|
Browse categories
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Mac OS X Leopard (1-User) (Mac OS X)
|
Apple;
Mac OS XMacintosh
2007-10-27;
|
|
Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
*Best price found from Amazon Marketplace seller
|
*Amazon: £71.90
|
|
 Customer Reviews
Not a "must" upgrade, but definitely an evolution, 25 Jul 2008
I have personally found 'Tiger' to be the most efficient OS X to date, and therefore a real favourite for a couple of years when I was working in a graphics department. Their is no doubt Leopard is a beautiful upgrade, containing a stated "300+ upgrades", however, it is by no means essential if you Mac is work work purposes. The extra features we've found are not for the productive side of things, but more for consolidating files, making things visually look better, and a few notable new programs.
In short, Leopard would no doubt be a great update for the Media orientated users, but if you're all work and no play, it's actually not that essential. "Snow Leopard" has already been announced for next year anyway, and was stated would improve performance and stability, rather than functionality, so that'll definitely be worth a look.
No, it's not better than windows. But it isn't worse., 21 Apr 2008
It's in the middle.
I'm tired of reading these articles on how macs are vastly superior to windows based machines. if you consider that microsoft has to tailor an operating system to work on countless configurations of hardware, whereas apple mass produces the same specificiation for every set brand of computer, you may understand why windows crashes a bit more.
macs crash, by the way. mine froze on imovie the first day i got it. impressive, ey?
of course, mac os x leopard is stunning. its fast, its intuitive and best of all, it's simple. but i like windows just as much. they both have their strengths and weaknesses. oh, by the way, the "vista sucks" debate got old when it was discovered none of the haters have even TOUCHED it.
but anyway. great OS, but don't expect it to redefine the operating systems of the future because, as it is, it doesn't do anything new.
Easy and fault free upgrade to Mini Mac with Tiger, 13 Apr 2008
I started over a year ago with a Mini Mac with a Tiger operating system and then subsequently added an I-Mac and Notebook with Leopard pre- installed. So I found myself having to accept the need for an upgrade especially with the ability to better network all our domestic computers using Leopard.
The result was a painless and hassle free upgrade unlike one other Review submission - I have also not found the slow running commented on by others which given I am using the lower end of the Apple range, seems to indicate they may possibly have other usage or memory/RAM issues with their specific machines under the upgrade.
The many features and improvements in Leopard are commented on fully under under Reviews - suffice to say it is not 100% perfect but certainly in the high 90s and compared with the universal problems on Windows launch of Vista (one of the key reasons I experimented with Apple in the first place) I am very happy.
The only problem (as with all Apple OS) is that you get little guidance free and so you will need to budget for purchase of the Missing Manual series on Leopard in understanding the many features and timesaving shortcuts and tricks possible.
Decent upgrade, but released too soon, 07 Apr 2008
I've been using Leopard for the best part of a month, so now it's starting to settle in.
The good - Time Machine is a useful back up tool, combined with either SuperDuper or Carbon Cloner gives you a bootable backup and a file backup which will protect you from any kind of local disaster (you'll need off site backup for fire, theft and flood though). Quick look is handy and spotlight has been improved. Stacks prevents your desktop from getting clogged up with files.
The bad - system stability seems to have been affected - I got two kernel panics in my first week compared to three over three years with Tiger. You'll need to download a 350Mb patch to bring you up to 10.5.2 immediately after installing - it would be nice if Apple would upgrade the discs to 10.5.2. Time Machine fights with your Anti Virus software slowing down backups and restores (sometimes horribly - make sure you've excluded the discs/ partitions from your AV scanning). Leopard also seems to be very RAM hungry, whereas Tiger ran happily on 1Gb, Leopard struggles with 2Gb.
The ugly - the new dock look really just gets in the way, it's harder to tell if the applications is started than under Tiger and every so often when my iMac runs out of memory I get a washed out negative of the dock where the downloads stack is unreadable. This can be fixed by a reboot, but frankly this shouldn't be a problem.
In summary, nice incremental improvements (Time Machine, Stacks and quick look), with some big problems - system stability prior to 10.5.2 is definitely worse than Tiger. On balance probably worth upgrading, but max out your RAM and patch the OS immediately after install.
**UPDATE**
Time Machine is really excellent, I've used it twice now and both times its recovered perfectly. The only problem I had is that sometimes you've got to delete the old file before you replace it (permissions). The second of the two attempts meant I could recover from a botched Office upgrade in less than 20 minutes rather than it taking all night. Strongly recommended! Buy an external Hard Drive and get it with Firewire if you can, your data is worth the £80-100 price tag.
Stability has improved with 10.5.2/3, I've had no further crashes.
Better off with Tiger, 02 Apr 2008
I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger out of curiosity, and I have to say it looks pretty.
But that's not everything you expect your OS to be, and indeed after a while I decided to go back to Tiger. Why?
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it didn't crash or anything like that. I just found it very annoying that it slowed down my Mac significantly (opening new folders in finder was a pain, I had to wait for several seconds to have folder contents displayed), and did various other things that annoyed me. I'm using my Mac for quite a lot of development tasks, and after I found out that the upgrade had messed up my MySQL installation and changed some Apache things which I had to work around I felt this was rather a burden than an improvement. I got it all working again, but not in a way that left me feel confident about the overall setup.
The positive things: Tabs in the terminal application, new finder views (cover flow), and ... that's about it. Multiple work places were nice if you have a lot of windows open (and most of the time I had) but I didn't really use that feature a lot.
After that experience I can't really recommend the upgrade. Leopard's really more about cosmetic changes and some additional gadgets. If you're happy with Tiger, stick to it.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Not a "must" upgrade, but definitely an evolution, 25 Jul 2008
I have personally found 'Tiger' to be the most efficient OS X to date, and therefore a real favourite for a couple of years when I was working in a graphics department. Their is no doubt Leopard is a beautiful upgrade, containing a stated "300+ upgrades", however, it is by no means essential if you Mac is work work purposes. The extra features we've found are not for the productive side of things, but more for consolidating files, making things visually look better, and a few notable new programs.
In short, Leopard would no doubt be a great update for the Media orientated users, but if you're all work and no play, it's actually not that essential. "Snow Leopard" has already been announced for next year anyway, and was stated would improve performance and stability, rather than functionality, so that'll definitely be worth a look.
No, it's not better than windows. But it isn't worse., 21 Apr 2008
It's in the middle.
I'm tired of reading these articles on how macs are vastly superior to windows based machines. if you consider that microsoft has to tailor an operating system to work on countless configurations of hardware, whereas apple mass produces the same specificiation for every set brand of computer, you may understand why windows crashes a bit more.
macs crash, by the way. mine froze on imovie the first day i got it. impressive, ey?
of course, mac os x leopard is stunning. its fast, its intuitive and best of all, it's simple. but i like windows just as much. they both have their strengths and weaknesses. oh, by the way, the "vista sucks" debate got old when it was discovered none of the haters have even TOUCHED it.
but anyway. great OS, but don't expect it to redefine the operating systems of the future because, as it is, it doesn't do anything new.
Easy and fault free upgrade to Mini Mac with Tiger, 13 Apr 2008
I started over a year ago with a Mini Mac with a Tiger operating system and then subsequently added an I-Mac and Notebook with Leopard pre- installed. So I found myself having to accept the need for an upgrade especially with the ability to better network all our domestic computers using Leopard.
The result was a painless and hassle free upgrade unlike one other Review submission - I have also not found the slow running commented on by others which given I am using the lower end of the Apple range, seems to indicate they may possibly have other usage or memory/RAM issues with their specific machines under the upgrade.
The many features and improvements in Leopard are commented on fully under under Reviews - suffice to say it is not 100% perfect but certainly in the high 90s and compared with the universal problems on Windows launch of Vista (one of the key reasons I experimented with Apple in the first place) I am very happy.
The only problem (as with all Apple OS) is that you get little guidance free and so you will need to budget for purchase of the Missing Manual series on Leopard in understanding the many features and timesaving shortcuts and tricks possible.
Decent upgrade, but released too soon, 07 Apr 2008
I've been using Leopard for the best part of a month, so now it's starting to settle in.
The good - Time Machine is a useful back up tool, combined with either SuperDuper or Carbon Cloner gives you a bootable backup and a file backup which will protect you from any kind of local disaster (you'll need off site backup for fire, theft and flood though). Quick look is handy and spotlight has been improved. Stacks prevents your desktop from getting clogged up with files.
The bad - system stability seems to have been affected - I got two kernel panics in my first week compared to three over three years with Tiger. You'll need to download a 350Mb patch to bring you up to 10.5.2 immediately after installing - it would be nice if Apple would upgrade the discs to 10.5.2. Time Machine fights with your Anti Virus software slowing down backups and restores (sometimes horribly - make sure you've excluded the discs/ partitions from your AV scanning). Leopard also seems to be very RAM hungry, whereas Tiger ran happily on 1Gb, Leopard struggles with 2Gb.
The ugly - the new dock look really just gets in the way, it's harder to tell if the applications is started than under Tiger and every so often when my iMac runs out of memory I get a washed out negative of the dock where the downloads stack is unreadable. This can be fixed by a reboot, but frankly this shouldn't be a problem.
In summary, nice incremental improvements (Time Machine, Stacks and quick look), with some big problems - system stability prior to 10.5.2 is definitely worse than Tiger. On balance probably worth upgrading, but max out your RAM and patch the OS immediately after install.
