What's Windows Vista Worth? Play Guy's Guesstimating Game.

[xrodney]

I don't get you guys/girls. This system offers benefits over xp. If you are mad about resources, look what windows 98 required compared to its predasesor. Everyone thought 256MB was too much then! Now you all have no problems poping in 1GB of ram just so a game will run faster, so it's really about the game now.

As for Aero, get the standard home addition that doesn't come with aero. And why not get that standard system, you don't seem to like all the extras of vista anyway. Besides, more isn't always better.

As for copy-cats of OS's, you can't say that MAC didn't copy anything. If you think a Mac thought up everything it has ever made on it's own, you are walking around blind then. Oh, and lets not forget to mention that Mac has successfully charged extra for every update to their 5, yes 5 new opporating systems. Lets not forget how crappy the updates were too.

I could write pages on how rediculous it is to complain over an operating system that will probably only cast maybe $200 dollars for a good update, if not a full version. On top of it lasting you well over 4 years. If you buy the $200 dollar version, that's a whopping $50 a year for your expense. I'll save the monthly value for you to figure out, or that might be too expensive for you to figure out. Might be too much time, could end up waisting it and loosing money somewhere.

Oh, and windows 98 finally stopped getting support, so that means in the 5 and some odd years XP has been out, people could use 98 without updating to XP. This means that you could still use your precious XP (because it uses up only a 1/3 of your ram rather than 1/2 OH NO!!) and just wait for the next operating system after that.

All in all, quit being so picky! It is a new improvement in home based software and it benefits the normal everyday user! Finally, we get a home version that doesn't suck.

I am using Windows 2003 x64 and i dont see any befenits to move to move to Vista, but quite oposite.
Using 10 times more resources for windows itself ?
Be annoyed with overprotected scheme ?
Need 2+ times more CPU power to play same high resolution video just to be sure its "uncrackable" ?
I dont think so.
(not mentioning microsoft stupidest idea whats important for normal user, of more then 2 concurent sesions available only in most expensive versions of windows directed to companies)
And more important there will be many programs whitch will not work in Vista and I am sure companies whitch just spent milions for curent software whitch will have problems run on Vista will not move on it anytime soon.

Why MS need so many power just for windows itself when any other OS need like 1/10 to make same task.

 

[DaBigHurt]

...
Is Vista Worth it? at $249 is too soon to tell. ...

Will we be switching? Eventually.......But its not like we have a choice....Specially gamers.

You can download a release candidate copy from Microsoft already. Trust me, you'll go back to XP after the novelty of the new GUI has worn off. For me it took about 20 minutes.

Acutally gamers will have a choice. There won't be any DX10-only games out. so they'll all run under XP on DX9. You miss out on the odd extra shimmer and twinkle of water reflections or something but so what?

Funny, you should mention that, I did install the RC1, 2 days ago, and it took me about 20 min. to make up my mind that I didnt want it and im coming fresh from a format.

But what happens when we need to upgrade a Video Card? I wouldnt stick with DX9 cards forever,eventually we will make the switch, specially with all the talk of samarter/greater performance in a DX10. I dunno, I guess we will have to see.

 

[mitch074]

Well, I haven't tried RC1; still, I gave beta2 a spin some time ago.

I also gave AIGLX and XGL a spin recently. I also gave Firefox 2's beta a spin, too.

So, let's take a Dell mid-range PC, with all-Intel hardware and integrated graphics - but still dual-core and 64-bit capable.

Aero Glass don't work on it. AIGLX works out of the box at full speed, though. I even made a 1999 TNT work with XGL. Save 200$ (plus 50$ for Vista Premium).

You need at least 2 Gb of RAM to forego slowdowns in Vista. 1 Go is more than enough for GNU/Linux. Save 30$.

You need to purchase the new Windows to get DirectX 10 support. You merely need to update your Mesa libraries (included with Xorg anyway) to get the same functionalities under OpenGL: direct hardware access, GLX updated in version 7.1. Save at least 150$.

You have to deal with authorizations - and learn about them - in Vista. It's part of install with Linux, and flexible systems already exist (kdesu, sudo etc.). Save time.

IE7 uses sandboxes. A Linux user account already is a sandbox. Save on antivirii runs.

IE7 provides anti-phishing. So does Firefox 2. Ff2 also provides a nice source viewer, XHTML support, real XML parsing, SVG support. Save on an extra IE theme (15$?)

