[QWNPdpr5]

You have to change everything to accomodate Vista?
Well, that's a good "upgrade".

[Numbiydq]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You have to change everything to accomodate Vista?
Well, that's a good "upgrade". If you want nothing to change, why are you upgrading?

If you want things to change, do you not have to admit that things will need to change?

[Jorcelirl]

Changing one thing, is one thing.
If I'm wanting to change one thing, but all the rest I liked fine, you don't see a problem? I sure do.

[EspnaConCam]

Asher, follow along.

If my fence needs replaced, should I have to replace the roof, too? The foundation? Rip out the shrubbery and trees?

[CFstantony]

Ok, Shiva. If I have my foundation repaired, but the roof keeps out leaks, replace the roof anyway?

I mean, I don't care. If you 2 think that the domino effect is fine, fine.
All I'm saying is newer doesn't always automatically equal better. Like now.
M.E. was new at one time. I wouldn't call it better, and I think you'd have to search to find someone that would.

[in4wikiu]

Not repaired, replaced. Maybe the roof still works, but the fence needs to be moved to accomodate the new foundation.

But it's a silly analogy.

Better to think of it as upgrading your VHS player to DVD. DVD is better, but one of the reasons it's better is also a reason for why VHS tapes don't work on it anymore. Would you hold off from upgrading to a better system to be able to watch your old movies, or would you replace them with DVDs? Here, "changing one thing" is not "one thing."

[TobaccoNUE]

Originally posted by Solver
Windows 2000 is, thus far, the OS I liked the least, of all that I've used. I take it you never used Windows ME?

[WFSdZuP3]

The best thing about Vista:

... It opens up new holes for hackers to write viruses for, which means WindowsXP/2000 will be relatively safer

[rikdpola]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I take it you never used Windows ME? I've used every Windows since 3.0. ME sucked, but it simply sucked. It didn't have ambition. It failed to improve on anything, pretty much, but it wasn't supposed to be that great. Now, 2000 was supposed to work for both home users and companies, combine compatibility and security, combine the 9x/NT series, blah blah (essentially, what XP did later). And boy did 2000 suck... yes I know it has some redeeming qualities and I know it can be great for certain environments, but that doesn't mean that I won't hate it .

[Investblogger]

Originally posted by Asher

If you want nothing to change, why are you upgrading?

If you want things to change, do you not have to admit that things will need to change? FOR SCIENCE!

[eljugadordepoquer]

So what exactly is so special, if anything, about Vista?

Thanks

Old Grumpee Gramps

[VemyhemiHef]

Not in English

[muytreda]

Well, you can run all the DOS stuff you want on XP through, say, DosBox. Though I find it a bit scary that some people in 2001 or later still need/want to run DOS apps. I remember the DOS vs. Win 3.1 debates, and the worries about DOS app compatibility with Win95, but now .

[Kubasarika]

DOS

Civ 1 for DOS on PC Speaker

[Zptmsemk]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I'm still justifying to myself whether I think Vista is worth the upgrade. I don't think I would upgrade an existing computer but since I'll be in the market for a new computer about the time Vista comes out I'll just get my copy of vista for free. Or at least pre-bundled.

The main question is how long after the release of Vista to wait before I buy. I don't want to buy it right away since everytime their is a new OS released the companies try to jack up their prices based upon a belief that there will be high demand. What do you think? 3-6 months after release is about the right time to get the lowest prices yet still get in on the new OS while it is still new?