"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Mac desktop. Supposedly there are new models coming out sometime soon,
but nothing rumored about the still vaporware models seemed that
significant to me, although they will be to others, I suspect, who are
more into computer games and heavy duty graphics and math processing.

Also snagged a beta of Windows 7, which just about anyone can do via
Microsoft's open beta for at least the short term, and burned it onto
a DVD. It'll be the "alternatve" OS on the new Mac. I run Vista as the
alternative on my Macbook Pro, works fine.

And my old desktop machine is now updated and "ready" to be
"server-ized."


Is Windows 7 designed to be an upgrade from Vista, or is it strictly a
completely new OS install?

Eisboch


Dunno. Haven't even looked at the MS web page on it yet. My guess is
that it'll upgrade a VISTA or it'll do a fresh install.


It's funny. Due to all the horror stories I had heard about Vista, I was
very hesitant to go with it on this new computer. I tried to pay
attention to recommendations regarding RAM, etc. and made sure it had 4GB
and was the 64 bit version.

So far, I haven't had a single serious hiccup. In fact, only once did a
program (I think it was InfanView) temporarily "lock up" and deliver a
"program is not responding" message, but as I was reading it, it
automatically cleared itself and continued running. That's the only
time I've seen any sort of glitch and it went away by itself.

Eisboch


I've never had any serious VISTA problems, and I was there at the
beginning.

Actually, for light use, Vista is OK. Have it on one of my PCs.

Most of the bad press on Vista relates to performance. In motor terms Vista
us a 4 cyl that gets 2 mpg. You can put a lot of CPU/system to it and it
performs like a slug. While if you are just doing surfing or email, you
would never know the difference, try a large file transfer disk to disk or
network to/from a disk and compare to a Mac, Linux or even XP. You will
find Vista is slow like pig.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...


Most of the bad press on Vista relates to performance. In motor terms
Vista us a 4 cyl that gets 2 mpg. You can put a lot of CPU/system to it
and it performs like a slug. While if you are just doing surfing or
email, you would never know the difference, try a large file transfer disk
to disk or network to/from a disk and compare to a Mac, Linux or even XP.
You will find Vista is slow like pig.



Maybe I just don't run any really memory extensive programs. I can only
compare a few that I consider to be memory extensive and so far Vista with
4GB of RAM seems to be a little faster and smoother running than my older XP
computer (with 3GB RAM) running the same thing. For example, running
flight simulator in Google Earth. I think that's fairly memory extensive.

The other thing is that the Vista computer boots up and shuts down a heck of
a lot faster than the XP computer. Both are HP laptops. Maybe the
difference is the CPU. The new computer is a dual core (or whatever they
call it), 64 bit processor. I think the XP is a single chip, 32 bit.

I don't know if a computer with Vista purchased recently is any different
than the early Vista releases. All I know is so far I am very happy with
it. In fact, I like it better than the XP which seems "clunky" by
comparison now.

I reserve the right to change my mind in the future. :-)

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...


Most of the bad press on Vista relates to performance. In motor terms
Vista us a 4 cyl that gets 2 mpg. You can put a lot of CPU/system to
it and it performs like a slug. While if you are just doing surfing
or email, you would never know the difference, try a large file
transfer disk to disk or network to/from a disk and compare to a Mac,
Linux or even XP. You will find Vista is slow like pig.



Maybe I just don't run any really memory extensive programs. I can
only compare a few that I consider to be memory extensive and so far
Vista with 4GB of RAM seems to be a little faster and smoother running
than my older XP computer (with 3GB RAM) running the same thing. For
example, running flight simulator in Google Earth. I think that's
fairly memory extensive.

The other thing is that the Vista computer boots up and shuts down a
heck of a lot faster than the XP computer. Both are HP laptops. Maybe
the difference is the CPU. The new computer is a dual core (or whatever
they call it), 64 bit processor. I think the XP is a single chip, 32 bit.

I don't know if a computer with Vista purchased recently is any
different than the early Vista releases. All I know is so far I am very
happy with it. In fact, I like it better than the XP which seems
"clunky" by comparison now.

I reserve the right to change my mind in the future. :-)

Eisboch



The Vista SP1 upgrade did address a number of problems, including the
memory hog and speed issues with the orginal release of Vista.
According to PCTipsBox, SP1 increase the speed of Vista up to 86%.

--

Looking to for a good time?

click here to make yourself feel good.

http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm