Will you upgrade to Vista?

[Harrison]

With the release of Vista at the end of January most, if not all, new PCs will be sold with the new OS pre-installed. But for those of us who already have PCs of a current good spec, will you be upgrading to Vista, sticking with XP or deciding later?

For me personally I am waiting until I build my next PC which will probably be later this year in the autumn once all the bugs are ironed out if Vista (see my topic on Vista and Multicore for more on this), and also once the next wave of CPUs are released from AMD which should be later in the year.

[Puni/Void]

I'm going to wait a bit until I build a new machine, so I'm not ready to jump on the Vista wagon just yet. I'm more worried about by finding the right motherboard and gfx-card. ;)

[Demon Cleaner]

I'm more worried about by finding the right motherboard and gfx-card.You have to wait until the last moment you'll buy a new PC. It does not avail that you look now for a mobo and a gfx card if you're going to buy a PC in 6 months.

[Puni/Void]

That's totally true, Demon. Things change quite fast these days, no doubt about that.

[Harrison]

That is very true. Computer technology moves forward at a very fast rate and hardware prices fluctuate a lot even from one week to the next. The best time to start researching the best hardware to purchase is just as you need to buy it. You will know your budget and can then match the hardware to fit what you can afford.

Obviously some of us do keep up to date on current hardware so can easily advise you closer to the time.

Personally I say it is currently best to wait until DirectX 10 based graphics cards are standard and have fully taken over from the current DirectX 9 cards still currently the norm. This should have happened by the summer when more affordable DirectX 10 cards should have taken over the market, instead of at the moment where we only have a single nVidia card that has DirectX 10 support.

The other thing I recommend waiting for is AMD and their next wave of CPUs. At the moment they are dragging their feet releasing chips based on the older AMD64 cores compared to Intel's newer Core CPUs which are currently winning the benchmark battles.

AMD's Athlon 64's are still my preferred CPU, even with the Core Duos showing better results in many benchmark tests, But look at AMD's latest Quad core release. In the case of Intel they have packaged two dual core processors into one single CPU package that requires a single slot and a single heatsink and due to the low power consumption of the Core Duo it still pumps out less heat than the older Pentium D range did. AMD's solution on the other hand is to supply a matched pair of dual core FX processors which require a special dual CPU motherboard, dual banks of ram, and a lot of heat, power consumption and noise thanks to also needing two heatsinks and fans. I'm waiting to see what AMD have waiting behind the scenes as this is a clear case of getting something into the market to compete against Intel whilst they finish off the true successor.

[Stephen Coates]

The only OSs I plan switching to in the future are AmigaOS 3/4/MorphOS/Linux.

[TiredOfLife]

Only looking to upgrade to OS4.0 in the near future. (Hopefully anyway)

[J T]

I'm happy to wait it out for a while. I haven't used the PC for games in quite a while, and don't really need DX10.

I'd like to see Vista running with the natty Aero interface and all that, but am not so keen that I'm going to upgrade my hardware.

[Teho]

As said in another topic, I won't be getting Vista before I build a new system which definitely won't be this year. Only thing that sucks is not being able to get DX10. But developers are going to support DX9 a while yet, that's still the largest userbase for now.

[rayzorblue]

When i eventually get a new system built for me thats when ill upgrade and if im honest i desperately need a new system as mine is finding it hard to run new windows live messenger, WMP 11 and surf the net at the same time without freeing ram every 20 mins.

[Harrison]

Built for you? Have you considered trying to build one yourself?

[rayzorblue]

not really ill get my dad to build it for me i not the technically gifted type, although i did install my dvd drive lol

[FOL]

I will not be upgrading to Vista, simple fact is because compatability sucks. Also i dont like being held randsom. I was looking forward to halo2, and its released as Vista ONLY.

M$ are complete AR**S.

[Harrison]

I will eventually end up using Vista as my main OS at some point, but not yet.

It does have some very nice changes such as the new search facilities, and I like the new way directories work with a Directory Opus style navigation system. And some of the new features such as the games area is a nice idea, although developers will need to directly support.

