Do you remember Windows 95? How about 3.1? There has
always been a certain trauma as PC users transitioned
into a new OS. It's no different now, though XP has
become such a good OS after all these years that the
market had unrealistic expectations of Vista. It takes
time in the marketplace - as it always has - for a new
OS to evolve into a fully satisfying solution. In
today's malware-ridden world, Vista is more stable and
much safer than XP.
A small percentage of advanced users who want more
control over what "works" and what "happens" run into
problems. Also, some who wish to convert an older
computer to Vista may have difficulty with compatibility
of drivers, etc. These troubled groups comprise a very
small part of the total Vista user community, but
sometimes become very loud.
The high percentage of users who are pleased by the
enhanced safety, stability, and satisfaction of Vista
are too busy working comfortably on their computers to
raise their voices, and their voices are rarely heard.
Here are some suggested Vista guidelines:
If XP works on your current computer, don't change it.
Wait till you need a new computer.
If you MUST use certain custom or older
non-Vista-certified applications, don't buy a new
computer with Vista on it and expect those apps to work.
If you are buying a new Vista computer, pick a major
brand to ensure hardware and driver compatibility and
lots of testing (don't have a local shop "build" your
Vista computer).
Get at least 2GB of RAM.
Get a nice display, since Vista has a lot of eye candy -
you might as well enjoy it!
Get Vista Home Premium as a minimum.
Do not try to add apps or hardware - especially older
ones - unless they've been Vista certified or someone
credible has reported reliable operation in Vista.
Once your Vista computer is set up with your
Vista-certified applications, do not make a hobby of
installing and trying random junk. If some game or
utility is not Vista-certified, and you install it
anyway, why would you be surprised at problems?
And never, never, EVER use a "registry cleaner" or
"registry defragmenter" (this applies to every OS).
Bob Levine wrote:
> Keith wrote:
>> Its not that I'm against progress, I just don't like change
>> -Mark Twain
>>
>> I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that XP is really quite good. So the question I
>> have (because my Vista knowledge is incomplete) -is do the new
>> features features justify the hardware penalty at this time?
>>
>> For those who are using Vista -what do you think?
>
> The only reason I went to Vista was because XP 64 simply didn't have the
> drivers or support I needed. Vista 64 does. Simple as that.
What were your problem areas, Bob? I'm running XP Pro x64 Edition on my
XPS720 and my only problem is finding a music jukebox (MusicMatch &
Yahoo Musicmatch are 32 bit only).
Tom Lake wrote:
>> I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.
>
> For some things such as file copying, it is slower. For other things
> such as downloading
> files off the Internet, Vista is much faster on our machines.
The server you're downloading from is usually a major factor in download
speed, some are definitely speedier than others.
I just looked at the *preliminary* Vista SP1 release notes...the ones
that detail the hotfixes and security updates. They are 74 pages long
according to my copy of Microsoft Word XP.
To be fair, I do realize that this is a preliminary list. I also
realize that some of the pages in the document (about three) are title
and disclaimer pages. But that still leaves 71 pages for the
discussion of fixes.
71 pages...wow.
I'm not through it all yet, but I really hope that one of the
"revisions" in SP1 is the ability to fully customize and adjust
Explorer toolbars (and IE7 ones as well, though I don't use IE and
therefore don't really care).
'And never, never, EVER use a "registry cleaner" or
"registry defragmenter" (this applies to every OS).' And why would that be?
Does your assertion have to do specifically with Vista?
I routinely use CCleaner to get rid of the registry entries no longer needed,
and Microsoft's PageDfrg to defragment the registry and other files which can be
defragged through the usual Windows defragger. So far, I have survived these
efforts. So has my computer. So have the computers of many of my clients.
Please enlighten us... Ben Myers
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:00:51 -0800, Ike <binarydotike@gmail.com> wrote:
>Do you remember Windows 95? How about 3.1? There has
>always been a certain trauma as PC users transitioned
>into a new OS. It's no different now, though XP has
>become such a good OS after all these years that the
>market had unrealistic expectations of Vista. It takes
>time in the marketplace - as it always has - for a new
>OS to evolve into a fully satisfying solution. In
>today's malware-ridden world, Vista is more stable and
>much safer than XP.
>
>A small percentage of advanced users who want more
>control over what "works" and what "happens" run into
>problems. Also, some who wish to convert an older
>computer to Vista may have difficulty with compatibility
>of drivers, etc. These troubled groups comprise a very
>small part of the total Vista user community, but
>sometimes become very loud.
