What Would You Pay for Vista?

I would not pay a penny for Vista. I would buy only XP on a new PC at this point. This is because I could get a fairly low-end Dell laptop with XP again that will run as well for my uses as a high-mid-range Vista-based Dell laptop. Why would I want to pay so much to tread water?

I wouldn't get such a low-end laptop with Vista Basic (which is all such a machine could handle) as it would be a performance dog and so downfeatured as to be a humiliating and unsulting non-choice.

My current laptop is a humble Dell Inspiron 1150 with XP home Edition. It zips along with just 512 Megs RAM. The current equivalent Dell laptop with Vista would be a much lesser machine for the money factoring in Vista's hardware-punishing requirements AND the fact that Vita evidently doesn't run 16-bit software. Can Vista run DOS apps at all? XP can, folks.

MS should rename Vista to something like Tunnel Vision. given how it so constrains the buyer in terms of PC cost and compatibility hog-ties.

I still run MS QuickBASIC 4.5 through an XP "DOS" Window. And I know I can't run my beloved PageMaker 7.01 at all on Vista. And I don't want to upgrade from Acrobat 6 Pro just because of Vista, either.

I'm more likely to pay to NOT use Vista.

I've got to buy some Laptops for Work and I really don't want to be Supporting Windows Vista or Office 2007(?).

If need be, I'll spend extra money to get an XP Pro license and replace the OS with that.

Joe Wilcox
Tell me something anyone please !!
When you go to a store (any store) that is "CLOSING DOWN" are the prices as "normal" or are they ALL "discounted" ??
Joe does not state a thing about OTHER software brands and how much they are discounted, strange isn't it !!
WHY ?????
Why is it Joe that you have not stated that other software was also discounted as well ??
I live in Australia so I don't know what other brands they would have but surely they would have Adobe, Symantec, Intuit, etc.
And yet the way you put it CompUSA was only discounting Microsoft.

Currently I'd say I would never buy it or like Gavin, pay to avoid it. However, if they completely removed DRM crap and told hardware vendors they didn't have to support it at all I'd perhaps be a taker at say $50. I mean I'm taking a huge performance hit to run it just for DirectX 10 games (in my mind). I can't think of any other good reason to want this OS. There's nothing else in it that helps me if I have AV/Firewall/Router (same goes for a good business IT dept - If they do their jobs this crap is useless). These eliminate the need for any security crap in vista for home users. Don't count on MS to secure your PC buy the correct software/hardware to do it yourself!

I pick out the hardware vendors because all of them buckled to Microsoft's "toll booth charge" mentality (which RIAA/MPAA etc wanted, and since MS saw it could make profits, excessive DRM was built in to Vista). Vista is as bad as it is because drivers are a mess. Imagine being a hardware vendor who had to sign an agreement that stated DRM comes first and your drivers stability is second! No matter what! DRM is your most important objective Mr. Nvidia/ATI/AMD/Intel etc. Consequently almost nothing works stable. Nvidia can't even get their stuff to work. Every thing else is slow because it has to cope with DRM.

Vista probably wouldn't be bad if there wasn't this huge overhead sucking up CPU/GPU/Memory resources at every turn just trying to make sure you don't do something RIAA/MPAA don't like (most of which is/was legal under fair use laws, but if you have money you can pay off congress etc to make laws read the way you want them to). This isn't all MS's fault really. They're just capitalizing (eh, trying to...LOL) on extortionists money train.

I hope all hardware makers do the U-TURN Dell did recently. These stinking Vista stickers are not worth losing business. MS knows none of this stuff can be protected (cracks for it's own products hit the street before their software does). I know of nothing that hasn't been cracked (BlueRay comes to mind). Yet hardware makers who already have razor thin margins are being resource taxed to get this crap working. On top of that users are being taxed because MS bowed to RIAA/MPAA etc (albeit willingly no doubt as money was to be had). I have no problem with companies charging more for their property to protect it. But forcing vendors to shove crap drivers and disfunctional PC's at us for the same purpose should be illegal. Just charge more for your records/movies. Then I can decide to buy it at stupid prices or NOT.

Then again if you'd just produce a better product more people would buy it. Lets face it, 80% of new music/movies are utter trash. Vista in it's current state is trash. People are just responding accordingly. Vista sales are ..eh..trash..Just like music/movie sales unless we're talking the 20% thats worth owning. Reasonable prices help also. How many people do you know that have $400 for Vista Ultimate lying around? While dual core cpu's are going for $80 (uh, that's major price declines year after year netting way more for your $$) Microsoft continues to RAISE the price of their OS and make the cheap versions useless. Look at PS2 sales compared to PS3 (or any other console). They sold more than ANY next-gen console last month. I think it was 260,000 vs. 130,000 for PS2 vs. PS3. Why? Entertainment value is huge on PS2. Tons of cheap high quality games, and a console thats $130 that usually comes with games. PS3 is 3.5x the cost with NO games and then games usually run you 10-25% more than PS2. Look at Wii sales also. They sold 250,000 and generally have decent pricing on games also (not my kind, too kiddy for me to jump...Get more adult type games and I'd own one on top of my PS2). Sony killed the 20GB model just to charge more (they lose $70 less on the 60GB model so they killed the low-end). This will only punish their sales more.

I'm tired of ranting here and I think I've made my point. Good products sell. Bad or severely restrictive/overpriced products don't. XP PRO can be had in all its glory for $130 (roughly + a new Hard drive - last I checked MS wasn't forcing MB/CPU etc...just buy one of the three, tons of dealers let you out of the all 3 req.) while Vista in all it's crashing glory costs $400 + hardware costs and the customer gets a performance hit...LOL. Good luck with that.

I spent a couple hundred bucks on more ram so my ThinkPads could run Vista. Result? SLow as heck. Went back to XP, and now both machines are peppy and responsive.

I'll bet Microsoft is feeling some heat over this bomb.

Personally, I would not want to use Vista even if I got it for free. It's slow, requires a lot of memory to run, and it forces you to work with an administrator account unless you want to confirm everything a million times, and even then you are not safe. No problem at all on Linux.

If you want to use OpenGL applications, you need to switch off the new desktop features. It sends more data to Microsoft than ever.

They didn't manage to create a database-based file system in time, which BeOS had working ages ago. That Exposée meets CoverFlow rip-off for desktop windows is nowhere near as intuitive as the Apple original, nor does it work as well for giving you an overview over your desktop. They did manage to copy the gadgets thing, though, but not without taking away a big piece of screen for that sidebar.

