A friend gave me his copy and told me it was crap.

I gave it to someone else, as i dont run windows that often and XP plays all the games i enjoy playing.

Maybe someone somewhere will enjoy that copy of vista, who knows.

sometime its good to not try finding "wheres the catch" of any product or system whenever you come across them for the first time ...

just treat them as how you would treat anything that you come across as like before ... no sweat ...

but the thing is that by doing things like this , there is a tendancy of you not treating them "seriously" , unlike polygamy ...



.

I wouldn't buy it, but trying it out...yes I would. And I have. Because I will bump into it one day I know, and when I do, I need to know how to use it. It's mostly the same as the previous Windows versions (with a cherry on top of the cream mountains), just requires more machine power to run smoothly, but still it's a good thing to know.

I don't get who really pays for it, to get trouble, a desktop that looks about the same as KDE4 or OSX and a resource hog..but some people do, and to be able to help them I need to know the beast too. But I'll never put any money into that ;) I'd rather happily donate the licence money to some open source project that really needs it, not feed the sum to the fat pockets at Redmond.

I am not gaming (much) on computers anymore (I am going back to consoles... ah the simplicity, no tweaks, no headaches) and I have Vista in one machine. However, I don't have a DX10 compatible card on that machine. A friend of mine is an avid computer-gamer. He invests an insane amount of money on his computers every few years. He is no computer geek though, just a gamer. He dual-boots (Vista and XP). I asked him once:

"If you buy a game that can run on both XP and Vista, which OS do you prefer to play the game on?"

Guess which OS he said? Vista. I immediately asked why, because you may need a more powerful computer to run the same game on Vista, that you would on XP. He told me:

"The game looks far better in Vista. It is cleaner, it is faster and the graphics with DX10 support are sharper".

And you know, I think he is right in this one. I am actually very happy with my Vista box, can't deny it. But if you don't have the hardware to run it, nor software (games or otherwise) that you wish to run on it, it is not really an upgrade from XP.

The amount of games using DX10 is still small, but the number might increase soon. I don't think most developers will drop DX9.0 completely though, not until Vista has the same market share that XP does (if it will ever happen actually).

The problem I have with Vista is that it uses SO much hard-disk space and so much RAM.

I thought everybody had a Quad Core with 4 gigs of ram and a terabyte harddrive /sarcasm. The stupid thing is if you complain about it everybody says everybody has enough disk space anyways so whats the problem.

I don't get that either... It's an OS made for PC's that are being sold now and in the next 5 years. When XP came out people complained about the same thing. If your pc can't handle it - don't install it.
Hom much disk space does it need? Even if it's 10Gig - that's 2$ of disk space... what the hell.

i think they are very exited with vista , still suffering from the hang over ...

seriously , if only microsofts distribute vista like how they distribute xp ... i think vista will replace xp(and the rest) very much sooner ... and probably there will also be more major upgrading of linux distribution and linux machines coming very shortly ...



//puzzling to me ...



.

its actually 16 gb of disk space, and I think that the reason that they make it use so much resources is for the hardware manufactures to make more money because then people have to upgrade their pcs

Interesting theory... but if you look at it in another direction, the price of RAM went massively down around Vista's release date. 1GB was pretty common back then, but the demanding for upgrade was quite high because of Vista. So that is actually a good thing. I upgraded my PC's RAM and it was insanely cheap. Just a few months back and I would spend 2-4 times more money for the same amount of RAM. So that is a good thing about Vista, don't you think?

So be glad Vista was made, but don't use it. That RAM is for apps, not the OS. :)

Exactly, for example I was reading an article on /. about test versions of windows 7(the next release of windows) uses *only* 480 mb for itself according to ms, 480 mb is a hell of a lot of memory for just an operating system.

480MB in another two years, that's not so bad. There are other things that I find annoying. For example, that tendency to sacrifice performance and security in the name of "user-friendliness". With a system that is as prone to fragmentation as WinD'oh!s, the wise things to do is install the OS in one partition, virtual memory and temporary files in another and applications in yet another one. But that's nearly impossible to do in a failsafe way. One would have to download a script from an obscure location on their site to do this at install time. How many people know that? And what good is it if you later change your mind and you 'd like to switch a few things around?
Or again, stuff like index.dat files, which are still hidden and difficult to clear - and as such serious security threats. People have been complaining about this since 2000. Has anyone stepped up with a good explanation of why these things should exist at all? With an easy way to delete them or clean them out? No. All you can do is never use Internet Explorer, which is less than intuitive considering how deeply it is rooted into the system.
Since I don't use Vista, I don't know whether these issues have been addressed at all. But well, I don't really care. Vista is very likely to get skipped here. I've always felt that it was the new MS ME, a botched upgrade that was only a basis for the real thing (XP). So I am more interested in Windows 7. I wonder whether it will be released within the next 18 months as scheduled. I hear that MS has already released an early beta so it's quite possible. I guess this is another area where Ms can learn from Linux. Releasing an operating system every so many years is so 1995. It would be far better for anyone if they simply gave out annual subscriptions and introduced innovations more gradually.

All I can say about that is, 'meh.' I'm not impressed by the whole vista ui, nor the projects to for some reason beyond me to mimic the look and feel of vista. There are so many better user-friendly UI already that are already similar to the 9x UI that the vista/vixta ui has no real advantages. I prefer the classic 9x anyways, which is readily available.