[eMJay]

The real reason why some PC game developers are dropping the PC is that it has become too expensive to create new games across all the platforms. This is especially true for games created for the Sony PS3. Some companys have also dropped game development for the PS3 as well. It's a cost-cutting measure that aims to boost profits, as some PC gamers are now also using consoles despite the inferior graphics (particularly since newer boxes have much better networking than previously). As for the death of DirectX 10, that's not likely to happen as DirectX is used in the Xbox 360 as well as on the PC (the X in Xbox means DirectX) and future developement of the Xbox will have some implementation of DX10.

[darthvenom]

Beyond all the hype & have not's & what not's & these & that's of XP vs. Vista, and since I have a 5 computer network in where 2 machines use Vista & 3 use XP also my being a technician of many years when comparing the two OS'S I'm forced to look at the hardware requirements concerning the two with special consideration to the vast differences in memory, processor, etc. Vista requiring 512 mb memory vs XP'S 64 mb just to install the OS for example forces me to judge not only microsoft, but PC manufacturers as well in forcing those with older PC'S whom maybe say, just check their email or go on auction sites to upgrade or in fact buy new PC'S should XP be discontinued or otherwise no longer supported. I like Vista and am getting used to it's changes just fine but I also like XP as well as my elderly customers do whom are on fixed incomes and can't afford a new PC. This is my biggest complaint of all. I remember XP'S bugs when it first came out lest anyone forget.

[otrhead]

I still have my shop computer loaded with W98. I also have my main desktop computer loaded with W2000Pro. My new laptop has XPPro. Of them all the most stable is the desktop with the W2000Pro setup. I don't see XP as an improvement worth the money let alone changing over to some DRM infested Vista os. For all those devote XP users, my advice is to keep your virus software up to date, use a good firewall, and don't be rushed into buying something you don't need.

[MPrck]

How is it that people have to spend more time learning various OS's instead of learning things that are not subject to change? I want my grandchildren to learn useful things, not having to keep track of various OS's. To answer their questions I am going to have to learn it as well. WHY? Where is our MODEL T ? Why can we not have one basic secure OS where we add items to it. If I was making Linux, I would now do everything to make it a secure GUI system to replace all of the OS's out there. If they charge a price, no matter what it is, and a promise to make all, and future programs work with it, I would change to that today. Why can we not have one thing that works? Why must we keep re-inventing the wheel ? How have we let one company dictate terms to us like MS, and apple to say our system is proprietary ? Please Linux makers, save us from these two A-holes so we never have to use their products again.

[djsyntek]

I love linux, I use Fedora Core 6 and Gentoo on two boxes from about 6 years ago and anytime I need to update anything, I simply go grab the distro and recompile the kernal, its actually incredible easy and stable with no downtime. I wish MS would follow this. Have Windows and then as you go on, you simply install an update and now you went from Windows 5 to Windows 6. I think eventually with new more user friendly Linux distros such as ubuntu, alot of consumers will start to migrate to linux and realize how awesome open source is. Also instead of paying for the OS like Windows and then Paying again for support from them(if you call them), linux is completely free and the support is the only thing that cost. That being that if your a buisness and you are running Red Hat, you have problems you call Red Hat and they fix it. Or you can jump onto any number of forums or irc rooms and get the answer you need in a very short time. I'm already multibooting with XP, VIsta, and Gentoo. Funny thing is, Gentoo can do all sorts of stuff to the two Windows Partitions and Windows has no idea the Gentoo partition even exist,

[cuchilo]

I have gone all the way from 20 to XP SP2 by way of each verson and upgrade skiping only NT and 2K and only went to XP because I was forced to. 98SE was my best experience with Microsoft and XP is rapidly surpassing the usefullness of 98SE for my needs. By all means keep developing new OS's for the power users and coders, but if you want to maintain consumer loyality, don't forget the home user who doesn't write code or run a big business or one who is an avid gamer. We just want to be able to listen to our tunes, keep our finances straight, pay bills online, keep in touch with friends and family, and search the interenet for things that interest us and occasionaly interreact with others on the web. OS bloat is really a killer to us on limited budgets and abilities. The consumer with $600 to spend should be heard just as loudly as the Business with Mega $ to spend. Don't saddle us with what you think we want and need, but give us what we tell you we want and need.

[pac7278]

I have been using windows products since 3.11 in college. There are always growing pains in OS development and deployment. there are going to be hiccups, and Vista has its share. so did XP and so did 2000, and so on. I will probably not switch unless I find some real necessity. On a new 1gig memory multi core system, vista is good enough. it is made for the latest hardware. Microsoft knew that and so did builders like dell and HP. They jumped the gun in 06 x-mas season with "vista Compatable" and "Vista Ready" computers with only 512k memory and slower single core processors available at the time. In Time Vista will mature with each service pak , just like xp. use xp in the older hardware and be happpy. I just built my first dual core system, but I will wait for Vista to get better with age. and I will continue to play with alternate OS like ubuntu to keep tabs on the open source community. they may get it right before Microsoft does.

[eMJay]

In reality you don't need an all-powerful computer to use the Internet...at least not yet. These days you don't even need a computer at all to be online. However, in order to keep up with new developments in hardware and software OS bloat becomes necessary and even mandatory. OS refinements are simply allowing users to do more tasks simultaneously and with greater efficiency while taking advantage of the very latest tools. There's no problem with using the more recent older operating systems if you can accomplish your daily chores with efficiency. But you have to realise that these OS companies are mostly giving you what they know you'll need to fully take advantage of whats out there today and in the near future in terms of hardware and software. If you don't need to use newer gear then you shouldn't waste your money. Just don't be surprised when the internet becomes too multimedia-driven for your older OS and hardware to handle since they weren't built to be compatible with the indefinite future. There will come a time when older OS technology will be completely incompatible with the most advanced technology. Hardware, software, gaming and the internet have all been 'bloating' as it is the nature of technology to 'bloat'. What needs to happen is for the cost of bloat to go down at a much faster rate than it has, because that, at the end of the day, is the real sore point with technological advancement. Companies that write software and have massive market share shouldn't be pricing through the roof!

