my-god-i-hate-ms

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
What about the price for a DX10 card? I pretty sure that matters when considering Vista as well.
Click to expand...

You don't have to buy a DX10 card to run Vista, and even if you did, we will start seeing the low priced 8300s in a few months.

Like the poster a few above me said, its all down to personal preference. Mine, is Windows :)
 
I'd sure like to know why everyone keeps sayin it's going to cost $400 to upgrade from XP to Vista. Why does everyone pick the most expensive package, which is not the upgrade charge, but a new install charge, and claim that's what it's going to cost. Before you rant, can you at least have your facts straight, you completely kill your argument when it's just pure anti-MS rhetoric with little to no facts involved

You don't need Vista Ultimate. I doubt 90% of the people who get vista will need Vista ultimate. Vista Home Prem will do just fine. Here's the versions, for your viewing pleasures. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

Now will someone tell me why every thinks they need Vista Ultimate ? Do you really need the other 3 extra options 1. Help protect against hardware failure with advanced business backup features 2. Business networking and Remote Desktop for easier connectivity 3. Better protect your data against loss or theft with Windows BitLocker™ Drive Encryption. Notice teh word "Business" in there alot ? So Vista Home prem is going to be $239 for a full install and $160 for an upgrade.

I actually do agree with you that DX10 should be made to work under XP, and maybe, just maybe if Vista sales is poor enough and they see people aren't going to upgrade, just to play Halo 2, then they might release it for XP in about a year from now.

Finally, if you hate Microsoft so much, you can buy a Mac at any CompUSA or order one off their on-line store. Linux is free from what I hear. Microsoft offers a product, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Calling all the changes in Vista nothing more than a Theme change, shows how little knowledge you have of Vista and all the changes it has. Even if most of those changes suck or serve no purpose. XP is 5.1 and Vista is 6.0. of the windows NT family. Looking how many flavors and sub flavors there are of OS X. You know apple likes to drop a new version every 2 years
 
I'd sure like to know why everyone keeps sayin it's going to cost $400 to upgrade from XP to Vista. Why does everyone pick the most expensive package, which is not the upgrade charge, but a new install charge, and claim that's what it's going to cost. Before you rant, can you at least have your facts straight, you completely kill your argument when it's just pure anti-MS rhetoric with little to no facts involved

You don't need Vista Ultimate. I doubt 90% of the people who get vista will need Vista ultimate. Vista Home Prem will do just fine. Here's the versions, for your viewing pleasures. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

Now will someone tell me why every thinks they need Vista Ultimate ? Do you really need the other 3 extra options 1. Help protect against hardware failure with advanced business backup features 2. Business networking and Remote Desktop for easier connectivity 3. Better protect your data against loss or theft with Windows BitLocker™ Drive Encryption. Notice teh word "Business" in there alot ? So Vista Home prem is going to be $239 for a full install and $160 for an upgrade.

I actually do agree with you that DX10 should be made to work under XP, and maybe, just maybe if Vista sales is poor enough and they see people aren't going to upgrade, just to play Halo 2, then they might release it for XP in about a year from now.

Finally, if you hate Microsoft so much, you can buy a Mac at any CompUSA or order one off their on-line store. Linux is free from what I hear. Microsoft offers a product, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Calling all the changes in Vista nothing more than a Theme change, shows how little knowledge you have of Vista and all the changes it has. Even if most of those changes suck or serve no purpose. XP is 5.1 and Vista is 6.0. of the windows NT family. Looking how many flavors and sub flavors there are of OS X. You know apple likes to drop a new version every 2 years
Click to expand...
just one problem in the ecuation..
halo 2 as been out for more than a year in the xbox, I dont think it will atract interest in it, since way better games ( like... crysis ) will be out.
 
Microsoft will create an excuse for people to upgrade to Vista if there isn't a real need too. This is simply the beauty of monopolies. And MS will still put out Vista when it can be taken down by viruses/malware in a matter of days. What are you going to do? Play games in Linux? Hope your game/app is available on the Mac? I use Microsoft products too, but I wish there were more choices and more vendors. Office hasn't had a meaningful addition in 10 years, but there have been at least 5 versions released in that time period. And it's still way too expensive considering OpenOffice is free.

I'm glad Bill Gates is generous with his money, but I'd prefer a system where competition is valued and profits are reasonable so that a single individual isn't in control of 10's of billions. But even suggesting a limit to wealth accumulation will tag me as a communist, so I better shut up before the feds show up. I'm off topic anyway.
 
