Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:24:14 -0400, HK wrote:


I had far more serious problems with XP, by the way, than I have had so
far with VISTA.

Hard to imagine problems with XP - I can't think of one I've had.
I did start with SP2 though.
And I always investigate peripheral compatibility before I buy.
What issues did you encounter?

--Vic

I started with an early beta, but I flushed each old version before
installing the newer beta.
I had some software incompatibilities with programs that were supposed to
work with XP. Seriously. And one hardware problem with a USB proprietary
card reader. I never got these problems resolved. Fortunately I had my
Win2k laptop around and everything worked on it.



Harry, IMO (which, when it comes to computers, doesn't account for much),
having issues as a beta tester really doesn't apply to the final, released
product.

As a computer consumer and not a technician, it seems to me that XP has
earned a decent reputation for a Windows OS, similar to what Windows 3.0
earned in it's day.

Vista has yet to earn that reputation for reliability, speed and ease of use
with other applications. It may, after a while, but the fact that Microsoft
has already announced the forthcoming release of the next generation OS, it
sort of makes you wonder if Vista will be another flash in the pan dud.

Either that, or the "new" OS will basically be a re-packaged version of
Vista, with all updates and improvements. They'll probably give it a new
name and look, because for many (unlike a few like you) Vista has left a
bad taste. Sometimes it's very difficult to get around that.

Eisboch

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:55:43 -0400, HK wrote:

Same here. Used to like messing with it when it was my business.
Now I'm a user, and like it real user friendly.

--Vic


Hmmm. I'm sort of the opposite.

Another way to look at it: I used to like doing my own car repairs.
Hands on, saved some money, and had a reliable ride.
That was necessary with those older cars.
Now I expect my cars to be almost maintenance free.
I resent a bad injector, or too many "check engine" lights.
I put Vista in that category - just from what I've heard.
XP fits more into my current car philosophy - beat it death and it
keeps on doing everything I ask of it.
Not talking avoiding regular preventative maintenance, but I don't
want to be babying an OS like I babied my old cars.
Might be some flaws in that analogy, but there it is.
The older I get, the less I like to putz around with things I consider
simple tools. An OS is basically a complex mass of code, and I spent
years dealing with such for pay, and I'm tired of it.
That's why I retired.

--Vic

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 6, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:16*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

More like BOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hyjEGkm-A

Wrong BOB. MS came out with a... wait for it... dumbed down version of Windows
they called BOB. Looked like it was designed by Mr. Rogers in collaboration with
Fisher-Price. It was a major flop, but subsequent versions of Windows have
interfaces that look more and more like BOB, with vivid, cartoonish, brightly
colored rounded icons, etc.

I thought I was in your bozo bin?

I guess you missed it when I explained that I rarely kill off anybody
permanently. I first set a 7-10 day filter that marks their posts "READ" so my
reader skips right over them. If one of those is in a thread I'm following, I
sometimes read it to see if its anything other than more of the stuff I killed
them about. After 10 days, the filter expires and they are back to normal. If
they still haven't changed their tune, I once again set a "READ" filter, but
usually for 30 days. If they are still acting like a jackass after that, I
permanently filter them, either completely, or to mark as "READ".

Periodically I delete ALL my filters, as most of the posters involved are no
longer posting, or the overly long thread I filtered is so old that it's no
longer a problem.

I usually refer to my filter as "The Penalty Box", not the Bozo Bin, although
many Bozo's get put there.

yeah, yeah.. I read of your hypocracies. First you arogantly announce
to the world that i was in your "bin" now you say it is a "penalty
box?" Good lord. that's like announcing that one is pregnant, then
saying one is "a little bit pregnant". Well, you either are or you
arn't.

You may as well put me in there permamently like you said you were
going to do with Loogy, and Scott, that is unless you pull them out,
play with them a while then put them back in....

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,
neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be
yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation"...(James 5:12
KJV)

He

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

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

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:24:14 -0400, HK wrote:


I had far more serious problems with XP, by the way, than I have had so
far with VISTA.
Hard to imagine problems with XP - I can't think of one I've had.
I did start with SP2 though.
And I always investigate peripheral compatibility before I buy.
What issues did you encounter?

--Vic
I started with an early beta, but I flushed each old version before
installing the newer beta.
I had some software incompatibilities with programs that were supposed to
work with XP. Seriously. And one hardware problem with a USB proprietary
card reader. I never got these problems resolved. Fortunately I had my
Win2k laptop around and everything worked on it.



