The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system?

by Marc Bennett CNET staff/forum admin / February 1, 2006 8:32 AM PST

Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system this year?

Yes, as soon as the final version is released.
I'm already on the beta version. (How do you like it?)
After it's been out for a few months. (How long will you wait?)
No way! (Why not?)
I will buy a new system with it already installed.
I don't even have XP yet!
I'm on a Mac and will never go to the dark side.
Don't know yet.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Will you be installing Windows Vista on your system?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Definately...
by John.Wilkinson / February 1, 2006 8:51 AM PST

Aside from AERO there really isn't much of a reason to upgrade since most of the other new key features will be ported to Windows XP through SP3 and individual downloads. However, now that Microsoft has finally committed to releasing Vista in time for Thanksgiving, and is willing to chope parts out if necessary in order to keep that deadline, I can safely say that the final release version will be on my computer before the end of the year. I've liked what I've seen of Vista, replicated the new layout, icons, boot screen, glass effects, etc on my Windows XP computers, and look forward to receiving my copy of Vista Beta 2 in April.

John

Collapse -
Why bother? Still doesn't have a security features promised
by cellphonejunkie / February 2, 2006 8:07 PM PST
In reply to: Definately...

Why bother? All those things you talk about Vista having, I've had for the past 5 YEARS on OSX!

Besides,m the most NEEDED features (a secure file system, no registry (it sohludn't have EVER needed this!)) aren't even part of Vista!

This is just a 2 year old, bloated rehash of a creeky, out-of-date OS, w/ a total rip off of OSX as the GUI (just read the NYT column)

All the spyware, adware, viruses, trojans and other malware will be able to infect this machine just as easily as XP...

Micro$oft still hasn't addessed the major problems w/ Windoze, and considering how long Vista (a.k.a. SP3) has taken, they never will!

Collapse -
Waiting is better
by NYBRN / February 3, 2006 12:51 AM PST

It's always been better to wait for any MS operating system to be launched, used, abused and tested by a broader user base than the beta testers. The concern has to be if application developers and hardware manufacturers are ready for Vista? Since MS is truly a global company, is the rest of the planet that we all deal with ready for Vista? Incompaatibility and performance issues have always been a problem for MS, thus waiting until the "kinks" are worked out is better.

Collapse -
VISTA -- Please excuse me, I can wait.
by Batchain / February 13, 2006 12:23 PM PST
In reply to: Waiting is better

For the PC I'm getting very soon I'll be sure to wait a good long time before loading Vista, once enough of the ''field reports'' are in. In fact, I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro here because of the machine's limitations (Pentium III 600 MHz, 512 RAM, 12MB internal) even though the OS requirements of XP say, "Oh, what you've got, that's quite fine!'' Very little *serious* difference with XP (''Longhorn'').
I'm still a Mac guy as much as I *have* to use Windows and Apple's release of OS X v 1.x was a bug-ridden, unstable mess until the *stable* Mac OS X v.2.x was released and the *fun additives* came out with v 3.x and 4.x. Those versions (2.x on up) weren't called ''patches'' but they might as well have been -- that's merely the difference between the naming conventions used by Apple and Microsoft. Who cares what they're called? I'll be watching for a *stable version* of Vista to show itself in ''patches'' before putting it on the new PC. I'd sure rather do that than curse all hell out of Microsoft as I did Apple before *they* released a stable OS.

Collapse -
VISTA -- Please excuse me, I can wait.
by Batchain / February 13, 2006 12:24 PM PST
In reply to: Waiting is better

For the PC I'm getting very soon I'll be sure to wait a good long time before loading Vista, once enough of the ''field reports'' are in. In fact, I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro here because of the machine's limitations (Pentium III 600 MHz, 512 RAM, 12MB internal) even though the OS requirements of XP say, ''Oh, what you've got, that's quite fine!'' Very little *serious* difference with XP (''Longhorn'').
I'm still a Mac guy as much as I *have* to use Windows and Apple's release of OS X v 1.x was a bug-ridden, unstable mess until the *stable* Mac OS X v.2.x was released and the *fun additives* came out with v 3.x and 4.x. Those versions (2.x on up) weren't called ''patches'' but they might as well have been -- that's merely the difference between the naming conventions used by Apple and Microsoft. Who cares what they're called? I'll be watching for a *stable version* of Vista to show itself in ''patches'' before putting it on the new PC. I'd sure rather do that than curse all hell out of Microsoft as I did Apple before *they* released a stable OS.

Collapse -
vista- to view Is this a hint?
by rtsphoto / February 3, 2006 1:07 PM PST

Nobody has brought up the usb key, talk about taking over.

Collapse -
And here I rolled my work desktop back to Windows 2000.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / February 1, 2006 11:26 PM PST

I'm currently working on projects that Windows 2000 is the base OS so I use that day to day. It also is cheaper since we have many licenses to it.

The laptops are on XP Pro so they serve as a checkpoint that the software works there too.

When Vista rolls, the new laptops will either have that or we'll try Vista on new Mactels since Vista has boot support for EFI.

