i like vista, but it does have its problems, thats why these forums
exist. i was happy with XP SP2, it was very stable and did not have
many issues with most hardware/software. however i felt the need to
learn about vista and the only way to do that is to live with it. if a
problem arises i don't mind spending time resolving it, but this can
drive some people insane when all they want to do is use the computer
for whatever. vista is good to look at and very intelligent when
plugging in periferal devices, but is very resource hungry and needs
tweaking to perform better. so in conclusion it much depends on your
temperament and whether you want to learn vista. decide between want
and need.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64
<mh64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6
> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently
> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
Whenever anything new comes out, you hear about people having problems
with it. That's because those having problems are looking for help,
and are the most vocal. For example, if you're reading about problems
*here*, this where people come with their problems, not with their
successes. You get a very distorted view of what's going on in the
real world here; as someone once said, "hang around a transmission
shop and you will think that all cars have transmission problems."
Moreover, most problems, by far, that people report here have nothing
to do with defects in the software. They result from people's
ignorance, from bad or inadequate hardware, from old drivers, from
viruses, from spyware, and so on. And except for very rare situations,
they always get a fix for their problems, and in most cases, that fix
is a very simple one to implement.
My experience with Vista has been very positive, and I'm happy with
it. But be aware that there are differences between XP and Vista, and,
as with anything else new, learning to get accustomed to those
differences can take some time and be frustrating at first. Give
yourself time to learn and get accustomed to what's new.
> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit
> available computer selection?
If you were asking about upgrading an existing machine running XP, my
reply would be to go slowly and not rush into it. But to me it makes
no sense to get a new machine with yesterday's operating system. Yes,
get Vista, not XP.
Just make sure that the machine you get has adequate hardware for
Vista. In particular, most people should have at least 2GB of RAM, and
I wouldn't recommend getting less.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
The date and time was 2/5/2008 10:53 AM, and on a whim, mh64 pounded out
on the keyboard:
> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6
> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently
> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit
> available computer selection?
Well, you can see the good and the bad by the replies. I would ask
yourself;
1. Is there anything Vista offers that I need?
2. Is there any hardware or software that I currently use that I will
have to purchase because it won't work in Vista? Can I afford the upgrades?
--
Terry R.
***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
It's not Microsoft that is making the hardware obsolete, it is the hardware
manufacturers who do not want to write a Vista driver and would rather you
purchase a new piece of hardware.
--
Paul
"Rich T" wrote:
> What is so bad about a four year old scanner then? They are just as good as
> a brand new one.
> Same for webcams.
> No significant technical progress (except they are cheaper).
> So why make them obsolete?
>
> Vista is a rip off - just forces users to shell out loads of dosh for
> replacement hardware and software that has no significant advantage.
>
> Would you throw away a car every three or four years? Of course not! But
> Vista insists that everything older than three years is "obsolete"!!!!
>
> Tell me, what can Office 2007 do that Office 2003 cannot do? Answer -
> absolutely nothing to anybody who lives in the real world.
>
>
>
> "Cameron Snyder" <dntbther@tellpacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:e3oP1uCaIHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Vista, of course, but don't expect to use your 5-year old scanner or your
> > 4-year old webcam, not that you couldn't, but have those drivers been
> > updated?
> >
> >
> > "mh64" <mh64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...
> >> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every
> >> 5-6
> >> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that
> >> time(currently
> >> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
> >> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
> >> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really
> >> limit
> >> available computer selection?
> >
>
>
By the way Office 2003 works fine in Vista.
--
Paul
"Rich T" wrote:
> What is so bad about a four year old scanner then? They are just as good as
> a brand new one.
> Same for webcams.
> No significant technical progress (except they are cheaper).
> So why make them obsolete?
>
> Vista is a rip off - just forces users to shell out loads of dosh for
> replacement hardware and software that has no significant advantage.
>
> Would you throw away a car every three or four years? Of course not! But
> Vista insists that everything older than three years is "obsolete"!!!!
>
> Tell me, what can Office 2007 do that Office 2003 cannot do? Answer -
> absolutely nothing to anybody who lives in the real world.
>
>
>
> "Cameron Snyder" <dntbther@tellpacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:e3oP1uCaIHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Vista, of course, but don't expect to use your 5-year old scanner or your
> > 4-year old webcam, not that you couldn't, but have those drivers been
> > updated?
> >
> >
> > "mh64" <mh64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...
> >> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every
> >> 5-6
> >> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that
> >> time(currently
> >> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
> >> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
> >> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really
> >> limit
> >> available computer selection?