Meaning that right now, considering I'm using a 'normal', paid-for version of Linux (which includes an office suite, a graphics editor, and advanced CD/DVD/MMedia tools built-in) which cost me $50, you'd need to pay me:
200+50+30+15-50 = $345 for me to consider Vista instead of an editor phone-supported (not OEM flaky answers) Vista version, and I'll want MS Office and Photoshop thrown in for free for good measure.

I'll go back to my CPU-saving, memory frugal, too fluid (I had to put a break on the FPS, it was sickeningly fluid on my FX5200), fully equipped, well designed, cool looking 3D transluscent desktop now.

 

[dan555smith]

The main point that I am making is the main stream purchasers are going to buy new machines with vista. they won't have [much of] a choice anyway. In m$ licensing, you do not have a choice (unless you buy an OEM copy of XP either b/c you built the system or in addition to the license you already bought (a new computer with Vista) to go back). There are some retailers that are begining to allow Linux to be included instead of windows, but for the most part, it is windows. Besides, companies just make throw-away computers for this purpose.
Like one of the guys stated, if the linux guys made GUI installers, there would be more desktop penetration in the market.

NIZ: In case you haven't noticed, the corporate world has caught on to gamers spending money on hardware/software. 2-3 years from now, when m$ comes out with another os, that is not compatible with new games, you will be forced to shell out more. then your computer will have to be upgraded...Just make more money... I still game, just not as much. I don't buy new games (much), I wait until they are $20 or less or I buy them used.

xrodney :who the heck runs a server o/s as there primary o/s???? they have 64 bit xp, and linux. MAC too!

 

[infornography42]

I don't get you guys/girls. This system offers benefits over xp. If you are mad about resources, look what windows 98 required compared to its predasesor. Everyone thought 256MB was too much then! Now you all have no problems poping in 1GB of ram just so a game will run faster, so it's really about the game now.

umm... You can easily run 98 on 64 megs of ram and it will still work fine with 32. I don't know where this 256 meg figure you came up with came from.

As for Aero, get the standard home addition that doesn't come with aero. And why not get that standard system, you don't seem to like all the extras of vista anyway. Besides, more isn't always better.

The standard home edition does not support logging into a domain and I had to upgrade my home network to a domain years ago. More than 11 computers makes workgroups unworkable. Also this standard home edition does not support dual processors, which many of us will probably be switching to when 4x4 comes out.

As for copy-cats of OS's, you can't say that MAC didn't copy anything. If you think a Mac thought up everything it has ever made on it's own, you are walking around blind then. Oh, and lets not forget to mention that Mac has successfully charged extra for every update to their 5, yes 5 new opporating systems. Lets not forget how crappy the updates were too.

I don't think anyone was trying to say Apple didn't copy anything. Everyone in the PC industry steals from everyone. Most people don't even realize how many important technologies were developed by Commodore Amiga and promptly integrated into everyone elses products. I fail to see this as relevent.

I could write pages on how rediculous it is to complain over an operating system that will probably only cast maybe $200 dollars for a good update, if not a full version. On top of it lasting you well over 4 years. If you buy the $200 dollar version, that's a whopping $50 a year for your expense. I'll save the monthly value for you to figure out, or that might be too expensive for you to figure out. Might be too much time, could end up waisting it and loosing money somewhere.

I refuse to consider operating system software as a service. The mere concept sickens me.
I can accept antivirus as a service because it reacts to external forces.
I can accept MMORPGs as a service because they are adding a lot of new features regularly and have to maintain high bandwidth servers constantly.
Windows updates are not the same thing because they are fixes for things that should have worked right from the beginning and new features are few, far between, and generally unwanted/needed.

Oh, and windows 98 finally stopped getting support, so that means in the 5 and some odd years XP has been out, people could use 98 without updating to XP. This means that you could still use your precious XP (because it uses up only a 1/3 of your ram rather than 1/2 OH NO!!) and just wait for the next operating system after that.

Your ratios are a bit skewed. Also people who wanted to use any remotely recent applications could not just continue to use 98 because they no longer ran on 98. The main reason I care at all is because I REALLY want the benefits that DirectX 10 would provide, but I don't want ANYTHING else that comes with Vista. I WOULD be willing to pay good money for a version of DX10 that would run on 2000/XP, but chances are that this will not happen.

