. . . Home Basic... For your basic home computing needs...

Made in Puerto Rico? ;)

(Geez, I bought Apple Leopard 'Ultimate' for half the price.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

OMG! Now I have to buy a separate 64-bit 'upgrade' DVD? I just bought the darn thing today! ;)

(I thought Vista WAS 64 bit. [rolls-eyes, then rolls 'em again, and again, and again])

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

OMG! Now I have to buy a separate 64-bit 'upgrade' DVD? I just bought the darn thing today! ;)

You shouldn't need to 'buy' the same version twice. In most retail packages, they give you the option of trading your 32bit Vista for a 64bit one. At least, that was the case when I bought a Windows Vista Home Premium 32bit DVD.

(I thought Vista WAS 64 bit. [rolls-eyes, then rolls 'em again, and again, and again])

That means you didn't do enough researching or asking around. ;-) Or you can just take the easy argument and blame Microsoft and praise [insert OS name here]


Actually, having so many SKUs is what has turned some people off of Vista (among other things). As it is, you have Vista Home Basic N, Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. Add to that each version has an OEM package, retail upgrade and retail full version (with the exception of Vista Home Basic N which is only available in OEM form). Then on top of that each version has a 32bit and 64bit counterpart.

Most every upgrade or full version packages only come in 32bit form to make it easier for most consumers who probably need 16bit compatibility (which is not available in 64bit flavors of any version of Windows). 64bit can be traded up from any of those packages, or you can buy the OEM directly in 64bit since the OEM copies are intended for people who are system builders and consumers who know what they're looking for and know the pros and cons of using a 64bit OS.

you can just take the easy argument and blame Microsoft and praise [insert OS name here]

I'm surely no ones 'fan-boy', and I did do my research... But I misunderstood this to mean that all versions shipped with both 32-bit and 64-bit like 'ultimate' does:

"The 64-bit editions of Windows Vista—available for all editions of Windows Vista except Starter"

On the 32-bit box it states that it contains the 32-bit version and provides info on how to obtain the 64-bit version, which points you here:

"64-bit DVD: 
If your system features a 64-bit processor, you can take advantage of its advanced design by ordering 64-bit software media. You'll get the same interface, features, and functions, but you'll get them in an operating system that takes advantage of access to vastly more memory. All installation files are on a single disc. Please note that 64-bit media is included in the box with the purchase of Windows Vista Ultimate."

Ahhhh, now ya tell me... I would assume 'ultimate' customers wouldn't even be reading that web page... eh?

"You can order either of these alternate media for a minimal fee, including shipping and handling."

Come on Microsoft... The stores aren't stocking 64-bit, so just put the darn thing in the box would ya... ;)

(I'm not praising Leopard nor bashing Vista... I knew what I wanted before I even left the house, but the hurdles for 64-bit are simply ridiculous.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

(... Vista... I knew what I wanted before I even left the house, but the hurdles for 64-bit are simply ridiculous.)

That does look all confusingly convoluted and complicated!

I don't see why there should be any price differential between 32-bit and 64-bit. It should just be a simple option switch on the compiling...


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I'm surely no ones 'fan-boy', and I did do my research... But I misunderstood this to mean that all versions shipped with both 32-bit and 64-bit like 'ultimate' does:

"The 64-bit editions of Windows Vista—available for all editions of Windows Vista except Starter"

I can see how that sounds misleading, but asking around on the ol' knowledgeable internets would have clarified that for ya.

Come on Microsoft... The stores aren't stocking 64-bit, so just put the darn thing in the box would ya... ;)

Agreed on that. There's enough space on the DVD to include both versions, and the installer could have easily been written to give the user a choice (though as I understand it, installing 64bit "cleanly" is the only way to go as trying to "upgrade" from 32bit to 64bit can cause problems).

"64-bit DVD: 
If your system features a 64-bit processor, you can take advantage of its advanced design by ordering 64-bit software media. You'll get the same interface, features, and functions, but you'll get them in an operating system that takes advantage of access to vastly more memory. All installation files are on a single disc. Please note that 64-bit media is included in the box with the purchase of Windows Vista Ultimate."

