Should I keep trying to figure out how to get wireless working in ubuntu, or should I go for vista? I think I'd rather deal with ndiswrapper...

I can't wait for Vista to come out of open beta. I'm looking forward to using it.

How many security updates were released for OS X and XP in the same time period. The results may be interesting.

There were no MS SECURITY updates released this week.

To "x": There were no security updates because M$ was preoccupied with fixing Vista in time for Vista-RTM (a.k.a. SP1).

ndiswrapper is almost nontrivial in its implementation.

Dole, I hope you were kidding, if not I will hit you with some knowledge: Vista has been out for almost a year now. It is NOT a beta product.

Its a fantastic product despite its publicity for its instability and reliability issues so you should go and buy it if you are looking forward to using it.

but it's still bloatware, and I dont want to upgrade my whole system just yet. But I'm sure it's better than XP for security. Most of the patches are more with stability and convenience than security. But XP still has regular security patches released almost monthly (speck of which some just started downloading now lol).

The people who were making Microsoft Vista could not conceivably have thought about everything that someone would do to try to hack it, so I wasn't surprised that there were security updates in the first 60 days after it was released for public use.

Coping files in Vista takes eons, try to delete two identical folders or mails in windows mail, and see fun things to succeed (or succeed nothing at all)
Use Aero two times until you get tired of pushing two keys (or using keyboard) instead of mouse. Try to update your BIOS without DOS. See all your applications hang or crash (no, windows 9x/xp compatibility mode does not work).

Vista is the more annoying Windows I have tested, and then I got Office 2007... 4 minutes for Excel to change line types in charts, older excel files no more working, and... long list...

I have tried it 2 months, because I are a hopeless geeky,... until I got a shock of reality, and got back to Windows XP/Office 2003.
But I can downgrade mi mail to Outlook 2003, and Vista Windows Mail really SUCKS big time... I hate it. I suffer each time i use it...

Trolls.

.. Yes I've been running vista, for 7ish months now, I have to say its no XP, But i have no problems with it, wouldn't call it a upgrade thou, I guess I just like it cause its more pretty, ... only concern is that nothing is really better than XP ... I mean really i only run it cause its pretty

Let's take that first thing that you mention there: the file copying problem. Yes, that was a problem for a while in Vista.... but there has been an update to fix that problem for nearly 2 months now.... what's the deal, too lazy to update your machine?

On the Windows Mail issue.... I don't use Windows Mail, I use Thunderbird, so I can't comment on that, though I have to believe that you are overstating the problems you are having.

As to the 'Aero push two buttons thing'.... you do know that you can map the Aero Flip-3D to a button on your mouse if you have Intellipoint 6.1 installed, right?

Update my BIOS without DOS? I have done that 4 times on my Toshiba Laptop with a installer that installs the BIOS update in Windows..... Absolutely no problems with that whatsoever, though it has scared me when it just suddenly dropped to a black screen the first three times.

Have all your applications hang or crash.... Sorry, not buying it. I have played American McGee's Alice, Undying, etc. on Vista and have only had Undying crash thus far, at a point where it was known on Windows XP to have a problem crashing if you had been playing for a very long time.

As to the Office 2007 slowness.... I have seen that a little on my machine..... but that's more a problem that for some reason Office uses the Swap File instead of the actual RAM for Office on my 1GB RAM machine.... probably, there is just too much memory being used by Windows itself.

You seem to be a whiny baby who just doesn't want to give Vista a chance, and forgets that many of the problems you mentioned..... happened when XP first came out, because it was based on an NT-architecture and everything was written for a 95-style architecture.

Dole was obviously sarcastic. If you haven't heard, many people won't consider using a MS software product before SP1. That's why Dole mentioned "open beta". Vista never really was in an open beta stage, so "open beta" as Dole describe it is obviously a sarcastic name for the condition Vista is at right now. Now, I'm really sorry that I took the time to explain this to you. I really didn't want to make you feel thick...kidding! :)
BTW, if you and/or your friends are running Vista smoothly, it still doesn't make it as wonderful and bug free as you describe it. Some of Vista's current bugs are plain embarrassing.

And, I would guess that most complainers here don't have any problems with Vista either. Simply because they don't use it, but rather are zealots with ill intentions. Sad that humans have stooped this low.