Bob

Collapse -
No reason to.
by bknowledge / February 2, 2006 3:27 AM PST

There is nothing thats causes you to want to upgrade. Anyway if I was going to I would at least wait until the first service pack came out for it. I still use Win 2000 at work and one of the PCs at home.

Collapse -
Ditto.
by chammi / February 2, 2006 6:29 PM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

The aggressive activation policies that Microsoft pushed in XP have forced my away from that OS.

Case in point: Right now my father can't start his laptop because somehow Windows decided to lock him out. No apparent reason-- he has a licensed OEM copy, and hasn't upgraded his system to my knowledge. Plus, he's been using that copy of XP for over a year now, so it has to have already been activated and not just in trial. Anyway, now he's got to hunt for the original install materials, call MS and then deal with their pre-recorded menus.

None of that for me! Rather than forking over any more money to MS to upgrade, I just switched to Linux. I can always boot back into my outdated copy of windows for anything that requires it. (an unintentional benefit is that nobody's writing viruses for Win 9X anymore. Remember the Blaster Worm? Didn't touch me.) So I let my pre-XP copy of Windows handle the legacy stuff--and let Linux satisfy my craving for new apps and eye candy.

I'm not going to be elitist about it: I still use Windows PCs at work and school--but then I also use Macs if I need to. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows apps. In XP, activation was such a huge turn-off: I don't see why I should have to suffer to help MS fight piracy. I buy Windows software first and foremost for MY use, not for Microsoft's benefit. But MS has a history of forging on with its plans--be they bundled software or anti-piracy initiatives. It takes an awful lot of public outcry for them to scrap consumer-unfriendly policies, so I fully expect Vista to include most of what I've come to dislike about XP. At any rate, the early OS adopters have all sorts of headaches to deal with--remember when Win 95 and 98 first came out? Let the rest wait until the first Service Pack when the bugs are ironed out.

As for me, until MS re-earns my trust, I see no reason to invest in them.

Collapse -
Total agreement
by ghost77y / February 10, 2006 4:16 AM PST
In reply to: Ditto.

I have the same idea about the opportunity to try and adopt Vista for every day using. This new Microsoft OS need some expensive hardware resources, offering for that great satisfactions just for gamers and those gays interested in professionally video editing. None of that is going to be part of my business in the next 20 years. I use Linux at home, and an Windows98 SE at work, because this is what the company I working for want. I decided to use Linux at home because I was seek to scan over and over again the system, trying desperately to clean out all kind of malicious applications coming from Internet. I don't trust much in Windows security, but I have to accept that there are some very good programes running on it.

Collapse -
. . .and many many reasons NOT to . . !
by CaptainX / February 2, 2006 7:44 PM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

The Redmond Rangers have yet to produce stable, secure software. The closest that they ever came was DOS 3.21, and since then, their "security upgrades" are just bug rotation. What good is it to close some doors while opening others to attack? With that kind of track record, unless there is some significant reason to sidegrade (you can't call it an "upgrade"), why waste the money?

After all that I've had to invest in the attempt to armor up MickeySoft's junk (which I'm forced to use at work), there is no way that I'm going to load the newest version of hackerbait on any computer that I own.

I miss OS/2!

Collapse -
No , greedy world !
by moeness86 / February 2, 2006 7:45 PM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

I will definitely NEVER install this system ..
no reason at all to consume the resources of my system in some 3D silly interface .. especially that I'm deprived of the luxury of upgrade because of the greed and stupidity of dealers in my place ..

NO WAY , BILLY

Collapse -
Why? I Don't need the speed for my applications.
by xNtx / February 2, 2006 11:46 PM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

I don't work with math models, nor do I play computer games that require the speed and support beyond where I already reside - Windows XP. I just rebuilt my desktop last year, and it should suffice for a couple of years just fine, thank you. By the time I need to rebuild again, hopefully Microsoft will have the kinks worked out of Vista, and we'll see.

Collapse -
Xp is fine for me
by Irene1956 / February 3, 2006 10:20 PM PST

When I bought my PC it had the dreadful Me operating system, so I upgraded to Xp a couple of years ago. I use my PC mainly for desk top publishing, letters, the odd, but not horendously complex, spreadsheet, and other assorted bits and pieces. I enjoy playing games like Scrabble and Rummi, so don't need anything that can cope with super fast 3D action games. The machine is about 6 years old now, but it does exactly what I need it to do, so why the heck should I even consider an upgrade ???

Collapse -
Not me either
by WilliamKazak / February 2, 2006 11:59 PM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

What is the point? It takes Microsoft a year or more after an new OS release to "get it right".I am not a tester for Bill Gates or Microsoft.
Others can "run to their slaughter" but not me!

Collapse -
Not me either
by megina / February 28, 2007 7:55 AM PST
In reply to: Not me either

Oh yes I did purchased brand new beautiful laptop with WISTA already installed. 3 day later it was back in the store (unbelievable happy I got my money back)and now I do more enjoy my Windows EX on my 2 year old system.

Collapse -
Until I am more or less forced into it, I won't
by jayfin / February 3, 2006 12:28 AM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

XP serves me well and most of my friends still are using Win98. I don't buy something just because it is new as evidenced by the fact that my automobile is over 30 years old. (1974 Dodge - no computer parts). I have been tempted to move to Linux but it is hard to teach this old dog new tricks.

