>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.
>
>Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
>suggestions?
>
>Thank You in advance
>
>NJA
Personally it's fine for me when I turn off most of its new features.
My dislike with Vista isn't that it runs poorly or has bugs. My
dislike is what it could have been, and the vast waste of resources
used to produce something that isn't better than what it replaces.
(I get slightly better performance running Vista as opposed to XP on a
high end PC with the Vista features turned off)
Turn off Vista indexing (in advance power options and Outlook too),
and Aero glass and make other tweaks and Vista in my experience runs
slightly faster than XP on a high-end computer with 2GB RAM.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:02:00 -0700, "Keith" <keithtucaz@hotmail.com>
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?
>
>"Hank Arnold (MVP)" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:476102d1$0$5947$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> nj_annie@golfilla.info wrote:
>>> Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
>>> make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
>>> that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.
>>>
>>> Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
>>> suggestions?
>>>
>>> Thank You in advance
>>>
>>> NJA
>>
>> Make sure that you get sufficient hardware to run it OK. For example, you
>> should have at least 2GB of RAM and a decent 3D video card.
>>
>> Also, make sure that the programs you use will run on Vista. Many need
>> updates or new versions. You need to be sure that there are drivers for
>> any hardware that you plan to add to the system (pritner, scanner, etc.).
>>
>> If you do your homework and get a decent system, Vista will run fine.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank Arnold
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Server - Directory Services
"Joe" <NoMail@thdkhjnasjtlmjdy.com> wrote in message
news:9Lf8j.40564$cJ3.36244@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>
> "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?
>
> Joe.
>
That's one of the things to be addressed in the Service Pack.
It all depends which software one uses to fiddle with the registry then, doesn't
it? I'll say it again. I have not been burned yet using CCleaner and PageDfrg
(PageFileDefrag). Am I just lucky dodging bullets, or do they work?
.... Ben Myers
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.
In following up, I find your response vague. There are no details. Is this a
case of trying to instill FUD with vague claims?
The other side of the coin is that there are countless IE popups and
unscrupulous ads on web pages advertising this or that system tuning product, or
even a "free" something or other. If some IT types are making money evenings,
maybe they are fixing up the results of some truly bogus software?
Nevertheless, some exacting detail would be in order from you, rather than
broadsides and potshots at any and all registry cleaning and defragging tools!
.... Ben Myers
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.
"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote in message
news:jjc3m3pmgqtops9iulg3mcmao6jueoti66@4ax.com...
> It all depends which software one uses to fiddle with the registry then,
> doesn't
> it? I'll say it again. I have not been burned yet using CCleaner and
> PageDfrg
> (PageFileDefrag). Am I just lucky dodging bullets, or do they work?
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
I would also add Abexo Registry Cleaner to that list of effective/safe
utilities.
I'm in the camp that believes that the minimal (if any) improvements
resulting from using registry cleaners are not worth the risks involved...
--
Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services
Ben Myers wrote:
> It all depends which software one uses to fiddle with the registry then, doesn't
> it? I'll say it again. I have not been burned yet using CCleaner and PageDfrg
> (PageFileDefrag). Am I just lucky dodging bullets, or do they work?
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
> 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.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:42:31 -0500, "Hank Arnold (MVP)"
<rasilon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I'm in the camp that believes that the minimal (if any) improvements
>resulting from using registry cleaners are not worth the risks involved...
Well I'm not sure I agree or disagree with you (but my guess is more
disagree) because I agree that the improvements after each cleaning
action was minimal but that the risk was minimal too because most had
a restore feature (at least the ones I used) so in my mind, there was
little if any risk thereby making even the minimal improvement worthy.
Bob Levine wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the feedback.
> At some point I'll buy a new scanner and upgrade Quickbooks to 2008.
I use both when I do a clean install of Windows. Yesterday, I installed XP Pro
SP2 + all applicable MicroBloat updates including IE 7 + Acrobat Reader + Java
1.5 on two Dell Optiplex SSF systems for delivery to a client. Each time when I
was done, the registry itself was divided into 12 fragments, and other
"undefragmentable" files were also fragmented. PageFileDefrag took care of the
fragmentation. Keep in mind that PageFileDefrag is now a free Microsoft
product, because Mark Russinovich and Sysinternals were bought and absorbed by
the borg a couple of years ago. Had PageFileDefrag served no redeeming purpose,
Microsoft could easily have made it vanish.
I have also encountered unbelievably sluggish systems that came close to their
former original out of the box glory (and responsiveness) after a once-over with
CCleaner and PageFileDefrag. In some cases, there were over a thousand useless
registry entries deleted by CCleaner. This is the result of installing and
uninstalling lots of different packages, for example.
Instead of blowing away the hard drive and reinstalling Windows some time to fix
a sluggish system, try CCleaner and PageFileDefrag... Ben Myers
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:56:05 -0600, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:42:31 -0500, "Hank Arnold (MVP)"
><rasilon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm in the camp that believes that the minimal (if any) improvements
>>resulting from using registry cleaners are not worth the risks involved...
>
>
>Well I'm not sure I agree or disagree with you (but my guess is more
>disagree) because I agree that the improvements after each cleaning
>action was minimal but that the risk was minimal too because most had
>a restore feature (at least the ones I used) so in my mind, there was
>little if any risk thereby making even the minimal improvement worthy.
Re: Windows VISTA .... really that bad? 
I thought I just had an underpowered 
Linear Mode
