[mgc6020]

@bluefalconloyd: Some of you "Techno-Savy" computer users have more money than brains. Why do people need to spend $1000-$2000 to update their 4-5 year old systems? To do what? Surf the internet? Send/Recieve email? Work on spreadsheets or text documents? Touch up a few family photos with Photoshop Elements or Picasa? I could buy into the upgrade if someone is running AutoCAD, rendering videos or even gaming but the average John and/or Jane Doe? They should put the extra cash into paying down their credit card debt, home mortgage or their kids school loans...since their kids are buying new computers every other year. Until some really significant development takes place, and I mean more than Vista's eye candy, the average person really doesn't need to upgrade every two or three years. Many companies don't upgrade their hardware or software as soon as the latest version hit's the market. Why do you think that is? The ROI (Return On Investment) doesn't jusify it for 'THE WORK THEY DO'. The general public is in that same boat, the majority don't need it. If you require the latest and greatest to do your work...fine but don't berate the general user who doesn't.

[rtfire1]

When I replaced my well aged ibm t21 or 22 laptop with my gateway laptop I could have dropped 2 plus gran instead I drop $599.99. I got a great laptop back pack to go with it cheap. this laptop should run me about 5 to 7 years at some point I will need a new desk top but I have need one long before I even thought of upgrading my laptop.

[bluefalconloyd]

mgc6020 said:

@bluefalconloyd: Some of you "Techno-Savy" computer users have more money than brains. Why do people need to spend $1000-$2000 to update their 4-5 year old systems? To do what? Surf the internet? Send/Recieve email? Work on spreadsheets or text documents? Touch up a few family photos with Photoshop Elements or Picasa? I could buy into the upgrade if someone is running AutoCAD, rendering videos or even gaming but the average John and/or Jane Doe? They should put the extra cash into paying down their credit card debt, home mortgage or their kids school loans...since their kids are buying new computers every other year. Until some really significant development takes place, and I mean more than Vista's eye candy, the average person really doesn't need to upgrade every two or three years. Many companies don't upgrade their hardware or software as soon as the latest version hit's the market. Why do you think that is? The ROI (Return On Investment) doesn't jusify it for 'THE WORK THEY DO'. The general public is in that same boat, the majority don't need it. If you require the latest and greatest to do your work...fine but don't berate the general user who doesn't.

To say that I have more money than brains is just a blind-sided assault on something you know nothing about. I have no credit card debt, I have no home loan, car payment, or anything. I own two vehicles, 12 credits from my degree, served 2 years already in the military and owe nothing to no one. Sounds like I've got some intelligence about me on using my money wisely huh?

As far as windows vista, do you not remember XP? it was ABSOLUTELY HATED the first few years of it's existance, Win 98 users didn't want to adjust...etc. Same with Vista. It costs next to nothing to have a state-of-the-art computer these days as long as you use the right resources to buy from. Not upgrading your computer for 4-5 years? WTF. If you're having so much trouble as to complain about not being able to do something then it IS TIME to spend the cash to upgrade. Just like if your car doesn't start, or your home has a leaky roof. You get it repaired or buy a new one.

A computer is an essential piece of the household nowadays. It hasn't been until recently but if you have a job, go to college,own you're own business, etc. You're going to NEED a computer to complete tasks. So yes, as far as a computer being a waste of money to have one that operates correctly...it's an essential.

