15 replies to this topic

[Sniprwulf]

"1. You don't actually need it -- No, think about this. Vista doesn't do anything you can't already do with XP. About the only significant shift requiring Vista is DirextX10, but as no titles support it yet and, according to John Carmack (the godfather of modern gaming) there's no need to yet either.



2. Cost $$ -- It's so blindingly obvious, most people will be blinded to it. You already have XP, and alternatives like Linux are free. If you really want to throw money away, go give it to a local charity.



3. On that note, it's outrageously overpriced -- at least in Australia. As revealed in the current APC, even after taking into account the profit margin Microsoft Australia previously applied to XP (as well as exchange rates, as you would expect), Australians are paying hundreds of dollars more for their copies than in the US. In fact, it's cheaper for Australians to buy Vista direct by mail order from the States. If you think Microsoft Australia is reaming us, vote with your wallet.



4. Upgrading hardware -- XP was demanding at release, but Vista more so. If you have an older machine that struggles with XP at the best of times, Vista is out of your ballpark unless you spend even more money to upgrade. If this is you, see point 1.



5. Driver support -- Key hardware like video and sound is crippled at the moment -- while Nvidia is working furiously to get a stable driver for the 8800 out by the 30th, there's still no SLI support for any of the Nvidia range. And thanks to the removal of hardware accelerated 3D sound in Vista, Creative's popular DirectSound based EAX no longer works at all, muting this feature for just about all gaming titles on the market today. Creative is in the process of coding a layer for its drivers to translate EAX calls to the OpenAL API which is seperate from Vista, but going by past experience with Creative drivers we won't see these any time soon.



6. Applications that don't work -- there's been plenty of coverage about applications that won't work without a vendor update. These include anti-virus, backup and security software such as those from Symantec, Sophos and ilk; CD and DVD burning tools like the suite from Nero need updated versions to work; and even basic disk management and partitioning tools such as Paragon's Hard Disk Manager are awaiting an update for Vista to be compatible. How many more will fail as Vista enters mainstream? Even Firefox has issues with Vista.



7. It's a big fat target -- with a new and untested in the global wild architecture, virus and malware authors are going to work overtime exploiting the holes Microsoft missed. In fact it's already happening. Loath though I am to use the word 'security' and 'Windows' in the same sentence, Windows XP has at least been patched to the hilt and can be used with a plethora of reasonably effective security tools that work now, without waiting for an update down the track.



8. UAC -- Oh yes, the Microsoft solution for an operating system where mutli-user was an afterthought. Sure, you can disable it, but the OS then makes it clear then that the onus is on the user for any damaging programs that got to run with permissions, rather than with Windows in the first place. If you do have it on, it is going to annoy the hell out of you. It pops up far too frequently, and even on a fast PC, the UAC screen takes too long to come up and disappear.



9. DRM -- And to a lesser degree TPM -- were made for the RIAAs and MPAAs of this world, and the even tighter integration of copy protection mechanisms and 'Windows Rights Management' into vista are nothing more than a liability to you, the user. This ComputerWorld piece says is succinctly: 'it's hard to sing the praises of technology designed to make life harder for its users.' As for TPM, this short animated video shows just how far the rabbit hole goes. And to think you pay for the privilege of having the use of media you purchased and own dictated by third parties, even on your own system.



10. The draconian license -- somehow, Microsoft has forgotten that it built its business from products that empowered its customers, not hampered them. Of course, we forget that Microsoft's customers aren't you and I, afterall (see point 9). Aside from the backward thinking that is licensing, and not actually owning, your software new terms with Vista include being able to transfer the license only once; half the limit compared to XP for Home Basic and Premium on how many machines can connect to yours for sharing, printing and accessing the Internet; limits on the number of devices that can use Vista's Media Center features; activation and validation governing your ability to upgrade hardware and use Windows itself; and outlawing the use of Home Basic and Premium with virtualisation software, and Ultimate only if DRM enabled content and applications aren't used. But then again, who reads these anyway? "

[Chris82]

there's still no SLI support for any of the Nvidia range. And thanks to the removal of hardware accelerated 3D sound in Vista, Creative's popular DirectSound based EAX no longer works at all, muting this feature for just about all gaming titles on the market today.

