Anyone considering the upgrade to Windows Vista?[views:6351][posts:49]_________________________________________ [Jan 31,2007 1:34pm - DreamingInExile ""] if you're not a pirate, and looking to buy a copy of Vista Ultimate Edition, consider getting an OEM copy, it's almost $200 cheaper then the retail box version. http://www.softwaremedia.com/product/2962.html as opposed to: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?sk...&type=product&cp=1&id=1158317974609 |
| __________________________________ [Jan 31,2007 3:19pm - SteveOTB ""] Yeah I don't trust OEM copies anymore. My Adobe Photoshop here at work stopped working. It kept freezing on the opening screen so what did I do? I took the necessary steps to fixing it by researching the problem through Adobe and try to fix it. So I fixed it and then it says to me "I need to re-register because the settings were changed" I was like "ok that's fine, I've done this at home before no problem". So I tried re-registering it and it came up as "invalid serial number" everytime so I called Adobe up and they said "we don't have that serial number on file" turns out that my boss is a cheap ass who buy programs through OEM so I tried contacting the company to get a new serial number and found out they were out of business. So I told me boss, he went crazy on me from 3pm-8pm, and gave me a pay cut...never again. |
| ___________________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:04am - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] DO YOU HEAR THAT PEOPLE? OEM SOFTWARE = PAY CUTS! |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:08am - RichHorror ""] I like ice cream. |
| __________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:11am - FuckIsMySignature ""] Only if it supports Skynet. |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:12am - Messerschmitt ""] no |
| _______________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:14am - Granny_Monster ""] RichHorror said:I like ice cream. Yeah? Well, I LOVE ice cream! |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:15am - RichHorror ""] It's on like Red Dawn. |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:17am - the_reverend ""] I will at some point. would need a new computer. |
| ________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:35am - DreamingInExile ""] the_reverend said:I will at some point. would need a new computer. same here... it's going to cost me a fortune to upgrade though, since I'm a gamer, I'd need a DX10 video card, anf the only ones out now are the GeForce 8800 series, and they're around $600 currently... on top of that, I'd need a new PCI-Express motherboard, which requires getting a new Processor and Ram, another SATA HDD (since most new motherboards only have one IDE channel), a new power supply (mine's old) and a new case (seeing that I put my foot through the front of my other case the other night) so, to upgrade to Vista, it's going to cost me $1500+ for a new box, then another $200 for the OS... fucking figures |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:38am - the_reverend ""] get one SATA hd and then USB for the IDE drives. ez pz. |
| ________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:48am - DreamingInExile ""] the_reverend said:get one SATA hd and then USB for the IDE drives. ez pz. well, yeah, the IDE's that I have (2x 60GB and 1x 40GB) will be moved to my Linux box. I've got a WD Raptor SATA drive now, I'm probably going to get 2 new ones and run them RAID 0 (I back up everything onto my External once every two weeks (manually, I need an automated program to do this, any suggestions?) and once a month I burn a backup of my backup to DVD. I also know that SATA ROM drives are starting to trickle into the market, and I may consider going with those, as long as theyre not super exensive and work better then standard IDE ROM drives. I'm going to be picking out my new case soon, and starting to get components slowly, so by the time I'm ready to upgrade to a DX10 card, they may be affordable... HAHAHAHAHA |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 9:53am - the_reverend ""] 2 60 and 1 40? what year are you living in? 2000? damn... SATA SSD's is that what you are talking about? ROM would make much sense to use. as far as an auto-back up, all you need in the linux world is rsync. in the windows world, microsoft synctoys. and crossing linux to windows and vice versa, um.. Unison? |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 10:25am - DreamingInExile ""] the_reverend said:2 60 and 1 40? what year are you living in? 2000? no, those are just idle storage drives in my box right now. (backups, art, videos, software) I keep my OS on my 120GB SATA drive. the 40 is sitting on my desk right now, not plugged in. but, like I said, it's time for an upgrade >:] |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 10:37am - the_reverend ""] you are just wasting energy, asshat. get 1 500GB SATA drive ($150 @ newegg) and keep those old drives turned off. 10w for 500GB or 30w for 180GB. |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 10:45am - DreamingInExile ""] I don't pay for electricity, it's included in my rent... asshat... (not that you'd know that, but I felt like calling you an asshat :-P ) I'm still up in the air over what I'm doing as far as storage still. like I said, I'm only going to be getting parts sloooowly (over the next few months) drives are #4 on my list of parts to buy (Case & PS are #1, Motherboard & CPU are #2 & #3) |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 10:52am - the_reverend ""] way to kill the environement, asshat. just cause you can shit every where doesn't mean you should. |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 10:55am - DreamingInExile ""] :-P so, I'm guessing you'd be opposed to me getting 1KW power supplies for all the computers in my house? haha, no, in all seroiusness, I'm looking to cut overall typical power consumption in my new PC so when I game, and things come under a heavy load, I have ample power above and beyond what I need for remedial tasks to overcompensate for power demand. |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 11:02am - toothy ""] fucking hippies |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 11:05am - the_reverend ""] 1kw for a computer that only pulls 300w is wicked inefficient. you want to run as close to you ps's rating as possible. I want to