Print 87 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Nov 7 at 2:22 PM

The final build number = 6000.16386.061101-2205

According to several reports, Microsoft pulled some overtime during the weekend and has finished Windows Vista.

The specific release to manufacturing (RTM) date has been up in the air ever since the release of Windows Vista RC2. Following some showstopping bugs, Microsoft was forced to delay its RTM date two weeks from October 25 to November 8.

Long time Microsoft aficionado Paul Thurrott wrote in a WinInfo update that Windows Vista would be hitting RTM status today, a full two days earlier than anticipated.

"My sources at the software giant confirmed this weekend that Microsoft is set to finalize Windows Vista as early as Monday and release the product to manufacturing. The final build number is expected to be 6000.16386.061101-2205, I'm told."

Windows Vista may have been finalized even earlier if it weren't for several late-appearing bugs which need to be squished, and another issue which was less usual -- a power outage Friday evening prevented the Windows team
from creating a new Vista build that night.

Comments     Threshold

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

By nwrigley on 11/6/2006 9:48:39 AM , Rating: 1
I have to say that the more I hear about Vista the less excited I am. It's been in the news a lot lately and I just can't find much reason to care.

XP is the first version of Windows that never crashes on me and I have no major complaints about it. There is no way that I'm swithcing over to Vista until it has proven itself to be as stable/reliable as XP.

RE: Excited?
By cartmann2 on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Excited?
By imaheadcase on 11/6/2006 9:59:30 AM , Rating: 3
winxp never crashes, on the other hand windows Vista Rc2 has never crashed for me, seems just as good as winxp.

If you are building a new PC, no reason NOT to go to Vista. Nothing wrong with xp or vista, but are ok OS still. The only downside with vista (but its always the case with newer stuff) is the system requirements are steep with all the fancy stuff on. But it runs great on my pos computer as it is (p4, 9700 PRO, 1gig of ram).

All games work on it that I've played, and no problems with it. The ONLY thing wrong with vista is video drivers/soundcard drivers are premature.

RE: Excited?
By kextyn on 11/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Excited?
By imaheadcase on 11/6/2006 10:22:46 AM , Rating: 1
The cost is not much more than winxp Pro is. Its only $150 OEM for Business. Winxp pro OEM is like $120.

RE: Excited?
By masteraleph on 11/6/2006 11:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ding ding ding! Congradulations, you've bought into the FUD that's all around about Vista pricing.

Vista Business (which has the same "pro" features you want from XP Pro) has the exact same MSRP for retail/upgrade as XP Pro (though I'm sure at first it'll be sold for more).

$400/$259 is the price for Vista Ultimate, which is the Pro networking features plus MCE features. And yes, it is quite expensive, but to call Business "crippled" is another story entirely.

RE: Excited?
By imaheadcase on 11/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Excited?
By imaheadcase on 11/6/2006 11:15:42 AM , Rating: 3
$200 for OEM Ultimate version I just confirmed.

RE: Excited?
By Trisped on 11/6/2006 3:05:30 PM , Rating: 3
Ultimate is basically MCE+Pro. So if you use a lot of Pro stuff, but none of the MCE then don't get Ultimate.

Choices are great for users, but they seem to need more info on the differences between versions. I will probably get Ultimate because I like the security features on it better then on Home, but I question driver and software support for that OS.

I say wait for SP1 and let the people buy Vista with their OEM computers first. Let them iron out the bugs.

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 11:40:39 AM , Rating: 3
Remember that OEM licenses are a one-shot "disposable." If that's what you want, then OEM's for you. If you want to re-use your license on one machine after another for the next ~8-10 years, get the retail-boxed version.

RE: Excited?
By Xenoterranos on 11/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Excited?
By masteraleph on 11/6/2006 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not technically. But if you actually read the EULA, transferring it away from the hardware you bought it with is supposed to make the license invalid. MS just doesn't always enforce this when you call in to reactivate is all.

RE: Excited?
By Trisped on 11/6/2006 3:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is not suppose to be transferred to a different computer. There is a difference.

I build my own computers. Some times I change only 1 thing in a computer, and sometimes the only things that stay the same are the monitor, keyboard, and power strip. It is still the same computer though, since I was just upgrading the parts.

The EULA article pointed out that there are many enthusiasts who are changing out their hard drives, CPU, mother boards, etc on a monthly basis. They were getting burned by the 1 reinstall after a MBoard change. That is why MS changed the rule so you could install it on a new machine as long as you uninstall it from the old.