[mgc6020]

Does sound like you've done ok. Good work! You're off to a good start...better than most.
I've accumulated a few assets over the years too, not just a couple of cars. Do you own your home? I do...the one I live in and fourteen rentals...they're all paid for. How about investments? Do you have any yet? I'm 13 years away from retirement age, but I could stop working today if I chose to. So don't throw your money management prowess at me, like I said you're off to a good start...but you have a ways to go. Now back to the computer upgrade discussion.
Your quote, "WTF. If you're having so much trouble as to complain about not being able to do something then it IS TIME to spend the cash to upgrade.". Where the hell did you think I was having trouble? Did you even read my response? Do you pay that kind of attention in school too or is there a problem with comprehension? I'm not having any trouble running anything and I certainly don't think that computers are a waste of money! I use my computer daily for writing, financial management & analysis including trading stocks and funds, email, research, contact management, photography, keeping up with current events and more. My point is people don't need to upgrade every two or three years to the newest and shiniest model. People have different needs. I know a few people that are still using Pentium III's that run some lite version of Linux and they're getting everything they need out of their systems. Are they wrong to be doing that? No, they don't need anything else. As for me I have Windows XP Pro on my laptop (2 year old Dell), Ubuntu Linux on my desktop (3 year old home built) and Ubuntu Linux Server on my server (four year old home built). They're all working great for me and I have no need to spend a couple of thousand dollars upgrading everything to Vista or in the servers case MS Server 2008. I'm not going to get a good, here's a good business term to remember, 'Return On Investment'. Here is the question to ask yourself. By upgrading to Vista and all it's hardware requirements am I going to be able to do my work faster and more efficiently? Am I going to be able to type a letter in a word processor faster? Send a email quicker? Browse the internet faster? You could ask yourself many more questions but
If(Answers==no)
{
Don't buy;
}
else
{
Do buy;
}

[Lunatik1]

I agree with most people saying that people should upgrade their systems and stop complaining about Vista, I honestly have not had any problems with Vista, I'm running Vista Enterprise on my Toshiba laptop (2003) which is 5+years old, and it read all my drivers, the ones that it did not recongnize I installed them in a different manner and it read them. I only have a Pentium 2.4Ghz and 1 gig of ram. yeah don't have all the fancy things because of my video card which is a Nvidia GeForce4 420 Go with 32MB, I also have a 3 year old scanner and it was able to run with vista, so I really have not had any problems like most of these people are complaining about. I believe my limit is my hardware not my software,

[zachman1094]

I don't necessairily believe that Vista being a screwup drove people to Linux, I think it is and has already made more people decide to stick with Windows XP. I also think that it has had some effect on who's using Linux now. It has probably dirven some people to Linux but definitely not many.

Zachary

[Eric2]

I've been using Linux since 2001. I'm not a geek. Just unwilling to click or Microsoft's EULA. I've used mainstream Linux distributions and never had to install from the command line. Every application I wanted was available in the distribution's package management system. With Debian, Fedora, SUSA, Ubuntu, Mandreva, and all other major distributions you simply open the package manager application, search for the ap you want, click and install it. However, installing from the command line is a very simple process anyone who can read and follow a cookbook can accomplish. For any Windows user who has had to do a complete install or re-installation of their system, installing Linux would be a revalation into what is possible. I can install Linux and all the applications I care to use or experiment with (for me that means professional quality programs to run a business, sound studio, graphics, studio, and home entertainment center) in 45 minutes on a high speed network. The last time I installed Windows it was Windows ME. ME and the paltry collection of aps I owned at the time took me most of a weekend to install, and I got plenty of practice doing it. ME would crash so badly about every four months that the only thing I knew to do was f-dish and reinstall from scratch.
As for the tone of this article... I didn't like it, but those of us used to the freedoms and rapid improvements in the Linux world are simply incredulous with wonder at what people in the Windows world tolerate. It is hard not to gloat. Linux owns the server world, supercomputer world, and the embedded world. Desktops will move to Linux for the same reasons: performance, cost, security, robustness, security, and freedom/flexibility to do whatever you want with the software (you, your business, can rewrite Free Software to precicely meet your needs). Microsofts actions hasten the process. As responses to this article indicate, Windows users want the things they are used to working to simply work and are not going to start using Linux unless they do or unless something pushes them to use Linux. Linux advocates are gleeful at Microsoft's arogance because it is driving some Windows users, including enterprises, to upgrade to Linux instead of Vista.

By the way, it was discussions in PCW that turned me on to Linux in the first place. I remain a loyal subscriber because of the good information I continue to get from PCW even though I seldom have to use Windows.

[spaul40]

butlerwm wrote: Apples 5.7% share worked out to approximately 3.6 million units. That's nothing to sneeze at and represents enough numbers to justify software makers investiment of time and manhours to produce programs for the Mac platform.

Yes, Apple sales have increased an enormous amount; however, what caused it? Maybe it could be that you can now run windows functionality under OS-X to run any windows program you want. Now why would a software developer worry about writing a native version of their software for OS-X instead of spending that time on writing a new program that can run under both OS-X (sub-program under windows) and windows. If they write a native version of an old program, that will just increase their support requirements since they now have to support the software under 2 different OS's. . . . and what will be their incremental sales dollars by doing this? Remember, software companies, like hardware manufacturers, develop product for increased sales and profits (actually profits and sales is a more correct statement). Profit is equal to all costs, including development and support for a second OS, subtracted from gross sales. You do the math.

[spaul40]

For those people saying that Vista is fine and we should upgrade to it, my only question is, "What does Vista do for you that XP didn't?" Let's assume all of the drivers are now available and let's even assume that you're a hardware nut and have a relatively fast processor and 2 GB or more of memory. Again, other than the eye candy, what does Vista do for you better than XP?

[bluefalconloyd]

There's one reason ALONE why I would buy Vista....it's called DirectX 10 and it gives gaming and media a whole different dimension when consuming it. It's really mind boggling the graphics you can pull when having DX 10.

It's not that we're telling everyone to jump to Vista either, if you're satisfied with XP then keep using it till they stop updating it....but everyone seems to knock Vista when probably 90% haven't used it on a day-to-day basis or have not tried to take the time to figure out the bugs, like they did with their XP program. It's those biased opinions that I hate.

[piyushsingh]

spaul40 said:

For those people saying that Vista is fine and we should upgrade to it, my only question is, "What does Vista do for you that XP didn't?" Let's assume all of the drivers are now available and let's even assume that you're a hardware nut and have a relatively fast processor and 2 GB or more of memory. Again, other than the eye candy, what does Vista do for you better than XP?

As mentioned earlier by bluefalconloyd also, dx10 is a big thing that has driven most gamers to vista. And rightly so, i had a much better experience with crysis than my friends still tinkering with dx9.
btw - the search indexer alone was sufficient for me to switch to vista. And this is just one thing , the list is long. :)

[rtfire1]

I was just reading on a Linux web site when people started using Linux most people are 2001 - 2004 thats xp not vista

[spaul40]

BlueFalconloyd & piyushsingh: You are, of course, correct in that DX10 is only supported under Vista. I don't do games so I totally forgot about this as a reason but you are correct for those that use their PC for games. I should have said, "Other than DX10 for gamers. . . ." Regarding the search tool, I will have to check it out compared to Copernic. If it is that much better than Copernic and/or Google search, then that might be a good reason to go the Vista route (I find Google search intrusive). I do know that I have tried a benchmark of editing a large graphic file on the same system (Q9450 Intel, 4GB DDR2-1000, Nvidia 9600GT, twin 74GB raptor's in raid 0), and the XP Pro OS was 50% faster than the Vista Premium OS. That was tested recently using SP1 for Vista and SP3 for XP Pro. But, thanks for the input. I'll give the search indexer a try. I don't have anything against Vista (other than speed); however, when I plunk down a few hundred dollars for a piece of SW, I expect to receive a return on my investment and so far, I don't see anything in the way of a function/benefit that will give me payback (again, I'll try the search indexer and then I may eat these words).

[Number3124]

That's just like M$ to self destruct :D .

[WirelessPhil]

I agree!

My Toshiba refused to reconsie or accept the supplied Toshiba disks, so I stuck in the Linux disk and I'm back on-line.

Thanks MS and thank you Linux!