**UPDATE**
Time Machine is really excellent, I've used it twice now and both times its recovered perfectly. The only problem I had is that sometimes you've got to delete the old file before you replace it (permissions). The second of the two attempts meant I could recover from a botched Office upgrade in less than 20 minutes rather than it taking all night. Strongly recommended! Buy an external Hard Drive and get it with Firewire if you can, your data is worth the £80-100 price tag.
Stability has improved with 10.5.2/3, I've had no further crashes.
Better off with Tiger, 02 Apr 2008
I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger out of curiosity, and I have to say it looks pretty.
But that's not everything you expect your OS to be, and indeed after a while I decided to go back to Tiger. Why?
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it didn't crash or anything like that. I just found it very annoying that it slowed down my Mac significantly (opening new folders in finder was a pain, I had to wait for several seconds to have folder contents displayed), and did various other things that annoyed me. I'm using my Mac for quite a lot of development tasks, and after I found out that the upgrade had messed up my MySQL installation and changed some Apache things which I had to work around I felt this was rather a burden than an improvement. I got it all working again, but not in a way that left me feel confident about the overall setup.
The positive things: Tabs in the terminal application, new finder views (cover flow), and ... that's about it. Multiple work places were nice if you have a lot of windows open (and most of the time I had) but I didn't really use that feature a lot.
After that experience I can't really recommend the upgrade. Leopard's really more about cosmetic changes and some additional gadgets. If you're happy with Tiger, stick to it.
It is what it is, 11 Sep 2008
I got Ultimate Upgrade as an offer of £30 when buying a laptop from Amazon. Let's be clear I would not have paid the full price or anywhere near the full price, so my review is based on a purchase price of £30 only.
I have replaced my Desktop XP operating system (3 year old pc) with Vista Ultimate as the laptop came with Vista Premium, good enough for me.
I upgraded the desktop RAM from 1gb to 4gb before loading Vista Ultimate.
It is important to go to Windows Update and make sure your system is up to date before proceeding and to do the same after you have loaded Vista Ultimate, this ensures that you have all the drivers and patches needed.
The upgrade from XP on the desktop to Ultimate was pretty simple, although you do have to read the instructions as they come up and follow the advice about what drivers are needed to be downloaded (not run) before upgrading, for me this was a Linksys Network Adapter driver and a Canon printer driver, simple enough.
It is an upgrade as I did not have to clean re-install and all my previous programmes and files accumulated over the past 3 years on XP have remained intact once converted to the Ultimate operating system.
Very simple process as these things go with no problems.
The Operating System itself is ok but to be honest I will probably not use many of the features and have just future proofed the desktop.
stay away!!, 11 Sep 2008
when i bought my new pc i had a choice of XP or vista, i really really wish i had picked XP.
From day one, i have had trouble with vista, from compatability issues to updates essentially turning my nice new pc into something as useful as a doorstop.
The automatic updates have corrutpted one of the main launch files, despited the updates having been turned off.
And there is NO HELP or advice from microsoft.
They wish to sell a product for over £100, which doesn't work correctly and then charge you yet again to tell you how to fix the problem.
The customer service representatives are a joke.
I think in future i'm going to look elsewhere for an OS.
Overall, stay well away
Great on new computers, just be carefull when upgrading though..., 09 Sep 2008
I got Vista Home Premium preinstalled on my new computer and I personally think it is the best version of Windows yet, it looks fantastic and works really well too. There are some great security features and everything is so easy to do. I would never go back to an older version of Windows now.
But my Vista was preinstalled on a new computer which is fully designed for Vista in the first place. If you have a really powerful computer (one of the last ones to include XP) then you should be okay installing Vista, however if you have any less than 1 GB of RAM, don't bother. Vista is a fantastic operating system but it needs a Ferrari of a computer to run it.
What a waste of time!, 07 Sep 2008
I upgraded to vista after having a few problems with XP.
Looking back, I don't know what I was worrying about. VISTA IS RUBBISH!
I have got all the correct requirements for Vista, sometimes actually much better, RAM in this case.
Vista runs really slowly, won't play my music back properly & wont install my printer!
My wife has since bought a laptop with XP on it & boy do i wish i could go back, but it wont let me.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!
Nice OS but ultimately pointless, 07 Sep 2008
To start I like Vista and am not a Microsoft basher. I use XP professional, but out of curiosity I bought this upgrade pack and put it on a second drive to allow dual booting.
It installed easily, with set up and upgrading going very smoothly. My duo core, 4 gig, 7900 GT SLI machine runs it well, although it is worrying that this spec only scored 5.4 out of 5.9 on the Vista machine scale. 5.0 is Vista capable. Aero looks nice, if not vital for using the PC and actual use of the PC seems smoother than my XP installation.
I am a gamer so I installed Bioshock to see how it ran and looked and this is where Vista seems to become redundant for me. Despite my 7900 GT cards being only 15 months old I now understand they cannot run Direct X 10 with the improved graphics Vista offers and I am in no mind to upgrade them just to run it. Therefore it should look no different then running under XP.
Second, after completing the first level the load screen comes up and then crashes and I am unable to get past this point even after patching. A Google search shows a myriad of threads on this bug since its release, but no solid reason or fix. Bioshock was written for Vista and XP and yet I can complete it in XP without one bug that I can remember but am unable to play more than 20 minutes in Vista. I was aware of general installation and compatability issues, but having encountered one so quickly has made Vista pointless to use as my main daily OS and therefore at all.
My decision is that less than 24 hours after installing Vista I will be going back to my XP installation as I cannot be bothered with the potential problems I will encounter during gaming. Microsoft has realised they got Vista wrong and that a lot of people will not be upgrading and will skip to the next version of Windows released. I for one can now see why.
My recommendation is stick with XP and avoid any potential software problems that Vista may bring your way.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Not a "must" upgrade, but definitely an evolution, 25 Jul 2008
I have personally found 'Tiger' to be the most efficient OS X to date, and therefore a real favourite for a couple of years when I was working in a graphics department. Their is no doubt Leopard is a beautiful upgrade, containing a stated "300+ upgrades", however, it is by no means essential if you Mac is work work purposes. The extra features we've found are not for the productive side of things, but more for consolidating files, making things visually look better, and a few notable new programs.
In short, Leopard would no doubt be a great update for the Media orientated users, but if you're all work and no play, it's actually not that essential. "Snow Leopard" has already been announced for next year anyway, and was stated would improve performance and stability, rather than functionality, so that'll definitely be worth a look.
No, it's not better than windows. But it isn't worse., 21 Apr 2008
It's in the middle.
I'm tired of reading these articles on how macs are vastly superior to windows based machines. if you consider that microsoft has to tailor an operating system to work on countless configurations of hardware, whereas apple mass produces the same specificiation for every set brand of computer, you may understand why windows crashes a bit more.
macs crash, by the way. mine froze on imovie the first day i got it. impressive, ey?
of course, mac os x leopard is stunning. its fast, its intuitive and best of all, it's simple. but i like windows just as much. they both have their strengths and weaknesses. oh, by the way, the "vista sucks" debate got old when it was discovered none of the haters have even TOUCHED it.
but anyway. great OS, but don't expect it to redefine the operating systems of the future because, as it is, it doesn't do anything new.
Easy and fault free upgrade to Mini Mac with Tiger, 13 Apr 2008
I started over a year ago with a Mini Mac with a Tiger operating system and then subsequently added an I-Mac and Notebook with Leopard pre- installed. So I found myself having to accept the need for an upgrade especially with the ability to better network all our domestic computers using Leopard.
The result was a painless and hassle free upgrade unlike one other Review submission - I have also not found the slow running commented on by others which given I am using the lower end of the Apple range, seems to indicate they may possibly have other usage or memory/RAM issues with their specific machines under the upgrade.
The many features and improvements in Leopard are commented on fully under under Reviews - suffice to say it is not 100% perfect but certainly in the high 90s and compared with the universal problems on Windows launch of Vista (one of the key reasons I experimented with Apple in the first place) I am very happy.
The only problem (as with all Apple OS) is that you get little guidance free and so you will need to budget for purchase of the Missing Manual series on Leopard in understanding the many features and timesaving shortcuts and tricks possible.
Decent upgrade, but released too soon, 07 Apr 2008
I've been using Leopard for the best part of a month, so now it's starting to settle in.
The good - Time Machine is a useful back up tool, combined with either SuperDuper or Carbon Cloner gives you a bootable backup and a file backup which will protect you from any kind of local disaster (you'll need off site backup for fire, theft and flood though). Quick look is handy and spotlight has been improved. Stacks prevents your desktop from getting clogged up with files.
The bad - system stability seems to have been affected - I got two kernel panics in my first week compared to three over three years with Tiger. You'll need to download a 350Mb patch to bring you up to 10.5.2 immediately after installing - it would be nice if Apple would upgrade the discs to 10.5.2. Time Machine fights with your Anti Virus software slowing down backups and restores (sometimes horribly - make sure you've excluded the discs/ partitions from your AV scanning). Leopard also seems to be very RAM hungry, whereas Tiger ran happily on 1Gb, Leopard struggles with 2Gb.
The ugly - the new dock look really just gets in the way, it's harder to tell if the applications is started than under Tiger and every so often when my iMac runs out of memory I get a washed out negative of the dock where the downloads stack is unreadable. This can be fixed by a reboot, but frankly this shouldn't be a problem.