So Vista Home prem is going to be $239 for a full install and $160 for an upgrade.
Click to expand...
Some good points. But is this a new generation thing here on Tom's? I don't understand why people are using Retail version prices. I've never heard of a DIY'er getting a Retail Boxed version of Windows. The only people I see buying them are the 50 yr old lawyer that thinks Compusa is the only place to buy a computer. Home Prem on Newegg is $119 and if you have your mind set to Ultimate it's $199. A far cry from the $400 (Ultimate) and $2xx (Home Prem) figures being thrown around for Vista.
 
Office hasn't had a meaningful addition in 10 years, but there have been at least 5 versions released in that time period.
Click to expand...

Hey, they've added more words to spell check and have improved the grammar checker. I don't know what you're complaining about. Besides, we should be complaining to you. After all, your Office is always Open. 😛
 
So Vista Home prem is going to be $239 for a full install and $160 for an upgrade.
Click to expand...
Some good points. But is this a new generation thing here on Tom's? I don't understand why people are using Retail version prices.

I persoanlly don't know anyone who ever buys retail or discounted versions. Most of everyone I know who has it, either got it from work, or they bought a new PC. It also explains why of the GF's family PCs I've worked on, half are still win98 and Windows 2000.

But outside of that, I think for simple generic discussions "For sake of argument" as it be. Using the MSRP gets around moving numbers (onsale this week, back to MSRP next).

I would hope that people at least shop around and try to find adeal before running to CompUSA, but I still know a fair number of people afraid to buy anything off the internet.

Good find on the newegg site. I wonder how many people will be scared away from it, because it says for "System Builders Single pack DVD" ?
 
The new Office (2007) is meaningful more so than Vista in my opinion. You guys really need try this stuff before start to babble about something you no personal knowledge of.

Get the demo then come back and discuss.

http://www.launchtour2007.com/download/
 
:lol: I thought my other comments were obviously supportive of MS. I've been accussed of defending them too much. So your comment is really funny to me.

Look at my name (VB = Visual Basic), look at my location, look at my avatar (MS BOB). I know all about Office and its multitudeness features. I'm getting the full retail Office 2007 free in early February at an MS Launch event. But that isn't funny. Messing with newbs is. :wink:
 
I also bought a full retail version of vista ultimate, though i got a subsidy paid by my uni as i need it for umm...

...


...research.

I have noticed large performance jumps in certain tasks such as large file transfer in vista over xp, and not just becuase the clean install has got rid of all the junk i had running. I am enjoying vista, there are just little things that add up making it a faster experience than xp was, one of my favourites is the small window that appears showing the screen of what you have minimised if you hover over it on task bar, or the resource usage monitor which is handy at times.

I don't care if some people don't like ms, I like vista, and that's all that matters.
 
oh sorry, i meant xp home.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I always got the OEM of xp, 7 copies on various hdd's at home lol.

Still, I stand by what i said - setting up vista took 3 hours to have all my 27 main games and everything re-setup and everything fully patched and running. I just gotta wait until 30th when hopefully more drivers will be released - some of the beta drivers are over 2 months old and are very basic...
 
are you sure about that. why would you need the ultimate edition to support multi cores when even xp home supports them. AFAIK microsoft hasn't changed that. they wouldn't dare.

i have a funny feeling(hope im not wrong) that you are a silly noob who doesn't understand the difference about multi cores and multi sockets just like those who say you need xp pro to use anything other than single cores.
Click to expand...
Yes, he's confused about cores and sockets. Non-Ultimate versions are supposed to support infinite cores... just one socket... and because Intel's current quad-core offerings sit in a single socket, they'll work just fine.

However, because of the way AMD handles quad-core (2 physical chips), that type of setup would require XP Professional or Vista Ultimate... that's of course assuming I have a firm grasp on this topic this time around :)

Actually, as far as the OS is concerned, there is no difference between multi-core and multi-socket. All the OS sees is logical processors, the drivers handle the difference between the two. That's why MS had to patch XP Home to be able to tell the difference to support HyperThreading and dual-core when there became a demand to have multi-threaded CPUs in low-end systems while still being able to charge a higher premium for multi-socket servers. The reality of the matter is that all the versions of Windows that use the NT kernles and all versions of Vista support multiple cores irregarless of how many sockets the mobo has, it's just a disabled feature, a marketing gimmick. These marketing gimicks confuses people because they create differences where there aren't actually any differences. People are tired of marketing gimicks.

Really, what are the new features of Vista?
1. DX10... that's pretty much it.