I can see the logic behind everything that has been done with Vista. There has to come a time when you have to launch a new OS and leave some of the past behind and move on. They have done that with Direct X 10, as well as the ideas for Live! support for PC games, creating a proper central gaming network for PC gamers rather than the current fragmented one with different games using different networks.

It's just going to take some time for everything to be ironed out and for developers to catch up, and for consumers to move on.

And we still have XP. It's not like it has just vanished with the launch of Vista. Dual booting or even running XP as a virtual machine on a dual or quad core equipped Vista system are other options to maintain compatibility.

[Stephen Coates]

Does anyone here have a copy of Vista that I could errm, borrow?

I am certainly not switching to Vista, but I do want to try it out, mostly because I could do with trying out some Mac emulators and comparing them to XP/2000.

[J T]

'Fraid not. I don't know how easy it is to find cracked, give the usual torrent sites a look I guess.

You do know the system requirements are fairly high, right?

Let us know how you get on.

[Harrison]

I was about to say that. What PC spec were you going to try and run Vista on?

512MB ram minimum! And then it won't be nice to use. 1GB ram is really the minimum. And a 3GHz CPU is also really the minimum too.

[Tiago]

I installed it 3 mounths ago in my Asys AV6A i have 1GB Ram but windows was quite slow, i got small problems with some devices.
I think Vista consumes 512MB of Ram just to be sitting on the Sofa, if you want to stand up, more 512MB.... and so on.... :mad:

[Sharingan]

Whenever I hear 'Vista', I immediately think 'Digital Rights Management', and that alone is enough to make me want to not touch it with a ten-foot pole. Also, I've heard horror stories of people needing to call Microsoft to reactivate their copy of Windows after swapping around a stick of DDR-RAM? What the hell.

I'll stick to XP for a while yet.

[Harrison]

As with XP, no point changing until it has been reliably cracked. ;)

[FOL]

lmao, harrison you naughty boy.

*Runs and hides behind his rock*

[Stephen Coates]

I think having to activate stuff with MS is stupid. I still don't get the point (other than to reduce piracy, which I don't see it would do that well).

[AlexJ]

I think having to activate stuff with MS is stupid. I still don't get the point (other than to reduce piracy, which I don't see it would do that well).

The stupid thing about it all is that the pirate copies of course don't need registering making the tedious registration process something that only genuine customers have to put with. It was the same on the Amiga, buy a proper copy and you'd have to enter some code from the user manual or codewheel where as the person with the pirate copied skipped that stage. To an extent something similar happens with films. Buy a genuine DVD and you have to sit through a "Do not copy this DVD notice" where as a download will start straight at the film studios ident. And at the cinema you have to sit through a "There's nothing like seeing ##### at the cinema, but some people still watch illegal copies. This is bad because..." when you're the one that has chosen the cinema option. Or CD's with copy protection to stop people putting them on their MP3 players while the downloaded version is already in MP3 format. There are so many cases where the pirate product is more convenient than the genuine product because of the genuine products anti-piracy measures which are actually ineffective.

[Harrison]

So true. And this is why over the years, I've often purchased originals of games, but then cracked the copy. I therefore own the original, but don't need to enter copy protection details or registration codes.

This was bad on 16-bit systems with you needing to enter codes at the beginning of games, or suddenly getting a code request while playing the game. At least these days on the PC, you normally only need to enter the registration key once when you install the game and not every time you play it.

[Sharingan]

I especially liked the 'dongle' anti-piracy solution that Ocean Software thought of including in a few of their games (Robocop 3, I think?). Brilliant stuff.

Didn't take long for it to be cracked though!

[FOL]

I especially liked the 'dongle' anti-piracy solution that Ocean Software thought of including in a few of their games (Robocop 3, I think?). Brilliant stuff.

Didn't take long for it to be cracked though!

Aye, took me ages to work out why i could get the original, i borrowed from my dads shop to work. After about 1 hours of trying, i went to put it back in the box and found the dongle, lol.

I normally do what harrison does. I buy my games, then install and crack, so the disc goes straight back in the box where it stays in mint condition, ;). I also normally gather them up and crack them, then burn them to a single DVD. Then my originals are preserved forever, :).