Harry, IMO (which, when it comes to computers, doesn't account for much),
having issues as a beta tester really doesn't apply to the final, released
product.

As a computer consumer and not a technician, it seems to me that XP has
earned a decent reputation for a Windows OS, similar to what Windows 3.0
earned in it's day.

Vista has yet to earn that reputation for reliability, speed and ease of use
with other applications. It may, after a while, but the fact that Microsoft
has already announced the forthcoming release of the next generation OS, it
sort of makes you wonder if Vista will be another flash in the pan dud.

Either that, or the "new" OS will basically be a re-packaged version of
Vista, with all updates and improvements. They'll probably give it a new
name and look, because for many (unlike a few like you) Vista has left a
bad taste. Sometimes it's very difficult to get around that.

Eisboch




Part of the "deal" of being an early beta tester is doing whatever you
can to "bust" the software. The continuing issues I had with XP were on
the released version, which I installed fresh on a suitable computer.

XP is more than decent, but I had some issues with it. At the moment, I
have no issues remaining with VISTA, but I am sure I will come up with
some. I always do.

MS always has "forthcoming" operating systems in the works.

Those who don't like the MS offerings but still want a packaged OS
should try Apple OS X Leopard. If you like to kitbash, try LINUX.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 17:59:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Either that, or the "new" OS will basically be a re-packaged version of
Vista, with all updates and improvements. They'll probably give it a new
name and look, because for many (unlike a few like you) Vista has left a
bad taste. Sometimes it's very difficult to get around that

Think they will call it ****edoffta?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:24:14 -0400, HK wrote:



I had far more serious problems with XP, by the way, than I have had so
far with VISTA.

Hard to imagine problems with XP - I can't think of one I've had.
I did start with SP2 though.
And I always investigate peripheral compatibility before I buy.
What issues did you encounter?

--Vic

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 6, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:16*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

More like BOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hyjEGkm-A

Wrong BOB. MS came out with a... wait for it... dumbed down version of Windows
they called BOB. Looked like it was designed by Mr. Rogers in collaboration with
Fisher-Price. It was a major flop, but subsequent versions of Windows have
interfaces that look more and more like BOB, with vivid, cartoonish, brightly
colored rounded icons, etc.

I thought I was in your bozo bin?

I guess you missed it when I explained that I rarely kill off anybody
permanently. I first set a 7-10 day filter that marks their posts "READ" so my
reader skips right over them. If one of those is in a thread I'm following, I
sometimes read it to see if its anything other than more of the stuff I killed
them about. After 10 days, the filter expires and they are back to normal. If
they still haven't changed their tune, I once again set a "READ" filter, but
usually for 30 days. If they are still acting like a jackass after that, I
permanently filter them, either completely, or to mark as "READ".

Periodically I delete ALL my filters, as most of the posters involved are no
longer posting, or the overly long thread I filtered is so old that it's no
longer a problem.

I usually refer to my filter as "The Penalty Box", not the Bozo Bin, although
many Bozo's get put there.

yeah, yeah.. I read of your hypocracies. First you arogantly announce
to the world that i was in your "bin" now you say it is a "penalty
box?"

Because I had already explained at length how my penalty box works. You got a
time out in the corner for posting those idiotic dots. Post some more, and
you'll be back in the corner wearing a dunce hat for a week or so.

Good lord. that's like announcing that one is pregnant, then
saying one is *"a little bit pregnant". Well, you either are or you
arn't.

If you had read and understood what I wrote, you'd be embarrassed that you used
a totally stuipd analogy that doesn't fit at all. Kill filters are no an
either/or situation. There are lots of types of filters and ways of setting
them. As I said, I still download your headers when you are filtered, but your
posts get marked read as soon as the are downloaded.

You may as well put me in there permamently like you said you were
going to do with Loogy, and Scott, that is unless you pull them out,
play with them a while then put them back in....

Backyard COPD is still filtered, and will probably stay that way for a while. He
hasn't posted much that was useful or entertaining in a long time, and the dots
are a nuisance, plain and simple. I was not the only one here who told him it
was stupid and annoying. Loogy's posts likewise are automatically marked read
for pretty much the same reason. Too many of his posts are just saying one thing
a million diferent ways. Newsflash for Loogy: Nobody gives a flying **** what
you think about HK. The less said about HK the better. *Posts by both Captain
Coughupalung and Loogy are still available to me if I want to read them for some
odd reason, but I navigate new posts by hitting my *"N" key to get to to the
next unread post, so most of the time, I ignore them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, why do you keep blabbing? Put me in the kill file and be done
with it!