I'll definitely stick with XP for now, but I'm switching to Linux or MacOS as soon as possible. I'm sick of Microsoft disrespecting my privacy. I'm sick of Microsoft making things slower, requiring more memory (how should we ever actually benefit from faster computers getting faster all the time if new versions of the operating system more than take away the additional power?). I'm sick of Microsoft trying to get users to update with bad rip-offs of other company's products. I'm sick of having to re-install my operating system (and thus all application) at least once every year since the system becomes unbearably slow for no apparent reason. I'm sick of Microsoft introducing new technologies that are as incompatible as possible with anything else. For example, .NET makes software very hard to port while pretending to be open. Moreover, Microsoft keeps introducing their own formats instead of supporting industry standard stuff (Apple uses OpenGL for the Desktop vs DirectX on the Microsoft side, Apple uses PDF for documents and graphics, while Microsoft started their own thing, everyone supports Flash, while Microsoft introduce their own format, shutting out other platforms and exploiting their market leadership, they are not really opening up the SMB and NTFS specifications, etc.)

NO THANKS!

MGO
You do not say how much RAM you had to start off with, and how much RAM you bought !
I operate Xp on 1 Gig of RAM !

> "But the store had scads of Windows Basic
> (aka Home Basic) upgrades which just weren't
> moving very fast, even at $59.95."

Maybe customers feel like they are being fooled. Others pay the real price overseas for XP Starter Edition: $3. Both Vista Home Edition and XP Starter Edition are 'teasers' intended to lock in the user and milk for cash later.

People can get GNU/Linux for free. It's better in every respect.

Thank you very much for yet another "AD" for Linux... Roy Loves SuSE.
There is of course one area none of you Linux devotees are willing to address and that is "ease of use" Linux ain't !!

As a UK citizen, I'd like to pay the same as a US citizen. Despite the exchange rate we are paying at nearly $1=£1. So we pay twice as much as you do.

Vista Premium uk is £200 which is $400 (or there abouts)

I'd jump at the chance to pay full retail US and get it for $239

I'd pay fifty pounds (almost one hundred dollars at current exchange rates!) to use Windows XP (Professional) instead of Vista Home Basic.

And I will be doing so when I buy my next PC, which is why I know the price.

The reason is simple. I already have to spend a weekend moving software and hardware from from machine to another. Spending a weekend before checking compatibility and downloading drivers doesn't appeal - suddenly, fifty quid seems like a bargain for getting a weekend back.

I wouldn't pay anything for Vista unless I had an absolute guarantee that all my software and hardware worked. No compromises - it just works.

If Vista had something really compelling to offer, then that might change. But it just doesn't. No feature in Vista is worth the pain and hassle of checking software and hardware compatibility, and potentially losing functionality after installing it.

That's why Vista isn't taking off on anything but OEM installs - it's too much hassle for not enough benefit.

After all, will Vista print your photos faster? (No.)
Will it help you write your documents better? (No.)
Will it make your web pages load faster? (No.)
Will it make your emails arrive faster? (No.)

The problem is that there are too many computers out there doing a couple of things well, and their owners are happy with that. The average computer buyer thinks in terms of writing letters or browsing the web or sending emails.

A geek like me won't move to Vista because thy know it's hassle.

An average consumer won't move because they don't know they'd need to.

PCs, despite being multi-function devices, are increasingly being used for just one or two things. And the function has become more important than the software, because the software is "good enough".

This is why OpenOffice.org's suite is such a threat. This is why the Google online tools such as Google Mail, Calendar, Docs and Spreadsheets are such a threat.

Because to the average person, getting the work done is now more important than what they get it done with.
(The office wars are over. The file format won, and the user is more tied to the file format than to the software. Hence the ODF/MSOOXML fights that Microsoft is currently repeatedly losing.)

A good analogy is bicycles. Do you care what brand bicycle you have? It only needs to get you from point a to point b. If you have hills, then it needs suitable gears. That's about it.

Some geeks who do things like road racing, triathlons or mountain biking care about their bicycle. But the average person doesn't, and never will. The bicycle is not an expensive premium product - it's not like a car (automobile for our American cousins) where the brand might matter. It's simply thought of as a tool.

The branding of Vista - with so many editions - is an attempt to "add value" in the same way that the car (automobile) market has premium brands. But the problem is that they're selling, as far as the consumer is concerned, bicycles. Great strategy, wrong market.

So naturally, some geeks want the best bicycle - Ultimate Edition. But as CompUSA are finding, everyone else that already has a bicycle is happy with it, and doesn't care about a newer bicycle. Because they regard their existing one as acceptable, and don't see any need to spend more money on something that does basically the same job but with a different paint job.

This is the new computing market. And ironically, it's like this because Microsoft have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in making the computer widespread. In fact, it's so widespread now that it's almost a consumable product - it's almost cheaper to buy a new one than to fix an old one.

In that kind of market, why buy an upgrade? Especially if it has no real impact on your use of the computer, and carries only risk of incompatibility?

I could carry on and compare the bicycle market to the emerging trends in the software market, with its multiple "good enough" vendors for the consumer to choose from. But that would be labouring the point. I think I'll leave that as an exercise for you, Joe.
;-)

I don't know why people jump on the "wont buy Vista" bandwagon. I've been using it on a Core 2 Duo 1.8 MHz, 1 Gig of RAM and a GeForce 7300 and it runs perfectly...no slowness at all. Add to it Virtual PC 2007, and I can run ALL of my older software through a Windows 98 session. My only complaint with Vista is UAC.

I'm in the camp that wouldn't go near it, even if MS paid me. Frankly I'd be even more suspicious if they offered to :-) It's not that I'm not curious, I just don't have any interest in an OS that gives more leverage to business interests than the end user. MS is (was?) the 300 pound gorilla in the room, they should have put the end user first and let the entertainment industry sort out their own personal issues themselves. Also, I'm not interested in an OS that I pay all that money for, pay all the money to upgrade hardware for, then find that it'll occasionally decide to drop out of the shiny aero mode because of driver or DRM issues. Besides, I turned off all the fancy display garbage on my copies of XP too because of performance issues.

Neil, Joe doesn't mention the other discounted software because the title of the blog is Microsoft Watch. Not Symantec watch. It's not some grand conspiracy, relax.

hey joe,

congrats on yet another great bash article. gonna remove msw from my bookmarks now, since theres probably not gonna be any good news articles coming from you. just keep feeding the linux community and getting dugg for flaming against ms,vista,offic,younameit... guess it gets you more money since you are probably getting paid depending on the number of reads.

bye,
rol

TK
Being "Microsoft Watch" has not stopped Joe from doing articles on Adobe, Symantec, Apple or Linux.
Have you read some of the previous articles here, I don't think you have.
If you had you wouldn't say that.
And what about this article then ... I never seen anyone so intent on trying to show the Windows Vista isn't selling.
When someone closes their business they "get rid" of their stock at cheap prices, since when are any retailers that are not closing down offering the same discounts as is pictured here ?
The answer is NONE !!
So pull your head out of the sand and smell the roses mate !
And if this blog is "supposed" to be about all things Microsoft then why oh why is he doing an article on the selling price of a RETAILER !
Which in this case is quitting all their software and not just microsoft's.