[Harrison]

I especially liked the 'dongle' anti-piracy solution that Ocean Software thought of including in a few of their games (Robocop 3, I think?). Brilliant stuff.

Didn't take long for it to be cracked though!

A lot of commercial software used to do that too which was always annoying.

After Effects 4 Professional and 3DSMax 2 were two I remember well as we had them both installed and running on the same IBM workstation at the time and the system would only ever detect one of the dongles plugged into the parallel port at any one time, even though they were meant to have a pass-through feature. This meant we had to keep going behind the desk to swap the dongles over!

I eventually "sorted" that problem by cracking both pieces of software! Not sure where the dongles went after that. ;)

[Stephen Coates]

I would still rather just enter a code from the manual, or from a box (like in Windows 98 etc), than have to actually contact MS. After all, the computer that I am setting up might not have an internet connection, and I certainly don't want to have to telephone them.

[AlexJ]

After all, the computer that I am setting up might not have an internet connection, and I certainly don't want to have to telephone them.

It is a freephone number and an automated "enter the number followed by the hash" system IIRC. So you don't actually have to speak to a real person trying to suss out if you're genuine or not.

[Harrison]

It is still a hassle having to activate software over the internet, regardless of what the software is. But it is understandable, especially for smaller companies who cannot afford to lose too many sales through piracy.

[AlexJ]

As you may remember, I've regularly had crashes on my Vista box due to graphics problems. The latest NVidia drivers helped but there was still the odd BSOD. I've got the thing set up to do Automatic Windows Updates but today one of these wouldn't install so I went manually to the Win Update website. While there I noticed there were about 25 Optional Updates. Clicking to see what these were, there were ones dating back to March on there. Amongst them was an compability update for NVidia cards from several weeks ago. Because this was an optional update as opposed to a critical update, Auto Updates hadn't downloaded the fix to the biggest problem I was experiencing with the system! Well done Microsoft.

[Harrison]

That sounds about right. I try to check the updates site for XP about once a month just in case. And for automatic updates I have it set to notify me of new updates, but not to download them until I've checked. Sometimes they include big updates that I don't need.

[Sharingan]

I'm not sure how the situation is over where you guys live, but complaints about Vista have been mounting, both from consumers and consumer organisations alike. Coupled with major PC manufacturers reverting to selling XP-equipped systems, it's looking more and more like Microsoft made a huge mistake releasing its next-gen OS in its current form.

Unless my XP installation disc spontaneously implodes, Vista definitely won't be seeing the light in any of the PCs I use. Even if said implosion does occur, I'd rather go for Linux Ubuntu, or make the switch to Mac OS.

[Stephen Coates]

Weren't alot of people the same with XP though a few years ago? Like, sticking with 2000, or switching back to 2000.

I think XP will stay on alot of peoples/companies/schools computers for quite a long time yet. My previous school only switched to XP about a year ago. And they still don't have a clue how to set up the computer properly. They are still about as slow as they used to be. Well, slower. The computer facilities at the college that I am at now are much better. College's network seems to work pretty well (with XP), and things like eBay, GMail and forums arn't blocked. I just wish they would have proper keyboards in the library.

I'd say that the majority of stuff I want to do on a computer could be done on NT4, so I'm sticking with Windows 2000. Can't really see much point in changing. It always seems to work and it has hardly ever crashed.

Has anyone used newer versions of MS Office, like 2003 and whatever the new one is? I loaded up Outlook 2003 at college the other day and it said it has a much more efficiant way of working than previous versions. I don't really see what is efficient about being completely different to what one might be used to (for me, outlook 2000 which I use everyday without problems). And I don't see what has changed in MS Word except for having new icons which are hard to recognise.

And does anyone think that IE7 is just Microsoft's attempt at copying Opera and FireFox?

[AlexJ]

Amusingly, over the summer the computer lab at Uni finally switched from 2000 to XP. I'd imagine Vista won't be on those until at least 2014.

[Harrison]

Weren't alot of people the same with XP though a few years ago? Like, sticking with 2000, or switching back to 2000.

