Worth it to try Vista 64-bit, when Windows 7 is very near?

[VirtualLarry]

Just wondering. I'm a die-hard XP user (used to be a die-hard W2K user, still have it on my multi-boot machine), and have resisted moving to Vista thus far.

I have multiple retail copies of Vista, including five Home Basic Upgrades, as well as a Vista Ultimate Upgrade.

I bought parts to build a couple of nice Q6600 quad-cores, with 8GB of RAM each, some months ago. Since I've waited this long to build them, should I skip Vista entirely, and just wait for Windows 7, since it's going to be released (I think?) in 2009.

After all, Windows 7 is just "Vista fixed edition". Not to mention, Windows 7 apparently allows heterogenous video drivers, just like XP, and unlike Vista.

Since all of my copies of Vista are still sealed, it shouldn't be hard to resell them, if need be.

 

[bsobel]

Since all of my copies of Vista are still sealed, it shouldn't be hard to resell them, if need be

This makes all of your Vista bashing threads even funnier.

Since I've waited this long to build them, should I skip Vista entirely, and just wait for Windows 7, since it's going to be released (I think?) in 2009.

Please wait, as I expect otherwise we'll here about absolutely everything you don't like about it.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

I'd say try it, why not? you don't have much to lose!

 

[SickBeast]

Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

 

[eternalone]

Edit: Windows Xp sp3 enables new written code specifically for cuad core and multi core cpu support. So I would say stick with Xp sp3 and wait for Windows 7 since Xp sp3 seems to handle cuad cores really well .

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

Soooo have you even used vista? (Gotta ask cause most of the vista bashers have either never used it, used it during early days or are noobs)

On capable hardware its fast (Just as fast as xp on capable hardware), sure it requires more resources but I think the extra ~4.7gig of usable ram more than makes up for it.

 

[hans030390]

If you aren't going to like Vista, you aren't going to like Windows 7.

So, yeah...go ahead and test it. Just don't complain here.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

I won't comment on your first line, but Ubuntu is a fine OS for most users. So long as they aren't interesting in gaming.

Only a fool with money to burn jumps on MS's new OS at release. You always wait a time before picking it up. I waited 10 months before I picked up Vista.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

I won't comment on your first line, but Ubuntu is a fine OS for most users. So long as they aren't interesting in gaming.

Only a fool with money to burn jumps on MS's new OS at release. You always wait a time before picking it up. I waited 10 months before I picked up Vista.

Also if you dont have to use apps designed for windows (most business apps), office (I know wine/crossover but that crap doesnt work that great), and games.

But i do love Ubuntu its very fun to use. But it gets tiresome trying to get work done in it.

I have used the latest build of win 7 and it is vista. Smaller install though, runs great just like vista. I tried to go back to xp about months ago and it felt sooo old and not faster. I can afford a few extra gigs of storage space to accommodate all the awesomeness of vista. And 4GB of ram vista64 flys..... Ubuntu is so fun and cool though. I would use it 100% exclusively if office worked better and games were supported.

 

[Adam8281]

I'm loving Vista x64 on 8GB RAM - I say go for it!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

Soooo have you even used vista? (Gotta ask cause most of the vista bashers have either never used it, used it during early days or are noobs)

On capable hardware its fast (Just as fast as xp on capable hardware), sure it requires more resources but I think the extra ~4.7gig of usable ram more than makes up for it.

I was an early adopter of Vista 64-bit because I had an 8800GTS pretty much when they first came out, and I figured that I would benefit from a DX10 OS with my DX10 hardware. I was wrong.

I have 3gb of ram on an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.6ghz. XP runs way faster for me. I hated the nag screens in Vista. When I got a virus in Vista despite having antivirus software, antispyware software, plus all those annoying security 'features', it was the last straw for me. I reverted to XP, and recently I've been dual booting w/ Ubuntu 64, and I only boot up Windows if I feel like playing a game.

I do like the new look of Vista. I just found the lack of responsiveness, the bloat, and the nags way too annoying. I don't need my computer to babysit me!

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

I disagree with Sickbeast personally Vista is fine,Windows 7 still does not have a real release date,also you don't know what new problems will appear with Win7(like any new OS Microsoft release),end of the day Vista is safe, it will not blow up or jump out at you and give you a nasty shock.

As to bloat you normally find thats caused usually by users software(amazing how much crap some users put on their PC) or OEM companies sticking all their stuff on the OS.

For the record XP user here from 2001 to 2007 ,now Vista user from Jan 2007- to present,think that says it all how stable it is etc..I'm gamer and beta games tester too so can't afford to have any serious issues and Vista has not let me down so far in that department.


