has anyone gotten windows vista home edition yet? and if you did how is it?

This is not a game query. Game queries are posts related to the problems or questions regarding the funkypool site.

It's no problem cdn_girl, i'll pop it over to the general chat forum.

We're here now!!

sooo sorry K3v, thanks pool_life

I also want to know what this windows vista malarki's all about!

Well, i was waiting for someone else to say something but since its all quiet..

I've been testing it since the early Beta's, and its nice. Very nice.

Sure, its subject to the standard ranting by those who think its clever to bash Microsoft, but ignore that and make your own mind up.

Vista's hardware spec is quite high, but then it should be. Its a new OS so it should be designed for new machines. If you have an old one, run windows 95 or 3.1, thats what they were designed for!

Anyways, security is the biggest plus. Gone are the days when standard users can blame windows for being unreliable and crashing. There are confirmations every time you do something that alters system files. So no more excuses! (obviously admin can be free of these restrictions if they wish)

Visually, Vista is awesome. I find the 3D interface much more effecient and logical, but thats hard to describe so here's a virtual tour that does the job quite well.

(ran out of space!)

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9001435

But remember, as with every upgrade. If you dont have a reason for it, or know why you need it.

You dont.




(Edit - there are far too many new features to list, like the new photo handling etc etc, and i've only seen Vista Premium, but i dont think there's too much difference between the versions for an average home user)

Edited at 20:37 Sat 10/02/07 (GMT)

True it's an improvement on XP (or it will be after the glitches are ironed out with a couple of SPs), but for the most part it's just aesthetics and not really necessary, or its finally adding what has been in Mac OS X for years. Low and mid range PCs will struggle to run it smoothly (machines which are just above minimum recommended hardware spec really aren't enough). The built in anti-virus isn't that reliable and doesn't pass VB100 certification, and some of the new features can be restrictive. I really don't like the file encryption, which as well as preventing piracy also prevents some perfectly legal actions. Also, the 64-bit version has driver and software compatibility issues at the moment, and you could end up needing to buy numerous new peripherals if you don't do your research.

That all sounds a bit negative, but on the whole it is a good OS for a high-end PC (though still not up to OS X standards). It tends to run apps slower than XP though on machines with less than..

Anyway, all I have heard about it is bad things, thanks for filling things out guys, massive help

Edited at 02:16 Sun 11/02/07 (GMT)

..around 2 gigs of RAM though. I think Microsoft rushed it's release a bit so I'd wait to upgrade from XP until it's received a couple of SPs.

Edit: Thanks for that stevo.

Edited at 02:17 Sun 11/02/07 (GMT)

See told you it would be subject to the standard bashing by those who think its cool to slag of microsoft without reading the EULA first

Obviously old machines wont run it, like i said, but thats like putting a CD on your record player and blaming the people who made the CD for it not working.

Personally, i think the guy who bought the CD without finding out what it was is making a fool of himself..



As for rushed releases, you will remember 10.0 and 10.1 schuldiner? Now THAT was panic avoidance (actually one of my biggest gripes with OSX, apart from the constant crashing and restrictive environment (speaking as a developer here) is the way Apple charge for upgrades. A fully current OSX has already cost me 2.5 the price of Vista premium (And i know the updates to that will be free).

/rant

I find Aero and Flip3D to be very productive tools for my personal style of working.

Apple tried similar things with Aqua and Expose, but they just simply flunked it. They looked pretty but just weren't practical for everyday use (and severly exposed OSX's reliability issues again).

Anyways, at the end of they day, apple are MS are deep in negotiations over launching Vista on the Mac, so soon everyone can have it

At the end of the day, its down to personal taste. Whats best for you is what works for you.

The best 64bit OS out there is still Minerva, which i've been using for over 20 years now!

Edit - realise just how off topic this had gone!

If you have a relatively new machine, then for simple ease of use, reliability and security for a home user, at under £50 Vista is a worthwhile upgrade. But DO make sure your machine matches the specs first.

Edited at 12:45 Sun 11/02/07 (GMT)

OS X reliability issues??? That's new to me. OS X crashes far less than any Microsoft OS (time will tell with Vista) and is easier to recover from than blue screen.

I'm still saying that just having a newish machine isn't enough. You really need at least 1.5 to 2 times the recommended spec to see any performance benefit over XP. Low to mid range PCs (still new) tend to run slower.

I wasn't bashing Microsoft though, I use XP myself. Like you said, Windows is cheaper. Vista is decent, I just don't think it's quite as spectacular as you make out.

Well actually I can't really dispute what you say about 10.0 and 10.1, as I only have first hand experience of 10.3 and 10.4. I was ignorant to Macs for years and actually never used one until I came to university. Anything I know about earlier versions is just what I've been told. Got to say I'm impressed with the current version though. You make a fair point about cost, which is why I'm using XP, although the price of the Macs themselves is pretty much in line with similar spec PCs now.

Sorry if that's all a bit off topic.

Yawn, not going to read all that.

Just read some articles in IT mag's or paper supplements. It's absolutely jammed with security issues and highly susceptible to '1 dayyers'

Security issues are pretty standard with Windows operating systems. It's reached the point where it would feel wrong somehow if they weren't there.

Yes but when they release a new operating system and people say 'it's the same as the last' and they say, no; It is completely secure, and it turns out to be one of the weakest os's they've released.. well..!

Most amusing thing is the people who write things like that are just exposing how clueless they really are.

After all, a safe is insecure if you have the habit of leaving it open!

It doesn't matter how many security procedures are built into the OS if people dont know how to use them, or install inherently insecure software (Firefox is a great example of this)

System security is user specific, not system specific

Spinner that's absurd!!

Do you expect joe's grandmother to turn on her computer for the first time and bang up a command prompt, lose a few port's off, customise her firewall??

A system should be secure by it's nature and with no modifications.

The security breeches in questions are completely different from user initiated holes etc anyway. We're talking about 1-day attacks and the likes.