upgrading to Win 7 in that case
but they can whistle if they think I'm paying for it!
Microsoft has killed support for its unloved Windows Vista operating system today. The company announced in February that the service pack-free version of its post-XP, pre-Windows 7 OS would hit end of life support in April. This means that from today, the OS which hit manufacturers in late 2006 is left entirely at the mercy …
...unless your a PC gamer or into creative stuff, like graphics, 3D, audio etc.
There's more than one shade of geek.
As far as I'm concerned, embrace ALL of it - linux, windows, mac - much easier that way & you don't end up sounding like some kind of 'know-it-all' penguin-hugging twat.
I game quite well on my Linux box, including quite a few 3D games. I do graphics and audio mixing to, and my Linux box outdoes the Mac I have at work for that kind of thing.
You're right about embracing it all, but don't dismiss part of 'it all' because you haven't taken the time to learn what it can really do.
Does anyone really play PC games anymore?
Come on, you need to spend £300+ on a new graphics card and operating system every other year just so you can use the new version of DirectLame, then the DRM rapes your system dry AND 90% of the games are second, third, or fourth editions of some buggy WW2 FPS that wasn't even fun to begin with. Why suffer it?
I kind of agree.
Except that your description of games only really covers Call of Duty series.
There are still alot of games out there only realeased on PC, and also pretty much every new game made is either ported to or ported from the PC.
True there is some expense involved but those who game on PC's usually have a PC to begin with. A modern system usually has plenty oomph and enough horses to run an Xbox360 port without too much trouble.
If you want to run crysis warhead at the speed of light then yes a £300 gfx card would be warranted.
However, on the topic of expense... it is true that my gaming system cost alot of dosh, and I could just go and buy an xbox 360 for about 120 quid. However, I would then need an HD telly to play it on (no point putting it through a scart plug on a tv or analogue monitor, looks terrible - i've done it) which usually cost upwards of 800 quid for a nice big one. Granted I could get a 25 inch one for about 300, but then I could build myself a capable system for that (£420) too.
You talk about DRM, but have you ever played an Xbox360? It's there, it's just more well hidden.
I *do* hate the DRM, but again there are alternatives. I have a fair number of games on Steam, I find that getting them from steam usually means that the only DRM is your steam account and the normal restrictions that go with it. Otherwise, I don't normally have any problems with typing in a CD key and letting the game phone home to activate it. Although activation limits are a completely different kettle of fat retarded tosspots with delusions of fighting piracy.
Lastly, game makers are well aware of the failures of and popular opinion on Winblowz, and usually code their games to suit.
You will find the latest game may use DX10, maybe even DX11, but it will also run on windos xp with DX9 and use about 2 thirds of the RAM while it's at it. Only upgradetards really spend that much on new stuff every year.... and I got my copy of win7 for 30 quid and my gfx for 160 - and that's all the upgrades I will need for atleast another four years.
How long till Xbox1080 comes out and you need a new telly to support the latest "High" definition?
The only support (and further security patches) that is ending is for Vista *with no service packs*. TBF the quotes from Microsoft makes this clear, but the author doesn't appear to have grasped it and the article is written as though all support for Vista was ending. If there are still users out there running Vista with no service packs, all they have to do is install SP2 and their support and security updates will continue as usual.
OTOH support for XP will cease in July irrespective of the SP status (i.e. earlier than Vista, which is exactly what one would expect).
Chris Miller said: "OTOH support for XP will cease in July irrespective of the SP status (i.e. earlier than Vista, which is exactly what one would expect)."
I thought it was just XP SP2 that came to end of life on 13th July 2010 and full support will end for XP irrespective of SP level on April 8, 2014?
they could co completely out of their way & offer a free update to service pack 1 or 2 and bring these poor souls back up to a supprted level.
they could even have automated the whole process and made it so that you would have had to go out of your way to not already have one of these free updates.
After the debacle of Vista, Microsoft should be shelling out cash to teh punters for the crappy operating system they forced on people who had no option other than to buy it on computers.
Yes, Dell, that also means you ... you who won't give people refunds for the Microsoft OS if people want the hardware spec, but not the OS.
Great, so all those poor unfortunates that had a laptop shoved down their throat with PISTA installed (a crippled OS as MS have just admitted) just have to go and buy Windows 7 for a paltry £100 or so? I wonder what would happen if Car companies tried that? "What sir? oh, yes the accelerator on the model you bought 10 months ago is known not to work, the bodywork falls off and the doors dont shut properly. Just buy our latest car sir." JEEEZ can MS get away with just about anything??!
