I want to know your opinion about this system, i do not have it, yet! but i downloading it, about 8 hours to complete
downloading! (Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Final-BiLLGATES.Plus.Crack)

Is it more interesting, how windows looks like?

_____________
regards
davs

Oh my this isn't your lucky day ... I'm first to answer


well you all know i'm a Linux Geeck but here are my opinions:

-All the exciting things Microsoft promised have since died: WinFS, decent Speech recognition.
-It has alfablending and compositing, but not really that many effects, macOS does it better
-It hogs resources like no other i have ever seen: it actually starts paging after running eclipse and IE7 on a 2x3Ghz 1GBram
-The new startmenu system is shitslow
-c:\windows is 7 to 8 GIGABYTES
-the kernel protection "patchguard" is cracked and only exists in 64bit
-it's expensive
-It doesn't do anything
-the overhyped "sidebar"really special. comparable features are in kde,and macOS
-Powershell is also available for XP
-They rewrote the network stack, which is securitywise a HUGE risk. (if they didn't steal it again from a bsd)
-LAN network performance is about 10% in comparison with Linux.
-I don't trust bitlocker, you can be sure goverments have keys, use truecrypt instead
-The way they solved 'not running as admin' is damnright annoying
-There is anti spyware stuff running in the background by default, upgrading itself, ... Much like a trojan would do.

These are the main reasons why i don't recommend upgrading.

That said, it is a m$ product so a lot of people will adobt it/pirate it. Since it's a new kernel they'll probably force you to upgrade by making new software not backwards compatible. And it is "userfriendly" (at least if you have expensive hardware) and it does run. And they made some right decisions (finally) in this version of windows... like pulling the graphics code finally outside the kernel. Finally writing a decent shell(but afaik it's also available on XP). And it does look good (at least to anybody who hasn't seen a MAC or a windows with compiz/beryl.


I have only seen them market Vista with two arguments:
-it's good for the econnomy (hence not your wallet)
-its power saving functions are now more advanced and could save money


I don't see the benifit in upgrading. If you need a new os, you could consider Vista. I would wait at least till service pack1.

1. Microsoft doesn't even use their own products. The Xbox 360 developement team use MACs. Yes, it is true!

2. Windows Vista is massively bloated. The install requires ~6+ Gigs, (nearly 3 times the size of an average XP installation.)

3. With this bloating, it will require an extremely powerful machine, and will consume a large amount of your RAM ( 1 GB is minimum)

4. Very limited out of the box hardware support. Some of your driver discs will not work under vista, and you will need to wait (hope) that your hardware manufacturer makes new drivers for vista.

5. Vista is supposedly safer than windows xp and has an advanced media handling, and desktop. As in any new software, it probably still has some bugs.

6. Right now the biggest problem with windows vista is the lack of drivers and support. Basically it is windows XP with a few more bells and whistles.I would recommend holding off on vista unless you know all of your hardware and software is supported.

7. I advise you to wait to use Vista till the 1st service pack is out. This way they can work out the bugs and there will be more support for the system by then.

Drivers aren't the problem; that's why they release it only on 30.1.07

m$ has the luck it doesn't have to write the drivers themselves. BUT i do hope lots of hardware verndors say
S*w you m$ i'm not going to pay you to "digitally sign" my drivers.

it's bloated sure. I would say it doesn't do anything (interesting enough) that XP doesn't do. If the Vista thats now in RTM was released in 2003 as it was first planned. It wouldn't have ran. Simply no machine available by that time. Just something to ponder on. M$ needs 6 years to build a new version of the same operating system, and still there is hardly any hardware around that will run it comfortably. An os is supposed to use the hardware not abuse it. I'm typing this message on an AMD1300 256mb ram. Which my family uses for all their word-processing and internet needs.

Even being a linux fan, i would say everybody buy a MAC instead of a windows pc in the near future. It will do everything better, and still be a lot more userfriendly as linux. (You get to pay for MAC too isn't that a nice little perk). I really don't see the advantage of Vista.

