|
| Windows Vista Ultimate with SP1 | 
 enlarge | From: Microsoft Software
Category: Software
List Price: $339.99
Buy New: $87.92
You Save: $252.07 (74%)
New (76) Used (5) from $87.92
Avg. Customer Rating:  104 reviews
Sales Rank: 57
Format: Dvd-rom
Platform: Windows Vista
Media: DVD-ROM
Edition: Ultimate
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.2 x 1.6
MPN: 66R-02261
Model: 66R-02261
UPC: 882224661447
EAN: 0882224661492
ASIN: B0013O77GM
Release Date: March 19, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Windows Vista vs Windows XP vs Mac OS X 10.5 March 28, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Disclosure: I use Windows for work and Mac OS X 10.5.2 for home.
Let's talk about Windows Vista Service Pack 1...
Finally after months of beta testing Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Vista, Microsoft re-releases Windows Vista which comes integrated with SP1. What has changed from the original Windows Vista release? First of all don't go looking for visual enhancements as Vista is already an all new operating system with lots of eye-candy to start with. So SP1 is meant to address kinks and bugs not found by the original beta testers. As with any operating system update, one can expect a more reliable and stable performing system. Whether or not it is readily apparent, a more reliable system is a faster system due to better programming efficiency. While Windows world will always bring tons of new third-party hardware, so one can expect better support for even newer products.
SP1 contains code update which is why current Vista users installing this update can expect a good solid wait in installation time. Try 1 hour. Results, of course, vary per system configuration and amount of hardware and peripherals installed.
More importantly, SP1 is meant to address their business customers. Because with the initial release of Vista, Business users didn't want to make the jump. Heck, regular users didn't want to make the jump. This major update is meant to give them another chance at making the upgrade while promising better deployment.
As we have seen from the release of Vista, existing Windows XP customers have not readily embraced this new OS. And those who made the jump found themselves reinstalling back to XP. (On the other hand, the opposite is true for Apple's Mac OS X 10.5 release. A majority made the switch from 10.4 rather than be left behind). With Windows users, they prefer to be left behind.
Let's back track...
Like any major operating system introduction (or any major software upgrade release), we can always expect integration problems which cannot be totally eliminated due to each user's individuality in hardware configuration and usage. In Apple's case, they have more control in the integration of their hardware and software. Apple decides which hardware to use and how to code their software properly. Because of this limited choice (versus the virtually unlimited software and hardware options available to custom PC builders) they will obviously encounter less problems than their Windows counterpart.
So in Microsoft's defense (although being a bigger company their poor coding and blatant rip-off of features and GUI is inexcusable), they have more to work with. It's not like Dell is the only company assembling a PC. We have the average Joe and hardcore gamers hand-picking everything from motherboard, memory and peripherals. If Apple is having compatibility problems with the few third-party add-ons, then Microsoft is entitled to have more leeway.
With the release of SP1 once again we can't expect to please everyone. However, people with newer system set-ups shouldn't generally have any problems. If you have a system more than two years old, I honestly don't think you are entitled to cry foul and state how slow this OS can be and unstable. But then again...
The problem with Microsoft is that...
They try not to alienate their users by trying to include everyone to upgrade. They list the minimum system requirement on the box as: 800MHz processor, 512MB system memory, CD ROM and VGA monitor. Come on!
When Apple releases their latest operating system you can be sure certain older models will not be included. And even if that particular "old" model is well capable of running the software, Apple will make sure to code their software to refrain from installing if you even try. So being an ever loyal Mac user, you end up purchasing one of the the latest and fastest machines available that comes loaded with the latest OS.
On the other hand, Microsoft is the opposite. They will try to make their latest and greatest OS run on your old 800MHz machine that runs only 512MB of memory on a VGA monitor. Then you come back complaining they released the poorest OS on the planet with empty promises that you can't even enjoy the reason why you upgraded to Windows Vista in the first place - the GUI of Windows Aero. In all honesty, it's okay to cut out old systems. You're not only doing yourself a favor in dealing with user headaches, you're also doing them a favor in enjoying what they already have. If they have an 800MHz system and only 512MB of memory until now, do you think upgrading to Windows Vista will make their experience any better?
So guess which company comes out the wiser and which company gets bad press and user feedback.
Another problem with Vista is that...
We have four flavors to choose from - Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate. As if the unaffordable pricing won't confuse our pockets, we have to now decipher what we really need.
