> I wouldn't say that Vista is that bad, it's more like it's "not that good".
BINGO. Overhyped and underdelivered. But really a very capable O/S.
> First off, you need to understand that most of the reaction to Vista is
> word for word what we heard about XP when it came out.
>
> I would say that if you get 2 GB of RAM and a decent NVidia card, go
> with Vista.
>
> You need to verify with the vendor whether there are drivers for the
> Orinco card.
I can't believe that this is even an issue. Either hardwire the machine
or get a new wireless card...they're cheap enough.
> Also, be aware that you will not be able to get XP after June 30, 2008.
> OEM's will not be able to provide it on their machines.
There are exceptions. The "downgrade" program has been extended but
you'll need to buy from the business side.
"Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:OtERj.3327$WS1.646@trndny04...
> Christopher Muto wrote:
>> "Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4UuRj.215$1m3.108@trndny02...
>>> Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>> "Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:NcuRj.1107$Bd1.1090@trndny09...
>>>>> Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bob, so what are you saying, you recommend vista over xp? can you
>>>>>> tell us why? thanks.
>>>>> What I'm saying is that I don't NOT recommend it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>> i suppose you also don't not recommend xp?
>>>> so, to answer the op's question, what would you recommend?
>>> Go back and read my original response.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> you mean the one where you do not recommend vista on a 'budget' machine.
>> got it. but that seems a little bit like you actually not recomending it
>> (rather than not not recommending it).
>
> Here's the thing. None of us can tell him what's right for him. My main
> point has been that most of the negativity surrounding Vista is coming
> from people that have never tried it or have tried to run it on budget
> systems.
>
> On capable hardware there's nothing wrong with it. And that's from real
> experience trying it both ways.
>
> Bob
'Most of the negativity surrounding Vista is coming from people that have
never tried it or have tried to run it on budget systems'.
Uhm. No. Let us roll back the clock to little more than a year ago, February
of 2007:
(paste)
For example, one February 2007 exchange (PDF, 17 pages) started with an
e-mail to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer from board member Jon Shirley, who
explained that he upgraded one of his computers to Windows Vista only to
find it was experiencing compatibility problems with two of Microsoft's own
MSN applications. Shirley wasn't upgrading his other computer because of a
lack of hardware drivers. As many early Windows Vista users know, Shirley
wasn't the only one experiencing those kinds of problems, especially in the
initial months after release.
In addition to some of the previously reported excerpts -- including
executive Mike Nash's complaint that compatibility problems turned his
$2,100 PC into nothing more than an "email machine" -- that thread led to a
revealing message from Steven Sinofsky, then the newly installed Windows
chief. In the message, Sinofsky offered his take on what went wrong with
Windows Vista's launch, and how the company should change its approach in
the future.
Unless one considers an MS executive's "$2100.00" machine a budget machine?
It was broken from the start, and it may be "better" now, but it's still
broken. And for the apologists who attempt to suggest that the WinXP launch
experienced "the same kind of problems" when it launched, I say, "********".
Microsoft knew Vista was broken. So did Intel. So did all the OEM's. But
the ship had already sailed. They put lipstick on the pig put the spin
machine into overdrive then crossed their fingers and prayed no one would
notice.
They were wrong. What this OS does to perfectly capable hardware is
criminal.
On Apr 29, 1:31*am, Ben Myers <ben_myers_spam_me_...@charter.net>
wrote:
> Proxim Orinoco cards were once the gold standard of 802.11b wifi. *But Intel and
> Broadcom have pretty much overrun the market for wireless cards inside laptops,
> and the many inexpensive consumer wifi cards (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
> TrendNet, etc) have taken care of desktop wifi. *
As long as there's no problem with an adapter talking to a different
brand of access point, then I will get a new adapter if I go with
Vista.
>
> Why can't your parents' new computer be connected directly via an Ethernet cable
> to whatever they use for an internet service provider, either cable internet or
> DSL?
When the cable internet was installed, the installation guy tried to
put the cable modem in the same room that they keep their computer,
but he said that something was in the wall blocking his ability to
drop the cable, so the cable modem is now in a different part of the
house.
> *Wired Ethernet is more reliable and more secure than wifi.
I don't think that's the case. Your internet traffic can be
intercepted regardless of whether you're using wired or wifi. And
even if you are using wifi with no encryption, as long as you are
communicating with a site thru SSL, then you are fine.
> ... Ben Myers
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:44:13 -0700 (PDT), "void.no.spam....@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <void.no.spam....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 28, 8:01 pm, "Christopher Muto" <m...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> <void.no.spam....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:cf5f60cb-f09c-45b1-904b-dae8c27d1e49@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > I've been doing some more reading, and now wonder if my parents should
> >> > get XP or Vista for their new computer.
>
> >> > Is Vista really that bad?
>
> >> if you didn't think so you probaly would not need to ask.
>
> >I don't know what to think since I've never used Vista.
>
> >> > XP is what, 7 years old now?
>
> >> xp was first released in october 2001, so it is 5.5 years old.
