, crappy file operation speeds, non-responsive interface, frequent UAC pop-ups, the crippled disk defragmenter and a veritable smorgesbord of applications that won't install or work properly. But hey, there's that lovely Aero interface and ... um ... lots of other neat stuff. Yeah, right. Frankly, for home users it's just not worth the effort or expense.

Try completing the following in 10 words or less with something convincing... "I'm definitely upgrading from XP to Vista because ..." Hard, isn't it?

All I can say is, I came across Vista and found it such a pain in the arse that I went out and got a Mac Mini *Come to the Dark side! - Echoing in my head*

I'm neither a kid or a Microsoft fanboi - the fact is that the best OS on the market for the home PC at the moment is probably XP followed by OSX - Vista is not as quick, stable or widely accepted as those two.

I use a Linux Distro myself, but it's not as good as XP... yet.

What do I get for my money? To quote Ballmer when interviewed on the BBC, "Just look at how rich that interface is.". Yeah, it's very pretty, Steve.

If something does do work, bang on it, until it does. if it still not working, call it rubish or trash or ....

Vista is not for old hardware

Vista is not a copy of XP, so no, stuff have changed place.

Vista is way more secure then XP will ever be

Vista SP1 Solve a lot of problems

Vista (in my case and other poster here) is crash free and work just fine

Of course for now XP seem faster, now load win95 on today's hardware and see how faster it is.

XP is 7 years old. of course it will be fast and snappy on today's hardware, it does not change the fact the it is obselete

MacOS, witch is not even a real os but more an assortment of random codes is the same price as Vista ultimate (or more). There is a update of CrapOS every year of so.. It is sold.. last time i checked the SP for windows OS/Software are free.

Hear hear. About time someone brought that up.

Can you imagine the uproar there would be if M$ only allowed their own designed hardware to run the OS? I can only make a good assumption that if they did take that approach, they would get it right and how. Costs would plummet as the testing schedule would be much shorter, they wouldn't need to do Beta's etc etc.

Let's bear in mind the number of times Vista fails and the percentage of these that are down to drivers, weird hardware.

In my opinion, the price ought to be NEGATIVE (i.e. they pay ME). Here at work, I'm stuck with XP since it is the only thing that runs Internet Exploder, and I need that to fill in my timesheet. I'd be just as happy running Linux (which I do at home) to get the work done. Also it runs on cheaper hardware!

Now things would be REAL complete if Lotus Notes ran under Linux as well.

(*SIGH*)

Windows is for herd-following morons who don't know any better.

OS X is for people who want to use their computer rather than fighting it.

Linux is for people who are better with computers than talking to other humans.

Nuff said.

Is what M$ must be thinking. The roadmap is already there: first we ask an unreasonable price for a flawy OS, later we do some SP fix to introduce new flaws at core level and lower the price (hey! this is now!), then we give it away for free IF you buy a funny smelling furry toy. Later we'll say: we have a new WinDos! And this one is faster, more stable and secure!

It sounds like the path: win98 -> winMe -> Win2K/XP to me. And winMe seems to match to Vista....

Kevin Crisp: Why upgrade to Vista? Well I depend on what hardware you are using. Assuming you have a machine with some power Vista will get that bit extra out of it (used XP on a desktop replacement laptop and got a nice performance boost), better stability and no driver issues (even though Asus didn't officially support that machine at the time I went to Vista).

Sanford Olson: So you compare the retail Vista to the OEM XP Pro and complain abou the price dif? I paid less than EUR200 for my fully legit (and activated) Vista Ultimate. I paid more than EUR250 for the Win2000 OEM disk I brought previously. Id say it's getting cheaper, not the other way around (kind of like Office (Office 4.0 was that expensive in the mid nineties that you got a free quad speed CD Rom with it from most vendors - somewhere in the region of 450 GBP at the time IIRC). Office 2007 Pro = EUR 550. Again cheaper. And that's before you factorin 12 years of inflation.

As to the MS fine by the stupid Dutch woman (and I like the Dutch - even married to one) for being too closed. Does this mean that Apple is about to be crippled with a fine (iPhone totally closed, Mac hardware that you can't install what you want, unless you install OSX first, OSX that will only run on Apple branded hardware etc etc) for being even more closed? No forgot, people like apple because it's 'kewl'. Sure.

-------------

The reason that Vista is £91 more expensive that OS X is that no other operating system expects the end user to pay for a service pack. 10.5.1 is £85, but 10.6.1 will also be £85. As will 10.7.1.