And don't forget, enthusiast use OEM versions since they are cheaper and the enthusiast is already buying hardware.

RE: Excited?
By kkwst2 on 11/6/2006 11:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think you've got this wrong. AFIAK, they were only changing it for the retail version. Do you have info to the contrary? The OEM version is still tied to the original hardware it is installed on and, for instance, motherboard changes are only supposed to be replacements for failure. It's just harder to patrol when you build your own machine.

If you call them up and say "Hey, I just put together a new computer and am just keeping my monitor and keyboard. Can you transfer my license?" they're probably going to reject your request for the OEM version. However, if you say "Hey, I just had to replace my motherboard, processor and hard drive on my computer and need to reactivate my license." they're likely going to work with you.

I've been able to transfer mine without issues, but I know people who have gotten burned. Given that it's half the cost, even at the small risk of not being to transfer it, it's still worth getting the OEM.

RE: Excited?
By Spivonious on 11/6/2006 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 3
Not FUD. OEM license allows install on one machine, which is defined by motherboard and hard drive.

RE: Excited?
By swtethan on 11/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: Excited?
By Spivonious on 11/7/2006 2:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
The wording says that "one machine" is defined by motherboard and hard drive. If you switch the motherboard or remove that original hard drive, you have a new machine by Microsoft's definition.

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 1:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
That would be piracy, Xenoterranos . Oh sure, I know it's frequently done, but people who actually want a legit license to use the OS may be better off with the retail version in the long run, since it's transferrable.

Personally, I'm better off with the retail version, especially since I'll be getting a business-level version of the OS (which has a 10-year minimum lifecycle, unlike the home-user versions).

RE: Excited?
By Trisped on 11/6/2006 3:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
He means you are not limited to one install period. You can install it multiple times on the same computer, or uninstall it completely from the first one and install it on a second.

Box copies are for the typical PC user. OEM copies are for people like us who build our own PCs. MS figures that we will just pirate the software, so they sell it to us cheaper so they can make more money.

I think the box versions also get better tech support, but I am not sure...

RE: Excited?
By ZeeStorm on 11/6/2006 1:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft will stop supporting this product by then.. or by then OSX/Linux might be just as popular. :)

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
The business-class versions (Enterprise, Ultimate and Business) will be supported for a minumum of 10 years from the release date, just like Win2000 Pro and WinXP Pro before them. I'll probably upgrade to new computers a few times during that timespan, and I'll be building them myself, so I think retail will be a better choice than OEM for me.

RE: Excited?
By imaheadcase on 11/6/2006 2:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
No reason to purchase a retail really, the only advantage retail has over OEM is you can "upgrade" from a XP box, support from MS, and fancy packaging.

None of that really matters. I mean is that worth "almost" $100 more?

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 2:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
...and you're entitled to move the retail version on to your next PC, and your next PC, and your next PC... With OEM, you'd be obligated to re-buy it, and re-buy it, and re-buy it (assuming you want a legit license).

If you get retail, then when you're done with it, you can sell it off on eBay, or give it away. A used OEM license is a consumed, expired, used-up license.

So yeah, there are reasons for some people to purchase retail. If they're buying a new off-the-shelf PC, then OEM is a sensible pick, of course.

RE: Excited?
By The Sword 88 on 11/6/2006 2:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Three rebuys? I dont get a comp that often just upgrade my current one so I should be okay with just buying an OEM once.

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Retail = infinite number of re-uses. OEM = zero re-uses. I didn't mean to imply precisely three. If you don't frequently upgrade motherboards, then OEM may be your better value.

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 3:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and retail can be sold off or given away without the computer it was on, too.

RE: Excited?
By wallijonn on 11/6/2006 4:45:36 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if HP, Dell, IBM, et. al., will be charging customers for new licenses when they bring in their machines for repair? If they do then they will probably lose a lot of business.

RE: Excited?
By rushfan2006 on 11/6/2006 4:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Though what you say is technically correct. There is a simple loop hole (and the constant pc builders among us know this already so I'm not acting like I'm a genius here just pointing it out)to the OEM license for building your own system. It stipulates you can replace any damaged or faultly hardware (yes even the motherboard and HDD) and still be in compliance with the OEM license. Heck if you dig enough on Microsoft's very own site you'll actually find tech support transcripts of Microsofts own techs informing customers of this fact.

