Reply to: You really want to buy Vista?

[Joe Black]

I think JB was being sarcastic.

Moi?...possibly, though I'd prefer to think an attempt at satire, in the same vain as Apple's "Hello I'm a Mac, hello I'm a PC and I'm dumb" ads.

"However, you get a lot more bundled software with OSX than with Windows and each upgrade tends to include newer versions of that software which, along with the fact the each release seems to run faster on older hardware (unlike Windows), actually makes it worthwhile paying for."

So, with a Mac there's a [paid] upgrade almost ever year, there's newer versions of existing software, but these are not available as a [free] download if you wish to keep your current version, but each upgrade does "seem" to run faster, unless of course you have a Mac from more than a few years ago, in which case you can't install the OS at all.

Maybe Vista is really OS X 10.6 in disguise...

[portseven]

All the 'new' features that Vista offers I've already had for the past 2 years in Linux / KDE without all the annoying sh1t.

I've never had a problem with drivers and considering I use my Linux box to drive my recording studio which is pretty demanding, I find no need to actually spend money on any Microshaft product.

Jump in here and froth at the mouth any time bogeyman.

Same here, Linux has been doing it for years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYgV2GlsufI

[marcus2704]

Ahh, that's a proper report.

So, from reading your post I see you've paid £130 for an updated GUI, some networking problems that you didn't have before, an HDD that is constantly churning (no doubt shortening its life), 800Mb of RAM used up just by running it, the requirement to upgrade hardware to watch HD content properly, and the inability to install it on a new machine should you wish to.

Bargain...

Yup, it looks nice though.

[Cowboy Bob]

Total cost over 5 years? About the same.

Total features added with the upgrade - a hell of a lot more. Which is the point I've been driving at all along. Added to which there's no such thing as a "home" edition of OSX, it's all the full version and is not restricted in anyway. It's a hell of a lot more expensive if you're talking about upgrading 5 "enterprise" licenses.

[DimPrawn]

Vista has a family license option. You buy one retail box and the family get a the home edition for about £40.

The Mac OS is cheaper argument is bollox.

Windows comes out every 5 years, and you pay one big fee upfront.

Mac OS upgrades come out every year and you pay a small fee to upgrade.

Total cost over 5 years? About the same.

[Cowboy Bob]

I must have missed a trick here because the latter major upgrades have cost me money! Approximately £100 a pop if I rightly remember.

I think JB was being sarcastic. However, you get a lot more bundled software with OSX than with Windows and each upgrade tends to include newer versions of that software which, along with the fact the each release seems to run faster on older hardware (unlike Windows), actually makes it worthwhile paying for.

It's also cheaper as well and has no activation so you can legitimately install the new OS onto a different machine (if you stop using it on the old machine), or you can buy a "family" license allowing the upgrade to be installed on up to 5 machines for considerably cheaper than the individual licenses.

[tim123]

A bit of a pain really. I suspect this is different in the business version of Vista, as the Ultimate one is geared towards home users the majority of which wont be using a domain.

The majority of which (including me) won't even know what a domain is.

tim

[OrangeHopper]

OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, look what you can get in just a few years, no upgrade costs, cheap as chips and each adds hundreds of new features which you would never find on Windows...and did I forget to mention, costs you absolutely nothing to upgrade and is fully backward compatible with all previous versions.

I must have missed a trick here because the latter major upgrades have cost me money! Approximately £100 a pop if I rightly remember.

Generally there have been half a dozen supposed new major features each time, not all of which have been of any use to me. In fact I have turned of the widget stuff altogether. Some of the freebies have also been removed and put into things like iLife.

All that said I will still be one of the first to buy 10.6 because I want to.

Vista looks good and is an improvement over XP on looks alone and in my book that makes for a better work environment considering the fact I sit in front of these things for at least 7 hours a day.

[Cowboy Bob]

Ahh, that's a proper report.

So, from reading your post I see you've paid £130 for an updated GUI, some networking problems that you didn't have before, an HDD that is constantly churning (no doubt shortening its life), 800Mb of RAM used up just by running it, the requirement to upgrade hardware to watch HD content properly, and the inability to install it on a new machine should you wish to.

Bargain...

[marcus2704]

I bought OEM 64 bit Vista Ultimate from OCUK for £130 odd inc P&P, its tied to whichever mobo its installed on so whilst I can happily change components like Ram, GFX card etc I can only install my OEM copy onto this one mobo. Not a problem if you have no intention of changing mobo, but it would be if you were wanting to update the mobo at a later date. In my case Im running it for the 28 days activation period so I can thoroughly test it on my rig before committing to activating it for this mobo.

So far so good, it is always confusing when everyday things get moved and options changed but Im used to the changes now.

I have a domain set up and my biggest annoyance is the removal of the traditional login box and the domain box is now gone. So I have to manually type DOMAINNAME\USERNAME and then enter password. If I want to log on as a different user, I need to click Switch User, select Other User and then do the above. A bit of a pain really. I suspect this is different in the business version of Vista, as the Ultimate one is geared towards home users the majority of which wont be using a domain.

With a A64 3500 and Geforce 7800GTX + 2GB ram I can barely run 1080p content now, this is probably the only real reason I would have for upgrading my mobo, ram and GFX card. It idles at 800Mb memory usage, and I hear the HDD churning away almost constantly. I was told it uses a silent defrag which could be the reason why. Other than that, it runs fine, and XP already seems a bit out of date, not to mention its a more mature 'adult' GUI by far.

[basshead]

If you're an MVP you can buy Vista Ultimate from the MS shop for $45 inc p&p

[expat]

You need Film Gimp (or CinePaint as it's been renamed) - http://www.cinepaint.org/ - which is used in post-production by the movie studios and can handle 8, 16 and 32 bit images. The core engine for this project is apparantly being moved over into the regular release of the Gimp in the near future.

I have been thinking about it but its feature set is different from the Gimp, so it looks like Cinepaint for initial 16-bit processing, then convert to 8-bit and go to Gimp. Which is probably not as bad as it sounds: I currently use PS7 and its support for 16-bit is limited, so I do levels in 16-bit and then convert to 8-bit.

AIUI Gimp might someday get 16-bit with GEGL and not the Cinepaint engine (which is C++ where Gimp is C, no?) but that's been coming for years, and won't be in 2.2, maybe in 2.4. My guess is not.

[Cowboy Bob]

I'll switch over to linux when the Gimp does 16-bit (or at least 12-bit). 8-bit images are just not enough for serious photography, at least from neg scans.

Until then it's Photoshop, which means Windows or Mac.

You need Film Gimp (or CinePaint as it's been renamed) - http://www.cinepaint.org/ - which is used in post-production by the movie studios and can handle 8, 16 and 32 bit images. The core engine for this project is apparantly being moved over into the regular release of the Gimp in the near future.

[expat]

All the 'new' features that Vista offers I've already had for the past 2 years in Linux / KDE without all the annoying sh1t.

I've never had a problem with drivers and considering I use my Linux box to drive my recording studio which is pretty demanding, I find no need to actually spend money on any Microshaft product.

Jump in here and froth at the mouth any time bogeyman.

I'll switch over to linux when the Gimp does 16-bit (or at least 12-bit). 8-bit images are just not enough for serious photography, at least from neg scans.

Until then it's Photoshop, which means Windows or Mac.

[Cliphead]

As I used to - with Studio To Go - though now I have my Mac I find GarageBand perfectly adequate for my needs, which incidentally came free with it.

Oh yes, STG is an excellent distro. I have to confess I do have a second box which I use for Sonar and Reason which I couldn't do without.

Other than that...