Last message on previous page:

+1
I'm tired to head all those people complaining about the aero glass....switch to the classic!
 
And for the price:
Home basic(At the full version) has the same price as the xp home
Business has the the same price as xp pro...
 
And the ultimate just don't have an equivalent in the whole windows family...normal that it's expensive.
 
And if it's a litte bit buggy: It's a RC.....
 
And then....why don't you use linux?

If they seriously arent going to make DX10 for XP that would be the only reason in that lineup that would eventualy make me get vista the rest bleh dont care.

 
You don't care about games?
Also I remember when people bitched and moaned about Windows XP and how much RAM it took and how useless and buggy it was.
 
Happens with each new release. The real reason is no one wants to spend money.
 
Truth is that Technology progresses. We should all be FOR progress not against it.

Starwhite Wrote

 
Ok dude, have you even tried the beta version? I'm testing it right now and I'm having like no problems... I can access all my files (except a couple that I chose to keep locked) with no trouble. Not only that, I CAN ACTUALLY OPEN UP IE WITHOUT IT CRASHING ON ME!!!!! I don't have any problem with upgrading to vista... if I can actually stay online for more than like 5 minutes without IE (but now I use firefox and even that can't help XPs sercurity flaws) crashing, then HELL I'll do it!

Its not that i dont care about games its just i dont care about those games. Quad core cpus can be run in XP but for games? most games arent even dual threaded let alone quad threaded. Im sure thats going to change in the near future with dual core cpus becoming quite abundant. When XP came out i couldnt wait to get it there was a clear reason to upgrade and the only thing buggy about XP for me was the fact it was kinda hard to get drivers but then again most 2k drivers worked so i guess that wouldnt count much :-/ Just a note that constant crashing even though its windows isnt exactly a good thing and normaly shows there is a hardware problem in your computer.

 
Crysis, UT 2007 and Alan Wake are all Multi-Threaded.
 
That's the beauty of 'em. Ut2007 and Crysis are made for Dual Cores while Alan Wake is built for Quad.
 
These are titles I'm waiting for. I'm also anxiously awaiting a Diablo 3.. (Please Blizzard please).

yes yes but all games i hate why would anyone make a quad threaded game now? that doesnt make any sense. The only thing im waiting from blizzard is #1 to stop making shitty games and #2 finish starcraft for christ sake.

The hardware industry should be thanking Mr. Gates because without newer versions of Windows that force us to upgrade, the hardware industry would be out of business.

 
Makes sense if you knew what technology Alan Wake uses. One core is strictly used for physics processing, one for AI, the other two for game data and misc processing.
 
All together it makes a game that doesn't need alot of graphics power or a secondary physics card to run.
 
It's beautifully rendered as well. Full weather effects, full nature effects (tornado's etc) and full lighting and time of day effects. All rendered in real time.

 
Makes sense if you knew what technology Alan Wake uses. One core is strictly used for physics processing, one for AI, the other two for game data and misc processing.
 
All together it makes a game that doesn't need alot of graphics power or a secondary physics card to run.
 
It's beautifully rendered as well. Full weather effects, full nature effects (tornado's etc) and full lighting and time of day effects. All rendered in real time.
 
It is also programmed this way as I have said before, because it makes multi-platform programming easier, specifically the 360.  If you want your game to be released on both PC and 360, then multi-core support is the way to go.

Offloading that to the graphics processor would free up the cpu. Physics cards would be much much more powerfull and adapted to that sort of thing also. I dont upgrade my hardware for windows i upgrade it for games. If i didnt game chances are i would still be using a k6-2 550 with 256 megs of ram on windows 98se. since that is more power then i need for surfing word processing and things of that order. Which i know for sure because i even have a p-3 500mhz working here hell its even got xp on it with its 128megs of ram. runs pretty good unless i want to game.

 
Word. It's all ways the same when a new Windows come out. People say the old version was so much better and start criticizing the new one as not-worth-it, then make the switch a few months later. And when another version comes out, the process repeats.

Actualy i always welcomed the new version and didnt give a second thought about the old one. This time there really is nothing offered.

 
Do you actually realise what VISTA means for games? It removes the O/S layer. Games talk directly to the Graphics Card via DX10 drivers. This could not be done with the XP Kernel.
 
This will improve performance in the long run and allow GPU/VPU's to be used for soo much more. (Mainly as General Processing GPU's a.k.a GPGPU's).
 
It's a gamer's dream O/S. Sure M$ tweaked it to make it look like current competitive OS's.. but trust me.. in the end it will all be worth it. It's a step forward to achieving true cinematic gaming. It allows Physics Processors and Graphics Processors full control over the system without having to talk to the O/S to share resources etc.

Have you actually tried installing apps on Vista?  The fact that the OS is stable at this stage 30 days out should be a given.  All my MS stuff works fine.  Apps run noticibly slower and in the case of 3dmax almost unusable high poly scenes.
 
RC2 is more or less what is going to be released until the onslaught of patches come down.
 
I totally agree with the poster this is looking like the biggest POS since Windows Me.  2000 was a great OS that had issue with older software mainly games.  XP fixed most of those issue for the most part giving home users a good reason to upgrade.   Vista doesn't offer a good reason to upgrade for home user or the business community.  On the business side there are thing that peak my interest but nothing that will improve the business and help it make more money.   Which is the only reason an IT manager should add something new to the environment.  On the home side the threat of not support directX10 shows the lack of confidence in MS in there new OS.
 
I will continue to play with it just so I know what works and doesn't and because it's my job.  It's just disturbing that so many here are so supportive of this new OS just because it's new.  This isn't just directed at this tread.  If I based my desision on what I've read I would be completely disappoint and soon to be out of a job.

 
Yes, I actually have quite a few apps installed on here including my free version of Maya 7. RC2 is what I"m using right now and I'm happy with it... now I will agree with you that my system does run slower... but then again, I have a p4 willamette. I'm surprised that it's running so wel though... I'm actually liking it better than XP though...  
 

 
Hey, I think we're all playing with it... it does have its quirks... don't get me wrong... but overall I'm impressed. Not sure about you... but I like progress... and that's exactly what Vista is doing... and forcing me to get a new comp... oh well... not a big deal.