The point is that the "old and crippled" versions you mentioned are working perfectly fine and nearly all applications still works on them (Windows 2000+). The point is that you don't get any "new" features that really makes you want to upgrade ever since Windows 2000. I mean Windows XP, was mostly a cosmetic change with few new wizards that help new users but strip them of that - you get little new features that warrant an "upgrade". Now we have Microsoft demanding high system requirements for what gain? Close to nothing. It merely looks like a cosmetic change again as most of the intended "features" were left out early on as they weren't feasible enough to implement.

I mean, sure if the OS was free there would be little reason to not jump ship. But since its not free, the upgrade has little benefits around it, add that to the high system requirements then you can just see why many people are against this "upgrade". Sure, if the final versions rolls around with good, useful features that rightly justifies having a 3GHz processor to chew on the GUI/OS then its a worthy upgrade. Somehow, I find that highly unlikely since the final version rarely changes much from the Beta because most of the features are implemented already - its just fine tuning everything and making sure its as bug-free as possible before release.

I don't think so about them bugs LOL Those guys at Redmond always do the same. How many megabytes of patches do ye think it might be online the release day?? 10 MB? 15 MB? I bet for more than 20 MB

for dual cpu, pick up a used server off ebay, they kick butt

For $600, you can get a Dell Poweredge 2450 with twin 1.2 ghz PIII and a gig of ram (pc133), 3x 36 gb hd (raid 5, 72 gb, fault tolerant) only thing is onboard video sucks, and only PCI slots, so a card will give good quality, but bad frame rates. Great as a toy. Mine has twin PIII 866 and 2 gig ram, 4x 72 gig hd (raid 5, 200 gb, fault tolerant) Mine is like lightning with XP or Fedora

Anyway, you dont need 3 ghz

just to prove it can be done, i'll try vista on a P2 450 w/160 mb ram

AMD has more power, A 2 ghz AMD (especially opteron) is like a 3.2 ghz P4

Your opterons will be fine

Nice specs there comptiger5000, I really like to see how the boss and the important people here at the IT department get nuts trying to fit the yearly budget for computing hardware. It's none of mine business to decide which OS users here should use, and it's not like they were willing to hear me anyway. I'm really happy as long as they allow me to use linux here at the office, anyhow I'm hoping an hardware upgrade this year (something Vista-ready is likely they shall buy); I shall check it out and probably wipe it off like I've done with other Micro$oft products.

Now, that hardware shall run Linux like there were no tomorrow. 3 GHz!! 1 or 2 Gb of RAM!! SATA HD drive!! Probably a SLI nVidia card or something like it. Ooow boy I can't stand the wait anymore!! That beautiful piece-o-hardware shall run linux as smooth as it can do

well, almost anything will run windows, for example 2k pro on a Pentium 133, 48 mb ram

by the way, those servers are about 5 years old, so for the time, nice specs

Update: A new Vista on Linux

Read more at the above link.

Oh, and:
comptiger - It may install, it may work - but it definitely won't be running like Linux would on a box like that. In fact, if Vista even runs on that machine, I can guarantee that it will run very, very slowly.

Cheers,

-jk

On the desktop, right now I think there's a huge amount of inertia going on and there always has been. "If it's working, don't with it." And that often includes upgrading: plenty of the machines that I encounter seem to be running exactly the same version of Windows they were originally purchased with.

Even in the server world, budgets usually do not allow every computer to be updated nearly as often as Redmond would prefer. Since servers support hundreds or thousands of users, they're not upgraded any more than necessary.

I suspect that the actual decision made by any IT manager who sees no value in Vista, would be to decline to upgrade any computers to it ... to leave them as they are. If the budget or stability concerns did not allow for them being updated to Vista, it almost certainly would not allow for them to be removed from the Windows fold altogether.

I suspect that Linux will move into the office main-stream by means of having bypassed these "usual channels." It will come in by virtue of running other types of hardware than "the traditional pee-cee," and/or by being featured on a $100 machine sold at Wal-Mart.

I'm personally amazed at those minimum/reccomended specs for vista.. I never imagined they would be that high, nor have I ever intended to own a box like that in the near future. This shall become just another tool in my campaign to have people i know dual boot and eventually use linux if it fits for them. described:


my philosophy is that it works perfectly to find the windows users that do nothing but browse/email/chat/type/etc, the people who know how to use windows but not fix it or do anything special. find these people, give them a dual boot with linux. install everything they need, set it up for them (although there's nothing wrong with teaching them if they're willing to learn)

Basically, set them up like everyone else gets set up with windows. Ask them after a couple months if it is still running quickly (we all knows that windows will bog down for any number of reasons) and also point out that they never have to deal with viruses/adware/garbage.

I've done this with 3 people who were constantly calling me to fix their computers and get rid of viruses/adware, and nobody has complained yet.

I also should mention how wasteful it would be to require new graphics cards just for Vista, when you don't play games or do any serious graphical/3D work. A new GF7800 just to surf the net/run office? Ridiculous! Or what about to run a server? YUK! Try convincing businesses to order new graphics cards for their office machines. Onboard graphics should be enough (perhaps more than enough) for these purposes.

duplicate .. what's causing this?? .. removed. Sorry.

There are two Vistas: the Vista that was promised, aka Longhorn, and the one that actually shipped, which omits nearly all of the promised features.

Let's face it: the Linux development-model is outstripping Windows' ability to compete with it, because Linux development is distributed in a cooperative fashion among thousands of developers (and companies), while the closed-source nature of Windows forces the company to either add new features by purchase or to pay a closed group of employee-developers to write all of the new stuff.... which product-sales alone must pay for. And they are strapped. Their business-model erroneously depends on "lock-in," and you just can't have that in this industry.

The numbers, too, aren't working out. Financially, Microsoft is obviously still a strong player now, but it's considerably weakened vis-a-vis even two years ago (imho... I'm Not a Broker).

Demand for their product obviously is not going to "go away," but Microsoft needed to be able to deliver on the Longhorn promise, on time, and they obviously failed utterly in doing so. I say this with all due respect to the very credible business leaders and programmers/managers who work there: I am not criticizing you, nor your efforts, but read the handwriting on the wall: times, they are a'changin'...

I read the entire article. Very informative and interesting. Thanks for the link.

Has anyone here ever actually paid for windows ?
I can't say that I know that many people that have,
except my stupid (but, quite lovely) girlfriend, who had to buy the "proper"
media centre edition, idiot.
Anyway, I only use xp for recording
music and that's it, buy the time Vista ploddles out I
should be exclusively be using some sort of Linux Audio Debian Psycho Machine.
Let's Hope...
I wouldn't want to use vista anyway, vista can get stuffed.

Those that buy prebuilt computers preloaded with Windows have paid for XP although not directly. I spent months looking for a budget laptop without XP and couldn't find one, so I eventually bought one with WinXP which was promptly removed. The problem here is that I paid for an OS that I don't really need. Don;t get me wrong, I am not anti windows but I just don't use it in my day to life.

Shag; not a very nice way to talk about your girlfriend in a public place

But yeah, I think M$ has made its buck in the OS market, and after this, they'll probably end up having to shift their business model in another direction. Aren't they already trying to monkey Google by providing web-services???
My own opinion is that its just a matter of another couple years and open-source will own the desktop market.