Vista is Windows 6.0 compared to XP which was Windows 5.0.

Leopard is OS X 10.5 compared to Tiger which was OS X 10.4.

Going from OS X 10 to OS X 11 will cost you a lot more than going from Windows 5.0 to Windows 6.0.

-------------

That's the biggest pile of stupid I've seen on here in quite a while - a real achievement!

I've never paid for an OS X "service pack" ever. It probably confuses you that all versions of OS X are numbered "10.something" but I didn't pay for 10.5.1 or 10.5.2, just like I didn't pay for 10.4.1 through to 10.4.11, or 10.3.1 to 10.3.9. They were all free "service packs".

If you think 10.5 is just a couple of "service packs" up from 10.2 and not worth paying for, then thinking obviously isn't your thing, and you should probably stop it now before you fall over and hurt yourself.

When people upgrade and OS they want

a) everything to carry on working

b) see that its faster, prettier and play with the cool new toys

c) do all the stuff they used to

So Microsoft created Vista. It does everything MS needs it to do (They can tell industry how secure it is etc) but at the expense of Users. I hate the blasted thing. With reference to the list above here why.

a) half my software doesn't work or has "issues". driver are bollocks and not only do you get charged for upgrading your OS, you have to pay for all the hardware to go with it

b) it takes an age just to do simple things i.e like copy files (wtf?) and it isn't exactly pretty. its far behind MacOS and most Linux desktops and the funny thing is, that most Linux / Office distros are beginning to work more like windows that Microsofts Windows does.

c) the built in software is no longer there (fax) or its had features removed (backup) or its been moved (hidden?) or its been wrapped in a wizard that stops you changing all the setting you need.

and why the hell are there four versions? which idiot in MS though this was a good idea? do you see 4 versions of Tiger - no, because that would be stupid. The IS may be the most important thing to MS but to the rest of us its JUST an OS, we should have to think about which one we need.

So to the guys at Microsoft ...

For Vista service pack 2, please put all the features back, make it look like XP and please, please never release another OS without asking permission first.

Vista was designed wth security in mind whereas with XP it is a bolt on add-on, yes UAC is a pain but that can be turned off if you are an advanced enough user and know not to click on the pop-ups etc.

Do your research properly with your existing hardware and Vista will be rock solid stable, it has been for me. If you don't do your research and then upgrade and then have problems then why not come onto the register and complain about microsofts (cough your own) incompetance instead.

Desktop search and indexing, this is great, a few minutes after installing vista i needed to find a specific file out of 100GB worth on my second hard disk. I started typing the name in and BANG there it was before I had finished typing.

The new start menu, nice and neat. I have alot of programs installed and hated it when the start menu spread out over my screen and if i misclicked I had to start again, no such problems in vista.

Faster launching of programs with prefetch loading commonly used programs into memory ready for use. I have office 2007, and word for example is ready to go in less than a second.

Vista starts up and shuts down much quicker than XP, about 20 seconds to start on my computer compared to 50 seconds when I had XP.

Built in CD and DVD burning software and with a free add on available over the net I can burn ISOs with no extra software needed. No more nero for me.

Built in parental controls if you have a family, full control over what the little ones can and cannot do.

A much neater interface than XP, no longer looking as some people have said like a fisher price OS, it looks much more proffesional.

Advanced system info including reliability monitor allowing you to see when software caused a problem and in a number of cases actually useful information coming back as feedback suggesting you download a patch or an updated version.

Bitlocker drive encryption with the ultimate version and appropriate hardware.

Flashy interface, well thats an individual thing, I turned it off, no transparent windows or flashy animations when minimising for me.

Also remember, if you are building a new computer or even if you just buy a qualifying piece of hardware you can get the OEM version much cheaper than the full retail version.

Oh and lastly, to those who say it is memory hungry, its true! it is, but considering the price of memory, who cares, £15 per GB for quality named memory!!! I bought 16MB for £400 in 1995 when i upgraded to Win95. I now have 4GB on Vista 64 and it runs like a dream.

Use some common sense, know what you are doing and Vista will be fine.

(in the tones of Nelson Muntz, of course)

OS X 10.5.0 to 10.5.2 on my Mac book cost $0 Nada, zip.