WOW! All those deter me from the OS but that one especially.

FUCK VISTA!

[fhqwhgads]

I'm running it right now just for the "lets see how bad this really is" factor. Besides having it suck up HUGE amounts of ram, I actually don't have any complaints. (I think most of the ram is caching anyway, and that is a good thing)

My box was fast enough, OS was free, I was reinstalling anyway, I don't SLI.

I see no speed issues with UAC popping up and whatnot. If anything with its more aggressive caching I would say it is faster then my previous XP install

I think what helped me a ton is I was running XP64, so I was careful what hardware I had in my machine to begin with. For me, driver support is great :D

[The Drizzle]

For a general basic everyday PC user, Vista isnt so bad. Especially if you get it from an OEM like dell or HP. At least with that you know all the devices you have inside are going to work fine with the OS and whatnot and there will be some type of support. For enthusiasts like myself and most of the people here, its not so great. Down the line, I can see it being decent but Ill give it a long while.

[ghozy]

I will wait a year or so before switching to it. Eventually i will. because it's part of my job.

[Mike2077]

Wait for vienna. It might be better.

[Sgt.Buttery]

"1. You don't actually need it -- No, think about this. Vista doesn't do anything you can't already do with XP. About the only significant shift requiring Vista is DirextX10, but as no titles support it yet and, according to John Carmack (the godfather of modern gaming) there's no need to yet either.

QFT

[Mike2077]

It's funny they just add a few fancy things and DX10 and expect us to buy that piece of sh*t. Take Microsoft Office for example. MS Office 2000 was pretty much the easiest to use and most efficient. Each 'improved' office afterwards just added more bullsh*t that wasn't necessary in order to make more money. It doesn't matter if its no longer easy to use or efficient, it only matters that they continue to make money off of it. That's the problem with windows. They can never reach that point where its extremely efficient and easy to use because that's where the cash flow stops flowing. So once they get to that point, they'll start adding trashy sh*t we don't need just to add to their bottom dollar.

[Ahkmed]

I want DX10 for when Crysis comes out but its not worth it for just that.

We need to rush Microsoft with Paras!

[Mike2077]

Do it.

[kidcapri]

And half of these people read this sh*t online without even trying it. Retail version that is.

[Ahkmed]

Do it.

I will, watch Fox news tomorrow.

[Komit]

I will, watch Fox news tomorrow.

FoxNews pwns, and Crysis will melt your system. The only cards that support DX10 right now are the 8k series by Nvidia and soon ATI will be in the race.

[DarkShadow]

And half of these people read this sh*t online without even trying it. Retail version that is.

thats a bit of a contradiction... if Vista sucks(Which is does) why the fuck would we want to install it after RC? seriously, thats like saying, Hey, Aids might not be that bad, I should try to get it and find out.

[dar_tana]

thats a bit of a contradiction... if Vista sucks(Which is does) why the f*ck would we want to install it after RC? seriously, thats like saying, Hey, Aids might not be that bad, I should try to get it and find out.

+1

[Kill_JOy]

Vista (right now) is like Jessica Simpson - Beautiful to look at, but a complete f*ckin idiot.

* The voice recognition software is horrible.
* Most of your peripherals will NOT work with it.
* Some peole can't get online anymore because of it.
* Last, but not least, if you throw down good money for the 64-bit version you may actually end up with the 32-bit version and have to shell out even MORE money for the extra disk/upgrade package.


Bottom line: you NEVER buy a new OS till all the 'kinks' have been worked out.
Spend your money on hookers and booze instead.

Edited by Kill_JOy, 06 April 2007 - 12:20 AM.