Vistal Poll : You like it or not?

[gunsmokingman]

fizban2 those are very good and valid points that you posted, about the features. RogueSpear you again have made more good points. That is where the problem lies if you are running a network is it worth it to upgrade all the computers if your are runnning XP SP2 and in future SP3 all updated?

Are the changes in Vista enough to justify the retraining cost, upgrade of the computers worth it. You can run XP on a P2 at 300 mhz with 128 mb of ram and it will preform the duties it needed to do in a buisness enviroment and use this until the end of the product support. The minimum requierment for Vista that I know of is 256 MB of ram the processor speed I do not know what the minimum is, I am not sure what the minimum grapgic card is also.

The UI I will not comment on as it may change by the time it will be released it may change. As it is right now I find it acceptable even with a gaphic card that does not support it full potentail.

I not a big fan of the sidebar but in this build 5365 there are some neat gadets for it like the CPU and Memory gauges, calculator, and of course the clock. There are more but those are the ones to me that I like.

Vista Desktop, IE open, Taskmanager, Sidebar, Undock Gadget

[prx984]

everyone has good points here. i have one more to add. i prefer XP/2000 because theyre proven technologies. not to say that vista wont be as good if not better. im just going to stick with XP for now on my computers. i just like it, plus i just recently started doing windows updates (was always against em, i dont know why ) but ever since i started doing that, my computer seems a little bit more reliable. plus i just like the way XP looks on a laptop screen. too bad i dont have a fast laptop ah well.

-brian

[gunsmokingman]

everyone has good points here. i have one more to add. i prefer XP/2000 because theyre proven technologies. not to say that vista wont be as good if not better. im just going to stick with XP for now on my computers. i just like it, plus i just recently started doing windows updates (was always against em, i dont know why ) but ever since i started doing that, my computer seems a little bit more reliable. plus i just like the way XP looks on a laptop screen. too bad i dont have a fast laptop ah well.

-brian

As long as you keep it updated then there is nothing wrong with XP or W2K, as you said they are proven technologies.

[fizban2]

Are the changes in Vista enough to justify the retraining cost, upgrade of the computers worth it. You can run XP on a P2 at 300 mhz with 128 mb of ram and it will preform the duties it needed to do in a buisness enviroment and use this until the end of the product support.

Not sure about everyone else but with or XP image (standard image for any machine in the company) we sit at around 2.4 gig for the ghost image size (1.9 in WIM for ) the image doesn't run on less then 256 megs of ram. lets face it, once you get office, patches and any LOB applications installed onto your system, the minimums for XP just won't cut it. i know i work for a larger company, but our standard computers now run with 2.8 p4 and 1 gig ram, 40 - 60 gig hd, i know hardware isn't cheap and everyone has a tight budget to meet but skimping on hardware hurts you so much more in the long run. so in our case upgrading the computers is now no longer an issue it is just user training. I know that we will not go to Vista within the next year, as we just have finished an all XP rollout to all users. but we had the same retraining issue there. everyone was so used to 2000 that just seeing XP freaked them out. But once they get past that initial fear that everything is different they are ok with the system, many are already good at it since they ran XP at home on the computers they had bought since XP came out, think about it come Febuary - march time all new computer will have vista installed (or XP) people will start using it at home and get used to it there. they won't know all the new features but they will get the hang of the UI. i fully agree with giving the product time to become more dependable as with any new OS there are many bugs that either were fixed or will be fixed when time permits. no matter how good MS is there will always be things that are missed, it is just human nature. any way, time to get off my soap box, anyway, i am pretty sure anyone buying computers for their company (large or small) is going to be buying machines that will be vista compatible or be withing the minimum range needed for vista in the next couple of months, if not, well then might be time to look into your buying tactics for new equipment.

[RogueSpear]

I don't know if this has been linked to already in another thread, but it's an interesting read. It's nice to know someone other people out there feel just like I do. I was beginning to wonder if I was practically alone in my disdain for this utter crap.

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5308_05.asp

[gunsmokingman]

fizban2 there again some nice points, but the machine spec I posted I do have and it does run it used to have 256 MB of ram, but the stick burnt out and or dies. It runs office fine and PSP9 not a break neck speeds but it does work, I can use this machine until the of XP product support. It just sites in a room and it never really get used any more, but if this computer or my other break down then I have a reliable maybe slow computer to use in a crunch, it also updated I down load those and burn them to cd to update it.

RogueSpear this is what most people in the beta think of him hahahahahahahaha what a joke. Now the problem with that article is that he fails to mention the word beta it like he talking about a new OS, if it was then I would of agree with most, but since this is a beta, it has not reached beta 2 yet, there bound to be problems to Vista. If it was late in Beta 2 then it might make sence, but then again it not. The latest build while still buggy is a improvement over the last build. As I said before each build has gotten better.

I agree about the evil MS part and there tactics, but that has nothing to do with building the a OS. It was active threw W3K, XP W2K, and so forth but yet those OS are stable and reliable to use.

[olorin99]

I know its a BETA but i have to say no right now. For the end users, the interface is going to be confusing...i.e. folders show up in more than one location in windows explorer, their use of virtual folders right now is also not very friendly, removing the traditional drop down menus shoud be implemented by itself, maybe as an optional update, users are not going to like it, to diffucult to transition. And yes, it is a resource hog. I wouldn't even consider running Vista on 512 RAM in a production environment and HAVE to depend on the page file just to RUN, thats nuts!!!!!

On the other hand I liked what i have seen in offce 12, much easier to navigate and find familiar features than Vista.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Yeah, it was alright, not the best I used, but I prefer XP.

Didn't like how they changed the start menu. Now I have to click on the icons just to expand it, hope Microsoft reverts back to the original one in the future builds.

And that stupid security center, I hated it how it keeps prompting you to allow or deny that program to execute... I clicked on that program, of course I want it to run... geez.

[TheNerd]

Does anyone have any idea when the next BETA will be publically released?