Print 125 comment(s) - last by johnsonx.. on Mar 6 at 2:35 PM

Microsoft cuts Vista prices just a year after its consumer launch

Windows Vista has received a sour reputation in the year it has been on the market. Some users of complained about driver incompatibility and performance issues -- among other things -- compared to the venerable Windows XP operating system the came before it. Microsoft addressed a number of these issues with Service Pack 1, but many consumers and businesses are still sticking with Windows XP.

Microsoft is looking to give customers more incentive to upgrade to Windows Vista by cutting the price on some versions of the operating system. Although upgrade versions account for less than 10% of Vista licenses, two upgrade editions will see price cuts.

The range-topping Windows Vista Ultimate (full) will fall from $399 to $319. Windows Vista Ultimate (upgrade) drops to $219 from $259. Finally, Windows Vista Home Premium (upgrade) had its price cut from $159 to $129.

"We anticipate these changed will provide greater opportunities ... to sell more stand-alone copies of Windows," said Microsoft corporate VP Brad Brooks.

Microsoft says that it sold over 100 million Vista licenses since its consumer launch in late January 2007. Hopefully for Microsoft, this latest price cut will help improve Vista adoption.

However, there may be one obstacle in the way that will still stop consumers from making the switch: Windows XP SP3.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No thanks.
By 67STANG on 2/29/2008 10:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'll wait till Vista is <$200 and on SP2.... I'm quite content with my XP SP3 installation right now. Can't beat the speed.

RE: No thanks.
By Master Kenobi on 2/29/2008 10:43:04 AM , Rating: 5
Well if your hardware exceeds XP's ability to handle it, then Vista x64 is your only option. (XP 64 was a disaster)

RE: No thanks.
By jadeskye on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: No thanks.
By MMilitia on 2/29/2008 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 4
OMG he must be some kind of undercover Microsoft marketer amiright?

I mean no one else could possibly find anything good to say about a fairly decent functional OS, could they?

RE: No thanks.
By aharris on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By Aikouka on 2/29/2008 11:44:20 AM , Rating: 5
Even when Vista first came out, the only issues I had with it were not caused by Microsoft but by nVidia. Their driver support was horrid in the beginning and is still quite buggy.

Are you sure comparing the changes in OSX: Leopard to Vista is even fair? That'd be like Comparing the differences between Windows XP and Windows XP SP2 to the differences between OS9 and OSX. Essentially, whether or not you wish to agree, Vista has substantial underlying code changes compared to XP and comparing that to an OS upgrade that provides new apps and some patches is just not right.

RE: No thanks.
By aharris on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By BladeVenom on 2/29/2008 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 5
Apple is not doing a better job when their operating system won't work with 97% of computers. When Apple can make an operating system that can run on my hardware then I'll buy it.

RE: No thanks.
By theapparition on 2/29/2008 6:39:18 PM , Rating: 5
Apple does a better job on their software, period. You DO NOT have to sit back and accept what Microsoft Inc decides to give you.

So your content to sit back and take what Apple gives you?

WTF are you smoking?

First off, Apple controls all hardware and drivers, so they have a level of control that Microsoft will never have. Some see that as an advantage. But the flip side is you are forced into the hardware that Apple provides support for. Want one of those new Graphics cards.......sorry, not supported. Plus, you have to pay a premium for Apple hardware. Plus, there's plenty of software that doesn't run on OSX.

Lastly, we have the Apple mindset. Apple users are used to buying new hardware when new OS's come out. They are used to being forced to running older software 1/3 the speed since it's now running in emulation mode, if it even runs at all. Yet no matter how many times they are shafted, they'll still look down on PC's.

RE: No thanks.
By sphyder on 2/29/2008 11:48:31 AM , Rating: 5
It is not a fair comparison between an Apple OS and a Microsoft OS. On the Apple side, they know exactly what hardware is being used because they control it. On the Microsoft side, they have to deal with hundreds of thousands of 3rd party parts and drivers. It is also an issue of installer/market base. When you look at the big picture you can see that there is no comparison at all. It's like comparing a rubix(spelling?) cube to a tic-tac-toe puzzle.

RE: No thanks.
By retrospooty on 2/29/2008 12:06:40 PM , Rating: 3
"You obviously haven't tried Leopard. Apple got 90% of theirs right the first time."

I hate to break this to you, but Apples latest totally new OS was OSX, several years ago, and it was a nightmare, especially for early adopters. Since then, the incremental releases 10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,and now Leopard 10.5 are not really all new OS's like the OS9 to OSX or XP to Vista was.

Just because Apple add a few features and charges money to go from 10.4 to 10.5 doesnt make it a whole new OS. Lets see OS11

RE: No thanks.
By jla0 on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: No thanks.
By retrospooty on 2/29/2008 2:23:11 PM , Rating: 3
apparently I am the one that needs to explain this AGAIN... using your chart, edited for accuracy

Windows NT 3.0 > Windows NT 4.0 > Windows 2000 > Windows XP > Windows Vista

MacOS X 6 > MacOS X 7 > MacOS X 8 > MacOS X 9 > MacOS X 10.xx

OSX's point releases (10.4 to 10.5) is more equivalent of a service pack, as in WinXP SP1 to SP2

Get it?

RE: No thanks.
By aharris on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By retrospooty on 2/29/2008 3:06:34 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, Apples point releases are adding a good deal more than your average MS service pack, but to say that XP to Vista should have been as easy as 10.4 to 10.5 is rediculous. Vista add a ton of new functionality and security levels, granted MS did a piss poor job at it.

RE: No thanks.
By hiscross on 3/1/2008 9:00:35 AM , Rating: 1
I've been a Vista user since 2006. It runs on Mac hardware. I can say that I like it over XP because of the added functionality it provides. With XP I feel like I'm still in the mid-90's (I use XP at work). Vista provides me some of MaxOS X 10.3 features that I have come to rely on. I'm not sure why Vista is getting a bad rap, but I can say it maybe Microsoft failure to push the industry in standardize PC hardware. Apple controls it's hardware because it makes it's hardware. It uses standard Open Source standards (I'm a developer so I know what's inside). Microsoft can easily work with the hardware people to accomplish the same thing, but have choose to make a buck over leadership. So be it. What I find assuming more than anything is how Microsoft users refuse to demand better out of Microsoft. I can tell you from experience Mac and Linux users demand better and let their respective OS suppliers know it. That said, I will sign-off on this note, nobody is forcing you to buy any product, that is your choice (good or bad). I ask people to stop the hate post that degrades a group of people on their buy choices.