Read all about it here.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307430

Can freely download it here

http://wsidecar.apple.com/cgi-bin/nph-reg3rdpty2.pl/product=17382&cat=1&platform=osx&method=sa/SecUpd2008-001Univ.dmg

No where does it say "Give Steve your credit card number"

Bottom line regardless of what OS you use, the question is "Are you happy with your choice?" If you choose to run Vista and are happy then "fly be free!" Unfortunately most people hate it and the average Joe doesn't have much of a choice when shopping for a new PC. Would you like your Vista on HP, Dell or Acer? Thats as much choice people have. Dell and HP are vastly more influential with their marketing than the alternatives will ever be, that includes Apple ta'boot.

M$ knows this and will never release their control of the OEMs. This is why they can release schlock and it barely make a blip on their bottom line. I agree with some astute people that have said that M$ has lot touch with what the customer/consumer wants/needs. I went from XP to Vista then to OS X and have never been happier. I suggest that if you are considering upgrading to Vista and are unsure then forgo the frustration and learn something that is enjoyable and much simpler to learn...... OS X

Steve Hewitt said:

"Vista is Windows 6.0 compared to XP which was Windows 5.0.

Leopard is OS X 10.5 compared to Tiger which was OS X 10.4."

First off Windows XP is 5.1, 2000 was 5.0, not that version numbers mean a great deal in this context.

However, if you really want to focus on such little things, Leopard is OS X 5.0 and Tiger was OS X 4.0 since the X is OS X stands for (drumroll please) 10! Remember that before Mac OS X was Mac OS 9. So, lets see, MS updates Windows from 5.0 (2K) to 5.1 (XP) and this is an upgrade that you consider significant but Apple updates Mac OS X from 4.0 to 5.0 and that is just a service pack?

As for the price of Vista, it is too much for too little. I recently bought a PC to use as a server. It came with Vista Basic and could barely function whereas it runs along nicely with CentOS 5.0 and which is the most sophisticated OS? Don't answer that, you probably think Vista since it is version 6.0 and CentOS is only 5.0. This is why MS Word went from 2.0 to 6.0 in one step.

I work in the real world, and I install stuff on small Business networks on a daily basis, sometimes 3-4 different networks a day.

In the last 12 months, I have seen less than 20 Vi$ta clients.

Why do you think this is?

Because it offers nothing to the small business user, that's why.

Look at it-you need a new faster PC with more memory, just to run the same software at the same speed. (the software that actually works with it, that is).

There is no upgrade incentive, quite the opposite.

Stevey B, pay me $200 and I'll dig something out of the closet to run F@H on Vista, there's no way in he!! it's going on my primary system.

Vista isn't nearly as bad now as a lot of people make out. but my biggest complaint is what MS did to the way sound works on Vista.

I multi boot xp/vista/linux.

Vista runs everything I throw at it very fast and with no problems, except for the sound. Go over to say Creatives forum and just take a quick look at how many people still aren't happy with the quality of sound through their vista drivers.

I use Auzen X-meridian and that gives a LOT better sound quality under XP than it does under Vista, which gives the end result of me very rarely booting to Vista due to this one reason.

If MS re-introduce DirectSound 3D hardware acceleration etc and simply sort this mess out, I would use Vista every day, but as it is, I have to stick to XP

Every time i come to The Register for news, i cringe when theres news about Vista, because i know the comments will be littered with post's by complete morons whinging about issues that aren't even relievent to Vista.

"Vista only versions of applications.

I think many users would like to see versions of software that even work at all with Vista."

I think you will find pretty much every commonly used application on windows works in Vista. Infact upgrading to Vista was easier than any update of OSX i've done.

Theres nothing worse than getting the newest version of Final Cut / DVD Studio Pro only to find out i can't install it untill u purchase the OSX upgrade.

I use Vista, Ubuntu, and OSX. But Vista is my favourite. Maybe im lucky, cos i haven't had any issues at all with it.

I have recently (About 4 months) Had a brand new Laptop from RM (Educational supplier's).

2gig of ram dual core Intel core2 with Vista business edition on it. (runs like a 386 at times)

Vista is shit3.

I cannot adequately articulate how this non-operating system makes me feel, but I'll try.

1. not in control of anything.

2. nervous about when something will just inexplicably crash.

3. bored as I wait about half a day for it to start up.

4. bored as I wait about half a day for it shut down.

5. just fucking angry.

