My company and I will not be upgrading to Vista.

We run 2000 on most of our computers. Some run Linux.
When XP came out none of us saw the need to upgrade. XP did not provide any incentive. Vista is counter productive in my opinion. We all know how much bloat and endless CPU loops there are in MS products. Do any of you know what MS uses all the CPU cycles for?

We are migrating over to Linux as we rewrite our software programs.

We will be dumping Microsoft completely this year and switch over to Linux.

I am running RC1 build 5600 right now, and my computer is definitely slower than Win XP SP2.

My CPU load used to be idling around 0-5% in XP, but it spikes randomly between 15-100% in Vista. Athlon 64 3200+ at 25% OC, 2GB RAM, 7600GT

No.

I doubt Vista will offer a sufficient return on the (excessive) investment that Microsoft will be asking [for it].

I believe computers have reached the point, for a lot of people (finally!), to be realized for what they are - tools - rather than what they are not - ego extensions.

I believe for the investment required a decent number of people - along with a goodly number of businesses - will not see enough of a return on the investment in Vista to upgrade their tools to a newer version...for the tools they have currently get the job done.

That...and we are just beginning to get our tools sufficiently usable (read: stable, bug free and security patched) than to start all over again, as we must do

every time, with a software "upgrade" (and Microsoft especially),

that this is just NOT worth the investment of time, cost nor grief.

As (personally) my main software of use is content creation and specialized data - InDesign CS2, Photoshop CS2, Gemsoft, GIS and a few others (in that order of importance) - switching to "Open Source" is not an option for me. Open Source software simply does not have the powerful applications necessary in the fields I occupy.

I will update to Vista when I must - when the application software requires it, rather than when the OS vendor prefers.

I'll go for it about half way through 2008.

Hopefully by then, the majority of drivers, and software in general, will all be 64-bit.

not until I have to.

I keep having precisely the same issue when I attempt to install Vista (I've tried each version since beta 2). When I attempt to load the ATI drivers my LCD monitor goes blank and I get a message (from the monitor itself): "Out of Range".

With RC1 I tried entering safe mode, uninstalling the video card drivers, and restarting. Then I loaded the only set of driver files I had for my LCD. And finally I tried reinstalling the ATI drivers. Same result, Blank Screen with the same error message by the monitor.

So with 5 months to go before offical "consumer" release Vista simply won't work correctly. Can they fix these issues? I'm sure they could, but equally certain they won't! Therefore I think I'll let the rest of you continue the "beta" testing...

Maybe by 2008 Vista will be worth the trouble to "Upgrade". But I'm not holding my breath.

Nope. No Vista for me.

I moved to Linux, (in late 2004), and I've been happy since. (I use it on firewall, my print/scan/file server, my PVR box, etc). All boxes remain up without trouble. My software costs have been $0 in the last year or so! Such savings are being used for other things, as well as my "quad-core fund" :-)

Progress has been going quite well in the last two years for the Linux desktop, and I see no reason to spend money on something I don't need. I learn more and I've developed enthusiasm for open-source. So much so, I've decided to learn a programming language and see if I can contribute back with some ideas I have...And maybe help address areas that the open-source community hasn't addressed yet! (I didn't realise that there's so many free development tools until I started looking!)

Besides, I don't agree with the conditions of MS's "End User License Agreement" (EULA)...Do you folks actually read those conditions they set? Or do most of you just blindly buy something, pop the install disc and away you go?

Because you'll find all that legalese quite interesing. Note the clause in regards to DRM and the other one about how you agree to let them install stuff on your boxes without requiring your consent! (Yeap, its in there!)

For me, conditions like that isn't right. (It crosses the line).

Yes, primarilly to get 64 bit vista. I have 4GB of RAM in my machine and would like to use it.

No, but I'm sure I'll upgrade to Vista when MS forces us to with DX10.

No, I figure I will go Mac on my next computer and use XP for legacy stuff. XP may be my last windows OS.

Even if I was staying with windows I would be in no hurry. I waited for XP to get to SP2 before I moved off Win2k and only because I had a crash and needed to reinstall anyway.

I am not doing a reinstall, and paying MS a pile of cash just to take part in an extended beta for something I don't even need. Not to mention handing yet more control over my computer to MS DRM.

One of the poll options should have been "After Vista SP2 is released".

i for one won't downgrade to windows vista. xp64 is already quite a resource hog and what i've seen and heard of vista isn't good; i do a lot of programming on rendering systems and just can't accept yet more resource squandering.

to this end, i'm making the (long overdue) transition to linux...

Maybe

waiting for the final.

If i like it, i'd buy it. :P

I'm genuinely curious... About a quarter of those here will upgrade to Vista. About as many are considering it. The rest of us will not.

What I want to know is why you want to upgrade to Vista. Setting aside the fact that it's a new version of Windows and that some games (like Halo 2) will be Vista-only, I'd love to know why you want to upgrade to Vista.

(Personally, I'm quite happy with Linux and get all of the gaming goodness I want as it is. I'm just genuinely curious.)

I doubt I will upgrade right away. My primary machine will run it fine (currently dual-booting RC1), but I'm afraid of driver problems and application compatibility teething pains. I do like the OS in general though, and I'm impressed with RC1. I will probably upgrade that machine once Vista has matured a bit.

I am planning on building a new machine once the DX10 video cards are out. That machine will obviously run Vista.

business/work: yes. The advancements in the imaging capability and backup routine will pay for itself within months. This OS will indeed save me a lot of time. Office 07 does nothing for me or my budget: I'd have to spend a lot of my budget to retrain my users for it. We are using more and more open office, strangely not because I want to but because some of our clients have started to.