I'm sure Microsoft won't be too bothered with the opinions of a mere Customer but this is pretty dreadful really isn't it.
I bought a laptop with Vista (don't forget the "wow") a little over two years ago and already the support plug is being pulled. If I buy a copy of Windows 7 how soon will it be until support is withdrawn from that as well?
I'm sure Microsoft would deny this, but it feels quite contemptuous and arrogant from this customer's perspective. If I go into my VW dealer I can still purchase replacement parts for my 18 year old Volkswagen... why should Microsoft stop supporting thier products as little as a year after sale?
Shame on them.
Don't Microsoft support a product for a minimum of 10 years ?
I have Vista Ultimate on my 14 month old PC. It sort of works. I don't want to pay £200 to go to Windows 7 Ultimate. There does not seem to be a lower cost of upgrading the Ultimate versions of Windows Vista to Windows 7...
I should have bought an iMac instead of my Core i7, 8GB, Raid0, Radeon 4850, Blu Ray equipped PC... I was foolishly comparing costs based on spec, not on customer experience.
Can we have an evil Balmer logo ?
It's worse than that, Dell are still trying to push vista onto unknowing consumers.
Just the other day, I saw an advert for a Dell laptop.
It came "complete" with "2Gb of Ram, an Intel Celeron Processor <bing bong bing bong> and Windows Vista Basic."
They wanted something like £375 for it.
This was like yesterday, hosestly!....yesterday...not two years ago, YESTERDAY!
After I'd spat my cornflakes everywhere with laughter. I decided never ever to buy anything from Dell....EVER!
... did you read it?
Those 'poor unfortunates' don't have to buy win7 - they have to install the latest service pack, which costs nothing apart from the time and bandwidth involved in downloading it.
To return to your analogy, it is more like a car company saying 'You have not changed the tires or serviced this car since you purchased it - you can carry on driving but we want nothing to do with it.'
"To return to your analogy, it is more like a car company saying 'You have not changed the tires or serviced this car since you purchased it - you can carry on driving but we want nothing to do with it.'"
Cars don't randomly crash on you and other drivers can't suddenly grab the wheel from half the world away, steer you to an atm and rob you.
If Microsoft released a car, they'd be sued for negligence and put out of business on day one!
why would you?
vista ultimate was toss. i bought OEM home premium win7 64bit for £85. the ultimate versions are just full of crap you never use. the only thing i thought about was maybe VPN but im sure i can do that anyway by other means. and vista home could connect to a domain fine so i never understood about that limitation.
win7 is MILES better than vista. its really nice to use, unlike the UAC ridden vista
A co-worker of mine purchased a standard Dell laptop with a 15" screen and 160GB hard drive. It came with Vista Home Edition, which is fine, but Dell only saw fit to install 512MB RAM (with shared video memory!) on the default configuration. Control Panel took over 3 minutes to appear.
Personally I think it is great and the sooner Vista is dead the better.
However, to paraphrase Rev Lovejoy's wife, wont anyone think of the users?
Lots of corps have remained on XP - great. Most technogeeks are on *nix/Win7 etc. Both camps shout loudest about Vista's inherent suckiness and will be overjoyed by this (I am).
However all the home users who have bought a computer in the last 3 years are basically being told to cough up and upgrade. I bought a PC from a "High Street Chain" in Dec 09 and it had Vista on (didnt bother me cos it was destined for *nix). Every machine in the shop had it. Lots of people were buying them.
The user base of Vista is infuriatingly large but not comprised of corporations or technophiles. This means MS have turned off life support for what is possibly the most vulnerable group of people and *least likely* to understand what is involved with getting it upgraded or turned back on.
Way to go MicroShaft.
Never was there a 'Skip-edition' like Vista! I have a suspicion that as Windows 7 and its successors start seeping into company networks, then supporting Windows environments is suddenly going to get a whole lot more expensive and time consuming. Sometimes you never know what you've got until its gone - and many IT shops have coasted along quite happily for the last five or six years, comfortable that they could more or less expect that every single client machine in the Windows network was a Windows XP Pro machine.