> >
>
>
"mh64" <mh64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...
> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every
> 5-6
> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently
> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really
> limit
> available computer selection?
Sure, get Vista if you want to buy almost all new hardware and software. See
how your boss likes that.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:i8ehq3podlj84nfc67bgrhh3vicom785lh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64
> <mh64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every
>> 5-6
>> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that
>> time(currently
>> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
>> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
>
>
> Whenever anything new comes out, you hear about people having problems
> with it. That's because those having problems are looking for help,
> and are the most vocal. For example, if you're reading about problems
> *here*, this where people come with their problems, not with their
> successes. You get a very distorted view of what's going on in the
> real world here; as someone once said, "hang around a transmission
> shop and you will think that all cars have transmission problems."
>
> Moreover, most problems, by far, that people report here have nothing
> to do with defects in the software. They result from people's
> ignorance, from bad or inadequate hardware, from old drivers, from
> viruses, from spyware, and so on. And except for very rare situations,
> they always get a fix for their problems, and in most cases, that fix
> is a very simple one to implement.
>
> My experience with Vista has been very positive, and I'm happy with
> it. But be aware that there are differences between XP and Vista, and,
> as with anything else new, learning to get accustomed to those
> differences can take some time and be frustrating at first. Give
> yourself time to learn and get accustomed to what's new.
>
>
>> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really
>> limit
>> available computer selection?
>
>
> If you were asking about upgrading an existing machine running XP, my
> reply would be to go slowly and not rush into it. But to me it makes
> no sense to get a new machine with yesterday's operating system. Yes,
> get Vista, not XP.
>
> Just make sure that the machine you get has adequate hardware for
> Vista. In particular, most people should have at least 2GB of RAM, and
> I wouldn't recommend getting less.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:30:18 +0100, "Rich T" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4F3D4EFE-5723-4C15-AFA3-EBA612371832@microsoft.com...
>> I've been using Windows Vista for well over a year now
>> and have not encountered any significant issues.
>
>No significant issues? How about answering some of my "insignificant issues"
>on this forum then?
>
>eg - completely random, unpredictable USB driver failures casuing repeated
>catastrophic loss of computer use - even mouse fails! Vista unable to load
>new hardware drivers etc?
>
>eg - massive problems with drivers for sound cards so it is impossible to
>use Skype on my Dimension 9200?
>
>eg - perfectly good software and hardware not backwards compatible - ie
>forced to throw out and replace a perfectly good HP printer, Adobe
>Professional 6.0, Garmin 1000 simulator does not work, Symantec Winfax pro
>does not work.
>
>Vista not even compatible with Microsoft products - eg appalling interface
>with Live One Care (which was a brilliant program on XP), Vista does not
>work with my Microsoft mouse, Vista shuts down because of DEP whenever I try
>to import a jpeg movie from my Microsoft PDA phone, Microsoft digital
>fingerprint reader making Windows sidebar gadgets unusable because of the
>red splodge over the gadget - and I could go on and on. I have repeatedly
>sought solutions to these problems on this and other forums and no answers.
>ANd then MVP claim there are no problems !!!! LOOOOOOOOL!!!!
Read again.
He said that HE has not encountered significant issues, nor have I.
Vista isn't everything it's touted to be....yet. As I remember,
neither was XP at first. Any compatibility problems that I've
experienced have been cleared up by contacting the app's support
group.
It's a drag that you've had this bad experience. Hope it works out
better for you.
bk
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64
<mh64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6
>years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently
>using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems
>with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?
>Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit
>available computer selection?
For a non-technical user, you should definitely go with XP unless you
intend to install zero apps and install zero peripherals after your
new PC arrives. Vista is plagued with compability problems, many of
which still exist even with SP1.
The date and time was 2/5/2008 12:35 PM, and on a whim, Bobby Knight
pounded out on the keyboard:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:30:18 +0100, "Rich T" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>> He said that HE has not encountered significant issues, nor have I.
>> Vista isn't everything it's touted to be....yet. As I remember,
>> neither was XP at first.
When people use that as an excuse for Vista, it doesn't hold water. If
you remember correctly, most users moved from Win9x to XP (I'll leave Me
out of it). Those who were using W2K didn't have the extreme
incompatibility issues that plagued those moving from XP to Vista. In
fact, XP was MORE compatible than W2K. XP was a major rewrite of the OS
from Win9x. The same cannot be said about XP to Vista.
--
Terry R.
***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Re: Vista or XP? 
Linear Mode