The main reason why I purchased Ultimate.

For anyone serious enough about computing, it's always best to go for the professional edition.

---

Too bad Vista is crap.

Look for Windows 7 in the near future (touted as the latest, which will be a dumbed down version of Vista SP?)

Vista reminds me of Windows 2000. wasn't around very long before they suddenly release XP Pro

---

Too bad Vista is crap.

I like it more than I like Windows XP. Too bad all the FUD on the internet has made it sound like a bad OS when its actually a really good one.

Look for Windows 7 in the near future (touted as the latest, which will be a dumbed down version of Vista SP?)

Funny how everyone thinks that because Microsoft will be releasing another OS so soon that this is somehow admitting that the previous one was bad so they need to rush out another one real quick.

Actually, Microsoft has historically released OSes every couple years, with the exception being with Windows XP being out for 7 years now. I think that's why everyone loves XP so much, it's like an old pair of shoes that you have broken in so well that you don't care how much they've fallen apart or how newer shoes will provide better comfort for your aching feet, you just want to keep the old raggedy ones around because you hate change.

Vista reminds me of Windows 2000. wasn't around very long before they suddenly release XP Pro

And Windows 98SE (1999) wasn't around too long before they released Windows 2000 (2000). And Windows 98 (1998) wasn't around too long before they released Windows 98SE (1999). And Windows 95 (1995) wasn't around too long before they released Windows 98 (1998). Besides XP, there isn't an MS OS that is around too long before a new release is made.

For anyone serious enough about computing, it's always best to go for the professional edition.

That's precisely why I use a Macintosh with a UNIX underbelly... Vista is just a play toy, and an expensive one at that... ;)

(Again, I'm not knocking Vista, every operating system has its good points and its bad points. To each his/her own.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Another problem Vista has is software. Many of us have programs that we enjoy using & have learnt all that program's foibles, both good & bad. However, many of the programs I have just will not run under Vista, even in compatability mode.

Should Windows "Vienna" be the same, then it won't be long before I make the total switch to Linux.

---

I like it more than I like Windows XP. Too bad all the FUD on the internet has made it sound like a bad OS when its actually a really good one.

it's bloat.

Funny how everyone thinks that because Microsoft will be releasing another OS so soon that this is somehow admitting that the previous one was bad so they need to rush out another one real quick.

Vista is a dud. It's a clunky resource hog. Oh but it looks great (snicker)

Besides XP, there isn't an MS OS that is around too long before a new release is made.

Yup..and the sheeple will continue to rent the OS from Microsoft. I wonder when Microsoft will just come out of the closet and change the public sector business model to a subscription business model....I mean hell, you're already just renting now anyway.


So everyone runs out and spends a friggin fortune on Vista Ultimate...and then I got money that says Windows 7 comes out early...which essentially fixes Vista problems and (it's a rebadged service pack release who are they trying to kid?)

I mean if you think about it, why did ANYONE have to upgrade to Vista? Really, what pressing need caused anyone to go out and buy Vista Ultimate? Or even Vista at all?

---

"April 4, 2008 7:50 AM PDT

MIAMI--Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Friday indicated that Windows 7, the next major version of Windows, could come within the next year, far ahead of the development schedule previously indicated by the software maker.

In response to a question about Windows Vista, Gates, speaking before the Inter-American Development Bank here, said: "Sometime in the next year or so we will have a new version." Referring to Windows 7, the code name for the next full release of Windows client software, Gates said: "I'm super-enthused about what it will do in lots of ways."



Wanna know why? Vista is a flop for Microsoft.

---

you're already just renting now anyway.

Yeah, I didn't like that idea very much either... If Apple ever decides to go that route, I'll be going back to Linux...

why did ANYONE have to upgrade to Vista?

I didn't 'upgrade', I only bought Vista to run windows apps on my mac... My decision was based on which one would be most useful for the longest period of time before needing an upgrade, XP or Vista... Like it or not, Vista is the future... ;)


(And as an added bonus, Vista looks absolutely stunning on an Apple computer. XP, not so good.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Like it or not, Vista is the future... ;)


(And as an added bonus, Vista looks absolutely stunning on an Apple computer. XP, not so good.)