All in all, quit being so picky! It is a new improvement in home based software and it benefits the normal everyday user! Finally, we get a home version that doesn't suck.

Quit being so blind! I fail to see how any of this benefits the everyday home user more than XP. I also fail to see how the basic edition is really any better than XP home, and several ways in which it is worse.

 

[Ram11]

I expect additional value over XP pro to be around $250-$300.

I would surely get the Ultimate version with a new laptop/PC(OEM), good for around 4 years or so( and then may be another couple of years)

The concept that Superfetch will save battery life, using onboard flash memory, is very appealing.

Since I do not think linux/OSX is a realistic option for me as the only os on a laptop(the main PC) comparing costs is pointless at this point.

 

[mredraider]

UAC can be disabled via running msconfig from the run line.
The far right tab (I think is called tools?, I am not running my vista box right now). Scroll down the list and there is an entry called "Disable UAC"

click it, then hit the launch button on the lower right.

Reboot and enjoy.

If someone else has already posted this... well, screw them... I posted it too.

 

[khytai]

You can also disable UAC from the Users portion of the control panel. Just select the "Turn User Account Control on or off." (This is in RC1 as well)

 

[qukza]

Nothing. I think the cost is to cover their botched development process (lenghy with lots of promised features discarded) more than the actual value to end-users.

I'm still happy using W2K at home. I have XP at work. The only thing Vista and Microsoft's endlessly expensive (product plus new hardware) and low-value upgrades (add Office to that list) have encouraged me to do is start messing around with Linux and more open source software. I have a dual boot system at the moment and can see myself transitioning over the next year or so to a Linux system with one or two Windows programs for which there are no alternatives running in a virtual machine.

 

[Whizzard9992]

Heya Barry

I dunno about a monetary value, but a lot of what was mentioned is derived from marketing. As a lot of system engineers and developers are aware, there's generally a plethora of changes 'under the hood' that make the OS better. This leads to better, more stable software applications for the new OS.

More managability, more stability, better software. Count me in.

 

[gm0n3y]

First of all, the reasons that it was worth it to upgrade from Windows98 to 2k (I actually just skipped right to XP) was because:

1) 98 was horribly buggy and crashed pretty much daily

2) Vastly impoved security (still not great)

3) NTFS File system

4) Ability to run as a limited user (i.e. not administrator)

5) Supports active directory

6) Moved away from a monolithic architecture to a modular design (allows easier updating)

6) Supports SCSI

7) First Windows version that supports multithreading (I think, somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

Vista, so far, has not offered any new 'features' that offer any real value (dx10 excluded). We were willing to upgrade to 2k,XP because although they used more system resources, if we had adequate resources, our application performace would improve. To me that is the main reason to upgrade to a new OS. So far most of the new features that come with Vista do not seem that useful. Bundling more applications that I could get elsewhere does not really add value to me. I want more fundamental OS upgrades. Where is the new file system that was supposed to be with Vista?

Once Vista has been out for a while and M$ has released some of the 'updates' (new FS, etc) that were supposed to be included, then I will definately move to Vista. Its not really a question of money. If the OS will provide even slightly more value over XP, then it is worth the upgrade. But for now, once DX10 cards come out, I will probably buy a cheap top end DX9 card (upgrade from my x850xt), so I have no real reason to upgrade.

 

[mitch074]

Under the hood improvement:
- Vista uses Windows 2003's kernel. I don't see where the improvement lies.
- the botched 'modular' design: under Linux (or BSD), you need to restart the computer in a single case: when you replace the whole kernel. Changing a video driver merely requires restarting X (all your servers and services keep running happily).
- DX10 will be the underlying graphics architecture. X has been using DRI/DRM and GLX for quite some time, and this in fact comes as a correction of a model failure: the embedding of the GUI in the win32 kernel (ring 0).
- most of the UI elements are made using .Net. As a result, you need 400 Mb of RAM to store the GUI - that's pushing it quite a bit.
- IE should never have been embedded in the system. The 'sandbox' is nothing more than going back to IE being a standalone application.
- user and admin accounts should never have been the same; this lesson has been taught by Unix for 30 years, as a result you had so many sloppy coders relying on admin access that Windows is built on a flawed model: you need admin access to do pretty much anything, the system can be given priviledges that an administrator can't touch or modify, and setting up user accounts has become meaningless since everybody has full control of the machine.