TK
If you thought it was just me, have a read of "Roland's" comment and then you will know better won't you (I hope) !

Philip Storry, excellent post! You make very good points.

If you're happy with XP, then stick with XP. I've been using Vista for over a month now and I see no major benefit over XP. Vista looks prettier but that's about all. It definitely has compatibility issues. (I'm running Vista on a spanking brand new Core 2 Duo machine with 2GB of memory and 500GB hard drive.)

Also, Vista is rather buggy. I have an XP laptop and it has been running like a champ for the past 3 years. I wouldn't dare upgrade it to Vista!

Brian
I will tell you why, because the comments are made by people who mainly are Apple or Linux devotees and they don't like microsoft at all !
You have most likely heard the saying "that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick", and that is exactly what's been happening all the opposition devotees have been saying on blogs like this one "how bad Vista is" and all of that has started rumours and people have heard of some of them and don't know what to do, whether to upgrade or not !
Take for example an article done by Mr. Scot Peterson editor of eWeek (Joe's Boss) the headline read "Windows Vista ready ? Not for Me !"
and it went on that Vista was not up to par, the only thing was that the article was done on the "Release Candidate One" even I knew their were bugs in it, but he went on like it was the final release and it wasn't !!!
After RC1 came RC2 and then Release to manufacturing (RTM) by this time a few thousand bugs had all been put right, and the strangest thing was that this article was done when Vista went to RTM (remember the article was on the RC1 version).
In other words scare tactics and for most people a waste of time, and boy did people comment about it, in actual fact over 50 of them !!
As "Roland" said in his comment this site is more "Micorsoft Bash" than a day to day blog about the going's on in microsoft land and the products released from them.
This guy is more of a "vulture" just waiting to pick the bones of something than anything else.

Roland, Get used to it. If you start removing sites due to thier negative Vista coverage, you'll soon end up with a very sparse bookmarks list.

I had advised 3 of my customers to purchase Vista machines. However, two of those customers have since returned thier Vista machines to Dell. One decided to revert back to thier old XP box, while the other made an exchange for an optiplex with XP. To avoid future embarrassment, I'm back to recommending XP for new computer purchases.

I'ts taken me several years to accept that Vista, i.e. Longhorn, is a dud. I just didn't want to believe what I was hearing about the OS and my favorite software company; but it's all so miserably true.

I expect Vista news coverage will become more and more negative as tech writers sense general ambivalence among consumers and fellow writers.

But I welcome this turn against Vista in the news. I firmly believe that Microsoft works best when it feels that it's market is under threat.

Joe:

Another pointless and stupid post!!!

I am telling you, you are wasting your and others time. Your all the articles are pointless. Whatever subject you choose, the message is same every time - Microsoft is Bad. But you know the whole world knows the truth and when it comes to OS 95% people find it better than any other OS.

Yes, I will pay for Vista, because of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_features_in_windows_vista

By the way whenever I read your article, I can visualize you as jelous and crying baby !!!

Now I know what the new name for Windows Vista should be. The name "Tunnel Vision" that I first suggested in my first post was ill-considered. How about this name: New Coke.

Seriously though, MS Watch aside, even the general media news on Vista vis-a-vis consumer acceptance isn't good.

The bigger story however is that Vista's tiered versions and high-hardware requirements appear to effectively cast off the low-end to low-mid-range PC market with no interest in selling Windows OR PCs at such a level. Looks to me that Microsoft made a conscious decision to terminate 1/3 of the PC market, perhaps to increase margins in the classic business strategy of "going upmarket," especialy in MS seeing Macs regularly bought for three grand or more. Boy, if we could just get that Mac-buying 4.5% of the market that pays REAL MONEY they may be thinking in Redmond.

The price to be paid by the marketplace in other than sticker pricing is also quite amazing, with major stores closing or retrenching.

Gates told Charlie Rose on PBS a few years ago, when asked why Tablet PCs are so expensive, that the problem was that the open architecture IBM PC meant PCs were just selling too inexpensively, which he said would not be a mistake made in the future, or something like that.

Could it be that this is what we are seeing with Vista?--the intro via DRM of a new more or less proprietary-in-effect architecture that will push PC pricing skyward?

Fact is Vista needs to shut down the new Aero 3D feature if you want run a 3D game properly.
No way to run concurrently two 3D-based application, you may need to wait months till the new generation of video cards will be released.
I am curios to see how many of the Vista buyers knew that the new OS is build to work with expensive hardware that is not even currently released - new generation of video cards and hard disks (details on Wikipedia)?
Obviously I have a lot of trouble with the new Vista drivers, BSOD is common and my old software is not working properly. I am back my "old" XP Home partition and I keep the Vista just to check for future driver tests... Who knows maybe in "100 years" I'll use it again.
Bad move for me to buy Vista from CompUSA even if it was the cheapest option.

I astonishes me when people get hung up on irrelevant facts when responding to articles.

Neil: Of course, CompUSA will be discounting other software but this blog is 'Microsoft Watch' and not 'Adobe Watch'. Joe mentioned the points germaine to the purpose of this column. And neglecting Adobe pricing in no way negates the fact that CompUSA is not generating traffic even at deep discountson Vista.

As for the interest in Vista Ultimate, I can see where people with XP Pro would be interested in buying the version that has the features for home business users that were stripped out of the home versions (remote desktop for example). Or perhaps they just figure that 'ultimate' must be better and will feel hosed when they realize just how little extra in ultimate matters to the average user.

I look forward to using Vista, preinstalled on my next computer.

When the time comes to buy a new computer, I have no interest in WinXP, or Mac-OSX, or Linux.

That's right, Neil. Everyone who has written a bad word about Vista is lying. Vista has no compatibility issues. Vista has no driver problems. Vista has no bugs.

The dozens of contributing editors at Ziff Davis (including CNET, eWeek, PC Magazine, etc.) are part of a conspiracy.

So are the writers at Computerworld, InfoWorld, and PC World (all part of the IDG publishing group).

And what about all the people who complain about Vista installation/upgrade difficulties? They're all lying. There are no installation problems with Vista. Period. They're all hallucinating.

Vista is just fine for everyone. It's perfectly safe to install. Don't worry about performance. Forget about any concerns over bugs. You have nothing to be afraid of.

Go ahead, make the jump.