So in fact as long as you "break" your motherboard at time of upgrade -- you are actually still in compliance of the OEM terms.

Besides all that, do you realize how pissed folks would be if literally there was no excuse and everytime you changed your mobo/hard drive you'd have to drop another $150-200 on an OEM license? It would be insane.

Why does retail exist then, well like many industries there are savings people in the know get because they aren't "afraid" -- in this case people who know the "loophole" and aren't worried about support (they fix their own issues) save money by going OEM.

Retail is for the pretty packaging, the extra support (OEM comes with zero support I believe).

So yeah if you know how to play the game...OEM is the only logical choice.

RE: Excited?
By rushfan2006 on 11/6/2006 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add one significant point to the OEM v Retail thing...

With MS OEM (and I assume this is staying for Vista since it existed in XP OEM) you get three major hardware changes, after the third you can try can convince them over the phone to activate your OS.

With Retail there is no such can change components to your heart's content.

However, I only build a new system once every 2-3 years (closer to 3) so OEM always is the no brainer, as Video cards don't count, memory doesn't count and optical drives don't count towards your 3 "strikes"...only mobo's, CPUs and I believe HDD do and after 2-3 years I buy everything new and a new OEM license as well.

RE: Excited?
By mechBgon on 11/6/2006 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
So in fact as long as you "break" your motherboard at time of upgrade -- you are actually still in compliance of the OEM terms.

If you break the motherboard, you can't sell it for very much ;) And a used OEM license can't be sold later, unless it goes with the computer it belongs to. Retail has resale value.

Basically, if I want what the retail license entitles me to (unlimited transfers, ability to sell it independently, upgrade capabilities), then I'll buy a retail license. I'm not wealthy, but I have higher standards than to go buying OEM and then fishing for loopholes or telling half-truths to save on the up-front cost of an OS.

RE: Excited?
By rushfan2006 on 11/7/2006 12:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure, how to say this without an attitude being conveyed since its only text...but you haven't much experience with building your own systems have you?

First, I use sarcasm quite heavily and perhaps that is my fault....however the "broken" mobo -- whether legitimately broken or of no concern unless you exceed your 3 upgrades -- because the first 3 times is no business of MS if you just want to upgrade or if you took a hammer to it.

Like I said, this is the rule set they used all through the life of XP oem licensing.....I'm well acquainted with it as I've put together tons and tons of machines.

Second, again referring to my sarcasm as being partly to blame for your confusion....the first THREE times is allowed, its not a loophole its not illegal its not unethical. Its ALLOWED. The "true" loophole would be in saying/talking your way to activation AFTER you used up your 3 times (on the same OEM license).

Btw, I'm guesstimating that its staying the same for Vista, I repeat myself on that point to make it perfectly clear -- I'm basing it off of XP licensing.

Perhaps OEM Vista licensing doesn't allow the 3 tries.

Like I said, the OEM is great for me - because of my upgrade I save some money. Use what you think is best for you.

I well know what Retail licensing is all about and volume licensing and oem licensing.....I was the software compliance officer (on top of tech support) for my prior company..I attended the MS license seminars, read up on the paperwork, talked to the reps, etc.

But that was all based on Win2000, Win2003, WinNT and WinXP.....

RE: Excited?
By masteraleph on 11/6/2006 12:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Or to be able to legally transfer from one computer to another...

RE: Excited?
By rushfan2006 on 11/6/2006 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Which you can do anyway if you know how to play the rules of OEM....

RE: Excited?
By Nocturnal on 11/6/2006 12:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of people are going to go with Vista since Vista will start to come with new PCs.

RE: Excited?
By cartmann2 on 11/6/2006 10:07:14 AM , Rating: 1
winxp crashes... oh yeah it really crashes on things you never expect!

agreed, no reason not to go vista... every pc with 1gb can run ok, specially if have offboard vga...
when i run vista beta2 the only problem i got is with SLI, Vista wants me to run on the second card! everytime i run vista i push the dongle on the other card... it really makes me sad...
i don't know if ms and nvidia done right now... but i think so =]

ps. i'm a fan of 9700 pro!!! =D =D =D
ps2. i'm brazilian, sorry bout my english =D

RE: Excited?
By cubdukat on 11/6/2006 11:35:40 AM , Rating: 1
Are you sure you're not using some Linux distro pimped out to look like XP?