In summary, nice incremental improvements (Time Machine, Stacks and quick look), with some big problems - system stability prior to 10.5.2 is definitely worse than Tiger. On balance probably worth upgrading, but max out your RAM and patch the OS immediately after install.
**UPDATE**
Time Machine is really excellent, I've used it twice now and both times its recovered perfectly. The only problem I had is that sometimes you've got to delete the old file before you replace it (permissions). The second of the two attempts meant I could recover from a botched Office upgrade in less than 20 minutes rather than it taking all night. Strongly recommended! Buy an external Hard Drive and get it with Firewire if you can, your data is worth the £80-100 price tag.
Stability has improved with 10.5.2/3, I've had no further crashes.
Better off with Tiger, 02 Apr 2008
I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger out of curiosity, and I have to say it looks pretty.
But that's not everything you expect your OS to be, and indeed after a while I decided to go back to Tiger. Why?
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it didn't crash or anything like that. I just found it very annoying that it slowed down my Mac significantly (opening new folders in finder was a pain, I had to wait for several seconds to have folder contents displayed), and did various other things that annoyed me. I'm using my Mac for quite a lot of development tasks, and after I found out that the upgrade had messed up my MySQL installation and changed some Apache things which I had to work around I felt this was rather a burden than an improvement. I got it all working again, but not in a way that left me feel confident about the overall setup.
The positive things: Tabs in the terminal application, new finder views (cover flow), and ... that's about it. Multiple work places were nice if you have a lot of windows open (and most of the time I had) but I didn't really use that feature a lot.
After that experience I can't really recommend the upgrade. Leopard's really more about cosmetic changes and some additional gadgets. If you're happy with Tiger, stick to it.
It is what it is, 11 Sep 2008
I got Ultimate Upgrade as an offer of £30 when buying a laptop from Amazon. Let's be clear I would not have paid the full price or anywhere near the full price, so my review is based on a purchase price of £30 only.
I have replaced my Desktop XP operating system (3 year old pc) with Vista Ultimate as the laptop came with Vista Premium, good enough for me.
I upgraded the desktop RAM from 1gb to 4gb before loading Vista Ultimate.
It is important to go to Windows Update and make sure your system is up to date before proceeding and to do the same after you have loaded Vista Ultimate, this ensures that you have all the drivers and patches needed.
The upgrade from XP on the desktop to Ultimate was pretty simple, although you do have to read the instructions as they come up and follow the advice about what drivers are needed to be downloaded (not run) before upgrading, for me this was a Linksys Network Adapter driver and a Canon printer driver, simple enough.
It is an upgrade as I did not have to clean re-install and all my previous programmes and files accumulated over the past 3 years on XP have remained intact once converted to the Ultimate operating system.
Very simple process as these things go with no problems.
The Operating System itself is ok but to be honest I will probably not use many of the features and have just future proofed the desktop.
stay away!!, 11 Sep 2008
when i bought my new pc i had a choice of XP or vista, i really really wish i had picked XP.
From day one, i have had trouble with vista, from compatability issues to updates essentially turning my nice new pc into something as useful as a doorstop.
The automatic updates have corrutpted one of the main launch files, despited the updates having been turned off.
And there is NO HELP or advice from microsoft.
They wish to sell a product for over £100, which doesn't work correctly and then charge you yet again to tell you how to fix the problem.
The customer service representatives are a joke.
I think in future i'm going to look elsewhere for an OS.
Overall, stay well away
Great on new computers, just be carefull when upgrading though..., 09 Sep 2008
I got Vista Home Premium preinstalled on my new computer and I personally think it is the best version of Windows yet, it looks fantastic and works really well too. There are some great security features and everything is so easy to do. I would never go back to an older version of Windows now.
But my Vista was preinstalled on a new computer which is fully designed for Vista in the first place. If you have a really powerful computer (one of the last ones to include XP) then you should be okay installing Vista, however if you have any less than 1 GB of RAM, don't bother. Vista is a fantastic operating system but it needs a Ferrari of a computer to run it.
What a waste of time!, 07 Sep 2008
I upgraded to vista after having a few problems with XP.
Looking back, I don't know what I was worrying about. VISTA IS RUBBISH!
I have got all the correct requirements for Vista, sometimes actually much better, RAM in this case.
Vista runs really slowly, won't play my music back properly & wont install my printer!
My wife has since bought a laptop with XP on it & boy do i wish i could go back, but it wont let me.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!
Nice OS but ultimately pointless, 07 Sep 2008
To start I like Vista and am not a Microsoft basher. I use XP professional, but out of curiosity I bought this upgrade pack and put it on a second drive to allow dual booting.
It installed easily, with set up and upgrading going very smoothly. My duo core, 4 gig, 7900 GT SLI machine runs it well, although it is worrying that this spec only scored 5.4 out of 5.9 on the Vista machine scale. 5.0 is Vista capable. Aero looks nice, if not vital for using the PC and actual use of the PC seems smoother than my XP installation.
I am a gamer so I installed Bioshock to see how it ran and looked and this is where Vista seems to become redundant for me. Despite my 7900 GT cards being only 15 months old I now understand they cannot run Direct X 10 with the improved graphics Vista offers and I am in no mind to upgrade them just to run it. Therefore it should look no different then running under XP.
Second, after completing the first level the load screen comes up and then crashes and I am unable to get past this point even after patching. A Google search shows a myriad of threads on this bug since its release, but no solid reason or fix. Bioshock was written for Vista and XP and yet I can complete it in XP without one bug that I can remember but am unable to play more than 20 minutes in Vista. I was aware of general installation and compatability issues, but having encountered one so quickly has made Vista pointless to use as my main daily OS and therefore at all.
My decision is that less than 24 hours after installing Vista I will be going back to my XP installation as I cannot be bothered with the potential problems I will encounter during gaming. Microsoft has realised they got Vista wrong and that a lot of people will not be upgrading and will skip to the next version of Windows released. I for one can now see why.
My recommendation is stick with XP and avoid any potential software problems that Vista may bring your way.
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi, 01 Sep 2008
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi
I had an old Pentium III, 733Mhz PC with 256 MB RAM sat in a cupboard, decided to try loading XP but didn't want to spend a lot on the software. This OEM version is a good price and loaded without issue, also registered with Microsoft without a problem. Ok as it is OEM copy you are unlikely to get technical support from Microsoft.
Windows XP (in my opinion) is by far the best version of Windows, very easy to install, stable and uses a reasonable amount of system resources (unlike Vista). XP Runs well on my old PC, which is now being used to serf the web.
A previous reviewer stated they had problems getting XP to connect to the internet using a wireless network; I've had no issues connecting my old PC using a Netgear WG111T 108Mbps Wireless USB 2.0 Adapter key, worked straight away, setup so XP is managing the connection. I have two other newer PCs running XP (Service Pack 2) and they are also connected wirelessly to the internet using a BT Homehub, one has a built-in adapter the other with a D-Link USB key.
Buy Windows XP while you still can.
Wireless user beware, 20 Aug 2008
Easy install, same features but without the extensive list of updates and everything seemed to go well until trying to connect wirelessly to the internet. Netgear seemed to install fine (it doesn't seem to matter which hardware you use - Ive tried) and a good signal received but no connection (!!!). Frustrated I looked on google and found numerous references to similar problems with every kind of wireless connection. Is this Micrfosoft's way of saying 'get Vista'? Perhaps it could be relabelled ' NOT FOR USE WITH WIRELESS HARDWARE ' Definitely a case of caveat emptor.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Not a "must" upgrade, but definitely an evolution, 25 Jul 2008
I have personally found 'Tiger' to be the most efficient OS X to date, and therefore a real favourite for a couple of years when I was working in a graphics department. Their is no doubt Leopard is a beautiful upgrade, containing a stated "300+ upgrades", however, it is by no means essential if you Mac is work work purposes. The extra features we've found are not for the productive side of things, but more for consolidating files, making things visually look better, and a few notable new programs.
In short, Leopard would no doubt be a great update for the Media orientated users, but if you're all work and no play, it's actually not that essential. "Snow Leopard" has already been announced for next year anyway, and was stated would improve performance and stability, rather than functionality, so that'll definitely be worth a look.
No, it's not better than windows. But it isn't worse., 21 Apr 2008
It's in the middle.
I'm tired of reading these articles on how macs are vastly superior to windows based machines. if you consider that microsoft has to tailor an operating system to work on countless configurations of hardware, whereas apple mass produces the same specificiation for every set brand of computer, you may understand why windows crashes a bit more.
macs crash, by the way. mine froze on imovie the first day i got it. impressive, ey?
of course, mac os x leopard is stunning. its fast, its intuitive and best of all, it's simple. but i like windows just as much. they both have their strengths and weaknesses. oh, by the way, the "vista sucks" debate got old when it was discovered none of the haters have even TOUCHED it.
but anyway. great OS, but don't expect it to redefine the operating systems of the future because, as it is, it doesn't do anything new.
Easy and fault free upgrade to Mini Mac with Tiger, 13 Apr 2008
I started over a year ago with a Mini Mac with a Tiger operating system and then subsequently added an I-Mac and Notebook with Leopard pre- installed. So I found myself having to accept the need for an upgrade especially with the ability to better network all our domestic computers using Leopard.
The result was a painless and hassle free upgrade unlike one other Review submission - I have also not found the slow running commented on by others which given I am using the lower end of the Apple range, seems to indicate they may possibly have other usage or memory/RAM issues with their specific machines under the upgrade.
