[quote]
So in the end you ask yourself is it worth paying for an OS that, from my point of view, is mainly build to supply a corporation's main goal which is sustaining itself and getting more money.
[/qoute]
And Vista will only prove this statement.

Won't linux gain either way. On one hand if it's to expensive people look for an alternativ and linux will take a big share on the other hand if vista becomes populare there will be a lot of old cheap/free computers for linux to try/test/learn etc. So linux will take a share how ever it goes.

don't worry, MS has bs 4 system reqs:


Windows 2000 SP4: 48 mb ram / p133 / 2gb hdd
reqs: 64 mb ram / p233

Windows XP SP2: 96 mb ram / p166 / 4gb hdd
reqs: 128 mb ram (64 for minimum function) / p233

Both run well, play mp3s, XP runs better

Vista should run fine on 256 mb ram / pIII 600 +

I've run similar systems with Windows XP on them. You can say they run fine all you want, but personally having used it I find it horrendously slow and just plain annoying. On a p133 with only 48 mb ram I would consider using 95 instead of 98(and I think you are insane to run 2k). It's much much snappier that way.

I used to help people get used laptops through ebay and always suggested they use windows 95 with those units. I couldn't imagine using 2000 or XP on them. What's the point? There isn't anything that xp offers that isn't supported in 98 that can actually run on such a slow system..

Funny really, this in fact touches on what I believe is the real cause of the slow takeup, ie it is very difficult if nigh impossible to buy a machine all setup with Linux.

To be fair, the users are not necessarily dumb, most just do not have the energy, time or inclination to sort thru the plethora of choices that is available not only in terms of distros, but the huge number of applications that have varying degrees of sophistication/stability.

Many users on this forum have already been happy to burn the midnight candles to come up with their own views and attachments, just for the simple gratification of their curiosity and obsessive/compulsive natures.

To ask someone who just wants something to work to spend months of investigation and learning is not really logical. The same cannot be said for the commercial end tho, remember how no IT manager was in trubble for buying big blue in the 70s/80s? M$ actually used a very similar model to unseat big blue, just as many open source distros do nowadays. Remember when they used to license anyone who used the software at work to use freely at home, or the many free components or dev tools? Things change quite rapidly, and the incumbent will always be a target.

Given the symbiotic relationship large manufacturers seem to be locked into with mainstream OEM installations, and the competitive pressure the big manufacturers put on white box manufacturers today, surely there is an opportunity for individuals and small groups to pair up with a white box manufacturer, to release a competitor that has many of these choices made up front for the punter?

This is what I'll be trying out in my area, please compete and come up with your selected distro and pre-configured apps on an OK performing box that the punter can compare, and make it COOL, useful and stable. Press GO, not Start$.

true, they are slow, but for basic uses, they suffice, and it does run, that's the point

anyway 2k/xp has better hardware compatibility

-Very true. There are very few top-end PC manufacturers who actually provide computers with Linux preinstalled, and in IBM's case that's currently only on servers. This is also one of the reasons I think the majority of the technological people are not switching to Linux - because they don't care what is on their computer as long as it works. If, say, Dell and Compaq began supplying a range of laptops and desktops with Mandriva 2006 installed on them, then we would see many more Linux users.

That would also help destroy the "Linux is for hackers" and "It's too complicated" mindframe which is held by many people, therefore encouraging more users to switch to Linux.

Although, I have to admit that there are quite a few computers coming out with Linux preinstalled. Apart from the classic Linux Certified laptops, there is the AOpen MiniPC which will soon be released - running Linspire, and at $399 will be $100 cheaper than its M$ counterpart.

Just saw the requirements and I'm rather shocked like most of the people here are. Whilst it may be good for "eye candy" to move some of the work to the gpu instead of the cpu, it also has effectively destroyed any hope for integrated graphics solutions that is capable of running Vista at decent resolutions.

