"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