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 6, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:16*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

More like BOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hyjEGkm-A

Wrong BOB. MS came out with a... wait for it... dumbed down version of Windows
they called BOB. Looked like it was designed by Mr. Rogers in collaboration with
Fisher-Price. It was a major flop, but subsequent versions of Windows have
interfaces that look more and more like BOB, with vivid, cartoonish, brightly
colored rounded icons, etc.

I thought I was in your bozo bin?

I guess you missed it when I explained that I rarely kill off anybody
permanently. I first set a 7-10 day filter that marks their posts "READ" so my
reader skips right over them. If one of those is in a thread I'm following, I
sometimes read it to see if its anything other than more of the stuff I killed
them about. After 10 days, the filter expires and they are back to normal. If
they still haven't changed their tune, I once again set a "READ" filter, but
usually for 30 days. If they are still acting like a jackass after that, I
permanently filter them, either completely, or to mark as "READ".

Periodically I delete ALL my filters, as most of the posters involved are no
longer posting, or the overly long thread I filtered is so old that it's no
longer a problem.

I usually refer to my filter as "The Penalty Box", not the Bozo Bin, although
many Bozo's get put there.

yeah, yeah.. I read of your hypocracies. First you arogantly announce
to the world that i was in your "bin" now you say it is a "penalty
box?"

Because I had already explained at length how my penalty box works. You got a
time out in the corner for posting those idiotic dots. Post some more, and
you'll be back in the corner wearing a dunce hat for a week or so.

Good lord. that's like announcing that one is pregnant, then
saying one is *"a little bit pregnant". Well, you either are or you
arn't.

If you had read and understood what I wrote, you'd be embarrassed that you used
a totally stuipd analogy that doesn't fit at all.

pardone me I didn't see anything that you wrote that would make sense.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
I know some people will not believe this, but this is the God's honest
truth.

I just got an email from my son. I told him I would purchase him a new
laptop when he starts his post graduate work next fall. I had been
reviewing the laptops in the marketplace, and decided on Lenovo, MACPRO
was just too damn expensive. Lenovo build a first class, dependable
computer very popular business and professionals because they are so
reliable. They build them without all of the freeware, demoware, spyware
and general bloatware that you find on so many mfg'ers. This crap can
turn a good computer into a piece of crap that runs at a snail's pace.
Dell has stopped putting it into their very limited business line of
computers, but still loads up consumer models with all of this stuff. I
read that Dell makes about $60 for every computer they put this into, so
they have refused to remove it from the bulk of their computers, but it
might be why they are having financial problems.

I told my son I could get him a Lenovo with WinXP fully loaded as long as
I purchased it before June 30 and I wanted to know if he wanted a 14" or
15" screen. His reply to me was:

"At my job I spent most of my time using a Mac, but I did have to use a PC
for certain projects. It had Windows Vista on it, and i am certain
history will call Vista Microsoft's version of "New Coke". I really
appreciate your offer to buy me a new laptop, but could you just give me
the money you were going to spend on the Lenovo, and let me buy a MAC".

That is a strong statement for MAC's when a college student would rather
spend his own money upgrading to a MAC than use a PC, and is an example of
why Apple's market share continues to grow. My son is a pretty smart guy
and I guess that is why a top tier school gave him a complete scholarship,
and is paying him a decent salary to continue his education. He is too
smart to buy into MS's "NEW COKE".

Let him do it. I have Vista on what was supposed to be my next main
desktop. Not shabby either, quad processor, 8gb of RAM, 2 500GB hard drives
and copying file is a painful experience compared to any of XP, Mac or
Linux.

Vista is worse than Win-Me.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Canuck57 wrote:

Let him do it. I have Vista on what was supposed to be my next main
desktop. Not shabby either, quad processor, 8gb of RAM, 2 500GB hard drives
and copying file is a painful experience compared to any of XP, Mac or
Linux.

Vista is worse than Win-Me.


What version of VISTA are you running?

I don't have any problems copying files. It seems faster under VISTA SP1
than it was previously, but I don't do a lot of file copying, so it's
never been an annoyance for me.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 9:32 pm, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:30:55 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ME.
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ....YOU??