run all mobile chips at home to keep idling machines on the power downlow. |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 11:11am - DreamingInExile ""] the_reverend said:1kw for a computer that only pulls 300w is wicked inefficient. you want to run as close to you ps's rating as possible. yeah, this is very true, I was completely joking about runnign a 1KW power supply (not only for inefficiency, but they're like insanely expensive as well). I do need to float somewhere around the 500watt mark though, as most of nVidia's top end gaming cards require at least a 430. the_reverend said:I want to run all mobile chips at home to keep idling machines on the power downlow. I'd do that, but like I said I'm a gamer and the mobile CPU's aren't quite enough for high end gaming. if my wife dosen't gets a PC insted of a laptop (which I doubt she will) I'd build it with one of the mobile chips (she dosen't do all that much with her computer, just stuff for work and a little surfing. |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 11:15am - the_reverend ""] hm.. play doom on your iPod and eat shit. |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 11:21am - DreamingInExile ""] if I had doom on my ipod, I would play it all the time... I'll save the poop eating for this lucky individual: [img] |
| __________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 11:41am - thegreatspaldino ""] I have a few things to share with you. 1. Vista upgrades require the presence of XP or 2000. This will make disaster recovery hard because not only do you have to reinstall Vista, but you also have to reinstall XP. This is a change from previous versions witch require a valid license key. Source: Slashdot 2. Michael Geist, a professor of law at the University of Ottowa, has this to say about the fine print: On the EULA Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge. During the installation process, users "activate" Vista by associating it with a particular computer or device and transmitting certain hardware information directly to Microsoft. Even after installation, the legal agreement grants Microsoft the right to revalidate the software or to require users to reactivate it should they make changes to their computer components. In addition, it sets significant limits on the ability to copy or transfer the software, prohibiting anything more than a single backup copy and setting strict limits on transferring the software to different devices or users. On software and Windows Defender Vista also incorporates Windows Defender, an anti-virus program that actively scans computers for "spyware, adware, and other potentially unwanted software." The agreement does not define any of these terms, leaving it to Microsoft to determine what constitutes unwanted software. Once operational, the agreement warns that Windows Defender will, by default, automatically remove software rated "high" or "severe," even though that may result in other software ceasing to work or mistakenly result in the removal of software that is not unwanted. For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights." For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software." On HD-DVD and Blu-Ray playback Last December, Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand released a paper called "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection." The paper pieced together the technical fine print behind Vista, unraveling numerous limitations in the new software seemingly installed at the direct request of Hollywood interests. Guttman focused primarily on the restrictions associated with the ability to play back high-definition content from the next-generation DVDs such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (referred to as "premium content"). He noted that Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of premium content when played on most computer monitors. Guttman's research suggests that consumers will pay more for less with poorer picture quality yet higher costs since Microsoft needed to obtain licences from third parties in order to access the technology that protects premium content (those licence fees were presumably incorporated into Vista's price). Moreover, he calculated that the technological controls would require considerable consumption of computing power with the system conducting 30 checks each second to ensure that there are no attacks on the security of the premium content. Microsoft responded to Guttman's paper earlier this month, maintaining that content owners demanded the premium content restrictions. According to Microsoft, "if the policies [associated with the premium content] required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs." While that may be true, left unsaid is Microsoft's ability to demand a better deal on behalf of its enormous user base or the prospect that users could opt-out of the technical controls. Source" Toranto Star via Slashdot 3. If you are a small business in the UK, Microsoft will come after you if they think you are pirating their software, and having an origonal disks, licensing, and even the box won't be enough. Source: Slashdot |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:06pm - DreamingInExile ""] I <3 slashdot |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:29pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] thegreatspaldino said:This will make disaster recovery hard because not only do you have to reinstall Vista, but you also have to reinstall XP. This is a change from previous versions witch require a valid license key. I've used XP Pro upgrade discs and all they make you do is chuck in an XP or 2Kpro disc when they ask during the install. No previous install or key validation required. |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:32pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] thegreatspaldino said:or to require users to reactivate it should they make changes to their computer components That's the same with XP. |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:35pm - DreamingInExile ""] menstrual_sweatpants_disco said:thegreatspaldino said:or to require users to reactivate it should they make changes to their computer components That's the same with XP. unless you have a volume licensed edition of XP :shocker: |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:38pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] thegreatspaldino