It's pretty absurd to have such high requirements with such little gain in functionality or breakthrough. I suspect the actual requirements will be lower than stated (somewhat shown by people using the beta) but I still believe it will be classified "too high" for many people. Most will just stick with XP (or 2k) for those who use Windows. Also it was one of Microsoft's (actually the top) priority of 2006 to move CORPORATE customers to using Vista.. good luck is all I can say

Hopefully it will give the Linux world some extra exposure whilst people are deciding what to do with their OS/systems. Only time can tell what will happen.

that only can happen if you have an illegal / unregistered copy of windoze. If you are unlucky enough ... Micro$oft shall hunt you down and shall force you to upgrade all your machines to the new windoze "Vista", even if that means to buy a lot of brand new (mostly missused) hardware, they won't give a damn about you...

Well Microsoft can't "force" you to upgrade even with activation issues. The only time you will need
to upgrade is when either Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP and thus refuses to activate your copy,
or when software that you need refuses to run on anything less than Vista. Neither is likely to happen
anytime soon, so the majority of migrants would be those with top-end hardware who want more fancy
effects to take advantage of their hardware, also people who aren't tech-savvy.. and you got the large
portion of pirates who will likely to run Vista (for free) just because they can.

I used to be like that. Not this time.

I'm also shocked at the fact that you need a supercomputer to run Vista, even for the most basic things. Seems ridiculous. It's also ridiculous when most of the computing power is unnecessarily expended on the GUI/OS.

In related news, I heard that Vista won't be supporting RPC1 DVD drives (made before 2000), for those who still have them.

I don't understand this anti-upgrade sentiment at all. I can understand not liking Windows in general. To each his own right? But wanting to stay behind, its just beyond me. You always want to upgrade. Perhaps with the exception of Windows Me, which is'nt really an upgrade anyway. This is like universal truth. I mean if you have to stick it out with Windows, why do you want to use the old and crippled version? You would'nt want to still be running Linux 1.0, would you?

And putting windows 95 on a laptop? Over windows 2000?!! Why don't just put DOS on it, while you're at it?

Windows 2000 is the first version of windows that doesn't ENTIRELY suck ass and you want windows 95?

I upgraded a pentium II 233 64mb once, from windows 98 to windows XP. After simply disabling all the graphical effects, performance was actually BETTER than windows 98, mostly becuase the application did'nt crash 5 minutes after launching like it did in windows 9x. Believe it or not, I was actually able to run Quake3, albiet at 400 x 300. XP has far better management of cpu resources.
Don't believe me? Put a windows 98 laptop next to a windows xp laptop. See which one lasts longer.

"Vista will drive users to Linux"

That is completely unfounded. The final version of Vista is'nt even out yet. Secondly, most users don't even know linux exists. All you have is rumors and hearsay and Vista beta2. But guess what, if you have it, you're a pirate!
Unless you really got an msdn subscription, were one the *lucky* few chosen to recieve it, and waited hours through a 2 gigabyte download, wasted another hour and a half installing, took a 5 minute glance at the start menu and all the pretty icons, launched windows media player, maybe fiddle with a few more things...just long enough to say "Oh this is Windows. Its new. It sucks. I'm just going to do the logical thing and assume that it went backwards."

And you don't need a supercomputer to run Vista. If your computer can run KDE 3.5, chances are, it can probably run Vista. My $400 box can run Vista. 600 if you want to include the Radeon 9600 I've installed in there.

There's a reason I don't use KDE 3.5 (or KDE in general) and will not be "upgrading" to Vista:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/07/vista_requirements/

3ghz? 3ghz?!!

They can't be serious. You mean Vista will actually find a way to make my opterons feel slow? I don't believe this.
Is there 20 infinite loop daemons running in the background or something? Its probably just a sell to get people into buying more expensive processors.

I guess windows users should hope that 3ghz cpus are at a reasonable price by the time vista is released.

There might be problems if they try to a game or some program that require atleast 1ghz of processing power.

Perhaps a dual processor might be best.