Maybe it will return to a state similar to the late 90s and early last decade, when any mixture of NT4, 95, 98 and 2000 boxes, could be located on a single pod within a single office? If so, then the IT crowd may once again learn to love Windows division's habit of making each new version of Windows, 85% compatible with the previous versions - with all sorts of interesting exceptions, that eventually involve opening a command line and typing in the name of some God-awful DDL, to resolve dependency clashes.
haven't noticed that this is a complete non-story. Windows Server 2003 with no SP is not supported. XP pre SP2 is not supported. Vista with no SP is not supported. This is business as usual. MS only ever supports the current and previous SP for any length of time.
For the hard of thinking:
VISTA IS STILL SUPPORTED BY MS
You just have to service pack it, if for some arcane reason you haven't already done so.
I'm not sure who has the lowest IQ here - the reporter of this non-story, the headline writer who got it completely wrong, or the commentards who can't read for meaning. Minus several million out of ten for intelligence, all.
Ignoring all the retarded comments from the retards..
What do you have installed;
Service Pack 2 - Nothing changes, support as normal.
Service Pack 1 - Nothing changes, support as normal (but you should install the latest).
No service pack - You're 22 months behind with updates released by Microsoft to the point where they will no longer offer you any further UNTIL you update to one of the above.
Nothing outragous, scandelous or shameful here..
MOJ Employee wrote: "Am I the only one that finds Windows 7 less reliable than Vista? "
Probably - since street wisdom seems to indicate that MS got Win7 a lot less wrong than Vista was/is. Certainly I can use Win7 for longer than the 10 minutes that it takes Vista to royally p*ss me off and have me screaming for the relative sanity of either XP or Ubuntu.
Here's a question for the cynical commenters out there - so is this XP finally dead (come July)? In which case aren't the netbook vendors that are still shipping XP (rather than a decent Linux distro) going to look a wee bitty stupid?
... that the reason your Win7 sux IS beacuse your IT department haven't bothered to configue your machine properly. If it's an IT department like most nowadays they are also probably about 6 months behind with updates (if they do any at all).
That's all suggestive of course and I haven't even mentioned hardware and whether Win7 should be on your machine at all!
What's your issue?
Your OS is still supported.
You have read the article and updated to SP2?
As to upgrading to Win 7. If you look online you'll find many sites telling you how to do a fresh install of Win 7 using an upgrade disk. OK, so you will have to back up your data, but you do that already of course. You'll also have to reload any software which could be a pain. However, an upgrade from one version of an OS to a new major version is never a particularly good idea.
I may be missing the point here but I don't understand your rant.
dont get me wrong windows 7 is great but if your worried about battery problems in 7 why not just have a desktop and be done with it least its more customisable than laptops because laptops are harder to change and tweak so laptops are only good for portability and thats it although i wouldnt recommend going out in places like cafes and stuff advertising your exspensive laptop to thiefs as thay will think oooh hes got a nice laptop lets nick it from him. i dont agree that taken your laptop to public places is good as its bad as it will lead to more robberys where desktops stay in one place i know desktops take up more room but its worth it. so as for vista well it was disaster from day one xp was good despite still having issues now ive had windows 7 on my desktop for roughly 7 months now and its been pretty good fast and stable i havent any problems with it at all which makes a change from microsoft usally they do crap software
It surprised me, and yet didn't, that Microsoft didn't offer a free upgrade from Vista to 7. Vista was so much of a turkey, particularly in its earliest incarnations, that Microsoft could have done with clawing back some of the goodwill it lost by offering such an upgrade and, as a bonus, getting as many people off Vista as possible. However, in practical terms, they have an operating system monopoly in this market, and so obviously decided that demand and supply meant that they could get away with making it a paid upgrade. I suppose that a free upgrade would also have been seen as some form of admission that they got it spectacularly wrong with Vista.
What surprises me, and doesn't surprise me, even more though is the evangelical way in which some people have been praising 7. Look at XP, look at 7, and look at all the years in-between and in essence the product has not gone very far for the ordinary user. 7 is simply, and ignoring some of the under-the-hood improvements, XP with eye candy. The evangelists are seemingly very easily pleased.
No, Monsieur Arctic Fox, I'm not a Mac user, by what I imagine is your definition of the term anyway. I'm mostly a Windowsboi, having also used Macs and dabbled in Linux/Unix (and even cute wee QNX) during my time as many of us have. Ok, I'm intrigued, here's your chance to pitch for 7. How does it float your boat where XP doesn't?
Serious question time... what are the differences between XP and Windows 7 (or Vista for that matter)...?
Does Windows 7 offer any new features or functionality, or is it just the same stuff as XP but faster / bigger / more colourful....? They're all just operating systems, at the end of the day, it's the applications that run on top of the OS that is what makes it interesting.
