Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:03 UTC, submitted by Jeremy
Windows ExtremeTech takes a look at the six different versions of Vista and has devised a way in helping people choose which one is best for them. The article outlines several key features and differences between versions in a comparison chart.
Order by: Score:
Which Vista Edition Is Right for Me?
by sapere aude on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:14 UTC
sapere aude
Member since:
2006-03-07

None ;)

Reply Score: 5

2fargone Member since:
2006-02-20

For all the reading I've done on Vista, the only thing I see compelling to buy it is for directx 10, but since I don't play games...

Security, maybe. But at my shop and home there's good security in place and I haven't had an infection in years.

XP will tied me over until Microsoft gets out of the per copy OS business and into the subscription OS business, at which time I will no longer use MS. So I suppose I am with you. None.

Reply Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Cheap. But correct! ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Bobe Member since:
2006-12-12

I would have to agree.

Admittedly, I have only read about and seen screenshots of Vista, but from what I've read, I can do without Activation, DRM, and so on.

To me, Activation, and software licensing in general, is like buying a car and being told that I can only take one additional passenger with me, on a non-transferable passenger license, and I can only go to a select set of "approved" destinations. Also, if I don't call the dealer within 30 days to register my one other passenger's name, my car will explode.

All other passengers/destinations will cost me extra.

Dumb.

Reply Score: 5

backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

Those are good analogies. If I had time, I think I could elaborate or give some of my own.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not quite grasping for the low-hanging fruit. It's more digging up and grasping for the low-hanging fruit that has already fallen off the branch, begun to decompose, and been partially-buried.

Reply Score: 2

graigsmith Member since:
2006-04-05

aww, you beat me to it. None is the correct answer for me.

Vista looks like an interesting os. But the restrictive license and price are totally unacceptable.

furthermore, the locked down media controls with specific hardware requirements - Unacceptable. who want's to buy a new monitor just for vista? No thank you.

The inability to transfer "your license" to other bits of hardware. Why pay for something, when it's like you don't own it, and can't even use it under certain conditions. like if you change your hardware too many times. It's Microsoft's software, and strangely enough they have the right to tell me how and when it can be used. But, why would i want to pay to be forced into something so restrictive. NO, no thank you.

Reply Score: 1

v If you keep your PC for 4 years
by NotParker on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:19 UTC
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

"We can all afford it. And most of us will want it."

You live in USA, right? You surely can afford it, you live in a wealthy country. But not all can. I don't like Windows, so I won't use Vista. But even if I liked it and wanted to buy it, I couldn't. The prices are too prohibitibe. And the upgrade is useless. You can't upgrade your current XP home and expect it to work fine. So you must buy the whole Vista. Not the Home edition, because it's just a stupid way to throw money to Microsoft.

So we are talking of something like $400 for a piece of crappy software, slow, bloated that nobody wants (at least until SP1), with not so good hardware support that needs a high end computer to work fine. So I don't think we can all afford it and most of us will want it. I would rather think it's just the oposite. At least for now.

Reply Score: 5

eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

You can do a clean install with the upgrade...

Reply Score: 4

holywood Member since:
2006-09-25

When I was using Windows 95 and 98 upgrade, I didn't like to install Win95 and Win98 at each install. This was taking much time.

Now, if I had to buy Vista, i wouldn't buy an upgrade.

(sorry for my english >:) )

Reply Score: 2

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

"$400?!? Are you high? Nobody pays retail."

So what do you have to do? Buy a new computer? Thanks.

Reply Score: 3

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"$400?!? Are you high? Nobody pays retail." - So what do you have to do? Buy a new computer? Thanks.

No no... smartie Joe W. Average will know where he can download the "Ultimate" edition and product key for free because he needs it (of course) and he doesn't see a reason why he should pay any money for software, because he's soooo intelligent and professional... ;)

Or imagine this: "Hey Bob! Look what I've got! It's the new 'Vista' DVD!" - "Wow, Timmy, can you make a copy of the installation DVD for me? I'd like to try it!" - "Sure, my friend. I'll write the registration code on top of the DVD." (I assume "Vista" comes as a DVD.)

What I want to say: Surely the number of illegal copies will increase and "Vista" will be spread around very quickly. I don't think the majotity of new "Vista" users will care about features, editions, hardware requirements or even security, no, they just want to have it because it's "new" - that's all.

Reply Score: 3

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

"No no... smartie Joe W. Average will know where he can download the "Ultimate" edition and product key for free"

You mean stealing? I thought it was illegal and unethical.

"because he needs it (of course) and he doesn't see a reason why he should pay any money for software, because he's soooo intelligent and professional... ;) "

I need a car. I really don't find a reason I should pay for one. Should I go out there and make one for myself?

We should discourage thievery and pirating. It's wrong.

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"You mean stealing? I thought it was illegal and unethical."

I completely agree, but reality seems to be different. Regarding software, most average users don't care. (I hope I'm not doing anyone wrong, it's just my individual observation.) It is illegal and officially prohibited by law, but in "small scale delicts" nobody pays attention. If there's no plaintiff, there's no judge. Software pirating is accepted throughout the society. At least in Germany. It's not that I like it this way, it's a fact.

"I need a car. I really don't find a reason I should pay for one. Should I go out there and make one for myself?"

Because people like car analogies... :-) A car is a material object, not an abstract one. You can see it, can touch it, measure its weight, calculate the price of steel (or wood, if you prefer it). With software it's slightly different: Here you pay for the development, for the time and the working energy of the developers, the testers, the marketing division etc. (Here you can see why most car analogies fail.)

"We should discourage thievery and pirating. It's wrong."

That's right. Software pirating us even not necessary because there are existing alternatives: If you don't want to pay money for a certain part of software, you won't have to; you just have to decide other software. It's simple. (Personally I only use free software - and software I've developed myself.)