Bear in mind Vista SP2 will also be out before Win7 too,roll on Win8 the OS I'm looking forward too .

I have 3gb of ram on an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.6ghz. XP runs way faster for me. I hated the nag screens in Vista. When I got a virus in Vista despite having antivirus software, antispyware software, plus all those annoying security 'features', it was the last straw for me. I reverted to XP, and recently I've been dual booting w/ Ubuntu 64, and I only boot up Windows if I feel like playing a game.

I do like the new look of Vista. I just found the lack of responsiveness, the bloat, and the nags way too annoying. I don't need my computer to babysit me!

For the record I'm using a humble 3800+ x2 CPU with DDR1 ram and nothing overclocked and its still faster then when I had XP on it,my Dell laptop (Conroe 2 +DDR2 ram)has Vista x86 too and again no issues or speed problems and more responsive then XP.


Annoying security features?...,oh please what are you talking about they are not annoying,end of the day you have UAC tweak software available or can even disable it,personally I leave it on and don't find it causing any issues or nagging me every 5 mins like a lot of FUD you hear from some users.

Security is security its there for a reason,thank those that make malware and those lazy pc/security users for spreading it .


I miss my DOS 6.22 days, XP or any Windows had nothing on that when it came to ram,size, but we move with the times as they say.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: eternalone
Edit: Windows Xp sp3 enables new written code specifically for cuad core and multi core cpu support. So I would say stick with Xp sp3 and wait for Windows 7 since Xp sp3 seems to handle cuad cores really well .

He's not going to get to use much of that 8GB of ram if he does.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

Soooo have you even used vista? (Gotta ask cause most of the vista bashers have either never used it, used it during early days or are noobs)

On capable hardware its fast (Just as fast as xp on capable hardware), sure it requires more resources but I think the extra ~4.7gig of usable ram more than makes up for it.

I was an early adopter of Vista 64-bit because I had an 8800GTS pretty much when they first came out, and I figured that I would benefit from a DX10 OS with my DX10 hardware. I was wrong.

I have 3gb of ram on an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.6ghz. XP runs way faster for me. I hated the nag screens in Vista. When I got a virus in Vista despite having antivirus software, antispyware software, plus all those annoying security 'features', it was the last straw for me. I reverted to XP, and recently I've been dual booting w/ Ubuntu 64, and I only boot up Windows if I feel like playing a game.

I do like the new look of Vista. I just found the lack of responsiveness, the bloat, and the nags way too annoying. I don't need my computer to babysit me!

What, did you disable the UAC? And why would anybody think one could benefit from DX10 where there werent any games on the horizon that would use DX10?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

Soooo have you even used vista? (Gotta ask cause most of the vista bashers have either never used it, used it during early days or are noobs)

On capable hardware its fast (Just as fast as xp on capable hardware), sure it requires more resources but I think the extra ~4.7gig of usable ram more than makes up for it.

I was an early adopter of Vista 64-bit because I had an 8800GTS pretty much when they first came out, and I figured that I would benefit from a DX10 OS with my DX10 hardware. I was wrong.

I have 3gb of ram on an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.6ghz. XP runs way faster for me. I hated the nag screens in Vista. When I got a virus in Vista despite having antivirus software, antispyware software, plus all those annoying security 'features', it was the last straw for me. I reverted to XP, and recently I've been dual booting w/ Ubuntu 64, and I only boot up Windows if I feel like playing a game.

I do like the new look of Vista. I just found the lack of responsiveness, the bloat, and the nags way too annoying. I don't need my computer to babysit me!

What, did you disable the UAC? And why would anybody think one could benefit from DX10 where there werent any games on the horizon that would use DX10?

Actually Crysis was on the horizon, and it came out and used DX10. The problem was, DX10 added virtually nothing to the game and ran slower than the DX9 path, which is contrary to what MS was promising.

I don't remember if I got a virus with or without the UAC. I had it disabled for a time because it was driving me nuts. I tend to install/uninstall programs quite a bit, and I like to tinker with my machine. It drove me insane!

I really don't see what Vista brings forward over XP. What do you guys like it for? As I see it, Ubuntu has a way nicer interface with Compiz, plus adds 64-bit support with a way smaller memory footprint and better multitasking performance (and better performance in general for many tasks).

