Amazon.com list the different Windows Vista Editions on their website including price for the full- and upgradeversion.
Here it goes:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/10 … &Go=Go
Here it goes:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/10 … &Go=Go
Fuck
*starts saving*
*starts saving*
home basic is what most ppl would use...
but i want the bestcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
home basic is what most ppl would use...
=/ the other shit is for bussiness and other features i doubt you will useliquidat0r wrote:
but i want the bestcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
home basic is what most ppl would use...
Home basic is without Aero. Why should people use this? Most people rather go for Vista Home Premium.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
home basic is what most ppl would use...
Im just gonna get basic, this aero crap is just a pointless graphical interface thats gonna be a memory hog.
once again, microsoft rips everyone off.
you can't do anything about it because there's nowhere else to go
*hats microsoft *
you can't do anything about it because there's nowhere else to go
*hats microsoft *
dammit, but 160 bucks for upgrade version as least, 215 bucks for full version, at least its all in one dvdfierce wrote:
Home basic is without Aero. Why should people use this? Most people rather go for Vista Home Premium.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
home basic is what most ppl would use...
I will not pay that much!
Please keep in mind that it's probably the fullversion including a handbook and nice to see Package. I think the OEM & DSP version will be a lot cheaper.
For example the WinXP SP2 Home Edition fullversion still costs ~ 190,- $.
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows … s=software
For example the WinXP SP2 Home Edition fullversion still costs ~ 190,- $.
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows … s=software
Last edited by fierce (2006-08-29 02:54:13)
You're not wrong m8, the OEM version of XP is a lot cheaper than the full retail or upgrade versions.fierce wrote:
Please keep in mind that it's probably the fullversion including a handbook and nice to see Package. I think the OEM & DSP version will be a lot cheaper.
For example the WinXP SP2 Home Edition fullversion still costs ~ 190,- $.
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows … s=software
The only downside of OEM is that you can't upgrade with it as it is designed for new systems. Having said that most people would probably benefit from a Format C-Colon and a fresh install anyway ;-)
OEM ftw! i dont want to pay 50 bucks for a shiney case...
That's what i thought. I rather reinstall on a fresh partition then on a previously operating system. All my operating systems in the past have been either OEM or DSP versions.EricTViking wrote:
The only downside of OEM is that you can't upgrade with it as it is designed for new systems. Having said that most people would probably benefit from a Format C-Colon and a fresh install anyway ;-)
I've been using Ultimate for a bit. Build 5536 is very stable and smoothe.I have just one sound issue but I probably need to reinstall the Vista sound drivers from Creative.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
home basic is what most ppl would use...
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id … amp;size=l
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-31 20:48:41)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If vista costs that much, i'm gonna be looking at dropping 2000 plus on a new rig that's not even top of the line, LIKE WTF, FUCKING HATE ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY THESE DAYS
Vista is just a big fucking waste of money. XP is all you need for windows crap..as much as I can stand windows that is.
I won't upgrade off the bat. UltraMon and a couple other programs don't run under Vista and XP is fine for the moment.
But when I do upgrade, I'll go Aero.
But when I do upgrade, I'll go Aero.
thats what they said about windows 98 and 95... most ppl who upgrade to vista want 64 bit support...Hooten-Delta wrote:
Vista is just a big fucking waste of money. XP is all you need for windows crap..as much as I can stand windows that is.
There's a huge difference between XP and 95/98. Now compare Vista and XP and tell me why anyone needs Vista so badly over XP?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
thats what they said about windows 98 and 95... most ppl who upgrade to vista want 64 bit support...Hooten-Delta wrote:
Vista is just a big fucking waste of money. XP is all you need for windows crap..as much as I can stand windows that is.
its not that much, seriously
Price range: Too damn expensive to OMGWTF!!!
ok, windows 2000 and xp. vista is much more stable, 64bit support and it looks shineyHooten-Delta wrote:
There's a huge difference between XP and 95/98. Now compare Vista and XP and tell me why anyone needs Vista so badly over XP?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
thats what they said about windows 98 and 95... most ppl who upgrade to vista want 64 bit support...Hooten-Delta wrote:
Vista is just a big fucking waste of money. XP is all you need for windows crap..as much as I can stand windows that is.
Learning to use linux for me i think...
You don't NEED Vista, just like you don't NEED XP compared to say like 2000.Hooten-Delta wrote:
There's a huge difference between XP and 95/98. Now compare Vista and XP and tell me why anyone needs Vista so badly over XP?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
thats what they said about windows 98 and 95... most ppl who upgrade to vista want 64 bit support...Hooten-Delta wrote:
Vista is just a big fucking waste of money. XP is all you need for windows crap..as much as I can stand windows that is.
Vista is a huge improvement over XP, both in behind the scenes (way less stuff runs as a service or with no user, etc.) and in the GUI (obviously). Vista is also massively improved when it comes to 64bit.