What are your thoughts on Vista?

In article ,
"Celcius" wrote:

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware.

Eh? Do you not remember anyone who didn't have a cutting edge machine
having to junk it to go with 95? There was *huge* take up of the new OS
back then, and the marketing for it was absolutely massive. I don't see
MS pushing Vista in the same way, I think, these days, they're happy to
get the business through new machine purchases when people feel their
old machine has out-lived it's usefulness. I really can't see people
wanting to upgrade in anything like the same way they did for 95.

That said, there are probably 10 times as many machines out in userland
as there were back then, so even if only 10% of people actively choose
to upgrade then that's the same number of units.

We'll have to wait and see what happens when it hits the streets. I know
I won't be buying it, and nor will the company I work for; we're
migrating to Macs.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Christopher Campbell wrote:
In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of systems
managers are switching everybody over to Google office applications instead
of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on Macs, too.

Is there a particular reason to trust Google with corporate data?

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:23:47 -0800, Christopher Campbell wrote:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:50:04 -0800, mark_digital© wrote
(in article ):

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.



I wouldn't know; I use a Mac. :-)

Seriously, Microsoft's grip is tenuous, at best -- a point that Microsoft
itself makes frequently in anti-trust court.

Grip on what, the market? If that's what you mean then you and the market
appear to be experiencing a failure to communicate. If that's not what
you meant then what _did_ you mean?

The trend has been more
toward web-based applications. And although Explorer is still the top
browser at home, more and more people are switching to competitors like
Firefox.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Celcius" wrote in message
...

"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our
computers for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much
Microsoft itself will become the tenant landlord over our
machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

???

No speakie drunken gibberish.

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's
really nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista
might be the first OS that may require in a great many instances,
complete revamping of the hardware. For example, I work on a
computer with a Pentium 4 CPU, 3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP,
Service Pack 2, but my understanding is that this wouldn't be enough
to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2 on it. What do you
say?

I'd say you're probably mistaken. I had RC2 installed on a P4 2GHz
with 1gig of RAM and it ran just fine. The video card was also fully
Aero compatible. On this dual-core monster, it rips along nicely.

Vista 32-bit doesn't need a lot really. It needs at least 768megs of
RAM to run smoothly (1gig is better), and a decent 3D video card to
off-load the desktop management, and then almost any processor will
work with it.

Vista 64-bit (x64) needs only a 64-bit processor and at least 1gig of
RAM to run (1.5gig or more to really fly), and a decent video card
too.

This means you might need to upgrade some hardware if you want Vista,
but that's to be expected since it requires more power to run. Just
like XP needs more processor power and RAM compared to Win98, and
Win98 needed more than Win3.1, etc.

In your specific case, if you feel you need 2gigs of RAM to run CS2
smoothly with XP, then I would suggest adding another gig of RAM to
let CS2 open large photos without paging in Vista. You shouldn't need
anything other than some more memory. Don't go to 4gigs though as
you'll be wasting your money since 3gigs is the top end for 32-bit
Vista.

--
Happy Holidays!

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:20:57 -0800, Christopher Campbell wrote:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:07:47 -0800, Celcius wrote
(in article ):


"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer with a Pentium 4 CPU,
3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2, but my understanding is
that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2
on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel



Interesting. Parallels Software says Vista will run on a MacBook Pro with 2Gb
RAM. The thing is, any PC application that you would run on a MacBook would
probably not be very demanding. Photoshop, Aperture, and most games would
probably be run under OS X (well, Aperture will not run under anything else).
Personally, the only thing I would run under Vista would be Jeppesen's flight
planning software. Nothing else requires a PC. And even there, it might be
just cheaper and easier to switch to some web-based software like AirNav. If
I was still preparing corporate tax returns I probably would use a web-based
application there, too.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of systems
managers are switching everybody over to Google office applications instead
of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on Macs, too.

If Google Office is sufficient to their needs then they should be fired
for wasting the company's money by upgrading to Office '97.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Ron P" wrote in message
net.ca...

I was going to buy a new dual core cpu computer with Vista 64 bit
but I am now going to put that off indefinitely. At this point, I am
not at all satisfied that the software that I will want to use will
go to 64 bit,

You do realize that 64-bit Vista will run almost all 32-bit apps just
fine? I'm running it right now on this 64-bit dual-core machine and it
just flies along, much better than XP. It supported all of my hardware
"out of the box", including my printer and scanner.

So far all of my software runs just fine with the exception of games,
and that's because I'm waiting for nVidia to release final drivers for
my video card in the next month. For now, the Vista driver works just
fine for everything else.

experience with IE7 which is supposed to give some insight into
Vista was an unmitigated failure and I just hated the look and feel
of it.

I didn't like it at first, but only because it means you have to make
a change to how you do things. Now I'm so used to it, I find IE6 in XP
distasteful.

--
Happy Holidays!

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:07:47 -0500
"Celcius" wrote:


I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista
might be the first OS that may require in a great many instances,
complete revamping of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer
with a Pentium 4 CPU, 3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack
2, but my understanding is that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista
properly as well as Photoshop CS2 on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel


Mandriva 2007 would revel in it as would many more linux distros.

--
Neil
Reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:07:47 -0500
"Celcius" wrote:

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista
might be the first OS that may require in a great many instances,
complete revamping of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer
with a Pentium 4 CPU, 3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack
2, but my understanding is that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista
properly as well as Photoshop CS2 on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel

Mandriva 2007 would revel in it as would many more linux distros.

Yeah, but he wants to run Photoshop, not prove someone else's point for
them.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:50:04 -0500, mark_digital© wrote:

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

It's interesting that virtually everyone seems to think that your
concern about Vista becoming a "tenant landlord" has to do with
software bloat and the need for more hardware. Maybe you should
hire the PR team that did so much to make WMD a household "word".

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:50:04 -0500, mark_digital© wrote:

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Since you ask - for me it is pretty much irrelevant since I completely
gave up on MS about four years ago and have gone totally with Linux - a
decision I have not regretted since. I basically cannot understand how
folks are willing to put up with the attitude and s**t coming from MS. I
do panoramic photography and have recently started doing RAW image
processing (using UFraw, Bibble and LightZone) all on the Linux platforms.
I have also saved several hundred dollars over the past few years by not
buying MS Office - I find that OpenOffice is a superior product anyway.

You are correct, at least as I understand the situation. When you purchase
an MS computer you don't even own the sofware - you are just renting it.
Not an arrangement I'm willing to put up with.

I also find that Linux is, at least in certain situations, more convenient
than MS - no more worry about malware, hardly any 'drivers' to install -
case in point, cameras and printers work by merely plugging them in - no
driver install, no reboot, etc.

If you're interested, you can even take Linux for a test drive with no
money output and not even an install. Simply boot one of the many Live CDs
- it will boot and run from the CD without even touching your hard drive.
I believe that MS lacks such a 'try before you buy' feature.