I have found XP to be inexcusably twitchy. I'm no Linux fanboy, but I'm seriously considering dumping XP altogether and making SuSE the full-time OS.

Unfortunately, some of my hardware won't support it, and the gaming situation on Linux is all but non-existent.

I suspect that eventually I will bite the bullet and leap over to Vista, but not until DX10 cards are widely available for decent prices, and a few more reviews are out. But quite frankly, apart from Aero, nothing about Vista is really blowing my skirt up.

RE: Excited?
By aos007 on 11/6/2006 1:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy to crash RC2. Play a video from a network folder (i.e. file rsiding on another machine). Pause it. Shut down the other machine hosting file. Unpause play. After a few seconds (when buffer runs out), hard lock-up in a stutter loop. In WinXp, just the application freezes.

RE: Excited?
By InsaneScientist on 11/7/2006 1:58:49 AM , Rating: 2
I just tried that (3 times actually, 'cause with my luck if I only did it once, it would be a fluke... lol) and all I got was an error message in Windows Media Player and it closed.... it didn't even freeze WMP, let alone crash the computer.

I don't get it... :S

My I've been running Vista RC2 (x86) on my computer since the day it was released, and I've got to say it's far more stable than XP. I've not had it crash once yet, and it runs 24/7.
AFAIK, the current spin of Vista (Build 5000 and on) was build on a heavily improved Windows 2003 codebase... it's no suprise, then, that Vista is more stable than XP.
As far as general impressions are concerned, the OS does admittedly feel somewhat slow if you're only running 512MB of RAM, but once you get up to 1GB, it's quite snappy and feels faster than XP.

RE: Excited?
By suryad on 11/6/2006 1:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually for me the biggest reasons not to go to Vista are:
1. Its a brand new release with a rather difficult and long gestation period where entire codebases were scrapped (Jim Allchin had to do with that because Vista was gonna be built on XP codebase and it couldnt take it).

2. The price is exorbitant IMHO.

3. Games run 15% slower on Vista!!!!!! Even Microsoft admitted it! WTH!

RE: Excited?
By Christopher1 on 11/6/2006 3:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to be blunt, any NT system (whether NT, XP or now Vista) is going to be more stable. OS parts are separated, so that an error in one, even a catatrophic error, won't take down the whole system.

95 and 98...... ooooooh, I hated them. The crashes were infrequent, but when something DID crash, the whole computer needed to be restarted.

The only thing I don't like, and probably still won't like with Vista, is that some 95/98/DOS/Earlier Windows games won't work on them, they crash out consistently or just won't start at all.

There should be a method to run a pure DOS system, that makes a VERY small FAT32 drive for older games. Right now, I have to do that by hand, and use a boot disk, something that is a SERIOUS pain-in-the-ass to do.

RE: Excited?
By MrDiSante on 11/6/2006 5:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why wouldn't you just run DOS in a VM?

RE: Excited?
By kextyn on 11/6/2006 10:04:30 AM , Rating: 4
I can't remember the last time I had to shutdown my computer because Windows crashed or locked up. It is a very stable OS. The only times I have to shut down or restart are when some poorly written application is causing a memory leak or I'm installing something that requires a reboot.

RE: Excited?
By BrassMonkey on 11/6/2006 10:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
Or the auto-update feature automatically restarts the system for an update. I can't count how many times I've missed class because windows restarted and my alarm clock program was eliminated. I finally got fed up and just turned off updates.

Other then stupid short sightedness on MS's part; winxp w/sp2 is good.

RE: Excited?
By JCheng on 11/6/2006 11:03:20 AM , Rating: 3
You know, you can tell Windows to prompt for confirmation before installing, and/or only download and install updates at a certain time of day.

RE: Excited?
By Tamale on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Excited?
By webdawg77 on 11/6/2006 12:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not if you set it to only notify you. The icon will sit there letting you know there are updates, but it doesn't do anything until you tell it.

RE: Excited?
By kamel5547 on 11/6/2006 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
And there are registry tweaks to prevent the automatic restart even if you auto-update.

RE: Excited?
By GreenEnvt on 11/6/2006 2:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even need to go into the registry,
Expand "Administrative Templates" under "Computer Configuration"
Expand "Windows Components"
Click "Windows Updates"
On right side double click "No Auto Restart...." and set to Enabled.

