Com-Central.net

Official, which doesn't mean you have to trust on it:
-> www.microsoft.com/wind...ments.mspx
-> www.microsoft.com/wind...fault.mspx


Marco

Kewl thanks Rodi'.

Can't wait to see how they revise the "minimum recommendations" nearer to release. Especially the "512Mb RAM". lolol

Thanks Marco and yep Shades, I can remember some MS games so time back with minimal requirements on the box. I would say MS underestimated them just a tad...lol

You know, I'm really wondering what the actual advantage would be using Vista as compared to XP. If it's just more eye candy, I'm not sure it's worth the cost to upgrade at this point in time. From what I've seen so far, I'm not all that impressed...

It's getting worse as time goes on as well, Bushy.

The all-singing, all-dancing, package that has been trumpetted is being reigned back in because of various legalities and software weaknesses.
Bits are being pulled out of it and either re-written or scrapped which are then affecting whole other areas of it and their compatability to other components.

I went to a major UK accounting and management software house last month and, knowing they use Windows as a base for their software, posed the question to the development team, as to how geared up they were for Vista's introduction.

They told me that they had a number of developers who had been over to M$ to see the presentations and possibilities available to them from Vista and they weren't overly impressed with what they saw. They said it was presented to them with the usual M$ hype and spin but, that aside, there actually wasn't a whole lot left over that's different to the current package.

They didn't say it wasn't a good bit of kit, just that they'd decided against developing their projects with Vista as a base for the time being. One reason was from their own opinions and judgement, but they were keen to point out that they hadn't been blinkered. Rather, they had asked their clients what they thought as well, and it was their clients future plans that had influenced theirs.

I shan't name the company (in case of M$affia reprisals), and I am aware that some other houses have delayed software releases solely for Vista, but this particular company is a major player globally and their decision will make a few ripples.

I think M$ could be in for a wake-up call over this when (if ever) it's released and it may generate more internal head-rolling too. I also think that might be a good thing and we could see a new M$, with a new attitude to its customers, come out of it.

I hope so.

Well said Shades and I agree. I think the general rule for upgrading for most savvy users is to wait until the first update before seriously considering a new OS. Frankly, Vista's only big change is the requirement for you to upgrade your hardware to run it properly. While that's not much of a stretch for gamers that already have hearty hardware, for some, the upgrade is a major amount of expense.

What is the attraction to upgrading and why should we?

Do we need the newer OS to run the latest/greatest hardware?

Do the games we enjoy require it and how much are you willing to spend to do that 'favorite' game(s)?

I have to really wonder how MS is going to answer these questions or are they just going to 'hype' the public with more of "YOU NEED THIS" spamming. IMO, MS is at a crossroad and if MS makes the right choices, could still be leading 'the pack'. If however, a cheaper alternative OS will run on Intel clones and run MS apps, MS could be in a world of hurt.

Don't get me wrong, I like XP and compared to Win9X, is a great improvment but I just can't see any really important reason to jump to Vista.

It's the hardware issue that's causing companies to shy away from it. Most already have systems and software in place they can use. Everyone's asking what's so great about it that requires us a) to upgrade to Vista, and then b) upgrade all our hardware to cope with it.
Larger companies would need to upgrade global systems to integrate each office and, while many budget to do this, they're saying their budget won't stretch to the frequency M$ is wishing upon them.
A lot of larger organisations in the U.K. are discovering the benefits of Linux based systems. Government departments, schools etc. and are already in the process of migrating away from Windows even without Vista.

Yep, once again a company thinks it's too big to fall to the damands of the lowly consumer. (Flawed customer care thinking is a killer!)

While I personally like Linux, it's still not without it's problems, but if you need to retrain your IT staff, you would be wise to include Linux training in the scenario. I fully believe Apple's strategy was to 'be in the right place at the right time' once Vista upgrades were released to capture the ever growing population who's tired of the constant expenses of running a Windows System. I'm not talking about the desktop user here, I'm talking corp. Think about updating/upgrading 3000 or more machines and you'll quickly see the concerns.

If you think about it, what negates the need to upgrade in an office environment? MS is releasing it's BIG WHAMO JHAMO Office which in itself is a huge expense. If it's release is done correctly by MS , you'll also need to upgrade the machines to run this on as well. How much power does one need to process documents or do slide presentations? Open Office is FREE and does all those things AND it'll run on all current platforms including Windows, Apple and Linux. Support is a big issue and part of MS' strategy is quit supporting any of it's own software that you paid good money to buy after it gets 'too old'. Considering switching to another OS in an office environment is a 'no brainer' as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I think MS needs to reconsider it's position and start listening to it's consumers.

M$ only listens to it's own wallet ............ it's screaming for OUR money !


fled

And let's not forget that Apple will be dual-boot with XP this year as well.