The many features and improvements in Leopard are commented on fully under under Reviews - suffice to say it is not 100% perfect but certainly in the high 90s and compared with the universal problems on Windows launch of Vista (one of the key reasons I experimented with Apple in the first place) I am very happy.
The only problem (as with all Apple OS) is that you get little guidance free and so you will need to budget for purchase of the Missing Manual series on Leopard in understanding the many features and timesaving shortcuts and tricks possible.
Decent upgrade, but released too soon, 07 Apr 2008
I've been using Leopard for the best part of a month, so now it's starting to settle in.
The good - Time Machine is a useful back up tool, combined with either SuperDuper or Carbon Cloner gives you a bootable backup and a file backup which will protect you from any kind of local disaster (you'll need off site backup for fire, theft and flood though). Quick look is handy and spotlight has been improved. Stacks prevents your desktop from getting clogged up with files.
The bad - system stability seems to have been affected - I got two kernel panics in my first week compared to three over three years with Tiger. You'll need to download a 350Mb patch to bring you up to 10.5.2 immediately after installing - it would be nice if Apple would upgrade the discs to 10.5.2. Time Machine fights with your Anti Virus software slowing down backups and restores (sometimes horribly - make sure you've excluded the discs/ partitions from your AV scanning). Leopard also seems to be very RAM hungry, whereas Tiger ran happily on 1Gb, Leopard struggles with 2Gb.
The ugly - the new dock look really just gets in the way, it's harder to tell if the applications is started than under Tiger and every so often when my iMac runs out of memory I get a washed out negative of the dock where the downloads stack is unreadable. This can be fixed by a reboot, but frankly this shouldn't be a problem.
In summary, nice incremental improvements (Time Machine, Stacks and quick look), with some big problems - system stability prior to 10.5.2 is definitely worse than Tiger. On balance probably worth upgrading, but max out your RAM and patch the OS immediately after install.
**UPDATE**
Time Machine is really excellent, I've used it twice now and both times its recovered perfectly. The only problem I had is that sometimes you've got to delete the old file before you replace it (permissions). The second of the two attempts meant I could recover from a botched Office upgrade in less than 20 minutes rather than it taking all night. Strongly recommended! Buy an external Hard Drive and get it with Firewire if you can, your data is worth the £80-100 price tag.
Stability has improved with 10.5.2/3, I've had no further crashes.
Better off with Tiger, 02 Apr 2008
I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger out of curiosity, and I have to say it looks pretty.
But that's not everything you expect your OS to be, and indeed after a while I decided to go back to Tiger. Why?
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it didn't crash or anything like that. I just found it very annoying that it slowed down my Mac significantly (opening new folders in finder was a pain, I had to wait for several seconds to have folder contents displayed), and did various other things that annoyed me. I'm using my Mac for quite a lot of development tasks, and after I found out that the upgrade had messed up my MySQL installation and changed some Apache things which I had to work around I felt this was rather a burden than an improvement. I got it all working again, but not in a way that left me feel confident about the overall setup.
The positive things: Tabs in the terminal application, new finder views (cover flow), and ... that's about it. Multiple work places were nice if you have a lot of windows open (and most of the time I had) but I didn't really use that feature a lot.
After that experience I can't really recommend the upgrade. Leopard's really more about cosmetic changes and some additional gadgets. If you're happy with Tiger, stick to it.
It is what it is, 11 Sep 2008
I got Ultimate Upgrade as an offer of £30 when buying a laptop from Amazon. Let's be clear I would not have paid the full price or anywhere near the full price, so my review is based on a purchase price of £30 only.
I have replaced my Desktop XP operating system (3 year old pc) with Vista Ultimate as the laptop came with Vista Premium, good enough for me.
I upgraded the desktop RAM from 1gb to 4gb before loading Vista Ultimate.
It is important to go to Windows Update and make sure your system is up to date before proceeding and to do the same after you have loaded Vista Ultimate, this ensures that you have all the drivers and patches needed.
The upgrade from XP on the desktop to Ultimate was pretty simple, although you do have to read the instructions as they come up and follow the advice about what drivers are needed to be downloaded (not run) before upgrading, for me this was a Linksys Network Adapter driver and a Canon printer driver, simple enough.
It is an upgrade as I did not have to clean re-install and all my previous programmes and files accumulated over the past 3 years on XP have remained intact once converted to the Ultimate operating system.
Very simple process as these things go with no problems.
The Operating System itself is ok but to be honest I will probably not use many of the features and have just future proofed the desktop.
stay away!!, 11 Sep 2008
when i bought my new pc i had a choice of XP or vista, i really really wish i had picked XP.
From day one, i have had trouble with vista, from compatability issues to updates essentially turning my nice new pc into something as useful as a doorstop.
The automatic updates have corrutpted one of the main launch files, despited the updates having been turned off.
And there is NO HELP or advice from microsoft.
They wish to sell a product for over £100, which doesn't work correctly and then charge you yet again to tell you how to fix the problem.
The customer service representatives are a joke.
I think in future i'm going to look elsewhere for an OS.
Overall, stay well away
Great on new computers, just be carefull when upgrading though..., 09 Sep 2008
I got Vista Home Premium preinstalled on my new computer and I personally think it is the best version of Windows yet, it looks fantastic and works really well too. There are some great security features and everything is so easy to do. I would never go back to an older version of Windows now.
But my Vista was preinstalled on a new computer which is fully designed for Vista in the first place. If you have a really powerful computer (one of the last ones to include XP) then you should be okay installing Vista, however if you have any less than 1 GB of RAM, don't bother. Vista is a fantastic operating system but it needs a Ferrari of a computer to run it.
What a waste of time!, 07 Sep 2008
I upgraded to vista after having a few problems with XP.
Looking back, I don't know what I was worrying about. VISTA IS RUBBISH!
I have got all the correct requirements for Vista, sometimes actually much better, RAM in this case.
Vista runs really slowly, won't play my music back properly & wont install my printer!
My wife has since bought a laptop with XP on it & boy do i wish i could go back, but it wont let me.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!
Nice OS but ultimately pointless, 07 Sep 2008
To start I like Vista and am not a Microsoft basher. I use XP professional, but out of curiosity I bought this upgrade pack and put it on a second drive to allow dual booting.
It installed easily, with set up and upgrading going very smoothly. My duo core, 4 gig, 7900 GT SLI machine runs it well, although it is worrying that this spec only scored 5.4 out of 5.9 on the Vista machine scale. 5.0 is Vista capable. Aero looks nice, if not vital for using the PC and actual use of the PC seems smoother than my XP installation.
I am a gamer so I installed Bioshock to see how it ran and looked and this is where Vista seems to become redundant for me. Despite my 7900 GT cards being only 15 months old I now understand they cannot run Direct X 10 with the improved graphics Vista offers and I am in no mind to upgrade them just to run it. Therefore it should look no different then running under XP.
Second, after completing the first level the load screen comes up and then crashes and I am unable to get past this point even after patching. A Google search shows a myriad of threads on this bug since its release, but no solid reason or fix. Bioshock was written for Vista and XP and yet I can complete it in XP without one bug that I can remember but am unable to play more than 20 minutes in Vista. I was aware of general installation and compatability issues, but having encountered one so quickly has made Vista pointless to use as my main daily OS and therefore at all.
My decision is that less than 24 hours after installing Vista I will be going back to my XP installation as I cannot be bothered with the potential problems I will encounter during gaming. Microsoft has realised they got Vista wrong and that a lot of people will not be upgrading and will skip to the next version of Windows released. I for one can now see why.
My recommendation is stick with XP and avoid any potential software problems that Vista may bring your way.
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi, 01 Sep 2008
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi
I had an old Pentium III, 733Mhz PC with 256 MB RAM sat in a cupboard, decided to try loading XP but didn't want to spend a lot on the software. This OEM version is a good price and loaded without issue, also registered with Microsoft without a problem. Ok as it is OEM copy you are unlikely to get technical support from Microsoft.
Windows XP (in my opinion) is by far the best version of Windows, very easy to install, stable and uses a reasonable amount of system resources (unlike Vista). XP Runs well on my old PC, which is now being used to serf the web.
A previous reviewer stated they had problems getting XP to connect to the internet using a wireless network; I've had no issues connecting my old PC using a Netgear WG111T 108Mbps Wireless USB 2.0 Adapter key, worked straight away, setup so XP is managing the connection. I have two other newer PCs running XP (Service Pack 2) and they are also connected wirelessly to the internet using a BT Homehub, one has a built-in adapter the other with a D-Link USB key.
Buy Windows XP while you still can.
Wireless user beware, 20 Aug 2008
Easy install, same features but without the extensive list of updates and everything seemed to go well until trying to connect wirelessly to the internet. Netgear seemed to install fine (it doesn't seem to matter which hardware you use - Ive tried) and a good signal received but no connection (!!!). Frustrated I looked on google and found numerous references to similar problems with every kind of wireless connection. Is this Micrfosoft's way of saying 'get Vista'? Perhaps it could be relabelled ' NOT FOR USE WITH WIRELESS HARDWARE ' Definitely a case of caveat emptor.
Double check if your mp3s and camera are supported first., 05 Oct 2008
I changed my computer and Vista came with it. Many of my favourite digital photo programmes will no longer run, Vista no longer even supports picture it (thier own programme) and instead have a very limited photo programme where you can look at them or print them.