Home: Probably not. I don't play games much anymore, I find PVR'media center edition a stop-gap measure to when we will just be downloading our entertainment, I'm really liking ubuntu and linux dabbling. Eye candy doesn't do it for me like it used to. Don't have the expendenble cash (DAMN YOU WOMAN) like I did when I was single and without kids, so upgrading hardware for the OS's sake isn't worth it for me.

No, no Vista for me.

I have been tinkering with Linux to see if I can run everything I need to run and the problem is still applications, not general apps, which are fine, but company specfic ones for products I have. Linux is coming however, so I don't see the need to purchase MS spyware Vista. The only way I would get it is if a game I really wanted would not run on XP.

Personally, I wish game companies would just develope for Linux and include a copy of Linux with the game that would run on top of doze or as part of a dual boot.

I'll get a copy of it when I get a new desktop for it, or get a new laptop that will support it. The work they've done on the kernel is too good to justify running XP afterwards, provided all the apps I need have been transitioned over or have equivalents.

In the meantime my current desktop is going to get moved over to freeBSD with my IBM laptop staying with XP since I do need a stable box while I play around and break things on the other ones.

Vista will land on my desktop whenever I buy a machine that can run Aero. My current machine isn't that bad, but if I'm going to buy a Windows license, I'm also going to buy a machine that runs Aero in all it's "glory".

The name is just too stupid to upgrade. I don't want to have to tell people I use something called Vista. And from what I see/hear it's just as ugly and stupid looking as OSX.

i'm tired of xp, i'm looking forward to vista.

When I can purchase it from the university store for ~$20, i will buy, but wont upgrade untill Vista SP2 couple of years from now. Most likely will get it if I decide to build a whole new gaming rig in 2 years or so.

When a DX10 only must-have game comes out AND sp1 is out AND DRM is cracked....maybe.

voted yes, because I will dual boot it with XP untill it becomes more mainstream and there are well established ways to defeat the evil that is DRM and DX10 becomes essential for games, Vista is very pretty and RC1 is very good but far from perfect, i can see me running XP for at least the next 1 or 2 years.

I've always defended MS as far as their plans for Vista, and I've almost always USED Microsoft OSes thoughout my multi-decade professional computer career; I still use Windows Server 2003 for my main server OS. I've concluded that when you get rid of all the complaints about HD DRM and activation and whatnot; after all, hard-coded DRM will always be breakable, and as long as we have alternatives, like x264, the loud concerns over VIsta's implementation really don't concern me too much. Their modifications to the kernel, audio subsystem, video subsystem, and FINALLY user management and proper relegation of hardware drivers to user mode and such all make Vista look great, on paper. I suspect that they'll actually pull most of this stuff off, even if user management/priveleges are still rather messy, even in RC1.

Bottom line is I've always said that Vista will be better than XP, and I stand by that.

But when I look at the alternatives out there, I'm not sure it's worth the price.

I've used modern Macs, and OSX is a very, very attractive OS, but it's still only as affordable as the cheapest Mac, and probably always will be. I really do see it as the premier desktop OS right now, but it's expensive; that's undeniable.

It's just that the more I use my Linux machines, the less I care about either. I've been using the XGL/Compiz "shell" and the fantastic kiba-dock with KDE under Kubuntu for a while now, and I honestly don't think I could give it up. This combination along with the Konquerer file browser really is everything I could ask for when I think of a desktop OS, with the exception of (especially video-) iPod integration and Flash implementation in a web browser (though Flash 9 for Linux is about to be released, rectifying this situation). I trust the iPod thing will be worked out, in time.

I really, honestly see no reason to use Vista as long as I can dual-boot into my trusty XP exclusively to play games and load up my iPod, then swap back to Linux for everything else. It may be a minor inconvenience, but it's one I'm willing to deal with in the meantime while these issues are still being worked out under Linux, even if it takes a couple of years. I know some aren't.

XGL, Compiz, AIGLX, Konquerer, Swiftfox, Amarok, and the kind of advances taking place in distributions like OpenSUSE, Fedora, SLED, (K)Ubuntu, Debian, and Freespire have excited my interest more than any software has for a LONG time. I've always been a big skeptic when it came to desktop Linux, but actually USING this stuff has made me a big believer as I've seen it finally start to come together in the past six months.

It's about time, but I still voted "maybe".

I wouldn't pee on Vista or DRM or any other such crap Microsoft is putting in this OS.

They finally got it right with XP, I intend to stick with it as long as I can with my classic theme, decent performance etc.

Eventually I will either purchase a mac (I'd say 5% chance at most) Switch to linux (5% again) and do all my gaming on consoles.

Other alternative is, eventually Vista which I don't want, I will wait until work (large government organisation) purchase more machines from HP / Dell / Acer / whoever with stickers on the side with a valid product key.
Since we will be using a corp "uber" key on our install on the network those Vista keys go to waste (just like the XP pro key stickers we have now)
I'll obtain the CD from and a key and bingo, free copy.

I'll get an OEM copy at release, but will retain dual-boot with XP until game performance catches up.

Eventually I'll have to support it at work, so learning how to navigate and locate troubleshooting tools is best learned at home.

I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually, just like I did with '98, 2k and XP.

I'm in no rush, though, given that I can toy around with the RC1 for now and wait for the drivers (ATi and Creative, I'm looking at you!) to appear and mature before making the jump.

I voted 'No'.

Gonna buy it. Not sure about Home premium or Ultimate yet, sicne I will also use it for mediacenter among other things.