Jayfin

Collapse -
Same Here...
by R.Frisch / February 3, 2006 2:07 PM PST

I personally attended the Windows XP launch in Denver on October 25, 2001, and have been happy with it ever since then. I haven't run into too many bugs, and this has been the most stable version of windows (I HATE Windows Me) I have ever used. Also the most useful and intuitive. I've probably learned to use only about 10% of the gratuitous features of XP, and feel no need to upgrade at this time. Maybe when I can't find any new programs to run on XP, then I will upgrade.....Currently using my personally built Asus A8v Deluxe, AMD Athlon64 4000+, 1gig pl3200, ATI 9800pro 128mb.......love XP on this system....hmm, maybe I should upgrade to WindowsXP 64?

Collapse -
I agree
by kshields / February 4, 2006 6:29 AM PST

I just bought a Media Center PC a few months ago and haven't come close to paying it off yet. It works fine for my purposes, so why should I switch to a new OS just because it's new?

Collapse -
More reasons not to than to do it
by Evan Da Mofo / February 3, 2006 7:00 AM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

As far as i can see Vista is all about taking true control of your computer away from you. I am infuriated by this and will not upgrade until i have too, several years away.

Collapse -
Very much agree...
by drkriley / February 3, 2006 10:27 AM PST
In reply to: No reason to.

I have upgraded severl systems/laptops to the next higher version of Windows, and have never been satisfied with the performance afterward...a Win95 runs monstrously slow with Win98, a Win98 hesitates very greatly with WinXP. Granted, both of these are old with 100 to 400 MHz processors, but since my current desktop is 666 MHz and runs fine with XP, WHY UPGRADE???? And the laptop I just got last year, with WinXP TabletPC isn't going to change just because "Mr. Bill"'s guys have made a new version...KJR

Collapse -
Already upgraded...
by Bingohanz / February 2, 2006 6:05 PM PST

...to SuSE Linux, thank you.

Collapse -
After it's been out for a while
by sstalcup / February 2, 2006 6:05 PM PST

I may install it on a backup computer, but it won't go on my main home computer until after the first service pack is out, and after I ensure all of the manufacturers have drivers updated for Vista.

Collapse -
I'm with you
by johe110 / February 2, 2006 10:11 PM PST

Yes, I'll wait but probably until service pack 2 comes out. This is usually the biggest change and historically has been the last big change to previously released versions of Windows. I'm currently running Windows XP MCE and am satisfied with it so there's no hurry to change. I doubt I'll be buying a new computer for another 2 years since this one is only a year old and with a 3.6 ghz processor, 2gb RAM and 500gb hard drive I'm pretty much set to wait until Service Pack 2.

Collapse -
No way...
by thegrindre / February 2, 2006 6:11 PM PST

XP is just fine. I'm not going through all the crap I went through with XP on another OS, NO WAY! Period!

Collapse -
My apps won't be compatible
by rta53 / February 2, 2006 7:15 PM PST
In reply to: No way...

I use industrial control applications that typically aren't compatible with a new Windows OS. It usually takes a year for them to be up to snuff.

Collapse -
I don't need this system for a long time
by sanperyaq / February 2, 2006 9:20 PM PST
In reply to: No way...

Win XP it's cool, and it sufficient to my client's in my Cyber-Coffe, and, the mayor part of my clients, don't know XP yet! (only IE6 and...).
Of course, they are some minority but, except me and the 10% of my clients, the rest don't need XP or Vista to check-up e-mail's messages.

Sorry for my english, i talk Spanish

GO XP, GO GO GO

Collapse -
I am sorry I installed XP
by toysys / February 4, 2006 4:03 AM PST
In reply to: No way...

There is NO WAY I would ever upgrade my OS again (unless it's with Linux). My main computer and server is running 2K Pro. It has been up for 8 years and has not missed a beat (not even during the hurricanes this and last year thanks to a UPS and generator). My XP machine has been a nightmare since day 1. It crashes big time at least once per week. It is totally unstable (and I have never had a Virus or Trojan). It continually removes entries from the registry (on it's own) and has generally been a pain in my ***. If it was not a laptop that came with XP installed it would not be there. Unfortunately all the special functions for the laptop are integrated in the OS (thanks Compaq!) Microsoft can take a long walk off a short pier.

Collapse -
Just getting used to XP
by jinglerock / February 5, 2006 1:40 PM PST
In reply to: No way...

After having to get a faster computer in order to do anything online, I have been making friends with XP for almost a year. I don't really like it that much. I really, really miss Win98, which is what I was using up until April 2004.

Collapse -
Insatlling Windows Vista-No way
by dan822 / February 2, 2006 6:32 PM PST

No way, I am happy with XP , after it has been out for a year R so I will install it if it has proven it can do the job

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
icon
Laptops 19,436 discussions
icon
Security 30,426 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
icon
Windows 10 360 discussions
icon
Phones 15,802 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

Tech explained

Do you know what an OLED TV is?

CNET explains how OLED technology differs from regular TVs, and what you need to know to make the right shopping decision.