Printable View
Windows Vista Ultimate = $399
Windows Vista Business = $299
Windows Vista Home Premium = $239
Windows Vista Home Basic = $199
Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade = $259
Windows Vista Business Upgrade = $199
Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade = $159
Windows Vista Home Basic Upgrade = $99
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+sets+V...ht&tag=nl.e433
It'll be a while before I spring for Vista. :)
I've got $2.39 stashed away in my savings for Vista....I'm well on my way. :)
Any news on the price of OEM versions?
Same here.Quote:
It'll be a while before I spring for Vista.
That's a lot of wonga, might have to remortgage the house.
Windows "Chicken" anyone? :D
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34236
hehe.. like the little problem years ago when GM released the Chevy Nova to latin America. Nova translates to no go.... not a great sales pitch for a car.
Likewise, I'll be sticking with XP Home for the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmtjet
This is, unfortunately, not true:Quote:
hehe.. like the little problem years ago when GM released the Chevy Nova to latin America. Nova translates to no go.... not a great sales pitch for a car.
http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
Similar to the "Bite the Wax Tadpole" phenomenon :)
Obviously Vista can be pricey because you're going to need a $1000+ machine to run it when Vista launches.
I disagree here. Microsoft has never priced their product depending on the computer it was going into because one has nothing to do with the other. As with any other product, the price will drop over time as the market's saturated with the product. As for the need for an expensive computer, that's bunk. I raided my parts bins and threw together a system in five minutes that runs Vista Beta in all its flawed, glitchy glory; the sum of the parts (nothing latest-tech) is probably about $160--and the vidcard's $60 of it.Quote:
Obviously Vista can be pricey because you're going to need a $1000+ machine to run it when Vista launches.
Correction:
To properly run Aero Glass, the primary advantage of upgrading to Vista for many users, your hardware will need a relatively new dX 10 video card. Since you're probably not going to want to buy one AGP, you're going PCI-E. Which means a mobo upgrade as well. I'm not saying it's a bad investment, I'm just saying that most $1000+ PCs will ship with Vista, while most PCs under $500 will ship with XP, if anything at all.
I can't agree that most people want to upgrade because of Aero.
A lot of people already have PCIE mobos, and besides, there will still be AGP cards that will support DX10.
This lab mule I threw together is a used Abit KV7 socket A mobo, an Athlon XP-M 2600+ OCed to 2.33GHz (166 X 14.0), 80GB UltraATA WD hard drive, EVGA GEForce 6600GT (bought used off eBay) and a used Samsung DVD/CD-RW combo drive. Power supplied from an FSP 350W PSU.
I haven't used the IE yet, just Opera so I don't know if the stacked-windows effect works or not, will have to check. I get the glass effects and a lot more. (I can post a pic if you want.) What would the DX10 allow that I may not have seen? I'm curious now. :)
I will wait and see. The finished product is not as robust as it was in the beginning as I recall. (Will this cause more glitches???) And MS is still patching XP. I just can't get to excited over Vista at this time. Look beneath all the hype and what have you got.
And then there is the fact that all the operating functions of any of these operating systems are not used by any one computer user.
Well I think WinFS would have been a good reason to upgrade to Vista, but now that's not going to happen. I think XP is gonna hang around like 98 did. MS is going to be forced to support it for a very long time. I'll upgrade in due time, I'm sure.
You can always try PCLinux!
Here is a recent review of RC1:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34268
Its a good read, but to sum it up:
This is rather disappointing really. Makes you wonder what MS has been doing for the last 6-7 years. Will this be ME II?Quote:
Vista's still a mess. It's meant to be at release candidate stage, yet vendors are struggling to provide sufficient driver support, features are still missing or not yet complete, and its performance compared to XP is still poor. Nowadays hardware is cheap, and it would be sufficiently acceptable to upgrade in anticipation of a wonderfully revolutionary OS. Unfortunately Vista provides little to no benefit for end users compared to that of the previous version of Windows, released five years ago in 2001.
I find it hard to disagree on the driver front, expecially for Vista x64 :(
But I haven't found anything missing in RC1 so far, and I have no complaints about performance at all. Beta versions will never perform as well as final versions because they are stuffed full of debugging code, so it is very unfair to complain about the performance in any case. I read that review and wondered if we were running the same OS :rolleyes:
Its not Beta anymore. According to the author, RC's should be close to the final release. And according to him, its not even close.
I'll probably be able to upgrade to Vista about the time they come out with Windows 3000
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by usil
RC1 is still a beta, and still contains the debugging code. As for what he says, he is entitled to his opinion, but it looks a lot like yet another Microsoft bash to me. I just don't recognise half the things that he is complaining about.