Windows Vista only for $99

www.ubuntu.com

For the average home user, Vista may be fine for in all probability, you'll wind up keeping your desktop for more than 3 years. But for a corporation with literally thousands of applications that would have to be recertified and/or modified to work under the Vista platform plus the capital expenses to replace/upgrade, it is not cost effective.

In my opinion, Microsoft is getting lazy with their code. Years ago under DOS, you can run a computer with 16k (not meg) of memory and it did a tremendous amount. Today, the O/S is fat, not optimized and not efficient. Microsoft's view is simply to upgrade YOUR hardware to accommodate their fat O/S. Sure there are more bells and whistles but reality is....most will only use a fraction of what the O/S has to offer.

Nope....not about being afraid of change. It's about controlling cost both in the corporate world and my own pocket.

Everyone is hanging onto XP until Windows 7 comes out in about a year. I admit it, I bought a new computer last summer, but I wouldn't have had I not found a new Dell with XP on it.

Want proof? Go ask any large organization with thousands of desktops and see what O/S they are running. You"ll find that most are still on XP Pro - - - and for a reason. Vista SUCKS!

That being said, what problems should I be looking for? It is easy to operate once I used if for a very short time. Was it worth the dollars? I have no idea, but figured I might as well keep stepping up as I go.

Thanks in advance. NE IA

For using all that you get - not much. It doesn't fill any need, or do anything new, that you couldn't already do with XP.

It was a new product that didn't do anything new for the consumer.

As well when it came out, they threw away a lot of older hardware. Printers, various readers, and so forth just weren't supported. So, folks got tired of buying something new that made all their other hardware obsolete; required more memory & made their computer operate more slowly - all for not actual improvement of anything to the end user.

So, it is a lemon. It probably works ok, and it does a few new things, and it probably tightened up security issues.

But, none of that concerns an end user. It seems like a down-grade to an end user.

The real issue was business users - they have rows & rows of hardware being used by a few 100 people all linked together. When Microsoft came along with Vista, and said well you'll have to buy all new computers because your old ones aren't fast enough; and all new printers and card readers because those companies are not writing new drivers for old hardware; and your own computer support people are saying there is no real benifit to all this expenditure.... Many businesses told Microsoft to take a hike, they will sit this 'upgrade' out.

Most likely by #7 which is supposed to appear in beta in a few months, many companies will again be ready for a hardware upgrade - it's been a long time now.....

I remember when Windows 98 and 2000 were out but fairly new, I was going through a few businesses & many were still running Windows 3.1. I was kinda surprised, but then, it's about getting work done for least cost, and if you look ay a few dozen computers, it's pretty spendy to upgrade. For what?

--->Paul