>
> >> > In a few years, some software developers
> >> > won't support XP anymore.
>
> >> and you will want a new computer in a few years, won't you?
>
> >This computer will be for my parents, who have used their current
> >Win98 computer for 8 years, so I would not be surprised if they try to
> >use the new computer from now until 2015.
>
> >> >(I have a Windows 2000 PC, and noticed that
> >> > Apple recently stopped supporting Win2K for their QuickTime product.)
> >> > So that would be a reason to get Vista.
>
> >> how are these things realted? *are you asking if you should buy vista
> >> becuase quicktime stoped suporting windows 2000?
>
> >Windows 2000 was first available on March 31, 2000, so that means it
> >took about 8 years for developers to begin to stop supporting it. *If
> >Windows XP follows the same timeline, then it will be late 2009 when
> >developers begin to stop supporting it (since it was released Dec 31,
> >2001). *I think my parents will be really annoyed if they buy a
> >computer with XP now, and then in 2 years, find out they need to
> >upgrade the OS.
>
> >> > Also, does the 32-bit version of Vista support ALL 32-bit apps and
> >> > drivers? *Just wondering if the Orinoco Gold wireless adapter in my
> >> > parents' current computer will work with Vista.
>
> >> sadly it lacks lots of support for older hardware, even after being in the
> >> wild for as long as it has... *you better find the exact model wireless
> >> adapter you are talking about and look it up on the manufacturers site for
> >> compaibility if that is a deciding factor for you.
>
> >It is an Orinoco Gold Classic 802.11b adapter. *Proxim owns the
> >Orinoco brand, and they say nothing on their web site - I don't think
> >they have supported the card in years. *I'll have to assume it won't
> >work with Vista.
On Apr 29, 2:32*am, Colin Wilson
<REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgr...@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
> > *I think my parents will be really annoyed if they buy a
> > computer with XP now, and then in 2 years, find out they need to
> > upgrade the OS.
>
> Vista has been that much of a dead duck, than even Microsoft are bad-
> mouthing it, and Bill Gates is talking about releasing Windows 7 next
> year to try to recover the situation.
>
> So, if support for XP does stop in 2 years, the odds are, the
> replacement for vista will already be with us - hopefully without any
> of the DRM bull**** that makes it as bad as it is.
If support for XP stops in 2 years, they will be annoyed about having
to upgrade, regardless of whether it's upgrading to Vista or Windows 7
or whatever.
On Apr 29, 7:51*am, RnR <rnrte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:32:35 +0100, Colin Wilson
>
>
>
>
>
> <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgr...@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
> >> *I think my parents will be really annoyed if they buy a
> >> computer with XP now, and then in 2 years, find out they need to
> >> upgrade the OS.
>
> >Vista has been that much of a dead duck, than even Microsoft are bad-
> >mouthing it, and Bill Gates is talking about releasing Windows 7 next
> >year to try to recover the situation.
>
> >So, if support for XP does stop in 2 years, the odds are, the
> >replacement for vista will already be with us - hopefully without any
> >of the DRM bull**** that makes it as bad as it is.
>
> >You might notice just how recent these news links are...
>
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...stomer_demand/
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ta_incomplete/
> >http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...tes_windows_7/
>
> Exactly Colin. *My point exactly in a previous post but I guess he
> didn't agree with me??? *
>
> I think people are making too much outa this XP support thing. *I
> might see how it could affect corporations but for home use???? *I
> guess if you are a computer illiterate then okay. * And do people
> really think because they can't patch the **** software it will fall
> apart or be insecure.... *LOL . * *I rarely patch / update mine and
> prefer it that way. *And as far as 3rd party software... *well if it
> works now with XP, it will work later too. *Some people rarely upgrade
> their 3rd party software because they say it works so leave it alone.
> Of course this is a judgement call on the part of the user but my
> point is that I don't think you have to worry necessarily about 3rd
> party software especially if it works now with XP at least till
> windows 7 comes along if they want to upgrade then.
The problem is that sometimes a new version of Flash or whatever comes
out, only supports the latest OS, and then web sites update their
content to only run on the latest version of Flash. Then if you are
using an older OS, you can't see the content.
>I've been doing some more reading, and now wonder if my parents should
>get XP or Vista for their new computer.
>
>Is Vista really that bad?
>
>XP is what, 7 years old now? In a few years, some software developers
>won't support XP anymore. (I have a Windows 2000 PC, and noticed that
>Apple recently stopped supporting Win2K for their QuickTime product.)
>So that would be a reason to get Vista.
>
>Also, does the 32-bit version of Vista support ALL 32-bit apps and
>drivers? Just wondering if the Orinoco Gold wireless adapter in my
>parents' current computer will work with Vista.
I recommend getting Vista with a downgrade option to XP. I don't know
if Dell offers that kind of option but I recently did that with
another manufacturer.
> The problem is that sometimes a new version of
> Flash or whatever comes out, only supports the
> latest OS, and then web sites update their
> content to only run on the latest version of
> Flash.