The guy you replied to may have been just a troll, but I'm being serious and, as you say, you're in a position to compare both quite easily.
Where I desperately need to run windows I'm 'upgrading' from 2000 to XP in the next couple of months. Some systems that are offline will continue to run 2000 for many years to come.
Life is great in the second half of the product lifecycle, everything runs much quicker, all the bugs are fixed and there are no security issues ; %^((*&) ef;lfhd;lfj-dbxcimlkjjkx&&qwfjdkf nigeria 7.2 x million buffer overflow
I run Vista SP 2 Business and I have never ever had one problem contrary to what others have said or going say.
Windows 7 is Vista but with a bit more bells and whistles , the problem with Vista is that it came out to early. Vista SP 2 is very solid in my mind, if they do stop support for Vista then I will go Linux I am not going to fork out extra dollars for Windows 7. To me Windows Vista users should get a massive discount to upgrade to the new OS, I mean Linux does it for free.
The problem with Microsoft is they have knob heads for users,; users that do not find out if their hardware will work with a new system. Now is that Microsoft's fault I do not believe so !
...and thanks for the compliment. :-)
Actually, didn't most versions of Windows (and no doubt 7 too) have some sort of tool you can run to analyse your computer and tell it if it was capable of running on the machine under test? I recall one (Vista?) that gave lots of recommendations, except when - for a laugh - I tried it on a 16Mb P75 running W95. It said nothing at all. Mmmm, wonder why.
Totally agree with you. I'm writing this on my vista machine, and no way would I shell out cash for windows7 as it is the same kernel as vista.
Vista runs just as well as win7 -- addmittedly with 90% of the services disabled.
When MS eol vista, then I'll just use a linux distro instead. Fedora or SLED most likely, since I already admin linux servers.
I do prefer windows on desktops, but never ever on laptops, as the windows memory management / power management is rubbish, and I do like instant suspend a la OSX. Windows7 still cannot do that.... I have tested it.
You don't get to be a reliable news/information source by writing lines like "Microsoft has killed support for its unloved Windows Vista operating system today." and "This means that from today, the OS which hit manufacturers in late 2006 is left entirely at the mercy of hackers who might wish to exploit the now unsupported code."
What you mean is "people who are, for some odd reason, using Vista without any service packs installed, will no longer have official support from Microsoft", but for some reason you needed to bulk out the article to slightly more than one sentence, and what better than a load of FUD? <sigh>
Mind boggling how dense the author of this article is. Microsoft has not stopped supporting Vista. Read the big print at:
Support for Windows Vista without any service packs will end April 13th, 2010. After that, you will no longer be able to get security updates.
So just what does that mean? It means that you need to install the service packs to continue to get updates. Was that so hard?
Time for some of you here to get a life.
The comment above is why I despair of the way people interact these days. Rather than just calling the author out for presenting a misleading headline (which would be justified), the commentard here calls him "dense" and then finishes up with "Time for some of you here to get a life." Why be so aggressive and dismissive? Are we now insecure in ourselves to such an extent that we have to talk and act like this? Anyone know?
... you believe incorrectly. To me, a commentard is a person who makes a comment to an article on the Register, like you and I. Or at least it was until I just checked the Urban dictionary. Ok, I'm corrected, he or she is just a commenter then, although it doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Nice spot though - good to see someone's paying attention.
with the patronising title of your reply. You couldn't just say "no dig intended", you headlined it with all that "one man's blah is another blah blah blah" guff.
When people start with a title like "Well...." and then follow through with "...you believed incorrectly", they often do it to mean "What comes after the dots really skewers this guy!" (I did it myself in my first hilarious reply to your original post). I believe you intended that effect (you don't need to "factually correct" me on that btw), but if you really didn't mean it I'm sure you saw how someone could take it that way and therefore "one man's blah" guff not warranted.
A handy hint when making a correction is to put the apology right up front, maybe in the title, and state it simply. Then, if you must, put whatever self justifying petulance you want in the small print. Lessen the blow.
Right. That's my self justifying petulance all written up with as much patronising as I could muster. Over to you.
(Actually just winding you up - irony of your impassioned plea for respect and politeness turning into a series of insultingly written replies. Couldn't resist. If you could just post a "get a life" type answer things would be dandy.)
For a minute there I thought a debate was going to fail to degrade into chilidish point scoring. Phew.