'Aero Glass'-like GUI? No, try again, you can have that in XP, or linux, Mac OS has had it by default for years.

WinFS? CANCELLED (probably for the best)

Bigger Icons? Icons up to 256x256pixel size. WEEEEE! Sorry, but no. Already available in linux and MacOS. Pretty sure you can change your shell in WinXP and get higher-res icons in WinXP too.

"Ready Drive" is a new feature, kind of... but it doesn't work (at least not yet) and it required inventing a new piece of hardware. If you hadn't bothered to impliment it as a new piece of hardware you would be left with "ReadyBoost" which isn't so much a new feature as it is an automation of a feature we already had. But these new "features" are performance boosters... to make up for how slow Vista is and they only speed up rather mundane tasks that have been slown down due to bloated softare (not entirely unlike Vista itself).

SuperFetch is actually a new feature that is actually kinda cool if you have ass-loads of RAM. You could have accomplished the same thing before with assloads of ram, but it would have taken a rather considerable amount of effort on your part to set it up. Assuming that SuperFetch works without screwing your system up and you have ridiculusly more ram then you actually need it will make things faster. Unfortunately you probably won't notice the difference between SuperFetch and ReadyBoost and ReadyBoost comes at a fraction of the hardware cost and really if you disabled both features and set it up yourself manually or created an application to automate setting it up a(in system ram or on a flash drive) it would be even faster and you could do it in XP which would make it even faster still.

Delayed Service Start: already in XP

"Folders full of pictures display previews" already in XP

"It's faster" a lie

IPV6: in XP

IO prioritization: bad idea, already accomplishable through thread prioritization anyway

Trusted Computing: Your computer is no longer under your own control. this is a "feature"? If so it's hardly a new one. Hackers and viruses have been taking control of people's XP machines for ages xD

Incredible crap-loads of non-OS-related software integrated into the OS: not new, and a bad idea

Vista Care security suite: that's not an OS, it's a software security bundle

Seriously, what are the new features? the "software bundle"? That's not an OS feature.
 
So Vista Home prem is going to be $239 for a full install and $160 for an upgrade.
Click to expand...
Some good points. But is this a new generation thing here on Tom's? I don't understand why people are using Retail version prices. I've never heard of a DIY'er getting a Retail Boxed version of Windows. The only people I see buying them are the 50 yr old lawyer that thinks Compusa is the only place to buy a computer. Home Prem on Newegg is $119 and if you have your mind set to Ultimate it's $199. A far cry from the $400 (Ultimate) and $2xx (Home Prem) figures being thrown around for Vista.

Didn't you hear that the OEM versions (which aren't for DIYers, that's what the retail versions are for. OEM versions are for... well, OEMs) of Vista are being nerfed so that once you install them on one system it locks you liscence to that hardware profile and then if you upgrade too much stuff you get to play with "reduced functionality" vista until you buy another copy?

That might be part of why. But bringing up the OEM prices is a good point as they will be sufficient for most people.
 
1. I run XP on a celeron 400 laptop with 128mb of RAM! Its very scalable!
Click to expand...

You can run full linux and unix kernels on PDAs. THAT is scalable. And it means that a $10 "computer" has just as much hardware support and compatibility as a top-of-the-line workstation.

You can't even install XP without at least 2gigs of disk space, Cell Phones and OLPCs don't even have 1g. When you have to run a completely different OS for every device you end up with lots of hardware and software compatibility issues.

Having a good kernel and CHOOSING to bundle tons of extra software with it is one thing, being forced into it and conciquently precluding software and hardware compatibility with previous generations of devices and less-powerful devices is quite another.

Creating a good API is one thing (we have yet to see if DX10 even is a good API). Using it as a tool to reinforce software and hardware incompatibility to further monopolistic control over a market is evil.

I shouldn't have to pay 4 times to get DX10 (once for the OS, then again for more hardware to make the OS not lag, another for the Game, then again for the Hardware to support DX10). I know I shouldn't have to because I know how the system works. If I didn't know how the system worked I might be blissfully ignorant.... but it wouldn't make my pocket book any heavier.

Screw Vista. And if MS doesn't want to let us play DX10 on anythng but vista then screw DX10 too. Trusted Computing has negetively impacted every single aspect of the OS. It has very few new operating system features and it's bloated.

It's not the price of Vista, it's not that outrageous. You could pay as much for other similar OS packages. It's not the price of DX10 hardware, GFX cards are expensive, I double DX10 on it's own makes that much of a difference. It's not the price of DX10 games, it probably won't make much of a difference there either. The price of the hardware to support the bloat hurts. The compatibility issues hurt the entire consumer electronics industry.
 