6. perplexed about what GNU/Linux operating system I'm going to replace it with and whether I should even bother emulating a Microsoft Op on in at all, after my experience with Vista only Photoshop and fruityloops are going to persuade me that its worth it.

i have never used such a bag of shite as Vista and I once used suse back in the day without an Internet connection. Vista really is as annoying as Dependency hell.

out of the 4 month I've had my new laptop one month has been spent in the "no drivers", "Windows is checking for a solution to this problem" and your basis "this program is not responding" state. All of those are clearly euphemisms for "This operating system is shit"

If you are considering buying Vista, don't. It offers nothing apart from resource hogging, flashy graphics and drm that's too easily triggered and again, cripples performance.

To me this is like the Windows ME release. In other words a complete fuck up.

So like I said, doesn't matter if you're a M$ fan or not, just don't do it to yourself, don't fall for the bright shiny objects - wait for the next version.

Don't waste my time talking about Apple's OS or Linux, your arguments about whether they're better operating systems or not are redundant. Of course they are. But that's irrelevant to someone who doesn't want to, or can't use them. I know what's wrong with Windows, I know what's right with the others. So don't waste your time telling me.

I'm talking purely in terms of Windows and to those that either have to, or want to use it. History has shown that Microsoft release a completely fucked up operating system between what I shall call their better versions. Windows Vista is one of the fucked up versions, and if you have any sense whatsoever you'll wait for whatever they release. When they fuck up on the scale that they have with Vista, the next version usually comes along pretty smartish. I reckon next year, or by 2010 at the latest.

"Yet it still is a blessing in disguise for the £99 computer makers and Linux. THe more they keep the prices up, the better penetration for other distros and hardware sellers of these cheap machines. It beats me now why software more expensive than hardware?"

The only reason £99 PC's come encrippled with Vista is because M$ are willing to give it away for the fraction of the cost of XP to the likes of Dell, Acer and HPaq just to get it into peoples homes, otherwise they'd never get it off the shelves.

Not because they've convinced the Original Equipment Manufacturers that it's what their customer's want.

OEM Companies aren't that dumb - before Vista they were making a very nice living out of selling XP bundled machines, their only problems being those caused by the crap Chinese hardware they'd decided to use as a cost cutting execise!

10.5 is not a service pack. It is a OS upgrade and feature change. By that argument, windows 98 and ME are not OSes, they are Service packs for 95 that MS charged for. Same with XP (but from Windows 2000).

Just because Apple didnt throw out everything, doesnt mean its a patch.

"Now things would be REAL complete if Lotus Notes ran under Linux as well."

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/19940.wss

Since 1996 man! Sadly, no Domino Designer (yet, 8.5 in the works), but still - where have you been?

http://www.qtzar.com/blogs/qtzar.nsf/d6plinks/HOBS-7B3QUY

Microsoft might have shot themselves with permanently activated OEM versions. A Dell man told me that their OEMs only run on Dell boxes, but that's simply not true. Any PC with a branded CPU, sold with any MS OS, can run Vista OEMs, without the need of activation or registration. A Dell version of Vista Ultimate, which I installed for testing purposes, worked fine on Compaq- and Medion branded CPUs. They passed all WGA tests and the WGA-tool said they were genuine. After that, I formatted the HDDs in question. I have to admit that I was tempted to keep this blinged piece of software, but it ran like a snail on a 2x+3Ghz box with 2 gig of RAM, and I'm a BSD person, anyway.

But since most ppl bought their PC with pre-installed versions of an MS OS, and with all those Dell ISOs floating around P2P networks, only a few honest souls might actually consider a purchase.

"I'm definitely upgrading from XP to Vista because I want a 64bit Operating system that is windows based.

No problem

Vista is not even worth comparing to XP if you are talking about a 32 bit system. But if you tried XP 64, you'll know that the XP version is SO bad it makes Windows ME look like a resonable alternative!!!

But then again , when a minimum of 92% of all systems in use are not capable of Vista support and most laptop makers offer bulk purchasers in the Business sector the roll back option ! Thus leaving only the public buyers to be the unfortunate guinea pigs for what appears to be currently a flying turkey of limited means , just how much is too much ?

[quote]

Vista is Windows 6.0 compared to XP which was Windows 5.0.

[/quote]

How about... 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, XP was Windows NT 5.1, Vista is NT 6.0

If you're classing non-major version increments as "service packs" then by your definition XP is a service pack to Win2000 which costs money.

Yawwnn... all these rants against Vista will soon be forgotten, and Vista will become the next standard.

Who remembers moving from Win98 to Win2k? Now XP is the new standard. Inevitably, Vista will be the next one.

@eugene

Vista will *NOT* be the next standard. (unless MS is paying for voting again)

Standards are open, such as the unified POSIX architecture - large Sun Workstations, the current Mac Mini et al running Leopard etcetera.

