Windows Vista - Share your knowledge and opinion!

[somebody231]

I was wondering why is "Windows Vista - Home Basic" edition talked in such a bad light. I have Windows XP Professional, but don't even know what's suckier in the Home edition, so the same case goes here.

Microsoft's page just said something like "better entertainment possibilities and stuff" ... That doesn't tell much now does it... But what is exactly new?

Some article said "Don't get Home Basic, get Home Premium or Business" - Anyone care to explain? The article didn't quite explain... It just said that it's "really sucky" and doesn't have almost anything... Again I didn't see any list of programs or abilities lacking. Mainly the "Throughoutly Search" thing missing in the Home Basic edition.

I ain't getting Ultimate for sure... Way too expensive! I may just cope with my WinXP Pro, since the games I play work with it... I hate it when Microsoft owns the market (Windowses are almost the only OS used in gaming for example and most programs are developed on its basis I'm afraid)

Someone please share your knowledge on these editions! 😱

 

[LonelyKimiko]

Basically, if you are an average everyday user of a computer, home edition will be enough for you really 🙂 . Proffesional on XP at least offers a lot more tools and options for doing things for your computer.

Windows XP preffesional contains everything that the home edition has, as well as:
Remote desktop
Internet information services (IIS)
Scalable processor support
Encrypting File System
Access Control
Centralized administration (Domains)
Group Policy (Administrating groups on a network)
Roaming User Profiles (lets you access your profile from other computers)
Multi-lingual User Interface

So mainly, it's a lot of stuff that helps you with Networking, and computer administrating. Also, a lot of the advanced tools, like the policy manager, are only available on proffesional edition.

Basically, if you are just using your computer for web browsing, word processing and watching videos, then home edition is for you. Whereas if you use your computer a lot, and tend to do fancier things with it, then proffesional edition is better ^_^ .

Hope this helps!

 

[DarthGrinn]

I'm confused about this Vista business as well. I'm just going to wait for it to hit the market; and for Unreal Tournament 2007 to come out, once the new reviews and benchmarks are released then I'll make a decision.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Vista will be like this.

2GHz computer to minimize a window.

End of story. Seen it... it sucks. Talked to people who ran betas, all the way up to the current release candidate. They say it sucks.

Don't waste your time on it. Really.

 

[DarthGrinn]

Ya I'm familiar with arguments pro and anti Vista. Some say the RC's sucked, others said they were good... I'll wait for when it actually hits the market, and when the new games that are supposed to run on it come out.

Then I probably won't hop on the bandwagon until SP1 is released for it.

I stuck with Windows 2000 until XP was in its 2nd year before I made the switch, so it might end up being the same with my switch to Vista... that's if it's even necessary; I'm not too stoked about Aero but there are a few features that I am excited about (the improved search feature comes to mind)

 

[IrishTickle1]

I've a mate who works in microsoft. She says that every department has to have at least one pc running Vista, for testing purposes. So every department has ONE pc running Vista and nobody goes near them unless they have to. Not a very good recommendation.

If you want to know what it's like, then get yourself a mac with Tiger OS on it. Then start doing something and randomly pull the power out of the back. You'll achieve the same experience! 😀

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Good comparison. Run a good OS and kick your computer real hard. That's similar to Vista.

I'm not an XP hater, I run it on a couple of boxes. I don't like it as much as UNIX, but 95% of the time, it's great. Never had a lick of trouble from it or 2K. Aside from crummy security, they're awesome.

Vista, however, is just crud.

Windows Vista: The OS with higher requirements than most games!

 

[DarthGrinn]

Here's a link that actually provides information; hope the OP (and anybody else lookin for facts) finds it useful 🙂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

 

[ayla1]

it looks nice, but thats all it has to it! they only other things that it has going for it is the windows media player 11 which i run on my xp box and internet exlpoere 7, although i like mozilla a ton more. the purpose of vista really is that it is set up to keep up with new hardware, vista is geared toward pc's with dual core/ and twin processors. those that have that kind of hardware ($_$) will get the most out of vista! if you dont have the hardware then dont bother! microsoft expects all pc's in the near future to be running the dual core, or twin processor setup! which i doubt the conversion will be that quick since its not cheap to get a new box with that kind of hardware setup!


just my .02

 

[tickledorange]

Gay.

 

[LonelyKimiko]

:s

 

[Percipient]

I myself am excited for the final release of vista. I've used some of the beta versions, and it seems to be quite a good mixture between visual features shown by the Mac OS X and windows compatibility/windows specific third party software developers. Although it is, like any beta, unstable at times...and they still need to work out some driver issues. However, upon release, I'm confident it will be a great product.

As a side note, most software can be obtained for other OS's if you look hard enough - but I think that windows new Vista operating system will really be a feature expansive hit.

It's true that the animations, transparency, smoothed edges of windows, glossy window frames and all of that stuff will take up processing power, but two important points shouldn't be overlooked. 1. Computer processing power is increasing rapidly, and new computers being made today will have no problem running the vista OS....while computers in the future will have even less trouble and 2. These visual features can be disabled as they can be in XP if a user sees fit.

Anyways, with the addition of widgets, media center capabilities, tablet capabilities, live window thumbnails, and about a million other new features Microsoft programmers threw into this new version of the OS, I would say go for it.