RE: No thanks.
By aharris on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: No thanks.
By retrospooty on 2/29/2008 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 3
I am not saying MS doesnt have its bad points, or that Apple doesn't have its good points... the fact is, both have both, and you should buy what suits you, and what you are comfortable/familiar with.

However, OS9 to OSX was a major upgrade, and did have major problems, you cant deny that... In fact the whole Mac community was up in arms about compatibility issues and many other bugs. 10.3 to 10.4 is an incremental update, as is the move to 10.5, even if new features are added. The point releases are more in line with a service pack on the MS side. XP to Vista is a new OS... Yes, it may be based on the same core, but it is a new OS none the less.

RE: No thanks.
By drwho9437 on 3/1/2008 6:42:32 PM , Rating: 1
Going along with this thread I would say the thesis is somewhat right.

I would say Apple 10.x release are very much like XP SP2. Some people felt that was a big enough change to warrant a new 'name'.

Sure Vista is based on NT, but the real debate is when is a new OS a new OS? I think Apple has the better approach at this point. More linux-ish, constant minor changes. Given what there target audience is both approaches make sense.

Most people hate updates (and learning new systems, thus MS chooses to do that as little as possible). Apple people tend to like keeping up with the newest greatest thing (not all but many).

RE: No thanks.
By jimbojimbo on 3/3/2008 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest difference between the various 10.x releases and XP SP is about $99.

I wouldn't compare it to Linux just because of the money again. Linux updates come constantly but are free. OSX updates come regularly and cost you basically $99 a pop.

RE: No thanks.
By aharris on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By retrospooty on 2/29/2008 3:17:24 PM , Rating: 3
Its not likely fanboyism... I am pretty sure you were voted down for suggesting that 10.4 to 10.5 was smooth, and XP to Vista was not. XP to Vista is a much larger change, including the way drivers deal with system requests, which is why there are so many driver issues.

RE: No thanks.
By callmeroy on 2/29/2008 4:14:42 PM , Rating: 4
These threads are entertaining -- as I never grasp why people get so upset and emo over such things. Maybe if you had tons of money invested in it or you were actually one of the folks who made the project/program/product/whatever THEN I could see it, but man - screw that shit getting all excited over something I have nothing to do with at all - I just use it or don't.

(Kinda like people we sports teams "We won!" - you didn't win jack ass the TEAM won, you just watched!)

RE: No thanks.
By maven81 on 3/3/2008 1:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're getting rated down because frankly you don't know what you're talking about, and are trying to spread misinformation.

First Apple made fun of Microsoft for delaying Vista, and wound up delaying leopard. Then leopard was so "good" that some users had blue screens, that they had to rush 10.5.1, and 10.5.2 (you should see the list of bugs fixed and still remaining for that one). You should also see the list of apple users who went back to tiger (on sites like because leopard was too unstable for them or did not play nice with their hardware. And by that I mean even basic things like waking from sleep, or responding to the keyboard. As I recall even adobe had to quickly update CS3 because it wasn't completely compatible. I'm running Leopard myself in fact and I've experienced weird quirks... (log on screen asking me to log on twice for example).

So excuse me while I laugh about them getting this right, right away. You also somehow neglected to mention that they cripple their software to sell more hardware (time capsule for time machine), I've personally witnessed them pull updates for a couple of days because they screwed up and released a broken one, (must have been 10.3.xx), that their list of stability, security and "other" fixes is no less impressive then microsoft, and that the so called top secret features are merely lifted from other OSes. (Windows Server 2003 already had a "time machine" like backup, just without the snazzy interface. You even admit that it wasn't the first, just more user friendly. Problem is they tout is as revolutionary like everything else they make.)

RE: No thanks.
By 1337cookie on 2/29/2008 5:42:58 PM , Rating: 1
I used leopard on a new mac. It only crashes if you run applications. Its so great i think ill go and buy a mac because i like moving the mouse around on the dock :D.

RE: No thanks.
By Ashrac on 2/29/2008 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 5
Just out of curiosity, which drivers are you worried about. Any technology that is less then about 3 years old has vista drivers now, and most of the hardware from 4-5 years old works. Vista takes a while to get used to it, but after using it for any period of time, most people come to really like it.

One thing that I did love about Vista was this. I did a full AMD to Intel PC upgrade, and all I had to do was take my Vista drive and put it into my Intel machine. Vista booted up no problem, then I just installed new drivers, and reinstalled old video/audio ones. That by itself makes Vista great in my book.

As I have posted before, if you give Vista a chance now, you will most likely find that you like it. You just have to get acclimated to some new ways of getting around in it.

RE: No thanks.
By aharris on 2/29/2008 11:40:40 AM , Rating: 4
Vista wireless is still extremely flaky at times, and TV-Tuner card support is lax from what I've experienced. I work for a cross-platform (Mac/Windows/Linux) IT company - we've done everything we can to like Vista so far, but it continues to disappoint us.

RE: No thanks.
By FITCamaro on 2/29/2008 11:44:00 AM , Rating: 4
In the case of the TV Tuners, you cannot blame Microsoft for hardware companies failing to produce quality drivers and software for their products.

RE: No thanks.
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, what's up with the software for TV tuner cards? I've been wanting to buy one for a while, but for nearly every one I research, there are tons of user comments complaining about crappy software.

RE: No thanks.
By othercents on 2/29/2008 1:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
BTW. I just upgraded my computer and am using Vista Home Premium which has worked great with the Hauppauge WinTV-PVR 500 MCE. I even used the Vista drivers, so I didn't have to install anything when I added the card in. This is a great dual tuner if you are planning to use Media Center.


RE: No thanks.
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 1
Cool, thanks, I'll check that one out.

RE: No thanks.
By djc208 on 3/1/2008 7:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
The software they provide is really only to say they provided something. You can't expect good software from a hardware company, especially for free.

If you wan't good recording software you look to companies that do just that, like Media Center, BTV, or my personal favorite SageTV. There are a few others but these are some of the bigger packages.

If you have the time and skill to set them up they can be extremely powerful. After installing Comskip on my Sage setup I don't even want to watch a regular recording, let alone live TV. If you just want it to work you're better off with a DVR from your provider.

RE: No thanks.
By othercents on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By Sulphademus on 2/29/2008 1:24:44 PM , Rating: 4
Thats because XP and 2K had the same architecture.
Vista is a whole new creature from the ground up.

RE: No thanks.
By Chadder007 on 2/29/2008 6:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
But you can Blame Microsoft for wanting to charge money to the Hardware companies to have their drivers re-certified to work with Vista or to even work at all in x64 Vista.