The drivers for my creative mp3 players are not supported nor the programmes that come with the players. The driver and programme for my wife's sony mp3 is not supported. The driver for my digital camera is not supported. This has become a total farce. I guess this would be a reasonable system if you are just starting out new but when you need to replace either the operating system or the programmes and players you already have then I afraid the vista gets evicted and I go back to XP.
Give it another few years and perhaps more stuff will be supported but at the moment it is very limited in what will run.
Good ridance XP Welcome Vista Premium my best friend., 22 Sep 2008
Now im not saying Windows Xp was a bad operating system far from it but it was more prone to attack from viruses and other internet nasties.
I ran it for several years but had to ensure my anti virus software was continually up to date and active.On more than one occasion my computer had to visit the hospitol for expert analysis on sorting out unwanted programmes, and i can well remember a particular pop up that was vertually impossible to remove.Only Windows Defender finally removed it but not from the main computer memory,it was still on the hard drive but was made inactive.
On the purchase of a new desktop computer two years ago which then came with a free upgrade to Windows Vista when it became available i didnot take the plunge straight away far from it.
I waited nearly a year before Xp became slugish once again but this time it was final.I formatted my hard drive completely so it was empty of any data and then tried to install Vista Premium.
The installation was not instantaneous far from it,it took quite a while and several attempts until it was successfully downloaded but the move from Xp to Vista has been a dream.
Nothing so far in nearly fourteen months of Vista use has anything gone wrong,not a single virus or computer crash.The software has been totally trouble free.I have either been lucky or Microsoft has really done their homework on Vista.
It works very much like Xp but looks oh so different with those gorgeous backdrops to your viewing experience.Over those months of excellent use i was using the 32bit software but have now upgraded my computer with Q6700 Quad core processor,Striker Extream motherboard and 8Gb of Ocz memory,and the 64bit software will recognise every last bit of that 8Gig unlike Vista 32 which will only recognise 3.5Gb no matter how much memory is installed.
Vista has and will remain a joy to use and those people who slate it saying its not as good as a Mac or other systems have either not used it or their computer is not modern enough to gain the added benefit of the added toys such as the very usefull Aero facility.
Take the plunge because Vista is a pleasure to use and after extended use you will prabably wonder why you waited so long to try it.
Yes it did have teething problems at the start but the drivers and everything else to operate your system are now bang up to date so there should be no worries.
Excellent but you need to have a decent PC, 31 Jul 2008
Bought Vista for a new build PC. Being new build I have had no compatabilty problems with any of the components installed. I did need a few updates for some games and software but most of this was done automatically with windows updater. This should be expected with a new operating system. As previous reviews have mentioned about drivers, Vista does not have as large a driver database as you are led to believe. This is for both x32 or x64 bit versions so you may well need updates from manufacturer websites if you are upgrading to Vista on an older PC.
Also note that Vista 32 will not support anyhting above 4Gb of RAM and 3Gb or less is the recommended. With the 64bit edition you can support larger amounts of RAM up to what the mother board will support so if this is an issue go for Vista x64 if you need more memory - Though 2Gb+ is more than enough for most users
One let down that I have experienced is that I have had to change my virus softaware. I was using Virgin Media Pc Care as part of my broadband package but this does not support x64, only x32 bit version. They say this is what is shipped with most of the shelf PC's and as such have no plans to support it. This is the only problem I have experienced but got round it with AVG virus gaurd which is free.
A shocking disgrace, 23 Jun 2008
You have to wonder what goes on in Redmond.
Here are the following versions of Vista you can buy on Amazon:
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit
Windows Vista Business 32-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Business 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Business 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Windows Vista Business 64-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Business 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Business 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Business 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Business 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Business 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Windows Vista Business 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Do yourself a favour, buy a Mac.
Windows Vista Home Premium OEM/OEI DSP - 64-bit Edition, 26 May 2008
I bought this sometime ago and was going to install it on my old AMD A64X2 system until it went kaput!
So I bought all new components (£700's worth) and installed it.
Installation was so easy!
Just make sure that you when you goto install it that you tell the computer to boot from your CD/DVD drive by altering the settings in your computers BIOS and away it goes, you may need a little twiddling if you're going to use RAID, but I don't use it and it took about 45' to install.
I've had no driver problems at all, but then all of my components are new, however you may have a little bother if you use older componentry. So it maybe worthwhile checking compatibility before you choose to install Vista 64-bit.
You may find the most irritating thing about Vista is the UAC (User Account Control) keeps intervening, but you can quite easily turn it off in the Control Panel.
Also you may find that high speed wireless connections will only run at 54Mbps (Netgear) so do check if you use WiFi with your router & WiFi card (if applicable) manufacturer before hand if that sort of thing bothers you!
Most software (But NOT all) seems to work just remember there's the odd exception, but that I think is to be expected as XP is now pretty much the standard OS these days.
If you're at all worried about Vista, try doing a dual boot system so you have XP & Vista on your hard drive making the compatibility issue a non issue, just make sure that you install XP first otherwise it can get complicated.
So overall quite happy with the move from XP to Vista, one or two little niggles so I took a star off for those.
Oh by the way if you want to install MORE THAN 3Gb of system RAM then you'll need Vista 64-bit, the 32-bit can't access anymore than that!
Finally. This is the OEM version of Vista as a consequence if you install it on your system it "lives" with it & "dies" with it, if you have any sort of idea about porting it from one machine to another or your motherboard dies then this will die with it. Any doubts buy the Retail Version.
I now have a system which consists of:
A Q6700 Intel processor slightly overclocked to 3.01Ghz
Asus P5K Premium Motherboard
4Gb of Ram
2 Opitarc DVD/CD writers
A Creative X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Soundcard
1.5Tb of Disc Space
A BFG 8800GTS OC Graphic Card
And it all zips along quite nicely!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Not a "must" upgrade, but definitely an evolution, 25 Jul 2008
I have personally found 'Tiger' to be the most efficient OS X to date, and therefore a real favourite for a couple of years when I was working in a graphics department. Their is no doubt Leopard is a beautiful upgrade, containing a stated "300+ upgrades", however, it is by no means essential if you Mac is work work purposes. The extra features we've found are not for the productive side of things, but more for consolidating files, making things visually look better, and a few notable new programs.
In short, Leopard would no doubt be a great update for the Media orientated users, but if you're all work and no play, it's actually not that essential. "Snow Leopard" has already been announced for next year anyway, and was stated would improve performance and stability, rather than functionality, so that'll definitely be worth a look.
No, it's not better than windows. But it isn't worse., 21 Apr 2008
It's in the middle.
I'm tired of reading these articles on how macs are vastly superior to windows based machines. if you consider that microsoft has to tailor an operating system to work on countless configurations of hardware, whereas apple mass produces the same specificiation for every set brand of computer, you may understand why windows crashes a bit more.
macs crash, by the way. mine froze on imovie the first day i got it. impressive, ey?
of course, mac os x leopard is stunning. its fast, its intuitive and best of all, it's simple. but i like windows just as much. they both have their strengths and weaknesses. oh, by the way, the "vista sucks" debate got old when it was discovered none of the haters have even TOUCHED it.
but anyway. great OS, but don't expect it to redefine the operating systems of the future because, as it is, it doesn't do anything new.
Easy and fault free upgrade to Mini Mac with Tiger, 13 Apr 2008
I started over a year ago with a Mini Mac with a Tiger operating system and then subsequently added an I-Mac and Notebook with Leopard pre- installed. So I found myself having to accept the need for an upgrade especially with the ability to better network all our domestic computers using Leopard.
The result was a painless and hassle free upgrade unlike one other Review submission - I have also not found the slow running commented on by others which given I am using the lower end of the Apple range, seems to indicate they may possibly have other usage or memory/RAM issues with their specific machines under the upgrade.
The many features and improvements in Leopard are commented on fully under under Reviews - suffice to say it is not 100% perfect but certainly in the high 90s and compared with the universal problems on Windows launch of Vista (one of the key reasons I experimented with Apple in the first place) I am very happy.
The only problem (as with all Apple OS) is that you get little guidance free and so you will need to budget for purchase of the Missing Manual series on Leopard in understanding the many features and timesaving shortcuts and tricks possible.
Decent upgrade, but released too soon, 07 Apr 2008
I've been using Leopard for the best part of a month, so now it's starting to settle in.
The good - Time Machine is a useful back up tool, combined with either SuperDuper or Carbon Cloner gives you a bootable backup and a file backup which will protect you from any kind of local disaster (you'll need off site backup for fire, theft and flood though). Quick look is handy and spotlight has been improved. Stacks prevents your desktop from getting clogged up with files.
The bad - system stability seems to have been affected - I got two kernel panics in my first week compared to three over three years with Tiger. You'll need to download a 350Mb patch to bring you up to 10.5.2 immediately after installing - it would be nice if Apple would upgrade the discs to 10.5.2. Time Machine fights with your Anti Virus software slowing down backups and restores (sometimes horribly - make sure you've excluded the discs/ partitions from your AV scanning). Leopard also seems to be very RAM hungry, whereas Tiger ran happily on 1Gb, Leopard struggles with 2Gb.
The ugly - the new dock look really just gets in the way, it's harder to tell if the applications is started than under Tiger and every so often when my iMac runs out of memory I get a washed out negative of the dock where the downloads stack is unreadable. This can be fixed by a reboot, but frankly this shouldn't be a problem.
In summary, nice incremental improvements (Time Machine, Stacks and quick look), with some big problems - system stability prior to 10.5.2 is definitely worse than Tiger. On balance probably worth upgrading, but max out your RAM and patch the OS immediately after install.
