backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 155 comment(s) - last by yak8998.. on Jan 28 at 11:23 PM
mwave.com lists several editions of Windows Vista as in stock and ready to ship

Although the official launch of Windows Vista won't take place until January 30, that hasn't stopped some online retailers from making the operating system available early. mwave.com is listing three Vista SKUs on its website that are in stock and ready to ship.

The editions available include Vista 32-bit Home Basic OEM (Microsoft Part Number: 66G-00576) for $89.90, Vista 32-bit Home Basic OEM 3-pack (Microsoft Part Number: 66G-00613) for $268.90 and Vista 32-bit Business OEM (Microsoft Part Number: 66J-02289) for $139.90. As of today, there were no listings for Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate on the site.

Vista Home Basic, as its name implies, is the most barebones version of the operating system. It lacks the Windows Aero "Glass" UI, Windows Flip 3D and Live Taskbar Thumbnails. Vista Home Basic also only supports one physical processor (unlimited cores) while the other consumer editions of Vista support two physical processors (unlimited cores).

Vista Business, on the other hand, contains features not found on either Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium. These include support for Windows Shadow Copy, system image backup and recovery, Encrypting File System (EFS), the ability to join domains and access offline file/folder support.

The OEM versions of Vista listed on mwave.com's website are significantly cheaper than the retail pricing for Vista listed below:

  • Windows Vista Home Basic, $199/$99.95
  • Windows Vista Home Premium, $239/$159
  • Windows Vista Business, $299/$199
  • Windows Vista Ultimate, $399/$259

Customers are limited to two copies of Vista Home Basic OEM or Vista Business OEM on mwave.com's website. The operating systems must also be purchased with hardware for licensing reasons. In many cases, ordering a set of case screws or some other cheap piece of hardware will satisfy these requirements.

Updated 1/23/2006: NewEgg shows Vista Home Premium OEM in stock for $119.99. They also show Vista Ultimate OEM in stock for $199.

For images of the retail version of Vista Home Premium unboxed, you can check out Engadget's image gallery.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
HMMMM
By Mithan on 1/21/2007 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
I plan on buying it next week though I doubt I will install the 64bit version. Honestly, for now its just a more secure face lift for XP though obviously it has a lot more under the hood....

It will be a while before Vista only apps start showing up that take advantage of the guts of the thing is what I mean.




RE: HMMMM
By allst1 on 1/21/2007 4:05:50 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder how long more they will continue to support windows xp though. Seems like they're rather eager to push everyone on to the vista bandwagon.

I just hope developers keep windows xp alive, for the next few years or so. Some people have fined tuned their systems and they like it that way knowing that its how they would like their system to function.

With Windows Vista, all that goes out the door the moment you install it, plug in it to the modem socket, or try some old "tweak" from XP.

Besides being flashy and giving you a few features.
I think I'll wait for it to become mainstream and you need to really move ahead with the times. It will be pretty hard though to get people to move away from XP as there's not much that the system lacks, either in it's configuration or stability.

Besides that, there's just so many flashy applications that will do what vista does to your interface and desktop for a whole lot less and fewer resources.

The only way I see MS getting or rather shoving Vista down your throat is because of directX10 and gamers.


RE: HMMMM
By djcameron on 1/21/2007 4:44:15 PM , Rating: 3
If Vista is perceived as having greater security than XP, then it will sell like hotcakes.


RE: HMMMM
By Chadder007 on 1/21/2007 9:14:46 PM , Rating: 5
Concerning security, I wished that Microsoft wouldn't have bowed down to Symantec and McAfee as far as their Kernel goes, making it more accessible to them.


RE: HMMMM
By xphile on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By StevoLincolnite on 1/22/2007 4:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
And you know what beats all that? Common sense with the internet, Don't download "Trojan.exe" in an email thinking its safe, Dont look up porn with a whole heap of spyware, Don't goto a website that may say "www.Superultramegakillercrackzandwarez.com".
Seriously, I do not have a Virus scanner, Or Firewall, Or Adaware scanner, I have a separate box for all that, That I plug in every now and then, If I think I may have a virus or just wish to do check-ups, For instance earlier this morning I did an ad aware scan, for the first time in about 4-5 Months, And I only had 5 Cases, and they were negligible anyway. If your getting 50 thousand viruses and ad aware in a month, then SOMETHING is wrong. And Firefox also helps with alot of adaware also.
Its not Microsoft's fault That A lot of Malicious code affects windows, Its the idiots who like to take the exploits as far as they can.

McAfee and Symantec should never had access to the kernel, But thats life and ya gotta live with it. And in my Experience Norton is a useless bloated virus scanner, Haven't used McAffee, But I find that Kaspersky is the best bar none.


RE: HMMMM
By Christopher1 on 1/22/2007 5:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
You know, the porn thing is totally true. So is the crack website thing.

Those are the ONLY times that I have ever gotten a virus on my system, when I have been looking for porn or going to a crack site looking for a software key (something that I don't do anymore, since I found a website that gives heavy discounts for most softwares).

