On Apr 6, 11:32*am, HK wrote:
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.

That's because it's freakin' bloatware at it's finest.