**UPDATE**
Time Machine is really excellent, I've used it twice now and both times its recovered perfectly. The only problem I had is that sometimes you've got to delete the old file before you replace it (permissions). The second of the two attempts meant I could recover from a botched Office upgrade in less than 20 minutes rather than it taking all night. Strongly recommended! Buy an external Hard Drive and get it with Firewire if you can, your data is worth the £80-100 price tag.
Stability has improved with 10.5.2/3, I've had no further crashes.
Better off with Tiger, 02 Apr 2008
I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger out of curiosity, and I have to say it looks pretty.
But that's not everything you expect your OS to be, and indeed after a while I decided to go back to Tiger. Why?
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it didn't crash or anything like that. I just found it very annoying that it slowed down my Mac significantly (opening new folders in finder was a pain, I had to wait for several seconds to have folder contents displayed), and did various other things that annoyed me. I'm using my Mac for quite a lot of development tasks, and after I found out that the upgrade had messed up my MySQL installation and changed some Apache things which I had to work around I felt this was rather a burden than an improvement. I got it all working again, but not in a way that left me feel confident about the overall setup.
The positive things: Tabs in the terminal application, new finder views (cover flow), and ... that's about it. Multiple work places were nice if you have a lot of windows open (and most of the time I had) but I didn't really use that feature a lot.
After that experience I can't really recommend the upgrade. Leopard's really more about cosmetic changes and some additional gadgets. If you're happy with Tiger, stick to it.
It is what it is, 11 Sep 2008
I got Ultimate Upgrade as an offer of £30 when buying a laptop from Amazon. Let's be clear I would not have paid the full price or anywhere near the full price, so my review is based on a purchase price of £30 only.
I have replaced my Desktop XP operating system (3 year old pc) with Vista Ultimate as the laptop came with Vista Premium, good enough for me.
I upgraded the desktop RAM from 1gb to 4gb before loading Vista Ultimate.
It is important to go to Windows Update and make sure your system is up to date before proceeding and to do the same after you have loaded Vista Ultimate, this ensures that you have all the drivers and patches needed.
The upgrade from XP on the desktop to Ultimate was pretty simple, although you do have to read the instructions as they come up and follow the advice about what drivers are needed to be downloaded (not run) before upgrading, for me this was a Linksys Network Adapter driver and a Canon printer driver, simple enough.
It is an upgrade as I did not have to clean re-install and all my previous programmes and files accumulated over the past 3 years on XP have remained intact once converted to the Ultimate operating system.
Very simple process as these things go with no problems.
The Operating System itself is ok but to be honest I will probably not use many of the features and have just future proofed the desktop.
stay away!!, 11 Sep 2008
when i bought my new pc i had a choice of XP or vista, i really really wish i had picked XP.
From day one, i have had trouble with vista, from compatability issues to updates essentially turning my nice new pc into something as useful as a doorstop.
The automatic updates have corrutpted one of the main launch files, despited the updates having been turned off.
And there is NO HELP or advice from microsoft.
They wish to sell a product for over £100, which doesn't work correctly and then charge you yet again to tell you how to fix the problem.
The customer service representatives are a joke.
I think in future i'm going to look elsewhere for an OS.
Overall, stay well away
Great on new computers, just be carefull when upgrading though..., 09 Sep 2008
I got Vista Home Premium preinstalled on my new computer and I personally think it is the best version of Windows yet, it looks fantastic and works really well too. There are some great security features and everything is so easy to do. I would never go back to an older version of Windows now.
But my Vista was preinstalled on a new computer which is fully designed for Vista in the first place. If you have a really powerful computer (one of the last ones to include XP) then you should be okay installing Vista, however if you have any less than 1 GB of RAM, don't bother. Vista is a fantastic operating system but it needs a Ferrari of a computer to run it.
What a waste of time!, 07 Sep 2008
I upgraded to vista after having a few problems with XP.
Looking back, I don't know what I was worrying about. VISTA IS RUBBISH!
I have got all the correct requirements for Vista, sometimes actually much better, RAM in this case.
Vista runs really slowly, won't play my music back properly & wont install my printer!
My wife has since bought a laptop with XP on it & boy do i wish i could go back, but it wont let me.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!
Nice OS but ultimately pointless, 07 Sep 2008
To start I like Vista and am not a Microsoft basher. I use XP professional, but out of curiosity I bought this upgrade pack and put it on a second drive to allow dual booting.
It installed easily, with set up and upgrading going very smoothly. My duo core, 4 gig, 7900 GT SLI machine runs it well, although it is worrying that this spec only scored 5.4 out of 5.9 on the Vista machine scale. 5.0 is Vista capable. Aero looks nice, if not vital for using the PC and actual use of the PC seems smoother than my XP installation.
I am a gamer so I installed Bioshock to see how it ran and looked and this is where Vista seems to become redundant for me. Despite my 7900 GT cards being only 15 months old I now understand they cannot run Direct X 10 with the improved graphics Vista offers and I am in no mind to upgrade them just to run it. Therefore it should look no different then running under XP.
Second, after completing the first level the load screen comes up and then crashes and I am unable to get past this point even after patching. A Google search shows a myriad of threads on this bug since its release, but no solid reason or fix. Bioshock was written for Vista and XP and yet I can complete it in XP without one bug that I can remember but am unable to play more than 20 minutes in Vista. I was aware of general installation and compatability issues, but having encountered one so quickly has made Vista pointless to use as my main daily OS and therefore at all.
My decision is that less than 24 hours after installing Vista I will be going back to my XP installation as I cannot be bothered with the potential problems I will encounter during gaming. Microsoft has realised they got Vista wrong and that a lot of people will not be upgrading and will skip to the next version of Windows released. I for one can now see why.
My recommendation is stick with XP and avoid any potential software problems that Vista may bring your way.
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi, 01 Sep 2008
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi
I had an old Pentium III, 733Mhz PC with 256 MB RAM sat in a cupboard, decided to try loading XP but didn't want to spend a lot on the software. This OEM version is a good price and loaded without issue, also registered with Microsoft without a problem. Ok as it is OEM copy you are unlikely to get technical support from Microsoft.
Windows XP (in my opinion) is by far the best version of Windows, very easy to install, stable and uses a reasonable amount of system resources (unlike Vista). XP Runs well on my old PC, which is now being used to serf the web.
A previous reviewer stated they had problems getting XP to connect to the internet using a wireless network; I've had no issues connecting my old PC using a Netgear WG111T 108Mbps Wireless USB 2.0 Adapter key, worked straight away, setup so XP is managing the connection. I have two other newer PCs running XP (Service Pack 2) and they are also connected wirelessly to the internet using a BT Homehub, one has a built-in adapter the other with a D-Link USB key.
Buy Windows XP while you still can.
Wireless user beware, 20 Aug 2008
Easy install, same features but without the extensive list of updates and everything seemed to go well until trying to connect wirelessly to the internet. Netgear seemed to install fine (it doesn't seem to matter which hardware you use - Ive tried) and a good signal received but no connection (!!!). Frustrated I looked on google and found numerous references to similar problems with every kind of wireless connection. Is this Micrfosoft's way of saying 'get Vista'? Perhaps it could be relabelled ' NOT FOR USE WITH WIRELESS HARDWARE ' Definitely a case of caveat emptor.
Double check if your mp3s and camera are supported first., 05 Oct 2008
I changed my computer and Vista came with it. Many of my favourite digital photo programmes will no longer run, Vista no longer even supports picture it (thier own programme) and instead have a very limited photo programme where you can look at them or print them.
The drivers for my creative mp3 players are not supported nor the programmes that come with the players. The driver and programme for my wife's sony mp3 is not supported. The driver for my digital camera is not supported. This has become a total farce. I guess this would be a reasonable system if you are just starting out new but when you need to replace either the operating system or the programmes and players you already have then I afraid the vista gets evicted and I go back to XP.
Give it another few years and perhaps more stuff will be supported but at the moment it is very limited in what will run.
Good ridance XP Welcome Vista Premium my best friend., 22 Sep 2008
Now im not saying Windows Xp was a bad operating system far from it but it was more prone to attack from viruses and other internet nasties.
I ran it for several years but had to ensure my anti virus software was continually up to date and active.On more than one occasion my computer had to visit the hospitol for expert analysis on sorting out unwanted programmes, and i can well remember a particular pop up that was vertually impossible to remove.Only Windows Defender finally removed it but not from the main computer memory,it was still on the hard drive but was made inactive.
On the purchase of a new desktop computer two years ago which then came with a free upgrade to Windows Vista when it became available i didnot take the plunge straight away far from it.
I waited nearly a year before Xp became slugish once again but this time it was final.I formatted my hard drive completely so it was empty of any data and then tried to install Vista Premium.
The installation was not instantaneous far from it,it took quite a while and several attempts until it was successfully downloaded but the move from Xp to Vista has been a dream.
Nothing so far in nearly fourteen months of Vista use has anything gone wrong,not a single virus or computer crash.The software has been totally trouble free.I have either been lucky or Microsoft has really done their homework on Vista.
It works very much like Xp but looks oh so different with those gorgeous backdrops to your viewing experience.Over those months of excellent use i was using the 32bit software but have now upgraded my computer with Q6700 Quad core processor,Striker Extream motherboard and 8Gb of Ocz memory,and the 64bit software will recognise every last bit of that 8Gig unlike Vista 32 which will only recognise 3.5Gb no matter how much memory is installed.