Vista is such a pile of absolute total f***king sh*t that I am banning it from my laboratory as a security risk, never mind the lack of useability, and s l o w.

I've mentioned before - and I'll say this again, I am a Microsoft Partner with hundreds of ISO images VLP of their products in my cupboard. Mosty excellent and creative pieces of software. The VLP ISO XP SP2 image is used nearly every-day, and all of our new shiny Vista ISO discs are left on the shelf, untouched, gathering dust, unloved and totally in need of recycling to make ashtrays or something.

'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!.....This Vista is no more! it has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet 'Steve Balmer! 'it's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'it to the OEM chain 'it'd be pushing up the daisies! It's metabolic DRM processes are certainly 'istory! it's off the twig! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! VISTA IS AN EX-OS!!

You're disagreeing with something I didn't say :) If you're going to the trouble of commenting on someone else's comment, at least read it.

Ultimate is the only vista edition you can remote desktop on to, as well as have the media center stuff.

"And so - after it had deleted my user area AGAIN, I switched to OS/X. "

That's interesting, I mean the OS going ahead and deleting your profile. And not once.

Try completing the following in 10 words or less with something convincing... "I'm definitely upgrading from XP to Vista because ..." Hard, isn't it?

It depends....

"I've upgraded from XP to Vista because the support for offline folders is in order of magnitude better"

I've been running Vista since early betas, and while it still has a huge number of issues (just like XP did when it first turned up), it has just enough improvements that make me put up with it. Although it's also not ideal, I found by turning off a few things (UAC for one deffo) and the SP-1 update, it is far more credible.

For Business Use I'm still recommending XP Pro and will do for a long time - there are too many changes and pitfalls to make it viable yet there (P.S. I'm using it in business - the only person as a test, so I know!), but for home use, everyone I've seen with it does like it - it does have some nifty bits for those types of usage profiles.

If it was down to me though, I'd be running Windows 2000 Pro still, that was rock solid. MS should have kept the Business vs Home fork they had for real as that made a lot of sense and resulted in a less bloated and rock solid OS.

Paris cause she's not fussy what she runs with.

my bro in law bght new vista pc few months bck, waitin to switch bck to xp, hope xp price will come down.

I mean, seriously. They never released the AD management tools for vista - you can get some of them working by using a script to register the dlls that the installer didn't, but some of them still don't work (DHCP for example).

I know they are wanting to move to using powershell for their AD management, but if you're rocking a 2003 domain you're in for some bumps.

As a domain admin, I would expect to be able to do what I want on a machine.

No, vista thinks better.

If I want to do something as simple as a tracert then I have to run the cmd shell as the administrator account, I guess entries in the local admin group is pointless then!

And for those who can't be arsed to download your own telnet client, the windows telnet command now needs to be enabled thru the add windows component.

At least they got rid of hyperterminal, shame they didn't bundle anything else as an alternative.. I guess you always have the right to simply download whatever client you want tho.

Then lets talk about setting permissions on folders, now I have to go thru an additional dialogue box if I wish to do something as unheard of as adding a security group to a folder.

Extra, pointless, dialogue boxes are everywhere now for what was a simple activity in XP.

I should get round to wasting some time figuring out why I can't remotely deploy our sophos AV client too.. but then, I've been too busy to spend some time looking into it.

My solution? I run XP in a virtual PC window so I can use my AD management tools without needing to remote desktop or dameware onto servers and hog sessions.

> Now XP is the new standard. Inevitably, Vista will be the next one.

Sadly, that's probably going to turn out to be the case - Microsoft knows no other way of operating. But isn't it incredibly wrong (not to mention incredibly damaging) that it will become a 'standard' not because of any real improvement, merit, user desire, discussion or comparison - but just because Microsoft will make *certain* it becomes a 'standard' by muscle-flexing alone. No-one ever chooses to purchase a machine because it has Windows installed - that decision is already made.

I guarantee it.

Once 3D video cards are powerful enough to run a killer DX10 game at full resolution with all the options on fast enough. There is not that 'must have' DX10 game out yet. You kids will be the one's who make sure you eventually have it installed in order to run that game.

MS made a shrewd move there.

So bitch and whine about it all you want. You WILL have to install it (Or have a PC with it preinstalled) at some stage in the future.

> You WILL have to install it (Or have a PC with it preinstalled) at some stage in the future.