That's not really so. I am running Windows 2000 on a Latitude D800
laptop and have current copies of the most popular web plug-ins. Flash
and Java are still fully supported and current versions are still
available. Firefox (and other alternative browsers) are available in
up-to-date versions. I've even run the 3.0 betas on a Windows 2000
machine and they work fine.
I don't really get into streaming media, but the last I knew a current
version of RealPlayer was available for Windows 2000. Windows Media
Player 9 still works fine. (The only thing that doesn't is Quicktime
7.1.6, but I think that I might have a corrupted installation of it.)
Although, with the way that these things (especially Flash) are
starting to be misused, I'm not so sure that I will end up caring if
these things are available for my OS or not. I haven't yet given up on
Javascript, but I am using Flashblock all the time.
>On Apr 29, 7:51*am, RnR <rnrte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:32:35 +0100, Colin Wilson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgr...@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote:
>> >> *I think my parents will be really annoyed if they buy a
>> >> computer with XP now, and then in 2 years, find out they need to
>> >> upgrade the OS.
>>
>> >Vista has been that much of a dead duck, than even Microsoft are bad-
>> >mouthing it, and Bill Gates is talking about releasing Windows 7 next
>> >year to try to recover the situation.
>>
>> >So, if support for XP does stop in 2 years, the odds are, the
>> >replacement for vista will already be with us - hopefully without any
>> >of the DRM bull**** that makes it as bad as it is.
>>
>> >You might notice just how recent these news links are...
>>
>> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...stomer_demand/
>> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ta_incomplete/
>> >http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...tes_windows_7/
>>
>> Exactly Colin. *My point exactly in a previous post but I guess he
>> didn't agree with me??? *
>>
>> I think people are making too much outa this XP support thing. *I
>> might see how it could affect corporations but for home use???? *I
>> guess if you are a computer illiterate then okay. * And do people
>> really think because they can't patch the **** software it will fall
>> apart or be insecure.... *LOL . * *I rarely patch / update mine and
>> prefer it that way. *And as far as 3rd party software... *well if it
>> works now with XP, it will work later too. *Some people rarely upgrade
>> their 3rd party software because they say it works so leave it alone.
>> Of course this is a judgement call on the part of the user but my
>> point is that I don't think you have to worry necessarily about 3rd
>> party software especially if it works now with XP at least till
>> windows 7 comes along if they want to upgrade then.
>
>The problem is that sometimes a new version of Flash or whatever comes
>out, only supports the latest OS, and then web sites update their
>content to only run on the latest version of Flash. Then if you are
>using an older OS, you can't see the content.
I can't say but I can say as a web site administrator/author and
business person, this is a bad idea because you are eliminating some
(likely a lot) of your market share (inotherwords if people can't view
your site). Many people (especially Corporations) don't upgrade their
OS right away (except geeks of course) for various reasons.
I guess if you are correct (I'm not sure you are) and those particular
sites are important to you, then I guess go with Vista.
Wireless is not reliable when there are 8 or 9 active wifi access points in
range in a neighborhood (seen this twice in the last 3 months), or when line of
sight between computer and access point has lots of metal, active microwave
appliances, portable phones or cellphones.
Possibly my previous statement is an over-reaction, given that the OP's parents
currently use wifi. But sometimes changing out one element (e.g. another wifi
card for the Proxim) introduces an unexpected cause of unreliability.
.... Ben Myers
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:38:05 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:31:34 -0400, Ben Myers
><ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Proxim Orinoco cards were once the gold standard of 802.11b wifi. But Intel and
>>Broadcom have pretty much overrun the market for wireless cards inside laptops,
>>and the many inexpensive consumer wifi cards (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
>>TrendNet, etc) have taken care of desktop wifi.
>>
>>Why can't your parents' new computer be connected directly via an Ethernet cable
>>to whatever they use for an internet service provider, either cable internet or
>>DSL? Wired Ethernet is more reliable and more secure than wifi.
>>
>>... Ben Myers
>>
>
>
>More reliable??? I've had wireless for a LONG time now and it is
>very reliable. I'm not too sure about the secure part either but I
>know wireless is vulnerable. Otherwise I think your advice is solid
>here.
>
>And yes, I remember too when the Gold cards were the more or less
>elite cards in their day. They were highly praised then. If they
>work with XP (I dunno), it might be worth trying with Vista but no
>guarantees of course.
<SNIP>
>I don't think that's the case. Your internet traffic can be
>intercepted regardless of whether you're using wired or wifi. And
>even if you are using wifi with no encryption, as long as you are
>communicating with a site thru SSL, then you are fine.
<SNIP>
Yes and no. We're talking apples and oranges here. I agree that internet
traffic can be intercepted after it leaves the cable or DSL modem to go to the
ISP. Unless the FBI, CIA or NSA is camped outside your door with expensive and
highly sensitive electronics gear, the odds of someone snooping traffic on an
Ethernet wire inside the building are just about nil. Brrr! Just making that
statement induces paranoia again... Ben Myers
Re: Windows XP or Vista? 
Linear Mode