Now it will just ask you to reboot after installing, it won't do the countdown timer.

I forced this onto all pc's at work after getting many angry users coming to me after returning from lunch to find their computer rebooted and all their unsaved work lost.

RE: Excited?
By Justin Case on 11/6/2006 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
In a well-designed OS, a "poorly written application" would never force you to reboot. XP has very poor compartimentalization as a way to help disguise the poor performance of some OS components. The result is that drivers and applications can make the system unstable or even crash it.

I've had several crashes and registry corruption issues with XP, and I really can't say I consider it more stable than Windows 2000. In fact, it's basically Windows 2000 with a new "skin" and a few new bugs, that weren't fixed until SP2.

And it looks like Vista is (again) going to be basically a new "skin" (at least it's not hideously ugly, like the standard XP theme). All the worthwhile features were dropped along the way, because Microsoft is still driven by marketing and release dates, nos actual development cycles.

And you can't really blame them. They know the world is full of suckers that will pay for the privilege of being beta-testers.

RE: Excited?
By masher2 on 11/6/2006 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 1
I have several Win2K/WinXP machines, dating back ovber 6 years, and never once experienced registry corruption on any of them. The only crashes I've seen have been to bad drivers. In fact, one system hasn't even been rebooted in over three years...and the only reason it went down then, was a power outage long enough to drain the battery.

I have no idea why you'd experience so many problems, or if you in fact really are or not. But then, anyone who claims Vista "has no worthwhile features" is someone not worth taking seriously anyway.

RE: Excited?
By Spivonious on 11/6/2006 1:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
XP is based on the 2000 kernel.

Vista is new.

Get your facts straight.

RE: Excited?
By Nocturnal on 11/6/2006 12:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
XP is the most stable OS out there right now. I guess you like rocking the Windows 98/ME? Those two are the most buggiest pieces of crap out there. And just in case you say 2000 is the best, XP is built off of 2000.

RE: Excited?
By Hare on 11/6/2006 12:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
XP is the most stable OS out there right now.

You mean most stable Windows. Comparing Windows to a BSD-OS or even Mac OS X would put things in a different scale.

But I have to agree. XP is very stable, but this was not always true. MS has had over 5 years to update the initial release to work as it does today and it does work fine and is very much stable. Can't blame an OS for crappy/crashing third-party apps.

RE: Excited?
By MrDiSante on 11/6/2006 5:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
You my friend have obviously never actually had to use a Mac. It doesn't crash per se, it doesn't even freeze. It just goes into its spinning rainbow cursor thing and responds to about a click a minute.

RE: Excited?
By Hare on 11/7/2006 4:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I use macs almost daily and have been using macs since the AppleII days. Mostly I use PC's with windows XP and from my experience can say that both OS's are stable (at least in my hands). I don't remember a single time I've had to hard boot a Mac OS X but I do remember this happening with XP.

Both OS's have their own problems.

RE: Excited?
By Locutus465 on 11/6/2006 8:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
XP never crashes on me either... Though having gone through Vista Beta's and RC's I think an upgrade to that would be good...

RE: Excited?
By Merry on 11/6/2006 10:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
You could say the same of Windows 2000, its (arguably) just as good as XP, indeed, i was running it until very recently. I'm probably going to put it on the next computer I build too, although thats partially down to the fact I'm a poor student and cant afford a genuine copy of XP and happen to have a genuine copy of 2000 pro knocking around

RE: Excited?
By Mazzer on 11/6/2006 10:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to hold onto XP for as long as possible because I have had a near zero problem rate with it since I got it back in 2001-2002 sometime. I was coming from a system with ME on it so it was also a major *thumbs up* when I found out an operating system could be stable. I will be getting a new computer around the middle of the year so I hope all the nit pick bugs are gone and Ill have a wonderful experience with it. That and having a sweet dx10 card.

So when do we get it?
By OrSin on 11/6/2006 9:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
My computer should be getting the RTM, so I guess maybe 1-2 weeks I might have final build. I realy hope I can upgrade the beta or atleast transfer the setting. Dont feel like rebuild my GF computer again.

RE: So when do we get it?
By OrSin on 11/6/2006 9:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
That should ahve been compnay no computer.
Does any one really use the preview feature. I know i just click right throught it.