I used to read this blog all of the time to get some real insight as to what M$ was doing. Now, the name Microsoft Watch is a misnomer. It should be named Microsoft Incite. But I highly doubt Joe and gang would dismiss the brand Microsoft Watch which was built on credible information that Mary Jo Foley built. I am a pragmatist and look at technology as it is, a tool. Whatever tool will do the best job for you so be it. I am with Roland however and I don't think I will read this anymore because I don't get any objective information on what M$ is doing; all I get is the type of posts (and subsequent comments) that make the National Enquirer and Star magazines such a grocery store check-out item - unsubstantiated controversy.

I really like XP. It's very stable, runs my apps well and with few issues. M$ really did a pretty good job with XP, unlike other posters, i'd rather have someone punch me in the face than use Linux on my laptop... who has the time? I mean on servers, great... but on my laptop? No thanks, XP please. As for Vista, after a service pack or two come out, maybe we'll do the Vista jig, but it seems to early to make the leap. Also, I'm a little intimidated by the memory requirement... i feel like i'd need at least 2 GB to run all the apps and services i run if "the Vista" wants 1GB, and since both my laptops have 1 GB on 2 DIMMS, would have to replace both sticks on each machine to get 2... starts getting pretty expensive, even if Vista is discounted... Sorry M$... but I'll stick with XP.

My MS degree is EE and I work in that field now, but my undergrad was CS and I spent years in software development. I still spend a lot of spare time playing with software.

At work, we're forced to use XP. I prefer Linux and use it almost exclusively at home. But, I do maintain an XP Pro boot on my main home desktop for SPICE, TurboTax, MATLAB, and a few other programs.

Building computers is one of my hobbies and I'm the guy that family and friends call when they have problems. For that reason, I'd pay something to have a Vista box to play on -- say, $59 for "Ultimate".

"Genuine Advantage" is a deal killer for me. I don't desire to use Vista, but as a computer professional, I'd like to try it out on different boxes and also in a VM to understand how it works, its capabilities, and limitations. One license that I could move from machine to machine would fit my needs. Microsoft's current cost and licensing scheme makes Vista almost worthless to me.

bobby, you're absolutely right.

It's worth pointing out that when XP was first released in 2001, it was pretty buggy. After Service Pack 1, it became a tolerable platform. It wasn't until Service Pack 2 that XP began to shine.

And so it is with Vista. Right now, it's fairly buggy (TomT, take heed). When Service Pack 1 comes out at the end of the year (hopefully), Vista should be reasonably stable with respect to bugs, driver issues, and compatibility.

But it won't be until Service Pack 2, at least a year later, that Vista will begin to shine. Take my word for it--I've been dealing with Windows at the development level for over a decade.

In other words, if you don't have to migrate to Vista, don't. If your current aging hardware can hold out, wait until 2009.

Of course, if you need a PC replacement right now, ie, a brand-new PC, you won't have any choice. Unless you demand XP from your vendor. (Fortunately, Dell will continue to offer XP as an option.)

Again, TomT, take heed.

I'd like to add something.
In my country, which is called France, here are some examples of the prices you'll have to pay if you want to buy Vista :
- Ultimate Full Retail = 575€ = $780,826
- Business Full Retail = 425€ = $577,132
- Home Premium OEM = 125€ = $169,745
- Home Basic Upgrade = 145€ = $196,904

You can check this out here :
http://www.ldlc.com/navigation/cat.html?sscat=310015&constructeur=C000000220&filtre_363_6_val=&filtre_809_1_val=&submit=Ok
These are the standard prices, and I don't think you can find anything near this 40% discount around here.

So PUH-leeeeeeeeeeeeeease, don't whine about the overpricing of this software in the US, and don't forget us, poor europeans... :o(

Incredible! They have to be taking huge losses on these. Now I really wish they were closing stores in Utah so I could go scoop a ton of these up!

I think that you should only have to pay for the software once. So if you buy a computer today and it has XP installed on it, you should be allowed to upgrade that machine for free as long as you own it. Or MicroSoft should be required to support the version you have until your machine is no longer usable...

i am a reseller, and although i refuse to sell vista yet, i think the prices should be half of what microsoft charges for them. for example, $50 upgrade, $100 full vista home.

it's not suprising how many people praise XP and bash Vista. The same thing happens with every new OS out of microsoft. I remember the same stories with Windows 2000 and XP. I bet when a new OS comes out from microsoft, people would be praising Vista...

I don't remember consumers being so universally negative on any MS OS release. evan is not quite accurate here. People in previous release periods noted problems, but general adoption attitudes were favorable. Moreover, sales of new Windows versions in the past did not cause retailers to tank and to have to close stores, or PC sales to flatline.

In contrast one study suggested that the more the market learns about Vista, the less the market approves of Vista. Quite a marketing feat, eh?

MS needs to understand where all this is coming from. It has 3 drivers that I see, leaving out bugs that are common in new MS OSs:

1. A too-onerous hardware requirement driven by corporate-serving user-lockdown DRM, which requires the consumer to spend a lot more to tread performance water relative to XP;

2. Tiered Vista versions which at the low-end and mid-range level do not actually offer all the market features that make Vista what it is advertised as being. Not only are all of the security features not available except in the top version, but the glossy Aero graphics that are Vista's defining hallmark are not available to Home Basic Users and to many other users of higher Vista versions unless they have pricey stellar graphics cards;

3. A major app compatibility break that will NEVER be bridged as with 2000 or XP. Case in point: PageMaker 7.01 will MOT run on Vista, says Adobe. Moreover, many extant "current' Adobe apps will NEVER be fully Vista functional unless one buys expensive upgrades.

Have to agree. The only way I'd get vista is with a new PC.

Everyone knows that we'll all get there ... its just going to be a few years. I suppose that's the power of a monopoly!

I just bought a machine from Dell because they will allow you to choose between XP and Vista. I thought I wouldn't be able to buy a machine for the year it will take Vista to get stable and for CPU and memory to half in price to allow it to run as fast as XP.

Personally, the only version of Vista that would be worth getting functionally would be the Ultimate version as the others are all lobotimized. Windows Vista retail is really only worth a quarter of what they charge for it.

Of course I'm not about to buy it anyway due to the obtrusiveness of Microsoft and the myriad of DRM crap they incorporated into Vista. Heck, I had enough troubles with XP phoning home and that was a cake walk compared to Vista!

I'd pay 50 cents. That's a little less than it would cost to buy a quality target for use at the rifle range, and a weighted cardboard box will stand by itself till it's shot full of holes.

Absolutlety NOTHING! It is the most worthless software on the market. I am a LINUX and UNIX person and that software is useless!

Make me authorize everything I do, how silly! Use LINUX and do things according to the way you wish and the user can only hack that user! If he is stupid enough to allow himself to be hacked TOO BAD!