Seeing a difference between "right" and "wrong", between "is morally acceptable" and "is unethical" requires a certain stage of individual personal development and intelligence (cf. Kohlberg: stages of moral development; Piaget: stages of cognitive development). Sometimes, I fear, this is not the case for some "average users", but it's not the majority, I assume.

Reply Score: 2

Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Windows Vista Ultimate or Business are the only worthy versions I would consider to get with a new computer.

All the other editions are crippled in some shape or form.

Edited 2006-12-12 22:24

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"If you keep your PC for 4 years [...]"

Who really does this? Especially gamers who will want to have "Vista" will surely buy new components after a few months of use and exchange the whole PC after a time not longer than one year.

"We can all afford it."

Because people like car analogies: I can afford a car - but I don't need one, so I won't buy one. :-)

"And most of us will want it."

I'm not sure Steven Q. Average will even know what "Vista" is so he won't want it. But I agree, he will get it as soon he purchases a new PC with an OEM version of "Vista" preinstalled on it. And because they don't know about alternatives (or don't want to know about it), they will stick with it until a new product from MICROS~1 arrives...

Ah... and I forgot: Most "little more than average" users will upgrade to the "Ultimate" edition for free very soon. :-)

Edited 2006-12-12 20:02

Reply Score: 5

fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

1 year? The whole PC. Not too believable. Most dicussions I've read suggest that gamers might upgrade their video card once a year at most. And PC's every couple.

Vista allows that.



And there lies the real issue. If there is even a question as to whether my OS of choice allows me to upgrade my own damn hardware, it will never touch my hard drive.

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

And there lies the real issue. If there is even a question as to whether my OS of choice allows me to upgrade my own damn hardware, it will never touch my hard drive.

It's not even a question. So lighten up, Francis.

Reply Score: 2

Only dual cpu?
by mtilsted on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:22 UTC
mtilsted
Member since:
2006-01-15

Is it really true, that the maximum number of physical CPUs supported are 2?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Only dual cpu?
by mym6 on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:18 UTC in reply to "Only dual cpu?"
mym6 Member since:
2005-08-26

Is that really so bad? Remember that multiple cores and HT are NOT included in that count so if you had two physical AMD 4 core processors you'd have 8 logical CPU's in your task manager....

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Only dual cpu?
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Only dual cpu?"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

Yes it's really so bad. Why buy 1 really expensive cpu when you can buy 2 cheaper ones. And who cares about what # I see in task manager. The end result is what matters and power users don't get the max cpu power available. Why? Other os's can do it.

Don't you see that this is just an artificial limitation to deprive choice in the market?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Only dual cpu?
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only dual cpu?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

No... a dual CPU board is already expensive... the next step up is 4 CPUs which makes the wiring insane and thus really really expensive. You pay more for the system with 4 CPUs because of the mobo than you would for a 1 CPU system with 4 cores.

besides that, if you are running 4 CPUs (physical dies with the extra controller logic needed) WTF are you doing running home premium?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Only dual cpu?
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Only dual cpu?"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"No... a dual CPU board is already expensive... the next step up is 4 CPUs which makes the wiring insane and thus really really expensive. You pay more for the system with 4 CPUs because of the mobo than you would for a 1 CPU system with 4 cores. "

of course the 4 mobo is expensive. Only few people are capable of using it. If everyone was able to use it, then prices for those mobos would go down. This is the problem-you don't think what would happen to the market with more choices.

And of course, those looking for highest absolute performance aren't going to be happy either.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Only dual cpu?
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Only dual cpu?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Only a very few need it or want it.

on top of that it will remain expensive because it is still HARD TO MAKE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Only dual cpu?
by tomcat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only dual cpu?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Yes it's really so bad. Why buy 1 really expensive cpu when you can buy 2 cheaper ones.

Because they're not cheaper. Price them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Only dual cpu?
by gilboa on Wed 13th Dec 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Only dual cpu?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, you're dead wrong.

A Tyan Tiger K8WE retails at around 300$.
Two AMD Opteron 265's cost around 200$ each or 400$. (Even less if you choose the ebay route)
The total price of CPU + board: 700$.

An entry level Intel Kentsfield starts ~750$.
Most Kentsfield compatible boards circle the ~250$ mark.
The total price of CPU + board: 1000$.

Once Clovertown is released, the CPU price will be lower, but at least in the begining, it'll require an uber-expensive Xeon board.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

RE: Only dual cpu?
by vimh on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "Only dual cpu?"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

I beleive that 2 physical cpus is s licence limit rather than an actual limitation of the software even though they state otherwise (so 2cpus for Vista according to that graph).

Doesn't Vista share the same kernal as Windows Server 2003?

I went at looked at a graphic workstation vender and they have machines that are configured with four or eight proccessors (eight to sixteen cores). One of the OS choices was Windows Server 2003 64bit.

So it looks like if you want more than 2 CPUs, you need to run Server 2003 (or don't run Windows). But it seems to me that the limit is based on how MS wanted to liscence their software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Only dual cpu?
by eivind on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Only dual cpu?"
eivind Member since:
2005-11-09

I believe you are right in the licensing question. But on whether Vista shares the same kernel as 2K3, that's not the case. Vista is version 6.0, which is mostly rebuilt or built from scratch, whereas 2K3 is version 5.2. It is however correct that the development initiated from verseion 5.2 (which of course is more sensible than to scrap 5.2 and build on XP/5.1).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Only dual cpu?
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only dual cpu?"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Vista is version 6.0, which is mostly rebuilt or built from scratch, whereas 2K3 is version 5.2.

Vista development did a "reset" after Windows 2003 SP1 came out.

Vista is based on Windows 2003 SP1.

Reply Score: 2

It will always be The Wrong One
by shotsman on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:26 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

For the Average user, whichever one they buy will be the wrong one. There will be something thwy need that is not in the version they buy.
Also, why does Microsoft think that almost everyone want all that Media Centre Sh1t?
For no other reason than lockin.

Don't get me wrong and think I am anti Windows. I do run Windows on a number of Systems. Windows Server 2003 that is. Even on my laptop. It lets me control things the way I want and does not get in the way and try to tell me what to do like XP.
And the eye candy! Windows Classic is all I need.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree. I think Vista is a fairly solid Windows release (as evidenced by my review), but this 209535 different editions nonsense is just plain bullshit.

Seriously. This is so wrong.

Reply Score: 1

2fargone Member since:
2006-02-20

The tighter you squeeze, the more will slip between your fingers.

Good in the short term, bad in the long.

I love windows but I hate Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I agree. I think Vista is a fairly solid Windows release (as evidenced by my review), but this 209535 different editions nonsense is just plain bullshit.

The reality is that OEMs will decide which edition goes on their boxes -- and customers will only have to "decide" between them if they understand that there are differences between them ... which is unlikely.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It will always be The Wrong One
by cmost on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "It will always be The Wrong One"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

"I do run Windows on a number of Systems. Windows Server 2003 that is. Even on my laptop. It lets me control things the way I want and does not get in the way and try to tell me what to do like XP."

Not everyone can afford a $999.00 license for Windows Server 2003 Standard for all of their machines. Unless you're getting your copies from Pirate Bay, Server 2003 is NOT a viable option for home users.

Edited 2006-12-12 19:44

Reply Score: 5

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Not everyone can afford a $999.00 license for Windows Server 2003 Standard for all of their machines.

Technet Plus is 349$ for the first year and 249$ each year after and it allows you to install Windows Server 2003 on more than one machine.

It also comes with a whole lot more.

MSDN (more expensive) also comes with Windows 2003 Server.

Reply Score: 1

markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

Technet Plus is 349$ for the first year and 249$ each year after and it allows you to install Windows Server 2003 on more than one machine.

I have heard users claim multiple installs for that service, but from what I see on Microsoft's site ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/ms772427.aspx and other pages) indicates that it is not a free-for-all license. It seems to limit rights for one user, for evaluation only. So, using it as your primary OS would be a violation of the EULA, as this is intended to be used by developers checking out compatibility for different platforms, etc.

It might take a call to Microsoft to verify this for sure...

Reply Score: 5

cwdrake Member since:
2005-08-09

That is correct as far as I know also. TechNet is for EVALUATION only.

Reply Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Technet Plus is 349$ for the first year and 249$ each year after and it allows you to install Windows Server 2003 on more than one machine.

It also comes with a whole lot more.

MSDN (more expensive) also comes with Windows 2003 Server."


Good point, though there is the gotcha's. Technet can only be installed for evaluation and can not be used for production. MSDN can only be used for development and not production...so you can install to evaluate, then to keep using it for production you need to by a commercial license. You forgot to mention those gotcha's.

Reply Score: 5

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Nah, I does not cost $999.

Most of my systems are Dell Servers that were bought with Server 2003. At the moent 688 buys you a SC440 and Server 2003 with 5 CALS.
I do software dev o these and my laptop when I visit clients. My main non work OS is Ubuntu.

Edited 2006-12-12 21:26

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Also, why does Microsoft think that almost everyone want all that Media Centre Sh1t?

HP and D*** sell MCE now on almost all of their consumer PC's.

Every HP in consumer-type computer stores has MCE on it.

All the D***'s (except for basic models buried deep on the website) have MCE on them.

They wouldn't do it if consumers didn't want it.

Choice. Its a wonderful thing!

Reply Score: 1

arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

Choice. Its a wonderful thing!

as long as it's Microsoft's choice, huh?

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

as long as it's Microsoft's choice, huh?

Hey, by all means exercise your choice to install Linux or OS X. I think that most of us could care less.

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

HP and D*** sell MCE now on almost all of their consumer PC's.

Every HP in consumer-type computer stores has MCE on it.


Right.... Because Microsoft offering lots of money for people to ship it == people actually buying it. I see very, very, very, very few people buying Media Centre PCs. I, personally, haven't seen anyone buy one.

They wouldn't do it if consumers didn't want it.

Judging from the woeful sales figures, they don't. It's just that Microsoft has a bee in its bonnet about getting into media and into the living room and is able to bankroll it.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Everyone is buying it.

Poor b*stard consumers have no choice in the matter...

/sarcasm

Reply Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

So do most Gateways.

Don't you mean G******s? :-)

Reply Score: 5

Dudesdad Member since:
2005-07-10

"Everyone is buying it."

No, not everyone.

Just the Sheeple, who buy whatever is on the shelf because someone else decided that they need it or it is the latest thing.(Marketing)

I have built every computer I have ever owned except the first one. (A whopping 4.7 MHZ Model)

But then again I am one of those weird people who want their phone to be just a phone and their camera to be just a camera and so on.

The only thing I really like that is multi-use is my swiss army knife.

Reply Score: 2

Dudesdad Member since:
2005-07-10

Just pointing out the fact that Dell and Gateway and HP doesn't make up "everyone".

None of the people I work with and around would buy any one of those. So obviously not everyone is buying it.

Not everyone is bound by what is "on the shelf" is the point I was making.

I do decide which icons I will use and which font. Don't you? Or do you just use the default set?

I also will decide what goes into my computer, not someone else's idea of what I want or need.

I didn't mean to impress - only educate.

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Just pointing out the fact that Dell and Gateway and HP doesn't make up "everyone".

D*** and HP are #1 and #2. I forget where Gateway is.

Just because I didn't list every top supplier, doesn't mean most of them aren't shipping MCE.

Not everyone is bound by what is "on the shelf" is the point I was making.

