anybody else here using Windows Vista yet??

[Rooster_Ties]

We only just got our new machine (a Dell) late this afternoon, so I've only been using Vista for a few hours now. So far, so good -- but I'm sure there are TONS of things yet to learn; some unknown number of problems yet to encounter; and tons of features never to be used, etc...

Anybody else here use Vista yet?? - by choice, or by default.

(We didn't really plan to get a new PC specifically timed to the release of Vista, it just worked out that way.)

[GA Russell]

I hope you'll let us know what your experience is after a while, Rooster. I've been thinking that when the time comes to buy a new computer, if I have to get a new operating system I might as well get an Apple Mac.

edit for typo

Edited February 27, 2007 by GA Russell

[rockefeller center]

There's no reason for me to switch to Vista. Am happy with XP and Suse 10.2.

The Beryl WOW-effect (w/Suse 10.2):

Edited February 27, 2007 by rockefeller center

[sal]

I bought a new laptop in November and just received my Vista upgrade. I haven't installed it yet. I'm actually kind of worried to.

[Jim Alfredson]

As I've said on other forums, I ain't touching Vista with a 10 foot pole:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Worst. OS. Ever.

[Uncle Skid]

XP and Ubuntu Linux works for me.

I'm always a very late adopter of MS Windows, if at all. From what I've read about it so far, there's nothing new or compelling enough to want to upgrade.

Plus, I don't think my PC could handle it.

[Claude]

I'm always a very late adopter of MS Windows, if at all. From what I've read about it so far, there's nothing new or compelling enough to want to upgrade.

Plus, I don't think my PC could handle it.

I have tried XP and Vista when they came out (the XP final version that was preinstalled on my notebook and the public beta of Vista), but nothing could convince me to switch from Windows 2000 to the newer versions. Under the hood, there is nothing really new, and the added functionalites (firewall, multimedia, etc) are all available as better add-on software from third party makers. I also don't like the standard desktop looks of XP and Vista. So I'm still running Windows 2000 on my latest computers.

However, for the less knowledgable people who don't want to spend a lot of time adding software and optimizing the system, Vista is a good package. But it's overpriced, so I would not upgrade to it but wait until the computer needs to be replaced.

[Rooster_Ties]

By the way, the machine we were using before this was still running Windows ME.

ANYTHING (including Vista) has got to be better than ME, I do know that much!!

That said, I do kinda wish I had gotten my butt in gear earlier so as to have gotten our new machine loaded with the latest and greatest version of XP, instead of Vista.

No problems with Vista yet, and no particular complaints (yet) either. Of course I've only been using it for going on barely 6 or 8 hours of real-time use.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Rooster_Ties

[Jim Alfredson]

XP with Service Pack 2 is a good OS. I see no reason for Vista other than making the RIAA and Hollywood happy at the expense of the consumer.

[Uncle Skid]

Brother Jim speaketh the truth... but don't forget the windfall for the hardware manufacturers.

Faster processors, more memory, "extreme graphics" video cards, bigger hard drives...

My gamer son says the only thing interesting for them is new (and supposedly much improved) Direct X software. It sounds like it's only available with Vista, so I guess the gaming companies might get a boost, too.

[Scott Dolan]

I also don't like the standard desktop looks of XP and Vista.

You can change their look back to "classic" which looks like the '98/ME interface. It's the first thing I did when I got my latest comp with XP on it.

I basically agree with Jim and the others who say there simply is no reason to upgrade. If indeed it's really an upgrade at all.

Uncle Skid, from what I've read there will be a DX10 patch for gamers who still use XP. There's a big hullabaloo about the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator needing DX10 to run properly. Even on the bigtime over-caffeinated machines.

[Uncle Skid]

Thanks for the info, Scott. I'll pass it along to my son.

Might even save him some money in the long run!

[Scott Dolan]

I'm not sure how it will work, exactly. From what I've been reading it looks as though they will offer individual patches for games.

Seems rather odd and inefficient. But have your son do a search for DX10 patches for whatever games he needs them for. It shouldn't be hard for him to get the information he's looking for.

[Dave Garrett]

I have tried XP and Vista when they came out (the XP final version that was preinstalled on my notebook and the public beta of Vista), but nothing could convince me to switch from Windows 2000 to the newer versions. Under the hood, there is nothing really new, and the added functionalites (firewall, multimedia, etc) are all available as better add-on software from third party makers. I also don't like the standard desktop looks of XP and Vista. So I'm still running Windows 2000 on my latest computers.

Another Win2K user here, and yeah, both of my machines are pretty heavily customized with 3rd-party add-ons. I have install media for XP, but I've yet to find a compelling reason to switch to it from 2000, plus the whole "activation" thing really chaps my ass. Vista appears to be even worse, at least when it comes to DRM.

When Win2K gets elderly enough to start having problems running newer software, I'm probably going to think long and hard about whether to switch to XP or one of the various Linux distributions. Or if I win the lottery, I'll just get a Mac Pro with a 30" Apple Cinema Display.

[Scott Dolan]

Are there no longer the compatability issues with 2000?

Back in the day, it was nearly worthless for the average home user.

We've switched to XP at work, but there's not a lot of difference between the two in a business setting that I can find.

[Shawn]

My policy is to avoid new Windows operating systems until at least the first Service Pack comes down the pike. You get to continue using a relatively stable system while all the early adopters get to deal with all the bugs & security holes...

I'm perfectly content with using XP and see no reason to upgrade anytime in the near future.

[Dave Garrett]

Are there no longer the compatability issues with 2000?

Back in the day, it was nearly worthless for the average home user.

In my experience, this was much more the case with NT than with 2000, and that was primarily due to the fact that when NT was in its heyday, there was still a fair amount of software home users would be likely to use that wasn't completely 32-bit compatible. This hasn't been the case for quite some time now - practically all of the Windows software you were likely to run across in stores prior to the advent of Vista was usually compatible with both 2000 and XP.