 

[ashishmishra]

Well for starters Superfetch is one of the most impressive features of Vista for me, also its much quicker start-up time matters for me since I turn my computer off whenever I am not using it, Vista SP1 just plain makes my XP SP3 install feel old, diseased and wooden. I play a lot of games have used both ATI and Nvidia cards since the days of Beta and I have never encountered a single bluescreen during normal usage yet (Barring my overclock stability tests ) Though I concede my great experience might not apply to most people. I know many problems happen only in certain unique hardware software configurations but most of the times I have found that it ends up being a case of PEBKAC

Don't get me wrong I loved XP right until Vista came along, just as I loved Windows 98 SE until XP came along, though 98 SE still holds a special place in my heart I just installed it on a Virtual machine just for pure nostalgia sake LOL

 

[13Gigatons]

Maybe download Server 2008 trial and run that as a test of how Vista would run. That way you don't have to open the Vista DVD. The 240 day trial should be long enough until Windows 7 RTM.

http://www.microsoft.com/downl...33D5424&displaylang=en

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Maybe download Server 2008 trial and run that as a test of how Vista would run. That way you don't have to open the Vista DVD. The 240 day trial should be long enough until Windows 7 RTM.

http://www.microsoft.com/downl...33D5424&displaylang=en

That 's not a bad idea. Run it as a workstation for a bit until Win 7 is released.

I'd get those sealed copies of Vista sold pronto to get the best price now.
Once Windows 7 is out, they'll be worthless.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Please spare yourself the bloat that is Vista.

If you want to try a new OS, I highly recommend Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would even advise Windows 7. Wait for reviews and save your money for now.

Soooo have you even used vista? (Gotta ask cause most of the vista bashers have either never used it, used it during early days or are noobs)

On capable hardware its fast (Just as fast as xp on capable hardware), sure it requires more resources but I think the extra ~4.7gig of usable ram more than makes up for it.

I was an early adopter of Vista 64-bit because I had an 8800GTS pretty much when they first came out, and I figured that I would benefit from a DX10 OS with my DX10 hardware. I was wrong.

I have 3gb of ram on an Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.6ghz. XP runs way faster for me. I hated the nag screens in Vista. When I got a virus in Vista despite having antivirus software, antispyware software, plus all those annoying security 'features', it was the last straw for me. I reverted to XP, and recently I've been dual booting w/ Ubuntu 64, and I only boot up Windows if I feel like playing a game.

I do like the new look of Vista. I just found the lack of responsiveness, the bloat, and the nags way too annoying. I don't need my computer to babysit me!

What, did you disable the UAC? And why would anybody think one could benefit from DX10 where there werent any games on the horizon that would use DX10?

Actually Crysis was on the horizon, and it came out and used DX10. The problem was, DX10 added virtually nothing to the game and ran slower than the DX9 path, which is contrary to what MS was promising.

I don't remember if I got a virus with or without the UAC. I had it disabled for a time because it was driving me nuts. I tend to install/uninstall programs quite a bit, and I like to tinker with my machine. It drove me insane!

I really don't see what Vista brings forward over XP. What do you guys like it for? As I see it, Ubuntu has a way nicer interface with Compiz, plus adds 64-bit support with a way smaller memory footprint and better multitasking performance (and better performance in general for many tasks).

Well if you disable UAC the security model just reverted back to XP. Drive by installs will get you.

I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

Ubuntu has it's own type of UAC which is more effective (it is a more secure OS). It also has superfetch. It has Compiz, which looks way better than aero and is way more customizable. It also has automatic defrag, and forget driver signing, Linux has open-source drivers. :beer:

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87
I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

Ubuntu has it's own type of UAC which is more effective (it is a more secure OS). It also has superfetch. It has Compiz, which looks way better than aero and is way more customizable. It also has automatic defrag, and forget driver signing, Linux has open-source drivers. :beer:

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

Yeah you are right its crap for gamers,as a serious gamer myself all the games are on Windows thats the way of things, XP future DX support is dead so that leaves Vista as the only real alternative right now,no brainer .

Learning curve with ubuntu is another story but we won't go there since I do like what Linux based operating systems are trying to do,as to future gaming support I can't see it replacing Windows for a very long time.

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

Not entirely true,I have been on a lot of courses and they all still use Windows based OS(2K,XP,Vista etc) for general use ie.. browsing ,documentation etc..

Windows has a huge amount of software availability backing it up, probably another reason why its still going so strong.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87
I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

Ubuntu has it's own type of UAC which is more effective (it is a more secure OS). It also has superfetch. It has Compiz, which looks way better than aero and is way more customizable. It also has automatic defrag, and forget driver signing, Linux has open-source drivers. :beer:

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

Yes I am quite away of what Ubuntu does. I am on a Ubuntu desktop right now. Though I am only using it to remote desktop into a virtualized XP box.