......downloaded 83.5%
I just want to see new look of my desktop and some new things, thats all!
Anyway i will also transfer on Linux, but in some other time! I'm wondering about Linux, it is very cool and very useful for many things! I tried Linux but my wireless card was not recognized ( USB ) and i didn't have internet connection so i continue using Windows, for now!


regards
____________
davs

Ok I have never used linux but I will be getting an old PC at Christams and would like to start playing with it.

Anyone got any advice:

Where do I get it from?
What type/version is best?
Anything else I need to know?

Thanks

windows vista does indeed have better screen effects than winxp, but that's something i can live without.
for e.g., they have the winkey+tab, which basically performs your alt+tab functionality, but instead of showing icons to switch to, all your windows (including ur desktop) are cascaded behind each other for you to tab to. new themes.. sidebars.. all covered by rhican.. they're not necessary and if you really want them just for the looks, there are modding software available all over the internet. rewriting the network stack is a huge security risk, yes. although they claim it to be more efficient..

from a developer's pov, the user access control is a pita (pain in the ass).. it doesn't allow low-level writing to hardware devices, so yeah.. happy playing.. asking your clients to turn them off is not an option (for those winvista advocates).

in short, if you don't need it, don't buy it.
if you have too much money to spend, donate them to me - i'd gladly invest the money in better avenues.

Chaosderamer: I don't use Linux enough to recommend a distribution, but one painless option is to boot a live CD or DVD. There are many to choose from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LiveDistros]. Debian-based Knoppix seems to be popular. Most live distros are slow to boot. Changes to the system can be saved on disk or flash drive.

As for Vista: I'm boycotting it. There is simply too much DRM bullshit, preventing the user from accessing the system. Some of this is in the content protection systems the MPAA and RIAA pushed for (with encrypted/protected pathways all the way to a trusted monitor or audio codec). Some of it is Microsoft's draconian approach to protecting the kernel (only signed drivers can be loaded). Even the odious registration required every time you change part of your system (Microsoft had actually planned to deny activation at the second major system change). And to add insult to injury, they won't let the consumer version of Vista run in a virtual machine like VMWare or Parallels. Well, enough ranting. There seems to be no compelling need to run Vista at the moment, so put it off if you can.

What type/version is best?

I now declare the Distro wars open

Seriously though, a good starter distro is Mepis. It comes on a live CD so you can play around with it before install. Installation itself is a breeze. It's a deb based distro which I personally prefer... I never did get along well with RPM distros like Redhat/Fedora (fedora is like a 'test bed' for redhat) or Mandrake etc etc. Uses KDE.

For a bit more flexibility you could try Debian itself. Some give it crap for being slow on the uptake, but at least it is a tried and true, stable distro - btw unstable is really very stable, I've been using it for ages with no major issues.

Slackware might also be worth a look.

Personally I don't think Gentoo is worth the compile times. You save a billionth of a second on load times (ok, maybe a bit more ) but can be a real pita unless you know what your doing..

Where do I get it from?
http://distrowatch.com/

Look on the right hand side, scroll down below OSDisc area, and you will see a listing of distros ordered by popularity. Simply click on what one you are interested and you can go from there

Cheers

hmm I remember my first time installing linux. Not so good memory tbh

I would suggest ubuntu to start. It comes with a lot of drivers and support a lot of hardware immediately after the install (others distros support the hardware too but they may require a bit more configuration which is not easy when you start). Ubuntu packaging system is apt based and really easy to use with nice gui frontend for the beginners.

When you feel comfortable with it, you can switch to slackware,gentoo,debian. They are less beginner friendly (/me already feel the heat for that last bit of sentence) but more configurable.

Of course, many other alternatives to linux exist too ({free,open,net,dragonfly}bsd, nexenta (solaris kernel + gnu userland), ...)