(and yes - that original chap (or lady) was needlessly offensive. Strangely confrontational people have always been around, it's just that the internet allows them to share their rudeness at a click. You see a similar thing in cars where the isolating effect of being wrapped in a personal steel and glass shield brings out the worst in people with short fuses. People who would probably temper their outbursts if you were standing face to face.)
Aren't we all fired up today.
I've read every anti-Vista comment going, even had friends who complained bitterly that it was rubbish.
Yet, here I am, running it for the last 2 years with no issues whatsoever (on 64-bit no less). It runs quite happily for weeks at a time without crying foul, running out of memory or blue-screening and without slowing down. It does all that while I open and close different games and applications in an almost endless succession, whilst I let it download giga-bytes of data in the background and so on.
But it's no fun to talk about an OS that actually does do exactly what it's meant to, is it.
I should also point out that this is a multi-boot machine, so that I could keep XP, yet I cant remember the last time I felt a need to start that up.
I run Vista machines too. I'm not adverse to the operating system (after SP1 anyhow), but it's obviously more resource-hungry than XP, was shipped on many machines that were inadequate for purpose, and initially had its horrendous file copy problems. Those machines that I do run Vista on have UAC switched off and various other tweaks that make the use of the operating system quite manageable. However I shouldn't have needed to do this. User interface-wise, it was a step forward from XP (I do like me gloss it has to be said) but the performance price was simply too high. There are various software packages out there that will give an XP machine a glossy aero interface without the hungriness of Vista.
Look, if you've got the hardware, as you obviously do, then Vista's fine, but it was so obviously inadequate for the majority of machines already out there (and many that were sold with it at the time) that it created headaches galore. Who knows whether the Vista design decisions were motivated by the need to stimulate the purchase of new hardware or not, but I'm not surprised that so many people have so many bad things to say about it and are all fired up. They deserve a moan.
I'm just the same, except only a year for me, but it came with two new computers (a desktop and a laptop) i bought a year ago. The only problem, is the drivers for my delorme GPS unit doesn't like vista; won't like 7 any better.
I also used ME for years without problems. People said it's unstable crashes etc. - I accidentally left it running when I had a few jobs (working a TV show in Vegas, such a hard job being the technical advisor to people you'd know better for their day jobs, like Mythbusters, Spore, lycos, Tonight show etc ;-) but i went and left it not just running, but dialed up to blueyonder (before they upgraded the Liverpool cable network) When I came home a few weeks later (we filmed an entire season in one go, not only was the computer still running, the dialup connection was still active (somewhere I have the screenshot of it at 23 days)
Most of the Vista and ME problems are the result of PEBKAC's. I do bittorrent support, and we get a lot of that too (all the recent fuss about utp, and before that the half-open ports thing etc). People who know 'just enough' get the wrong end of the stick, then cause a fuss and try and find ways around problems that don't really exist....
Not a vista/7 user myself. Ubuntu at home, XP at office. The security model seems to be the biggy. And I imagine if you put that along with the eye candy and other bits and bobs then microsoft are probably right to expect people to pay to upgrade from xp for it. If i'd paid for Vista I'd feel a bit peeved about paying a large whack to get to 7, though. I'm not entirely sure how much a leap from xp was expected though? What else was expected from a desktop OS?
Anyone who want's to "Upgrade" one windows version to another needs to have a good hard look at how their PC is performing.
I am pretty sure Microsoft don't do "Upgrade Installs" any more due to things like the changes to filesystem locations like moving "C:\Documents and Settings\" to "C:\Users\". Sure Microsoft could have shuffled the files around on install, but there are so many badly written programs that a user could have expected at least a quarter of their apps to stop working. And who's fault would it have been then, not the app writer's oh no, it worked FINE before the upgrade.
I am not a Micro$oft fanboi in any way, I feel they owe me a Win7 license for all the crap I had to go through with the whole Vista incident, but you gotta point the blame where it's due. In this case it's not at Microsoft.
To be honest upgrade installs in the first place were a bad idea, if you are replacing the system software you should be using the time to also upgrade the latest drivers, security software and applications. It's a no-brainer really and no one I know would consider doing an upgrade.
SP2 can't be slipstreamed in a Vista Disc which makes it a pain to install a fresh. I'm hoping that 7 SP1 will be "slipable"
Also do see a lot of Vista computers unable to install SP1 or 2, I normally do a fresh install of Windows, install updates and drivers to get people going again.
