What, another Winows OS

[Seaking]

Vista just out and already big Phil talking its successor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7334123.stm

[Garry Russell]

2010........seems a normal sort of interval :think:

Garry

[blanston12]

Vista has been such a disaster I am not suprised they are doing a replacement as soon as possible. For me I run XP on all my machines and have no plans to upgrade since vista is a lot slower and everyone I know who has it complains about it.

[TSR2]

I don't think Vista has been a disaster at all. Been running it for 18 months on two different systems without problem. I think the problem is that people don't like change, and Vista is NOT XP, therefore, people who already have XP and are happy with it wouldn't bother changing (and why should they.)

A bit like everything else, if people have something they like and works, why slag off something they don't have because it different? FSX is a good example, yes sure when it was released its performance wasn't great, but its refreshing to see many of the guys on here (some of whom I'd never have expected to take the plunge) deciding to ignore those who have just slagged it off based on the RTM version and given it a go... and better than that, they actually like it!

I'd always let people make there own mind up, and if people out there are looking for advice, besure that any comments are based on what is current, and not something from 18 months ago. ;-)

[Garry Russell]

Hi Joe

As I mentioned in my post it is a normal interval..not a quick as possible replacement

2010 puts it about three years as mentioned

Garry

[DaveB]

Hmm.. 2010 hey :think:

It just might be that I avoid a new M$ operating system (Vista in this case) for the first time since Win3.1/Dos 6.22 :o In the 'good old days' of multiple PC installs of a single OS (sri Mr Gates).. moving to a new OS was less painful but having to fork out for individual copies for each pc I run makes embracing any new OS a rather costly exercise! As it happens, all of my systems are probably of sub-vista age limit and unless a lottery win comes my way.. I'll be using them AND WinXP until they die a natural death!

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[RobDob]

I agree with you there Dave

[speedbird591]

I'm with Ben on this one. I've just retired my last XP machine and now run three Vista laptops on my home network. Apart from not being able to install a couple of old Win 95 programs, I've had no trouble with any of them. Trouble seems to come with upgrading from XP to Vista rather than buying a new machine with it installed. I've read in magazines that it may be better to wait until replacing the machine before migrating.

I don't feel that Vista does anything that XP doesn't, but I love the interface, the sidebar, the stability and the security. It's just so much nicer to use. Yes, it needs a more powerful machine with more advanced features to do it justice, but so has every new operating system, program, game or even screensaver. This year's PCs are faster and more powerful than last year's for the same money so why shouldn't you have a fancy new OS to match? Run the old OS on the old machine but move both on when the time comes. But there's no need to replace your XP machine just for the later OS. The difference in actual ability is negligible.

I nurse a couple of XP machines for technophobe friends and I hate working with it now. After a few months with Vista, XP feels as primitive as Windows 98/Me did after I got used to XP.

Ian

[jonesey2k]

Having just binned XP and built a new machine with Vista Ultimate x64 on it I can say that I rather like it. Runs very slick and is quite solid. Not had any driver issues yet too.

[DaveB]

Fair comments Ian and Ben (though Ben is a bit of a techonphobe.. whatever one of those is)

There comes a point when you feel you don't want to move.. at least just for the sake of it and I've been this way for the last few OS's. I've eventually embraced the new OS and like most of the comments made here, have enjoyed it. Each new OS brings one small thing to set it apart from it's predecessor and for me, WinXP got rid of the very annoying 'Please insert install CD' message that appeared every time you installed something it didn't know.. even though it rarely seemed to actually use the CD!! I'm sure that Vista has something similar that each user will identify with and that point alone will endear him or her to the new system. I must say that I'm always a little miffed by comments like Jonesey's that it 'Runs very quick and is quite solid'.. something that I'd hope it would do as it's been available to Joe Public for the last 18 months or more :roll:

Vista does of course embrace the latest CPU technology (regardless of if you have the programs capable of utilizing either DuoCore or QuadCore) to a much greater extent than it's predecessor and so it should as it was designed with this in mind which puts us all in a 'Rock and a hard place' situation come upgrade time doesn't it. The choice is an easy one if buying a 'ready built' system as most of these now come with Vista installed but who buy's ready built systems (other than laptops) If you want the latest and greatest and have the hardware to take advantage of it.. Vista is probably the obvious choice. I can't afford either the latest or greatest so will make do with my stable (throughout its life) WinXP system/s and cross this bridge when I come to it ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab: