which is why I will never have to buy a PC again. I rather just buy a laptop/notebook for internet and music downloads. All the new games are on console platform now so what is the point of getting a pc?

Are you insane? You won't buy a PC because of Vista? You do realize you can still fully use XP don't you? Also your last statement is so far from true it is what actuall made me post this. Not even CLOSE to all the new games are on console, but good try. (ie: WoW, Supreme Commander, C&C3, ET quake wars will not be console, Starcraft 2 will not be console, etc etc) So yes, instead of building a PC that can serve multiple purposes, I am going to spend $600 dollars on a console ( extra controllers memory cards etc) that serves only 1 purpose. GOOD CALL!

While I can see jimmys argument I wouldent spend £350 on a PS3 when I only play occasional games, my desktop allows me to do everything like email and internet, music and dvds, word processing, etc... while my £65 7600GT allows me to play game from time to time. Yes consoles may be best for the game enthuasts the majority of people counldent justifty the extra price of a console when a simple cheap gfx card will allow most games to be playable

Last time I checked most notebooks were PCs. Where are you buying your notebook Jimmy and what is it than?

What I would love to see someone try... put OS X on a PS3. The PS3 is linux compatable, so shouldn't take much of a mod to the OS. If so, people could finally get an OS thats decent, stable, and can run the software they want, on a platform that is EXCELLENT for gaming. Whose going to try it?

Just to clarify, C and C3 is on 360 already as well as Quake Wars is being ported over as we speak. Also the xbox 360 is only 399.00 for premium as opposed to 600.00 for the PS3. I think Jimmy was referring to "most" pc games, ie Oblivion plus expansions, C and C3 etc. I also didn't see any reference to Vista, rather he, like I, bought a 699 lappy and a 399 xbox 360 and all of my needs are met. A gaming rig that could compete with the 360 is well over way too much for most people except for the hardcore gaming enthusiasts. I would love a PC that played Oblivion at full speed but I also can't really afford 2k-6k for that rig.

...was going to actually kick up demand? I'm a lot more likely to upgrade my XP machine to do what I need rather than rebuild for Vista from the ground up.

You can build a PC for $1000 that will compete with the 360's graphics. I don't know why people seem to think that the new console's graphics are just so amazing. Any of the new mid-upper DX10 cards is better than the console's graphics chips. That being said, I do own an xbox 360 and I think its great, but, you just can't beat a PC for certain games (fps, rts, many rpgs).

There is nothing in Vista to make most XP users upgrade. Most will wait until their existing PCs fail. Businesses usually don't upgrade unless there is a compelling reason and many will skip one major release. Even those that are planning to use Vista will not deploy it until after the first major service pack is available. They don't want to be beta testers. Several world-wide enterprises are still using Windows 2000.

Where are the Vista fanboys?

While I did not know those games were being ported I was just trying to point out examples, there are still plenty of games that are PC only, and for that matter I have compared games head to head on the 360 and PC and it looks far better on my PC. Example: My friend has an xbox360 hooked up to a 32" widescreen HDTV. We played Test Drive Unlimited on his xbox360 first. Recently I bought the game for my PC with your run of the mill 22" widescreen LCD, 8800GTX and an Pentium D805 @ 3.4. I run the game at complete max settings at a resolution of 1650 and it looks far better than the 360. Now don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the 360, I think it is an amazing system and if you do not need the functionality of a PC or want to play PC only games, I wouldn't go any other way (as you stated 399 for a fantastic system). I am just saying that in my opinion the consoles are not going to "take over" pc gaming.

Also you do not need 2k-6k to build a machine that will play games well. other than bragging their is no need to spend that on a quad core with 8800GTX's in sli. It's a waste, no game needs that that is in existance at this time. you can pick up a full system including an 8800gts 640 or the new 2900XT (if you build it yourself) for

lil Jimmy is too young to know that pcs are not just for games. can you photoshop on console, programmming on console? Back to the topic, I just really don't think there's the need or demand for vista. XP is quite enough for most people.

I think microsoft is bluffing. I've heard them, DX10 will only be on vista despite no real valid reason for this stance. Other than force and bolster vista sales.

But I keep thinking about this, and reading game producers complain in various articles. I can't believe DX10 wont be created for XP pro customers.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking no way. It's a bluff. Why would they kill their own halo sales permanently?

When they release halo 3 on the xbox at some point with a dx 9ish look. They've screwed the consumer before, but come on... no way...

I think alot of mindless and uneducated people want Vista because they think that the latest and greatest OS is going to be of some value. It's just a bunch of eye candy garbage. Even gaming is slower and even if you come back and say "wait for service pack 1" that is no excuse for an overbloated OS.

Now take Windows XP64. Very little support for drivers simply because Vista is out now. It really is a shame though that Windows XP 64 is an afterthought. If Microsoft were to listen to the power users (laugh) they would have let us have XP64 because we don't need glossy window panes...we are too busy actually using the programs inside windows.