So Vista Home prem is going to be $239 for a full install and $160 for an upgrade.
Click to expand...
Some good points. But is this a new generation thing here on Tom's? I don't understand why people are using Retail version prices. I've never heard of a DIY'er getting a Retail Boxed version of Windows. The only people I see buying them are the 50 yr old lawyer that thinks Compusa is the only place to buy a computer. Home Prem on Newegg is $119 and if you have your mind set to Ultimate it's $199. A far cry from the $400 (Ultimate) and $2xx (Home Prem) figures being thrown around for Vista.

Didn't you hear that the OEM versions (which aren't for DIYers, that's what the retail versions are for. OEM versions are for... well, OEMs) of Vista are being nerfed so that once you install them on one system it locks you liscence to that hardware profile and then if you upgrade too much stuff you get to play with "reduced functionality" vista until you buy another copy?

That might be part of why. But bringing up the OEM prices is a good point as they will be sufficient for most people.And wasn't that the same thing with XP when it was first out? But I've used the same OEM copy of XP on a number of different HDDs, motherboards, cpus, etc. (not at the same time mind you). I remember reading the change for the Retail version's EULA, at first they wanted to limit the number of "transfers" to one. But that changed.

Also I don't believe Vista OEM EULA version is different from any previous Windows OEM version EULA (specifically XP's). Any OEM license means it's licensed to that computer, and going by MS's word, technically XP OEM cannot be transfered to another computer. But they both allow for, I think it's called, critical failure (motherboard/cpu/whatever dies).

Sure I've had to call them up and go through the Q&A, they give me a new activation code and I'm on my way. I would usually tell them aliens came down, wrecked my house and destroyed my computer so I had to use some new parts. But I can't seem to find anything that states Vista's OEM license is any different from a previous OEM license.

Yeah technically OEM versions are not for DIY'ers, but I would say the majority of DIY'ers are running OEM versions.
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: Re: my-god-i-hate-ms
witty wrote:

microsoft fanboys are even worse. i know you didnt ask, but let me tell you why.

microsoft owes its position in the marketplace due to the fact that it engaged in anti-competitive behavior. bill gates owes his wealth...

blah blah blah, let me spew more "justification" why it's ok that I pirate Windows, blah blah, anti-competitive, blah blah blah, Bill Gates, etc.

Saying that 95% of the PC world runs on Microsoft Windows isn't being a "microsoft fanboy", it's a statement of fact. I want to run all the games, thank you. No one cares about Apple, no one cares about your Linux skillz (unless you run a data server).
Click to expand...


why is it that when you complain about a corporation that violates laws with regularity that some idiot will tell you that your stupid for being pissed off.

"bla bla bla, well go to canada if your so pissed."

you know if it werent for people like you then maybe corporations wouldnt be able to bribe politicians to make laws that directly oppose the the best interests, of the people they claim to support.

oh its called lobbying, i forgot, and its legal. well what about the mafia, should they be allowed to lobby and push legislation allowing them to rape and pillage?

its the same principle, you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Even though the lower priced DX10 cards are on the way, you still need a DX10 card to run DX10. Sure, you can grab your old DX9 card and still use Vista, but what about DX10? To me, DX10 is the biggest change from XP to Vista. I've been through the betas, and it's the same as XP, they just made it look better and change the names of some conventions (ie. the eradication of "My"). In my opinion, it's just more confusion added to the table. It took me 30 minutes to realize how to fix my network to work with Vista, not that I'm stupid or anything, they just changed the name of every setting so it seems 'new'. I'll be waiting for the high-end DX10 cards to drop in price, but in that time, I'll stick with my XP/Suse setup.
 
I remember when Windows 95 came out and people were throwing a fit because 4megs of RAM wouldn't cut it. The biggest thing I heard was " I just bought my computer about a year ago and I already need to upgrade the RAM." This release of Vista is no different yes to get the best peformance you will have to upgrade your ram, videocard, Powersupply
( to accommodate the videocard), and if your processor is under 2Ghz that too. Alought reading through the fourms is sounds like 2.6Ghz is the minimum that you want with vista. Ok, it is more frustrating this time.

