| 4:22 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think this will be a hard sale for MSFT. Computers and software have a huge lifespan right now. It used to be a new computer was needed every 1-2 years to keep up, but now I'm on my third year and will not need a new one until this baby crashes.
"promises to give users faster, better ways to search for data such as e-mails, music, photos and video content"
This is why I use itunes for video, music, etc. It already organizes it all.
They must have some tools they are keeping secret until closer to launch. I'm kind of excited to see what they aren't telling us that is unique to Vista that you can't find someplace else.
| 4:30 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Crap. I'm going to need a new laptop by October and really don't want to have it come with WinXP only to have Vista launch a few weeks later.
| 4:31 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My money's on November 27th
[edited by: mrMister at 4:44 pm (utc) on Feb. 21, 2006]
| 4:40 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One way to get folks to upgrade is to withdraw support.
| 5:12 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'd like to get a new laptop, but I've decided to wait on Vista. I like the direction they're going with the software and especially dualcore/64bit support.
I can wait 8 or 10 months. Probably.
| 5:31 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
as far as the lifespan: I always thought so, but after upgrading, I was extremely to have done so.
| 7:15 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|One way to get folks to upgrade is to withdraw support. |
Don't they have to offer support up to 5 years after the old software is withdrawn? I'm sure when I tried to update Widows 95 a while back something came up to that effect.
| 9:32 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|One way to get folks to upgrade is to withdraw support. |
That's also a way to get folks to look at alternatives like Apple or Linux.
I've switched off a couple of products that forced upgrades lately and opted for Open Source when I can so that tact doesn't play for me. With Open Office and quality browsers available for other OS's, I'm not seeing Windows as the 'must have' it once was.
I quit using Windows servers years ago so the desktop might as well be next.
| 12:52 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MAC is always a good option, especially when the price of same setup is about the same with, say Dell now, and OSX is just great.
| 1:18 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Isn't Vista the one with such high hardware requirements? I don't even think my hadware will run all that 3D stuff. Although there's probably a way to turn off all the special effects, what might I have to go through to do it?
I'll be sticking with Windows 2000 for awhile, which will supposedly be supported until 2010. I'll be dabbling in Linux during that time and hopefully will be able to make a complete switch long before then.
<off topic> Okay, so I'm opening myself wide open to get jumped on from all directions, but I just don't think I could get used to a Mac. Only one mouse button, and all the programs are designed using such (to me) gaudy themes. I'd go distracted before I got any work done! ;) </off topic>
| 2:55 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Isn't Vista the one with such high hardware requirements? |
A few years ago there were some wild figures floating around saying that you'd need a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2GB of RAM; up to 1TB of storage; a 1 Gbit built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than anything I'd seen on the market. The word from Microsoft is that we need to wait until this summer to learn the official requirements, but they have some guidelines here [microsoft.com].
However, I'm able to run multiple copies of Vista simultaneously on significantly less than that (in virtual PCs). The current betas don't have the Windows Aero graphics display yet so I may need some more muscle.
If you have a fairly recent machine you should be able to run this new OS. Rumors have it that there will be a Windows Starter 2007 version which won't use the Vista name because it won't include the Windows Aero graphics and will run on lower-end machines.
| 8:24 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
re macs, much as I don't like the interface, you can and have been able to use 3 button mice with them for a long time. They just don't ship with them.
re hardware, all the new oses need good hardware to run well, osx, linux, and coming vista. Though to be fair, xp runs the best on the worst hardware of all the majors. That advantage will vanish with vista, obviously.
re linux, I'd say the better distros are now very good as desktops for power users, not for average windows users. And for static type installs, gnome is perfectly fine for average users, people who don't change stuff that is,. I'm finding less and less stuff I can't do on a good kde desktop. I don't even use windows xp on my laptop even though I left it installed just in case I need it for something or other.
Since XP didn't show me a thing I wanted, except maybe the slideshow of images functionality, I really don't see what Bill and the gang can come up with that will somehow make my life any better. But I'm seeing a lot from linux, kde, even gnome 2.14 is looking very promising though not my style. Does vista come with native multiple desktop/workspace support? Somehow I doubt it.
I think MS is suffering from two major things: the main guys are all getting old. And they are having trouble snagging the best and brightest developers, those are going to either google or the most interesting open source projects. I'm seeing single people create open source products that are as good as stuff made by big companies, or often better, it's getting silly how good some of the stuff is getting.
Plus, kde and gnome development are moving so fast that I don't see windows competing for high end use in the future, just like MSIE versus Opera or Firefox. Already kde has many applications I'd call significantly superior to their windows equivalants [konqueror or krusader file management for example, both far superior to windows explorer, k3b as default burning utility is much better than the default burning utility xp comes with, and so on], although some stuff is still a lot easier to do on windows, but not for long.
I thought I'd have to make a bunch of sacrifices switching, but the more I see what's been happening over the last 2 years, especially with the newest desktops, the less I see switching as a sacrifice at all. Still poweruser land I will admit though, some stuff will trip you up until you learn how your box actually operates and so on. But once you learn how to use something like apt you will wonder just what it was you liked about windows.
The real test is when Adobe starts releasing native linux builds of its product lines, that's only a matter of time, since building for osx freebsd or kde/gnome linux really isn't that big of a step. Once that happens microsoft loses its virtual desktop monopoly, it will be very fast, it's only application support now that's holding things back. The way GIMP and KRITA are moving, Adobe had better hurry up or they might find that nobody needs their stuff anymore.
| 11:19 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Still waiting for a reason to upgrade from Windows 98.
| 3:46 am on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
went mac - never looked back.
Although, I do hope mac doesn't start becomming more popular, since then we'll be the target of more viruses and all that crap that targets Windows.
| 4:44 pm on Feb 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Went XP and never looked back.
Mac, i just don't get it. sure they're pretty but i'm not paying a premium for that. Those 1700 dollar laptops are slow compared to my sturdy 699 dell.