Please, tell me what else has been 'added'.

 

[mitch074]

1) 98 was horribly buggy and crashed pretty much daily
2) Vastly impoved security (still not great)
3) NTFS File system
4) Ability to run as a limited user (i.e. not administrator)
5) Supports active directory
6) Moved away from a monolithic architecture to a modular design (allows easier updating)
6) Supports SCSI
7) First Windows version that supports multithreading (I think, somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

1) that's what you get running a 32-bit GUI on a 16-bit real-mode kernel
2)I don't see where security lies on a system on which any computer could connect itself to a buggy, useless yet still enabled by default full-fledged server, and send spoofed messages all over the place (admin access to raw TCP sockets... eugh!)
3)I prefer ext3: it's journaled.
4)considering the administrator cannot set permissions to devices, because it's limited to 'SYSTEM'...
5)I prefer good old LDAP
6)winNT5 is more monolithic than 9x: the GUI is embedded in the kernel.
6 bis)SCSI support worked under 9x; you just needed the free Adaptec drivers to enjoy it.
7)multithreading comes from not having to limit the system to 16-bit memory addressing.

But, frankly, I must concede tha after having been out for 6 years, most of the most glaring bugs in win2000 have been ironed out.

XP runs well, too, once you've deactivated useless services, removed system recovery, neutralized WMP and IE, deactivated all themes, removed UI wizards, shut down running servers (Terminal Server, file sharing...), disabled the security center aut automatic updates, replaced the firewall, installed another Web browser, hacked a few hundred registry keys... Set up a limited user account and sealed the administrator account...

In THAT case, then XP gets almost as fast and secure as an out of the box free Linux distribution - but then it looks all grey.

 

[wolfman140]

I just downloaded Vista RC1 last night and installed it...I'm not too impressed. So here's what it breaks down to:

(1) It's purdy. It also uses 33% of my RAM (out of 2 gigs) whilest it is being purdy. I dunno how I feel about that...it's fine of course, but I don't want it to rob my cpu of the RAM it needs for multitasking.

(2) What a pain in the @$$ to have to re-learn everything. Interfaces are different, terms used (like "Properties" is now called "Personalize") are different, and to me the 'simplified' taskbar and Start Menu looks a lot more confusing to me.

(3) Increased security features a plus...except I never ever get viruses or heavy spyware (using XP) just because I'm not an idiot and click on stupid links or download infected files. I don't even have an anti-virus program...I've been virus free for years.

(4) The other new features to me, being a regular home/game user, aren't important. The simplified networking (not that it was hard before), the file sharing, all that gobbly beloved patriot stuff I don't really have need for myself. So you say "Then get the Home edition of Vista" and I say "F*** that for $200, I already HAVE a fine one" The other only feature I like is the Search Bar that searches everything on the computer.

Bottom Line: It's built for dumb people. Kinda like the Mac OS. It has purdy descriptions to a T of what everything does, etc. I like the purdy-ness don't get me wrong...But its not worth all the frustration of trying to locate the features that I knew exactly where they were in XP. I really don't have a problem with XP, I never have. Never had a network or security issue. Never had stability issues. So...uhhh...why are we spending $200-$300 on a new OS? Beats me...I'm not...I'll probably stay with XP till the bitter end...Or until games start using DX10 as standard.

**Edit** And to Mitch above me, yeah you are right about all the tweaking for XP. I have pretty much done all of the above, and my OS is rockin'. I also feel that since I've done so much to it, I know XP inside and out and is also the reason I don't want a new OS cuz I know XP so well.

 

[gm0n3y]

I am definately not defending Windows against Linux. Linux is by far the superior OS (except for ease of use). I was just stating why it was worth the $ and time to upgrade from 98 to 2k and asking where the upgrade was from Xp to Vista.

Also, just a peeve of mine, but what happened to meaningful naming schemes? XP? Vista? I liked the year naming much more. Or even better, just regular, good old incremental numeric versioning.

