View Full Version : Windows Vista Ultimate - worth it at this point?
Serban
07-06-2007, 7:20 AM
I know it's still fresh out... and it's probably still pretty unstable... But, is it worth it to get it already?
Or, as an alternative, can a computer have BOTH Windows XP and Windows Vista Ultimate installed at the same time?
My specs are:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86 GHz 1.88 GHz
nVidia GeForce 7300 GT
256 MB VRAM
1 GB RAM
1536 KB/384 KB ADSL Internet Connection
It depends. If you're not using XP Pro now and don't miss it, then Home Premium is probably fine. Perks of Ultimate include full remote desktop, full system backup and recovery, drive encryption, and some other useful features. If you don't need those, I wouldn't recommend buying it.
A computer can run Windows XP and Vista at the same time as long as they're both legally licensed and activated. If Windows XP came with your computer, you can't reinstall it on the new computer. If you bought Windows XP boxed at a store, then yes you can move it.
Shortyland05
07-07-2007, 3:38 AM
Do you like games? do you like security freedom? do you like not being asked about every single little thing you do?
if you said yes to all of those questions then stick with XP, at least until SP1 comes out for Vista
Do you like games? do you like security freedom? do you like not being asked about every single little thing you do?
if you said yes to all of those questions then stick with XP, at least until SP1 comes out for Vista
Nice spin. What games don't run on Vista? I'm assuming "security freedom" is running as Administrator and being able to muck up everything on the computer. It's still possible on Vista, but it's nearly universally regarded as a bad idea, so it's no longer the default behavior. Same thing goes with being asked to perform administrative actions. Compatibility (if you're having problems) may be fixed in future service packs, but the other two things are features of the operating system and aren't going to be removed because you don't like them.
Yeah, but... Don't you dislike it when an OS tries to hold you're hand? I'm perfectly capable of running as an administrator in Windows without hitting problems since I'm not a complete idgit when it comes to browsing, or installing programs or downloading strange things people send me in emails.
=P
But yeah. As for the original topic, I would personally wait. Vista looks nice and everything, but I just don't think it is worth the change yet. I also want to wait until there are actually concrete reasons to switch. That and I want others to hit problems and get microsoft to fix them. I've got this weird idea of wanting an OS to be pretty much bug free before I use it. (Lol)
Well that and my computer would probably die on Vista.
-Neo
Yeah, but... Don't you dislike it when an OS tries to hold you're hand? I'm perfectly capable of running as an administrator in Windows without hitting problems since I'm not a complete idgit when it comes to browsing, or installing programs or downloading strange things people send me in emails.
On the other hand, Unix-like systems have been doing this for decades and it's not because the user is incapable of handling the responsibility, it's just a good idea.
And the market share for home-desktop unix systems is?
-Neo
BlackDefiler
07-08-2007, 4:19 PM
And if something gets messed up, you can pack up the stuff and take it to the nearest Microsoft store for repair for around as much money as it cost you to buy it in the first place, since you can't even uninstal Vista without Vista letting you :o
Seriously. I like to have complete control over my comp. Assuming an uninstal doesn't do it's job well, I like to go into the registry and root it out of the very heart of the system if it can't be done otherwise. I hate it if some stupid program takes me for some idiot and doesn't let me do s*it.
Altough Vista looks c00l :cool:
And the market share for home-desktop unix systems is?
-Neo
I'm not sure why marketshare would make a difference in whether it's a good security practice or not. MS-DOS was the highest selling operating system in the 1980s (all operating systems, not just PCs). It also had no notion of multitasking at a time when commercial Unix, VMS, MVS, etc. had been doing it for years, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DOS approach was better just because it had a higher marketshare. In general PC stuff is anywhere from a few years to 20 or 30 years behind the high-end-computing trends, so it's not surprising that it takes a little longer for it to come around.
MatGeo
07-09-2007, 3:07 AM
Well that and my computer would probably die on Vista.
True. Vista eats up too much resources :/ I mean hybrid it'd prolly use everything you have meaning it will render newer games with high requirements unplayable.
And besides I'm not entirely sure about this...but don't you need DirectX 10 to run vista? If so I'm afraid nVidia GeForce 7300 GT might not support it.
Anyways stay on XP. More games :) less resources being used etc.
Question: Do older games like SC or Diablo or sumthin actually run on it? I heard that the gaming support was reduced which means it supports less games which sucks. If this is true, then fuck vista :/
IceSkirt
07-09-2007, 9:12 AM
Question: Do older games like SC or Diablo or sumthin actually run on it? I heard that the gaming support was reduced which means it supports less games which sucks. If this is true, then fuck vista :/
Im pretty sure older games like sc dont work with Vista. My friend has Vista and sc wouldnt work on his comp but he liked changed some colour pallete option and it worked for while...but then it like kept crashing so yea:concern:
ZeroDarkStar
07-09-2007, 2:23 PM
All the Blizzard games work in Vista. And to that matter, pretty much every game I've tried, regardless of age, works. If you really have to you can enable the compatibility option.
Vhaeraun
07-09-2007, 2:40 PM
MatGeo: Yes, you need DX10 for Vista.
Personally, I love the UI for Vista. It can actually be changed to black, and that just looks sexy. It may not be worth upgrading from XP, but if you buy a new comp, the hardware is prolly good enough to run most games you could throw on it.
OboeGuru
07-09-2007, 2:47 PM
And besides I'm not entirely sure about this...but don't you need DirectX 10 to run vista? If so I'm afraid nVidia GeForce 7300 GT might not support it.
Actually, it's the other way around, you need Vista to support DirectX 10. And no, your GeForce 7300GT will not support it (DX10).
But don't worry, games aren't likely to require DirectX 10 for some time yet. Halo 2 was just released for Windows Vista (and only Vista) and it only requires DirectX 9. There are still only a handful of DirectX 10-capable video cards on the market, so expect to see them more readily available and affordable before games will require DX10.
TheDriver
07-09-2007, 3:27 PM
Meh. vista is a pretty new face but i'd still reccommend going to marraige counseling with your xp and work things out until say SP2 :P.
err, you don't need vista for DX10 anymore.
I'm not sure why marketshare would make a difference in whether it's a good security practice or not. MS-DOS was the highest selling operating system in the 1980s (all operating systems, not just PCs). It also had no notion of multitasking at a time when commercial Unix, VMS, MVS, etc. had been doing it for years, but I don't think anyone would argue that the DOS approach was better just because it had a higher marketshare. In general PC stuff is anywhere from a few years to 20 or 30 years behind the high-end-computing trends, so it's not surprising that it takes a little longer for it to come around.
You kinda missed the point of my little blurb. Things that are safe are not always popular.
Besides that, I should be able to run as administrator on a computer and not even have to worry about causing trouble to it. I mean, that should just be how things are. There should be no need to limit my own user account just to be "secure".
-Neo
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.