My wife is even coming to use LINUX. I told her that she was going to have to learn as this XP Pro was the last piece of windows I buy, (note the no caps on windows... cause it is JUNK!).

Absolutlety NOTHING! It is the most worthless software on the market. I am a LINUX and UNIX person and that software is useless!

Make me authorize everything I do, how silly! Use LINUX and do things according to the way you wish and the user can only hack that user! If he is stupid enough to allow himself to be hacked TOO BAD!

My wife is even coming to use LINUX. I told her that she was going to have to learn as this XP Pro was the last piece of windows I buy, (note the no caps on windows... cause it is JUNK!).

Honestly, I'd pay $100 for basic and a $175 max for premium.

Due to the "enhanced" hardware requirements for Vista - every article I've read has suggested purchase of new equipment with Vista "Pre-Installed" - therefore paying anything at this point for a Retail copy of Vista - other than part of the purchase price of new equipment - is "too much?"

-Douglas

My wife bought a new laptop with Vista installed, and while there are a lot of cool things about it, she just wishes it was less confusing to use, and wants to go back to XP. What would I pay for Vista, well, it's expensive I think it would be a strong seller at 100 dollars, and a bargain at 50 USD. XP might not be all that which is Vista, but my wife would use less aspirin from the headaches she gets using the latest and greatest. Overall, Vista is not worth the high price my Wife's sanity and my own.

I like Vista, I just wish that other vendors had not used it as an excuse to obsolete existing software/hardware.

Vista should be free. Unix/Linux is free and so should be all desktop Operating Systems.
When you buy a car, do you have to pay extra for the engine?
Microsoft should use its OS as a "lost leader" to attract customers and focus on developing and selling application suites. Plenty of money to be made there...

Upgrade to Vista? No.
Buy a new computer with Vista? No.
12 years after leaving Macintosh for Windows NT, I just bought a Macintosh iMac last weekend. I couldn't be happier. Not only is the UI slicker and smoother than anything that Windows has tried to copy, but now I've got a robust unix kernel to turn to when I feel the need to get geeky.

Good times.
Good times.

NO VERSION of Vista should cost more than $100 period! I have no plans of deploying Vista at my offices in the future even after a few service packs. Why, our custom software will not run on it.

For home, I have no reason to upgrade my extremely stable XP system (which is more than capable of running Vista). Linux for a desktop OS, been there done that! Ease of use is just not there...

Why would anyone buy a malware/botnet magnet?

Why would anyone support a convicted monopolist, polished in the arts of thuggery, see:

- Netscape destruction through free distribution of purchased IE

- Mac UI thievery

- Abuse of their Novell 'partnership' to forward a patent troll/FUD attack on open source.

Leaving aside their OS, server, and ofc cash cows, what other MS product is making money?

Come on. Get with it. In Steve Balmer's own words:

"Let's cut off their air supply."

Be well and prosper.

I wouldn't take Vista if they were giving it away free. The Microsoft madness has to be stopped; their bloated operating system cycles are out of control, the whole industry is being hurt by their rule or ruin philosophy. Switch to Mac or Linux.

I have been runnig Vista RC1, RC2, and now the final release. RC1 and 2 had major problems and MS stepped up and corrected them before the final release. You need to run Vista on at least 1G of RAM. No less or it will run like crap. Eventually you will need to replace those old Pentium1's with 64M of RAM guy's. C'mon. It's like trying to meet todays emissions and gas milage standards with a Pinto! Yes MS is huge and yes they do charge alot but in comparison, they do produce a product that is easier to use than the other OS's that consumers can choose from. I run several boxes with Linux, and Mac. I prefer to do my daily stuff on my Windows box. Everyone always wants to bash the guy that is doing better than they are. I guess it is human nature....

As some people are kind enough to mention, one day Vista will be the dominate operating system (my guess critical mass will be the 2008 holiday season, as it takes two holiday seasons - the season when most computers are sold) and everyone will be on it, by that time it should be relatively stable. Yes, I heard the same things before with new operating systems. It was a necessary evil to move from the 9x kernel to the NT kernel (XP) for overall stability. More programs got lost in that upgrade for obvious reasons. Most of the problems are related to the new security structure and again are a necessary evil.

Anyways, since one day (whatever that may be) Vista will be the operating system of choice and MS does not change their pricing structure, I am buying the discounted vista (ultimate) now, and installing it later. I may try to install it in a virtualized environment on a mac.

I would pay between $-500.00 to $-1000.00 for Vista. In otherwords, Microsoft would have to pay me to compensate for the nuisance and extra hardware required.

Ubuntu can cut it, I don't need Vista. I have XP on a multi-boot machine and that's more than enough. If OS/2 came back I'd take a close look as long it didn't have DRM junk in it.

Ubuntu can cut it, I don't need Vista. I have XP on a multi-boot machine and that's more than enough. If OS/2 came back I'd take a close look as long it didn't have DRM junk in it.

What I would pay - today - cash:

Windows XP Pro $ 49.95 (3 for ~$120)
Windows XP MCE $ 54.95 (3 for ~$140)
Windows XP Home $ 39.95 (3 for ~$100)
Windows Vista Home Basic $ 39.95

Now you see why I still run Win2K at home.

Considering that MS run on over 90% of all computers it seems to me that MS can charge half of what they are currently asking for Vista and they still will make billions. I also will not upgrade to Vista because of all of the problems associated with hardware drivers and applications that don't work right. I also agree with an earlier post that MS should remove all the DRM from their products as it unfairly restricts the fair use of the product. In our business we will be using XP for as long as it is supported with security patches, but I am resigned to the fact that at some point we will have no choice unless we move the clients to a Linux plateform before that day arrives.

What would I pay for Vista? The same that I've ever paid for any piece of MS software: $0.
Burn your own CDs/DVDs; it's cheaper than buying theirs.

I got Vista Business through my school's MSDNAA program for free (student priced). I've been trying it out. The stupid thing uses almost 30% of 2GB! And when I run any scanners (virus scanning tools) that figure doubles!
Using Firefox also raises the amount of RAM. What's worse, when either the scan or I close Firefox, the memory usage doesn't go down! If I reboot, it usually goes back to normal.
My monitor won't go into power save mode, either. I still can't figure that one out.
Still my 2GHz dual-core handles the OS pretty well. It even loads faster than XP ever did despite being a RAM hog.

I would buy the Vista Business Upgrade in order to have something to test in a virtual machine. I doubt it would become my primary OS for quite some time, possibly even years. But for testing purposes it would be quite handy and at a decent price. I do think the prices for Vista are way to high for general use.

Oh and the blue screen of death is still a familiar feature.