RE: No thanks.
By Master Kenobi on 2/29/2008 8:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I would call that Quality Control. Assumption is the mother of all f***ups. Assuming an XP driver will function on Vista is wrong. Fact of the matter is that XP drivers don't function on Vista. Requiring new drivers, which means new certifications on those new drivers.

RE: No thanks.
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 8:35:18 PM , Rating: 1
But you can Blame Microsoft for wanting to charge money to the Hardware companies to have their drivers re-certified to work with Vista or to even work at all in x64 Vista.

The cost to certify a driver is just a tiny fraction of the overall development cost of a driver - I'm sure that cost is a non-issue for hardware vendors.

In fact, the cost is so low I doubt Microsoft even covers their own costs in certification.

RE: No thanks.
By Ashrac on 2/29/2008 11:49:31 AM , Rating: 3
TV Tuner Cards it just seems over the last few years have really gone down the pooper in hardware/software quality. Most of the non-professional grade tv-cards you can buy have the most horribly designed software.

On a side note, anyone know of any video-in cards that support HDMI/DVI or component, with HDCP?

RE: No thanks.
By aguilpa1 on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By FITCamaro on 2/29/2008 11:48:58 AM , Rating: 4
First of all XFI sound card doesn't work properly (new hardware)on Vista,

Creative's fault for not producing a driver that works with Vista properly.

Nvidia SLI (multi-cards, new hardware) doesn't work right with Vista

Nvidia's fault for not producing a driver that works properly with Vista.

DX10, the holy grail of VIsta, supposedly, runs like crap compared to XP

First generation DX10 hardware + new programming features + lack of developer experience with it = code that doesn't run as well as it code. As time goes on, DX10 games will get faster and better as the developers learn all the tricks they can do to speed up code. Not to mention DX10 can do far better graphical effects than DX9 is capable of which means there's more data to process and render which lowers frame rates. DX10 games haven't looked much better than DX9 ones yet though because again, developers are still learning.

RE: No thanks.
By ATC on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: No thanks.
By mWMA on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: No thanks.
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 12:15:41 PM , Rating: 3
On the other hand, the OS must move forward. Development cannot come to a complete halt because of backwards compatibility. Microsoft gave lots of warning, lots of time, lots of beta releases, and lots of support to these companies to get their Vista drivers developed in time. Portions of the OS will have to always be re-written to improve the OS with time.

I think if you look generally at the track record of companies like ATI, Creative, etc., there is no question they are always lagging in supporting new OS releases. I say this because I remember the exact same situation when XP came out. I had an ATI card that was only about 1 year old at the time, and ATI took absolutely forever to release drivers that worked with that card. So long that I pitched the card and bought a new card that properly supported XP.

RE: No thanks.
By othercents on 2/29/2008 1:11:05 PM , Rating: 1
the OS must move forward

Are you sure that locking down the API was a move forward or backwards? The only reason for this lockdown and not allowing drivers to access the kernel was to keep viruses from accessing the kernel. The only reason why viruses would access the kernel is if the user wasn't smart enough to get the smallest amount of protection.

I don't see this as a move forward especially now that Microsoft is controlling the API which is causing lag in the system. Perhaps when we all get Quad core 4.0ghz computers with 8 gigs of ram this won't be an issue.

Also, why should a software giant that spends billions of dollars producing an OS blame a smaller hardware developer for not being able to produce a driver for their hardware in 3 months to work on a totally new platform? This is very unrealistic.


RE: No thanks.
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/29/2008 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 3
Also, why should a software giant that spends billions of dollars producing an OS blame a smaller hardware developer for not being able to produce a driver for their hardware in 3 months to work on a totally new platform? This is very unrealistic.

Vista has been available now for quite some time, especially if you include the betas. Also, I am willing to bet that these 3rd party companies had the info up front in regards to Vista before the first beta was even released. It's "unrealistic" that these companies haven't been able to get their products to work properly, unless they just don't care.

RE: No thanks.
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Other, I don't think you understand the situation.

The major changes we're talking about here in Vista are the rearchitecting of the video and sound subsystems. For example, the video subsystem was completely changed, requiring completely new device drivers. Video card manufacturers had several years - not 3 months as you state - in order to react to this upgrade. Microsoft made publicly available information about these changes years ago, and then subsequently publicly released a number of betas and release candidates for Vista. Then they even RTM'ed Vista (froze the bits) for 3-4 months before retail and OEM availability of Vista.

And all that was what they did PUBLICLY, not to mention whatever special support Microsoft provided to the vendors. Buttom line is that video card vendors had PLENTY of time to get their Vista ducks in a row, and they failed, just as they did with the XP release 5 years earlier.

I don't know the specifics of the issues with sound drivers, but I do know that Vista has a rearchitected sound subsystem, and maybe that is causing similar issues for hardware drivers.

The issue with the kernel driver protection, virus protection, and new APIs is completely separate. And I personally think that kernel drivers should be completely protected. Mark my words, you'll see new viruses that find some way to use these APIs to exploit at the kernel level. Besides, anti-virus programs are kind of a stupid patch to a problem that can be better solved through a more robust OS, drivers, and apps.

RE: No thanks.
By Etsp on 2/29/2008 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to have forgotten one point about the API changes. I think one of the major improvments is that Vista has been more isolated from the drivers, so if a poorly coded driver locks up, Vista at least has a chance to catch the problem without the BSOD, and instead have a popup ("The driver had stopped responding, it was restarted") Vastly improving the stability.

RE: No thanks.
By archdale on 2/29/2008 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 3
In regards to the X-Fi sound cards and EAX, its because DX10 cut all the DirectSound stuff. Luckily Creative made ALchemy, which uses OpenAL. Came out after Vista, but fixes most of the incompatibility. So it wasn't a driver issue at all, it was a whole feature cut.

RE: No thanks.
By Ashrac on 2/29/2008 11:55:36 AM , Rating: 5
First off I have no idea what you were trying to say by not driving my grandmas PC.

Second, I run an XFI-Platinum on Vista X64. it works fine. (I give you creative's drivers sucked horribly at Vista Launch) but they have worked fine for 6+ months now.

Third, SLI works as well as it does in XP. Which means it's "pretty good" at best. Most SLI issues are the result of gaming/driver problems and have nothing to do with the OS.

Fourth, :Vista supposedly runs like crap." If you don't know, or have experience ACTUALLY USING VISTA why are you bashing it. I'd guesstimate that 80% of the people that bash Vista have hardly or never used it themselves.

