Windows Vista

You act as if it would blow up in your face if you dared try, Damo. Just install security software, it's simple enough. And download security updates as soon as they come out.
 
Beefy said:
Okay then. I'll go with the Mac.
Click to expand...

Mac is overpriced for what they give you...

Just follow my advice and get Vista right now. It's worth the fact that your new computer will be able to run anything you want to, and a Mac can run basically shit nothing. Also, you're looking at paying a good 25%-30% mark-up for the Mac.
 
There is no security software that covers the unfound holes that are there. The reason I don't do it is because the hackers find their backdoors and gain easy access until they are found and plugged. The SR2 is the release that includes those plugs.

I haven't said it will blow up. I said it will leave you vulnerable.
 
Watermark said:
Mac is overpriced for what they give you...

Just follow my advice and get Vista right now. It's worth the fact that your new computer will be able to run anything you want to, and a Mac can run basically shit nothing. Also, you're looking at paying a good 25%-30% mark-up for the Mac.
Click to expand...
It won't be able to "run whatever you want to", shoot HP hasn't even created most of their drivers for this OS yet.
 
I'd suggest waiting to purchase the new computer. It won't be all that long before SR2 is out. Also, you won't have drivers for much of your peripherals until June/July, at least according to the reports I have received.

Some people now wish they listened when I said to wait. Also, they get frustrated that auto-saving in Word produces documents that are not backwards compatible. So, the way you normally save cannot be read by most other computers right now...

There are other frustrations, but those are the main ones.
 
Damocles said:
The OSX works fantastic and has a Unix base so a real mouse can be used. The problem with the MAC is the expense of getting compatible software. Word for the MAC is more expensive than it is for Microsoft OS...

However, OSX and XP work great together, Vista even better. It is getting very close to basically being seamless with either product.

I like MAC, and it will serve you well if you are getting one in the near future.
Click to expand...
I agree, especially with Beefy's interest in music and multimedia editing.

In answer to the original question: no, Vista does not. :)

I also agree with Damo about waiting for a while. All initial releases are buggy but Microsoft's are notoriously so. My boss installed Vista on his laptop and, while he likes it, has had all sorts of problems. It took him two days to upgrade completely.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I agree, especially with Beefy's interest in music and multimedia editing.

In answer to the original question: no, Vista does not. :)

I also agree with Damo about waiting for a while. All initial releases are buggy but Microsoft's are notoriously so. My boss installed Vista on his laptop and, while he likes it, has had all sorts of problems. It took him two days to upgrade completely.
Click to expand...

well i have been using it scince the early beta stages, it had alot if issues through out all the beta programs. i got the final version when it was released. its the ultimit version. yet idose still have some small issues but i have had any major problems that wernt easily solved... but i also work in IT. I have heard of lot of horror storys but most were just exagerated. I like vista but for most people in genral (the home or collage user) it isnt much more than better eye candy. .... all that said... i will keep using it at home as my main pc and will have a test pc at work... but i will not roll it out to our end users at work for atleast another year for two reasons. 1 budget, second the industry hasnt had time to smoth out the bumps caused by the way vista is ment to run.
 
uscitizen said:
Any speed gains by hardware are offset by a more cumbersome OS.
Click to expand...

Not really...

Vista should actually be faster for normal applications if you have enough memory. 512 MB's of RAM on Vista may be much slower than 512 on XP, but 2 GB on Vista will run a computer better than 2 GB on XP.
 
Yeah, but I remember Gates saying we would never need more than 640K :D

Of course machine and assembler language is very effecient.


Darn C compilers create a huge exe file for a program that just prints one character on the screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top