Is Windows VISTA going to be worth it?

My son came home with World of Warcraft back in November, we tried to install
it and it told us we didn't have enough RAM. I don't know if you have ever played
World of Warcraft, but it really is a very cool game. So we got some RAM and
bought a new video card and tweaked the XP OS so that it was as clean as we
could get it, and started that puppy up. We haven't regretted the extra cost
or the tweaking time at all. That game rocks.

I've been reading some of the updates on Vista however and I'm lifting eyebrows.
The release has be postponed to 2007 according to the latest reports, which
is fine, I would rather them get it right than push it out the door like they
have done so many times in the past. Beta reports have probably had a great
deal to do with this postponement, and that's exactly what beta runs are for,
but what I'm also getting from some of the publications and blogs out there,
are the system requirements are really heavy for this OS.

Heavy system requirements have always come with the Microsoft OS, starting
with Windows Version 1. The more, the better, and I'm not against putting a
few hundred into the computer once in a while to insure that I can get done
what I need to on a daily basis. Right now, despite what Microsoft is saying,
the OS is going to need at least 1 Gig of RAM, with a dual-core processor, and
80 to 100 gigs of space on the hard disk to run comfortably. I'm not talking
about what it will take to just run the OS and MS Word at the same time. I'm
talking about what it will take to run comfortably and install all the other
software you have on your computer.

Now, I have to say that I've been very happy and even a little impressed with
the XP system. It is fairly fast, and runs very well on my laptop. I've not
had a single crash, and trust me if any machine out there was going to crash
it would be mine. I run full versions of MySQL, PHP and Apache on this laptop,
along with Premier and Flash for developing, and I edit sound files. It is a
very low key laptop too. A 40 gig drive with a 500 Gig external, and only 256
megs of RAM (of which only 192 are actually available because of the video card).
The CPU is a little 2.7. It's a mid-range Toshiba... no bells or whistles, but
XP runs on it very well, and like I said, I haven't had many problems with it
(a few, but nothing like Win2k).

My laptop, as it is, could not run Vista, I would have to put in (at the very
least) 1 GIG of RAM (about $180 for that). From all of the reports I've listened
to, the dual-core processor would be very favorable, unfortunately I can't upgrade
the processor on my laptop, but lets say I could, and we throw an Intel Pentium
D 820 Dual Core 2.8GHz 800MHz processor in there for about $220.00 (prices seem
to vary a great deal on these so we'll just say $220.00). So we are looking
at about $400.00 in basic hardware to run a new OS that is going to cost me
another $300.00 (est), bringing the total to $700 in cash plus six to seven
hours loading the new system and all of my software, setting up my database
and the web server and getting the games to work again.

What am I getting in return for this investment of time and money? I have no
problem spending $700 if I'm going to get back my money in service and time,
or safety or function. After reading
this page again, for my laptop I probably would not upgrade to the Vista
system. I would wait until I wanted a new laptop and then I would consider a
Vista installed unit against what else was available. The real benefits I see
in Vista are for the office and system administration, not the home user or
the freelance user.

I could have said the same thing about XP when it was coming out, but after
using the system I wouldn't have, because there were no really stable alternatives
for the home user. We had ME and Win98... that's like choosing between Bush
and Cheney. XP became (after a time) a real, stable, computer OS that the home
user didn't have to worry about more than the programs he was running.

Vista is offering a better XP, which is great, but I don't need it and neither
do most home users. Office networks will probably benefit from the enhanced
security measures and improved task scheduling. From the way the white papers
are reading, they sound almost as flexible as a Unix/Linux system, which is
a good thing.

Since the release is pushed back to early 2007, I guess we are just going to
have to wait and see.

If you have questions about your OS, the hardware you are running or a bug
that you can't seem to figure out, visit our forum area and
let us help you.