That is very true. Windows 2000 didn't really come to the normal home user, so most made a big leap from Windows 9x to XP and it was a big difference that shocked a lot of them. Also many tried to do a system upgrade from 98 or Me to XP and obviously it all went horribly wrong as no one that knows about Windows would recommend trying.

The other big thing at the time XP came out was the sudden lack of DOS and many older 9x programs not working. We all know that ditching DOS was the best move M$ ever made and I think eventually the general public did catch up and realise this too. XP SP2 is a very stable OS when setup correctly. I only ever get system crashes in XP when something is actually wrong with the system such as a hardware issue. Never under normal use. Definitely can't say the same about the 9x OSs and their frequent daily BSOD virtual driver erros.

As for Vista, I don't quite understand the hatred towards it. Most people upgrading to it are coming from XP and it works pretty much the same, except for a bit more polish and shiny graphics. So what is everyone moaning about? The complaints I've heard come down to instability due to driver issues, and incompatibility with software. I've tried lots of different software in Vista now and everything that works in XO runs fine in Vista. I've got it installed on one of my systems and it works fine and is nice to use. The only real issues at the moment are compatiblity with some XP and older games due to the big change in the way Windows and Direct X now work.

People moan when an OS does keep moving forward and being updated and improved. Yet M$ do this with Vista and get flamed. Obviously when a new OS is launched, for the first few months it's new to everyone, even the developers. Something the general public don't seem to grasp. They want their PC to be all things with no problems. It's not going to happen.


I think XP will stay on alot of peoples/companies/schools computers for quite a long time yet.

Yep, again I agree. IT administrators don't want to introduce unknown code into an infrastructure, especially on a large scale such as a school or large company. With XP it is now a very mature OS with a lot of stable applications. For this reason it will be used for some time yet. And there actually isn't any reason for Vista in such locations at the moment. It's only real key new feature is DirectX 10 and only gamers really need that! OK, it does also have a much improved search feature which works so much better than XP's and would aid any business or school greatly, but it's not enough to upgrade in my view.


Has anyone used newer versions of MS Office, like 2003 and whatever the new one is? I loaded up Outlook 2003 at college the other day and it said it has a much more efficient way of working than previous versions. I don't really see what is efficient about being completely different to what one might be used to (for me, outlook 2000 which I use everyday without problems). And I don't see what has changed in MS Word except for having new icons which are hard to recognise.

And does anyone think that IE7 is just Microsoft's attempt at copying Opera and FireFox?Yes, I used Office 2003 and like it over all previous versions of Office. It did change a lot of the layout and structure of the applications, with many of the old popup dialogue boxes now removed and replaced with the right hand panel, which is much better as it stops cluttering up the page.

I've not bothered moving up to Office 2007 yet for day to day use but do have a copy. The new ribbon control method in 2007 is a great idea, but personally I prefer to know the location of the menus and icons and don't like them changing to what it currently thinks I need.

And yes, IE7 was just M$s way of trying to keep up with the other browsers. It does so a better job of rendering pages correctly compared to IE6, but under the bonnet it is still using the same main IE6 rendering engine so isn't really all that new except for the annoying changes to the interface, hiding the menus and useful buttons.

[Harrison]

I'd rather go for Linux Ubuntu, or make the switch to Mac OS.

Linux as a main desktop OS for day to day use isn't that great compared to Windows in my view. It's just not polished enough. Stable yes, enough applications and utilities to do most tasks yes, but it's all still quite clunky graphically as the power is still at the Linux shell command line and it is a business OS at heart designed for speed, stability and data processing.

Mac OS is OK but as I've said many times before I personally think it's stuck in the past. I hate many elements of OSX, especially the one menu at the top of the screen instead of a menu in each applications window (yes this is how Workbench works too but that was 15 years ago). I also hate the quick launch bar at the bottom of the screen. But it is just a different way of doing things in an OS and as with everything each person likes different things. I prefer the way Windows does things and others prefer the Mac way. I also don't like the lack of overall control of the system. OSX is also not 100% stable, regardless of what Apple might try to make you believe. If I had to use OSX I would get back into using a Mac again pretty quickly but it's definitely not something I would pick as a day to day OS out of choice while others still exist. While Windows continues to enjoy the best support from the emulation scene it will stay the OS I choose.

