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?

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.

BAR wrote:
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.


Two of my clients adopted VISTA early on, and when I go for a visit, I
sometimes stop by the IT departments to see what it new. I always ask if
anyone is having any serious VISTA problems, and the answer is always
the same: "Nothing we can't handle...you know, the usual idiot user stuff."

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.

Hey, even I had a VISTA-related problem. I couldn't get the early
release versions of SP1 to install on my desktop. I bitched, apparently
to some of the right people, I got a call back, I was asked to send in a
couple of log files, and a few weeks later, I got an email with
instructions to follow. I did and voila!...SP1 installed properly and
the procedures are now in the MS Knowledge Base.

"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.

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 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.

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.

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, 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.

There are people who enjoy playing with their computers and putzing
around and installing every alpha and beta software that comes along.
They love Vista, because it is a beta software that you actually get to buy.

Someone in rec.boats who purchased a laptop had the same complaint, and
was wondering how to tweak Vista to speed it up. It is a common
complaint in the Vista NG.

I will end up buying my son the MAC since it was important enough for
him to be willing to pay the difference. I am just glad my youngest
daughter loves the idea of the new Lenovo Laptop with XP, because it
will run all of her existing software. Since Lenovo doesn't preload the
computer will all the junk that slows down a new machine, she should
have a blazing fast computer, at half the cost of the MACPRO.

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.

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.

On Apr 6, 11:47*am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry, you lie here constantly. Pretty presumptive of you to call
bull**** on someone you know nothing about.

"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.