Face it there is no reason to use Vista. Even DX10 has shown very little to no value. You get more aggravation with driver and program compatibility with absolutely no benefit. I won't even get into the other pig cr**. Oh right I forgot, it's pretty. Ha Ha Ha ... lemmings.

xp wasn't a reliable OS till SP2, right?
Why I should wait anything better from vista?

xp wasn't a reliable OS till SP2, right? Why I should wait anything better from Vista?

You know what, I have been using Vista since it came out, and my 2 censts is:

It is the "same" as XP, they have just moved everything around and updated a few components.

Honestly, I would appreciated more if MS just came out with a shell operating system for users that just "runs" and does not need $200 graphic cards and 2GB of RAM... I just want to use my OTHER softwares, not have to think about the operating system.

Honestly I feel that the thing i spend the most time on screwing around with is the operating system, that SHOULD just be tickingin the background.

At the end of the day my computer is designed around the OS, the OS is the most expensive piece of software I own, it also needs antivirus and firewall additions, and HOURS AND HOURS of tweaking.

Vista was in an easily downloadable beta several months before its release.

Same old whine (95, ME, 2K, XP) with a different generation of cry babies.

Anyone who doesn't verify that all of their software and hardware is on the Microsoft compatibility list for VISTA has no room to complain, and if an OEM sells you a pc with a screwed up VISTA installation, the millions of working VISTA installations say that’s between you and your OEM.

If your not even using VISTA and still whining. You're just a sad (cheap or broke) crybaby.

So stop complaining and do what everyone else who buys an operating does, update your system and be glad that you weren't affected by the bug or at the least have a fix for it.

OK. it's from June. But it's interesting.
http://blogs.csoonline.com/win...ty_report

I put up with vista for 4 months and gave up and UPgraded back to XP. They finally get a system that half way works then they come out with (whatever). They should not sale one disk until it is beta tested (free) for at least a year.

2 months is a long enough time to give it a try. The buggy part is the reason for the "open beta" comments. That is why, even with the high end machines at hand, people wait for sp1. The OS is meat to serve the user, not the other way around. If I spend that much of money on Vista, the last thing I want to hear is I'll have to work afterwards. I'd just go Linux if there was no XP choice right now. OS's job is to make hardware work, and Vista does not do a good job. I remember people searching for XP sp1 & 2 because their hardware was too new. Now people are searching for new hardware because their OS is too new. Come on. XP was at least faster than 2k in most of the tests straight from the beginning. Compared to 9x is another story, but the proven NT technology made it possible for XP to extend the way it does. Vista is an experiment. I won't be getting Vista until the new operating system based on the "proven" Vista technology. Software and driver makers (except MS) will continue to support XP. And when they no longer do, the new OS will already have drivers for the old hardware that maybe will work better than if they came from the original company. But MS Vista has no time for drivers right now IMO.

Just like we used to stick with Windows 2000 until WinXP became stable for the very first time.

-anstorm

Media Center. SOLD! And DX10 hasn't given me any issues - save for Bioshock. as a matter of fact, I run my XP games in my 250 GB hard drive FROM vista and actually notice BETTER frames. Aero is orgas... err, fantastic, and everything in Vista is user streamlined: no more looking around for that one option that you can't find, everything can easily be accesssed from the computer "Properties" menu. Not to mention a billions other things that Vista does that XP doesn't. I definitely am not complaining an laugh and scoff at those newblets that can't understand that you can't keep a computer without upgrading for more than two years nowadays - unless, maybe, if it's a high end system, in which case you'd still be able to run modern day apps but will definitly not be on the cutting edge (an affliction common to gamers).

My Macs don't need upgrading every couple of years. MS has done well to pull the wool so far over your eyes that you think you NEED to spend money every couple years just to enjoy your friggin computing experience. Nice Play MS, Nice Play!

see ya back in 1970!!! DVD is just a fad and the VCR will make a come back (just like 8tracks!). XP is for people who still run pentiums, period.
Vista had a very long open beta that ANYONE could have gotten in on. They made their entire OS avail for download from around september of 2006 until its release. In fact it only ended a couple of months ago.

OSx was released with more bugs then vista, XP was not good until sp2!!! Vista is gold right out of the box as long as you have hardware vendors that still support the crap they sold you before vista came out. Creative Labs has been the slowest of all hardware vendors. Nvidia has been non stop releasing updates. So zorg I think you can still get your hands on win3.1.1 It has had the most updates and semi secure!