Pfft - oh no I won't. I dumped Microsoft's crap years ago and haven't looked back since.

It's revealing that the only thing you raised as the 'must have' reason for Vista is games. Well, great; that's just what people with more serious needs require from an OS - that it's good at games. Duh.

>> You WILL have to install it

Will you people listen to yourselves? I've GOT to install it, because MS is going to FORCE me??

F*** me with a chainsaw...

Paris, because she must have tried that, right?

I remember, long ago, when IBM were arrogant, despised, unloved and people flocked to MS because they gave people back control of their computers, provided an OS you could play with, development tools that worked (I cut my PC programming teeth on MS C 5.x on DOS). Everyone wanted, but nobody believed, that IBM would fall from leadership. MS seem to think they too are unassailable... hopefully Vista will cause their pedestal to sway.

Anyway, back to the subject.

http://www.polishedturd.com/

Microsoft are doomed... my daughter is pestering me to get her one for school... it does exactly what she wants, web access, plays MP3s, has a wordprocessor and spreadsheet program... and it's light and fits into her backpack with all her books...

I'll be getting myself one as well this summer to replace the Palm Tungsten E I currently cart around

2008... the year of Linux... finally...

Vista... no matter how much lipstick you put on it, it's still a dog with lipstick on it...

Sitting on the sidelines reading the endless "Vista, Shite or Gold?" debates, I have concluded that the #1 issue with Vista is that it doesn't solve the user's problems.

Just like a bad website! (vide http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com)

That this should be the case is no surprise. Some years ago I was yakking with a dude who did contract work for Microsoft, and one of his remarks has stuck in my mind: namely that Microsofties are "incredibly arrogant."

Between their arrogance and their company's monopoly, it seems like Vista was designed to impose Microsoft's concept of "what the users need" on the world, while getting in bed with the media companies and implementing retrogressive DRM throughout the system.

Did would-be users want more DRM? No. If anything, they wanted less DRM, preferably none at all.

Did potential users want their computer to piss away endless CPU cycles validating drivers 60 times a second? No. They wanted, if anything, an OS that made the highest possible fraction of CPU power available to applications.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. AFAICT, Microsoft still thinks they can force their customer base onto Vista, but as long as there is any kind of escape hatch (Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, etc) this time-honored strategy is at great risk of failing.

After all, if your old, expensive, perfectly functional software won't run under Vista, nor will a lot of your old, expensive, perfectly functional hardware, nor can Vista read your old, expensive, important documents created in old word processors and spreadsheets...after all, if this is the case, one might as well bite the bullet and switch to a system that is less coercive in its outlook.

Flame because, yes, I'm ranting.

I decided to upgrade last Christmas when the 8800GT came out. To make a long story short I found it simpler just to replace the video card in my circa 2005 Athlon. I bought Home Premium Vista, but it's just sitting in the shrink wrap. I just can't make myself go through the trauma of software that doesn't work or requires an upgrade, not to mention 4GB of Ram just to run smoothly. I've thought of selling it on Ebay, but doubt there'd be any takers. Woe is me........

Why bother buying sit when ya can knock it off the net for nothing , it's the cheapest way , mind you I went back too XP afterwards , vista gave me the shit's

> Price cuts in the rest of the world are expected to follow real soon.

Like that would happen in Malaysia.

Quoting what a computer store told me when XP's price went down but they're still maintaining the same price: "Yeah, sure, the price went down. But shipping prices went up. Petrol isn't getting any cheaper. We have to bring it in from Singapore, ya know? And our rent went up too".

> You WILL have to install it (Or have a PC with it preinstalled) at some stage in

> the future.

As long as it's NOT my PCs. Although if I have a son and he does insist on it (anyone want to help me go to the moon, kick some NASA engineers ass, and get some geek-loving girls back?), I'd try to talk him out of the self harm he's going to put himself through.

NO, no, the idea is that they'd PAY ME to run the rotten thing. Even then, I'm not sure I'd have time for all the hassle and fixes I need to make it work even 90% as well as XPpro now does.