*EDIT* Also like above, I do admit that to get XP to run well, you do need to spend a few hours (or even days) tweaking, disabling, etc. */EDIT*

 

[mitch074]

I wonder where 'ease of use' lies in Windows. I mean, I break out the DVD for a Linux distribution. A graphical interface starts, asking me where I'm from, then gives me a choice of what to do to my computer (wipe ou everything, or play nice with Windows). It then asks what softwares am I going to use, and copies them in 20 minutes to disk. It then asks me if it detected my hardware correctly (yup).
Next reboot: it connects to the Internet and gets all the updates I may need, then starts into an environment that I can make exactly as I wish: completely bare, a Windows look-alike, a MacOS lookalike, or something radically different - even a desktop pasted on a cube where all windows, with live action in them, putting themselves as a mosaic when my desktop gets too crowded (videos even keep playing in the shrunk windows). I can choose to use single or double clicks to open stuff, most of the applications are put away in menu folders where their function is described, I can give whatever action I want a hotkey, I can even program the media keys on my keyboard to perform any action without any need for a keyboard driver.

When I plug in my webcam, my camera, my printer and my MP3 player, it detects them, installs whatever software may be needed to use them correctly, and lets me use it without any need for a reboot.

When I need a new software, I open the software manager: if it's provided by the repositories, I click it to add/update/remove it. All dependencies are automatically retrieved, and the most recent version is selected. No need to put a CD in a drive, install the software, get an update because the anti-piracy system is faulty, get another because the update wasn't complete, get a noCD crack because the update didn't work... Nope, just click, wait a few minutes, start. If the application isn't there, I merely have to locate a packaged version for my system or one close to mine, and see it install anyway.

In the case I use an exotic system (say, an Itanium-based desktop!) and there are no compiled package for it, then I can still retrieve the source code and compile it - instead of having to wait for a port or try my hand at having running (slowly if at all) under an emulator, orjust plain forgetting about it...

Who wants to deal with Windows idiosyncrasis when you have a fast, transparent, customizable yet still simple by default, free (or almost free) good looking system?

Not me.

 

[Bubben]

Is it true that vista has got soft links (ln -s for you unix "hackers" )?

If so: priceless!

 

[niz]

I expect additional value over XP pro to be around $250-$300.

I would surely get the Ultimate version with a new laptop/PC(OEM), good for around 4 years or so( and then may be another couple of years)

The concept that Superfetch will save battery life, using onboard flash memory, is very appealing.

Since I do not think linux/OSX is a realistic option for me as the only os on a laptop(the main PC) comparing costs is pointless at this point.

I Use fedora core 5 on my laptop at work fine. Not only am I more productive in it than windows, I don't have any problems integrating with the other windows users or network servers at all. I can get mail from windows exchange server, open word/excel/powerpoint/pdf attachments, I can develop software much faster under Linux than Windows too.

 

[gm0n3y]

I expect additional value over XP pro to be around $250-$300.

I would surely get the Ultimate version with a new laptop/PC(OEM), good for around 4 years or so( and then may be another couple of years)

The concept that Superfetch will save battery life, using onboard flash memory, is very appealing.

Since I do not think linux/OSX is a realistic option for me as the only os on a laptop(the main PC) comparing costs is pointless at this point.

I Use fedora core 5 on my laptop at work fine. Not only am I more productive in it than windows, I don't have any problems integrating with the other windows users or network servers at all. I can get mail from windows exchange server, open word/excel/powerpoint/pdf attachments, I can develop software much faster under Linux than Windows too.

The main reason that I use Windows (other than games) is for programming. I develop ASP.NET and there are no better apps for that than VS2K5. It is by far the easiest way to develop asp.net apps.

 

[smlong]

Well, I haven't tried RC1; still, I gave beta2 a spin some time ago.

I also gave AIGLX and XGL a spin recently. I also gave Firefox 2's beta a spin, too.

So, let's take a Dell mid-range PC, with all-Intel hardware and integrated graphics - but still dual-core and 64-bit capable.

Ugh.. here we go with this again. The world does not revolve around Linux.

I am using Vista RC1 right now and I like it. Would I buy it for $200? Not at the moment. WinXP is fine for my purposes (VS2005/.NET dev). I would be happy to have Vista if it were to come with a brand new machine, though, which I have been desiring for a while now.

My SuSE 10.x box is slower than my 'untweaked' WinXP machine with similar specs. I love how people before me keep saying 'ok, I admit Linux is better.. but I run Windows' .. or 'ok, I admit WinXP needs tweaks to run as well as Linux.... but I still run Windows.' If these statements were even close to being true/accurate, more than 0.000000000000001 % of the population would run Linux.