Vista has and will remain a joy to use and those people who slate it saying its not as good as a Mac or other systems have either not used it or their computer is not modern enough to gain the added benefit of the added toys such as the very usefull Aero facility.
Take the plunge because Vista is a pleasure to use and after extended use you will prabably wonder why you waited so long to try it.
Yes it did have teething problems at the start but the drivers and everything else to operate your system are now bang up to date so there should be no worries.
Excellent but you need to have a decent PC, 31 Jul 2008
Bought Vista for a new build PC. Being new build I have had no compatabilty problems with any of the components installed. I did need a few updates for some games and software but most of this was done automatically with windows updater. This should be expected with a new operating system. As previous reviews have mentioned about drivers, Vista does not have as large a driver database as you are led to believe. This is for both x32 or x64 bit versions so you may well need updates from manufacturer websites if you are upgrading to Vista on an older PC.
Also note that Vista 32 will not support anyhting above 4Gb of RAM and 3Gb or less is the recommended. With the 64bit edition you can support larger amounts of RAM up to what the mother board will support so if this is an issue go for Vista x64 if you need more memory - Though 2Gb+ is more than enough for most users
One let down that I have experienced is that I have had to change my virus softaware. I was using Virgin Media Pc Care as part of my broadband package but this does not support x64, only x32 bit version. They say this is what is shipped with most of the shelf PC's and as such have no plans to support it. This is the only problem I have experienced but got round it with AVG virus gaurd which is free.
A shocking disgrace, 23 Jun 2008
You have to wonder what goes on in Redmond.
Here are the following versions of Vista you can buy on Amazon:
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit
Windows Vista Business 32-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Business 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit Upgrade
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Business 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Windows Vista Business 64-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Business 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Business 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Business 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Business 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Business 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM SP1
Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Windows Vista Business 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit OEM SP1 (3 pack)
Do yourself a favour, buy a Mac.
Windows Vista Home Premium OEM/OEI DSP - 64-bit Edition, 26 May 2008
I bought this sometime ago and was going to install it on my old AMD A64X2 system until it went kaput!
So I bought all new components (£700's worth) and installed it.
Installation was so easy!
Just make sure that you when you goto install it that you tell the computer to boot from your CD/DVD drive by altering the settings in your computers BIOS and away it goes, you may need a little twiddling if you're going to use RAID, but I don't use it and it took about 45' to install.
I've had no driver problems at all, but then all of my components are new, however you may have a little bother if you use older componentry. So it maybe worthwhile checking compatibility before you choose to install Vista 64-bit.
You may find the most irritating thing about Vista is the UAC (User Account Control) keeps intervening, but you can quite easily turn it off in the Control Panel.
Also you may find that high speed wireless connections will only run at 54Mbps (Netgear) so do check if you use WiFi with your router & WiFi card (if applicable) manufacturer before hand if that sort of thing bothers you!
Most software (But NOT all) seems to work just remember there's the odd exception, but that I think is to be expected as XP is now pretty much the standard OS these days.
If you're at all worried about Vista, try doing a dual boot system so you have XP & Vista on your hard drive making the compatibility issue a non issue, just make sure that you install XP first otherwise it can get complicated.
So overall quite happy with the move from XP to Vista, one or two little niggles so I took a star off for those.
Oh by the way if you want to install MORE THAN 3Gb of system RAM then you'll need Vista 64-bit, the 32-bit can't access anymore than that!
Finally. This is the OEM version of Vista as a consequence if you install it on your system it "lives" with it & "dies" with it, if you have any sort of idea about porting it from one machine to another or your motherboard dies then this will die with it. Any doubts buy the Retail Version.
I now have a system which consists of:
A Q6700 Intel processor slightly overclocked to 3.01Ghz
Asus P5K Premium Motherboard
4Gb of Ram
2 Opitarc DVD/CD writers
A Creative X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Soundcard
1.5Tb of Disc Space
A BFG 8800GTS OC Graphic Card
And it all zips along quite nicely!
It is what it is, 11 Sep 2008
I got Ultimate Upgrade as an offer of £30 when buying a laptop from Amazon. Let's be clear I would not have paid the full price or anywhere near the full price, so my review is based on a purchase price of £30 only.
I have replaced my Desktop XP operating system (3 year old pc) with Vista Ultimate as the laptop came with Vista Premium, good enough for me.
I upgraded the desktop RAM from 1gb to 4gb before loading Vista Ultimate.
It is important to go to Windows Update and make sure your system is up to date before proceeding and to do the same after you have loaded Vista Ultimate, this ensures that you have all the drivers and patches needed.
The upgrade from XP on the desktop to Ultimate was pretty simple, although you do have to read the instructions as they come up and follow the advice about what drivers are needed to be downloaded (not run) before upgrading, for me this was a Linksys Network Adapter driver and a Canon printer driver, simple enough.
It is an upgrade as I did not have to clean re-install and all my previous programmes and files accumulated over the past 3 years on XP have remained intact once converted to the Ultimate operating system.
Very simple process as these things go with no problems.
The Operating System itself is ok but to be honest I will probably not use many of the features and have just future proofed the desktop.
stay away!!, 11 Sep 2008
when i bought my new pc i had a choice of XP or vista, i really really wish i had picked XP.
From day one, i have had trouble with vista, from compatability issues to updates essentially turning my nice new pc into something as useful as a doorstop.
The automatic updates have corrutpted one of the main launch files, despited the updates having been turned off.
And there is NO HELP or advice from microsoft.
They wish to sell a product for over £100, which doesn't work correctly and then charge you yet again to tell you how to fix the problem.
The customer service representatives are a joke.
I think in future i'm going to look elsewhere for an OS.
Overall, stay well away
Great on new computers, just be carefull when upgrading though..., 09 Sep 2008
I got Vista Home Premium preinstalled on my new computer and I personally think it is the best version of Windows yet, it looks fantastic and works really well too. There are some great security features and everything is so easy to do. I would never go back to an older version of Windows now.
But my Vista was preinstalled on a new computer which is fully designed for Vista in the first place. If you have a really powerful computer (one of the last ones to include XP) then you should be okay installing Vista, however if you have any less than 1 GB of RAM, don't bother. Vista is a fantastic operating system but it needs a Ferrari of a computer to run it.
What a waste of time!, 07 Sep 2008
I upgraded to vista after having a few problems with XP.
Looking back, I don't know what I was worrying about. VISTA IS RUBBISH!
I have got all the correct requirements for Vista, sometimes actually much better, RAM in this case.
Vista runs really slowly, won't play my music back properly & wont install my printer!
My wife has since bought a laptop with XP on it & boy do i wish i could go back, but it wont let me.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!
Nice OS but ultimately pointless, 07 Sep 2008
To start I like Vista and am not a Microsoft basher. I use XP professional, but out of curiosity I bought this upgrade pack and put it on a second drive to allow dual booting.
It installed easily, with set up and upgrading going very smoothly. My duo core, 4 gig, 7900 GT SLI machine runs it well, although it is worrying that this spec only scored 5.4 out of 5.9 on the Vista machine scale. 5.0 is Vista capable. Aero looks nice, if not vital for using the PC and actual use of the PC seems smoother than my XP installation.
I am a gamer so I installed Bioshock to see how it ran and looked and this is where Vista seems to become redundant for me. Despite my 7900 GT cards being only 15 months old I now understand they cannot run Direct X 10 with the improved graphics Vista offers and I am in no mind to upgrade them just to run it. Therefore it should look no different then running under XP.
Second, after completing the first level the load screen comes up and then crashes and I am unable to get past this point even after patching. A Google search shows a myriad of threads on this bug since its release, but no solid reason or fix. Bioshock was written for Vista and XP and yet I can complete it in XP without one bug that I can remember but am unable to play more than 20 minutes in Vista. I was aware of general installation and compatability issues, but having encountered one so quickly has made Vista pointless to use as my main daily OS and therefore at all.
My decision is that less than 24 hours after installing Vista I will be going back to my XP installation as I cannot be bothered with the potential problems I will encounter during gaming. Microsoft has realised they got Vista wrong and that a lot of people will not be upgrading and will skip to the next version of Windows released. I for one can now see why.
My recommendation is stick with XP and avoid any potential software problems that Vista may bring your way.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Not a "must" upgrade, but definitely an evolution, 25 Jul 2008
I have personally found 'Tiger' to be the most efficient OS X to date, and therefore a real favourite for a couple of years when I was working in a graphics department. Their is no doubt Leopard is a beautiful upgrade, containing a stated "300+ upgrades", however, it is by no means essential if you Mac is work work purposes. The extra features we've found are not for the productive side of things, but more for consolidating files, making things visually look better, and a few notable new programs.
In short, Leopard would no doubt be a great update for the Media orientated users, but if you're all work and no play, it's actually not that essential. "Snow Leopard" has already been announced for next year anyway, and was stated would improve performance and stability, rather than functionality, so that'll definitely be worth a look.
No, it's not better than windows. But it isn't worse., 21 Apr 2008
It's in the middle.
I'm tired of reading these articles on how macs are vastly superior to windows based machines. if you consider that microsoft has to tailor an operating system to work on countless configurations of hardware, whereas apple mass produces the same specificiation for every set brand of computer, you may understand why windows crashes a bit more.
macs crash, by the way. mine froze on imovie the first day i got it. impressive, ey?
of course, mac os x leopard is stunning. its fast, its intuitive and best of all, it's simple. but i like windows just as much. they both have their strengths and weaknesses. oh, by the way, the "vista sucks" debate got old when it was discovered none of the haters have even TOUCHED it.
but anyway. great OS, but don't expect it to redefine the operating systems of the future because, as it is, it doesn't do anything new.