Finally, thanks for calling me a liar. I really have nothing better to do then lie about a hardware upgrade on some interweb forums. I use a retail copy of Vista Ultimate, not a OEM. Yes, I had to re-activate it, but unlike XP it actually booted up to desktop to let me.

RE: No thanks.
By othercents on 2/29/2008 1:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
I have used Vista x32 and x64 in many platforms including three desktops and two laptops. When I recommend an operating system to someone I usually recommend XP over Vista at this point unless they need x64. Some of the reasons is habit and knowing that recommending Vista is just going to cause more questions when the user is trying to learn the new interface, but it is also because XP has consistently run better on more platforms with less hassle.

My new laptop is running XP now because Vista was noticeably slower than XP even with 4 gigs of ram. My new desktop is running Vista and I have yet to determine if I like it, but since it is my Media Center machine I don't think there will be any issues. I never really liked the XP Media Center and I had issues with Divx movies that Vista wasn't have a problem with. All the computers at my office are running XP because the software we run at the office will not run on Vista. Plus why spend $100k to upgrade all the computers to a new operating system when you don't have to?

Is Vista a bad operating system? No it is just different and it is going to take time to work all the kinks out. Until then you either have a specific reason why you need to run XP, you have a specific reason you need to run Vista, or you don't care either way and you run what you have. Some people I know are still running Windows 98 because their machine isn't powerful enough to run XP.


RE: No thanks.
By djc208 on 2/29/2008 11:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
I did the same thing with my XP machine, no problems other than having to re-verify my copy of Windows because of the changes.

I still think MS should have made Vista 64-bit only to help seperate XP and Vista better as well as improving support for X64 Vista. That said, I'll probably move over myself (at least on my Gaming PC) sometime this year. However I don't see me moving my HTPC over any time soon, and my laptop isn't powerful enough to handle it. I'd go to WHS on my HTPC maybe, but we've all seen those news stories.

RE: No thanks.
By Proteusza on 2/29/2008 12:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
I dont see the reason for a 32 bit version of Vista at all.

I couldnt buy a 32 bit CPU if I tried, and although a 64bit OS uses slightly more memory, I dont think its enough for concern.

the only reason I can think of is that it allows people to easily upgrade from XP.

RE: No thanks.
By joemoedee on 2/29/2008 1:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
the only reason I can think of is that it allows people to easily upgrade from XP.

*ding* There are lots of people that still have 32 bit CPUs that are fast enough to run Vista well. (Myself included, however I'm not jumping to Vista quite yet)

RE: No thanks.
By Yawgm0th on 2/29/2008 8:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
I couldnt buy a 32 bit CPU if I tried, and although a 64bit OS uses slightly more memory, I dont think its enough for concern.

Really? There are dozens available on Newegg and similar retailers right now. AMD and Intel both still manufacture 32-bit processors.

I couldn't find a good 64-bit drive for 80% of my hardware if I tried.

There are plenty of reasons for 32-bit Vista.

RE: No thanks.
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 1
I still think MS should have made Vista 64-bit only to help seperate XP and Vista better as well as improving support for X64 Vista.

No, that would have been a disaster for at least three reasons I can think of:

1. 64-bit driver support was nowhere close to where it needed to be to eliminate 32-bit Vista. Remember, 32-bit Vista will load most 32-bit drivers from previous OS releases, which covers a very large amount of legacy hardware devices. 64-bit Vista can't load any 32-bit drivers at all.

2. 64-bit puts even more pressure on memory since the executables are much larger. People already had complaints and peformance issues with Vista 32-bit due to increased memory requirements, and having it 64-bit only would have only made that worse.

3. Many older machines don't have 64-bit capable processors, e.g., P4 machines from 3-4 years ago, which would have blocked any of them from using Vista. These machines can run Vista 32-bit fine today w/o any issues.

If I had to guess, the right timing for a 64-bit exclusive desktop OS will be the next version of Windows. By then processors without 64-bit support will be mostly all retired, most computers will have 4, 8, 16GB of RAM, and the set of available 64-bit drivers will cover available hardware much better (especially since 64-bit driver is a requirement for Vista driver certification).

RE: No thanks.
By Joz on 2/29/2008 11:00:02 AM , Rating: 3
...The only thing missing in xp is tri sli, and thats easily remedied as soon as A. enough people bash nvidia to make it XP, or B. hacked drivers.

XP's abilitiy to handle hardware is fine.

RE: No thanks.
By FITCamaro on 2/29/2008 11:03:15 AM , Rating: 3
Other than its 3GB useable memory cap. Which is causing more and more games problems.

RE: No thanks.
By Brandon Hill on 2/29/2008 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty effed up the games even require 4GB of memory to run (or run well).

Maybe it's b/c I've been out of the PC gaming loop for so long -- I moved to an Xbox 360 before getting rid of it due to RROD issues. I now have a PS3 and a Wii.

Anyway, 4GB of memory as a requirement just sounds so ridiculous to me.

RE: No thanks.
By Ashrac on 2/29/2008 11:24:11 AM , Rating: 3
As visual effects get better and better, and textures and worlds get larger and larger and games get more complex both in visuals and gameplay mechanics they are naturally going to use more memory.

10 years ago you would have said games that require 1 gb of memory to run or run well are crazy. Should we put a limit on advancement because they require better systems/more ram to run?

RE: No thanks.
By Brandon Hill on 2/29/2008 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that we shouldn't make advances in technology, but 3GB isn't enough today for a modern game?

On a side note, what games today require 4GB of memory?

RE: No thanks.
By FITCamaro on 2/29/2008 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
Remember that there are other processes running. And I believe that without a switch in the registry, any application is not able to address over 2GB of memory. And games are starting to use over that much. Supreme Commander is the prime example.

RE: No thanks.
By Ashrac on 2/29/2008 11:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know of any that list more then 2gb in their specs, but you will be hurting to play a game like Crysis or the upcoming Assassins Creed with 2gb of ram. Of course it also depends on your entire system, and what resolution your playing at.

I am not sure exactly why the PC version of Assassins Creed is requiring so much more in the way of specs then the console versions, bad porting perhaps, but with the current trend of designing for console then porting to pc, I don't think that will improve much.

Luckily DDR2 is dirt cheap these days!

I play at 2560x1600 2gb's doesn't cut it for most anything. I know I know, "But Ash! that is more dependent on your video cards" and I'd agree, but it makes a big difference when you add more ram.

RE: No thanks.
By JAB on 2/29/2008 11:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
What is the big deal if it uses more memory when you can get 8gb of RAM for the same price as 1 gb 4 years ago.