Cripes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me

Moron... :)

You have to wonder about the level of, well, hatred in this newsgroup
for a computer operating system virtually none of the naysayers run.

=
Do you think the programmers and engineers at Microsoft itself don't
know what they are talking about when they acknowledge numerous
problems and try to offer fixes for those problems? Are they doing it
out of hatred?
=

Not hatred. But....

Why pull your best running model from the shelves and then pander a product
no one wants because it is slow and lesser quality?

Coke tried it. MS is just learning this lesson all over again.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:32 pm, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:30:55 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ME.
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ....YOU??
Cripes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me
Moron... :)
You have to wonder about the level of, well, hatred in this newsgroup
for a computer operating system virtually none of the naysayers run.

Do you think the programmers and engineers at Microsoft itself don't
know what they are talking about when they acknowledge numerous
problems and try to offer fixes for those problems? Are they doing it
out of hatred?

It isn't the engineers causing the problem.

Insightful. Problems of this magnitude are always senior management.

Especially the ones, "Tell me what I want to hear, forget the truth or I
will fire you" types.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops, one a Dell,
the other a HP, one had at 2gb and the other had 3 gb of RAM and a Dual
Core Processor with at least 4mg of Cache. They had the exact same
complaint. They had a replaced 4 and 5 year old computers, and could not
see any additional speed when opening their software.

Ditto's my experience. And it isn't under powered unless you want to
compare it to something not invented yet.

Q6600 Quad Processor @ 2.4GHz. Vista 64 bit, and 8GB or RAM. 2 SATA 500GB
drives that go like smoke with Linux. 3 year older XP machine, 2GB RAM, 2 x
160GB IDE drives is 4 times faster copying files, that is after Vista SP1,
which did improve not no slave the performance issues.

Hm, wish I could get a refund for the OS part of it. Would people buy cars
that get 5mpg on a promise if you spend more and in 2 years we can fix it?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops, one a Dell,
the other a HP, one had at 2gb and the other had 3 gb of RAM and a Dual
Core Processor with at least 4mg of Cache. They had the exact same
complaint. They had a replaced 4 and 5 year old computers, and could not
see any additional speed when opening their software.

Ditto's my experience. And it isn't under powered unless you want to
compare it to something not invented yet.

Q6600 Quad Processor @ 2.4GHz. Vista 64 bit, and 8GB or RAM. 2 SATA 500GB
drives that go like smoke with Linux. 3 year older XP machine, 2GB RAM, 2 x
160GB IDE drives is 4 times faster copying files, that is after Vista SP1,
which did improve not no slave the performance issues.

Hm, wish I could get a refund for the OS part of it. Would people buy cars
that get 5mpg on a promise if you spend more and in 2 years we can fix it?


\

What is stopping you from dumping VISTA and using LINUX as your sole OS?

Incidentally, what are you running that requires a 64-bit OS?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:



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.

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 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


Eisboch,

I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops

Bull****. There hasn't been one post in this newsgroup that indicates you
know anything about computers or operating systems. All you have ever done
is cut and pasted negative news stories about VISTA.

Having worked with everything MS has produced since DOS 2.10, I can say this
for Vista, for the hype and the marketing BS is a PoC. Worse than the WinMe
stuff by a long shot. WinMe worked, just boring.

And users who only do email, news, basic web surfing and haven't used
anything else might not notice too much.

On to double and triple dipping the customer. The Microsoft monopoly and
bundling practices now have us whe

-You buy a MS Vista OS on a commodity PC from Best Buy as that is all they
sell.
-You then by XP so you have something that works, your second time you pay
MS.
-Now MS is going to cut a new Win7 version this for next year and Vista
isn't even fixed?

The triple consumer dip is what I call it. MS is in trouble, doing the
new-Coke, classic Coke is going to tank consumer confidence in the MS OSes.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..


If your daughter is up to the task, she can ask HP for a free Install
Disk for Vista and do a clean install in the HP. Without all of the junk
they preload in their machines it will run faster,just not as fast as it
would with WinXP. HP might be willing to sell her a XP install disk at a
reasonable price.



My daughter is happy with the new computer and Vista. It replaced a
clunky, very old desktop that was still working, running Windows '98.

*I* am the one that happened to notice that it runs somewhat sluggishly
compared to the older, HP Pavilion that I use (running XP) or my wife's
laptop .... also a HP Pavilion, but the model optimized for "Multimedia".
It also runs XP.