Tossing out your old Mac hardware with OS X Panther and buying new Mac hardware with OS X Tiger followed 2 years later by tossing it to buy yet another Mac with OS X Leopard IS upgrading every couple of years.

Just because the UI is more consistent doesn't mean you aren't being suckered into updates.

And if users would just realize that their OS isn't really that important instead of buying in to OS manufacturer marketing and choose their OS based off of either application software need or hardware manufacture date, nobody would have any problems with Vista. But since people are "dumb" and want to upgrade for the sake of upgrading, we get software incompatibility issues and Vista attempts on P2 400's with 128 MB of RAM, and those don't work right, go figure.

You are funny. Thanks for the history lesson. I had RC1 but thanks for letting me know about the BETA. XP works reasonably well and costs ~$90 OEM. It has virtually no driver problems and is quite safe with virus and trojan software. I guess you didn't hear about the OEMs ripping out Vista and installing XP because Vista sucks. Here is a couple of links http://www.crn.com/white-box/200900857 http://www.dvhardware.net/article22261.html. The funniest thing about your post is that you didn't tell me anything that was better with Vista. By the way, I'm running a Q6600 with a mild OC to 3G, a GA-P35-DQ6 and 2G DDR2 800 RAM, with XP of course.
Maybe you could post back and give some reasons to help MS finish BETA testing Vista, otherwise I'll just wait and let you, and the rest of the lemmings, do it for me.

Actually, you do have to upgrade hardware: processors, graphics cards, etc. - about every year if you want to stay on the cutting edge, whether you have a PC OR a Mac.

Secondly, I went without upgrading my computer for nearly 6 YEARS and it played fine..... until recently when the MB started failing. When I realized the same motherboard in order to get everything working (the old processor, etc.) would cost me more than a new machine.... THAT is when I upgraded.

I was an early Vista adopter and have been using it since it came out. Ignoring all the opinions on the web, Vista has been great for me. More reliable, more secure and Vista MCE has been the killer app for me and my wife. A had a few driver issues that would terrify the non-tech user, but for me not a big deal. I give Vista a 9/10 for my satisfaction. Always nice to get more updates and improvements though...

Thanks for a laugh :) I'm still waiting too.

Every time someone complains about Microsoft I keep thinking of that SNL skit with “Nick Burns, the company’s computer guy”.


These types of discussions are always filled with three types

1. Actual Computer Geeks/ Admin types = defending their OS

2. Nerds trying to hide their own inadequacy = complaining about an OS

3. Mac users = Wannabe geeks, who most of the time, don’t even realize they are now actually bragging about a UNIX OS running on an Intel platform. (Mac is a great sytem, but it’s built for idiots. Remember that the next time you boast).

Anyone heard of Ubuntu Feisty. It is every bit as easy to install as Vista and compatible with any commonly available hardware plus a lot of stuff that's not so common.
I've been running my entire business on Ubuntu for a year now.This includes 2 desktop PC's, a laptop and server with file and print services, IMAP email (with spam filtering that works), network backup plus a bare metal recovery falicity, secure remote access, SQL database, document preparation facilities and multi user accounting package with no problems.
All this software and functionality cost me nothing (the windows path would have cost me in excess of $3000 in licensing alone).
Ubuntu is mature and a viable option for any business. What did I do with the money I saved? I just got back from a week in Fiji....

Recently I bought a HP Laptop G5055EA preloaded with Vista Home Basic. I thought Vista is a better product and is going to be lovely using it, but it turned out to be a headache. Many of the other programmes than came preloaded with the Laptop do not work. For eg.: Adobe Reader 8, Cyberlink Power DVD, Nero 6 etc are simply not functing. I was supplied with a Webcam 2006 version and a Soleil Bluetooth 2006 version. Both of them are not working I have a host of other softwares which I use on a daily basis and non of them are working with Vista. I contacted HP and they asked me to contact Microsoft. Microsoft said they can do nothing. I think both HP and Microsoft are just thieves looting innocent people like me. My new laptop which cost me Rands 8500 is lying useless. Shame on HP and Microsoft.

HP and Microsoft did nothing wrong.

Your criticism should be focused on the third party software manufactures (if they claimed VISTA compatibility),

the OEM that bundled and sold the system without verifying it worked,

and yourself for not verifying that the other items you were given were compatible with VISTA before installing them.

Well...this is the way I see it:

32-bit/3 GB of RAM or less: Stick with XP for now.