I've never bought a name brand PC either at work (if I was given a choice) or at home until this go round.

I've spec'd out lots of servers from parts when prices warranted.

This go round, D*** was cheaper than I could buy the parts myself. Quiet too. At work the defect rate of D***'s has been really low too. (I detest the bean counter who ordered a bunch of Acers to save 50$. 20% defect rate on some batches.

Edited 2006-12-12 23:52

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The only thing I really like that is multi-use is my swiss army knife.

So you never use your computer to listen to music or watch a DVD? ;)

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No, viewing p0rn is single-use.

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

But that does imply at least some, erm, multi-tasking. At least, assuming we're talking about a media-preceding-the-massage situation.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course not. Most are sold online from D***.

Yer. I've noticed that Microsoft are trying to sell them as ordinary PCs in order to keep the sales figures just above absolutely, woefully poor.

Go to D***'s website. Try and find a non-MCE PC. 95% or more have MCE on them.

All that tells me is that Microsoft has been strongarming Dell into exchanging a lot of their Windows XP licenses with MCE ones to try and boost the sales figures. Microsoft knows as well as everyone else that ordinary PC buyers can't buy a PC with anything other than Windows.

Everyone is buying it.

You seem to have real difficulty distinguishing between Microsoft spilling lots of them on their OEMs and popularity - which the Media Centre isn't.

I don't see it going head-to-head with a television and a DVD player in a consumer's thinking.

Reply Score: 5

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That remote control is great if you want to play MP3's from across the room or movies or show photos.

Listen. The living room entertainment business (or the hub as they call it) that Microsoft and others want to get into is dead. I can do about a hundred times more with a bunch of open source apps like MythTV and Amarok.

With Amarok I can connect to the Musicbrainz service and get all of my MP3 tags without having to fill them in, and I can connect to a lyrics site to get song lyrics directly as well as biographies and info from Wikipedia. With MythTV I can record any TV program I want at any time, and I can keep it forever, and I can rip my DVDs to my hard drive for easy retrieval.

What do I get with MCE and Windows Media Player? Not a whole lot. Most of the stuff any consumer would find useful has been crippled beyond recognition by DRM requirements (transferring digital rights on WMAs to other machines, broadcast flags, borrowing a friend's film?!), and it's at that point that people throw the whole thing away as any kind of Media Centre.

As long as DRM restrictions exist on these devices, forget about the entertainment hub. It's laughable.

That remote control is great if you want to play MP3's from across the room or movies or show photos.

The people who want that stuff are already doing it, and a hell of a lot more besides.

Choice. Its a wonderful thing.

I doubt whether Microsoft would agree with you because most are choosing not to, or they're being put off completely after getting the thing home and getting stung.

Reply Score: 3

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Right.... Because Microsoft offering lots of money for people to ship it == people actually buying it. I see very, very, very, very few people buying Media Centre PCs. I, personally, haven't seen anyone buy one.

That's because nearly all of today's PCs have the processor power, media drive(s), and disk space to act as a Media Center PC. There's no need to have a special designation. The only thing that most lack is a $50 NTSC/PAL/SVIDEO card. Big deal.

Judging from the woeful sales figures, they don't. It's just that Microsoft has a bee in its bonnet about getting into media and into the living room and is able to bankroll it.

If I had a dime for every complaint that ABMers lodged against free software from MS, I'd be rich...

Reply Score: 1

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

....and yet you're not (I assume)

Reply Score: 3

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Perhaps I should have said "richer"... ;-p

Reply Score: 0

Aaron1 Member since:
2006-01-19

They wouldn't do it if consumers didn't want it.

Actually I think they are putting MCE on because MS killed XP Home.

Edited 2006-12-12 22:31

Reply Score: 2

BitLocker
by PLan on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:26 UTC
PLan
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm sure governments and law enforcement agencies will be glad to see the lack of BitLocker in the majority of the versions.

Reply Score: 3

RE: BitLocker
by libray on Wed 13th Dec 2006 16:46 UTC in reply to "BitLocker"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

They like bitlocker not being there in the lower versions but love that "Instant Search" is built in to every version. Like with Spotlight, no longer will they need to do extensive work to find what they are looking for.

Reply Score: 1

Home Premium
by Fennec_Fox on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:27 UTC
Fennec_Fox
Member since:
2006-10-30

It looks like Home Premium edition is the best choice for an average user... However, being and average user, I will continue running Windows XP Pro for the next couple of years.

Reply Score: 3

6 versions?
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:39 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

so I guess they are trying to be more like linux in that regard

Reply Score: 3

RE: 6 versions?
by twenex on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:11 UTC in reply to "6 versions?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

No. I can't think of a single linux vendor which offers six different versions, unless you include those for non-Intel architectures. Which Vista doesn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 6 versions?
by tomcat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE: 6 versions?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No. I can't think of a single linux vendor which offers six different versions, unless you include those for non-Intel architectures. Which Vista doesn't.

Try 600 distros, most of which are incompatible.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: 6 versions?
by twenex on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 6 versions?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Try 600 distros,

From one company?

Actually I think you've overestimated the number of distros there by a factor of 2.

most of which are incompatible.

Yes, dear.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: 6 versions?
by tomcat on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 6 versions?"
RE[5]: 6 versions?
by twenex on Wed 13th Dec 2006 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 6 versions?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Yes, dear.

Don't try to ingratiate yourself with me.


Hahah, I wouldn't bother if my life depended on it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 6 versions?
by skymt on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: 6 versions?"
skymt Member since:
2006-12-05

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, and Ubuntu Server. That's five, and that's not counting unofficial variants (Fluxbuntu, Linux Mint, etc).

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: 6 versions?
by NotParker on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 6 versions?"
RE[4]: 6 versions?
by archiesteel on Wed 13th Dec 2006 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 6 versions?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

...except they're not different version. Kubuntu is just Ubuntu with KDE installed. My Kubuntu has Gnome installed as well, so it's both.

There's no pricing difference (they're all free), no differences in arcane licensing schemes (free software), it's the same help guide (ubuntuguide.org) and forums (ubuntuforums.org)...

Hey, I don't even really consider myself a Kubuntu user. I use Ubuntu with KDE.

The "real" versions of Kubuntu are Dapper Drake (LTS), Edgy Eft (most up-to-date) and Feisty Fawn (developement).

Reply Score: 4

v RE[5]: 6 versions?
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 6 versions?"
RE[6]: 6 versions?
by archiesteel on Wed 13th Dec 2006 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 6 versions?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

They're not different products, they're variations of the same product.

But by now I know that reality doesn't really concern you. All that matters is the propaganda framework you've set up to support your overwhelming pro-MS bias.

You're either a fanatic, or an astroturfer. I'm leaning for the second.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[7]: 6 versions?
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 6 versions?"
RE[3]: 6 versions?
by twenex on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 6 versions?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Yes, those are separate desktop environments. Windows as shipped from the vendor does not have separate desktop environments. So why the 6 versions?

Look, yes, the number of distros available to use can be confusing, if you take the view that they are all the same. They are not. There are a very clear top 10, most if not all of which correlate with Distrowatch's top 10. The existence of multiple Linux versions does not make Linux a bad product, anymore than the existence of TVR and Skoda as well as BMW, Jaguar, Ford, and General Motors makes cars a bad product.

Come to mention it, General Motors makes no less than 15 brands of vehicle, according to Wikipedia, most of which are not available in all markets (Chevrolets are not sold in Britain, Vauxhalls are not sold in Europe or the United States (though the same bodies tend to go by the name Opel in Europe)). Again, that does not reflect on the quality of cars in general or of General Motors vehicles in particular. So why should it reflect on the quality of Linux?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: 6 versions?
by skymt on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 6 versions?"
skymt Member since:
2006-12-05

So why the 6 versions?

Why does nVidia make so many kinds of video cards? Why does Intel make so many kinds of processors? Because it makes sense to sell products with different capabilities at different prices. Users who don't need everything the high-end product offers can buy something farther down the scale, which saves them money.

I wasn't attacking Linux. I love Linux, I'm running it now (Arch at the moment). In fact, I wiped Windows off my drive last week. I was just trying to make the point that both Windows and Linux have different versions, with different capabilities, for different tasks. That's a good thing. Especially with Windows, where users with few needs (Office/web/email types) don't have to pay as much as the Power Users who need Every Feature Under The Sun.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 6 versions?
by gonzo on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 6 versions?"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, and Ubuntu Server. That's five, and that's not counting unofficial variants (Fluxbuntu, Linux Mint, etc).

And, then, believe it or not..

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntuce

The goal of Ubuntu Christian Edition is not to bring Christianity to Linux but to bring Linux to Christians.

One good thing though is:

Q: Is Ubuntu Christian Edition designed for Protestants or Catholics?
A: Both! Ubuntu Christian Edition will always try to cater to the needs of all Christians.


LOL

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 6 versions?
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 6 versions?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Now THERE are two groups of loonies that we don't need teaming-up.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: 6 versions?
by twenex on Wed 13th Dec 2006 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 6 versions?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Not all Christians are like Bush or Limbaugh.

Some of them are actually genuinely nice, sensible people.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: 6 versions?
by netpython on Wed 13th Dec 2006 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 6 versions?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

no offence

Religion is in my opinion just a naming convention.
My problem is though what name should i use for something i have never seen.jo don't have to go to church in order to believe.God is real unless declared integer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: 6 versions?
by twenex on Wed 13th Dec 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 6 versions?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

no offence

None taken. I'm not Christian, I just know some pleasant folks who are.

.God is real unless declared integer.

Heheh.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: 6 versions?
by netpython on Wed 13th Dec 2006 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 6 versions?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Not all Christians are like Bush or Limbaugh.

I'm glad.Though i doubt they are real ones.If they where christian the people from Louisiana and area would have had some help more quickly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 6 versions?
by Rayz on Wed 13th Dec 2006 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 6 versions?"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

ROFLMAO!!!

... I used to complain about the six editions (which I still think is daft), now I have seen everything!

I take it all back!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: 6 versions?
by mark_in_rdjbrasil on Wed 13th Dec 2006 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 6 versions?"
mark_in_rdjbrasil Member since:
2005-11-30

of course, with all due respect now the developers need ubuntu muslim edition, buddhist edition, and so forth and so on. of course, i would love to see ubuntu athiest edition.

Edited 2006-12-13 17:12

Reply Score: 1

nothing compelling
by Zedicus on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:40 UTC
Zedicus
Member since:
2005-12-05

everything revolutionary has been stripped away from the final release. all we are left with is a bunch of new fluff, and a bunch of versions that dont have the combinations of features i want. i realize that for me personally it isnt that big of a deal as ive long since switched to linux. but i do work on computers for a number of peeple and at some point i will have to have dealings with this OS and i know peeple are going to be confused over which version to get, or why the version that came on their bright new computer doesnt hav X feture that they need. we wont go into the reinstall nightmares and licensing issues that im sure will come up. all i can say is now more then ever will i be pushing linux to end users, even if that causes me to have to give more phone support in the short term.

Edited 2006-12-12 19:42

Reply Score: 5

RE: nothing compelling
by NotParker on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:49 UTC in reply to "nothing compelling"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

everything revolutionary has been stripped away from the final release. all we are left with is a bunch of new fluff

I and millions of others wouldn't call it fluff.

And Microsoft plans to add the few features "stripped away" later on for no additional cost.

Some of them needed Longhorn finished anyway before they would be useful to the Vista Client.

Reply Score: 1

RE: nothing compelling
by tomcat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:58 UTC in reply to "nothing compelling"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

all we are left with is a bunch of new fluff

Fluff? You're in need of education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#End-user_features

Reply Score: 3

Pirated ultimate
by hobgoblin on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:41 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nuff said...

Browser: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.0.6306/1528; en; U; ssr)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pirated ultimate
by Darkelve on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:49 UTC in reply to "Pirated ultimate"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Would that be: Vista - Dead Man's Chest edition ;)

Reply Score: 1

be honest
by merkoth on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:45 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Most OSNews readers will only feel comfy with Ultimate, the only one that can be considered really "complete".

That is if I ever feel like buying Vista, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Reply Score: 5

SMP
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:46 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

only 2 cpu's allowed, even in ultimate. hmph

Reply Score: 1

RE: SMP
by NotParker on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:52 UTC in reply to "SMP"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

only 2 cpu's allowed, even in ultimate. hmph

2 sockets. Unlimited cores.

If you want 8 cores, buy a dual I**** 53xx box with 4 cores on each CPU. That is supported.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SMP
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE: SMP"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

what if i want 16 cores? remember this is for ultimate

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SMP
by eivind on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SMP"
eivind Member since:
2005-11-09

what if i want 16 cores? remember this is for ultimate

Hehe :-) I think your definition of "ultimate" somewhat exceeds that of the Microsoft marketing division.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SMP
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SMP"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

what if i want 16 cores?

Buy Longhorn.

Or Technet Plus.

Or MSDN.

Or wait until Intel offers an 8 core CPU.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: SMP
by archiesteel on Wed 13th Dec 2006 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SMP"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Or get Linux.

Or Solaris.

Or *BSD.

:-)

Reply Score: 5

v RE[5]: SMP
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SMP"
RE[6]: SMP
by archiesteel on Wed 13th Dec 2006 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: SMP"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

So you're admitting that people (including businesses) that have 16-core PCs are better off with a *nix solution?

Well, that's a first. I think I'll have to report you to your manager, you're supposed to defend MS at all cost, even if you need to fudge statistics, misrepresent other people's words, or make outrageous claims!

Meanwhile, I remember specifically that you tried to bring in multi-core cpus when you made the very weak argument that market share by revenue was more important than market share per unit for servers...as usual, you change your tune every time it suits your agenda.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: SMP
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: SMP"
RE[2]: SMP
by RandomGuy on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE: SMP"
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

"If you want 8 cores, buy a dual I**** 53xx box with 4 cores on each CPU. That is supported."

Damn it, NotParker, you don't need to put stars in every single sentence!
See: Dell, Intel, Amd are no curse words.
Whoever modded you down that one time probably had about one million reasons to do so and you mentioning Dell was not one of them!

I know it's off topic but it makes me sick.

On topic:
Vista looks sweet but I would at least wait for SP1 to come out.
The problem with Vista is not just the cost of the OS itself but you also need pretty powerful hardware.
Of course, you can get it with a new Pc pretty cheap.
But you don't get to really configure and tweak your system then and the OEM-version will give you trouble when you upgrade parts.
Generally speaking, buying OS and PC, printer, TFT, whatnot in a bundle is great unless you intend to change _anything_.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: SMP
by NotParker on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SMP"
RE[4]: SMP
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SMP"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06


I can if I want to. Free speech and all that.


WhatEVA! You don't control me, I do what I want!

Edited 2006-12-13 04:43

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: SMP
by archiesteel on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SMP"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Damn it, NotParker, you don't need to put stars in every single sentence!
See: Dell, Intel, Amd are no curse words.
Whoever modded you down that one time probably had about one million reasons to do so and you mentioning Dell was not one of them!


Indeed. I modded down the post for basically linking to an computer ad. NotParker jumped on this as an occasion to attack my character. I told him many times it was perfectly fine to write company names like Dell or Intel, but he childishly continues his charade, not realizing it makes *him* look foolish.

BTW, NotParker, see how you *don't* get modded down when you make on-topic, respectful post? (Or not as much, anyway?)

This *is* off-topic. Please mod down this post.

Reply Score: 1

and also...
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:00 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

you may actually need 16 cores to get vista to run smoothly ;)

Reply Score: 5

I would buy windows
by Jimbo on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:07 UTC
Jimbo
Member since:
2005-07-22

Even though I probably wouldn't use it right away, just for the convenience of always having a fully licensed version of MS's latest OS, I would buy Windows Vista. At $150 - $200, the lifespan of the product (another desktop Windows won't come out for another 5+ years) would easily make up for the high initial purchase price.

But I need dual CPU support. That already pushes the price over $200. I also need full remote desktop support. OK, now it costs $300. And to tell the truth, if I were too obtain Vista through, ahem, other methods, I would almost certainly "obtain" Ultimate Edition. If I were to pay for that it would cost me almost a half grand.

So thanks MS, thanks for preventing me from buying your core product. If you hadn't based your pricing on pure greed, I might have purchased it already. But as of right now, it doesn't look like I'll ever buy windows vista.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: I would buy windows
by tomcat on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "I would buy windows"
RE: I would buy windows
by TBPrince on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:43 UTC in reply to "I would buy windows"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

CPU limits are mostly used to prevent using Vista desktop as a server, expecially if you consider that, as far as I know, IIS verion which ships with Vista Business+ has no websites limits like XP one.

Only a few subset of users will need more than 2 CPUs and while gamers are among them, they probably think most multi-CPU systems will be used in servers field.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I would buy windows
by arielb on Wed 13th Dec 2006 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: I would buy windows"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"CPU limits are mostly used to prevent using Vista desktop as a server, expecially if you consider that, as far as I know, IIS verion which ships with Vista Business+ has no websites limits like XP one. "

aha so there we go. It was never about Microsoft's inability to do it.
btw use Firefox 2...typos should be history on the web.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: I would buy windows
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: I would buy windows"
RE[3]: I would buy windows
by porcel on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I would buy windows"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28


I don't think so. With quad core CPU's CPU limits are not the issue.