I cant say if any games need 4gb until I get it. Windows does too poor of a job reporting memory issues. Windows hates making that kind of choice easy.

RE: No thanks.
By Aikouka on 2/29/2008 11:33:42 AM , Rating: 1
Uhh I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't know of a single PC game that requires 3GB of RAM to run on Vista let alone Windows XP. There was a bug in Vista that caused games to gobble up RAM, but that's been fixed. The only thing I ever needed more RAM for was when I play two World of Warcrafts on the same PC using 2GB of RAM in Vista (Ultimate x64). I upgraded to 4GB and I was fine (3 probably would've been fine as well).

RE: No thanks.
By FITCamaro on 2/29/2008 11:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
By default, processes running in XP are not able use more than 2GB of RAM. You can do some kind of switch to enable them to address more, but most people don't know that. It exists in 32-bit Vista as well. 64-bit is the way to go. I've already got my parents on 64-bit Vista. And when I upgrade myself, it'll be 64-bit and 4GB of RAM.

RE: No thanks.
By micksh on 2/29/2008 2:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
it'll be 64-bit and 4GB of RAM

And 64-bit libraries will eat up the gain from 3.25 to 4 GB that you'll get. And what consumer software is made in 64-bit mode so it can utilize more than 2GB?

So, as I see, the only point of getting x64 OS at home is for system with 6-8 GB of RAM for being able to run several processes each utilizing 2GB (or 2.6 GB max with tweak) simultaneously. Is there much sense in that?

RE: No thanks.
By Runiteshark on 2/29/2008 11:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
How was XP x64 a disaster again?

(Running it for the past 3 years)

RE: No thanks.
By joemoedee on 2/29/2008 1:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
How was XP x64 a disaster again?

(Running it for the past 3 years)

You're a lucky one. I worked for a system builder when it came out, lots of unhappy people.

That progressed until I left, so I can't speak on it from Dec 06 - today. Maybe it got better?

To quote everyone's favorite source, Wikipedia...

Here are some common issues that arise with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

* Driver compatibility; Only 64-bit drivers, which some hardware companies haven't written for their products, are supported.

* Any 32-bit Windows Explorer extension fails to work with 64-bit Windows Explorer. Explorer is a 64-bit program, so it cannot load a 32-bit DLL. However, Windows XP x64 Edition also ships with the 32-bit explorer.exe, which can be used as the user's default shell with a registry change.

* Any 16-bit programs will not run (32-bit software with 16-bit installers based on ACME Setup versions 2.6, 3.0, 3.01, and 3.1 and InstallShield versions 5.x will run correctly)

* Command prompts will not load in full-screen.

* Some (typically older) programs have 16-bit installers and will not run on the x64 Edition

* No native support for Type 1 fonts.

* Windows Media Player 11 for this version of Windows unusually runs as a 32-bit application. The only use for the specific release of Windows Media Player 11 is that the other applications such as Media Sharing do in fact, run 64-bit. Mini player mode on the taskbar is not available (except with the 32-bit explorer.exe).

Personally I think it was a little ahead of its time. Back in 2005, 2 GB of Ram was a lot, yet alone more than that.

The ability to use a massive amount of ram is one of the bigger selling points of an OS currently. If it was released today, I think more support would occur for it. (Now it's more of an afterthought due to Vista)

RE: No thanks.
By emboss on 2/29/2008 8:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
It should be noted (for the context of this subthread) that every single one of the issues you listed is also an issue for Vista x64 ...

RE: No thanks.
By Alexvrb on 2/29/2008 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
How was "XP 64" (Windows XP Professional 64-bit) a disaster? I use it on my main PC right now. Upon release there was spotty driver availability, but by the time I purchased it there were drivers for all my hardware. There might not be full driver support for older or oddball hardware, but its hardly a disaster. I can run all my 32-bit games and software just fine. It's not perfect, but WoW64 works pretty well all things considered. It is very responsive, and in my experience it is even more reliable than XP.

RE: No thanks.
By 67STANG on 2/29/2008 4:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying that Vista x64 is the only version of Vista worth upgrading over XP? Btw, I agree XP 64 isn't all that hot...

RE: No thanks.
By emboss on 2/29/2008 4:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
XP64 is hardly a disaster any more, ironically because of Vista. Initial 64-bit driver support was rather spotty, but once Vista hit the streets, manufacturers had a lot of pressure on them to get 64-bit drivers ready for Vista. Most now offer these drivers for XP 64 as well. Basically, if you want/need to go 64-bit, XP's driver support is just as good as Vista's.

Personally, I've found XP-64 to be a more stable platform than Vista-64. I ran solely XP-64 on my main machine for about 8 months, during which I had a grand total of 0 crashes. On the exact same machine, Vista-64 bluescreens about once a week. Random places - one week the network stack will make it implode, next week it'll be an audio driver. Heck, I had a bluescreen from the task scheduler once. If I dual-boot back into XP64, everything is fine. Memtest & prime95 can run for days without issue as well.

Now whether it's a problem with MS's code or NVidia's or anyone elses is more or less irrelevant. As a *platform*, it is unstable. There's nothing wierd in this machine either - simply a Q6600 on a P35, a 8800GTX, a network adapter (Intel Pro/1000 PF), and 4 GB RAM.

There's also lots of little foibles of Vista that annoy me:
- Folders randomly change their template (eg: just a couple hours ago the folder with the DirectX SDK include files flipped over to the "pictures and videos" template ... wtf?!?!).
- Vista often decides to go and "fix" network configurations for you, usually in response to a link temporarily going down. In my case, this usually results in the inability to access the network any more. Sure, I've got an atypical setup, but leave my configuration alone dammit. The inability to set a network as "private" unless it has a default gateway is also an annoying and virtually undocumented feature that caused several days of hair-pulling when first installing Vista.
- Poor network performance. I often throw multi-gigabyte files across the network (SMB). On XP-64 (after tweaking) I can basically saturate the gigabit link (~95 MB/sec). Vista barely gets 25 MB/sec, even after tweaking. Fortunately, it looks like SP1 should improve this.
- Poor OpenGL performance. Apps with GPGPU code in particular take about a 30% hit under Vista compared to XP (program dependant). Changing to a DX10 backend has brought this back up to only about a 5% performance deficit, which is pretty much standard for XP->Vista.
- Annoying background operations. Every so often TrustedInstaller will fire up and start thrashing the hard drive. If this intersects with me doing a compile, this is an indicator that I might as well go get a cup of coffee. Although these things often operate with "background" disk access, Vista appears to be too aggressively pulling things out of the background request queue. For a bursty-but-localised process like compiling, the additional seek times kill you.
- No more virtual desktops. Well, OK, you can still have multiple virtual desktops, but switching between them changes the Z order on all the windows (and sometimes the position as well), which kills any sort of productivity benefit of having multiple desktops in the first place.
- Reshuffled control panel. Getting to anything usually requires at least one more click than in XP. Apart from changing for the sake of changing, I can't see the point of it. For example, why rename "Add and remove programs" to "Programs and features"?
- Random behaviour of start menu. Apps I have never used will climb their way up the "often used programs" list. For example, at number three I have "Backup and Restore Center", which I have never used. This is sitting above Visual Studio which I use all the time. I told it to go away a few days ago but it came back pretty quickly so I'm just letting it sit there now.
- Slow switching between Aero and whatever-not-aero-is. On my machine it takes 5-10 seconds to switch between the two. Not a big issue, but I have enough apps that trigger the change that I run in non-aero mode. Oh, and it often does the Z order shuffling on the change as well. *sigh*.

