How many will buy Vista when its released?

Post by **cooled** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:16 am

Im hoping that this will not wind up like windows ME, it seems that until january there might be a nice amount of windows updates.

Post by **Gillian** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:52 pm

I don't buy it too. My computer is too old :arrow:

Post by **Windows NT** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:46 am

I will buy a system builder version of Windows Vista Home Basic I think.

Post by **Vista Ultimate R2** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:00 am

Windows NT wrote:I will buy a system builder version of Windows Vista Home Basic I think.

I really wouldn't bother with Home Basic if I was you - it offers very little that XP doesn't. Get Home Premium at least

Post by **nazgul909** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:22 am

It seems that Vista has become more of a "Do you have a CD key?" thing. The software itself seems very easy to obtain but Microsoft seems quite confident about deterring piracy. But who knows?

As for me, I'm not sure if I want to leave XP or not. From my experiences, Vista is a HUGE resource hog.

Post by **___** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:45 pm

Windows NT wrote:I will buy a system builder version of Windows Vista Home Basic I think.

home basic is just xp with dx10

Post by **Windows NT** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:56 pm

Sure, but I'm not using XP, so Vista will be a good OS for me.

Post by **Gnome** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:08 am

im not going to bye windows vista whats wrong with xp pro/home

Post by **Windows NT** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:12 am

I don't like its graphical icons like the new windows logo, the new in Vista is better, but not so good like the Win95 one.

Post by **empireum** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:13 am

I have to agree here. XP's icons just look childish and unprofessional, but the Longhorn/Vista ones are nice, clean, sleek and much more professional.

Post by **Vista Ultimate R2** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:43 am

empireum wrote:I have to agree here. XP's icons just look childish and unprofessional, but the Longhorn/Vista ones are nice, clean, sleek and much more professional.

Definitely - the XP icons fit in with the whole child's toy theme that seems to run throughout the whole of XP. XP is a really good OS, it's such a shame that they made the interface look like it was designed for 3 year olds, as so many people seem to just use the default theme and wallpaper and everything! I've actually removed pretty much every XP-style icon from my XP, I dislike them so much, by ResHacking shell32.dll, all the Control Panel applets, and the icons on the Explorer toolbars that are in shell32.dll. I use mostly Vista-style icons, with a few OS X ones, for example:

In some ways, I actually prefer my tricked-out XP Explorer (without that huge bar that is down the left hand side of the Explorer windows by default, of course) to the Vista one. My Start Menu certainly has better icons than the shoddy mess of inconsistent, mainly old-style, icons in Vista's Classic Start Menu, as well as a proper resolution image up the left-hand side!

Post by **empireum** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:58 am

Yes, I agree, your XP looks really pretty. I have many XPize/Vista/MacOSX icons integrated into my XP install as well. For some time, I have also used "Inexperience", which replace all the XP-style graphics and icons with the ones from Windows 2000, which were better than the XP ones IMHO. But as that began to cause more and more trouble, I stopped using it and began to use icons that I'd downloaded from many free icon sites, but many were in a Mac style. Now that Macs are my primary machines, I fortunately don't have to care about my icons anymore...

Post by **Vista Ultimate R2** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:04 am

empireum wrote:Now that Macs are my primary machines, I fortunately don't have to care about my icons anymore...

Very true I think we can definitely conclude something from comparing the number of Windows users that do everything they can to make XP look as much like a Mac as possible, while the number of Mac users working to make OS X look like Windows is very very small indeed

Another good thing about Mac icons also seems to be that 3rd party programs for OS X also always have beautiful icons that look good at any size, while a lot of Windows programs are still produced with really horrible Win95 icons, both as their shortcut icon and in the dialogs inside the application, which look absolutely awful if you use the Tiles view in XP. Somehow a program just couldn't get away with low-res icons on OS X, but no-one seems to care about bad icons for Windows programs. It really annoys me as some of them are so ugly!

