Don't make us buy Vista

February 22, 2007

Posted By:  icantseeyou

956 Votes

Status: Implemented

Promote

From all of the press I have read it is plain that Vista is a big bomb. To buy the cheapest version I hear it isn't even as good as XP SP2. At the same time you need at least 4 Gig to run it. Offer other options... I don't care if it's Linux, XP, or a rat running on a wheel. Don't make us buy Vista.
DELL/ Status Update

You can read more about this the OS options Dell offers here.



956 Votes | 99 Comments | Report Abuse

Comments Page (1 of 10)

1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next

Please login to IdeaStorm to post a comment.

    Comments :
     

  • Jul 8, 2009     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: phubert

    But where did anyone tell these companies to STOP sellilng machines with Microsoft OSes?

    Again, customers have a right to tell any company what they WANT to see... whether that company respnds or not MAY -in this case- mean said customers will find other sellers.

    So, how do they judge the market and how do they RESPOND to it? THAT is up to them and you know as well as I that  such projections have been good and bad over the years and company fortunes have depended on their success and failure in that area.

    Refusing to provide alternatives, when they exist, however, IS a form of -forcing- in my book.

    Dell and others have the opportunity to partner with Canonical ... and now, it appears, with Google as well.
    •  

  • Jul 8, 2009     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: renovak

    I agree that people have every right to ask Dell for whatever they want.  But my point is that, for years, Dell and the other computer makers like Sony, HP, IBM/Lenovo, etc, have produced computers in partnership with Microsoft to offer their OS.  Dell gets paid a bit of money from MS for each Windows machine they sell, right?  So to cut that out takes money from Dell's bottom line since they don't have to develop or maintain Windows, and replacing it with a free alternative (or nothing at all) only hurts Dell in the long run.

    Then again, I've used Linux, and I've trained on computer forensics with it.  It seems like a cool system, so I can understand why people want it.

    I just don't think it's fair to ask a company to lose profit and still provide them with specialty service like installing a free OS when the customer can do it on their own without affecting the company's profit.
    •  

  • Jul 8, 2009     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: phubert

    renovak, you've been SUCH a busy little bee today! I'm not used to seeing so many outstanding replies under my profile box! :-D

    But, again, THEN, Dell would have to sell a FreeDOS system to these customers (or a no OS box (but Dell NEEDS an OS install to verify system function before delivery)) MINUS the cost attached to equivalent systems WITH a proprietary OS.

    Still, most of this is a Microsoft delivery and licensing issue. Still, customers have EVERY right to LOBBY Dell ... to TELL Dell OF their preferences, needs, prejudices.

    It is THEN up to DELL to decide whether meeting such needs will benefit THEIR image AND, immediately or eventually, their bottom line.
    •  

  • Jul 8, 2009     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: renovak

    I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to buy anything.  If you hate Vista that bad (and lots of people seem to so you're not alone), then either buy XP for cheap on eBay or get Linux for free online and install them over Vista.  If it comes down to price... well, just think.  Linux is free, so consider yourself paying for that instead of Vista :)
    •  

  • Sep 21, 2008     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: jmxz

    @gbytes: "I made Vista run... I admit I had to disable many services and Aero, and it was a pain to do it,... Also let's not forget Vista, unlike XP and older windows, doens't need to be re-installed every 3 month to enjoy peek performance of your system. ....Is it legal? I am not sure,... " LOL. @gbytes: "4GB of RAM (as XP nor Vista or any 32-bit OS actually uses your 4GB of RAM ..." Of course 32-bit OS's can and have for a very long time -- ever since Intel increased the number of address lines on its CPUs (yes, even the 32-bit ones) to 36. Even 32-bit windows 2000 happily supported 32-GB of physical ram Pretty much every 32-bit x86 OS that can run on Pentium Pro or newer x86 CPUs can access over 4GB RAM, unless they intentionally restrict it to something smaller for licensing reasons. And you can see that microrosft loves arbitrary memory restrictions so they can upsell you to more expensive versions.
    •  

