Read before you jump on Vista wagon...

[McCrash 3]

Vista is just an excuse to suck more money out of your wallet.And most likely will screw OpenGL like what happened to Glide.We shall see.

[Attila 2]

From what I can tell about Vista, it is the least inspiring Windows OS to come along. I certainly do not see big reasons to upgrade to it unless I am forced to, because of new hardware or software support.Let's see why I upgraded before:DOS to Win 3.1 - Windows GUIWin 3.1 to Win 95 - Not sure now, but I think it was needed to use more than 2MB of RAM and a host of new features.Win 95 to Win 98 - Move to 32-bit environment and support for larger disk drives.Win 98 to Win XP pro - More professional OS, NTFS. I must say that I have stayed with Win 98 for three years for gaming reasons.All of the above upgrades had much better reasons than Vista's 3D UI, indexed search and features that I already get from 3rd party vendors.I also agree with the poster above that after seeing the sales figures for Vista, MS will be pressured to release DX10 for XP.And finally, I'll let others have all the fun of being a beta tester for at least the next two years. I am also curious to see just how far MS went on being a Big Brother. Time will tell.

[Guest robains]

Tis more microsoft leverage -- however OpenGL is alive and doing very well on other more "serious" OS platforms.OpenGL is still functional in Vista, just goes thru a Direct3D layer so it will be slower. Microsoft didn't have the balls to just drop it (they were going to initially), they just handicapped it even more so DX10 becomes the primary choice. But if nVidia or ATI come up with ICDs so that the API does have direct access to the GPU, then OpenGL will still be alive. I just don't know nVidia or ATI's commitment to the ICDs.Ironic that OpenGL is what made Microsoft Windows a viable gaming platform as DirectX was not mature enough. Rather than expand on OpenGL (because Apple used it and *nix and an entire consortium of graphics specialist) they pushed ahead with their own DirectX which took many many years to just catch up with OpenGL. The reason, it's all about leverage -- get them addicted -- control the environment.Rob.

[Guest robains]

Yeah it seems it takes more than "wow" to sell an OS to people - thank goodness people aren't rushing to get it nor lining up overnight.Hey you forgot Win98 to WinME -- I know it was easy to forget, just like Vista will be.The way it will go down is Microsoft will provide huge incentives to help gaming companies produce DX10 games that will provide some "wow" and hope this will generate more Vista sales. Microsoft have already started their PC gaming on the road gaming campaign although I'm not seeing much of an impact at the local retailers (BestBuy, CompUSA, Fry's). I am seeing Mac's being sold at BestBuy now -- surprised Microsoft didn't leverage BestBuy to stop that practice. Anyway, the Aces team may suddenly find themselves in the spot light to produce a truely amazing FSX DX10 version.If this plan does fail, then yes, we'll see DX10 for WinXP -- just a matter of how long Microsoft are willing to play the waiting game.Rob.

[Guest robains]

There is support - just a layer, see my other post.Rob.

[aerdt 0]

There were no lines at the XP release either.Name one realistic alternative, which combines the ease-of-use, the wide range of hardware support and an infinite selection of software!Pat

[Guest camtech]

Why should i care if vista runs slower or faster , the average person , and there aint none in here because we are all geeks cares about things that the average person could card less about.1 to 5% slower so what.it does not like certain software the average person does not care.in reality we may see all (us geeks) of the faults and gains of the new software, but the Mom or DAD that goes out and buys a computer for there card games , or solitaire, or to surf the net, aint looking at the numbers that we are looking at.But here is something i know about geeks, we are going out to get the new operating software just because we have got to have it.we must work it , test it , play with it, cuss at it, do all the things that geeks do.yeah i know all about this new vista, does not matter im going out to get it and move on, id rather be frustered up to date than be frustered behind date.I was cussing like a champ with FSX but now im cussing much less and injoying myself.Vista is here and it is going to stay whether you like it or not, so geeks get busy and learn the new operating software so that the non geeks can ask us questions and get our help...........................Robert

[Guest robains]

Robert,True to some degree -- but some applications/games run 25-50% slower -- this will be noticeable to the average person (whatever the average person is).My folks (70+) don't want to upgrade -- the last thing they want is change, they just got somewhat comfortable with WinXP. But your arguement doesn't make sense, if the "average" person plays card games, solitaire, surfs the net then they have even less of a reason to upgrade to Vista. Naaah, geeks already had the OS long before the public got it. I don't have it on any of my personal use machines, only a few work machines for testing purposes. Can't even develop with VS 2005 on Vista without doing some work to make it compatible and installing the VS 2005 SP1.Vista is the WinME equivalent.

