Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:38:59 -0500, HK wrote:


I'm using a Russian setup I paid for on my VISTA machine, mainly because
it seems to have a lighter footprint AND it has support forums
frequented by folks who really know their stuff and are ready, willing
and able to help immediately with any idiosyncracies and to crap on the
few "Reggie" types who find their way in there.

"Russian setup?"
What are the main issues with Vista?
My son says it is slower in booting, and has "eye appeal."
I know it's needed for DirectX 10, which is already required
for some MS games, Halo II being the big one.
There is a improvement over XP for graphical apps.
Personally, if I were offered a choice on a new PC, I would go with
it, but I'm a gamer.
It certainly doesn't scare me as a "personal user."
The resentment against MS is understandable in some respects, but
overall there has been a vast improvement in PC OS's in terms of ease
of use. Much of this "making it easier" is the reason for the
"bloatware" charge.
But I may prejudiced there as I'm fairly "computer literate."
Business use has additional concerns over personal use, but as a
"personal user" can you give some details about Vista's benefits
over XP? Real or perceived.

--Vic




I haven't had "issues" with VISTA for a long time. I was an early
adopter, and back then, there were not many anti-vi suites that worked
properly with it. Now, that is not an issue.

Boot speed seems more closely tied to what you are loading up with the
OS in addition to the OS itself. I don't load a lot of autoloading
applications when I boot up the OS.

I don't actually play any computer games, other than an older version of
MS Golf, so I can't really respond to how VISTA is as a gamer's OS.

Other than the fancy windowdressing, the main reason I prefer VISTA is
that the 32-bit version handles more memory than XP Pro.