To bad Vista doesn't have a Live CD version like Linux. That is a cool feature. I just popped Kubuntu Linux 7.04 in my Dell E1705 laptop and everything came to life. After installing, I only had to download updates once (no rebooting 3 or 4 times). Software installing was very easy with Adept and I didn't have to waist my time installing anti-virus or anti-spyware software. Pretty soon Dell will offer Linux on their desktop and laptop computers. That will be interesting.

I have been using Vista Ultimate on a dual boot system with XP Pro.
While I can't say I have had any real problems with Vista, I just don't like the look & feel of it.
I have 3Ghz CPU, 2GB RAM and a 512MB Video card, so I don't think the hardware is an issue.
After installing JUST the OS on both XP Pro (first) then Vista Ultimate, XP Pro booted about 15 seconds faster.
They claim Vista is more secure, but I never had problems with security in XP.
All I see with UAC is a way to de-sensitize the user to the repeated prompts, ad nauseum, so when real malware tries to install, users will just automatically click through it.
With UAC, MS has done great things for all those who use social engineering to spread infections.

Nothing, Windows?, been there - done that. I wish them the best of luck. Has anyone out there heard of Linux? It's like Unix, runs on a PC, with the stability and advanced functionality of MACs. oh yea, It's free.

I would not pay a dime for Vista. We got Vista on a new laptop and it is painful to use. Slow is not the word for it. My 7 year old Laptop is faster and can do more than this brand new out of the box laptop with Vista... oh.. I guess Vista can do it, just be very patient. Now... I will admit, the laptop is underpowered by todays standards, BUT... the basic machine should be useable out of the box and it does meet the minimum requirements. Maybe Microsoft should have been honest with people and made the minimum RAM 1 or 2 GBs. It's a crime to sell it with any less.

I would not buy Windows Vista at any price. I'm angry at Microsoft for having so many security holes. I'm also angry at Sony: My Sony PCG-GRX580 laptop used to have 512 MB of memory, but those laptops are notorious for one of the two memory slots going bad on the mother board, and so I'm limping along on XP with 256 MB. My laptop already had a 1.8 GHz Pentium IV processor, so I had decided, before finding out about the mother-board problem, to upgrade it rather than buy a new laptop. I had just bought a large, fast external Hard Drive, a USB 2.0 PC card and 256 MB of memory. My next computer is probably going to be a Macintosh.

For now, you couldn't GIVE it to me. I was happy with Win98 until I finally gave in last October and bought a new PC - only because I wanted to get a new one just before Vista started shipping as the standard load. I'm still peeved about losing some of the features that Win98 used to have. I figure I'll make this XP box last about 5 or 6 years, then maybe there'll finally be a desktop Linux that will run a wide variety of popular programs. (Whatever happened to "Lindows" - a Linux OS that was supposed to be able to run programs that were developed for Windows?) I already run Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice, so I am gradually weaning myself off of MS.

Vista? No way! I went out and bought a MAC and use XP with Parallels and Boot Camp if I need anything Windows. I just hate it now when I have to go back to Windows. I'm loving my Mac more everyday.

Actually I think Vista needs to be forced at gun point on most people if they are currently running XP. Why? Simple (see below).

I'd say 99% of home/casual Windows users and 40% of corporate Windows users are running with full local admin rights, and one if not more resource hogging, 3rd party Spyware/Malware security suites. The over-all performance hit making Vista minus this crap seem as fast Win2K on a dual Core AMD X2.

So please, spare me the whines about how expensive Vista is and DRM when Vista's installation security *FORCES* the typical XP user to use local security rights like they should have been in the first place. If you are running Windows XP with local Admin rights, then you should be a poster child Vista candidate - period. Matter of fact, if you're one of the typical 'experts' in this thread using XP with local admin rights along with your typical arsenal of Spyware/Malware scanners you should be forced to upgrade to Vista by federal law. Leaving XP and Win2K to those smart enough to run it inside a virtual machine.

As for moving to a Mac, Apple has released more platform updates for OSX recently than Microsoft, and my friends in the graphics industry are sick of seeing printers and scanners busted by OSX upgrades. Gee, doesn't that seem familiar.

I would almost pay someone to take vista home premium that i have. I am going to take it off of my computer and go back to xp. I think this is the worst OS Microsoft has put out ever. I even have a high end computer, my score with vista is a 5.o and to put it bluntley it sucks.

AMD x2
3 gig of ram
2 250 gig sata hard drives in raid 0
gforce 7800 gtx
creative audigy 2 sound card

And like every one else says about vista being slow is very true.

I would Pay -$3,000.00 for Vista that way I could get a computer that would run it reasonably well.

Wow. lot of unhappy souls here.... oh my.... such venom.
I agree with oone point though. the price is very stiff. I do not understand why. I also do nto like this plethora of versions. Again nonsense.

But I think I will pay happily 150$ for the ultimate version after SP1. The colors look cool. and the features ( under the hood) as explained in on eof those pre-launch seminars is to be believed and they work.

Like some else pointed out, may be Ms is charging so high to cover the piracy opportunity costs.

psst... MS. be reasonable and take care of the customer and they will take care of you forever.

I recently upgraded my notebook (long overdue) to a decent machine with Vista Business and I am enjoying it a lot. It has 2GB RAM and 2GHz CPU, two video cards, an integrated Intel one for long-duration battery mode and an nVidia 7700 for nicer performance on games, etc. The graphics are nice, the gadgets look cool, and the machine hibernates and resumes fast at the touch of the power button. I make a good living developing .Net applications and this complements very well my choice of technologies. I agree XP is an excellent OS and wouldn't have upgraded yet hadn't I had to buy a new machine (agree that prices are higher than need be). I'm glad with my choice so far.

Nothing. Don't plan on upgrading and will either switch to Linux or Apple or keep my XP.

Reasons: already benched as quite a bit slower than XP (tom's hardware), is a DRM nightmare, and no more secure than anything else (read Russonovich on ZDNet). Also, the drivers are still a few years off (Read Adam Barr's piece on his Vista purchase on Serving my Corporate Masters blog--yes, he is a Microsoft employee) and I am in no mood to re-learn a new MS OS.

Nothing. Don't plan on upgrading and will either switch to Linux or Apple or keep my XP.

Reasons: already benched as quite a bit slower than XP (tom's hardware), is a DRM nightmare, and no more secure than anything else (read Russonovich on ZDNet). Also, the drivers are still a few years off (Read Adam Barr's piece on his Vista purchase on Serving my Corporate Masters blog--yes, he is a Microsoft employee) and I am in no mood to re-learn a new MS OS.

Nothing. Don't plan on upgrading and will either switch to Linux or Apple or keep my XP.

Reasons: already benched as quite a bit slower than XP (tom's hardware), is a DRM nightmare, and no more secure than anything else (read Russonovich on ZDNet). Also, the drivers are still a few years off (Read Adam Barr's piece on his Vista purchase on Serving my Corporate Masters blog--yes, he is a Microsoft employee) and I am in no mood to re-learn a new MS OS.

I wouldn't pay for Vista. Very little of the software I favor works on it, the hardware upgrade is too expensive and the DRM protections limit user choice. About the DRM, why Microsoft made the peculiar decision to protect the profitability of the entertainment industry is something I can't fathom, but I refuse to make their problem my problem.

They couldnt PAY me enough to TAKE Vista!

Windows XP will be the LAST version of Windows I will ever use.

Actually you couldn't pay me enough to use Vista. The high hardware requirements, plus the questionable "improved" security make it a deal breaker for me. I've looked at the new Feisty version of Ubuntu, and when I add Beryl and Screenlets to the mix I see no reason to go with Windows over it, even if developers like Adobe steadfastly refuse to port their best of breed software suites to Linux. If I find I absolutely need them I'll either see about running them under Wine or hold on to Windows XP for the very occasional dual boot so I can use it.

Add to the mix the lack of worry of a firewall and maintaining my virus definitions and it's a no-brainer. Vista doesn't have a single feature worth my paying for. What surprises me is that so many people want to run it at all that don't really need it for mission critical applications.

We are MS business partners; we get Vista Business as part of the deal. We haven't even loaded it in a VM for testing yet, partially because of these kinds of comments on a blog where we expect to see at least some kind of fact-based defense of the company.

NOTE TO MS STAFF READING THIS:
Please get more of your best sales types to post to blogs like this to make your case. This is, after all, "Microsoft Watch"-- and is one of the most popular sites like this. No flames, please-- just hard-hitting facts as MS sees them.

Some of our clients read these blogs-- get my drift?

The only thing I would be willing to pay MS for ($35.00) is a new SVC Pack that includes USB and other support for Windows 98SE. I suspect that I will only use Vista when it comes bundled on a machine and I have no choice.

Vista is CHAMPED! I wouldn't pay a frigging nickel for it. C'mon Bill, fix your Operating Systems before releasing them to us. We are tired of paying you to Beta test your products.

Vista is CHAMPED! I wouldn't pay a frigging nickel for it. C'mon Bill, fix your Operating Systems before releasing them to us. We are tired of paying you to Beta test your products.

Ted Thomas, you don't need MS staff, I'll defend Microsoft for you:

If you choose to adopt Vista, there will be a significant likelihood of encountering application compatibility issues, driver problems, or other varieties of bugs. (This is to be expected since Vista is a largely overhauled product with millions of lines of *new* code...the so-called "Version 1.0" syndrome.) It would be incumbent upon you to ensure that your chosen applications are supported and that your selected hardware have appropriate drivers *before* you perform your migration. This will help to mitigate the potential difficulties.

If you do all this, you should have a satisfactory Vista experience, though I would still recommend waiting for Service Pack 1. Under no circumstance should you attempt to upgrade existing PCs with Vista--fresh installs or OEM preloads are much, much safer.

I hope this helps, Ted.

I haven't paid anything to MS in over four years, and Have NO Intentions of changing that now.
I even quite my last job before I ended up having to try and install Vista on anything, so I haven't even seen a Vista install.
I do know people that are switching to Linux because of the way Vista runs.
To Mictateur, NOBODY is forcing you to pay anything for an MS OS. You do it by choice, so don't complain about the price. I certainly don't, I run Gentoo and Debian Linux and they do everything I need a computer to do. And if I feel a need to play games, I go out side and enjoy the weather while I play. Don't need no computer to play games.

Gee, maybe if it was not a combination of the hardware vendors and Microsoft; that might be enough to get people back on the MS bandwagon.

I purchased a new HP AMD 64 X2, 2 Gig of Ram, 400 Gig (SATA) hard disk, 512 Meg Video, DVD/CD Burner, 15 in one card reader... Whats installed? Windows Vista Home Premium.... Oh, forgot to mention 32-Bit version.

All that marketing, all the hype and HP builds a machine with power and places a 32-Bit OS on it.

Gee that makes sense.

How about UAC, calling MS weekly to report system inventory; known as Genuine Advantage to XP users, weekly patches, holes that exist in XP and some that exist that were patched in XP. How about the new ones?

Currently I can say it is my LAST Windows machine.

For those of you who think I am just a Linux or Mac junkie bashing MS; I am a programmer by trade and MS is what desktop I program for as a living.

What's it worth. $50 Max for the Ultimate 64-Bit version. I don't need the eye candy, I need a machine built to work.

Gee, maybe that is why there was blog on ZD Net that came right out and said, want eye candy, buy Vista; want to get work done buy a MAC.

Can't get my address accepted in your Tips panel...

Well, I won't be buying Vista in any form for any amount. There isn't anything in it I want and I surely don't need to buy a new box 4 times bigger than I currently have just to run the OS. I mean, seriously, huge processor, huge drive, 4gb RAM, and a huge video card just to run the OS? Does ANYONE really need this pig? I'll either buy another copy of XP or just make the switch to Linux. Either way, it will be a lot cheaper.

WOW...

I bought into the hype and purchased business edition the first day it was offered. I spent the weekend looking for drivers and wondering why almost all of my hardware didn't work. I remember installing XP for the first time and it finding all my hardware (I was IMPRESSED!) and booting up very happily on my 1 meg of ram. I am a business owner of a company that depends on productivity from our computers.
VISTA is most definitely not worth upgrading to. The machine I upgraded to was reloaded with XP after reading a few articles (which I admit I should have read before purchasing it). Thank the lord I only bought one copy to try !!!!!
I'm out $300 plus and consider it a lesson learned... Macs are my next purchase for sure.

Most posters repeat the notion that Vista will be OK after SP1 or SP2, just like in the case of Windows XP. There are reasons not to be so.