On the other hand, UAC is an improvement on XP's user handling. I run as a non-admin user in both environments, and UAC makes temporary switching to administrator mode easier. Also, the ability to click on a program when using alt-tab is very good, and probably the only UI feature I find myself trying to do in XP.

As a whole, despite using Vista on a daily basis for the best part of 6 months, I still find XP-64 to be a better platform. For a non-technical person, I can see Vista being easier to use (and prettier, if you leave aero on), but for me stability, performance, and managability (ie: the OS not "fixing" things it thinks are broken) are more important. And that means I use XP-64 when I can.

(Well, that went on a bit longer than I planned. Also, before anyone says "switch to Linux", I use Solaris via a KVM whenever I'm doing non-Windows specific stuff).

RE: No thanks.
By Yawgm0th on 2/29/2008 8:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
Provided your hardware has 64-bit drivers, Windows XP x64 is very fast and stable. Hardly a disaster. If anything, it works better than Vista x64.

RE: No thanks.
By TheJian on 3/2/2008 4:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
How do you figure XP64 was a disaster? Ryan Dissed xp64 the other day, now you. How much is MS paying you to ignore xp64? I dare you guys to benchmark xp64 vs vista64. :) What hardware does it take to exceed XP64? It is perfectly fine with anything DT/AT has benchmarked with, so what are we talking about? ATI/Nvidia both have drivers with recent fixes (ATI Feb08, Nvidia Dec07 both dated same as the 32bit drivers and readme's apply to the same), chipsets are supported from both also. Toms hardware benchmarked it last in 05 and it was VERY close to xp32. I'm sure drivers are better when fixes are mentioned in the latest readme for games (Fear, Serious Sam2 etc...are in the latest readme). Benchmark it. Prove XP64 sucks.

RE: No thanks.
By mforce on 3/6/2008 2:56:36 AM , Rating: 1
OK, having just installed XP 64 I do admit it's a failure. After getting all the drivers installed and everything updated IE 7 , the 32 bit version doesn't work any more and there'll probably be some more trouble later on.
However a friend had a not so good experience with Vista x64 itself where he just couldn't start the programs from Program Files. And we're not that kind of users that install spyware on stuff on our PCs.
I still feel Vista is kind of bloated and buggy and is not worth what MS is charging for it but then again something is worth what people will pay.

RE: No thanks.
By eye smite on 2/29/2008 12:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happy with XP too. I have one vista system and don't use it much. I'm in that XP comfort zone ya know? I'm sure as time goes by I'll tinker with and use vista more and more.

RE: No thanks.
By Goo on 2/29/2008 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I am happy with Vista all drivers work and all my software work. The only bone I have is the wireless setting, I like the XP wireless networks tab way better than the vista one.

RE: No thanks.
By PWNettle on 2/29/2008 3:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm content with XP.

The only verison of Vista I'd ever want would be ultimate and ~300 for a completely unnecessary OS upgrade is completely ridiculous.

Retail Only?
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 10:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
OEM versions are the "real" price, anyway.

RE: Retail Only?
By enlil242 on 2/29/2008 10:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
Technically OEM version are tied to the machine (Hardware) and cannot transfer to another, although I heard conflicting reports that Microsoft eased up on this restriction...

RE: Retail Only?
By FITCamaro on 2/29/2008 11:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
They changed it so that only replacing the mainboard or hard drive with Windows on it (I believe) will cause Windows to make you reactivate. But there have always been ways around this by just calling support and saying your system got fried.

In my mind they should follow the model of some other software where you can have it tied to a certain machine via a web interface. When you build a new machine, you change the machine its tied to on the website. So if you try to use it with different machines, it'll say the key code is already in use.

RE: Retail Only?
By Proteusza on 2/29/2008 11:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
I can buy 3 OEM versions for the price of one retail version.

Considering that retail versions allow you to transfer your license once, that means even if I throw one OEM copy away after changing motherboards, I save 33%.

Why would anyone ever buy retail, and why doesnt MS either update their EULA or reduce prices?

RE: Retail Only?
By kelmon on 2/29/2008 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong on this but don't the retail versions come supported by Microsoft whereas the OEMs are supposed to be supported by the PC manufacturer (i.e. DIY)? If true then that might be important for people.

RE: Retail Only?
By Proteusza on 2/29/2008 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, Microsoft provides limited free product support for Vista, and none for OEM, not that it matters.

RE: Retail Only?
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
Do you know anyone who has ever called MS for support on any product?

RE: Retail Only?
By Master Kenobi on 2/29/2008 8:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
9 times out of 10 your having problems with a 3rd party application and your calling that companies support line, not Microsoft.

RE: Retail Only?
By kelmon on 3/1/2008 4:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
I did once, years ago, and I can't remember for the life of me what the issue was. Unfortunately, Microsoft wouldn't provide support because my XP license was an enterprise one and therefore our local IT group (who already had said they didn't know the answer to whatever the issue was) was the one to provide the support. Nice enough people to talk to, though.

RE: Retail Only?
By johnsonx on 3/6/2008 2:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to throw away an OEM copy after changing motherboards. *usually* it will activate online again anyway, and if it doesn't you call the activation line and tell them you changed motherboards; they ask you twice 'how many other systems is this copy of Windows installed on?', you tell them 'none' twice, and they give you an activation code. I've NEVER had MS tell me they wouldn't activate a code, even in cases where I know the code has been activated 4 or 5 times before.