Without going into details, don't waste any more money that you are wasting and skip the Home Basic vesion. Home Premium will equip you with Media Center, while the Business version won't have it but instead come equipped with advanced backup features and better networking capability. Can't decide? Why there happens to be the Ultimate version which comes with what the Home Premium and Business version has and another feature called "Windows BitLocker Drive Encyption".
Here's an idea, you've already spent time and money to create all these features. Why not just introduce just two variations - one version caters to the Business server market and the other version caters to everyone else. (Yes, just like what Apple does). This is more cost effective on product packaging and and less strain spending on marketing just to educate everyone what the difference is.
With the time saved, your programmers can concentrate on making the OS even more stable and your marketing department can be more creative in beating Apple's ads.
Why upgrade from Windows XP...
Visually speaking, eye-candy. Windows Aero is visually stunning. Giving you a 3D perspective allows for efficiency in organization and a better overall user experience. Of course this comes at a price of being able to afford a faster processor and more memory.
Search. The counter-part of Mac's Spotlight. Find anything anywhere.
Integrated Windows Media Center. Better equip yourself with a tuner card if you want to make full use of this feature.
Better back up and restore capabilities to help protect user data.
Recommendation...
If you're buying a new PC or you have a relatively new system that MORE than meets not the "minimum system requirements" but the "recommended system requirements" I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to Vista. It's been out for quite some time and majority of respectable software and hardware makers have had their hands on compatibility issues at this time.
SP1 doesn't make Windows Vista perfect. But the fact that you've reached this far in considering the upgrade, perhaps it's about time you make the jump (again, make sure you have a newer system to enjoy the experience).
Decent OS, fine for casual users with modern peripherals, still problematic for power users March 27, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Microsoft released the Vista operating system in late January 2007. Microsoft hyped it as a major upgrade to Windows XP. But the operating system has hardly lived up to the hype. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to say that the general response to Vista has been negative, especially in the "power user" community.
Why?
The problem is partly one due to Microsoft's success: With Windows XP, they had finally released an operating system to the general public that was both stable and full featured enough to satisfy most users. Though there were some difficulties with XP early in its release cycle, most of them were fully addressed with the first service pack, and, in addition, by the time of that first service pack release XP was compatible with the vast majority of both software and hardware being used.
Ultimately, the end user sees this: Windows XP is a stable operating system that is compatible with almost all applications and hardware released this century.
Into this sea of complacency, Microsoft released Vista. Promising a "new and richer experience" (isn't it always thus?), Microsoft claimed better security, greater stability, a wiz-bang new colorful interface, faster launching applications (especially Microsoft Office OS related apps) and better search capabilities. All well and good, but hardly that compelling to the average user. Still, newer is often better, it DID look cooler, and so...why not?
Why not indeed!
What might not have been apparent on the surface is that Vista is, in fact, a major rewrite of the internal OS engine. This is a big problem, because while the end user might not SEE those changes, those changes affect most of the software and drivers that interact with Vista. That means that on a Vista system, MANY applications and drivers written for previous operating systems (including XP) do not work. In some cases, manufacturers rapidly issued updates or new versions that were supposedly compatible with Vista. But in some cases, the new versions were buggy, in other cases, the user was required to buy the new version, even if it didn't offer much additional functionality, other than Vista compatibility. And then there is the issue of hardware drivers. Many manufacturers support new drivers only as long as the hardware is current. In the world of PCs that can be a very short window indeed. This means that many peripherals, even those sold just a year or two earlier, lack working drivers for Vista. And, unlike earlier OS updates, drivers written for a previous OS typically do NOT work with Vista.
The situation when XP arrived was appreciably different. XP was, in fact, a modestly modified version of the Windows 2000 operating system that had been sold (primarily to businesses) for several years. As a result, most Windows 2000 drivers would work with XP, and even if they did not, it did not take much work by the manufacturer to get them to work. XP/2000 was also able to run a large percentage of apps written for earlier OSes without problem.
So, the curb appeal of the new Vista operating system was significantly diminished by the lack of compatibility with software and peripherals. Of course, not everyone cares about such compatibility. In fact, a good fraction of Windows users care mostly about using their PC to check email and surf the web. Surely Vista does that fine.