Post by **empireum** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:11 am

Very true Smile I think we can definitely conclude something from comparing the number of Windows users that do everything they can to make XP look as much like a Mac as possible, while the number of Mac users working to make OS X look like Windows is very very small indeed Wink

Yes, that does tell us something. I wouldn't ever want to make my OS X look like Windows, be it XP or Vista. But I really love the FlyakiteOSX transformation pack.

Another good thing about Mac icons also seems to be that 3rd party programs for OS X also always have beautiful icons that look good at any size, while a lot of Windows programs are still produced with really horrible Win95 icons, both as their shortcut icon and in the dialogs inside the application, which look absolutely awful if you use the Tiles view in XP. Somehow a program just couldn't get away with low-res icons on OS X, but no-one seems to care about bad icons for Windows programs. It really annoys me as some of them are so ugly!

You're taking the words out of my mouth. Every Mac OS X program, even the smallest freeware, has a (more or less) bearable and beautiful icon. But some Windows programs' icons look like they were written in 1995. Even in Vista, some (system) icons will be destroyed to pixel monsters if you increase your display's DPI.

Post by **Vista Ultimate R2** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:42 am

empireum wrote:Even in Vista, some (system) icons will be destroyed to pixel monsters if you increase your display's DPI.

A lot of the icons in the Windows and System32 folders are still the 95 versions, even on Vista, and so look pretty terrible even in Small Icons mode, let alone the equivalent of Tiles on XP.

I even found the old Progman icon from Windows 3.1 in there - it's the icon for the grpconv.exe program, which is for converting Progman program groups to Start Menu Programs entries - it was presumably used when you upgraded from 3.1 to an Explorer-based version of Windows as it would carry over your old Progman shortcuts, and I've also noticed it run during a clean install of 9x versions (for some reason the Programs menu seemed to be built as Progman groups first and then converted) - quite why that program ships with Vista I don't know! Quite a few of the old 3.1 programs that come with XP have gone in Vista though eg progman.exe itself, WinChat, Packager all seem to have gone.

Post by **idontknow** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:53 am

I won't be getting Vista! Not when my computer gets an experience rating of 1...
I have the betas though.

Post by **empireum** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:55 am

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:I even found the old Progman icon from Windows 3.1 in there - it's the icon for the grpconv.exe program, which is for converting Progman program groups to Start Menu Programs entries - it was presumably used when you upgraded from 3.1 to an Explorer-based version of Windows as it would carry over your old Progman shortcuts, and I've also noticed it run during a clean install of 9x versions (for some reason the Programs menu seemed to be built as Progman groups first and then converted) - quite why that program ships with Vista I don't know! Quite a few of the old 3.1 programs that come with XP have gone in Vista though eg progman.exe itself, WinChat, Packager all seem to have gone.

This made me think of an interesting idea: Running the Windows 3.x (or maybe better the one of a newer version of Windows) Program Manager and File Manager on Vista I'll probably take the one shipped with NT4 SP6a...

@idontknow
Out of interest: What system were/are you running Vista on?

Post by **idontknow** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:18 am

I was running Vista RC2 on a 3 year old laptop.

Intel Centrino 1.4Ghz
27GB Hard Drive
768mb RAM
and...
ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 32mb Vram

The drivers for that graphic card causes a blue screen when running DirectX. For some really weird reason it was able to run a performance rating once, even though it always caused a blue screen.

Post by **___** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:55 am

that would be why you get the 1.

I agree with the icons, they should have changed all of them. It is these small things that make the user enjoy using Vista/Windows

Post by **Stevey** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:31 am

I don't think I will use Vista for some time, If I do I will use Home Premium

Post by **Ralan** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:39 am

Ill get a system builder version of home premium update.

Post by **AnDrEwP182** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:30 am

I MIGHT update to Vista. (Buy, NO!)

Post by **CE0311** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:48 am

I'm going to buy it! Even if it costs 550€...

Post by **seamus94** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:30 pm

I am planning to get Windows Vista and dual-boot it with Windows XP.

Post by **___** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:03 pm

i was going to do that, but it takes up too much space