IIS7 does have limits on Vista. Just not the same ones as on XP.


http://www.iis.net/default.aspx?tabid=2&subtabid=25&i=1100

"The Professional Editions places a limit of 10 simultaneous requests that can be processed."

"The IIS 7 simultaneous request execution limit for the Vista Starter and Home Editions is three."


Thanks for showing that Vista's limitations are arbitrary, artificial and only to create product differentiation where none would exist. Most people will opt to run Apache on Windows if they happen to be stuck with Windows, rather than put up with nonsense such as only 3 simultaneous connections on a web server.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: I would buy windows
by NotParker on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I would buy windows"
RE[3]: I would buy windows
by TBPrince on Wed 13th Dec 2006 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I would buy windows"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

"The IIS 7 simultaneous request execution limit for the Vista Starter and Home Editions is three."

Vista Starter and Home editions will have no IIS7, according to that document. IIS 7 will be available on Vista Home Premium+.

Still I believe they tried to limit Vista use as a server, the same way they do with XP (which, if I can remember it well, supports up to 2 CPUs). I could be wrong, of course.

Reply Score: 1

Not for me
by Sodki on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:43 UTC
Sodki
Member since:
2005-11-10

Sorry, I'm waiting for Gentoo Ultimate edition.

Reply Score: 3

cyberkoa
Member since:
2006-10-18

My Windows XP Home still running fine, I see no point to upgrade just for eye-candy , still-under-research voice-input which will affect the performance of my current laptop.

Instead of upgrading to Vista (Can XP Home buy upgrade version to upgrade ?) , I recommend users who like Windows wait at least SP1 or SP2 , for the time being , invest your money in the hardware.

By the time SP1 or SP2 coming out, you already have a better hardware specification to run Vista smoothly.
You can even save all this money to buy a Mac instead. Or maybe you already start using Linux,*BSD and save this money etc .

Reply Score: 2

64 bit vista home premium
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 12th Dec 2006 20:52 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

it is the only vista that is top notch on security. yes it may not run some installers, yes it may have device driver issues for a year or so... but the security aspects are so well thought out that I find it hard to believe that any malicious code (given today's tech) could self propagate.

Reply Score: 1

Only dual cpu?
by mtilsted on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:07 UTC
mtilsted
Member since:
2006-01-15

[besides that, if you are running 4 CPUs (physical dies with the extra controller logic needed) WTF are you doing running home premium?]

But NO version of vista is supporting more then 2 cpus, not even the business edition. And while a 16 core workstation will newer be the normal business computer, there are quite many uses for such a beast, but I guess they will have to keep running Windows XP. (Or more likely: this is a mistake, and vista ultimate actuelly supports 16 cpus).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Only dual cpu?
by DrillSgt on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:58 UTC in reply to "Only dual cpu?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"But NO version of vista is supporting more then 2 cpus, not even the business edition. And while a 16 core workstation will newer be the normal business computer, there are quite many uses for such a beast, but I guess they will have to keep running Windows XP"

Ermm..Windows XP also only supports 2 Processors....

Reply Score: 4

RE: Only dual cpu?
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:18 UTC in reply to "Only dual cpu?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

My bad... The server system supports more than that right?

If you want to do something with 16 CPUs and are not running a server then use Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Only dual cpu?
by arielb on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Only dual cpu?"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

well since the most popular vista version will be "basic" which only supports 1 cpu, that won't significantly lower the price for even 2 cpu pc's.

Reply Score: 1

None
by Oldplanet on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:15 UTC
Oldplanet
Member since:
2006-08-03

No edition is "right" for me.

Since my field of work is IT, I will probably run Vista on one of my boxes to play with it and have a look (not because I want to, or am interested in it though).

The computers that I actually use for real work will continue to run GNU/Linux and *BSD.

Edited 2006-12-12 21:15

Reply Score: 5

RE: None
by tomcat on Wed 13th Dec 2006 01:45 UTC in reply to "None"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No edition is "right" for me.

Since my field of work is IT, I will probably run Vista on one of my boxes to play with it...


Why not simply avoid Vista entirely and let your skills degrade...? That sounds like a better option... /sarcasm

Reply Score: 0

The original
by DevL on Tue 12th Dec 2006 21:50 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

The original: Mac OS X

Reply Score: 4

What I need?
by microFawad on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:01 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

Well, I want Windows Vista Open Source Edition.
hehehehe...

By the way, I am not goanna upgrade now. Currently I am happy with Ubuntu 6.10 and Windows XP.

Reply Score: 3

kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

(Most) Linuxes: One size fits all.

(I still find it annoying and confusing in Xubuntu reading through all of the update descriptions weeding out all of the server related crap from the stuff I'm going to use. Am I going to accidently skip a package I really need because I thought it had something to do with servers? I mean, I downloaded a desktop Linux, WTF am I getting all sorts of server tool updates? [It's a G3 Powerbook Pismo with a dying DVD drive, hard-drive and LCD screen, really, really not server material at all.])

OS X: Two flavors. Server or non-server. Did you buy an X-Serve? No? Did you specifically order a copy of OS X Server? Then don't worry.

(Also, I'm sent the appropriate updates for my "flavor". I love this.)

(BTW, should I ever decide I want to, I can go and dig out the server tools hidden away in the "regular" version of OS X. It's not that hard. But I don't plan to, and I like that they're conveniently tucked where I don't trip over them on a regular basis.)