>
>The high percentage of users who are pleased by the
>enhanced safety, stability, and satisfaction of Vista
>are too busy working comfortably on their computers to
>raise their voices, and their voices are rarely heard.
>
>Here are some suggested Vista guidelines:
>
>If XP works on your current computer, don't change it.
>Wait till you need a new computer.
>
>If you MUST use certain custom or older
>non-Vista-certified applications, don't buy a new
>computer with Vista on it and expect those apps to work.
>
>If you are buying a new Vista computer, pick a major
>brand to ensure hardware and driver compatibility and
>lots of testing (don't have a local shop "build" your
>Vista computer).
>
>Get at least 2GB of RAM.
>
>Get a nice display, since Vista has a lot of eye candy -
>you might as well enjoy it!
>
>Get Vista Home Premium as a minimum.
>
>Do not try to add apps or hardware - especially older
>ones - unless they've been Vista certified or someone
>credible has reported reliable operation in Vista.
>
>Once your Vista computer is set up with your
>Vista-certified applications, do not make a hobby of
>installing and trying random junk. If some game or
>utility is not Vista-certified, and you install it
>anyway, why would you be surprised at problems?
>
>And never, never, EVER use a "registry cleaner" or
>"registry defragmenter" (this applies to every OS).
>
>Ike
Tony Harding wrote:
> Bob Levine wrote:
>> Keith wrote:
>>> Its not that I'm against progress, I just don't like change
>>> -Mark Twain
>>>
>>> I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.
>>>
>>> Part of the problem is that XP is really quite good. So the question
>>> I have (because my Vista knowledge is incomplete) -is do the new
>>> features features justify the hardware penalty at this time?
>>>
>>> For those who are using Vista -what do you think?
>>
>> The only reason I went to Vista was because XP 64 simply didn't have
>> the drivers or support I needed. Vista 64 does. Simple as that.
> What were your problem areas, Bob? I'm running XP Pro x64 Edition on my
> XPS720 and my only problem is finding a music jukebox (MusicMatch &
> Yahoo Musicmatch are 32 bit only).
Biggest factor is Adobe Creative Suite software...seems to be a bit
troublesome on XP64 but works just fine on Vista64. When I searched for
printer drivers I found what I was looking for for Vista...didn't bother
looking for XP.
My only issue is with an older scanner that won't cost very much at all
to replace and I still have the old Dim9100 hooked up so that's not a
big issue right now.
At some point I'll buy a new scanner and upgrade Quickbooks to 2008.
Ben Myers wrote:
> 'And never, never, EVER use a "registry cleaner" or
> "registry defragmenter" (this applies to every OS).' And why would that be?
> Does your assertion have to do specifically with Vista?
>
> I routinely use CCleaner to get rid of the registry entries no longer needed,
> and Microsoft's PageDfrg to defragment the registry and other files which can be
> defragged through the usual Windows defragger. So far, I have survived these
> efforts. So has my computer. So have the computers of many of my clients.
>
> Please enlighten us... Ben Myers
Sure. The two IT companies we use make a substantial
portion of their revenue fixing the result of cleaning
and/or defragmentation of registries. In one case, two
of their employees work nights doing private machines,
advertising on craigslist that they can undo such things.
> Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
> make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
> that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.
Google "longest suicide note in history" - it makes for entertaining
reading :-)
"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fjrgiv$jrv$1@aioe.org...
>> I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.
> For some things such as file copying, it is slower.
Tom Lake
I am soo 'glad' to read that! I thought I just had an underpowered system
for vista. Yes, copying/moving files seems to take an age under
vista...'wonder why?
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:30:52 -0800, Ike <binarydotike@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Ben Myers wrote:
>> 'And never, never, EVER use a "registry cleaner" or
>> "registry defragmenter" (this applies to every OS).' And why would that be?
>> Does your assertion have to do specifically with Vista?
>>
>> I routinely use CCleaner to get rid of the registry entries no longer needed,
>> and Microsoft's PageDfrg to defragment the registry and other files which can be
>> defragged through the usual Windows defragger. So far, I have survived these
>> efforts. So has my computer. So have the computers of many of my clients.
>>
>> Please enlighten us... Ben Myers
>
>
>Sure. The two IT companies we use make a substantial
>portion of their revenue fixing the result of cleaning
>and/or defragmentation of registries. In one case, two
>of their employees work nights doing private machines,
>advertising on craigslist that they can undo such things.
This reminds me of what I read some time ago that perhaps the viri is
actually made by the anti-virus companies to sell their wares. I
don't know but it makes for interesting thought.
Re: Windows VISTA .... really that bad? 
I thought I just had an underpowered system 
Linear Mode