Like Harry suggested, my daughter's new computer may be shy some RAM and
may have a bunch of applications running in the background that slows it
down. But that was not my point.

My point was that for the average computer user who has limited knowledge
of how to optimize a computer, Vista may be somewhat disappointing, even
in a new computer shipped with Vista as the OS. Many people treat a
computer like a toaster. Plug it in and use it. Not all people have the
knowledge of how to optimize it, add memory, etc., nor do they care. They
expect it to work, as advertised.

That's why I think Vista is having a poor introduction.

Eisboch

Well, now that user skipped:

Win 98
Win Me
W2000
XP
Vista

Yep, 4 generations of OS with hardware on 10 years or so, it had better be
faster.

You are very correct, 98% of the users, the computer is an expensive
toaster.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


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.

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 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

Eisboch,
I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops
Bull****. There hasn't been one post in this newsgroup that indicates you
know anything about computers or operating systems. All you have ever done
is cut and pasted negative news stories about VISTA.

Having worked with everything MS has produced since DOS 2.10, I can say this
for Vista, for the hype and the marketing BS is a PoC. Worse than the WinMe
stuff by a long shot. WinMe worked, just boring.

And users who only do email, news, basic web surfing and haven't used
anything else might not notice too much.


Notice what? I run some fairly heavy duty apps that require intensive
use of the CPU and the system. They run perfectly well under VISTA.
Please enlighten me: what is it I should be noticing?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:01:22 GMT, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Let him do it. I have Vista on what was supposed to be my next main
desktop. Not shabby either, quad processor, 8gb of RAM, 2 500GB hard drives
and copying file is a painful experience compared to any of XP, Mac or
Linux.

Vista is worse than Win-Me.

This is pretty funny, re file copying . Read at your own risk.
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...4/2826167.aspx

My takeaway is I don't want Vista yet, but not necessarily because of
Explorer, since I've been using Powerdesk Pro for years as my file
manager.
Don't know if Powerdesk obviates this Vista issue, but Total
Commander, another file manager, is supposed to.

--Vic

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"hk" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


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.

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 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

Eisboch,
I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops
Bull****. There hasn't been one post in this newsgroup that indicates
you know anything about computers or operating systems. All you have
ever done is cut and pasted negative news stories about VISTA.

Having worked with everything MS has produced since DOS 2.10, I can say
this for Vista, for the hype and the marketing BS is a PoC. Worse than
the WinMe stuff by a long shot. WinMe worked, just boring.

And users who only do email, news, basic web surfing and haven't used
anything else might not notice too much.


Notice what? I run some fairly heavy duty apps that require intensive use
of the CPU and the system. They run perfectly well under VISTA. Please
enlighten me: what is it I should be noticiWhcihng?

Which heavy duty apps?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?


With a feather right next to one of the USB ports. 8-)

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

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.

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 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

Eisboch,
I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops
Bull****. There hasn't been one post in this newsgroup that indicates
you know anything about computers or operating systems. All you have
ever done is cut and pasted negative news stories about VISTA.
Having worked with everything MS has produced since DOS 2.10, I can say
this for Vista, for the hype and the marketing BS is a PoC. Worse than
the WinMe stuff by a long shot. WinMe worked, just boring.

And users who only do email, news, basic web surfing and haven't used
anything else might not notice too much.

Notice what? I run some fairly heavy duty apps that require intensive use
of the CPU and the system. They run perfectly well under VISTA. Please
enlighten me: what is it I should be noticing?

Which heavy duty apps?



One is a fairly heavy duty Adobe suite for DV and HDV editing from Adobe.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 7, 5:32*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 17:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:16*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

More like BOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hyjEGkm-A

Wrong BOB. MS came out with a... wait for it... dumbed down version of Windows
they called BOB. Looked like it was designed by Mr. Rogers in collaboration with
Fisher-Price. It was a major flop, but subsequent versions of Windows have
interfaces that look more and more like BOB, with vivid, cartoonish, brightly
colored rounded icons, etc.

I thought I was in your bozo bin?

I guess you missed it when I explained that I rarely kill off anybody
permanently. I first set a 7-10 day filter that marks their posts "READ" so my
reader skips right over them. If one of those is in a thread I'm following, I
sometimes read it to see if its anything other than more of the stuff I killed
them about. After 10 days, the filter expires and they are back to normal. If
they still haven't changed their tune, I once again set a "READ" filter, but
usually for 30 days. If they are still acting like a jackass after that, I
permanently filter them, either completely, or to mark as "READ".

