Infornography

Tried vista, hated it. It's pure eye candy and not much else. What's funny is that when vista was released, xp's sales rose. I gave up both xp and vista, and just on a whim hopped ship to ubuntu, otherwise known as linux for dummies. It's easy to install and doesn't use that much system resources. I'm on a 3 year old machine running ubuntu and it's working great. As far as "eye-candy" goes go to youtube and type in "ubuntu and bery" in the search line and see what it can do. Sorry, but Microsoft isn't getting any more of my money. I have xp, I have vista, and I have Ubuntu, and i'm selling both xp and vista. Not worth it.

Lolly

I bought Windows Vista Ultimate. Its way better then Windows XP. Some people say that it wouldn't work well on a single core processor, but I'm running it smoothly on my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz HT, 2GB RAM PC. The only thing is, is that you need alot of RAM. I had 1GB of RAM 5 hours ago (lol). Some windows didn't close as fast as it did on Windows XP. Problems that I have found were that Doom 3, Quake 4, Alcohol 120% (Virtual Drive software) didn't work. Alcohol gives me some blue screens and I had to reinstall Vista. I got myself PowerISO instead. The other thing is that the User account control that was switched on and keeps on annoying me when I install something or want to run something. I just turned that off at Accounts.

sibal

Be it that I was a bit of a beta tester for Vista, I hated it. I didn't run into any major bugs, but I found an annoying one during the beta phase (which I'm sure was fixed for RTM). There's no real improvements with Vista besides making some of the interfaces harder to navigate and having to deal with a ton of pop-ups just to run a single EXE file. Heck, some of the more popular games may not even run on Vista, like the Battlefield series and I've heard Halo didn't work either.

The motion desktop (some of you may have heard of it), is more than likely going to run up your system resources even further than the Aero Glass does.

I can't test this out since Vista no longer works on my system for some unknown reason.

Also, to point out, no one is going to buy a whole new computer just to support Vista's insane requirements.

Sure, my system that I hope to build will support Vista, but there is no way I'm going to put that OS on there, one for the bugs that could creep up, and two, since I don't feel like messing with it's security settings to make those pop-ups to run a single EXE file that will quickly drive me up the freakin' wall 10 times over just to shut them up. (yes, they are that annoying)

joll69

also, i haven't tried halo, but i know for certain that battlefield 2 and just about every game/app that i was told wouldnt work in vista (either partially or at all), works just as well as in xp. i wish nero 6 worked tho. cuz nero 7 is a huge step backward.

pomorales

From a user perspective, I haven't seen any graphical improvements in Vista for the same games I used to run on XP. If anything, I've seen problems, although for the moment I'll blame this on Nvidia's STILL beta drivers. Call of Duty 2 looks the same. IL-2 Sturmovik looks the same. I just can't see any improvement in these games after the jump to Vista. I wouldn't expect any improvement either; the last time I upgraded my video card, Freespace 2 and Max Payne, both DirectX 7-ish games, looked the same on a video card that supported DirectX 9 features. Sure, it ran faster, but that's due to me having a better video card, not necessarily for having a newer version of DirectX.

From a programming perspective, DirectX 10 would have to rewrite and improve on the code in the DirectX 9 libraries to make game graphics better. Now, I don't know anything about the inner workings of DirectX, so I can't really say anything. I also haven't looked into DirectX 10 to see if Microsoft actually did things to improve on the code used by programs that use previous versions of DirectX. However, if DirectX 10 really were to improve the graphics of DirectX 9 games, I'd look here, and so far, I haven't seen anything.

tennents

That's not true. P2P is also a great source of viruses. ;-)

BitTorrent is great for high-bandwidth connections, but the amount of bandwidth it sucks up makes it less than ideal for slower ones. I managed to hit 100GB transfer in a month just seeding every night.

GMSniper07

It sort of is worth getting. First of all who doesn't want new technology
second, it supports directx 10 which Halo2 will only run on ^-^
third, it is a break through if you want to utilize more RAM and if you like eye candy, Vista Has plenty

only down part of Vista is the memory usage it will take. On idle it takes about 784 mb of RAM and that doesn't leave much of other programs so i would AT LEAST recommend 2 gb of RAM

Cats

BitTorrent - Why Use It?

Don't... :)
Get Azureus or uTorrent both are far better then BitTorrent.. or you can try out Bittornado or ABC..

@ bb10
Bah.. all you need to get 10mb/s ++ speeds is just to find a private tracker.. etcetera... then it's almost like ftp.. only fassteerrrrr... ;)

bak3donh1gh

its only a beta if you download the beta, if you download the rc1 or the rc2(off torrents) its not a beta.

There is a way to get the zune software to work by editing one of the msi tables.

Dooly00000

BT IS slower then DirectDownload/FTPing, IRC-leeching, so on and forth, but it is more reliable in my opinion.

ARI-RIN

I like all of them.. Hehe...
As long that music is good to hear XD XD