  • Sep 20, 2008     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: gbytes

    Vista is a fine OS. Heck even the Beta of Vista beats XP. You should stop listening to no live Mac fanboys that just go on every website and posts how Vista stinks. I made Vista run SMOOTHLY under a PIII 800MNhz with 256MB of RAM, yes, bellow the minimum system requirements of Vista. Yes I admit I had to disable many services and Aero, and it was a pain to do it, as everything is enabled by default. But nerveless it doable. To have Vista run smoothly with default settings all you really need is a dual core CPU (as the the core and all processes are design and perform better on multi-core CPUs, instead of (like XP and older) just go on the most free CPU, 2GB of RAM (if you have 1GB or lower you should disable SuperFetch. Superfetch (under services) connected to the Core of the OS is a technology that "reserves" RAM and preloads application system files (dll) before you do, so that you have applications start-up up to 6 times faster I calculated and that was with Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended on the same computer, between Vista and XP. Now it learns on you, if you just use your web browser, then super fetch will start "reserving" much less RAM, and more if you use software like I don't know 3D studio max or something. Now I say "reserve" with quotes as it does not really reserve, if your system needs more RAM, Superfetch will automatically free it. As it is tied to the OS kernal, there is no delay and knows when to do it. Try this, look at your RAM, and startup many big applications. You will see that the RAM will stay the same, and could even lower and increase back up, and be a tiny bit more up then before.

    As for multi-core supported (and when I mean support, I mean actually takes advantage of it), see this: In XP, the second you see the talk bar on your screen, after log-in while you still have processes loading, click on the Start Menu (don't' wait until it finishes loading), and try to access stuff on the All program sections. You see that the Start menu will close on you several times on you when you try it. If you have a My computer shortcut on your desktop, and you double click on it, while XP loads it won't open and show the content. You have to wait. But In Vista it is not the case. While the system load you can access it, and start all your things. There is no wait.
    Even if you startup a large project from the Explorer, you don't have to wait until the program starts and teh project to load to have access back to the folder like in XP and older WIndows version.

    Also let's not forget Vista, unlike XP and older windows, doens't need to be re-installed every 3 month to enjoy peek performance of your system. It doesn't slow down over time due to it's auto maintenance and disk defrag.

    Is Vista perfect, no, same as XP. If you actually USE Vista, and turn back to XP, you will see all the annoyances and bugs will come forward in front of you, all these bugs that you got used to live with them will come forward and you will see that both OS are just as crappy.

    Another problem is Bit version.
    most issues reported only affect the 32-bit version of Vista. Comparing Vista 64-bit to the 32-bit, you can see that the 32-bit version was really a last minute thing, it's far from (even with SP1) being as polished as Vista 64-bit. In fact, if you have 64-bit drivers for all your peripherals, and you use well programed software (take it from a programmer :) ), there are no reason why should not go with Vista 64-bit. I mean you have PURCHASED a 64-bit CPU, for some Direct X10 video card, 4GB of RAM (as XP nor Vista or any 32-bit OS actually uses your 4GB of RAM, in fact 3.5 to 3.8 (if you are lucky 3.8, depends on your hardware configuration and motherboard) GB of RAM is used. When Microsoft or any other OS including Linux says "Support": they
    •  

  • Jun 17, 2008     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: jmxz

    @kara_k Should the status on this one be changed to "Partially Implemented"? I still see systems (currently looking for a quad-core desktop/workstation) where Vista seems to be the only option on many models. Yes, I know this is "Implemented" on some models -- but if that's the criteria for having an Idea's status set to "Implemented", there are a number of other top-voted ideas (like Open Office and firefox) that could be set to "Implemented" by that criteria as well.
    •  

  • Feb 26, 2008     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: kara_k

    Changed status to **IMPLEMENTED**. You can read more about this Idea in Action here.
    •  

  • Feb 26, 2008     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: bill_b

    Hi, all. As you have flushed out in the comments, Dell is now offering XP on most business workstations, desktop and laptop systems. How long we will continue to offer XP on those systems is constantly under review. As far as support, Dell's phone in, email and online support for any system, regardless of O/S, ends when the hardware warranty ends. So, by nature of the warranty agreement we will support XP for at least that long. For more definitive information on Microsoft's projected support cycle, you may want to read over Microsoft Support Lifecycle.
    •  

  • Feb 13, 2008     Comment Link

    Report Abuse

    Posted By: phubert

    Well, at least try a dual-boot of Ubuntu... Linux is better every day... and so much software is truly FREE.

1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next