said:Last December, Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand released a paper called "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection." The paper pieced together the technical fine print behind Vista, unraveling numerous limitations in the new software seemingly installed at the direct request of Hollywood interests. Guttman focused primarily on the restrictions associated with the ability to play back high-definition content from the next-generation DVDs such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (referred to as "premium content"). He noted that Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of premium content when played on most computer monitors. I don't know why this guy is badmouthing Vista for the restrictions within HDCP. It's going to be the new standard within HDDVD and BD titles. Microsoft is giving the user an option to watch an HDCP protected movie by adding support for it in Vista. |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:42pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] DreamingInExile said:menstrual_sweatpants_disco said:thegreatspaldino said:or to require users to reactivate it should they make changes to their computer components That's the same with XP. unless you have a volume licensed edition of XP :shocker: Yeah but you usually only run into that issue if you're deploying images to multiple machines. Wouldn't you run sysprep in that case anyway? |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 1,2007 12:44pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] Wait, are you saying that doesn't happen (the "I see your hardware has changed, time to re-activate" thing) if you have a corp key for XP? I may have read that wrong. |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 27,2007 7:44pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] [img] |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 27,2007 8:26pm - hungtableed ""] I just upgraded to XP. WTF. |
| _____________________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 10:32am - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] I've been dual booting between XP and Vista. I mostly always use XP but fuck around with Vista occasionally. Even with Aero turned off, windows classic theme enabled, and all of the bells and whistles disabled in performance options (like gay animated window rollups and dumb fading shit when you minimize windows (all the shit I disable in XP)), it still runs so fucking slow. My physical memory usage is always like 800MB or above and the CPU is always hovering around 60%, even when I'm idle. If I open an IE window or something the CPU always stays cranked at 100%. Seeings how Vista is offering me nothing that XP doesn't already have, that's kind of lame. |
| ________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 11:14am - watchmaker666 ""] bloatware |
| ___________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 11:16am - largefreakatzero ""] No upgrading yet. I just bought my wife a new Sony laptop, and I made sure to get one with XP, not Vista. The way I look at it, is you never buy the first model year of a new car -- they need a year to get the bugs out. |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 1:29pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] Probably not a bad way to look at it. |
| _________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 2:15pm - metal_church101 ""] I am staying with Windows XP for as long as I can. |
| __________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 2:18pm - sinistas ""] I installed a third-party sidebar app, and I'm sticking with that. Fuck Vista. |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 2:23pm - the_reverend ""] I will.. but I'm going to need a quantum processor first. seeing as the only quantum processor is currently 16bits.. I'm going to need a few billion more first. |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 4:58pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] I couldn't help but think with this "Fuck Vista" attitude I've had recently, that I've been acting like those douche bag holier-than-thou fuckers who refuse to update to XP and swear by Windows 2000 Professional. I've remembered an important fact, though. I didn't suffer a dramatic performance decrease with virtually nothing to gain otherwise when I switched from 2kpro to XP. I liked 2kpro a lot, but 2kpro had a lot of software compatibility issues. XP seemed to solve those problems, was virtually the same as 2kpro in all the areas I liked, and even added easier driver handling and other administrative tidbits. Now that I remember those facts, I can go back to my previous attitude. Fuck those diehard win2kpro douche bags. |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 6:09pm - the_reverend ""] I didn't want to chnge to 95 from 3.11 cause "i had to have Dos!" win95 runs around 32mb of ram win98/me runs around 64mb of ram win2K runs around 128mb of ram. winxp runs around 256mb of ram. vista runs around 512mb of ram. notice a trend? |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 6:20pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] are you sure about that 512 number? I have a gig of RAM and I'm using the vast majority of it even when idling. |
| __________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 8:41pm - dertoxia ""] vista runs best with 4GB of ram |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 8:59pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] haha I'm sure you're serious too |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 9:11pm - the_reverend ""] the minimum for vista is 512MB |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 9:11pm - the_reverend ""] XP doesn't use more than 1GB well. |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 9:13pm - the_reverend ""] I have 2 computers with 2GB and 1 with 3gb and when you get over 1.1GB, they all start swapping like crizzazzzy |
| __________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 9:17pm - dertoxia ""] http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011523 |
| ____________________________________________________ [Feb 28,2007 9:28pm - menstrual_sweatpants_disco ""] the_reverend said:I have 2 computers with 2GB and 1 with 3gb and when you get over 1.1GB, they all start swapping like crizzazzzy What do you mean? It starts thrashing to the disk? |