Periodically I delete ALL my filters, as most of the posters involved are no
longer posting, or the overly long thread I filtered is so old that it's no
longer a problem.

I usually refer to my filter as "The Penalty Box", not the Bozo Bin, although
many Bozo's get put there.

yeah, yeah.. I read of your hypocracies. First you arogantly announce
to the world that i was in your "bin" now you say it is a "penalty
box?"

Because I had already explained at length how my penalty box works. You got a
time out in the corner for posting those idiotic dots. Post some more, and
you'll be back in the corner wearing a dunce hat for a week or so.

Good lord. that's like announcing that one is pregnant, then
saying one is *"a little bit pregnant". Well, you either are or you
arn't.

If you had read and understood what I wrote, you'd be embarrassed that you used
a totally stuipd analogy that doesn't fit at all.

pardone me I didn't see anything that you wrote that would make sense.

That says a lot more about you, than it does about me, cheesewhiz.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whatever, Soggy....

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 7, 8:19*am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. *How should I tweak it?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...


"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?



I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).
I'm one of those "toaster" users referred to here. How do you look at and
modify the programs running in the background?

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.
I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?
I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....


The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.




"LoogyPicker" is part of the unnecessary crap that loads when you want
to read posts in rec.boats, so, if you filter out the "LoogyPicker"
crap, reading of the newsgroup takes a lot less time. :)

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....


The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 7, 9:24*am, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:

"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. *It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.

BUT, if Vista wasn't the resource hog that it is, the TSR's would run
fine.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 7, 9:24*am, HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
t...
Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.
I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?
I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

William Bruce wrote:
Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?



Return it to Dell and ask them to send you a computer with
WinXP. Also ask them to send you a WinXP install disk, format the
harddrive and give your self a clean WinXP install without all of the
demo software, spyware, bloatware etc. Then install only the software
you want to use.

Even if you uninstall all of the software, you will still have remnants
of them left behind in the registry.

Spybot and HiJack This allows you to review the start up registry and
see how much crap is running in the background, but if you are not
familiar with what should and should not be running, you can cause more
problems by deleting items.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

William Bruce wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.
I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).
I'm one of those "toaster" users referred to here. How do you look at and
modify the programs running in the background?



That is why I would recommend you do a clean install by formatting the
disk. If you want your computer to run up to it's full potential, you
will need to use WinXP. No matter how good of a job you do removing
unneccessary programs, you computer will run faster on WinXP than Vista.
My son used WinXP in college and MAC and Vista when he worked in the
graphic art dept. for a large consumer company. Vista is MS's "New
Coke", sure some people like the extra sugar in New Coke, but the vast
majority of people thought it sucked. It is the same way with Vista.
Most people do not see any advantage, but see lots of disadvantages.

One of the people I helped set up their new HP Vista computer, told me
the next day that they purchased the computer so their grandkids could
play a new game that would not run on their 4 yr old computer. Guess
what, it wouldn't run on Vista either.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

Reginald Smithers III wrote:
William Bruce wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.
I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being
delivered Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background
and disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall,
antivirus and antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install
good antivirus and antispyware programs).
I'm one of those "toaster" users referred to here. How do you look at
and modify the programs running in the background?


That is why I would recommend you do a clean install by formatting the
disk.



*Reggie* would recommend...now that is a laugh.

Reggie the computer expert.

Even funnier.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 9:24 am, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:

"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus
and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the
PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.

BUT, if Vista wasn't the resource hog that it is, the TSR's would run
fine.
==============================

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of TSR. There's no problem with the
typical TSRs running on Vista, when they are called upon. No more so than
WinXP.

TSR is an acronym for Terminate Stay Ready. Most of them aren't doing
anything after they load during boot. Most of them don't use a lot of RAM.
Check in Windows Task Manager under processes and you can see just how much
memory they occupy. They are just loaded to be "ready" if called upon. No
different than WinXP. RAM is cheap.

The little bit I've used Vista on my dual boot PC I don't see any slow down
do to the typical load of TSRs. The more you load at boot the longer the
boot time will be. There are other issues inherent to the OS that cause
problems for some applications, but they aren't due to TSRs.