I know I didn't really answer the original question 😛. I was under the impression that vista wasn't going to have home vs pro vs business vs server or whatever editions because each version of the OS was going to come preloaded with all needed features for any of these scenarios. I might be wrong, though (it's happened before). If there are different versions of vista available, just check Microsoft's website for info on the differences. If it isn't up yet, it will be before they release a final version.

Well, that's just my opinion about vista, anyways.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

I'm, personally, not so confident of it being a great product. It's the culmination of five years of blundering in the dark by a Steve Ballmer-led Microsoft, not the rapid-fire tight and quick development of XP and Server 2003.

As for all the people who are so quick to jump in and defend the dodgy quality of the betas...

Windows NT 4 was stable from its final Alpha. 2000 was stable from Beta One. XP was usable from Whistler Beta One. Server 2003 was deployable from its first prerelease.

Vista has been shoddy since the early Longhorn milestones, all the way until the RCs. Sorry... it doesn't inspire confidence.

Oh yeah, and it still has Internet Exploder, the WORST WEB BROWSER EVER MADE! IE7 is still puke quality with worthless security.

Re: Vista's FX and processor power... Mac OS X can perform the same effects on a 300MHz G3 with 4MB Rage video on PCI... with unaccelerated drivers. How do I know? I've run that configuration. Minimize effects, window zooms, and Dashboard all work perfectly with no problems. Vista on a 1GHz box with a GeForce whatevermillion 128MB on AGP4x... POKEY. Uselessly pokey. How do I know? I've seen it on that hardware.

Vista is just plain junk.

 

[IrishTickle1]

Re: Vista's FX and processor power... Mac OS X can perform the same effects on a 300MHz G3 with 4MB Rage video on PCI... with unaccelerated drivers. How do I know? I've run that configuration. Minimize effects, window zooms, and Dashboard all work perfectly with no problems. Vista on a 1GHz box with a GeForce whatevermillion 128MB on AGP4x... POKEY. Uselessly pokey. How do I know? I've seen it on that hardware.

Vista is just plain junk.

Seriously, it's not fair comparing Vista to a mac. They are completely different and seperate entities and one is not a direct and shoddy rip off of the other! Honest!

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Just remember, fanboys and girls, that everybody has ripped something off from everyone else. Apple, after all, stole/borrowed/liscensed/otherwise did not directly invent (Depending on who you ask) their user interface from Xerox.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Only core concepts. Ever actually seen Xerox PARC's UI? It doesn't look like anything we use today 🙂 The Lisa and the Macintosh UIs were developed from scratch using new ideas based on the Xerox PARC concepts. Remember, Apple's UI was copyrightably different from Xerox's.

But, nobody's debating who took what, only implementation. Vista's implementation of things that Mac OS X did five years ago on hardware that was old at the time... is poor. 2 GHz to minimize a window. 😉

 

[DarthGrinn]

Well, I haven't personally tried any Release Candidates; all I have is my own personal experience with windows, and I'll tell ya, I have never been in any of the "nightmare situations" that are so prevalent on fanboy forums such as slashdot and such.

All the typical "M$" hate that I read about, about how crappy the OS is... sometimes I wonder if half these complainers can even use a PC.

I've only installed windows XP once on my PC; 4 years, and not a single reformat/reinstall; not even so much as a "restore".

I've only had a handful of crashes, and I blame those on crappy freeware apps I have downloaded to test. And the crashes were limited only to the app, with the OS chugging along fine. Prior to XP I had Windows 2000. It ran like a charm; only upgraded to XP for games. Prior to windows 2000 I had 98, and prior to that, 95.

In fact, I can't recall a single time I had to reinstall the OS; other than for tinkering and experimentation (my rig that had windows 95 on it was made of left-overs and I basically abused the heck out of it)... So maybe I'm living in some sort of alternative universe? lol

BTW I get to play with my gf's macbook every date. It's a fun piece of hardware, and the OS is very smooth... but really, fanboyism aside... I just think it boils down to personal preference. My gf is still trying to convert me tho lol, and tbh unless I have a very specific reason to make the switch, I'm sticking with what I know. Windows has yet to let me down (I seriously must be living on an alternative universe).

So, with regards to Vista; I'll reserve judgment until it hits the stores, and the new benchmarks are released for games like Crysis and UT2k7. Then I probably won't buy it until after the First couple of services packs are released. I'm a slow adopter like that; it has paid me well to be a smart and informed consumer...

BTW, has anybody read the wiki article I posted? Seriously, there is a whole lot more to Vista than AERO... and a whole lot more behind AERO than the "flashy graphics"

 

[the_jimmy_james]

More to it, perhaps.

But not much. We're not talking about the "next generation Windows" that Longhorn originally promised to be. There's no WinFS, which is what would have made it totally awesome. Aero is simply bloat.

Post-Gates MS, I fear is going to be about selling warmed-over bloatware as the "new thing".

Take 2000, make a great consumer OS from it (XP), then evolve it into Server 2003...

Then rape it in the booty until it mutates into Vista.

I'm not waiting for any benchmarks. I've seen it in action, and I say it sucks. Plus, game benchmarks are meaningless to me. I'm an A/V editor, so pumping 120FPS from this years re-hashing of Doom 2 isn't very interesting to me.

Oh yeah.

My eyes can't see that high a frame rate anyway.