RE: Retail Only?
By kelmon on 2/29/2008 12:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
While not wishing to get into an Apple vs. Microsoft debate, but does anyone remember the days before Windows Activation when you could install the OS on your computer without needing to phone their Indian call centre to get the damned thing activated again? One thing I can say for OS X is that not having to get the blessing of Apple to upgrade is nice. I wish Microsoft would abandon Windows Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage as the false-positives are really annoying (I've been at the receiving end of that when upgrading to IE7 - what fun that was...). Just sell one version of the OS for a sensible price and stop treating your customers like criminals.

RE: Retail Only?
By Mitch101 on 2/29/2008 10:41:04 AM , Rating: 3
The problem with OEM is that is supposed to be tied to your hardware meaning that you could be denied moving the OS to a new computer down the road. While I have never heard of Microsoft denying someone from doing this its hard to say never.

When I have called in the past for doing this I has always given the reason that my computer motherboard fried and the phone support would give me the code to activate windows.

Find a friend who is going to school who doesn't need an OS and have them purchase an academic copy for you.

RE: Retail Only?
By Murst on 2/29/2008 11:13:27 AM , Rating: 1
Find a friend who is going to school who doesn't need an OS and have them purchase an academic copy for you.

If you're going to have an "illegal" version of windows, why would you pay for it? And why would you want to involve a friend in this activitiy? I just don't understand your logic.

RE: Retail Only?
By Murst on 2/29/2008 11:21:53 AM , Rating: 1
Thinking about that more, your suggestion reminds me of the darwin awards, w/o any physical injury taking place. :) But the concept is the same.

RE: Retail Only?
By Mitch101 on 2/29/2008 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
My wife is a teacher and I occasionally take a class at the local university allowing both of us a discount. But students do it and sell the copies online.

I think your off by a longshot to make any darwin award analogy.

RE: Retail Only?
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
If you're going to have an "illegal" version of windows, why would you pay for it?
It would still be more convenient.

RE: Retail Only?
By logaldinho on 2/29/2008 12:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
because you would have a legit serial. what makes an academic purchase illegal?

RE: Retail Only?
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 1:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
because you would have a legit serial. what makes an academic purchase illegal?
The entirety of the EULA as it pertains to buying a student version. And that part would actually hold up in court if for some reason they actually wanted to take you there.

RE: Retail Only?
By aju on 2/29/2008 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, illegal is bad. Instead, do it legally. Sign up for some classes. Just enough to meet the requirements and get your student ID. Quickly go out and buy all the student versions of software you want. Be sure to get a good MSDN subscription as it gives you all major Microsoft software and OS versions. I have found it for $799 online. Sounds like a lot, but for 2 years you will get all major Microsoft software and operating systems. You would almost pay as much for a single retail copy of Vista Ultimate ( now $319) and Office 2007 Professional ($400). With the MSDN you get far more. You literally get thousands and thousands of dollars of software. You also get access to betas, service packs, updates and new software in advance of the general population. When the subscription ends you legally keep all that software. You just loose the ability to get anything new from MSDN after your subscription has expired. Once you have legally purchased your student software, go drop all your classes. If you do it correctly, you can get all your money back. Many colleges have a grace period where you see if you can handle the workload. If not you can drop your classes and get your money back.

RE: Retail Only?
By Mitch101 on 2/29/2008 1:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
Plus its tax deductible. I think the limit is $1200 in my state for computer equipment/software when you are a student.

RE: Retail Only?
By aos007 on 2/29/2008 1:31:38 PM , Rating: 1
Not quite. If you read the license agreement you'll find that those academic licenses are valid ONLY while you are enrolled in school! Once you are not a student the license becomes invalid. Therefore your idea would not work. In practice I doubt Microsoft will keep checking you're a student (the university does checking for them when they sell) but given how sensitive (activation happy) Vista is to changing even minor components such as sound and video cards, I wouldn't be surprised.

RE: Retail Only?
By Murst on 2/29/2008 3:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you read the license agreement you'll find that those academic licenses are valid ONLY while you are enrolled in school! Once you are not a student the license becomes invalid.

It all depends on the license agreement. For example, I was able to get software while being a student, and I get to keep it because I graduated.

According to the license agreement that UC has w/ Microsoft (I added the bold):
You will be required to remove the Software from your personal machine immediately upon the earlier of (a) any event, with the exception of graduation , which causes you no longer to be a student of the University of Cincinnati or (b) expiration of the Campus Agreement Subscription term.

RE: Retail Only?
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
So if I built a new computer then I'd just buy another OEM and I'd have 2 copies of Windows for less than retail. In reality, I'm sure we'll be on the next version of Windows by the time I need to upgrade my desktop again. I could drop a Quad 6600 and an 8800GT in my current machine for $465 today if I really needed to, and by the time I fell that's necessary I can probably get better parts for less.

RE: Retail Only?
By Macungah on 2/29/2008 1:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
You should buy a new ($400-500) computer with Vista on it, and then upgrade that.

RE: Retail Only?
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
My upgrade path on a $400 computer would probably be somewhere along the lines of "take the monitor, mouse, and keyboard. Attach a good PC to them."

At least for me. There are plenty of people who do just fine with a $400 internet/email machine, as long as they know that's what they're buying.

Been waiting
By Hexus on 2/29/2008 10:39:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's overdue, with Vista's poor sales and XP still being the benchmark OS, I would think would have done this sooner, or even offered more incentives than just a price cut.

RE: Been waiting
By Master Kenobi on 2/29/2008 10:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
No, its just the 1 year price reduction. Pretty standard for most products.

RE: Been waiting
By Hexus on 2/29/2008 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you're right, but I still think there would be more incentives than just a standard price cut.

RE: Been waiting
By Master Kenobi on 2/29/2008 10:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
Why? As more and more software manufacturers release new versions or new products they are all geared for Windows Vista. This and the OEM's selling new hardware that handles Vista just fine will force adoption of it. All Microsoft has to do is sit back and wait.

RE: Been waiting
By stinkyj on 2/29/2008 11:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's to stir up retail sales.

Most of the licenses are coming from OEM folks. Perhaps PC sales are slowing post holiday and economic issues, so a price cut is a good strategy to encourage the masses. I'm sure initial Vista retail sales were strong with early adopters and MS zealots.

The folks who keep praising Vista, seem to have the common effect of defending their purchase. I guinea pigged a fresh home premium on my daughters previously working XP. Nothing but trouble till i got a new MB for it. Not overly impressed enough to upgrade the rest of my PCs at this point. New builds will probably get it. But if I spent $400 on the ultimate version, id probably want to say it worked darn good too. :)

RE: Been waiting
By BMFPitt on 2/29/2008 11:32:42 AM , Rating: 3
Microsoft rarely ever drops OS prices, though. XP Pro Retail is still $270 on NewEgg because Microsoft really has no reason to reduce it.

