Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
If you install VISTA over an earlier OS instead of doing a clean install,
if you have a slow processor or less than two GIGs of RAM, if you don't
know what you are doing with a computer, then you are likely to have
VISTA-related problems.

VISTA has had its share of "VISTA-unique" problems, as has every other
maintstream desktop computer OS. The complaints I find funniest are those
from the know-nothings who bitch that "VISTA is slower than XP." Slower?
Oh...you mean your word processor, email reader, and instant messenger
work slowly? No? Oh...you read a benchmark. Yawn.



How about the average computer user who does not have advanced computer
skills or even the technical knowledge of what to buy?
My daughter recently replaced their computer with a new HP Pavilion laptop
preloaded with some version of Vista. They bought the best model they could
afford, but she doesn't know a megabit from a horsefly.

I was playing with it the other day. It just doesn't have the "snap"
opening programs or even simple navigation to files or folders that my 4
year old HP Pavilion running XP has. I neglected to check what her
processor type, speed or RAM capacity is, so it may not be a fair
comparison. Mine has a Pentium 4, 3.00GHz processor and 2.0 GB of RAM.
Next time I visit, I'll check and see what her new one has.


That's a valid point. When I wander through Best Buy and some of the
other box stores, I see grossly underpowered machines, desktops and
laptops, running VISTA when they should be running XP. My guess is that
the CPU in your daughter's machine is adequate, but that it is short of
RAM. From what I have experienced and seen, a minimum of two GB of RAM
is necessary to run VISTA properly. If that is the case, it is easy
enough to fix and it doesn't cost much.

You might also check that daughter's machine to see what it is actually
running at startup and in the background. My wife was complaining about
the "slowness" of her laptop the other day (she runs XP Pro) and when I
checked it out, I found at least 15 apps running in the background or
"open" that she simply did not use. I shut them down and voila!...a new
computer!



Point is, to us non-hobbyist or geeks, it seems that if Vista requires
certain minimums in terms of processors and RAM capacity to operate
properly, (which I am sure raises the cost of the computer) Microsoft is
sorta screwing many customers by forcing Vista onto all new Windows based
computers.

I won't argue with that, either. Forcing VISTA onto computers that
barely meet MS's published minimum standards is not a good idea.




I also may not know what I am talking about, because my daughter's computer
.... which is only a month old .... is my first experience with Vista. So,
I am one of those "know-nothings" who claims Vista is slower than XP. In
this particular case, it *is* noticeably slower than the 4 year old computer
I am using now.

Eisboch



Well, the comparison you are making is not valid. Apples and oranges.


* My MacBook Pro came with two GB of ram, and for less than $100, I
pulled out those two sticks of memory, and replaced them with sticks
holding four GB of ram. Memory is cheap.

I run XP Pro and VISTA on my MacBook. Both perform properly, and nearly
as fast as on my desktop machine for most normal applications.