[Guest robains]

OSX

[aerdt 0]

Partially agreed, but OSX does currently not support the variety of software and hardware. And, to be, honest, the hardware selection from Apple for a barebone Mac is pathetic.However, I do agree with you, if OSX would be opened up for PCs. That would really spur the competition.Pat

[Guest robains]

If most are in the same position/opinion as you, then yes Microsoft will have to eventually realease a DX10 version for WinXP.If the sales numbers aren't there it will also accelerate the release of Vienna. Vienna is pretty much a rewrite from scratch and all compatibility layers are removed -- this will not force you to buy new hardware, but it will make many (if not all) of your existing applications/games non-functional.But it will restart an entire new revenue stream for them -- this is also the Apple way of doing business - ironic. But as with both companies, upgrades will be significantly cheaper than full products.But at some point, the layers of compatibility have to be removed in order to provide a secure and fast OS. Just as FSX has suffered from retaining compatibility, so has Vista. It costs a lot of money to develop from scratch, just as you can't afford or don't want to pay, development efforts are governed by the same rules. At some point we always say, "Ok, time for a complete re-write" -- it always happens, it has to happen because technology changes, markets change, goals change. Just as the end user has to ultimately say "Ok, time for a new computer". Rob.

[Guest Purg]

>Jim,>>But what is new in Vista? It's slow - ATI drivers will not>speed up the OS. The primary drag on the OS is the 3X more>services running - WinXP has anywhere from 50-100 services>running, Vista has 300+. This is a big drain on performance>and it shows.300+ services? My installation must be pooched. It's only running 56.I don't use Vista on my primary box, it's my media and file server but to claim Vista is running 300+ services is misleading to the extreme.

[Guest iwantmydc3]

>PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...stop threads like this.>>As an IT professional for 20 years, my eyes are bleeding from>the sheer lack of information and understanding of some users>who think that everything that is being published is the>truth.>>1. False, Vista runs a few more services, not 3 times more.>Fact is also that the memory and CPU cycle-hungry services are>usually the ones that are installed by 3rd parties. Ever used>Google Desktop?>2. ???>3. As stated earlier, DirectSound has been superceded, but the>API is backwards-compatible.>4. I have been running Vista since Beta 1. While there were>some compatibilty issues in the earlier betas, I haven't had>any problem with any of my software since Vista RC2 and>CERTAINLY not as many issues compared to a switch from Windows>2000 to XP.>5. Partially true. It does run about 1-5% slower than Windows>XP, but that is mainly due to the fact that the tester used>the drivers supplied by the OS. As drivers get more optimized>by the manufacturers the margin will be insignificant.>Superflous and not needed services can be safely DISABLED ->just like in XP.>>Vista 32 is the current state of things. Vista 64 will become>more significant to the normal user when going beyond 4GB of>Ram and with more optimized drivers and software on the>horizon. That time is about 1-2 years away.>>Vista features better CPU cycles and prioritization, enhanced>caching and memory management, just to name a few. The entire>kernel has been rewritten, for the first time since Windows NT>4.0.>>Everything DX10 is pure speculation, but is supposed to>offload a significant amount of CPU towards the GPU. Noone has>seen it yet in action, not Tomshardware, Digg, Slashdot - or>wherever you get your news from.>>Please stay with the facts.All well and good, but IT STILL COSTS TOO MUCH!!!! Thats why I made my final decision to wait. As I said in an earlier post, if it were $89, I admit I might load it, and if I didn't like it, wipe and restore, but when you're talking Vista's prices, getting close to most of a paycheck, it's not worth playing with. As Ive said several times (and you guys are sick of it im sure, LOL), if you're buying a new machine, fine, the OS will come installed. If youre trying to "upgrade" YOUR machine and hope all of YOUR insstalled, tweaked and configured programs and a couple years worth of work will be OK....don't do it!