Well, yes, and not so much. Yes, it runs the operating system applications fine. Yes, it runs Microsoft Office fine (though even there, there were some early glitches). BUT, in order to run those apps with a reasonable degree of responsiveness, Vista needs more resources than its predecessors. A LOT more resources. Whereas Windows98 could make do with 128mb of memory, Windows 2000 with 256mb, and XP with 256 or 384mb, Vista really needs 1Gb or more of memory to run properly. Similarly, while previous OSes could run satisfactorily on older CPUs (even as far back as a 600-700Mhz Pentium 3 for XP), Vista is simply too much of a resource hog for that. That means that if you're running on an older, trusty PC, don't even consider an OS upgrade to Vista. But how about your newish, nifty PC that came with a whopping 512mb of memory? No, sorry. Yeah, Vista will install. But it'll run like a slug. You want to install Vista and have all those compatibility problems with older software and hardware? Well, you'll have to pay for that privilege, not only by buying the OS, but also by buying a lot more memory. Memory prices have dropped precipitously in the past year, but it's still another cost, and another hassle to the casual user who might not otherwise care about the incompatibilities.
Bottom line: Vista looks nice and runs well on a power PC with lots of memory and a recent powerful processor, but the advantages over XP seem modest and the software/hardware hassles are a problem.
I'm a power user, and until this point I have removed Vista from all the PCs I've purchased in the past year (save one experiment machine) and replaced it with XP Pro. The incompatibility issues are the killer for me.
As of a few days ago, Microsoft has released the long-awaited service pack update 1 (sp1) for Windows Vista. As is typical, the sp1 update is an important one, and it aims to address many of the most severe bugs with the new operating system. I was hoping that maybe it would also address the many remaining incompatibility issues. So I duly installed the new Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 as a fresh install on a top notch machine (Dell Inspiron 530 quad core Intel 2 processor, 3Gb memory, 500Gb hard drive, etc.) The install went fine. The annoying Windows activation went fine. Once it was installed, I didn't really perceive any big changes from the non-sp1 install. Then came the big test: Would the new service pack be any more accommodating of the older software I have that has previously been incompatible with Vista (including Photoshop plugins, music processing software, etc.) I can say, unfortunately, that no, software that was previously incompatible remains incompatible. No surprise there, but it was worth a try. Similarly, Microsoft has promised greater driver compatibility with this service pack, but when I tried a few older (post 2000) hardware peripherals that hadn't worked previously...they still wouldn't work (and in some cases the company that made them no longer exists, so there's no way there will EVER be a new driver).
OK, is there really ANY reason to consider an upgrade to Vista if you already have an OS? Well, the Media Center functions of Windows Vista Ultimate are nice, if you want to use your PC to control all your media (music, video, etc), especially if you connect your PC to your TV. However, the same functionality is available through Windows XP Media Center. There are some new desktop sidebars that are nice (and which appear stolen, at least in concept, from the Mac). The Aero interface is pretty, although it is relatively meaningless in terms of functionality. Vista offers some additional security features, although at the same time it will drive you to pull your hair out with the continual prompts aimed at "protecting" you.
In the end, I can't say I'd recommend this OS unless you buy a new PC (in which case you're not likely to have a choice). If you have XP installed, I can't imagine any compelling reason to upgrade at this time. Perhaps by the release of the second service pack, driver and old software compatibility will have improved enough that the story will have changed. But for now...nice try, but not yet any cigar.
It is OK but make sure you have abundant ram March 27, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
This is good if you are buying a new system but I think for an older system with under 2 gig of ram you would be better off with XP. I don't feel there is enough improvements to switch from xp since there are still hardware conflicts and if you don't have 2 gig of ram you either have to turn off some of the aero and it will still slow your system.
I went back to xp since I don't want to buy new hardware or wait for them to fix the conflicts.
I would only recommend this for a new system since the manufacturer will make sure it is fully compatable.
If you decide to switch to vista run the upgrade advisor then do a complete and clean install and not an upgrade.
the interface is pretty but I prefer functionality over pretty so I will stick to xp.
 An Incremental change, but contains some nice features March 27, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
As other reviewers have indicated, Windows Vista, no matter the propaganda coming out of Redmond, is not a major leap forward in Windows software. That's not a critcism per se, but I think it's only fair to share up front because I'm sure there are more than a few readers of reviews for this product who are not going to invest a significant amount of money in a product that represents change that is largely incremental.
Also, before I get into the meat of my review, I would like to share my machine specs. I have only one computer at home and it is the only computer I use day to day that has Vista loaded on it, so my experience is based solely on these specs and it is likely that those with better or worse machines will have a different experience. They are:
Pentium 4 3 Gig Processor
1 Gig of RAM
With that out of the way, the first thing you will notice about Vista is that it is undeniably more visually appealing than its predecessors. In fact, it has become a much more visual experience, allowing for much better management of multimedia files, and the Flip 3D feature (basically a cascaded snapshot of all the files you have open which you can scroll through with the wheel on your mouse) is a neat if ultimately frivilous feature.
