Poll: For the record, how many are planning to buy Vista?
 

I certainly am not buying. I know its true for many of you too, but lets just get some numbers here.

TIA

It really depends. I use Windows for gaming (mostly), so it will depend how well game developers will adopt Vista. It will also depend what kind of games are going to come out. The latest wave of games were pretty disappointing.

What I really want to see, however, is how much more functionality we will get with Vista compared to previous operating systems. For example, Windows XP has added practically no functionality over Win2k. It has a new (and awfully ugly) UI, with no new features added to it at all and run noticeable slower than the previous UI. This, so far is what Vista looks like to me: A brand new, system hog, UI.

I just will not say that I will "never" get into Vista. I remember when WinXP came out and many were afraid to upgrade from the "nothing-but-horrible" Win98. Today, most Windows users are XP users.

To sum up: It depends :D

Face it: you will buy it. Every time said companies comes out with a new release, the populus says they aren't going to get it. Then, when it hits the stores, everyone all rushes to get their hands on a copy. The release is cool to own for the next couple of weeks and everyone feels they can finally give up Linux. Week 3: everyone starts complaining about what a crappy program this is, how this will be the last version they will buy... (repeat)

General made a good point. I have actually been stuck in that loop myself :D. Oh yes, another thing that may happen is, when I buy a new PC, I will get it pre-installed with Vista. That is also fine. I don't want to build any more computers myself ^_^;. Dell started to actually sell PC's without Windows installed, but with "FreeDOS" instead? Dual-core machine with FreeDOS.. that is great :S. I think some Linux distro should try to make a deal with Dell. It should certainly spread Linux a bit more.

But I'm not planning to upgrade my PC yet. I am very happy with its performance, thank you very much. The only game which I have FPS issues is Neverwinter Nights 2 (what disappointing release by the way. Horrible graphics, incredibly high system requirements for the little we get, insanely buggy and Atari decided to drop OpenGL entirely to create a DirectX-based game. Remember NwN1 ran on Linux and Mac too. Well, they get what they deserve for choosing a crappy API. I liked the OC though... most of it anyway)

never even thinking about vista for a long time ...


.

*-+You are certainly describing a subset of our society, but it does not include me or--I suspect--a fair percentage of LQ members.

I have not bought any Microsoft products in many years. Windows 2000 was the last big purchase--then it was just some keyboards and mice. (They've gotta go...) I have never been able to quite get "Microsoft-free", but I have resolved never again to pay for their products.

At home, I expect Win2k will continue to serve the occassional Windows needs. At the office, I have to sort of roll with the punches. The good news is that they do support Linux (Only RedHat Enterprise). If I have a choice, there will be no Vista on my work machines.

Wouldn't buy Vista even if it was the only OS on Earth.

I am certainly NEVER going to buy of Microsoft's Windblows as long as I live.
I have had a helluva lot of bad experiences with windows. (shudder)

(It took me three months to install Win98 on my Mum's PC so that she could use it to print things. Then I found out that it has no other resolutions except 640*480 in 16bit colour. And the printer install prog. won't run witout at least 800*600.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just one of the bad experiences.

Plus I can't afford it, even if I wanted it. :D

Speak for yourself. I've not bought a single Microsoft Operating System till date and I don't expect the situation to change. Yes, I use Windows 2000 now but I didn't pay for it. It is my cousin's discarded copy after he switched to Windows XP. ;)

I have bought Microsoft Train Simulator, but that's a whole different story :D

None for me.

I'm hoping that 2k will run most of my games, which it should, and that's all I'm ever going to use from MS from here on out. Vista is bloated and filled with DRM. If anyone is even stupid enough to preinstall it on a PC I'm going to use, it's getting wiped. Unless it's a public PC, in which case, I can't be mean so I pop in a liveCD instead.

I honestly pity the fool who buys Vista. Alot of people may say that, but they mostly want a cheap laugh, but it's seriously sad to see someone waste their money like that. 200$ for an OS? Requires 300$ in hardware upgrades?!! 500$ for new software!?!?! Not allowed to play my legally (up here at least) downloaded music?!?!?!?

Actually, I'm "option 4". I have an upgrade coupon, which means that I can get Vista for the cost of the postage (at least if they'll give it to me - see explanation here). Given this, I think I will give it a go, but I can't see myself using it much.

I'm in a bit of a bind, at the moment. I am taking course in Maths and IT, and am required to use software that works only in Windows (at least, I had a complete lack of success in getting MathCad working via Wine). This, and the fact that I have to check regularly that changes to the website I maintain work in MSIE, are the only reasons I use it (although I have been thinking of getting Myst III).

Rob

I never go to the store and by a Windows OS but I've had PC's that have it preinstalled. It is just stupid to have to buy an OS that costs as much as the hardware that it is supposed to run on.

I plan to buy a new Toshiba laptop with the 64-bit version of Vista sometime this year. Probably later this year when SP1 comes out, actually. And will probably buy another copy of same to dual boot on my current 64-bit FC6 desktop computer. I don't plan on upgrading any of the three XP computers I already have to Vista, however.

2007 will finally be the year 64-bit computing goes mainstream, IMVHO. The lowly Celeron and Sempron going 64-bit set the stage, and the latest OS upgrade cycle will make the migration happen on a large scale.

Can't believe it took this long actually. Windows 95 marked the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit and that was a VERY LONG TIME AGO (in computer time, which is like the opposite of geologic time...) :D But I guess Intel and AMD had to milk the market dry selling overpriced 64-bit server chips first (Xeon and Opteron). :o

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...sta_ff_x64.asp

sometime i think the real "meat" is from the home user and their pc ... and a x86 pc is suppose to be a free architecture for them ... probably ms knows their "weak point" and thats why they are trying to transform the x86 into a somewhat "proprietary" architecture which conforms only to whatever ms thinks is the correct and right desktop experience ... and during the "proprietary" transformation of the free x86 , vendors of softwares and hardwares are suppose to benefit form it too ... something viral actually ...

its a bad trend actually ... and this depends on what are actually usefull and are actually indispensable from the viewpoint of x86 pc desktop home user ...

if ms started out as a revolutionary in computing for the masses , i think they have the responsibilty to maintain that stance ... but , as usual ... its something "viral" when you are in buisness i think ...


apart form "protecting" my pc , i did rather go for buisnesses that go the other way round ...


.

Wait, wait, wait....what's a Vista?!?!

:D