Do you like Vista?

ya i like vista. its still more better than than xp. with increase in look and feel, speed, stability,security, and much of everything. but its recommended system requirements is very high. even though its minimum system requirement is 800 MHz processor and 512 MB ram. it needs a lot of ram(1 GB ram ) and especially when gaming especially like need for speed carbon and some other games like that. and booting of win vista is slower when compared to winxp. but after that everything is smooth sailing. and to increase the security they have administrator approval system. so that spy-wares might be able to run in background . so for any program to run it requires user approval. and hence increased in security. well that's all i can tell about windows vista. Happy mylot day.

I like the idea of testing new softwares. Testing vista it was really strange because my computer has only 512 Mn of RAM and it worked a little bit easy. I think this is the problem of vista: it needs lot of resurses and i think is not for every one.

I could not able to downlaod the pre release version of windows vista. Can you please suggest any downl load link for Windows Vista ?

Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications). Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors. There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it. We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue. There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately. Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space? If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP. But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe it makes sense to consider these three bullet points: * Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free. * There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead. * No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor. Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel faster and smoother than Windows XP.

Vista really is a feast for the eyes. The only dawback is that it needs a rather powerful PC to operate in its full potential. Also, software incompatibilities are the news around Vista. I'd better stick with XP first and wait for Vista's incompatibility issues to resolve. =)

I would recommend people to stay with Windows XP because it has reached the stable stage. I can bet anyone that Windows Vista is going to have errors just like XP had them when it got released. Windows Vista, from my point of view, is just Windows XP Second Generation and I think that Microsoft has done little to make the Windows more secure and less boring. Also it would be un-wise to upgrade to Vista just now because a lot of softwares have not yet been developed for Vista. Therefore, I feel that it is going to take a while for people to stop using Windows XP, and get in the mood of using Vista.

I have a Intel Celeron 3 Gb-Hrtze , 512 mb Ram , Nvidia FX 5200 , A 200 gb hard disk , and a dvd writer.

Yes I like Microsoft's windows vista. It has excellent graphic quality and this is the main function of it and it has many other features I like you will no need of your motherboard CD, it contents windows media player 11 version, Internet explorer 7 version and many more. I also Have a pre-released version RC1 and now have its latest version. But the problem is I only have 80GB heard disk and vista cover about 10GB of memory space so this is the big drawback of Windows Vista.

I am yet to have a copy. I guess it is just another way of taking our money. what can Vista do the xp or other earlier versions cannot do? Anyway, i would get one soon so as not to be left out of the rush for a change.

yes i think it needs a machine with atleast 2 gb ram .. and more .. then it works fine ... the opeiting sysstem has got a lot of exciting features.. if u have enogoh money u can opt for it. ..

I try to use vista and likes it feature, the really thing that upset me is the needed computer hardware configuration needed to run it.

vista is to good than xp

I like it for sure. But i have a problem.... my laptop can't run it... anyway i'm planing to buy a new desktop for graphix application n simulation so i can run that in that.... i'm waiting for AMD people to release their quad core processors......

wel i havent used VISTA but i thnk win xp sp 2 is gud n has more security features. wel vista heh dun want heh. nevah mind bcoz i like using Unix/linux *BSD type of OS. bcoz BSD provides u userland + kernel and mre secured features thn any othr OS. thx.

well i have not use the main vista versionof windows but i have heard a lto of negative comment about the latest version. i think the looks are great bbut if you need such a hig config pc as they tell ten why do you wantot go for that. i have a pc which can supprot vista but why will i use so much of my pc resources just for an os. cause that is not the main thig for which i have got theoc. i haev some work and fr that i have fwe application and that also requires resources. then why compromise.

I have had a chance to work on the windows vista at my friend's computer (beta version) and i have found there is not much difference between windows xp and vista, i felt both are similar except the graphics are really good in vista and the speed is also comparitively good and i especially liked the new desktop look of vista.

I have not used vista nor I am planning to use it right now, just because I feel that I don't have the right resources. I would not load on this computer which I am using. I will be upgrading my system soon and then I will start thinking whether to shift to vista or stay put with XP..

Ya the vista is very good and it is having all the good options of style, look etc and the system you are using is very less that is the reason your system is very slow their is nothing to do with the 1GB Ram it requires the processing speed in the system as you say it requires lot of space it also requires some space to run or make it run.

I have not yet used Vista but i have heared that it needs alot of space and a high resolution machine to run it smoothly, i was thinking to install vista but then i stopped knowing the bad effects of vista.

I really like Windows Vista too. I am currently running the 32-bit version on a computer I built. I have an AMD 64-bit 1.8GHz processor, 768 MB of memory, and a 64 MB video card and it runs just fine. The video card keeps me from accessing some of the games and features but I am just waiting for the new generation video cards that are built for Direct X 10 to come out. All in all, I am really pleased with Vista and already have a copy of Vista Ultimate on order for the Jan. 30 release.