XP64...raw power...no nonsense...made for work. Simple. But where is the money in that right?

I am a Vista fanboy. I am using it both at home and work and have no issues with it at all. All my apps work fine, games run smoothly for me, albeit maybe a couple frames slower than XP.
Upgrade to Vista when you think the time is right for you. I can say from my experience that it rally is not al that bad. Do not be afraid people. I have seen Vista and it is good.

I know most of you aren't upgrading to Vista because there is no "major" new features that you want in Vista. Yes, that is probably true, except DX10. But for those who say Vista is full of problems or something, I have to disagree. I use Vista at home and have not had any problem in the past two months. My applications actually starts "faster" than they did on XP, which is surprising after what I have heard from other people. Anyways, my PC only has 1 GB of RAM and it runes Vista just fine. Yes, I said "only 1 GB of RAM" because nowadays, any PC less than $1000 comes with 1 GB of RAM.

I'm not saying you have to upgrade to Vista. All I'm saying is that Vista isn't that bad like many people have said, instead, I find it to be a little better than XP. That's all.

Have been using Windows XP for several years now and happy with it. I run all my progs and apps there because what XP can deliver, is just what I need. For me, there is no reason to migrate to Vista. After evaluating Vista, I found out that difference between Vista and XP is only that Vista got a new animated desktop and full of DRM-shit. That makes me think of Vista more like a gaming console than an Operating System. Why would I pay for that? Besides... Being forced to pay for faster CPU-hardware and more RAM in order to do what already I do today with XP, is just not my deire.

Since there's only a matter of time before Microsoft will pull the plug for Windows XP, I've started do more stuff in the Ubuntu Linux Desktop distribution. So far I've only been using Linux on my file servers. But after trying Linux even for everyday desktop stuff like paperworks, browsing, e-mail, music, CD/DVD burning (with Nero BR for Linux), etc, it feels more like this is the right way for me. Works great and tend to be more stable than Windows XP. (Even Second Life seems to be more stable under Linux.) Some of the companies who are producing my application softwares are also starting to look and port for Linux, which is like music to my ears.

After the Vista arrival, I believe the future for Linux is looking even more interresting for the average people. From being a Nerd-oriented system, it has finally taking the form of the easy use and Plug&Play that Windows users are comfortable with.

If I need to play a game? Sure! Then the gaming consoles like XBOX and PS3 are just fine. They are made for that! No must or need to run the games in the same hardware that I use for other stuff. Microsoft is also selling their consoles for under the manufactoring cost, which is great. Thanx!

consoles? why would i buy a console i'm already playing all my old final fantasy playstationn games on my AMD 2600 just fine, ever heard of an emulator billy? perhaps roms? roms are quite viable if you own the game.
Chuck the game in a storage room download a rom to your hard drive add it too your games folder and never bother about inserting anything.
Vista sucks because it does less with more, hardly a 'revolution' and microsoft deserves boycotting with it's overpricing akin to 'profiteering' forced adoption tactics and bloated draconian use of DRM.
And you might not realize pc monitors are just that 'way load' more accurate than your 1080p xbos used t.v.'s.
Nintendo has the right idea, consoles are good for fully utilizing and focusing on different input methods from a control pad to flight stick or light gun, sure you can put these features on computer and run an emulator but it's more of a hassle than merely setting your keyboard to the controller buttons.
Like has been said before computers have multiple uses, why buy several different systems that: will cost more overall, not necessarily play nicely together, have you physically moving between tasks and take up a preverbial crap load of space oh and if you care about having the best it's much better to have a lot of stuff watercooled with short lengths and minimal bends to the tubing with heat dissapation far enough away distally from the system.
personally i plan on having a small server computer built into the same case (as a removable part) as my gaming computer running permanent net access game servers, long term compressed storage, encryption/decryption etc. while my gaming system is optimised only for games.
It is all any of you non-corporation bosses need, go ahead and try to figure it better

If you get a new computer, why not have Vista with it. After 5 years on a laptop with XP, I got tired of the XP's interface, and the laptop performance. I was even looking into the MAC's OS until, I built a new machine myself. So I got Vista Ultimate with the 8800 GTS and intel quadcore 6600 and I am happy to say the Vista interface is refreshing. Transparency, zooming, scaling, icon popup interface are much better. Most of my XP, Window 2000 and 98 softwares (3d studio, Photoshop) and all games still works and faster on a new machine. An older nero and some lesser software didn't worked and a one drivers was simplified, but not many loses. I am using all the hardware from my laptop still. Granted Vista is a memory hug, but I got more memory this time. I think if you get a new system get vista and a dx10 card and it will last another 5 years.

40 million Vista sold??
There's a huge number of people today that have purchased laptop computers with preinstalled Vista on, who simply just throw it it out and install Windows XP instead. They have realized that Vista is bringing their computer 5 years back in time, regarding performance.