Soldato
I'm not gonna install it on my desktop to be honest. It has crippled my laptop... buggy and SLOW. XP works and I'm even thinking of putting 98/2000 on the laptop as a dual boot with linux.
Vista Prices on UK Pre-order here
- Thread starter gizmoy2k
- Start date
People like new things nothing wrong with that, if you can afford it why not!!!!!!!JonRohan said:
Same with hardware someit new comes along, its better, sleaker, faster, sexier, some people are designed that way so they want it..........
Was I the only one that found the Micro Mart max memory figure of 256MB to be highly ammusing ? No biggy, i'll no doubt upgrade as and when it's worth doing, same way I did with every OS since DOS came on 360k 5.25" disc's.
New features for Vista will gradually make it desirable to upgrade as will hardware support and eventually WMP/DX will cease and vista will become a hardware requirment. Working on £200 and 60 hours a week usage over 5 years I don't see just over 1p an hour being a high price to pay MS for it's services even at 3 years it's still only just over 2p ... That's without factoring in the 43,600 hours or so my PC will be running assuming 24/7 as that works out at 0.00458p over 5 years...
So come on who thinks 2p an hour is excessive over 3 years ?
New features for Vista will gradually make it desirable to upgrade as will hardware support and eventually WMP/DX will cease and vista will become a hardware requirment. Working on £200 and 60 hours a week usage over 5 years I don't see just over 1p an hour being a high price to pay MS for it's services even at 3 years it's still only just over 2p ... That's without factoring in the 43,600 hours or so my PC will be running assuming 24/7 as that works out at 0.00458p over 5 years...
So come on who thinks 2p an hour is excessive over 3 years ?
Just my personal view but wouldnt it be better if MS just went yearly subs ..
OK i know peeps aint gonna like that idea BUT .. i personally would rather pay £25-30 a year for an OS than £185 in one lump sum ... especially as you have no idea how long its gonna last
95-98-98se-ME-XP ... 2 or 3 years in past only XP has gone beyond and Vista already has its replacement penciled in
unless they say its gonna be 5 years definately before a new OS im not so willing to fork out on something that maybe replaced at any given time dependant on how MS feel
just IMO
OK i know peeps aint gonna like that idea BUT .. i personally would rather pay £25-30 a year for an OS than £185 in one lump sum ... especially as you have no idea how long its gonna last
95-98-98se-ME-XP ... 2 or 3 years in past only XP has gone beyond and Vista already has its replacement penciled in
unless they say its gonna be 5 years definately before a new OS im not so willing to fork out on something that maybe replaced at any given time dependant on how MS feel
just IMO
Avalon said:
You don't pay 2p an hour you pay all at once so it's hardly the same thing. If microsoft charged 2p an hour to use their os, no one would have a problem, but saving up for a large amount of money at once is completley different.
Energize said:
It isn't completely different at all.
It is a good way of showing just how cheap the OS actually is.
Far too many people use the argument about how expensive the OS is as their justification to thieve it.
However when you actually break it down, see how long you are likely to run the OS for, factor in the original price of the OS that you need (not neccessarily want) you see just how cheap Windows is.
I'm yet to see any argument about the "price" of the OS turn out to be anything more than a "I don't want to pay for it" argument - which at the end of the day just isn't a valid argument.
*Edit*
Here is a plan for you.
Buy Vista (if you decide to upgrade, remember nobody is forcing you to upgrade).
Get it home and install it.
Find yourself a jar and place 2p in it every hour you're using the OS.
Now, when the replacement for Vista is released you will have saved up enough money to just go out and buy it and you'll have done it at the cheap "per hour" rate.
Last edited:
I think they are out of order to leave the aero interface out of the cheapest version. I'm seriously considering skipping this version of Windows not just because of the rip-off price but because based on my experience of Vista so far, it's a load of crap anyway and its user interface is a big backwards step over XP.
I'm sure that although devastated to hear of your decision MS will learn to come to terms with it and muddle on the best they can...dirtydog said:
Personaly I still can't believe how much people spend on hardware round here and then whine about the price of an OS. A whole new OS lasting 5 years + for less than the price of your next Video card upgrade (which over 5 years you will probably do twice!). Bunch of cheapskates
Actually their share price dropped two points just after I postedAthanor said:I'm sure that although devastated to hear of your decision MS will learn to come to terms with it and muddle on the best they can...
You're talking to someone whose computer is of 2002/2003 vintagePersonaly I still can't believe how much people spend on hardware round here and then whine about the price of an OS. A whole new OS lasting 5 years + for less than the price of your next Video card upgrade (which over 5 years you will probably do twice!). Bunch of cheapskates
I have a Geforce4 video card, a P4 2.6C etc. For what I use the computer for, it is more than good enough. I would be prepared to spend say £60-75 on the Vista OEM equivalent of XP Home, if it wasn't horribly crippled as the cheapest version of Vista seems to be. The clincher is the awful user interface. Microsoft have really dropped the ball this time. For the first time ever, the outgoing OS is very reliable and (relatively) secure. Unlike when people were using Windows 98 on their home machines, there is no dire need to upgrade.
you may find a fair few try to miss Vista and skip to whatever follows
especially gamers
Quote
"Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP
MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP. It is because you have to load the 3D desktop all the time. It is ironic, as the same company tells the developers that the same API can do certain things up to four times faster"
i know it isnt vital to have a 3d desktop but thats what a lot will buy it for .. but to lose a fair percentage of performance because of it
.. dont know if it effects if disabled but can imagine still a hit on performance just having it all on the OS drive
quote from Inquirer .. apologies if an old point already made
especially gamers
Quote
"Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP
MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP. It is because you have to load the 3D desktop all the time. It is ironic, as the same company tells the developers that the same API can do certain things up to four times faster"
i know it isnt vital to have a 3d desktop but thats what a lot will buy it for .. but to lose a fair percentage of performance because of it
.. dont know if it effects if disabled but can imagine still a hit on performance just having it all on the OS drivequote from Inquirer .. apologies if an old point already made