Windows XP -VS- The PS2

[Gump-in-space]

I voted that people in general will accept Vista easier than PS3. Here's why: People don't NEED a PS3. Around the world computors are used for buisnesses, home use, comunications, and many other uses. Most of these computers are Windows based PCs. Eventually buisnesses (like google) will upgrade to increase productivity beyond XP. After buisnesses comes home use, as large buisnesses will be famillier with the technology and begin to publish applications for the home. Most people who own a windows PC will upgrade to XP or Vista, as they will have to stay with the rest of the world.
And the PS3? As much as Sony and Microsoft try to hide it there is one thing that's true to all game systems. They're toys. So, there not being a neccecity to move forward, and a good selection of other systems to buy, sony can't compare to Windows in upgradability.

[Sparkfist]

Vista. Simply put there is too much change and too, way too much bloat. I have a laptop running Home Basic, required 512MB, and that's what the system has. Grated that memory is shared with video (you get what you pay for), but it shouldn't take 5 minutes to complete the boot process and have all the programs finally running. The amount of resources it consumes is insane, and to be truthful, Vista is nothing more then a glorified Windows XP SP3.

PS3, we all know is going to be the underdog, the price said it all. The only people that will buy it for other then a video game console are people that want to see how it performs as a desktop running linux. I'm sure the market has grown out of seeing a $600 system as a ok price. Technology in general has decreased and so the PS3 can't be expected to sell a lot, too expensive and lets also admit that not many companies are developing software for the Cell processor. PS3 is not going to make it big, to expensive and too complex.

[Sir Games-A-Lot]

For me personally: Windows. Gah I hate windows. It doesn't get better just shinier.

Upgrading to Vista would probably involve around 1500$ in parts to build a PC from scratch since my laptop (which is from what I see as the massmarket notebook craze of around 2002-2004) has limited expandability at best.



Now if there was some truly killer app for the PS3 (let's say a truly revolutionary game or some non-game app that accomplished something amazing and unheard of), I could probably beg and borrow my way to the 500$ basic model PS3 (that would have to be one really great app though).

[Joes2Silly]

Windows is the hradest to uprgade, I PS3 is only $600 and its sole purpose is playing games, while to play games on Vista you probably need 2-3 GBs of RAM, one or two 8800 GTs, and a lot of other hardware that will probably totall to about $2500 and Vista is not even 100% stable yet

[timmeh87]

I think these claims Im hearing about vista costing X number of thousands of dollars in hardware and requiring 3 video cards and six hard drives are kind of over-exaggerated (yes I see the irony in that statement).

you only need a gig of ram to run it reasonably well (remember when XP came out and we were running it on 128-256mb?) if you already have a computer that is capable of being upgraded to vista, than that is a $60 upgrade maximum (one 512mb stick). And a video card from last year would run the OS just fine, no need for SLI or anything like that. I mean, come on! its just the OS.

I bet you right now that I could build a pretty mean vista machine from tigerdirect.com for less than $1200USD, which is what I consider a reasonable price for any new computer in this particular decade.

Also, I dont think that you need to add vistas graphics requirements onto your game's when deciding on a video card. If you're running your games full screen and all that, Im pretty sure that vista isnt going to try to render itself for fun then discard all the frames

[bicostp]

I mean, come on! its just the OS.

This goes both ways. As I stated before in other Vista threads, I think the OS should be an unobtrusive tool that lets you get to the main event; your programs, games, media, and whatever. You shouldn't need such high system requirements just to be able to run your programs. (XP runs fine on my Pentium 133 MMX with 64 megs of RAM.)

One thing about Vista that has turned off many power users I've talked to is how patronizing it is. It walks you through such simple procedures as changing your wallpaper. I thought XP was bad enough with the Little Tykes inspired interface and the Microsoft Bob assistants "helping" you, but the "Customize" window is really bad. It's meant to replace the Display Properties control panel, but it just makes you go through unnecessary steps to get to the SAME WINDOW you used in XP!

We all know about Vista's mandatory digital rights management and resolution nerfing so I won't go there.

Probably the biggest market for operating systems is enterprises. Large companies. They have to buy a license to use a copy of the system on every single computer they have. Even with volume discounts, this is a considerable price to pay.

That's not the end of it. The new operating system has to go through extensive security, stability, and compatability testing. Many companies use specialized, sometimes legacy, software to accomplish tasks. All these tools have to be tested on the new version. If they work, they are added to the list. If they don't, a new version has to be written or purchased. This isn't just done for new systems; XP hotfixes have to be tested in the same way. For example, many companies still use Internet Explorer 6 because the web interfaces they need to use do not work correctly in IE 7. Those interfaces will need to be updated to be compatable before the clients can use IE 7 on them properly. The updates will not go past the lab until everything works as it should. Only then are the updates pushed to the workstations.

Then there is the hardware. There are many client computers that have less than the required specifications. These machines would need to be upgraded to run the system. Per computer the prices are marginal, however when hundreds of thousands of computers need to be updated the price doesn't seem so small.

Every computer to get Vista would be completely wiped clean and redone with a standardized disk image. This simplifies and hastens the installation process a bit, but it still takes time.

And of course we can't forget all the hours spent testing the software, upgrading the hardware, and re-imaging all the computers. Not to mention training for the new operating system and any new versions of Office or Notes or other software everyone in the company uses.

One of my instructors works at Fidelity Investments and they only started using Service Pack 2 last May. It took this long to fix everything that SP2 broke.

Believe me, the process is not as straight-forward as you may think. Between salaries and software licenses, it will cost enterprises millions of dollars to shine up their computers.

That's why I think XP will be a lot harder to let go of than the PS2.

[Sparkfist]

Lets not forget that the PS3 is to be backwards compatible, I know that the compatibility is sketchy at best but it's far better then Vista, and the PS3 is going to let you play the new BlueRay movies, should anyone want to buy such things.

Vista, I found out just to install and run Visual Basic 2005 I have to have 3 updates/patches for it to work. Then to make it run properly I have to right-click and select "run as administrator". A terribly messed up way just to get something working because someone couldn't make sure the damn thing was working in the first place. For crying out loud it's based off XP!

[Rekarp]

Sorry to bring this dead thread up but 20m sold copies of Vista in 1 month. I don't know how much of that figure was sold to OEM (Dell/ect..) producers however.

[Sparkfist]

Sorry to bring this dead thread up but 20m sold copies of Vista in 1 month. I don't know how much of that figure was sold to OEM (Dell/ect..) producers however.

Not to sound like a jerk but I can be sure that most if not all of those are sales from pre-built machines. Once into February everything had Vista installed. Almost like XP or Media Center had fallen off the face of the Earth. And to be honest the laptop I have would have been better with XP.

No before I get attacked, key reason I leave Vista there is so that for the first year I have it I want to be sure the Manufacturer's Warranty is not void. Don't get me wrong I love voiding those thing but this is a $450 laptop and if something is defective I don't to be screwed because I just couldn't use Vista for a year.