Not really...I will be able to keep my XP Pro (It will be supported) until Windows 7 (Vienna).

I agree..Vista looks great!!

---

Is it true that Vista had squillions of teething problems when launched?

And can it run on a Mac?

I have XP running native on a partition on my MacBook Pro

EDIT ...... sorry ... just read back in this thread ... most my questions answered ... Thanks

---

ITI SAPIS
POTANDA
TINONE

I dont know what you mean Michael.

I´m running Vista since beta 2 2 years ago.
It works like a charm.
No bluescreen no problems over a year now.

I dont like Microsoft either but allways to blame them isn´t necessary.

Its more solid than XP and for me the best Windows version ever.
If i get a machine wich causes trouble i install vista and it works.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

I like it more than I like Windows XP. Too bad all the FUD on the internet has made it sound like a bad OS when its actually a really good one.

it's bloat.

The same thing could be said about any Linux distro that has more than just the basics to get you up and running on the command line.

Funny how everyone thinks that because Microsoft will be releasing another OS so soon that this is somehow admitting that the previous one was bad so they need to rush out another one real quick.

Vista is a dud. It's a clunky resource hog. Oh but it looks great (snicker)

Its a dud in sales, I'll give you that, but again, I think that's only because people have spread FUD about it instead of actually trying it for themselves.

As far as being a "resource hog", I'll admit that its slower than XP, but I like the benefits Vista brings me. I don't like the built-in DRM, but I enjoy the added security and features over XP.

Besides XP, there isn't an MS OS that is around too long before a new release is made.

Yup..and the sheeple will continue to rent the OS from Microsoft. I wonder when Microsoft will just come out of the closet and change the public sector business model to a subscription business model....I mean hell, you're already just renting now anyway.

"Sheeple". Yeah, people like to be called that when they prefer something you don't.

You're probably right about the business model though. It seems a lot of companies would rather have a constant influx of money by providing a 'service' instead of a 'product'. We'll see what happens.

So everyone runs out and spends a friggin fortune on Vista Ultimate...and then I got money that says Windows 7 comes out early...which essentially fixes Vista problems and (it's a rebadged service pack release who are they trying to kid?)

That's funny because I've been using Vista Ultimate x64 since its release and the only "problem" I've ever experienced has been a Logitech webcam that didn't have proper 64bit drivers for Vista, and that would be Logitech's fault, not Microsoft's. That and poor network performance that was fixed in SP1.

I mean if you think about it, why did ANYONE have to upgrade to Vista? Really, what pressing need caused anyone to go out and buy Vista Ultimate? Or even Vista at all?

No one really has to upgrade to anything. I remember people saying XP was a resource hog and a clunker and how they were going to stick with Windows 98 until they were forced to switch. Now people accept XP with open arms and refuse to switch. LOL

I went out and bought Vista because I liked all the added features and security, and I like the eye candy. I really don't understand all the Anti-Vista sentiment from people who never even used it, or used it but never even gave it a chance. That's one thing I like about the ArsTechnica forums, there's plenty of smart people there that will tell you that Vista is better than XP and they'll tell you why too.

Is it true that Vista had squillions of teething problems when launched?

Probably. Most OSes that try to offer as much as Windows does while supporting as much hardware as Windows does is bound to have a few problems on release.

Wait... no other OS tries to do everything Windows does. If they did, they would have problems too and we couldn't view them as 'perfect'. Why do you think Linux doesn't support the latest and greatest hardware, and why do you think Apple has very tight control on their hardware? Apple knows they'd have to support it if they write a driver for it. What better way to reduce your support costs than by limiting what is allowed to work with your system?

I've been running Vista since February 2007...and i expected many more problems than i got...Fans of another O/S have had an open field in dissing Vista...So beware...Not all of what they say is true...Vista is not perfect...but it's better than i expected...I don't want to go back to XP.

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!