Vista inherited most of bugs from the Windows NT lineage and has bugs added by the hasty implementation of DRM and premium content protection. Bugs proliferate exponentially with the size of the source code, and Vista has now at least 50 million lines of source code. Bugs stay hidden until a set of conditions arise, cannot be visually detected, and usually occur due to logical inconsistencies introduced by the usage of conflicting low-level functions. For example, a function is called that indirectly allocates memory for a temporary task, but another function that frees that memory is never called (garbage collection); that is how Windows XP slows down progressively, until one needs to reinstall it. Modern computers work for a long time despite memory leaking because they have hundreds of megabytes of RAM and several gigabytes of virtual memory. MS OSs derived from Windows NT4 are not clean implementations of a multiuser OS design, rather huge collections of ad hoc patches, so there is not a logical structure that programmers can follow to avoid introducing bugs.
The Vista-generation hardware are the video and audio cards that are still in design and prototyping stage, and only the big ones can dare face the specifications in a 44-page booklet. If nVidia, ATI and Creative Labs succeed in producing those cards, they will have a very high cost for design and construction. The drivers will contain functions not only to play well the premium content protected with DRM, but also to degrade or shutdown the image or sound, when some hardware is not protected against copying, according to requirements by the media providers (Hollywood, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) But having such functions make them vulnerable to malware that may simulate conditions to trigger the premium content protection. But if such protection functions are ineffective, then Vista may put the special card into a revocation list, which will degrade it or shut it down. Either way, users will feel betrayed when this happens and will start a class action suit against the hardware vendor. Making the Vista-generation hardware will be a no-win situation. Instead, it will be much simpler to provide good drivers for their existing cards for GNU/Linux, so that Dell will be able to sell many OEM computers with their standard video and audio cards; they will be able to sell more products without the risk of lawsuits.

The booklet with the Hardware Specifications for Vista has been called, for good reasons, the longest suicide note ever written. That is why I believe that Vista's acceptance will not follow the pattern of Windows XP. It will be more like Windows ME. There will be a different kind of OS to be launched in a few months.

Thus is the thing: you bought a new car shine and expensive, when you try to open to the door the car says ; I will obeying you only if the seller authorize it (you think , ok good security!) once inside always that you want to push a button ,the blessed car ,call to the salesman and accuse you about where you go and what you make.( you think, well everything has some reason) then you take it waiting for a roar and the thing sounds like a cat (ok, excellent exhaust , you exclaim) but it's more slow that Renault “duck” of your fiancée and more complicated to drive that a competition's car .Sure it need a refitting! then you go to the mechanic and the man says you that nobody has spare part for that monstrosity ,apparently must add to the spare parts (drives) somewhat called DRM that make it heavy and bad and nobody knows how they can resolving the problem.
Already you begin to get worried , When you return to the car , suddenly it dies, apparently you pushing some key that you don't have to push (some “illegal”software?, some new hardware?) .What is the problems? -you think – I got guarantee . Guarantee? ask Ms to you , you are crazy , first it is not yours , it is just lend to you and you give thanks we are not sue to you. Furthermore, if you want drive again ,pay everything again! . How much for my car? , I don't know...
Any similarity with the reality is mere coincidence

This response is to Peng.
There is another way of using Windows-only software under GNU/Linux:
Run Windows as a virtual machine, then you can have both can have both platforms on the same monitor.

This solution is so advantageous that, for a period of about two years, it will be a worthwhile business to provide this transition service for a fee, especially in places outside the U.S. and Europe, due to the cost savings to avoid Windows Vista or its successor.

I would pay $0 for Vista or for any other software. All software should be free and open source. Nobody should be making any money at all from software and from the internet. It's high time to put all these companies and people who make money from software and the internet out of business and out into the street. Get rid of them all. Return computer software and the the internet to the way it was at the beginning.

I did the BETA (s) staring with Longhorn, and the rc's.

I found out the expensive photo printer and scanner will not be supported. My vid cam is not supported (may be later), My docking station is not supported.
None of my software works ( some fairly expensive packages )

So basically, it was a 12 to 15 gig email and surging machine with a gig of RAM, good video card and 64 bit CPU that is slower than the much older video machine with half the CPU and RAM.

If they paid me, I might use it. Multibooted with XP Pro and SuSE 10 Pro now, and everything works.

There's no money left in my pockets for Redmond gang.I allready have entire stack of "MS WindowsX-Y-Z Getting Started" manuals with COA stickers ( worth approximatelly 1000 USAD and I have no plans to waste my money on software coming from
Microsoft labs anymore.
The last good product I had from them was Windows 2000 Proffesional.Since summer 2000. I'm Linux guy. You should see my Compaq Armada v300 laptop (466 MHz Celeron with only 320 Mb SDRAM and Linksys wireless PCMCIA NIC ) running Sam Linux to get an idea why a friend of mine returned his Sony Vaio Dual Core Pentium 1.7 Ghz laptop which came with Vista Home Premium.
Now we're both watching our bids at eBay for one 1.o GHz ThinkPad which is going to be his "new" laptop.

For the next 9 mths, i would not spent a dime to buy Vista, rather set it aside to buy a Media Center OS or assemble a set for media center performancing.

Beyond 9 mths, if i can find a Vista-HP(full version) for a firesale price of USD119- and below, i will get one. Beyond that price range, forget about it for another 6 mths thereafter.

For the next 9 mths, i would not spent a dime to buy Vista, rather set it aside to buy a Media Center OS or assemble a set for media center performancing.

Beyond 9 mths, if i can find a Vista-HP(full version) for a firesale price of USD119- and below, i will get one. Beyond that price range, forget about it for another 6 mths thereafter.

For me, I do not think there is really a need for all these different versions. Should only be the Ultimate and Business in my opinion, and the cost should be $50 for upgrades and $100 for full versions.

I use XP. I tried a production version of Vista for two weeks. I am back to using XP.

I will buy a Mac before I settle for a Vista box.

40% off Vista and several service packs later, I may be interested in Vista. Until then I'll stick with XP and Linux.

WHAT would I pay for Vista? WHY would I pay for Vista! Let's ger out of this "Great Vendor In The Sky" vision pool. Microsoft has the resources and smarts to produce more than eye-candy, folks. When I see more than eye-candy and self-serving corporate crap, I'll get in the looky-looky line. If there's something that's real quality to me, to what I do and enjoy, maybe I'll pay.

Not bored, not 'just lookin', I have a real life already. Eye-candy won't do it, and I won't support your corporate hand-me-this. What's needed here is more respect for people who already have a life, and the software they enjoy. That's your real market.

Ted Thomas, further to my defense of Microsoft:

The actual "minimum" requirements for running Vista should be 1GB of memory, 2.0GHz processor, and a Vista-compliant video card (compliant for running Aero Glass, if you care for the eye candy). (Microsoft's stated minimum of 512MB of memory is just sufficient to boot up Vista and nothing more--you won't be able to get any work done.)

If you intend to run any serious applications such as Photoshop, make damn sure you have at least 2GB of memory.

Also note that if you want the complete set of security features, you'll need to buy Vista Ultimate, as Vista Business does NOT include the much desirable BitLocker drive encryption feature. (Vista Business also does not include the "Ultimate Extras" software pack.)

However, Vista Ultimate will cost you big time ($260 for upgrade edition; $400 for full edition). Make sure your budget can handle this.

Here's an excellent source for guiding you in your business decision: http://www.bnet.com/2403-13068_23-55876.html

Have I overlooked anything, Ted?