p2pnet - rss feed: MS Vista details revealed!
p2p news / p2pnet: Bill and the Boyz have released details of Vista, their new operating system, in the building and promised for Lo! these many seasons.
Microsoft will be selling six versions from the second half of the year and although ipricing hasn’t been disclosed, "Barry Goffe, director of Windows stock-keeping-units strategy, said the basic home and business versions will cost about the same as the current Windows XP Home and Professional versions," which list for $200 and $300, says the Seattle Times.
The six versions are:
- Windows Vista Starter
- Windows Vista Business
- Windows Vista Enterprise
- Windows Vista Home Basic
- Windows Vista Home Premium
- Windows Vista Ultimate.
"All new versions are available for either 32-bit or 64-bit systems," says Microsoft.
"Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate and Business will be available as a full-packaged product at retail and on new PCs. Windows Vista Enterprise will be offered only to business customers participating in Microsoft’s Software Assurance program."
The Windows Vista Starter will be for "emerging markets".
Also See:
Seattle Times - Vista sneak preview was right on, February 27, 2006
Microsoft - Microsoft Unveils Windows Vista Product Lineup, February 27, 2006
February 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Firefox for me
February 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Go get Fedora Core 4 (5 will be out very soon), you will never look back.
And you can have the peace of mind that comes from NOT supporting a greedy international corporation.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:46 am
With all the Hoolywood “approved” crap they’re putting in Vista I won’t be buying it - I’ll be using XP until they either stop supporting it or a Linux distro like Kubuntu can run all the games I want, whichever one comes first.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Don’t worry. XP is going to be around for a VERY long time after Windows Vista comes out. They will still be supporting Win2K for a couple of years after that. The fact is that a significant number of M$’s very large corporate customers are ‘late adopters’ and are wouldn’t even think of switching to a new OS when it first comes out. In fact, they are still skittish 3 years after it’s been in the market place and is on Service Pack 2. This is particularly true in the financial industry in sectors where security is the paramount concern. The IT execs in securities and banking are going to be extremely suspicious of all of the ‘features’ embedded in Vista that their techs will not be able to forensically examine because of M$’s attempts to harden the environment to preclude transparency so that Big Content will stop having giant hissy fits. These customers don’t give a flying &#%$ about ‘content’ and typically forbid their employees from even playing CDs in their computers, much less permit them to suck streaming anything through the myriad of firewalls they have.
You will still be able to use a supported version of XP well after 2010.
–TurboGeek
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 am
A lot of pretty big banks still use OS/2. How many crackers out there know how to break into (and manipulate skillfully) an OS/2 system? No, security through a less used OS isn’t a catch-all, but you effectively kick 95% of the total malicious cracker population by choosing to use it, especially since most of those are script kiddies.
The bottom line is, OS/2 was supposedly dead not too long after Microsoft quasi-stole it along with some VMS to become NT, yet it persists. Hell, Windows 95 persists to this day, and why shouldn’t it? If you can type a damn document on it, why upgrade? To hell with Vista. My Commodore 64 didn’t need 512MB of RAM to draw a line on the screen and print a document, and neither did my IBM XT. I remember editing images in 640×480 with a whopping 256-color screen depth in Paint Shop Pro 3.11 for god’s sake.
Microsoft dropping support, the upgrade push, and cheaper new computers will all fail to make smart persons fix what isn’t broken.
Explain why I have a P-166 MMX as a router/web server? I thought it was a dinosaur. Dread the thought that we’re hitting a point where the need to upgrade is artificially imposed by software rather than something to desire for improving the digital workspace.
Why do you need 268,435,456 bytes of RAM to write a book again?
Oh yeah, it’s called “bloat.” With a side of “kludge” and maybe a little bit of maintenance difficulty for dessert. All aboard for DLL hell!
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:44 am
One more thing…I am working on a tiny Linux “distribution” that will run in 8MB of RAM while still using modern core software (2.6 series kernel, latest core utilities, recent uClibc, etc.) There is a stack five computers high on my desk, all 486 machines with either 33 or 66 MHz CPUs and not a load of RAM, and yet I can do useful things on them with modern Linux kernels and modern Linux software, despite the limited memory and hard disk space. How is it that a modern Linux-based system can be constructed TODAY that can do many useful things in 8MB of RAM, while the most recent version of Windows can’t even boot to a command prompt of any kind without an absolute minimum of something like 56MB of RAM and murderous swap file thrashing?
I have believed from the beginning that Windows 2000/XP *ignore* some of your installed RAM to enforce the “forced obsolescense” [sp?] that the hardware industry wants.
Oh, and why doesn’t MS want me to be able to install Linux on an Xbox? I BOUGHT THE THING, YOU’VE ALREADY GOT MY FSCKING MONEY, DON’T TRY TO STOP ME FROM DOING WHAT I WANT WITH MY PROPERTY! And no, the DMCA anti-circumvention provision can’t cover hardware that I have purchased and OWN, because it is my property and I didn’t sign a contract with you that limits me to running only your signed and approved software on it…
I beat the dead horse. So sue me for 50% of my total net worth over it. What’s 50% of nothing? ^_^
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:53 am
About three years ago when I opened up my task manager and looked over the numbers, I noticed something interesting. This particular computer indicated in the “commit charge” (total real memory used) that it was using something like 48MB of RAM (running Win2k Pro) out of 96MB, yet swapped in and out like it was running out of memory the minute I’d try to load, say, MS Word. I got to thinking, “why does it say that it’s only using half my RAM, but then it acts like it’s already been used up?” Maybe that theory is correct after all.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:27 am
nub
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
It is a waste ti pay for any Micro$oft crap. If I want to use it, just copy it and use a hacked version. Micro$hit doens’t deserve any of our money!!