Windows is not a gaming platform. Have you worked in corporate America? What do you think is going to replace Windows? Ubuntu? Good luck with that. Without excel forget it.

IMO the only reason why Linux is more secure than Windows is because it represents such a miniscule % of the desktop that it isnt worth the time for crackers to write code to exploit. If it ever gained 10-15% of the desktop market like Apple is starting to do. You would see more exploits and virus's targetting the platform. As Apple becomes more saturated they are advising using anti-virus programs for their platform.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87
I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

Ubuntu has it's own type of UAC which is more effective (it is a more secure OS). It also has superfetch. It has Compiz, which looks way better than aero and is way more customizable. It also has automatic defrag, and forget driver signing, Linux has open-source drivers. :beer:

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

Yes I am quite away of what Ubuntu does. I am on a Ubuntu desktop right now. Though I am only using it to remote desktop into a virtualized XP box.

Windows is not a gaming platform. Have you worked in corporate America? What do you think is going to replace Windows? Ubuntu? Good luck with that. Without excel forget it.

IMO the only reason why Linux is more secure than Windows is because it represents such a miniscule % of the desktop that it isnt worth the time for crackers to write code to exploit. If it ever gained 10-15% of the desktop market like Apple is starting to do. You would see more exploits and virus's targetting the platform. As Apple becomes more saturated they are advising using anti-virus programs for their platform.

OpenOffice 3.0 Calc will do everything Excel can do.

I have worked in Corporate Canada as an Architectural Designer, which brings me to my next point:

Certain applications such as AutoCAD and Photoshop need to be ported to Linux before everyone and their mother can use it to get their work done. They can probably run through wine, but CAD is so complex that I wouldn't trust it.

If enough people turn their backs on MS, everything will get ported to Linux right away. I'm personally never purchasing another Windows OS if I can at all avoid it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87
I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

Ubuntu has it's own type of UAC which is more effective (it is a more secure OS). It also has superfetch. It has Compiz, which looks way better than aero and is way more customizable. It also has automatic defrag, and forget driver signing, Linux has open-source drivers. :beer:

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

Yes I am quite away of what Ubuntu does. I am on a Ubuntu desktop right now. Though I am only using it to remote desktop into a virtualized XP box.

Windows is not a gaming platform. Have you worked in corporate America? What do you think is going to replace Windows? Ubuntu? Good luck with that. Without excel forget it.

IMO the only reason why Linux is more secure than Windows is because it represents such a miniscule % of the desktop that it isnt worth the time for crackers to write code to exploit. If it ever gained 10-15% of the desktop market like Apple is starting to do. You would see more exploits and virus's targetting the platform. As Apple becomes more saturated they are advising using anti-virus programs for their platform.

OpenOffice 3.0 Calc will do everything Excel can do.

I have worked in Corporate Canada as an Architectural Designer, which brings me to my next point:

Certain applications such as AutoCAD and Photoshop need to be ported to Linux before everyone and their mother can use it to get their work done. They can probably run through wine, but CAD is so complex that I wouldn't trust it.

If enough people turn their backs on MS, everything will get ported to Linux right away. I'm personally never purchasing another Windows OS if I can at all avoid it.

Everybody and their mother uses Excel. Until Excel is ported to Linux, Linux wont see a real push on corporate desktops. Even if Openoffice 3.0 Calc can do what Excel can(I really question whether it can when you get down into the nuts and bolts).

That said people still want familiarity and Ubuntu wont bring that to them. It also requires your staff knows the ins and outs of linux. And software support is hit or miss as well. TCO for linux boxes have to be higher. The cost of the OS is so small when you factor in support staff costs and lost productivity via retraining.

There is a reason why Linux has never made the gains promised for the past 15 years.
Vista's desktop share is magnitudes higher than Linux. OSX blows it out of the water as well. If people turn their backs on MS they will turn to Apple long before linux.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Genx87
I like Vista because of the UAC, Superfetch,aero,automatic defrag, and in 64bit, driver signing just off the top of my head.

Ubuntu has it's own type of UAC which is more effective (it is a more secure OS). It also has superfetch. It has Compiz, which looks way better than aero and is way more customizable. It also has automatic defrag, and forget driver signing, Linux has open-source drivers. :beer:

IMO Windows has been relegated to a gaming platform. It's only a matter of time before the world wakes up to this reality.

Sickbeast, when someone talks about insalling Vista vs Windows 7 and you derail the thread with Ubuntu talk your just thread crapping. You might want to start your own thread instead.