Easy and fault free upgrade to Mini Mac with Tiger, 13 Apr 2008
I started over a year ago with a Mini Mac with a Tiger operating system and then subsequently added an I-Mac and Notebook with Leopard pre- installed. So I found myself having to accept the need for an upgrade especially with the ability to better network all our domestic computers using Leopard.
The result was a painless and hassle free upgrade unlike one other Review submission - I have also not found the slow running commented on by others which given I am using the lower end of the Apple range, seems to indicate they may possibly have other usage or memory/RAM issues with their specific machines under the upgrade.
The many features and improvements in Leopard are commented on fully under under Reviews - suffice to say it is not 100% perfect but certainly in the high 90s and compared with the universal problems on Windows launch of Vista (one of the key reasons I experimented with Apple in the first place) I am very happy.
The only problem (as with all Apple OS) is that you get little guidance free and so you will need to budget for purchase of the Missing Manual series on Leopard in understanding the many features and timesaving shortcuts and tricks possible.
Decent upgrade, but released too soon, 07 Apr 2008
I've been using Leopard for the best part of a month, so now it's starting to settle in.
The good - Time Machine is a useful back up tool, combined with either SuperDuper or Carbon Cloner gives you a bootable backup and a file backup which will protect you from any kind of local disaster (you'll need off site backup for fire, theft and flood though). Quick look is handy and spotlight has been improved. Stacks prevents your desktop from getting clogged up with files.
The bad - system stability seems to have been affected - I got two kernel panics in my first week compared to three over three years with Tiger. You'll need to download a 350Mb patch to bring you up to 10.5.2 immediately after installing - it would be nice if Apple would upgrade the discs to 10.5.2. Time Machine fights with your Anti Virus software slowing down backups and restores (sometimes horribly - make sure you've excluded the discs/ partitions from your AV scanning). Leopard also seems to be very RAM hungry, whereas Tiger ran happily on 1Gb, Leopard struggles with 2Gb.
The ugly - the new dock look really just gets in the way, it's harder to tell if the applications is started than under Tiger and every so often when my iMac runs out of memory I get a washed out negative of the dock where the downloads stack is unreadable. This can be fixed by a reboot, but frankly this shouldn't be a problem.
In summary, nice incremental improvements (Time Machine, Stacks and quick look), with some big problems - system stability prior to 10.5.2 is definitely worse than Tiger. On balance probably worth upgrading, but max out your RAM and patch the OS immediately after install.
**UPDATE**
Time Machine is really excellent, I've used it twice now and both times its recovered perfectly. The only problem I had is that sometimes you've got to delete the old file before you replace it (permissions). The second of the two attempts meant I could recover from a botched Office upgrade in less than 20 minutes rather than it taking all night. Strongly recommended! Buy an external Hard Drive and get it with Firewire if you can, your data is worth the £80-100 price tag.
Stability has improved with 10.5.2/3, I've had no further crashes.
Better off with Tiger, 02 Apr 2008
I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger out of curiosity, and I have to say it looks pretty.
But that's not everything you expect your OS to be, and indeed after a while I decided to go back to Tiger. Why?
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it didn't crash or anything like that. I just found it very annoying that it slowed down my Mac significantly (opening new folders in finder was a pain, I had to wait for several seconds to have folder contents displayed), and did various other things that annoyed me. I'm using my Mac for quite a lot of development tasks, and after I found out that the upgrade had messed up my MySQL installation and changed some Apache things which I had to work around I felt this was rather a burden than an improvement. I got it all working again, but not in a way that left me feel confident about the overall setup.
The positive things: Tabs in the terminal application, new finder views (cover flow), and ... that's about it. Multiple work places were nice if you have a lot of windows open (and most of the time I had) but I didn't really use that feature a lot.
After that experience I can't really recommend the upgrade. Leopard's really more about cosmetic changes and some additional gadgets. If you're happy with Tiger, stick to it.
It is what it is, 11 Sep 2008
I got Ultimate Upgrade as an offer of £30 when buying a laptop from Amazon. Let's be clear I would not have paid the full price or anywhere near the full price, so my review is based on a purchase price of £30 only.
I have replaced my Desktop XP operating system (3 year old pc) with Vista Ultimate as the laptop came with Vista Premium, good enough for me.
I upgraded the desktop RAM from 1gb to 4gb before loading Vista Ultimate.
It is important to go to Windows Update and make sure your system is up to date before proceeding and to do the same after you have loaded Vista Ultimate, this ensures that you have all the drivers and patches needed.
The upgrade from XP on the desktop to Ultimate was pretty simple, although you do have to read the instructions as they come up and follow the advice about what drivers are needed to be downloaded (not run) before upgrading, for me this was a Linksys Network Adapter driver and a Canon printer driver, simple enough.
It is an upgrade as I did not have to clean re-install and all my previous programmes and files accumulated over the past 3 years on XP have remained intact once converted to the Ultimate operating system.
Very simple process as these things go with no problems.
The Operating System itself is ok but to be honest I will probably not use many of the features and have just future proofed the desktop.
stay away!!, 11 Sep 2008
when i bought my new pc i had a choice of XP or vista, i really really wish i had picked XP.
From day one, i have had trouble with vista, from compatability issues to updates essentially turning my nice new pc into something as useful as a doorstop.
The automatic updates have corrutpted one of the main launch files, despited the updates having been turned off.
And there is NO HELP or advice from microsoft.
They wish to sell a product for over £100, which doesn't work correctly and then charge you yet again to tell you how to fix the problem.
The customer service representatives are a joke.
I think in future i'm going to look elsewhere for an OS.
Overall, stay well away
Great on new computers, just be carefull when upgrading though..., 09 Sep 2008
I got Vista Home Premium preinstalled on my new computer and I personally think it is the best version of Windows yet, it looks fantastic and works really well too. There are some great security features and everything is so easy to do. I would never go back to an older version of Windows now.
But my Vista was preinstalled on a new computer which is fully designed for Vista in the first place. If you have a really powerful computer (one of the last ones to include XP) then you should be okay installing Vista, however if you have any less than 1 GB of RAM, don't bother. Vista is a fantastic operating system but it needs a Ferrari of a computer to run it.
What a waste of time!, 07 Sep 2008
I upgraded to vista after having a few problems with XP.
Looking back, I don't know what I was worrying about. VISTA IS RUBBISH!
I have got all the correct requirements for Vista, sometimes actually much better, RAM in this case.
Vista runs really slowly, won't play my music back properly & wont install my printer!
My wife has since bought a laptop with XP on it & boy do i wish i could go back, but it wont let me.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!
Nice OS but ultimately pointless, 07 Sep 2008
To start I like Vista and am not a Microsoft basher. I use XP professional, but out of curiosity I bought this upgrade pack and put it on a second drive to allow dual booting.
It installed easily, with set up and upgrading going very smoothly. My duo core, 4 gig, 7900 GT SLI machine runs it well, although it is worrying that this spec only scored 5.4 out of 5.9 on the Vista machine scale. 5.0 is Vista capable. Aero looks nice, if not vital for using the PC and actual use of the PC seems smoother than my XP installation.
I am a gamer so I installed Bioshock to see how it ran and looked and this is where Vista seems to become redundant for me. Despite my 7900 GT cards being only 15 months old I now understand they cannot run Direct X 10 with the improved graphics Vista offers and I am in no mind to upgrade them just to run it. Therefore it should look no different then running under XP.
Second, after completing the first level the load screen comes up and then crashes and I am unable to get past this point even after patching. A Google search shows a myriad of threads on this bug since its release, but no solid reason or fix. Bioshock was written for Vista and XP and yet I can complete it in XP without one bug that I can remember but am unable to play more than 20 minutes in Vista. I was aware of general installation and compatability issues, but having encountered one so quickly has made Vista pointless to use as my main daily OS and therefore at all.
My decision is that less than 24 hours after installing Vista I will be going back to my XP installation as I cannot be bothered with the potential problems I will encounter during gaming. Microsoft has realised they got Vista wrong and that a lot of people will not be upgrading and will skip to the next version of Windows released. I for one can now see why.
My recommendation is stick with XP and avoid any potential software problems that Vista may bring your way.
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi, 01 Sep 2008
Best version of Windows, Works fine with WiFi
I had an old Pentium III, 733Mhz PC with 256 MB RAM sat in a cupboard, decided to try loading XP but didn't want to spend a lot on the software. This OEM version is a good price and loaded without issue, also registered with Microsoft without a problem. Ok as it is OEM copy you are unlikely to get technical support from Microsoft.
Windows XP (in my opinion) is by far the best version of Windows, very easy to install, stable and uses a reasonable amount of system resources (unlike Vista). XP Runs well on my old PC, which is now being used to serf the web.
A previous reviewer stated they had problems getting XP to connect to the internet using a wireless network; I've had no issues connecting my old PC using a Netgear WG111T 108Mbps Wireless USB 2.0 Adapter key, worked straight away, setup so XP is managing the connection. I have two other newer PCs running XP (Service Pack 2) and they are also connected wirelessly to the internet using a BT Homehub, one has a built-in adapter the other with a D-Link USB key.
Buy Windows XP wh | | |