Granted, Vista needs more RAM than MS may recommend as "adequate" to run at
reasonable speed. Same thing applies to WinXP.

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 9:24 am, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:

"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs
tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.
I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?
I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus
and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).
Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the
PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.

BUT, if Vista wasn't the resource hog that it is, the TSR's would run
fine.
==============================

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of TSR. There's no problem with the
typical TSRs running on Vista, when they are called upon. No more so than
WinXP.

TSR is an acronym for Terminate Stay Ready. Most of them aren't doing
anything after they load during boot. Most of them don't use a lot of RAM.
Check in Windows Task Manager under processes and you can see just how much
memory they occupy. They are just loaded to be "ready" if called upon. No
different than WinXP. RAM is cheap.

The little bit I've used Vista on my dual boot PC I don't see any slow down
do to the typical load of TSRs. The more you load at boot the longer the
boot time will be. There are other issues inherent to the OS that cause
problems for some applications, but they aren't due to TSRs.

Granted, Vista needs more RAM than MS may recommend as "adequate" to run at
reasonable speed. Same thing applies to WinXP.




My desktop computer boots up with a boatload of "stuff" running, most of
which is by my choice. I'm still waiting for "Reggie" or one of other
computer idiot savants to provide me with a list of programs and
processes on my desktop machine that are running perceptibly "slower" on
VISTA than they would on their desktop machine running XP. Oh, and since
my 32-bit VISTA addressed four gigs of RAM and their 32-bit XP cannot,
let's do a comparison while several really large and intensive programs
are running.

I'm sure "Reggie" can google up the answer... :)

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:38:53 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

TSR is an acronym for Terminate Stay Ready.

Long before TSR was Terminate Stay Ready it meant something else.

Old enough to remember? :)

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Apr 7, 1:11*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:21:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I wonder if Reggie gets HIS information from Yahoo blogs......

On that line, almost everybody *can* be an "expert" with all the info
on the net. *If you can understand the basics it becomes a question of
sorting the chaff from the wheat.
For somebody not really interested in computers except that the
computer should do what's necessary, the big deal is to select a good
computer and OS at the outset. *A setup that does what you want.
That's pretty easy to do after a little reading.
Once you get into special apps it's a bit more complicated, but
basically the same approach. *Find out what others are using for the
app, and go that way.
I get a kick out of one of my kids - the gamer with 6 computers -
still arguing with one of his workmates at the shop about Intel vs.
AMD. *Then he drops by after work to tell me stuff like "John still
thinks his AMD quad core is faster than the Intel XXX."
He's actually all excited about this.
I always ask him "You still arguing about that ****?"
But I listen for a while to give him an outlet, and calm him down.
Me, I play high-end games and do fine with an 865PE chipset and a
good video card, still AGP. *GeForce 6800. *Running *XP.
I can probably run whatever else I want too, but I dumped the heavier
stuff like Oracle and Powerbuilder when I got out of the business.
Got two identical setups in case one breaks.
This is really old stuff in PC terms.
But then my Chevys are a 1990 and a 1997, and they run fine too.
It's mostly priorities and personal taste in the end.
If a single woman wants basic transportation the only answer I have is
"Get a Corolla."
If a novice wants just a basic PC I would probably say get a cheap big
box PC with XP installed and leave it at that. .
I would probably add "If you want more info on PC's and OS'es, visit
rec.boats. *Lot's of experts there."

--Vic

Bingo!

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...




This site offers a free test and makes recommendations based on the test
results:

http://pcpitstop.com/pcpitstop/default.asp

No need to register.



I must be a geek!!
Ran the test (had to use IE instead of Firefox because even though I have
the latest version of Firefox, I couldn't
load the "IE tab" plug-in)

Anyway, here's the summary of the results from PCPitstop:

Computer Name: (deleted)
Date Tested: Mon Apr 7 12:54:46 EDT 2008

This system performs extremely well on our benchmarks and appears to be
among the fastest systems available! See the information below for your
system details and advice on how to tweak the hardware and software for best
performance.



Cool. I wonder what I am doing correctly?



Eisboch

Microsoft's "New Coke"
 

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:38:53 -0400, D.Duck wrote:


I'm not sure you understand the meaning of TSR. There's no problem with
the typical TSRs running on Vista, when they are called upon. No more
so than WinXP.

With multitasking OSs and protected memory, Terminate-Stay-Resident
programs are a thing of the past, the long lost DOS past.