|
| 
 enlarge | From: Microsoft Software
Category: Software
List Price: $269.99
Buy New: $175.99
You Save: $94.00 (35%)
New (24) Used (2) from $175.99
Rating:  92 reviews
Sales Rank: 88
Format: Cd-rom
Platform: Windows Vista
Media: DVD-ROM
Operating System: Windows Vista
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.4 x 1.5
MPN: 66I-02387
Model: 66I-02387
UPC: 882224661317
EAN: 0882224661317
ASIN: B0013O54OE
Release Date: March 19, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
Middle of the road operating system June 24, 2008
M. A. Filippelli (Elk Grove, CA, US)
The install went well. I preformed a fresh install. The machine I use is strictly for testing, I did not install this on a PC that I use daily. I installed it on a laptop that's 1.67 ghz processor over clocked to 2 ghz it has 512 shared ram (Microsoft recomends 1 gig)other then that the laptop met all of the other suggested minimum requirements. It has the Intel 945 chipset that comes with integrated graphics Intel accelerator 950 video card.
Vista didn't recognize an old Laserjet 4 plus network printer but neither did did XP. It is a network printer so I set it up using IP printing. My Open office ( a free office suite of applications that rivals MS Office) applications work well with Vista. Vista recognized my Canon camera. It didn't recognize an old Omni scanner that I have and there are no drivers for it on the but which is ok because I have a Mac that I do all my photo and scanning work on.
In general Vista is slower then XP on the same machine. The search functions take longer partially because it's doing a more complicated search. The login takes a little longer because it takes longer to load the user profile.
A breakdown of new and improved features.
The Windows software firewall works well but still is not a replacement for a hardware firewall. Vista's mobile computing is better then XP. The spyware is also getting better but I would still recommend lavasoft over the Vista defender spyware. The parental controls haven't changed much since XP. Windows Meeting space worked ok but Vista has to be installed on any computer joining the meeting. Windows meeting spaces replaces net meeting. Windows photo gallery is ok but seems to have lost some functionality over Windows photo manager. Windows has a thing called Gadgets. Mac users will recognize this it's very similar to Mac Widgets. It enables you to have applets on your desktop that will tell you the weather, sports tickers, calendars. Windows comes with a few gadgets and there are many more available on line. The Windows media center is nice. It does a good job of visualizing photo's, videos both stored locally and over a network. Windows aero is interesting to play with but fairly useless, basically what it does is give the title bar some transparency so that you can see what's below it.
If you are going to spend two hundred doillars on this then I would recomend spending a hundred dollard more and picking up Vista ultimate with SP1.
 I'm going back to XP June 22, 2008
Mirek2
I hate it. It offers no real advantages over XP, is slower, works with less stuff, and keeps freezing up. I'm downgrading to XP...
Decided not to install June 21, 2008
Country Woman (Kansas)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
After reading other comments and doing some research I decided not to try installing this over my XP program. It just sounded like I was going to have problems that I'm not competent enough to deal with.
I know the program works great factory installed, I've seen it and used it on a computer at work.
Couldn't give it away June 14, 2008
Mike Heath (North Woods of Michigan)
From the perspective of a MacBook Pro user. . .
I run with 2 GB of memory and use Parallels Desktop to run Windows XP Pro simultaneous to my running my Mac OS. I allocate 1 GB to Parallels when I need to run Windows, which is very infrequently. While 2 GB is more than enough memory for me run my Mac OS and all my Mac apps simultaneously, that is the amount of memory required just to run Vista. Given that XP runs fine on my Mac and serves my needs, I decided not to load Vista.
Instead I tried giving Vista away to friends who are running XP on Windows machines; none of them would take it! They are so leery of new Microsoft OSs and none of them had the memory required to run it.
From the perspective of a Mac user I find this ironic. When Apple releases a new OS, Mac users line up in droves to get their hands on it, confident that the experience will be a positive one and worth the learning curve and occasional upgrade to an existing app. When Microsoft comes out with a new OS, Windows users have to be dragged kicking and screaming to upgrade their OS, in this case, even when it's free they resist.
It's flashy, it's new...but does it stick? June 3, 2008
Jared Jongeling (USA)
After hearing numerous first-hand encounters and hearsay about Windows Vista, one gets to wondering about it. Is it really THAT bad? Or do people just hype up the bad rap because well, it's easy to criticize in this day and age.
After my previous computer (coincidentally the one I'm typing on at this moment) caught a few bugs and malicious spy ware, I decided to upgrade my rig to something a little more powerful (512mb to 2GB RAM, 160GB to 200GB HD). Needless to say it had Windows Vista Home Premium installed and I figured, heck...let's give it a whirl.
I decided to stay in the same conference room (Compaq to HP) so I figured the jump wouldn't be all that treacherous.
So I got her all hooked up, plugged in, and ready to go. I pressed the power button ... ... and waited. And waited. And wait, I did, so long that I figured the computer was broke. I figured I had gotten stiffed. Just as I was about to unplug the computer, ALAS! Here comes the famed Vista logo! And after that, some more waiting (I'm gaining experience here)! After a whopping 6-8 minutes, I finally saw the desktop loading...and after another two minutes, I could actually access a program. So, being that this baby starts up and is ready to access applications just under the 10 minute mark, I'd say it ranks with...well, Windows 95, I guess. In fact, I'd even say that I recall Windows 95 starting up a tad quicker on my Gateway back in the late 90s. Hmph.
Alright, so here's where the rubber meets the road : I plug my Ethernet cable in and I access IE. Load time is almost impressive, in fact the MSN homepage was fully loaded and searchable within 15-20 seconds. Now, let's try opening a few different windows. I pop open 5 IE windows and they all load within 10 seconds, not shabby at all. Let's try a few programs that HAVEN'T accessed the memory cache yet. Windows Media Player and Adobe Acrobat. Let's try loading a page now. Oh, what's this? I think I will go make myself a sandwich. That's right - and when I get back, maybe the page will, oh, nope...still blank. Well, that's okay Vista...it's your first day.
Unfortunately this OS just doesn't cut the mustard for me. After shutting it down, I restarted it a few hours later and I sat for almost a half an hour. After shutting it down and turning it back on manually, I realized it was fooling me - it wasn't locking up; rather it naturally took that long to boot up.
I think it's ridiculous that an operating system can take this long to boot and operate, even on a system that has more than efficient memory and gusto to support it.
Vista IS very very shoddy. It's glitchy, it's slow, and it's prone to more lock-ups and illegal operations than the CIA and FBI combined. I'm sorry but I'll take a computer with spy ware and XP over a clean system with Vista!
I got burned! And I expected good things!
You stand warned! ^_^
|
|
|
Thank you for browsing ExcelBookstore.com! | |
