I'm gonna stick to ol' faithful: ubuntu.
When Windows Vista comes along, will you switch to it?
Moderator: General Moderators
When win XP came out, with its "people that pay for this product must PROVE they are not pirates" activation system, I put my foot down.
Simply put, it is unacceptable for a company to ask me to pay them to treat me like a criminal by default. When you consider that the behavior is coming from a convicted predatory monopolist, its that much worse.
So no, I won't be moving to Vista, just like I didn't move to XP. At home, I use a legitimate, purchased license for Windows 2000. (And yes, I have the receipts). Thats the last money Bill & company will likely get from me. I use Linux extensively, and if I have gaming needs down the road that Wine AND windows 2000 can't accomplish, I'll buy a Mac. By the time its an issue, game companies will be porting to Mac for the vast majority of titles.
Not to mention, Vista is completely unreasonable in resource requirements, and adds almost nothing I'm interested in. (Except the better security).
Simply put, it is unacceptable for a company to ask me to pay them to treat me like a criminal by default. When you consider that the behavior is coming from a convicted predatory monopolist, its that much worse.
So no, I won't be moving to Vista, just like I didn't move to XP. At home, I use a legitimate, purchased license for Windows 2000. (And yes, I have the receipts). Thats the last money Bill & company will likely get from me. I use Linux extensively, and if I have gaming needs down the road that Wine AND windows 2000 can't accomplish, I'll buy a Mac. By the time its an issue, game companies will be porting to Mac for the vast majority of titles.
Not to mention, Vista is completely unreasonable in resource requirements, and adds almost nothing I'm interested in. (Except the better security).
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
What I meant (but clearly did not say) was Except the security improvements in Vista compared to 2000 and XP.AKA Panama Jack wrote:I am laughing so hard I can barely type.Roja wrote:Not to mention, Vista is completely unreasonable in resource requirements, and adds almost nothing I'm interested in. (Except the better security).
LOL. Yeah, I should have given more context. Definitely funny without that.
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Based on what I have read, the system requirements are indeed higher, however the underlying system code has been highly optimized. It's "supposed" to be more responsive and faster than Windows XP.AKA Panama Jack wrote:Remember how upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP had a big impact on resource usage? You really needed more memory and a better CPU. For many people it was a big jump. It's basically the same thing when it comes to upgrading from Windows XP to Vista. It uses even more memory and needs even more CPU.
Think of your computer like a fast, high performance engine. Instead of using it to drive a normal racing body you load it down with a 20 tons of weight. You aren't going to be racing anywhere. XP was bad enough but Vista will be even worse.
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
That's a definition of an oxymoron.agtlewis wrote:Based on what I have read, the system requirements are indeed higher, however the underlying system code has been highly optimized. It's "supposed" to be more responsive and faster than Windows XP.
It has higher system requirements but supposed to be more responsive and faster.
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
- CoderGoblin
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:03 am
- Location: Aachen, Germany
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
My company is like this. We are still on Win2K. Have been for six years.CoderGoblin wrote:Might transfer after Service Pack 1 or 2 has been produced for it. Definately not going to upgrade early on. I know lots of companies who will never buy a version 1.0 product and with Microsoft I feel the same.