Vista license revised!

PARUK · 2 Nov 2006 at 19:39

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/index.php?p=166&tag=nl.e589

Just as well too

Bony Maloney · 2 Nov 2006 at 19:42

csmager · 2 Nov 2006 at 19:44

So, it shows that moaning on a mass scale does have some affect!

I'm glad they've changed it, it was the only sticking point I had.

Thurrot's written about it too: http://www.windowsitpro.com/windows...rticleID/94117/windowspaulthurrott_94117.html

Cozman · 2 Nov 2006 at 20:08

still not convinced i will upgrade .. not just the re-installs but in general it looks like MS are gonna be twisting arms & strong handed tactics such as withdrawing support or making things less polished elsewhere

i know im sceptical by nature but ... FSX flight sim is a good example .. its actually not that much new tech in it yet it runs like its crippled and my gut feeling tells me that by some miracle the Vista patched version will be 'oh so much better' to encourage upgrades

think ill stick it out on x64 for as long as i can .. does what i wish it to do

Energize · 2 Nov 2006 at 21:13

Now all they need to do is remake it and it will be a good os instead of the bloatware that it is now.

Final8y · 2 Nov 2006 at 21:18

Energize said:
Now all they need to do is remake it and it will be a good os instead of the bloatware that it is now.

They will always add more bloat.

csmager · 2 Nov 2006 at 21:20

Final8y said:
They will always add more bloat.

Quite. Lets all go and use DOS 6.22. That used nearly no ram.

Things are added to make use of the resources available. Besides, Vista runs all my day to day stuff faster on my laptop than XP did.

Energize · 2 Nov 2006 at 21:25

Vista just made my games load slower as everything got paged to the hdd because it used 800mb ram. :rolleyes:

And it still doesn't offer anything extra for all that memory used that xp didn't.

csmager · 2 Nov 2006 at 21:39

Memory Management in Vista is far better than in XP. It only uses a large amount of memory because it has a large amount of memory available to use. Even back in earlier releases, this guy did a test on a PC with 512Mb RAM, and (surprise, surprise) the commit charge dropped considerably.

http://thelazyadmin.com/index.php?/archives/396-Mythbusting-Windows-Vista-Memory-Management.html

Energize · 2 Nov 2006 at 21:41

Still doesn't change the fact that using up loads of memory makes games take longer to load because of caching.

mark_t50 · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:01

This is great news for me. As someone who upgrades very often (usually every six months) I was really worried about the Vista license. I had decided not to bother with vista given the original terms. This obviously changes things and I'm sure I'll end up getting a retail copy when it's released

Final8y · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:28

csmager said:
Quite. Lets all go and use DOS 6.22. That used nearly no ram.

Things are added to make use of the resources available. Besides, Vista runs all my day to day stuff faster on my laptop than XP did.

I'm not complaining, its like most thing the more it does the more it needs.

gizmoy2k · 2 Nov 2006 at 23:52

Energize said:
Vista just made my games load slower as everything got paged to the hdd because it used 800mb ram. And it still doesn't offer anything extra for all that memory used that xp didn't.

Why dont you try waiting for FINAL nvidia driver instead of moaning about how a beta OS performs in games,

Give it a chance, the problems aint down to MS its down to nvidia. Iam already surprised that they dont have fully functional feature rich drivers for RC2, i can only hope they are available on final release. Same goes for creative. Besides if you think vista offers nothing extra why are you worried about how it performs, just keep using XP, Crysis wont look as cool but hey its your choice!

Also PES 6 plays flawlessly on vista

achitophel · 3 Nov 2006 at 00:09

I'm way behind the curve on this

Have to say that I'm still concerned that the OEM licence will be locked to one machine only. Anyone aware of them clarifying what one machine is, given the incremental upgrade route a lot of us take?

csmager · 3 Nov 2006 at 00:10

achitophel said:
I'm way behind the curve on this

Have to say that I'm still concerned that the OEM licence will be locked to one machine only. Anyone aware of them clarifying what one machine is, given the incremental upgrade route a lot of us take?

That's exactly the same as the rules for OEM versions of XP. MS appear to define motherboard = machine.

Bry · 3 Nov 2006 at 09:12

wow thatgs great news ill defo be buying home premium version now

Slam62 · 3 Nov 2006 at 09:13

and me, i really didnt expect this

bledd · 3 Nov 2006 at 10:05

all that shouting and screaming paid off lads, lol

stoofa · 3 Nov 2006 at 11:10

Energize said:
Now all they need to do is remake it and it will be a good os instead of the bloatware that it is now.

Yer, yer it's all bloat.
Yer, yer it's not worth upgrading to.
*Yawn*

achitophel · 3 Nov 2006 at 11:50

So, as a matter of interest, does that mean that people generally buy the retail version of the OS, on the basis that it will be cheaper in the long run? I know that the mobo is one of the least frequently upgraded parts, but even still, I'd expect to go through 3 - 4 mobos in a 5 - 6 year period (assuming Vista has the equivalent life of XP)