I also have to agree that most of the problems come from software applications have direct access to the Kernel of the system. Though, to be honest, I haven't seen ANY viruses that infect the kernel anymore, usually they more make startup entries and run that way.


RE: HMMMM
By Tyler 86 on 1/22/2007 8:55:57 AM , Rating: 5
Those even probably still run with kernel level privelages to accomplish what they want...

Symantec & Friends didn't need kernel access to secure the kernel, they were just being dicks.

Microsoft should have kept it on a tight leash.

You see, Symantec & Friends make money because you're afraid of viruses, and viruses continue to persist, whereas Microsoft makes money because they can sell you 'an upgrade' and compatible products...

If Symantec was really concerned with kernel security, they would have kept their yaps shut.

They have the same resourses as virus writers have, plus boatloads of money, and corperate clients... They don't need more than that.

Next sucker I hear praising Symantec better be for something slightly more realistic, like for buying out 'VERITAS Backup Exec' and making improvements or something else I wouldn't expect them to do, because they have so far done nothing more than make their products ridiculously difficult to uninstall if damaged as far as I can tell.


RE: HMMMM
By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 8:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When MS can release an operating system that goes a year without needing a security update...


That is a completely ignorant statement. There is a saying for people who like Mac and Linux "It's easy to be bulletproof when no one is shooting at you." And they still have more security updates every year than Microsoft does. XP is actually an extremely secure system. And Vista is even better. But remember, these people make a living off of getting around the firewall. You wont ever stop them forever. There is always a backdoor. And they sit there for hours and hours trying to find it. If you want a system that is completely safe, don't plug in to the internet. Other than that, it doesn't matter what you do, you will always have security issues. And Microsoft does an awesome job of keeping on top of it and patching the system (almost every time) before there are mass problems. If you stay updated, most of the time you wont get viruses at all. Spyware will still be out there, and Defender is good, but I like to use Spybot S&D along side and keep it up to date and immunized. I find that I never get any problems that way.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/21/2007 7:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
Uhh, last I heard, there are NO plans for Crysis on the Xbox 360. And the version of Far Cry that was on the Xbox, as I understood, was dumbed down.

Why pay $600 for an Xbox, when I can pay $400 for an 8800 GTS and just pop it in my system? There do seem to be more games for consoles, but I am a FPS fan, and those games play better on a PC anyway. Plus, I like being able to mod games ("hey, how did you get a Porshe in Vice City?") , and free on-line play is a big one in my book as well.

That said, I still won't upgrade to Vista, nor to a DX10 video card, until we see enough games available to make those upgrades worthy. I was a long time user of Win 2K, and I've only been on XP for about two years. Everything is working fine, so why upgrade now?


RE: HMMMM
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/21/2007 7:36:29 PM , Rating: 1
Where are you seeing $600 Xbox's at? They are priced at $299 and $399 (and Overstock routinely has Xbox 360 Premiums on sale for around $315).

That being said, a single Xbox 360 or PS3 will play all of your games for years to come without a single upgrade needed to take full advantage of game features/visuals. Can't say the same for the PC.


RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/21/2007 9:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I guess I confused the PS3's $600 price tag.

What you say is correct, a console will play all the new console games for years without having to upgrade. But the games will only look better as much as the developers learn better coding, taking full advantage of the hardware. But, new PC games, with new PC hardware, will look dramatically better.

So, yeah, I guess PC gaming is more expensive, but with shorter quality cycles. But free online gameplay, and cheaper games in general (at least that I remmeber), it does make a big difference. And, again, mods and game updates.

We can discuss this all again in three years, and we can compare PS3 and XBox 360 graphics with PC graphics. :D


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, learn to read. I said I didn't own an 8800 GTS. And I also already stated that console game developers would better learn to code for the hardware, making the games look better.

And I never said an 8800 GTS would make old games, like doom 1, look better. That's just nonsense.

Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

The timing is off because we see two new consoles, the PS3 and XBox 360. My point, which you did not address, is the fact that 12 months ago, people were not bragging about their Xbox and PS2, and in three years, people won't be bragging about their Xbox 360 nor PS3.

You see upgrading a PC as a hassle, and an expense. I see it as an opportunity, and an option.

We've been playing games like Far Cry and Call of Duty for years while console owners are just now starting to see new generation games.

We've been playing games at 1600x1200 for years, while you guys have been stuck at, well, something a hell of a lot smaller.

Like I said, come talk to me in 3 years and tell me how kick-ass your xbox 360 is, LOL.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/23/2007 1:18:57 PM , Rating: 3
I think you've been living in your console world a bit too long. Developers don't code for 8800GTS, they code for the API but it's not about using the hardware properly. PC's have a little thing called settings and sliders and resolutions etc that scales with new hardware. It is obvious you don't have much experience gaming on a PC but already in today's games, a gaming PC offers much better graphics compared to an Xbox 360. Here is an example:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6154261/index.htm...



RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07,