I've seen some low power Laptops with Vista and they are terrible, I install XP on these and they really do run better!
oh and look up how much dwm.exe uses on some PC's (installed with the drivers it cam with
Jobs icon cos he the new.....
About 18 months ago I built a new PC after my old one died (5yrs being overclocked took it's toll and the MB failed but everything else was fine and sold to fund the new one). I bought a copy of Vista 64... the first time I have ever bought a copy of windows that wasn't preinstalled on a machine... So the first one in at least 10yrs. :)
Once you get by the few annoying little quirks, the side bar, UAC and such... it's actually a very stable system. The problem has been that it was released without the support of the hardware and software... lack of drivers, lack of compatibility and heavy ram use all took it's toll and the vista ready campaign was a huge mistake that backfired... and as a result it got crucified... media slammed it, people were put off and it tanked.
But underneath it, when you actually got the driver and hardware support... it's a very good and very stable OS. I like it now, hated it when my BIL bought a laptop with a 64bit CPU and crippled with a 32bit OS... stupid, stupid, stupid.
A couple of months ago, I built a high powered HTPC and bought win7 64... and once I tweaked that to get around a few annoying things (sound familiar), like putting the quick launch bar back where it should be and disabling a few things that I don't need to constantly be told... it's a decent OS.
When win7 came along... the support was already there.. if win7 had been released instead of Vista it would have received the same slating that vista did. Sure 7 has a few extra things that raise it above Vista but that's evolution of an OS, not a revolution. I prefer the media centre in 7 to Vista, but that's because I can tweak it more... but MC could still be a lot better and MS should hire the guys who created the Media Browser plugin http://community.mediabrowser.tv/ to write the next one.
So Vista is fine... unless you run it on hardware that can't cope... and they sold it preinstalled on exactly that... and it backfired... but the OS itself is fine once you know how to use it... now my fine OS will no longer be supported and I can't afford to upgrade it to 7... so my alternative is to suffer or find an alternative way to.
"now my fine OS will no longer be supported" - Only if your fine OS is Vista without service packs. Read the article again."
Yeah, I read that... but it's a given that support for Vista will be cut short even with SP, XP support is almost 10yrs old, Vista isn't going to make 5. Expect support for SP2 to be gone next year.
Cutting of support for Vista early because it tanked is not the consumers fault, MS are actually encouraging me to seek out alternative sources for an upgrade... when I've actually started buying their OS's :)
"It's a given" - no it's not, go and read http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ - you can expect 10 years of support (5 years mainstream, 5 years Extended) for Business/Developer products and 5 years support (mainstream) for consumer products.
For Vista in particular, see http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+Vista&Filter=FilterNO - extended support for Business & Enterprise editions ends in 2017. Now, that's 10 years rather than the 12 years XP got, but nonetheless - install the Service Packs and you'll get 10 years out of it.
My one issue with this is that the "Ultimate" editions of Vista and 7 (which the less tech-literate members of the userbase at my workplace seem to want, possibly just because of the name) are supposed to be functionally identical to the Enterprise editions but do not enjoy the same support.
Buried at a crossroads with a stake thru its heart ?
Mouth filled with salt, sewed shut, face down ?
Encased in high density concrete, buried in a lined pit ?
Glassified, in a secure cave in a geologically quiet area ?
Dropped thru the event horizon of a black hole ?
Probably not, the Vista zombie robot will continue to clank across the landscape for decades. I can still find WindowsME systems. Stinky, stinky software.
caught out by the service packs bit, will stick with Vista for home use and XP for business in that case.
We've tried the newer two but had too many incompatibilities (and yes we're fully patched up where patches are available due to requirements for PCI compliance).
Both Vista and Win 7 work fine for me for personal use though, not stunning, but no major issues at all either.
Yeah Homer Simpsons famous words .
The whole Vista bit is a comedy.I always wait before i buy any software.
Wait to see how things goes for others.Vista was a train wreck.
Im not sorry to see it go cause i never " upgraded " feeling the whole bit
was too risky.Im certainly not going to get rid of XP . Works well and it's stable.
Though 7 seem according to everyone that has it ,the right move to go forward.
Meanwhile .. i saved a bunch of money switching my desktop to Linux .
Dual booting to XP for work use ( Crestron devel env is win only ).
Just tees me off to fork over so much money for a product that is not worth
that much in the first place. Relative ? yes . But to me that money can be best put
to use somewhere else. Bye Vista .. no tears here .
Gone for a beer.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019