See my system specs and you'll understand why I am getting pissed now. Put together system in Nov '05

I need 1 Gb of RAM $85
Video Card 7600GS $95 (not a gamer, just need for aero)
Power Supply $85-135
Hard Drive $100
Vista home prem $120

600 USD With shipping half the cost of a new computer. I have a 915 chipset so going core 2 isn't gonna happen with out a new mainboard and the new mainboards use DDR2 so I won't be able to reuse my memory so I live with XP for another year.
 
I'm not going to hold my breath with DX10 games becoming standard too soon. Its basically going to mean alot of people needing to buy new computers just to run DX10 games. Not going to happen. Not for another few years at least.

Oooooo Crysis. Big woopdy doo. The average consumer that pushes software/hardware sales is not purchasing shooters. The average consumer is playing card games and surfing the web.


Show me an actual RPG that is decent for the PC that takes advantage of DX10, then I'll upgrade. ESV maybe. (even that will probably still be dx9, lol)
 
I remember when Windows 95 came out and people were throwing a fit because 4megs of RAM wouldn't cut it. The biggest thing I heard was " I just bought my computer about a year ago and I already need to upgrade the RAM." This release of Vista is no different...
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot, as if vista is just another new OS and anyone who says differently is just some n00b who's never been through an OS upgrade. I've used and supported every desktop version of windows from 3.11 on. This is not the same.

When you went from 95/98/ME to 2k/XP you needed about 2x the computer to maintain the same experience. The order of magnitude has gone up considerably. For example:
Pleasant Office Productivity Experience (at the time the OS was released anyway)

Win98SE - 32mb RAM. Not very stable, but fairly user friendly and fast.

Win2k - 128mb RAM but protected computing environment with much better stability, security, and configurability. A slight amount of OS overhead is added to every process, but in return your computer doesn't crash anytime two programs try to access the same resource at the same time. Win9x drivers won't work, but many WinNT driver will work with little to no modification. Most Win9x software will run without modification.

WinXP - 256mb RAM to make it slightly prettier and more user friendly with context menus, but all code from Win2k will run on it and most drivers will work without modification. Several features have been integrated into the OS instead of being stand-alone software and they use up system resources even if you're not using them. From launch and increasingly over the years copy protection for WinXP is tighter than before, but mostly all bark and no bite to help maintain WinXP's popularity against mature Linux desktop distros and MacOS's unexplainable level of news coverage despite few people actually using it.

Vista 1024mb RAM to make it much prettier and it's the only OS MicroSoft will let you run DX10 on. Also, your computer actively spies on you and will bump you back to reduced functionality mode if you change your system too much or run unapproved drivers or software. Appearantly MS and Hollywood no longer feel threatened by Linux and Apple is onboard with trusted computing also.

DX10 isn't going to catch on very quickly. Most PC gamers only upgrade their computers once a year with complete new systems every 2-3 years. You can't sell very many copies of Crysis if most gamers can't even run it. Vista migration will be slow at best, and DX10 adoption will trail vista migration. Even if Vista is the way of the future, which I really doubt it is, there's little reason to rush into it for a year or more. Look at how slow people were to abandon Win98SE, and Win2k and WinXP actually were quite a bit better and they really only needed a moderate RAM upgrade to be able to run them.

When you went from Win3.1 to 95 you weren't just using a rudimentary GUI on top of DOS anymore. It was a full OS and there was a reason it needed a lot more ram: to provide more functionality to end users. It may have been a little bloated, but it was adding features like networking. From Win98 to Win2k you got protected computing and a rather sophisticated service manager so again there was a reason, and the reason was to make the OS better for users. From 2k to XP MS started to loose that goal and integrated things like Web browsing, IM, and Alexa Related. Whereas before there was a link on your desktop to MSN, but it didn't do anything unless you clicked on it, now MSN was integrated into your OS and some parts of it you couldn't even remove until MS got sued, but we did get cd-burning service, and some of the context menus are actually well thought out. With Vista it's much more bloated, but this time the reason has nothing to do with users, it has to do with forcing users to pay with their hardware to protect content providers and controlling an industry.

It's your money, spend it wisely for your own sake. But it does affect all of us.
 
When you went from 95/98/ME to 2k/XP you needed about 2x the computer to maintain the same experience. The order of magnitude has gone up considerably.
Click to expand...

Not even close to the same upgrade as XP->Vista

More like 95->98 OR NT4.0 to 2000
 
Don't like MS? Two options: live with it, or get their products by mysterious ways. I'm not sure I'll ever give a damn about either macs or linux. And Firefox is GAY! (see sig).

On a more serious note, one can certainly live with XP SP2 and DX9.0c for 2 additionnal years, as long as you don't always jump on every new high-tech game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom