Is vista worth it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Bluffmstr
Bluffmstr

52

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Bluffmstr
Member since 2007 • 52 Posts
Is vista worth getting for all the games that would be coming out for it?
Avatar image for lucknumber1
lucknumber1

692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#2 lucknumber1
Member since 2005 • 692 Posts
i dont think it is worth it yet because of the bugs that are still in it
Avatar image for hammer_of_thor_
hammer_of_thor_

2260

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#3 hammer_of_thor_
Member since 2007 • 2260 Posts
Worth it to get it now for the games? No, might as well wait until there are some DX10 games out there to make it worthwhile.
Avatar image for gerygo
GeryGo

12809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#4 GeryGo  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 12809 Posts
Is vista worth getting for all the games that would be coming out for it?Bluffmstr
first they need to fix bugs - later you can buy it
Avatar image for SuperBeast
SuperBeast

13229

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 SuperBeast
Member since 2002 • 13229 Posts
I'll definitely never go back to XP. Not going to get into a detailed answer since this question has already been asked/answered over 100 times this week alone.
Avatar image for t0adphr0g
t0adphr0g

882

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 t0adphr0g
Member since 2006 • 882 Posts

The code name "Blackcomb" was originally assigned to a version of Windows that was planned to follow Windows XP codenamed "Whistler;"  in both client and server versions. However, in August 2001, the release of Blackcomb was pushed back several years and Vista  was announced as a release between XP and Blackcomb!! Yes,Vista is just another Windows ME! Remember Windows ME, it was released between Windows 98 and XP! Microsoft is at it again guys, putting out a early test version, and as with ME, driver issues and lack of support abound!

 As of 2006, code name "Blackcomb" is still planned as both a client and server release with a current release estimate of late 2009.  A recent article provided from Yahoo!News projected the release date to be closer to 2009.

Avatar image for Captain__Tripps
Captain__Tripps

4523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Captain__Tripps
Member since 2006 • 4523 Posts
If Vista will be anything like a previous MS OS, it might be more akin to Windows 2000. Besides, Vienna will be delayed at least once, and probably won't ship until 2010 at the earliest.
Avatar image for Lukozer
Lukozer

6286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Lukozer
Member since 2002 • 6286 Posts

The code name "Blackcomb" was originally assigned to a version of Windows that was planned to follow Windows XP codenamed "Whistler;"  in both client and server versions. However, in August 2001, the release of Blackcomb was pushed back several years and Vista  was announced as a release between XP and Blackcomb!! Yes,Vista is just another Windows ME! Remember Windows ME, it was released between Windows 98 and XP! Microsoft is at it again guys, putting out a early test version, and as with ME, driver issues and lack of support abound!

 As of 2006, code name "Blackcomb" is still planned as both a client and server release with a current release estimate of late 2009.  A recent article provided from Yahoo!News projected the release date to be closer to 2009.

t0adphr0g
Blackcomb was ALWAYS the intended follow-up to Longhorn (Vista). Windows ME was rush-written in 6 months with no beta testing as MS wanted a home version of Windows 2000, since 2000 was being targetted for business users. Vista was written over 2 years with the most extensive beta testing programme of any MS OS. You mention that ME was released between 98 and XP, but so was Windows 2000, which is largely regarded as MS's most stable OS despite the fact that it had far more problems when it was released than Vista has now. The recent article from Yahoo news projecting the release date of 2009 for the next version of Windows has also been countered by an article in Arstechnica which says this is not true. When it comes to tech news, i find Arstechnica a damn sight more reputable than Yahoo news... Even if the next version of windows does come out in late 2009, it will mean Vista will have been the latest version of Windows for the same length of time as Windows 95, 98, ME and 2000 all were... so it's hardly shocking to anyone. XP was the exception to the release date cycle, not the norm.
Avatar image for Erandel
Erandel

1164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 Erandel
Member since 2004 • 1164 Posts
[QUOTE="Lukozer"] Blackcomb was ALWAYS the intended follow-up to Longhorn (Vista). Windows ME was rush-written in 6 months with no beta testing as MS wanted a home version of Windows 2000, since 2000 was being targetted for business users. Vista was written over 2 years with the most extensive beta testing programme of any MS OS.

Although unfortunately, the beta testing didn't seem to be thorough enough, as I already know about two cases of two PC motherboards being disabled due to Vista problems with the motherboard / BIOS. I would wait for SP1 of Vista to come out before upgrading - but is it worth upgrading to eventually? Definitely and it will become compulsory, if you are a games player or multimedia package user.
Avatar image for Deltaforce-
Deltaforce-

314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 Deltaforce-
Member since 2007 • 314 Posts
Maximum PC has a good article -10 reasons you don't need Vista today. I'm waiting a few months until dx10 games, drivers, and bugs are worked out. 
Avatar image for TOAO_Cyrus1
TOAO_Cyrus1

2895

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 TOAO_Cyrus1
Member since 2004 • 2895 Posts
You dont need Vista until DX10 games come out that you want to run in DX10. Nonetheless, Vista is MS's best OS ever. Period.
Avatar image for nonreversebird
nonreversebird

117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 nonreversebird
Member since 2005 • 117 Posts
Even though there is an apparent Vista thread here in the PC forum Ill answer this. NO Vista is not worth it in the least. The only thing it is good for is safe internet surfing and watching DVD movies. I don't know any info on the iPod and iTunes yet but I am sure that is coming. You cant play games on full settings in Vista period. So for all of us who have spent a lot of money for computers we cannot play our older games with out lockups requiring a reset. Constantly. I have loaded Vista Ultimate I would say 6 times on my machine only to take it off and put XP pro back on just to see how much difference there is. Look FEAR will not run worth bean in Vista. In XP its flawless. Takes complete use of my SLI 8800s. RS Vegas runs Flawless in my XP rig now that I can OC my CPU beyond 3.5ghz. Is it worth it? If you want a Mac look for Internet use only yes. It is very pretty and can help you stay out of spyware and virus hell. Games? forget it and if nvidia doesn't come out with a decent driver soon we can all forget it. Thats why Microsoft is doing every thing in there power to stop people from using XP by introducing a new WGA and a new SP 3. Currently I feel ripped off for my $430 for Vista Ultimate
Avatar image for joeyp7711
joeyp7711

3903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#13 joeyp7711
Member since 2005 • 3903 Posts
I wouldn't say Vista Ultimate is worth it, I think that if you really want to get the essentials, just get Home Premium (includes Aero), I have Ultimate and there's so much stuff on here that i don't really want..
Avatar image for Lukozer
Lukozer

6286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Lukozer
Member since 2002 • 6286 Posts
[QUOTE="nonreversebird"] You cant play games on full settings in Vista period. So for all of us who have spent a lot of money for computers we cannot play our older games with out lockups requiring a reset. Constantly. I have loaded Vista Ultimate I would say 6 times on my machine only to take it off and put XP pro back on just to see how much difference there is. Look FEAR will not run worth bean in Vista. In XP its flawless. Takes complete use of my SLI 8800s. RS Vegas runs Flawless in my XP rig now that I can OC my CPU beyond 3.5ghz. Is it worth it? If you want a Mac look for Internet use only yes. It is very pretty and can help you stay out of spyware and virus hell. Games? forget it and if nvidia doesn't come out with a decent driver soon we can all forget it. Thats why Microsoft is doing every thing in there power to stop people from using XP by introducing a new WGA and a new SP 3. Currently I feel ripped off for my $430 for Vista Ultimate

The worst thing about people who bash Vista needlessly are those who criticise it for things that are nothing to do with Vista itself and everything to do with hardware drivers currently available. These problems have ALWAYS happened with a new OS and people who expect flawless drivers for cutting edge, brand new hardware on a brand new OS are being ridiculous. It's never happened before, it's not going to happen now and won't happen in the future. Fear runs flawless in XP and not in Vista? You don't think it's possibly down to the fact that XP has been out almost 6 years and driver developers have had a bit of time to get XP drivers nailed? You even say so yourself... "if nvidia doesn't come out with a decent driver soon we can all forget it"... It's the video card manufacturers who are slacking on the drivers front, although the idea that if Nvidia don't get a decent driver out soon then you can forget gaming on Vista altogether is equally ridiculous.
Avatar image for pinoyed
pinoyed

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 pinoyed
Member since 2004 • 27 Posts
the only people that should answer this question are the ones that have vista
Avatar image for BigD
BigD

2223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#16 BigD
Member since 2002 • 2223 Posts
I have a comp with Vista and while its nice its not really worth upgrading too, that until games that demand it are out. But the fact of the matter is most publishers will be supporting XP and DX9 for quite a longtime. This is especially true considering the 360 and PS3 are both have DX9ish hardware. Of course if you're buying a new computer by all means get Vista.
Avatar image for kruegersc4
kruegersc4

1985

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#17 kruegersc4
Member since 2004 • 1985 Posts
I don't really care, as long as it runs the games I want it to. I don't use Windows for anything else besides gaming, and do not like its Operating Systems. Vista just looks like a rip off of Mac OS X to me, and that's the OS I use for everything else. I think it is much stabler. (Please don't flame, I know that there are plenty of Windows people here)
Avatar image for ttomm1946
ttomm1946

1871

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18 ttomm1946
Member since 2004 • 1871 Posts
I would say just look at all the threads where people are having trouble running their games....Most new comps still are using XP..My advice hold off...
Avatar image for Wartzay
Wartzay

2036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Wartzay
Member since 2006 • 2036 Posts

I have Vista and a powerful ATI card. That dude up there has Vista and powerful Nivida cards in SLI. FEAR runs great on my machine maxxed at high res. FEAR runs bad on his machine maxxed at high res.

in fact ALL my games run great maxxed (except for oblivion, gotta lower some sets on that) on high res.

List of my games that run fine.

Oblivion, Sims 2, CS: source. 3 mods for BF2, BF2 vanilla, Falcon 4.0 (old game!!), Americas Army, Age of Empires II(Old game!!), Rainbow 6 Vegas, Civ IV. Civ II(old game!!), Supreme Commander. Flight simulator 2004, Medieval, Total War, Day of Defeat(old!!), Day of Defeat Source, Call of duty 2, and F.E.A.R.

So whats the problem here, "ZOMG Vista Suxxorz!!" or "Nvidia being too lazy to get off their butts and write a decent driver for Vista"

?

Avatar image for sloppy_sex
sloppy_sex

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 sloppy_sex
Member since 2007 • 171 Posts
not in its current state
Avatar image for tkemory
tkemory

2191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#21 tkemory
Member since 2002 • 2191 Posts
I have been running Vista for about 3 months now (developer so I had early access to the release build). I am not quite sure what the people are talking about in regards to the bugs? The only "bugs" I have encountered are crappy drivers. I was running Nvidia SLI, Nvidia chose to not implement drivers that gave SLI support until AFTER Vista released, and when they did finally support SLI it was not done well, prompting me to get an ATI Card instead. Since making that move I have had great success in running games on highest settings without any issues. Now I am running the 64-bit Vista Ultimate, but I love it and would never go back. Improved desktop features, improved graphics, improved asthetics and I can now run 4 gig of memory which helps performance tremendously. So dont listen to the people shooting down the OS, half of them probably havent even run it since release. It is one of the best OS's out there right now.
Avatar image for zero9167
zero9167

14554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 zero9167
Member since 2005 • 14554 Posts
it'll be worth later this year or next year. no point in getting it now since most XP games dont run as good on it
Avatar image for 1Lonehawk
1Lonehawk

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#23 1Lonehawk
Member since 2005 • 873 Posts
Now I am running the 64-bit Vista Ultimate, but I love it and would never go back. Improved desktop features, improved graphics, improved asthetics and I can now run 4 gig of memory which helps performance tremendously. tkemory
Well, that kinda says it all. If you want a pretty desktop, get vista. If you wanna play games, keep XP. Personally, I don't understand anyone who is getting vista for gaming who would get it now. DX10 games aren't out yet. Most of your old games won't run, or will run poorly, why even bother going through the hassle of not knowing for sure even? You can load 4 gig of ram (usable) in your XP rig so I don't understand why that's even mentioned above. Vista lovers are just fanboys right now who don't wanna look foolish for, or wanna justify the money they've spent on vista. Unless you are totally unhappy with XP, and have had a lot of security problems surfing the net (tsk tsk on you if you have :P ), there is no "real" practical reason to get vista right now. If you ask me (and I know no one did :P ) vista is just something people are jumping on to brag about DX10 capability, or having the "latest thing." If one is on any kind of budget, one should wait until vista is actually worth the money, although a lot of people would consider that a relative thing anyways.
Avatar image for t0adphr0g
t0adphr0g

882

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#24 t0adphr0g
Member since 2006 • 882 Posts
I agree, Vista as it stands now is only a pretty desktop, with no gaming fuctionality. DX10 games are not out yet, Vista cannot support OpenGL, Vista has no "real" drivers only Beta versions. IMHO Vista is just another Windows ME until the true upgraded OS come here in 2008.
Avatar image for Hewkii
Hewkii

26339

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Hewkii
Member since 2006 • 26339 Posts
you may as well wait for Vienna...or some people say...
Avatar image for Pete5506
Pete5506

10112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 0

#26 Pete5506
Member since 2006 • 10112 Posts
I got it, but I wish I waited, but its still vary cool
Avatar image for Bluffmstr
Bluffmstr

52

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Bluffmstr
Member since 2007 • 52 Posts
Thanks for all the great info:D
Avatar image for Captain__Tripps
Captain__Tripps