64-bit/4 GB of RAM or more: You might as well install 64-bit Vista. 64-bit XP has rather poor support and it's not going to get all that much better because of the existence of Vista.

Media Center in a 32-bit environment: Tough call. The Media Center community seems to support Vista's Media Center more than XP's at the moment, but again, 32-bit is on its last legs, so why waste the cash on XP Media Center Edition at this time? If you already have XP MCE, stick with it until you're in a position to go 64-bit.

Media Center in a 64-bit environment: Vista (Home Premium or Ultimate). No other option here without using a third-party product and/or a non-Windows OS.

Non-profits that can't afford to upgrade on a regular interval: XP. Vista would be a complete waste of the PC's resources, even two years down the line.

AutoCAD and Photoshop users: XP in 32-bit, Vista in 64-bit. For the former, you're limited to

Blessman, where did you go? you jump from post to post. And never answer and give a response when cornered.

About five of your vista fanboyyyy buddies disappear fast so lets try this again...

Oh Alex - "Not to mention a billions other things that Vista does that XP doesn't.". Please explain this:

"Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?"

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP."

www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html#conclusion_ko_for_windows_vista

And Alex and blessman after you explain that read these two links keeping in mind XP64 was rewritten along side of vista.

www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/top10.mspx
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/benefit.mspx

Now please post 10 things better in vista than XP64 that you honestly feel make it worth up to $399 to have.

Hey vista FANBOIYZZZZZ POST 10 & STOP RUNNING TO NEXT POST...

Blessman - "Vista is gold right out of the box"
Blessman - "Vista is better then XP at every step of the way"
Jeff - "Vista is the future"
R - "accept Vista as superior"
Alex - "Not to mention a billions other things that Vista does that XP doesn't."

First here is a news flash:

*** VISTA AKA Win ME 2 has year and a half tops shelf life left. MS IS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE ON windows 7 AKA Vienna & will now be releasin it in 2009 instead of the original 2010 projection. This is possible because Vienna contains a lot of the longhorn functionality that was stripped out in order to create a very weak Vista OS release ***

SO PLEASE !!! Post those 10 new features we can't live without until 2009.

Please tell me if vista is gold, the 'end all' and the future.

Why will you be whisked away into another OS in less than a year and a half?

In case you can't do the math 'Win ME 2' AKA Vista was released with a projected total life of 2 years (very similar to the Win ME fill the MS coffer campaign before the XP release, a release you suckers jumped on as well while the smart ones skipped it and continued using WIN 98SE.)

Why hasn't MS posted a new road map showing either the cancellation or release date pushed back until 2013 for the Vienna OS ?

Why did MS strip the named longhorn OS down to vista and release it and will be putting it into the soon to be released Vienna OS?

WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS POST 10 NEW FEATURES OVER THE PROMISED XP64 REWRITE?

WHY?

WHY??

WHY???

Alex you said you have a billion things, all I need is 10.

Come on fan boyz... Where do you run and hide at?

Well said. I'm pretty sure that none of them is going to post again, because they don't have a leg to stand on.

I guess your mind is going with age. HP IS the OEM that bundled the software that didn't work, and then told him to call MS. I call that top tier customer support. Although you can argue that MS forced HP to put the boat anchor called Vista on their machines. Vista has too many problems with drivers and software. Vista offers no additional value over XP. That is Microsoft's fault. So I guess they are both to blame.

Where in his post did he mention he bought it directly from HP?

Though HP manufactured the hardware they are not necessarily the ones who bundled or resold the system.

Even so, ever hear of reading the warranty.

The rest of your whining put you squarely at number 2 on the list I posted earlier.

Kent, Vista was in 2 seperate beta testing sessions for like 3 years.

Enlighten, again you and Zorg now are wrong. Look at the other post I put and tell me DX10 itself is not worth it. DX10 changes the looks of everything.

Go buy last months PC Gamer and look at the side by side screenshots of DX10/DX9 games. All I can say is that God Rays rock.

Plus almost every major game dev is saying that DX10 is well worth it as it allows them to add more to the game such as higher resolution shadows, and those awesome God Rays..... I saw them in the WIC demo and was amazed at how realistic it looked.

Wow, between this post and your other I'm amazed...

How can you start your post with "I'm not a fanboy".

There are a few things people can read from your post immediately.