RE: Been waiting
By mondo1234 on 2/29/2008 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
In the 1990s, Adobe and MS had always said that they could drop SW prices if they could reduce piracy. Well, now that it is reduced (not eliminated)with activation, Adobe hasn't dropped their prices at all, and MS not significantly even though both companies are selling proportionately more copies.

I like Vista
By Chris Simmo on 2/29/2008 6:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a computer builder. Alot of customers who come in have heard from friends or otherwise how crap vista is. I then ask them what they are doing, and what programs they are using. I then give them a run through the differences. Just about always they leave with a vista computer, and I don't hear from them again. Its peoples first impressions. They use the os for 5 min, don't like it because its too differnt and tell everyone it sucks. We also fix computers, and this year we have had about 80 XP based computers in with spyware and viruses. We have had 3 Vista computers, and that was because the customers weren't watching where they were going. I love vista. It works properly on NEW hardware, you do get better performance with multithreaded applications, particually 3d development (I watched that for my self, 2x faster on and 3800X2 chip). I don't play games on it. I use it for multimedia, very relieant on media center (don't tell me of other programs, don't want to hear it)
MS has done a good job. They had to make changes. Vista might be rough for alot of people. To be honest I don't care. Don't like it, don't use it. I'm sick of you whining. Not everything is MS's fault, rmeber, the hardware is not up to MS always to support, thats the vendors job.

RE: I like Vista
By SavagePotato on 3/1/2008 12:48:13 PM , Rating: 1
Through the last year there hasn't been a vista system in the shop for spyware. There have been dozens of XP systems in that were so badly trashed they were at the reload stage.

The only Vista systems that have come back were ones that users hosed by trying to force XP driver disks to install on, (usually printers and more usually Lexmark printers)

In that year two of those Vista systems had to be reloaded and the rest all were easily fixable with system restore to rollback the improper driver.

I would say that's a pretty good track record compared to the dozens of torched XP machines, not to mention some of those XP machines are repeat visitors. We have many customers that destroy their machine on a three month cycle and keep bringing it back in loaded to the gills with malware.

Still overpriced...
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/29/2008 8:06:22 PM , Rating: 1
Ultimate's price is ridiculous, I would buy Vista if its price was ~$50-$60 and ~$75 for the Ultimate edition, but these prices are ridiculous. No piece of software that isn't capable of becoming self aware is worth more than $60 IMO.

I find it funny that I will have less problems with Windows than people who get it legitimately(i.e. having to call India after every reformat,Windows deciding that I changed too much of my hardware and Billy needs more money,etc). And if I have a problem like that? At least I didn't pay over $300 for it.

RE: Still overpriced...
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 8:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
To a cheapskate, everything seems overpriced.

Even if you had paid $300 for Vista, suppose you use it for 4 years, that works out to $75/year, or a little more than $6/month. That little cost for something you probably use every day. Seems cheap to me.

Not bad
By DeepBlue1975 on 2/29/2008 11:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is not a bad OS.
The problem most people have is that improvement over XP is not even near what you'd call "quantum leap", and performance in some situations is a bit worse. That added to quite a steep price for the ultimate version, make many enthusiasts keep holding on to XP.

The performance part is very relative, though: I don't have performance issues with Vista x86 btw, and I'm running on 2gbs of ram which is the advisable maximum for a 32bit OS. But for those who buy a new laptop or desktop that comes with vista preinstalled and 512-1024mb of RAM, performance is crappy and many can't help asking themselves why a vendor would sell a machine which right out of the box with nothing extra installed runs like crap with the preinstalled OS.
Here MS is not the one to blame. Yeah, they made Vista with more powerful hardware in mind than XP, but OEMs are not forced to sell 512mb machines when RAM prices are so chip that paying 400 for a laptop with 512mb or 440 for one with 2gbs wouldn't make a difference for the end user, and the user's "out of the box" experience would be so much better that he'd really never ask himself about those extra 40 dollars to get 2gbs instead of 512mb.

My wife had a laptop which came with vista home basic and 512mb, and ran like crap. I made her spent a few bucks on 2gbs and then the machine started performing really good. And I'm talking about a celeron 1.6ghz based machine with an 80gb drive.

I've mentioned this example because the only steep requirement for vista to run acceptably well is to have a minimum 1gb of RAM or better 2 if you're running the 32bit Ultimate version like I am.

By judasmachine on 2/29/2008 8:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't everyone here just grab an OEM version and a stick of RAM, or something?

By LDVA on 3/2/2008 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Making Vista cheaper doesn't make it better; the problem is not economics but flawed software. I had Vista on a new PC and "upgraded" to XP after a host of troubles, documented here:

Through my job, I've had numerous conversations with leaders at PC companies who confirm that few enterprises are buying Vista, and most lack confidence in it because of the reception in the consumer community.

Wait out Vista?
By mac2j on 3/3/2008 1:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
Last I heard the "next" MS OS (aka Windows 7) after Vista was coming out in 2009....

If thats the case... and given how little Vista offers in return for its (albeit reduced of late) issues... I can't help but think that its better just to skip this generation and wait for Windows 2009.

... and part of me is hoping for a Google-OS I have to admit.

Windows Visa Price Reduction
By B93950 on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows Visa Price Reduction
By Rebel44 on 2/29/2008 2:06:53 PM , Rating: 3
And your problem is ?????

By SavagePotato on 3/1/2008 12:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
You win the dumbass who doesn't have a clue what superfetch does #43351235 award.

Heres what I want you to do.

Go to the nearest wall and find a stud by tapping on the wall and listening for the tone to change. No repeatedly bang your head against that stud in the wall and shout

"I don't have to have gigs of free ram sitting around empty in Vista, thats how superfetch is designed to work, this actually helps my computer run faster."

Do this for approximately half an hour, if you are still not getting it at the end that means you are a stupid f-ing moron and need to quit using computers completely.

By spindoc on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
By ebakke on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Outrageous!
By TomZ on 2/29/2008 11:53:23 AM , Rating: 1
The difference is that Apple dropped their prices just a few weeks after launch. This is a year after Vista launch. Not nearly the same situation at all.

RE: Outrageous!
By ebakke on 2/29/2008 1:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it was a couple months not weeks, but I understand they're not equivalent scenarios. It was (apparently a bad) attempt at a joke.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki