Comments on: Microsoft: Set your systems for Vista
Company spells out what's needed for PCs to run the Windows update, tells fans to get ready for the release.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Kindle is most gifted Amazon item, ever
December 26, 2009 11:19 AM PST
- Microsoft, Intel to cede tablet market to Apple?
December 26, 2009 10:04 AM PST
- Open source became big business in 2009
December 26, 2009 9:10 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
I agree with you that most Windows users don't upgrade, even if they can, but just about everything but the ultra-low end machines should make the cut on at least running Vista.
Essentially, Microsoft is forcing a dramatic rise in the cost of new PCs AND it's taking that extra price increase entirely for itself.
I ran the Vista advisor on my desktop system and it recommended either Premium or the NEXT ONE UP just to get what I have now under XP Pro. XP Pro ups the price of a new PC by $100-$150 at purchase or about $300 AS AN UPGRADE after purchase here in Canada.
Vista is going to kill the market for reasonably priced PCs, since in Canada in looks to me that a low-end sans-monitor PC will go from say $400 to $700 if one wants modest capability but barely XP Home capability at that.
Really, it looks to me that now is a good time to buy a Windows XP Pro equipped PC, or a low-cost XP Home system to which one can add Pro after (sometimes this is cheaper than an XP Pro equipped PC from a low-cost vendor).
<<Essentially, Microsoft is forcing a dramatic rise in the cost of new PCs AND it's taking that extra price increase entirely for itself.>>
You should at least back it up with some logic... facts would be nice too.
Since Microsoft started releasing information about Vista, the system requirements have been decreasing. Today, a machine with an 800Mhz processor and 512MB of RAM is pretty sub-par, and could be found for less than $400 at the right place.
Essentially, I see little to zero increase in cost as a result of the hardware requirements for Vista. I see nothing but speculation on actual Vista licensing, which is always FAR lower than retail pricing... and with multiple versions, there will logically be multiple price points.
SO... you've also asserted that Microsoft is claiming the entire price increase for themselves, yet you really failed to identify any price increase at all. I assume this is pure speculation, since actual product pricing is pretty much still unknown.
It would appear that you have completely failed to support your accusation that Microsoft dramatically increased the price of a new PC solely for its own financial benefit.
The correct answer should be Free Upgrade.
It would be annoying to pay Microsoft twice for operating systems, once of XP Preinstalled and a second time for Vista. It's too early to be outraged though. -lol
I guess that the freebie will be promoted as generous but of course will still require the use to upgrade. The effect will be that as one then has "Vista" (even sans what amounts to wheels on a car feature-wise) users will still be able to step up to what they need TO ACTUALLY USE VISTA meaningfully for "upgrade from basic Vista" pricing, versus buying Vista as an upgrare to XP.
Needless to say I won't be upgrading for a few years.
I'll wait until Vista has a few upgrades in before taking the leap.
Atleast they have a chart on what it can run on. Now why don't
they release a booklet or some type of mailout for all the
millions of Windows Users out there.
I'm actually really interested in getting an Apple now that it can
run Window's natively.. hope Vista will work for Apple Hardware
too. Cause I'm serious contention of getting a MacBook.
Needless to say I won't be upgrading for a few years.
I'll wait until Vista has a few upgrades in before taking the leap.
Atleast they have a chart on what it can run on. Now why don't
they release a booklet or some type of mailout for all the
millions of Windows Users out there.
I'm actually really interested in getting an Apple now that it can
run Window's natively.. hope Vista will work for Apple Hardware
too. Cause I'm serious contention of getting a MacBook.
will run on the Intel-based Apple hardware, so Vista shouldn't be
an issue.
At this point, it's all conjecture, though.
"I'm actually really interested in getting an Apple now that it can
run Window's natively.."
I hope you will try OS X 10.4 Tiger and iLife 06 too. IMO they are
worth the price of the hardware !!
"Cause I'm serious contention of getting a MacBook."
I have one, you will love it, very fast!!
-Robert
want 256mb of video ram to be happy with the full boat Vista.
Sounds about right since I've found it takes 1GB of ram on an XP
system to get Windows to stop swapping out to the disk under light
loads (Outlook & Excel for example)
If MS really wants to appeal to the geeks, they should take this approach. There is no sense in having all these dumb versions and no deal like this. Nearly EVERY other software in the world you can use on more than 1 pc, why not your OS?
Especially now that they admit that it'll run (barely) on an 800MHZ chip with enough ram/HD space. There really ought to be a multi-pc version, there is NO excuse.
There must come a time, when M$ draws a line in the sand & says - here's the new OS. You can only run older apps. via an emulator. Then they'd tell people that the following OS would not support the emulator - i.e.you'd have 1 itteration of the all-new OS in which to replace existing software.
In order to remove all the faults that people (many posting here) complain about, it's going to take an all new OS.
Tech types have hated Billysoft since the open letter to the computer club followed by years of greed motivated business practices and beta quality products.
Business types love Billysoft for meeting the ideals of business by successfully and repeatedly selling the equivalent of a car with loose steering, no breaks and tinfoil seatbelts (windshield only included with premium license).
The marketing magic is that customers keep coming back; "The deathdrap we baught from you has nearly killed my family six times in the last month but I hear you now have a deathdrap availabe in blue that can only be driven on four lane highways; I must have one. The last one cost me an arm and a leg, do you accept internal organs instead?"
Vista better be a step up, because this time around there is a lot more choice in the market place then when Windows 98 or 2000 came out.
Locking up, crashing, rebooting, all that better be ancient history, or MS will start loosing market share.
I bought windows 95 once, and that was it. I never bought software since then because it isn't worth the money. Once they start coming out with software that dones't require a re-install every 6 months, then I may consider, why not.
Love the Xbox 360/Office is pretty good, but that's about it.
flavors of Windows, then state that you've never bought anything
but Windows 95.
I'm typing this in a 2002 WinXP HP computer. I have never had to reinstall Windows.
(I've never had to reinstall Office XP 2002 either.)
I've seen exactly one blue screen from my current computer, and that's only because of something stupid I did (which I admit fully). The last computer I had XP on was an old IBM ThinkPad that started with 98, upgraded to 2K, and finally to XP Pro. I saw exactly two blue screens in over three years of use (again, the problem was in the chair, not in the computer). "But when did you put XP on it?" you must be asking.
Launch week, actually.
After all, a computer's only as good as its user.
I'm really hoping that the industry will embrace Vista 64-bit. The lackluster driver availability from certain companies is very irritating.
2. It is still built on buggy, unsecure legacy code. Hence it will still not come close to OSX or Linux.
3. It is grossly overpriced and requries far too much hardware relative to its features. A competant software company would have the requirements down another 25-50%.
About half the windows world currently uses XP. I bet they will be lucky to get half of the XP users to upgrade and 10% of the rest.
Logically, this is about providing cover for what in the context of new PC sales amounts to stripping previously assumed-as-included OS features at point of sale, and then selling them back after the purchase. The brilliance here is that in effect virtually all of the profit in Vista upgrarding (which will be after-PC purchase stepups from Vista Mostly Useless to Vista More Costly) will go to Microsoft, because the user gets base Vista and then pays ONLY MS to go up the pay-for-it feature tier of Vista versions.
It is in effect a major price increase in the cost of a Windows PC, but the price increase is being brilliantly taken by MS in terms of after-purchase Vista stepup upgrades.
The other brilliant thing here is that it means there is artificlally soon to be no such thing as a fully capable low-cost PC, since we can be sure all low-cost PCs will have only base model Vista. Yes, we can buy the car without wheels, but since the wheels will cost a lot more aftermarket, the low-end PC will be a thing of the past in short order.
The raal effect of all this is that computing is headed back toward being an upmarket choice for the upper-middle class, as low-cost buyers may simply decide not to buy at all.
Can you really see the average pc user running Linux? Linux has come a long way but is still not ready for primetime.
And Apple clearly doesn't want anything more than the niche snob market.
**** and moan all you want but most computer users are going to stay with Windows of one variety or another.
Unfortunately, people will eventually be forced to upgrade as software availability for older versions becomes sparse. If people want newer versions of their apps or newer games, they will need newer computers and newer versions of Windows, just to meet minimum requirements.
Celeron around 450 or MHz, with anywhere from 64 to 128 MB
RAM, and maybe 40 GB HD space average.
I think these sum it all up:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/7505/
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060504.html
Cringely has a damn good point about the average PC user, who
doesn't have the latest Alineware-esque PC, but a simple PC for
Internet and stuff.
XP only requires 300HMz (400 for Movie Maker), 128 Ram, 8MB Video ram (for DVD playback) and a 33.6 modem (for video conferencing and (non-virus) file sharing). My 6 year old system (barely) meets these requirements though I have no intention of running XP on the system.
Unfortunately if you are running close to the minimum specs then when you try to actually run a program your system is going to grind s-l-o-w-l-y.
Most people will get Vista when they buy their next computer. I suspect that the non-Premium is to appease the budget computer people and the few people looking to upgrade their existing system.
Plus you have to remember, by the time Vista ACTUALLY comes out, Budget laptops will be running 1+ Terahertz!
***.
I guess they really didn't rebuild Windows XP, they just added 3 times more bloat on it trying to reach the graphical look of OS X.
* Using MS's security programs
* Getting built in DRM
* Using MS's stupid photo program
* Getting yet another tie-in to MSN (which I don't want), Windows Media (which I don't want), and more IE fun.
What am I missing. This OS has all the makings of being a bloated mess. If you use XP for business, I can't see any reason to move to Vista.
to standards is atrocious, which is why one reason their OS has
problems.
- mondane users will take what the computer vendor gives them.
- Mid range geeks will take more interest in osX (being a consise distribution of linux with Mac branding).
- Experience geeks will stick to Linux where they are now.
Just for fun, let's review the M$ development cycle.
Microscrap products are never out of beta until the third public distribution. Dos 3.0 ran great by 3.11 two versions later. The third update of win95, win98 and winXP all make the product usable after finally capturing most of the bugs that should have been corrected in development. I'm sure Vista will be pretty and after a number of major updates, usable even.
But that's just pattern recognition for anyone that's seen more than two releases from redmond. The old strategy remains the same:
- Dump product into the market place until the market is saturated. (i.e. everybody has a copy of winblows forced on them and average low end hardware can run it with all "features" tweaked out)
- Cause media hoopla over the next version of winblows. "win95 is coming, it's going to save the world! oh wait, sorry, win98 is coming, it's going to save the world.. oh.. my bad.. it's called winXP now and it's going to save the world."
- Release the new product. This is only after everyone is hooked on the old product and the media has had ample chance to do Billy's marketing for him.
- Last, get the now released product above beta quality and start dropping hints about the next version of windows. Take your time with the next "timely" product release so the hardware industry has ample time to saturate it's market places with expensive hardware that is now the basic requirnment for running the OS not the power hungry systems that are suposed to run over top of it like today's pretty pretty games.
My last gripe for today; shouldn't the OS be a resource minimal thin layer between the hardware and the application the user is running? If my computer where a couch, shouldn't the game I'm playing or database I'm building get to sit square in the middle nice and comfy with lots of room. As it stands now, winblows bloated code takes up three quarter's of the couch leaving the game (what I'm actually doing with the machine) squished to one side hanging over the arm rest.
It used to be that what you actually did with the computer drove the need for newer hardware not the layer of software between the hardware and what the user is doing.
Vista will be pretty but it's being developed to require new hardware not take advantage of current hardware improvements since XP was released. Will the release after Vista require a physX board just to boot up?
All of you *nix and Mac geeks spend so much time looking for faults in the MS OS yet most if not all of your comments are hypercritcal. You talk of bloat - installed Linux latey? Oh I hear you whine, you can custom your installation - who really cares about compiling kernels and there's so much interdependancy in *nix these days you're pretty much stuck with the lot anyway.
But what about the hardware I hear you say - so what we're all buying new machines over time. Most people will buy with a new PC anyway. Those who upgrade beforehand are going to be geeks anyway and they've already got the grunty hardware. Dont like that, find a decent Linux game or a decent video driver to display it. -- Now before you pledge to hunt me down and hack my matrix - stop and think for a second.. Each platform has its place and it's strengths and weaknesses. I use *nix in some places and Windows in others. I don't go on holy rampages talking about how insecure Windows is. Come on most Linux platforms are misconfigured and have unnecessary services running. I've still yet to find a well enough documented Linux system that I can make assumptions on the behaviour of the environment. The simple point is any platform can be compromised if the correct steps aren't taken to secure and manage that platform.
So what about Mac - now here's an interesting platform - sure it's stable - or at least the jandal wearing advertising creatives perceive it that way, but who wouldnt be if they had a limited set of hardware to support. Windows on Mac - cool my girlfriend finally will get a pretty Windows box. That's right Linux boys - Windows guys get girlfriends :) Ok again just kidding.
But seriously if Apple can encourage perhaps gaming on their platform - bit harder now without the power pc, then maybe they might start selling their OS to PC-based platforms - bummer here's that driver stability thing again.
You're all smart people who may have very real concerns but let's for a second think of 99.99% of PC users and what it is they want - They just want to get the job done and do so in an environment they're familiar with. including applications guys so that includes those Windows based LOB which drive a large part of business IT. Yep MS has some work to do here but as an entire platform MS is still superior.
Vista is bloat.
The person who said 1-2 gigs for a Linux install, try again. Must like no GUI interfaces and command lines. I really don't worry about hard space anymore and anyway.
MAC, hmmm, finally some one who writes the truth.
Also, you are right if The OS is misconfigured it is not secure...even Unix which makes Linux look like a whimp.
I see the strengths and weaknesses in an OS before I judge it. here are a few of my judgements:
1. Linux: Hard to understand and use, poor documenttation, not user friendly. Not cost effective to deploy from an IT standpoint.
2.Windows: Not secure right out of the box needs updates which are slow in coming. Still most people and employees can use it. IT likes this OS platform. It's easier to deploy, maintain, and less expensive in the long haul.
3 MAC Grrr...Who uses this OS anyway? I tried it; I see why it was out done by Windows a long time ago. It is the most expensive OS to own I seen, Software isn't cheap either....I give up on this MAC OS, I could write a book.
Now don't get me started on a true server platforms, here Widows isn't superior in the field, but dead penguins is right MS and the Windows OS has the playing field in IT and home users.
So, show something new tricks Linux or MAC, not the same old stuff re-hashed over & over. I agree MS and Windows need work, but that being said I used to think Linux and MAC users didn't get it, but now I know they can't sell it.:)
- What Are They Smoking in Redmond
- by R. U. Sirius May 20, 2006 9:23 AM PDT
- > "There's really no reason to wait until the launch
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Yup. One reason for windows...
- by DynamicStability May 21, 2006 1:55 AM PDT
- Games. That is the only reason for windows. I've been running linux for the last 5 years on my PC. I currently have a 1.1ghz celeron with 512mb ram and a Geforce 2 Ultra.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (76 Comments)> of Windows Vista to start shopping for a PC that
> can deliver a great Windows Vista experience or to
> start thinking about upgrading your current PC to
> windows Vista," product manager Greg Amrofell said
> in a telephone interview.
Uh, no sorry Greg. Despite your prognostications, I am quite happy with the PC I have, and Windows XP. No doubt there will be tons more "features" in Vista that I don't want, and won't be able to jettison, so I will pass on buying your "upgrade".
When I'm ready for a new computer, I'll look at Apple or Linux.
The thing runs perfectly fine for every single thing I need. Programming, school work, e-mail, browsing, music, movies, etc. I've saved myself about four thousand dollars by using linux.
Oh and it runs Quake3 fine, the only game I need.
Install linux (i HIGHLY recommend slackware, as its the simplest and fastest) next time windows borks, and then save up for a MacBook if you ever feel the need for something new and portable.
Cheers