Edited 2006-12-12 22:20

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Umm... just install them!!!

cripes the software is already on your system which is why the updates are marked. Remove the server software (apache is server software) and you will not get those updates.

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Umm... just install them!!!

cripes the software is already on your system which is why the updates are marked. Remove the server software (apache is server software) and you will not get those updates.


Nope. Been burnt twice already. I do not do "just install the whole shebang" updates. Figuring out what exactly did it, digging all of it out, and re-downloading several copies of corrupted programs was so not how I wanted to spend most of one Saturday afternoon. (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't an update to OO or Firefox that caused me all my grief.)

My point is, WTH do I even have apache on a desktop focused distro?! It should a package I download later or (as with OS X) buried deeply enough that I don't get bothered about it.

It's also one of the reasons my DH does not have a Linux machine. He couldn't make heads or tails of those descriptions and I'd get a lot of phone calls about "do I need to install this?" or "What does this do?"

Then again, he's presented with a list of about 7 upgrades to install. In Xubuntu, I've got nearly 20. (Which is the downside of all the choice Linux gives us.)

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I have NEVER had corrupted files download from ubuntu... or any other linux system... what repos were you using?

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

My point is, WTH do I even have apache on a desktop focused distro?! It should a package I download later or (as with OS X) buried deeply enough that I don't get bothered about it.

That's strange. I don't have Apache installed on my Kubuntu laptop. I installed the basic package setup...are you sure you didn't install the server version? Or is it a decision taken by the Xubuntu maintainers?

I agree that Apache is basically useless for a desktop/laptop installation...but I don't see it on mine, and AFAIK it's not on the default install of Ubuntu either.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

(Most) Linuxes: One size fits all.

Hear, hear.

I find it ridiculous that MS cripples lower-priced version simply to increase its revenue stream. This has nothing to do with the quality of the overall product, and everything to do with *greed*.

Reply Score: 2

On Topic *first post*
by ronaldst on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:31 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

My original complaint still stands: too many versions. And home edition premium should have the ability to be Remote Desktoped in.

I wonder whatever happened to the home server edition? That one I was looking forward. I wish MS would release a family pack for Windows Vista like MacOS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE: On Topic *first post*
by NotParker on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:41 UTC in reply to "On Topic *first post*"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

My original complaint still stands: too many versions. And home edition premium should have the ability to be Remote Desktoped in.

It does. Thats why the chart says "Remote Desktop" is limited.

But for those versions its called Remote Assistance. You can email or IM an RA request to your techie of choice and get them to take over your pc for troubleshooting.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: On Topic *first post*
by ronaldst on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: On Topic *first post*"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

I want to dial into another headless PC. I don't have an IT dept at home to take care of download/ftp server.

It still escapes me why OS desktop providers don't push this feature. It's so useful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: On Topic *first post*
by DrillSgt on Tue 12th Dec 2006 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: On Topic *first post*"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"It still escapes me why OS desktop providers don't push this feature. It's so useful."

Well, there are tools out there for this as well, such as VNC. That is free I might add, and will work on any OS.

Reply Score: 3

it is called choice
by jtrapp on Tue 12th Dec 2006 22:48 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

and it is a sign of a healthy market.

MS's era of offering only a one-size fits all OS is over and it is competition that ended it. MS is no longer in the position to throw an OS out there and say "take it or leave it".
They must show value added (or perceived value added) to OS X + iLife for the home market. And they must show value added (or perceived value added) to Linux + Open Office for the corporate market.

The fact that MS has begun to diversify their offerings shows that they are starting to face competition from Linux and/or OS X. This is health returning to the OS market....and who could possibly be against that?

Edit: I do not mean to infer that the OS market is healthy, only that the first signs of life seem to be returning.

Edited 2006-12-12 22:53

Reply Score: 3

What a mess...
by TrendKill on Wed 13th Dec 2006 02:11 UTC
TrendKill
Member since:
2006-01-21

...

Reply Score: 0

"Ultimate Extras"
by eivind on Wed 13th Dec 2006 02:13 UTC
eivind
Member since:
2005-11-09

Who remembers "Plus Pack"? With Windows I would actually prefer to have a "Minus Pack". A stripped down Ultimate Edition with all the possibilities and flexibility, but without any of the bloat.

Reply Score: 2

Yawn
by rain on Wed 13th Dec 2006 04:05 UTC
rain
Member since:
2005-07-09

Vista hasn't even been released and yet it already feels old and dated.
I have one friend who's excited about Vista. One. The rest either doesn't care about the OS they use or has moved on to Ubuntu or OS X.

Reply Score: 3

I know...
by Darkelve on Wed 13th Dec 2006 08:50 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

Windows Vista SP2

Reply Score: 2

Home Basic
by PJBonoVox on Wed 13th Dec 2006 10:31 UTC
PJBonoVox
Member since:
2006-08-14

Would be home basic for me.

Remote Desktop = Replace with VNC
Aero Glass = Pointless eye candy
Other features (Fax, Bitlocker) = Not interested

Reply Score: 1

right management tools
by netpython on Wed 13th Dec 2006 12:38 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

The premium version lacks right management tools.How should i interprete this?

Is it the same as XP home edition versus XP professional?

Reply Score: 2

Question to all
by steverez1 on Wed 13th Dec 2006 20:25 UTC
steverez1
Member since:
2006-12-06

I have been reading articles here for quite sometime now back months ago people were very upset that Vista has such high requirements. Are these the same people now that are complaining about restrictions adding hardware? Stating they upgrade almost the whole computer in the course of a year or two I find these complants both contradicting each other. How many of you have a computer right now that has 2 CPU's (Not Cores) or are going to buy on in the next 2 years? Remember Vista Retail allows you to transfer your copy to a new computer. All companys have to define limits to there products if they are going to meet differant price points for different markets or customer bases, Why should Microsoft be any different.

Reply Score: 1