4523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Captain__Tripps
Member since 2006 • 4523 Posts
[QUOTE="tkemory"] Now I am running the 64-bit Vista Ultimate, but I love it and would never go back. Improved desktop features, improved graphics, improved asthetics and I can now run 4 gig of memory which helps performance tremendously. 1Lonehawk
Well, that kinda says it all. If you want a pretty desktop, get vista. If you wanna play games, keep XP. Personally, I don't understand anyone who is getting vista for gaming who would get it now. DX10 games aren't out yet. Most of your old games won't run, or will run poorly, why even bother going through the hassle of not knowing for sure even? You can load 4 gig of ram (usable) in your XP rig so I don't understand why that's even mentioned above. Vista lovers are just fanboys right now who don't wanna look foolish for, or wanna justify the money they've spent on vista. Unless you are totally unhappy with XP, and have had a lot of security problems surfing the net (tsk tsk on you if you have :P ), there is no "real" practical reason to get vista right now. If you ask me (and I know no one did :P ) vista is just something people are jumping on to brag about DX10 capability, or having the "latest thing." If one is on any kind of budget, one should wait until vista is actually worth the money, although a lot of people would consider that a relative thing anyways.

Vista is a prettier, more stable, and "smoother" OS than XP, and uses a bit more RAM. If your place the utmost importance on game performance, its probably better to wait until drivers mature mroe (especially nvidia), but I got a good deal on vista home premium ($75 OEM), so I got it. I'm not a huge gamer, and I have dual boot going in the case of unaccetable Vista performance on a certain game.
Avatar image for JJ_1
JJ_1

911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 JJ_1
Member since 2004 • 911 Posts

[QUOTE="nonreversebird"] You cant play games on full settings in Vista period. So for all of us who have spent a lot of money for computers we cannot play our older games with out lockups requiring a reset. Constantly. I have loaded Vista Ultimate I would say 6 times on my machine only to take it off and put XP pro back on just to see how much difference there is. Look FEAR will not run worth bean in Vista. In XP its flawless. Takes complete use of my SLI 8800s. RS Vegas runs Flawless in my XP rig now that I can OC my CPU beyond 3.5ghz. Is it worth it? If you want a Mac look for Internet use only yes. It is very pretty and can help you stay out of spyware and virus hell. Games? forget it and if nvidia doesn't come out with a decent driver soon we can all forget it. Thats why Microsoft is doing every thing in there power to stop people from using XP by introducing a new WGA and a new SP 3. Currently I feel ripped off for my $430 for Vista UltimateLukozer
The worst thing about people who bash Vista needlessly are those who criticise it for things that are nothing to do with Vista itself and everything to do with hardware drivers currently available. These problems have ALWAYS happened with a new OS and people who expect flawless drivers for cutting edge, brand new hardware on a brand new OS are being ridiculous. It's never happened before, it's not going to happen now and won't happen in the future. Fear runs flawless in XP and not in Vista? You don't think it's possibly down to the fact that XP has been out almost 6 years and driver developers have had a bit of time to get XP drivers nailed? You even say so yourself... "if nvidia doesn't come out with a decent driver soon we can all forget it"... It's the video card manufacturers who are slacking on the drivers front, although the idea that if Nvidia don't get a decent driver out soon then you can forget gaming on Vista altogether is equally ridiculous.

Amen.

Avatar image for Herrick
Herrick

4549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 Herrick
Member since 2004 • 4549 Posts
Herrick has no reason to upgrade to Vista for now. I'll consider it when I see a significantgraphical inrease in games.
Avatar image for portujoel5
portujoel5

745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#31 portujoel5
Member since 2003 • 745 Posts
XP 64 still has a bit of compatibility issues with drivers, I can't imagine how it is for Vista or worst vista 64... I tried and came back... not worth for me yet. But I guess many people like, so they can enjoy it :) but not for me personally at the moment
Avatar image for Zam
Zam

2048

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Zam
Member since 2002 • 2048 Posts
I bet all these people saying negative things about Vista, haven't even tried it yet. Just riding along the negative hype that's sweeping through the internet.

I 've been using it for about a month now. And i have to say its the most stable MS OS I've ever used. And please guys don't compare it to ME. ME was a piece of **** Vista is not. Vista is more like a refined version of XP. Yes that makes it not worth the price right now. However, if you want stability, security and want to experience the features of Media Center, then i think its worth every penny. All of my games work fine with it. There have been a few issues, but those are clearly drivers related. If you are building a new computer, then i'd say definitely get it, because you will have a future-proof pc as far as directx10 and vista-exclusive content is concerned.