RE: So when do we get it?
By cartmann2 on 11/6/2006 9:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
when i used the beta2, i read on help that's no way to transfer settings or upgrade to a new system...
hope that RC2 have this feature, and good luck =D

RE: So when do we get it?
By JCheng on 11/6/2006 11:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
I upgraded RC1 to a near-final RTM build last week, worked just fine. And according to this page[1] you can upgrade from Beta 2 to RC1, so it seems at least possible Beta 2 to RTM would work fine as well.


The first major refresh
By FightingChance on 11/6/2006 11:24:01 AM , Rating: 3
It will be exciting to see what the first refresh or service pack brings - as we know, XP's initial build is a far cry from XP SP2. I think Vista, when coupled with some cool new standards like Intel Readyboost and EFI, will reach a very high level of polish. Bring on 2007!

RE: The first major refresh
By trajik78 on 11/6/2006 2:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
yes, you could still be using Win XX, or MacOs 7.6.1 which was a sturdy build...point is, it's a new Os and has many worth new features. It's all a progression and after a year or two everyone will be on it and the griping about Vista's place and/or worth will be a total non-issue.

I've used it from it's Beta stages and can say with complete confidence that even with the RC2 build im on now, it's a great OS to use. It actually feels speedier than XP especially with multi-tasking. Using XP as compared to Vista it feels like going from a Camry to a Bentley.

RE: The first major refresh
By trajik78 on 11/6/2006 2:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
yes, you could still be using Win XX, or MacOs 7.6.1 which was a sturdy build...point is, it's a new Os and has many worth new features. It's all a progression and after a year or two everyone will be on it and the griping about Vista's place and/or worth will be a total non-issue.

I've used it from it's Beta stages and can say with complete confidence that even with the RC2 build im on now, it's a great OS to use. It actually feels speedier than XP especially with multi-tasking. Using XP as compared to Vista it feels like going from a Camry to a Bentley.

By knowyourenemy on 11/6/2006 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish I knew if it were possible to attach multiple licenses to one physical copy of Vista. That way I could use the same disk on all of my systems.

RE: Licensing
By Master Kenobi on 11/6/2006 2:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not usually unless you get a volume license agreement and thats generally for businesses.

RE: Licensing
By bmheiar on 11/6/2006 2:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you, wholeheartedly. To have a Multi-Use/User license for the retail package of Vista, instead of just for corporate version. That it would be a benefit to me and others. But I got bashed and called a "pirate for profit" & etc., for my comments on an earlier post. And probably will get bashed for my comments here.

By trajik78 on 11/6/2006 2:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
just wish MS would fix the hibernate/sleep bug that keeps loosing my SATA HDD.

RE: also...
By trajik78 on 11/6/2006 2:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
yes, you could still be using Win XX, or MacOs 7.6.1 which was a sturdy build...point is, it's a new Os and has many worth new features. It's all a progression and after a year or two everyone will be on it and the griping about Vista's place and/or worth will be a total non-issue.

I've used it from it's Beta stages and can say with complete confidence that even with the RC2 build im on now, it's a great OS to use. It actually feels speedier than XP especially with multi-tasking. Using XP as compared to Vista it feels like going from a Camry to a Bentley.

RE: also...
By Christopher1 on 11/6/2006 4:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
It will especially be a non-issue for people who wait and buy a new computer in a few months, which I myself am planning on doing.

I am going to wait until Vista comes out and is pre-installed on computers, then I am going to buy a computer with Ultimate pre-loaded, so there will be NO problems.

MCE 2005 Vista Upgrade Redemption Coupon
By superforever on 11/6/2006 8:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
If I get MCE2005 today I will receive a upgrade redemption coupon from MS. But which version of Vista will it upgrade me to?

As I know Ultimate = XP Pro + MCE. Is that mean I will receive Ultimate Upgrade? Or there is another version with MCE features?

By theprodigalrebel on 11/6/2006 9:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Check this out:

WinXP Professional -> Windows Vista Business (~$20 for S&H)
WinXP MCE -> Windows Vista Home Premium (~$20 for S&H)
WinXP Home -> Windows Vista Home Premium (~$100)
WinXP Home -> Windows Vista Home Basic (~$70)

I guess this only applies to Newegg. But I was playing around with Hypersonic PC's online configurator yesterday and they were offering free XP Home -> Vista Basic & Xp Pro -> Vista Business upgrades. I guess other PC Retailers are offering similar free upgrade deal but looks like buying just the XP OS will mean a suspiciously high S&H-only fee.