In addition Microsoft has added a "Sidebar" which provides a space for "gadgets" to run in the background (weather, RSS feeds, stock information, basically fulfilling the same role as Yahoo! Widgets and other similar tools available for download. There are other similar visual cues, all of which look great, but don't radically redefine the WIndows experience.
Where I was pleasently surprised was with the ease of use for Vista. Being a lifetime user of Windows, I have long since grown use to obtuse logic and arcane methodologies for modifying my system. But I have to say that thus far Vista has been a snap. One great example is modifying start-up items, which used to require using the run command and knowing the proper DOS code to use, now it's simply a matter of using an icon in the control panel. Similiarly, and this may be out of necessity, but nonetheless, Vista is much more aggressive in identifying and fixing conflicts. For example, my screen saver hasn't worked in a year and I could never figure out why and eventually gave up on trying. Within one minute of using Vista it had identified a conflict which proved to be the source of the probelm. I simply disabled the driver in question and the screensaver now works perfectly.
One note of warning, Vista took over two hours to install on my system, and I suspect the time requirement becomes exponentially more onerous on slower machines. To be fair the process largely runs on autopilot, but you do need to check in from time to time to provide a date or approve a process. I have seen several reviews mentioning errors stemming from the upgrade; I did not encounter any problems, but I would strongly recommend running the Windows upgrade adviser prior to forging ahead. It doesn't seem to have presented problems in every instance, but it can at least offer some peace of mind.
Ultimately, Vista looks pretty, runs great (thus far anyway) and is easy to use, nonetheless, my recommendation is somewhat reserved as there will definitely be instances where the incremental change in functionality is not going to be worth a fairly significant expense. In fact, if you are on the fence about upgrading, I would actually argue that your money would be better spend on Office 2007, which really does represent a quantum change in software.
The Ultimate Vista Experience March 27, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Windows Vista has a serious public image problem. It stems, in part, from Microsoft's hasty deployment of Vista into the marketplace coupled together with its massive PR push touting it as a revolution in computing. Well, Vista's debut fell flat, about as flat as a lead balloon. Those computer consumers that jumped right onto the Vista bandwagon (myself included) found an operating system which was ALREADY in need of a Service Pack. We also found that when Vista rolled out, almost NOTHING worked properly. Take your pick - from iPods to HP printers to computer programs very little worked correctly with Vista. The final indignity (at least for me) was the crippling inadequacies of Vista Home Basic. Having purchased a new computer with Vista Home Basic pre-installed, I was immediately confronted with the frustration of having none of my component computer devices functioning with the indignity of being constantly reminded by Vista Home Basic that "this feature is not supported by Home Basic." Oh, and let's not forget about the "Cancel or Allow" nonsense. I was pushed into a direction many others took last year - rolling back to Windows XP.
After a year, I thought I would give Vista another shot. I ended up installing Vista on my laptop (1.4 P4-m 30 GB HDD 768 MB RAM). Installation took a very LONG time. When installation was complete, the computer initially ran sluggishly. After a reboot however, it booted up in approximately the same time as XP. Vista is designed for the mainstream computer user - as evidenced by the "cancel or allow" nonsense. Yes, you can go into the account settings and disable it.
One improvement Vista has made over XP is the way in which it handles errors. If there is a conflict with an installed driver and an error report is generated, Vista will eventually provide you with an answer (i.e. in attempting to set up a Canon Printer, Vista generated a message saying the printer driver was not compatible and directed me to the Canon website to download the proper driver). This feature makes it easier for the casual computer user to troubleshoot problems with their computers.
PC World recently tested Vista w/ SP1, Vista w/o SP1 and XP side by side using its WorldBench 6 benchmark test. The result: XP won convincingly. One of the more perplexing and disappointing results came in the gaming arena. Vista was touted as the next generation in computer gaming. Yet, in benchmark tests, XP outperformed Vista in FPS and anti-aliasing tests. Also, based upon the PC World benchmark test, XP will SIGNIFICANTLY outperform Vista on laptops as a result of Vista's graphical demands.
What does this signify? Vista has some growing pains. Much like its predecessor XP, it will probably require a Service Pack 2 to unlock its potential. Obviously, the other thing is that components (motherboards, graphics cards, memory, etc.) will also have to catch up to deliver on the graphical promise of Vista. It will take some time, but Vista will eventually deliver. Now that Vista is stable and more hardware friendly, perhaps it may be time to think about upgrading.
|
|
|
Copyright
©
2006 Adminpal LLC | |
