News New Vista and Office have ultimate pricepoint

Since I only use XP when I need it for school stuff... If I didn't need it for school it wouldn't even be installed... Read my post plz...

 

i would purchase a copy of XP if the price were right, having a legit copy is so much easier, you have to spend so much time circumventing stuff ....

Say what you want, but thats how i feel

Personally, i think thats crap, i still have a Pentium 2 that i use, it was only recently retired for a 2400+ sempron ...

 

Oh Glider, i'm sure you could run all those fun school apps under wine juuust fine.

 

Don't you think I've tried it?

 

Probably not. It's easier to just have it always work, rather than futz with settings

 

I chose to go linux because I don't like the Windows way of doing stuff... I chose Gentoo because I like to be in control of everything... I chose fluxbox because I like minimalistic and low footprints... Believe me, if there was a way to get it going under Linux, You'd see my Windows flying out of it's material namemate

Irony is, if I boot to Windooz I mostly find it in need of updates... And I work like a 9 year old because my own defined shortkeys from fluxbox don't work there...

 

I think we should bear in mind that this price is a rumour.. it could be much higher

All the options more or less are missing the critical feature of running all Windows apps at Windows performance levels. So no, they're not better, only cheaper. Apple don't charge as much for their OS because they can't. But boy do they rip you off with iPods, because they can. Don't think even for a second that they wouldn't charge more for OSX if they thought they could.

Because your system won't run it? So you won't be able to run DX10 games without Vista... so what? Your system won't run them anyway! Stick with XP!

Fortunately as a student you're entitled to a free copy... hell they'll give you everything but Office, and even that they'll sell you cheap.

 

Yeah but think, if EVERYBODY, script kiddies inc was using 'nix, you'd need just as many updates, probably.

 

Newsflash... every self respecting hacker uses Linux/Unix... And linux doesn't need as much patches because it's built totally different... Windows = single user; Linux = multiuser... And therefor more aimed at security... But let's not make this a "My linux is better than your windows because" thread...

 

ok for all those people saying that the OS is such a vital part of windows and should therefor be priced accordingly should really be buying a slightly cheaper pc. Let's face it a pc is still a luxiry in my books.

then to all the people saying they need it to run DX10 for their games and are willing to dish out for a brand new pc to be able to run it all on and won't pay for a copy of windows should really stick to consoles where the OS comes with the hardware.

and for everyone mentioning $450, maybe you should look at the price of the cheaper versions, the one without the fancy stuff nobody uses.

and lastly don't take me for a windows fan, I run a gentoo system using all open source software.

All i'm saying really is no-one is forcing anybody to purchase vista, it's done on a voluntary basis, I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh, but almost everybody has been repeating the same thing over and over again. I mean the last trully new post was a few pages ago so let's just agree that not many people are gonna buy the top end $450 version and the people who will get it will either purchase the cheaper version or get it through other means much to mr. Gates dismay.

 

No. Every self respecting "Hacker" would be the proper programmers and coders that make the world go round. I refer to hackers in the derogitory sense, the stereotypical ass ugly, coke bottle glass'd 13 year olds on AOL, using all those "hax toolz". Oh, and BTW, windows can be a multiuser environment too, but nobody ever bothers to get themselves out of admin mode. Tell me, would you ever run linux on a day to day basis in root?

 

^^ What he said, exactly...

Which still is the wrong way... That's why I defend the Windows side in here... altough I'm not a part of it Resembles the sig of whisperwolf :""I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire."

AS root... Root is a user, not a hole in the ground And have you ever used windows in a multi-user environement? At school we do, and that sucks big time... That's why I allways bring my lappy...

 

slightly off topic, but just why can't linux be upgraded to support games? And i have a feeling this is a stupid question.

As for for vista, £450 os a bit on the steep side...and i bet within months, they'll come out saying they're developing the best os on the planet......

Sticking with XP for a while in this corner...

 

linux is more secure beacause the way it was programmed, its core has been programmed to be very secure
If you start adding poorly coded extra's, you can let yourself in for any kind of problems, webservers which run linux still go behind firewalls and such

 

Well, I guess it's fully functional "demos" for me then. Better set up proxy servers though. Wouldn't want the **AAs suing me now, would we?

-ed out

 

I'm struggling to understand what exactly Vista offers other than virtualisation (missing in the lower end versions) and DirectX 10 that could warrant people to change in the first place. If no gaming is being done and there is no need for virtualisation then why switch?

Most computers that run XP run all the other apps perfectly well. It looks OK and has good hot-plugging support for USB devices. It's not like the switch from 98 to XP (2000 and ME don't count as OSs ) - Vista offers no discernable advantage to the every day user. Furthermore, it requires a damn near top of the range PC to run it. I have enough bloatware to deal with on XP let alone Vistas frankly collosal system requirements.

With the rise in public awareness (and user friendliness) of Linux and the growing popularity of Macs I would have thought M$ would have made Vista an extremely attractive OS, free from the normal complaints users have: i.e. bloated, resource hungery, unstable, insecure etc. On at least two of those counts they've made it worse.

I don't want to get embroiled in the "M$: business or satan" debate but for all those who talk about development costs - once Vista SP1 comes out with around 1.5Gb (their first SP1 is usually ~10% of the size of the OS) of fixes I bet a few questions will be asked (once again) as to how well these development costs were spent.

I realise M$ need to make money (especially considering the plethora of anti-trust cases flying around) but it might be a smart move on their part to actually implement pricing scheme that is attractive to buyers. Their OEM rules are ridiculas - if my hard drive dies that I've installed the OEM copy on to, I should then buy another copy of XP so I can put it on another HDD. Not the most consumer friendly company.

 

Eventually, people have to move over. It's sad, but true to see that many of today's perpetuals are 2000/XP only. That, and after a while, support for the OS goes.

 

OT: Do you know what I'd like to see? An OS you can configure. You know, like the Dell and Alienware etc. have system configurators on their sites. Just imagine it: "Umm... I won't have WMP - I prefer winamp. Oh, I do like MovieMaker though - I'll have that!". I know that would make my life easier. Anyone else?

-ed out

 

ed thats good in theory, however the disc to store all that is gonna be massive, i mean, your going to have 1/2 the apps out there on it
or you wont have the choice people want, i believe you can remove components you dont want from windows though
You used to be able to with windows 98 and such

 

As if the current vista won't be huge? Unless there's incredible compression, it'll be a 2xDVD 9 Affair