I have read a hundred times, i love vista, i hate vista,

and the lovers say, the haters have no real grounds, and its all hardware or drivers etc.

and the haters, are usually sheep, or people that can have lagit reasons for hating it, but to be honest, is there one person out there that has never had a crash or problem on ANY operating system.

if 1 person has never had anythig ever not work, then they are either a computer gos, or the luckiest person on the planet.

anyhow, i have vista ultimate (yup branded already) at home.

and i like it.

have i had problems?

well yes, and as an IT professional its bloody annoying having to spend ages just trying to get things that should work by default work to work.

heres the clincher,

i have a problem at the mo,

Vista wont load DotNet 3 or 3.5, (and then in turn vs2008 coz it needs 3.5)

also all updates dont want to install autoamatically. they lock, need unlocking, rebooting, history clear down, ok next update please.

im not even sure to be honest if they are actually installed, (as the history is now removed). aaaaaugh. anyway, Vista wont even install its own parts.

it does perform ok, i guess,

i do get a blue screen of death every time i try to turn on dreamschene. so thats turned off,

oh and media center seems to be a nightmare with a 3 monitor setup (well 2 monitor + 37" HDTV)...

and it about the same speed as my old 2000 machine o guess for running apps.

(i now have a quad core. 1.5tb raid system, good graphics, & 4gb ram)

am i happy?

let me answer that after sp1.

@Anonymous Coward:

"Windows is for herd-following morons who don't know any better.

OS X is for people who want to use their computer rather than fighting it.

Linux is for people who are better with computers than talking to other humans."

Clearly, you don't use your computer for anything more serious than posting inane, strawman arguments like this to The Register - since there are plenty of real, commercial reasons that people still use Windows. Try working in industry, and you will see what I mean. I say this as a dedicated Solaris man, and no, I don't have problems talking with people.

@Dick Emery:

"Once 3D video cards are powerful enough to run a killer DX10 game at full resolution with all the options on fast enough. There is not that 'must have' DX10 game out yet. You kids will be the one's who make sure you eventually have it installed in order to run that game.

MS made a shrewd move there.

So bitch and whine about it all you want. You WILL have to install it (Or have a PC with it preinstalled) at some stage in the future."

If it weren't for the hugely-successful games console market, I might be inclined to agree. But this isn't 1990 anymore - and people don't buy PCs for games in the same kinds of numbers they did when Wing Commander came out. The decline of the PC gaming market started with the release of the original Sony PlayStation in 1994, and has been eroding ever since. For quite a while now, many of the best games have come out on consoles first, with the PC platform being included only as an afterthought.

Microsoft's choice of fragmenting the DirectX market with Vista will actually harm the PC as a gaming platform, and accelerate its demise. No games publisher will publish for DX10 only, unless they really want to go out of business. With a choice of the Xbox 360, PlayStation 2/3 and the superb Nintendo Wii, who would willingly buy a PC for their kids to game on, when they can just buy them a console and a cheap Linux/BSD/Solaris box? Less headaches for me, more fun for the kids...

Oliver.

It will be inexpensive enough when it's free, and works as well as the free linux variants.

Who thinks that Vista only products are being worked on? Seriously. Anyone think that? Developers will be thinking "Vienna, one year to wait... So why not just patch the software for Vista and wait for Vienna..."

Even M$ brought out "halo 2" as vista only but "gears of war" was Xp as well. So they are back tracking on their own games. M$ back pedal or the developer get hard line for the XP compatilbilty?

@Kirstian K

You answered your own question I think. Your spec is fairly high end and Vista runs fine (barring all the issues) Your system is what, 2000 quids worth new and you are the IT professional who knows what he is doing. Kind of puts you above the issues most people have.

I have Vista ulitmate and I like it to look at, I can't use it as it falls over all the time. I had to get a 1600 machine to run it. I am an IT professional and I use it at work supporting end users. That have a 512 - 768 meg ram, 60 Gb harddrive, no GFX card (on board) and 2.0.ghz chips. printers using serial ports and software from windows 98. It's not pretty.

On my home machine I use XP, but have (briefly) used a Vista machine. For the day-to-day things that I do, it would not be worth upgrading - there is close to zero improvements as far as I'm concerned. Maybe if it worked properly with my two monitors it'd be nice. And if alt-tabbing from a game would keep it maximised (though the two games I play most have a windowed mode). For the improvements I've seen, I'd say £20-30 at best.

Any lockups I've had as of late are heat-related, which would crash any OS I should imagine. So no benefits there.

Even if Vista installed flawlessly on my machine I would gain nothing. I don't bother upgrading my phone, as it does everything I need it to right now, so I don't see why I should upgrade my OS which does most of what I want right now.

I have no intention of upgrading to Vista and I do not have to pay for it - I have access to it through a volume license agreement with the Public Sector.

