Vista arriving 2007

[unit731]

Microsoft gets official on Vista versions

Posted Jun 27th 2006 8:26AM by Thomas Ricker

Filed under: Desktops, Laptops

 

Ok, we've finally got the real poop on those Microsoft Vista releases. Instead of 8 versions, there will be 6, with three of those for home users, two for business, and one for emerging markets. Oh, and they're required to release a couple of European versions too without that pesky Windows media player. So actually, it's pretty much what we already told you, eh? Anyway, Microsoft likes to point out that XP already ships in 6 flavas with Vista versions organized by what people plan to do with their computer, not what kind of hardware they have. So, here's the official rundown:

 

Vista Starter -- Streamlined version meant for low-powered PCs in developing nations.

 

Vista Home Basic -- For those content to browse the web, use email, and create and edit basic documents from their PC. Includes destop search and security tools.

 

Vista Home Premium -- Includes everything in Basic but also includes the Aero graphical interface, Media Center functionality, and ability to connect to Xbox 360. The version most of us will own at home.

 

Vista Business -- The basic version for companies of all sizes with tools to help organizations manage their PCs.

 

Vista Enterprise -- Includes everything in the basic business version with improved encryption and BitLocker system to keep data from being read on a stolen computer.

 

Vista Ultimate -- All the features of Home and Business in one.

[New Petchburi Pete]

Unit,

 

I'd like to personally thank you for all the info you've taken the time to email me about the new Vista OS. I'm praying that my hunk of junk lasts until I can get a new PC (screw the laptop!) with the new OS pre-loaded (genuine version of course!).

 

Oh, with respect to my copy of XP, MS finally identified it as not being genuine ... shame on that vendor! And I thought he was an honest man. However, it still automatically downloaded and installed Service Pack 3 for MS Office a day or two back. No more manual downloads though

[SoiledCowboy]

Better update my hard-drive now to 868,000 terrabytes in anticipation...

[OCgringo]

I always wonder why people want the newest from Microsoft ,

Its always filled with bugs , overloaded with features you will never use , but cannot get rid of ,

and takes too much hard drive space and memory to run,

 

Whatever I am using now works fine and does not crash (often) , why would I want to change and have problems ?

 

OC

[SoiledCowboy]

I agree, bring back DOS 6.2, it worked perfectly well and played some awesome games like Space Invaders...

But I realise what you are saying though and agree totally...a spruced-up and modern Windows 3.1 wouldn't be that much different in day-to-day use than the all god-faring Vista? It's all about marketing and the need to continually entice customers with the latest and greatest, like mobile phone models...it blows me that MS current revenue is $2 BILLION a month...that's a lot of cash registers ringing and a lot of pressure to keep them ringing...and then there's the frequent hardware updates (throw your PC away every three years)to be able to run the latest O/S...

[unit731]

Reminds me of my elderly neighbor. His old 1970's wagon finally rusted too much to be on road. He went and purchased two other vintage 1970's Ford wagons. One had a front end accident, the other a rear end accident. He is having a body shop cut each in half and weld together the two good parts. Make one out of two. He doesn't like newer automobiles.

 

So, for the above, would you really prefer to drive - as primary mode of transportation - a 1920's Alvis or a 1920's Model T? And no, not just in parades.

 

Agreed, that some change is just marketing and the seeking of profits.

 

But XP is vastly superior to ME or 2000 or 98 or 95 or DOS.

 

And Vista will be vastly superior to XP. That is a fact.

 

But if one only uses a computer for email, view a few websites, and maybe a spreadsheet or two, the Windows 95 is perfect. There are plenty used for sale for cheap money.

 

Some people use a computer for more. Like pictures, movies, and music. Vista will be far superior for this.

 

There will always be nabobs of negativism and nihilists. Are you one of these?

 

Some people watch television with a mono built in speaker. Others watch television with a 7.1 surround home theater system. Both are watching television. Where would you rather be?

 

Granted, money flows more easily for some. Some live off a fixed income and every baht is counted. These people I respect the most as they grab the most out of live with the least.

 

Does this mean that everyone should run out and buy Vista? Of course not. But if you are in the market for a computer to replace your old tired still working one, I would wait until Vista is released.

 

 

[mattwasp]

Indeed.

 

Microsoft *do* know what they're doing. It certainly is hard to see from the consumer point of view though, especially when the operating systems people use 'appear' to be so similar. i.e. "It looks like windows 95 with a few more bells and whistles"

 

Sadly the internet is largely populated with anti-capitalist linux sandal wearers, so the popular view is that 'Micro$oft' (I hate that label) are an evil multinational.

 

I'm not sure, but I'd guess that most of their revenue comes from business, especially the server platforms and associated support contracts. For the consumer market though, surely we can't deny them the luxury of marketing?

 

No, I don't work for Microsoft by the way.

[carlton68]

unit,

 

'But XP is vastly superior to ME or 2000 or 98 or 95 or DOS.'

 

That's right for ME and 98 and 95 and DOS. I disagree for Win 2000. Win XP is an slightly improved and more colorful version of Win 2000. Nothing less, but nothing more.

Best indicator for this are countless companies who decided not to upgrade from Win 2000 to Win XP. The improvement wasn't be worth the money.

 

'And Vista will be vastly superior to XP. That is a fact.'

 

Bold words. I thought that Vista is still in beta status. I'll wait for the finished product and what experts will say about it. From the tests in various computer magazines I get that Vista is improved against XP. But the only thing that deserves the expression 'vastly increased' is hardware requirements.

 

The programs I use for movies, pictures and music actually don't care if they run on Win 2000, Win XP or Vista. They just do their job, and better than the progs that come with Windows. I'd prefer when M$ would put more manpower in the Operating System and leaves the applications to the ones who know how to do it. M$ won't be involved in so many lawsuits as well. Plus we won't have to deal with less proprietary file formats.

 

There is one reason why I will possibly upgrade from XP to Vista: 64-bit support and driver support from hardware manufacturers.

That would be a major improvement from Win XP.

[cavanami]

I have been mostly working with Sunsoft UNIX for the past 20 years.

Very stable with features that MS still has "stolen" and this is a 20+ year old OS!

It does not have all the GUIs and graphics but it is dependable, not rebooting every few days. It runs for months/years without any rebooting.

 

What OS do they use at NASA for the space ships? This OS runs for years without rebooting. It is a flavor of UNIX not MS.

 

MS is working to get better but they have a ways to go before...IMO

[mattwasp]

Again, depends on the functionality needed really. They 'stole' from Apple too, and arguably Acorn too, but imitation is flattery don't you know!

There are huge advantages to Unix/Linux systems, especially - as you mentioned - uptime. The other is security, though I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying there have been as many vulnerabilities in *nix O/S as XP over the last year. I don't really want to get into a Unix/MS argument though as I really believe there's nothing to argue about! Both have their unique strengths.