[Tiago]

Harrison, i didnt like Vista at first try, not because of stability, but because it is a quite heavy to a normal PC. I only have 1GB RAM and my CPU is at 1,4 ghz...the vista runs above xp performance, looks like it needs half of the memory just to boot up. I believe it will run ok in faster systems... but in my case (witch is still a lot of people case) it's no good. We need faster/powerfull machines to run it.

[Harrison]

Good point and very true. Vista really needs a system with 2GB of ram to work very smoothly and as intended. 1GB of ram should still work perfectly well though. In your case I think it is definitely the speed of the CPU holding it back, and possibly your graphics card. Vista needs a good graphics card to run the full visual features on the desktop. These can however be switched off or reduced which will greatly speed things up and reduce memory usage. You could even remove the Vista look altogether which will making the system look like you are still using Windows 2000 does mean it runs well and you have all the advantages of Vista.

The big problem at the moment is that many normal home users have a system with 512MB of ram, and many laptops with only 256MB. Neither of which will run Vista well, of at all (and actually won't run XP well either).

This was also the case when XP was first launched, with most not having enough ram to run it well, and for a lot of people this is still the case. It is very common for someone to contact me asking if I can look at their system because it is taking ages to boot and being very slow once it has. The first thing I normally notice is they only have 256MB of ram. Many Laptops still do and this causes a huge slowdown in XP. The first thing I advise is to upgrade to at least 512MB of ram and then to remove all the junk that is loading up at start time. Why people think they need to have Skype, MSN messenger, their phone, camera, scanner and printer utilities and lots more loading at startup into the system tray is beyond me. Although that isn't always their fault because many installer set this up as standard and average users just use their computers and don't actually know how to manage them. And there is the problem.

But I think it is good that a new OS requires system specs that are quite high at the time of it's release. Many argue that an OS should be lightweight and not use many system resources. If you want that Linux exists, but if you want to actually take advantage of high end hardware and a system with good specs then why not have an OS that actually uses them?

You could argue that a system should automatically scale based on the hardware it is running on, but then people would complain that parts appeared to be missing from their OS.

[Zetr0]

hmmmmm

for me VISTA would only be of use in the 64bit version (for that 4GB of ram ;) )

thinking about it though, realistically to benefit from VISTA you would need a serious piece of hardware, for me atleast i would plumb for a very powerfull Linux BOX with WINE. from that i would signup to the Linux DirectX Dev team and help port Dx10 :D

its kinda sickening to be honnest looking at the need for a quite a dreary and somewhat poot OS, 600MB ram just to boot..... thats... thats f*cking disgusting....

anyway I thought i read somewhere that M$ were going to bring out a new OS 2009 / 10 ?

hmmm

[Harrison]

I expect the 2009 OS will be a server release, not a successor to Vista. Windows server 2008.

[Harrison]

its kinda sickening to be honnest looking at the need for a quite a dreary and somewhat poot OS, 600MB ram just to boot..... thats... thats f*cking disgusting....

Do you think Bill got his measurement wrong? 640MB maybe! ;)

And yes, it is very out of order for an OS to need that just to boot. But saying that even the most popular Distros of Linux now require at least 256MB to install and boot which I think needs to be looked at as that is getting too much. I have Fedora 4 on my old laptop with 128MB of ram, but can't upgrade to version 7 as it doesn't have enough ram!

[Zetr0]

@Harrison

I have to admit (sorry for the OT guys)

but I found Fedora core 3 better than the latter models... mind you saying that I miss my slackware build.... sigh....

there really is no need for hundreds of megabytes for booting... an operating system is by nature there to facilitate resrouces not suck them dry!

crazy!

[Harrison]

I think for this you still can't beat Workbench/Amiga OS. It has always been a light weight OS in terms of resources needed compared to nearly every other OS.

[J T]

I'm happy to wait it out for a while. I haven't used the PC for games in quite a while, and don't really need DX10.

I'd like to see Vista running with the natty Aero interface and all that, but am not so keen that I'm going to upgrade my hardware.

