[mac128k-1984]

With the imminent release of Vista who's going to be purchasing it next week?

[mduell]

I'm supposed to get a free copy for being a beta tester who filed a bug, but I haven't received an email from them or followed up about it.

[Macola]

Not just "a bug fix" but several thousand

[TheoCryst]

I just downloaded a free copy from my university's MSDNAA (Business version), but I'm not gonna install it quite yet. I played with RC1 a bit, and was fairly underwhelmed. I'll wait at the very least until Apple releases drivers with official Vista support before taking the plunge.

[mac128k-1984]

I also played with RC1 but that was on a mini. Now that I have a Mac Pro and its the retail version, I'll buy it.

I'll either pop my local staples or order it online. I need windows for work (vpn) and there's software available for windows that doesn't have an OSX counter-part having a windows partition will be helpful.

[ghporter]

I have absolutely no need for hardware-loading eye candy and bling that frankly doesn't seem to measure up to OS X. So I'm not going to get Vista in the foreseeable future. You kind of left out such an option in your poll too: "No, because there's not enough added value over XP" would have been a good option to include.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I have absolutely no need for hardware-loading eye candy and bling that frankly doesn't seem to measure up to OS X.

You know its kind of funny you said that because I remember the same exact argument regarding OSX 1.0.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

You know its kind of funny you said that because I remember the same exact argument regarding OSX 1.0.

Except that OS X gets faster with every new OS release, and it was actually an enormous improvement on OS 9.

Tiger was quite zippy even on my iBook G3 with its 32 MB video card. Does anyone honestly think a future version of Vista will be ever usable, let alone zippy, on an equivalent 600-MHz Pentium 3, instead of getting bigger and slower with a registry full of cruft and all the usual device driver conflicts?

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

Except that OS X gets faster with every new OS release, and it was actually an enormous improvement on OS 9.

No argument there, I was pointing a similarity that's all

Edit:
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan boy of windows. I'm getting it but for my job and need to run software that isn't available for the mac. I figured why buy xp now, when vista is coming out so soon. If I had my druthers I'd be able to use my Mac for everything.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

You know its kind of funny you said that because I remember the same exact argument regarding OSX 1.0.

I understand your point, but it's a bit off the mark. Vista was supposed to be a quantum step beyond XP. And while it does have a lot of improvements in terms of the code base (they actually rewrote a lot of the kernel rather than just touched it up), the real benefits are in Vista's new user interface and a few built in things. Instead of a quantum step, it's really just an evolutionary step with a fresh, shiny paint job.

I am going to wait until 1) I can afford the new PC hardware to handle all of Vista's features (it's much simpler to buy a new PC with Vista preinstalled) and 2) until the original bugs, glitches and oopses that Microsoft always has are ironed out before I consider paying the really over the top prices for it. I have no need to go beyond XP on my MBP because I only use it for a few apps that are very satisfactory under XP.

[eddiecatflap]

vista = sub jaguar imo

[jdrumstik]

How about, at least 6 months till SP1, probably 2 years until SP2, that's when it is actually stable.

[sieb]

I've got free copies of Vista and Office '07 coming.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

Tiger was quite zippy even on my iBook G3 with its 32 MB video card. Does anyone honestly think a future version of Vista will be ever usable, let alone zippy, on an equivalent 600-MHz Pentium 3, instead of getting bigger and slower with a registry full of cruft and all the usual device driver conflicts?

*cough*...... you've GOT to be joking.....

The minimum requirements to run Vista are at least an 800MHz Pentium or AMD, 512MB RAM, 40-60GB HDD (with at least 20GB of free space dedicated to the OS alone), a DVD drive, and an internet connection.

Well, joking or not, the reality is that -EVEN- if you have the bare minimum to run Vista (without the eye-candy and without other improvements), you are in for a shocker............ you've just wasted a huge chunk of change. The performance will suck beyond belief. Think of running Mac OS X on a Power Mac 6100/60 or even a Macintosh Quadra. It is simply not worth the time, money or effort.

If your PC is that old, it is probably not even worth upgrading your machine. If on the other hand you have purchased your computer within the last year or several months, then perhaps a memory, video card, and hard drive upgrade will allow you to experience most of Vista's features.

Instead your best option to fully utilize all of Vista's features would be to get an entirely new PC. I can't say how Vista will run on an Intel Mac, but if you wanted a new Mac and be able to run Vista with all the bells and whistles, I think it's probably best to play it safe and wait until Leopard comes around or even the second generation of Mac Pros.

Besides, XP-SP2 is a fully matured operating system and presumably, every PC software and peripheral you have today works on it. With Vista, you'll have to wait until all the third party manufacturers get into gear.... (if they decide to provide Vista support at all).

[kick52]

yeah, vista needs a fat load of hardware..

thing is, with some family computers around 800mhz~, running XP ok(ish), to maximize upgradability for users, they would need to make it run ok(ish-getting near slow) on that kinda hardware, rather than making it like my powermac g3 beige running panther. (ouch. 3-5mins to load up Flash)