It seems to me that Vista is like Windows Millennium Edition and best avoided, I could fill pages about all the reasons I won't upgrade but here are a few:

1. On a personal basis the product is way too expensive and does not deliver value for money, the fact that UK and US pricing are not on par exacerbates the situation and I do not accept the “localisation” excuses.

2. One expects each better version to include all of the features of the previous edition, but M$ removes features such as Media Centre and more from the business edition. (http://tinyurl.com/3843r3). All previous "home" editions have been bastardised with loss of security and networking features so the business edition is the bare minimum, yet it does not include things used by SOHO users. M$ would tell you to get the ultimate edition which has priced itself out of the market (even at the reduced price). The home basic and Business editions should be scrapped except as config options through windows install and active directory.

3. Performance, Performance, Performance. I want a lean and mean version of Windows that extends the life of my old computers. What MS delivered was a slow dog that makes a new Core Duo 6750 with 2gb of Ram run like a 486. M$ needs to give its developers the lowest spec machines so they are forced to write mean code.

4. It is so bloody incompatible, I don't know why, I don't care why, I just want it to work with my currently installed programmes in XP. This makes upgrading to Vista cost more as I then have to upgrade ALL my installed software, except that it took months for these to be provided (if they could).

5. Why change things? The list would be endless but removing menus, changing folders for things like documents and settings, expiring accounts etc etc etc are just a few things that worked perfectly well but have been changed. Hasn't M$ heard of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? What is worse is that the replacement renamed features are buried away so you can't even find them and even when you do they don’t have the options that were there in XP.

6. Vista is so alien that it requires complete retraining of users and it adds a burden to the support dept. This cost simply can’t be justified for the above reasons. If I have to move users from XP I would be better off moving them to Linux which may also be alien but at least costs much less. When you add the changes to Office 2007 which create the same issues it makes the Linux move even more attractive. For now we will stick with XP unless M$ makes it unavailable or new kit no longer supports XP.

7. I do not like the way Vista behaves when kit is upgraded (e.g. by removing DRM and forcing activation) again these just create support issues. Nobody likes being forced to do things, XP had similar features but they were not so draconian, again there are no such features in Linux.

I have avoided Linux in the past but M$ is pushing me toward it, especially with things like Ubuntu being so user friendly in comparison to Vista. We do not believe M$ will take on board our concerns and so we are moving one department to Ubuntu to see the support issues it raises and the costs/savings it provides.

If M$ wants to keep users it needs to rethink the whole way it develops software AND the so called beta test programme which should have fixed bugs and foreseen the incompatibility issues. However, that would assume M$ would listen to them. I would never be a beta tester because it would waste so much of my time for no tangible benefit. Perhaps it needs advanced beta testers who do a thorough testing and evaluation in exchange for a free lifetime license of the version being tested.

Vista is a lame duck, the sooner M$ comes out with a replacement the better, but it better be damn good, if I were them I would go back to XP and try to build a faster and more compatible OS. This may make Vista a “cul de sac” but it could always offer a free upgrade which any poor sod that has Vista surely deserves!

Windows XP made its way onto my machine, eventually because it was an easier beast to install; it already recognised all my hardware without the need too hunt the internet for the drivers. The same can be said for Vista, once XP support is withdrawn all the new hardware you buy will slowly become more of a pain to install on an XP machine. This is the path Vista will take to get onto your machine, it will just become easier to setup (given time).

I think, when Windows 7.0 will come around (which doesn't appear to be that far away) Windows Vista will be pushed into the same bin as Windows Me, and Vista will be skimmed over and ignored.

What I don't understand is where all the linux preachers have gone, this comment section is filled to the brim with Mac lovers.

I think people are getting tired of all this operating system noise, I think when the average joe computer user gets tired, they are going to start looking for alternatives and their techie friends will tell them to buy a mac, or install linux for them; which when setup up well (and finds all your hardware) can be a practical machine (look at the eee pc, I haven't missed Windows on it at all; it is a good model for other PC manufacters to follow)

I don't think Vista SP1 is going to be the magic bullet that fixes all the problems, I'm not sure what the user sees as a problem on Vista (such as UAC) micrsoft acknowledges as a problem that needs fixing.

all i can say is ive tried to love vista like i do xp but to be honest its a crippled os slow as drm embedded and lets be frank the nsa helped develop it do i need to say any more i persoanlly think if apple did open there os to run on all x86 hardware then it would be goodbye mr gates and hello mr jobs they should seize there chance while vista is still in infancy

I use xp ive installed vista so many times but every time uninstalled it for one reason its to damn slow