Upgrade to Vista or stick with XP?

[General Septem]

I voted that I'll upgrade when I feel the need to, which is the closest I could see to an honest answer, because I won't ever need Vista badly enough to put up with the DRM. So a more accurate answer for me would be, I'll upgrade to Vista after someone puts a gun up to someone's head at Microsoft and gets the DRM removed.

[Nightwish68]

I upgrade when i need to or when i buy new major hardware and buy a OEM version.

I have it installed with my beta key on second rig and use it sometimes.

[Thasp]

what's DRM?

 

It's like cancer, AIDS, smallpox, or multiple sclerosis, but it effects technological development and freedom - not people.

 

you forgot an option like "I'll leave XP when they pry my cold, dead hands from it"

 

cfc.

[ZOldDude]

Sorry but you left out any option to STAY with XP so I can't vote!

 

I will not be useing Vista even as a free download.

I don't like the DRM in it along with the basic bloat of it's size and lowered game preformance.

 

I hate the idea that Windows will be able to TURN OFF my rom drive or gfx card if a "hack" for that model is found to get around the DRM or for some reason the rom/gfx maker fails to pay or renew his "key fee" on time.

 

Vista is only for those who don't know any better.

[Yukon Trooper]

I don't like the DRM in it along with the basic bloat of it's size and lowered game preformance.

I wouldn't say that. Maybe it will run games inefficiently at first but Vista's potential for games is miles beyond XP.

Vista is only for those who don't know any better.

As much as I hate to admit it, two years down the road anyone who is still using XP will be nearing the stone age. It's like the 98 to XP switch, only this time it should be quicker because technology does not progress at a standard linear rate, rather it multiplies.

 

As far as DRM goes it is in Bill's hands literally. I don't know what percent of people own a PC but DRM is largely implemented through MS and Mr. Gates is the biggest player in this shi* storm. I'm worried because I can't figure out what he wants. DRM is rooted in his software but at the same time he has come out and actively criticized the movement. His criticism however is confusing and erratic which makes me worry even more. Nothing he has said about the issue is sufficient to settle any scores and it almost seems like he's waiting for us to wade into the DRM pool before its too late but I'd like to think not. What DRM comes down to IMO is money. Control on what we use and how we use it. Whether or not Bill is implementing DRM for his own financial gain is speculative but I am sure there is plenty of influence from artists, record labels and all forms of media trying to make Bills decision a little easier.

[s1ick]

id like to give it a spin for fun, but its gonna take most people of above average intelligence (anyone who bothers to read about things before buying them) a good year to be persuaded by the awesomeness of DX10 games. If that becomes the case. And unless DRM gets slightly less strict most will be dual booting or dooing as i do now, one machine for day to day stuff and the decent computer for games, or a few HDD's and a dual boot.

[flyboy14295]

I'll upgrade when a decent OS release comes out because of all of the problems I hear about SP1.

[kulo]

im stayin for xp pro for a couple of yrs untill a free version of vista comes out lol

[boywander]

Another vote (ha) for a negative option, given the thread title. It has no appeal but the prettiness element, and I'll stick with XP and buy their console instead.

[Guest Lavell]

I'll stay with Windows XP until Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista is released. By that time (within a year), majority of the bugs with Windows Vista will be worked out, a good number of games that support DirectX 10 will be released, and most important, video cards that support DirectX 10 will be much cheaper! :nod:

[General Septem]

I wouldn't say that. Maybe it will run games inefficiently at first but Vista's potential for games is miles beyond XP.

 

We're not talking about running games inefficiently, we're talking about the OS deliberately reducing the quality of anything higher than a resolution of 800x600, and if you think XP will be a stone-age relic in two years, it's nothing compared to any monitor with an 800x600 resolution.

[Yukon Trooper]

We're not talking about running games inefficiently, we're talking about the OS deliberately reducing the quality of anything higher than a resolution of 800x600, and if you think XP will be a stone-age relic in two years, it's nothing compared to any monitor with an 800x600 resolution.

Deliberately reducing the quality how? I know that Vista will use more resources but the extra consumption will be negligible especially with faster hardware being released every day. Even so with these "reductions", games will still perform and look better than anything on XP as far as I can tell. Play a copy of Crysis on Vista with full DX10 support, then play a copy of Crysis on XP with DX9 when Crysis comes out and tell me what you think. My money is on the DX10 version. I have not read anything into Vista besides the politics regarding DRM so please indulge me about these quality issues, I am very interested. As far as XP and gaming technology goes, I still believe in 2 years it will look pretty mediocre compared to what Vista will be capable of.