[cuchilo]

As with any Os, I learned the hard way from 8bit, to 16 bit to 32 bit systems, not to buy the first release of any OS. Just like children, they all suffer from growing pains. I started with Unix in the military before I plunked down my own hard earned cash for my first 8bit computer in "81". Back when 32K RAM was a truckload of memory, and 1.2 Meg was a lot of portable storage and 5 meg on a hard drive was difficult to fill. Still, I will probably not give up my XP Sp2 until I am absolutely forced to. By then, I will probably throw away all the hundreds of 1.2 and 1.4 and 2.4 meg floppies I have boxed up along with several hard drives that are smaller than 150 Gig along with the thousands of dollars worth of software (that I have accumulated over the years) that will no longer be campatable with any of the existing OS's. I still believe change for change's sake is still illogical and not cost effective, especially for the average consumer. I will let you young folks deal with latest and greatest OS's still to come.

[eMJay]

Change comes from the realization that we can be better and do better things with the resources that we have. For instance, when we shrink a CPU we use less material to make one. Continuing to do something the same way when you can do it another way with greater efficiency is wasteful. The changes that have come about as a result of advances in computer technology and data storage and transfer have revolutionized how we share data at work and at home and have made mankind more able to communicate and work efficiently. The pursuit of greater efficiency is the sole reason why we even have technology in the first place. The digital age can only grow once we are each given the capability to access, process and distribute data as fast as our minds can handle it. The money you spent on software and hardware that's now obsolete is the money that funded the development of the technology that we use today....you should actually be proud that you were able to make such a contribution to the backbone of modern technology. Vista is in reality a better OS than XP but it doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is capable of making BETTER use of it than they did of XP, which is why you should never buy software unless you can see where it will make you more efficient. Unfortunately developers can't always support the past and the future at the same time; that's just not being as eficient as we can be.

[rccoffee]

eMJay,

Is your ex-girlfriend also my ex-girlfriend? What a cute way to put it. Thanks.

[Ginnie10]

My Xp worked with all components I hooked up to it, accepted all software I installed and was fast, efficient and I loved it. However, after four years the hard drive quit so I had to down-grade to Vista. I tried to find an Xp but none in this town for sale. After using Vista for 3 months I can truthfully say, it's a piece of junk! The SP1 pack couldn't make it any worse. Our technology has gone backwards rather than forward.

[MPrck]

Tiger Direct still has copies of XP pro for sale

[djsyntek]

http://slashdot.org/.../journal/177855
Check out this Slashdot on Why Vista sucks. More information why Vista is the worst OS then you can handle.

[MPrck]

It sure seems as if Vista's soul reason was for HDCP. I wish PC world would make a comment on this subject. Having just bought my daughters family a computer from Gateway that came with a free moinitor and a Blue Ray drive for 999.00 it stipulated it needed Vista. This whole copy protection scheme is going to make me go out, and buy Sly Soft products to remove it. Why is it now forbidden to make copies when all our other devices in the past could ? Because the quality is better ? We could do it in the past when the quality was lower, but now we cannot ? How could we lose the right to copy based upon quality of the copy ? Copies of such a high quality item would not be spread around, for if that was the case we would store lossless recordings instead of MP3's. What type of madhouse are we in that our rights become restricted due to quality of a copy ? YOU can copy something if the quality is so bad you don't want to use it ? Come PCworld address this issue.

[rMatey]

You forgot to mention that system upgrades take less time, and usually don't require a system reboot.

[rMatey]

I agree with you 100% on the Linux (except that the flavor is Ubuntu). 64-bit is the way to go. And the rig dual boots to seperate disks running the isolated operating systems: Windows XP Pro, Ubuntu 7.10 64, and Ununtu 8.04 beta on disk three.

Sometimes weeks go by before I play a game on XP. Other than that my main use is disk 2 and Ubuntu 7.1 I love the way ubuntu updates itself without the reboots.

[wdbixby]

I suffered under 3.1, 95 and ME, survived with 2000 Pro.XP Pro has been the best.
I hear nothing that makes me want to waste time and money on Vista. Linux and Leopard are looking better all the time.
Who cares about the "windowglass effect"?
Who doesn't care about universal compatibility and stability?
Who wants to slow down and wait for prettier graphics? We've been there before.
It's digusting to be forced to Vista.

[jazzyonermr]

I'm a retired IT Project Mgr. I've been using PC's and MS OS going back to Windows 3.1. I remember that everytime a new OS is released by MS, we go though this same exercise. It seems that we have many vocal users who are resistant to change. They have setup their systems and it is comfortable to them. They don't want to go through the exercise of customizing a new system so they are comfortable with it. I purchased a new PC in May of 2007, and I specified that I wanted Vista Home Premium on it. I have not had any bad experiences with it as yet. I really don't expect any. Many of the complaints I have read are specific to different types of users. First the gamers, their main complaint seems to bo speed. Then there are the technocrats, they complain about losing productivity because they may have to do one extra keystroke. To them I say turn of the feature that offends you. I love my Vista Home Premium OS and I'd recommend it to anyone who isn't afraid of change. I close with one question, Why is it neceassry to go through this with every new release?

[JimH443]

Very simple answer to the question "Why?" Trying running Vista on the machine you were running Win 3 on. The question really is, why upgrade if there's no reason to? If you get a new machine and it needs its first OS, great.