So I got a bit fed up of messing about with updates for the copy of XP MCE that Harrison ('lent' - Ed.) to me and bought an (OEM, natch) copy of Vista 64 home premium.

Full experience to follow later but so far I'm actually quite impressed. It's very neat and looks good. Took a bastard long time to install though - so long, in fact, that I went to bed and left it running overnight.

I kept XP on the machine as well, just in case :)

[Harrison]

Vista 64 drivers are meant to be much better now compared to the problems they had when it first launched. And with the 64 bit version you can utilise a full 4GB of ram in your system if you wished. :)

Older pre DX10 games will however still run faster in XP.

[J T]

Mm, yes. I have some faulty sticks of RAM to go back to crucial - I just got another set to try. Turns out they were the reason for those fookin BSODs that were plaguing me. Now the system seems rock-steady with this new set. I am pleased.

When I get replacements for the old ones I'll have 4gig RAM. Probably overkill but why the hell not?

Was quite surprised at how easy it was to get 64 bit drivers. Was a bit concerned it may be fiddly but it all seems OK so far. There's a few unidentified things showing in device manager - think it's something to do with the chipset ACPI something or other. Will go back and use the XP lists to get details and then try and hunt down the vista stuff. Everything seems to be runnig OK so I'm not too concerned at the moment.

IE is a bit slow. Think it's to do with all the phishing/spam/spyware scanny stuff on top of what was an already slow (compared to firefox) browser. Apparently FF3 is buggy on Vista64. I've yet to try it, but will be looking to get back to using FF soon as my main browser.


Older pre DX10 games will however still run faster in XP.

I can boot to XP MCE still easily enough. One thing though - the boot selection screen only appears for a brief second. If I want to boot XP I have to be ready to jab the keyboard quickly before the selection disappears and vista boots. Any way to give me a little longer to choose?

[Teho]

You can set the timer and other options for the boot menu in the BIOS setup I think. Hit DEL or F1 (varies) immediately when booting the PC to enter it. :)

[Stephen Coates]

You can set the timer and other options for the boot menu in the BIOS setup I think. Hit DEL or F1 (varies) immediately when booting the PC to enter it. :)

If JT is on about the boot menu provided by Windows, then this time delay is set in the boot.ini file on the boot disk.

timeout=3 will set the delay to 3 seconds.

Alternatively it can be set in Control Panels/System Properties/Advanced/Startup and Recovery.

[Teho]

Well, yeah. But I was sure you could do that from the BIOS as well? Guess I remembered it wrong then, I haven't had more than on OS on a system in years. Sorry for any confusion then.

[Stephen Coates]

Well, yeah. But I was sure you could do that from the BIOS as well? Guess I remembered it wrong then, I haven't had more than on OS on a system in years. Sorry for any confusion then.

It would depend on the boot loader. If it is the windows one, then that can only be done from windows. If it was a boot loader provided by the BIOS then it would make sense for the to put the settings in the BIOS.

[J T]

Yes, it's the windows loader. I had a poke about in the BIOS and couldn't find any relevant options but thanks anyway Teho.

I'll have a look at what Stephen suggested - ta for that.

[Harrison]

Yep, Steve is right. It's in the control panel he mentions. You can set up the boot menu to link to other OSs if needed and change the length of time to delay before booting.

An easier way to get to it is to right click "My Computer" and select Properties. Then go to the Advanced Tab, and select Settings under the Startup and Recovery section. You can then change the time delay for the boot menu.

[khaxzan]

I plan on keeping to XP unless I absolutely HAVE TO upgrade!

[woody.cool]

Recently, I bought a new laptop to replace my old one and it came with Vista Home Premium.

Personally, I detest Vista, but it's handy to have it, as I could do with learning stuff about Vista as I work for a software company and our customers are starting to get Vista PCs.

My main PC though, is Windows XP, and I intend to stick with XP for as long as I can get away with it (so I'll probably be the last person on earth to have XP in the year 2070:lol:)

[Quagmire]

If it's not an Amiga, it has to be an Apple, so it's OSX all the way:) or Linux if I ever get around to it:dry:

[Harrison]

You will never see me owning and using an Apple! Never! Ever! Mac OS is the devil!