1) Microfluff Fanboy
2) Uneducated gamer
3) Un-realiable tester/evaluater
3) You possess 'no back bone', 'consumer fight' or personal will power
4) Don't do much with your PC but fantasize about future games, net browsing and file moving, and maybe solitare

I say this because you like others have mirrored weak post that DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION OR TEST REQUESTED.

Jimmy - "tell me DX10 itself is not worth it. DX10 changes the looks of everything"

This was an exploration of vista as a whole and your assumption is that everyone's is using their PC to play DX10 games.

*** NEWS FLASH ***
Slightly better picture contrast, brightness and detail does not convince the masses to buckle to non-sense. I assumed you had been reading the post instead to the titles

Please read 'Gaming enthusiasts' section of
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/benefit.mspx

1) DX10 - This is a big one for gamers. It's a situation 'manufactured' by microfluff to try to prevent vista from being a win ME repeat. And if you read the gamers enthusiast section you'd realize that DX10 was first intended to be on XP. "video game developers are at work right now building exciting 64-bit native games to help push these limits even further. Since data in memory is accessed about 10,000 times faster than it is on a disk drive, 64-bit native games hold the potential for significantly faster graphics rendering, producing photo-realistic immersion and rapid-fire play without annoying delays". Because you now see these words only being used for DX10 'photo-realistic'.

To Date the demo's and still shots have not been visible in the game. So let's examine your next statement:

Jimmy "And DX10 is way worth it. Do this. Take 2 PCs and sit the side by side with the same hardware."

There have been several places that have performed those test please try reading

"None of the tested games can boast much higher visual quality in comparison with the DirectX 9 applications while the use of DirectX 10 lowers the frame rate. We guess the only lucky example of a DirectX 10 game is Call of Juarez DX10, but largely due to its initially beautiful DirectX 9 visuals."

www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/directx10-games_15.html#sect0

For the record I'm a gamer. But I wont be led like cattle and sheep with my dollar. I can get along without DX10 for a half year in 2008. Most of the immediate DX10 titles are ports offering very little in extra visuals until mid to late 2008.

By then you'll be whisked away into the new operating system windows 7 aka vienna. This will be the better operating system because all of you open beta vista tester will identify fixes that go into veinna the true longhorn system.

Jimmy - "Vista is the most stable and fastest one to date."

OMG lol and you claim to not be a fanboy, that's a very poor attempt of being incognito pal. Similar to a person being caught with a loaded elephant gun in the african jungle claiming "I'm not a puleture".
"Of those six updates, five affect Windows directly (four relate to Windows XP and three to Windows Vista)"
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34283/108/

"It appears that some Internet Explorer 7 users are seeing a blank spot where the video player should be. This usually happens with people running the Windows Vista operating system."
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34081/117/

"Vista service pack, Server 2008 nearing release"
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34036/144/

"One fixes a remote code execution vulnerability in Windows, while another concerns the same problem for Windows Vista."
LOL fanboy speculation was true "two other patches to Windows Vista to fix optimization problems, which were released on Wednesday, will sneak into the Windows Update file alongside the security updates."
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33327/108/

"Leaked Vista hotfix packs now official"
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33282/112/

"Microsoft releases six patches"
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32842/108/
"Early adopters of Vista have found several problems, including slow copying of files both locally and over the network."

LOL explain this one fanboy "Improved reliability of systems that were upgraded from Windows XP to Windows Vista." How can you not have this as a MAJOR FOCUS IN ALL TESTING SCENARIOS?
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33608/140/
And lastly you posted something the title "Microsoft fixes more Vista issues"
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34202/140/

Jimmy - "$140 for Ultimate thats a freakin steal."

LOL nice steal... for Microfluff LOL... the ultimate slap in the face to you OPEN BETA VISTA OWNERS "Microsoft apologizes for slow additions to Windows Vista Ultimate"
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32757/140/

The post go on and on MS fanboy, so lets look at your fanboy statement one more time shall we?

"Vista is the most stable and fastest one to date."

Fastest??? please show us and tomshardware how to perform testing...

"Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?"

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP."

www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html#conclusion_ko_for_windows_vista

Give up the MS b!owboy title and join us in the real world pal...

Dear Sir
I am having problems down loading tumble bees from pogo It is a disc but is not compatible with the vista I had a XP butn I had to get aother computor. I have a Hp Pavillion desk top model # a6350z Pc. With wp I was able to play the game I also wasnt able to down load book worm wwhic is pt out by popcap they snt me a link to click on and it straighten the problem out do you have any suggestion? thank you Rita