No sign of Vista Ultimate Upgrade Coupons yet AFAIK.

By johnsonx on 11/7/2006 2:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
MCE 2005 gets you an upgrade coupon for Home Premium. Likewise, XP Pro goes to Vista Business, and XP Home gives you a discount coupon for Home Basic or Home Premium. Nothing gives you a coupon for Ultimate.

Vista is only an okay stop
By ajfink on 11/6/2006 12:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to what Microsoft WANTED to put into Vista, including a new file system, etc., Vista seems merely like a long overdue stopgap until its next project (which is already in the planning stages). That being said, it seems to be a very good product, a little RAM- and GPU-hungry, but the technology to support it is certainly there and advancing quickly.

I won't buy it until at least SP1, however. I liked the comment someone made about the far difference between the original XP and SP2, it was a very good one.

RE: Vista is only an okay stop
By Anosh on 11/6/2006 12:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
I used RC1 for quite a while and although the OS is stable during usage of "normal" office programs it was quite unstable when using programs for such things as encoding and decoding with formats not so standard. And Vista still has issues while handling video files especially in folder preview mode.

Also it doesn't handle DX9 games as well as WinXP causing drops in rendering speed. When using 1GB ram or less the system doesn't run as smooth as WinXP.

So after testing Vista in both gaming environment and multimedia editing I felt I wanted to which back to the speed and simplicity of WinXP.

By tazdevl on 11/6/2006 6:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Have a quad core sitting on my desk, picking up a 8800GTX, and nForce 680i based mobo when they hit the street. Biggest concern though is what's previously been mentioned, game performance. That's what I use my desktop for, have a laptop for work.

I'll wait until we see some updated benches for the RTM build. If I remember correctly though, there was a sizeable difference in benches between 98, 2K and XP back in the day. I'm sure the difference will go away between Vista and XP, question is when.

Tough to market this as a media friendly OS when the game performance isn't there at launch.

great news =D
By cartmann2 on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: great news =D
By KaiserCSS on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: great news =D
By Russell on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: great news =D
By clayclws on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: great news =D
By cartmann2 on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: great news =D
By stmok on 11/7/2006 1:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
Although you were joking, the scary part about it is, its actually out on the P2P networks right now!

Search for the build number that DailyTech has kindly put in their article. ;)

I'm surprised those warez folks were that quick!

Windows Does Crash
By hiscross on 11/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Windows Does Crash
By Tamale on 11/6/2006 11:28:48 AM , Rating: 4
FWIW if you're not very good with linux there's a very good chance you'll break it and get lots of crashes and hangs if you're trying to follow the multitude of guides out there for setting up simple things like extra mouse buttons, dual monitor configurations, XGL/Compiz/beryl, or just normal video drivers and don't do things perfectly right :\

RE: Windows Does Crash
By aos007 on 11/6/2006 1:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, a simple thing like having an USB hub connected to my Asus A8R32-MVP will prevent the latest Ubuntu from booting - that is if you manage to install it in the first place (which you won't, until you remove almost all USB devices). Suse on the other hand worked fine (an admirable installer, great hardware support) - but once installed is totally disorganized (multiple software package managers that not only don't play nice with each other but actually don't work properly at all, impossible to easily find and use simple things such as process viewers or setting up a vnc server etc.) And oh yeah, Linux can crash all right. I don't think either XP or Linux have an advantage there, they are both fairly stable. However, both have the same Achiles heel - networking. Probably 95% of crashes in Windows and Linux that I've seen were related to losing the network connection in the middle of something (more specifically, network driver getting hosed, not just a simple disconnect, though those can crash it on occasion too). Neither OS is capable of handling it well (it is very hard to, though).

RE: Windows Does Crash
By jarman on 11/6/2006 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Linux may not crash, but I couldn't tell you how many times I've run into glibc compilation errors because of the age old Linux dependency issues. Until Linux gets a standardized package management system (e.g. emerge, apt, yum, etc.) across all distributions, we need not discuss stability and compatibility issues between the two OS'.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay
Related Articles
Showstopping Bug Delays Windows Vista RTM
October 26, 2006, 8:12 AM
Microsoft Releases Windows Vista RC2
October 6, 2006, 2:10 PM

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