Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well said Harry, All change is not progress. I think they finally got it right at xp. I have always liked xp from the first time I played with it as 98 in the end (or my end for it) was quirky and at that time overridden with virus attempts. Their need for change is motivated by profit. Where Intel is in the mix? Or rather why? I dont know. But WinTel has now decided you need to buy a new computer to play with others. (I don't have to mention mention linux runs seemingly quick on anything I throw it on and does almost everything I need, so a small lightweight core IS possible). I dont see too much progress involved with Vista. I dont see too many enterprises rushing to roll it out either, they must not see the progress either. If i had one computer to deal with, Id be ok with Vista. My problem is at work i have 1300 to deal with. Our 'trial' was an utmost disaster. Most of our ancient software (this is a school, educational software is so far behind the times its amazing), wont work. It would work locally, but we have it all networked (with xp). I have over 100 packages to deal with. Of the 'trial crew', only one still runs vista by choice. The vista ready laptops we have? I personally woudln't run Vista on ANY of them. (mid to high end tecras). I tried it on our (at the time, 1 yr ago) newest models with barely accepable results. (startup, login, shutdown times, too long). Hanging between users, drive mappings timing out, legacy and older apps not working, battery life horrible, etc. Just not enough hours in the day. One day we will have to revisit it, and god willing, Ill have another profession lined up.
You can't judge Vista by its performance when it was released. Its still not perfect, but it has come a long ways since then. I got Vista when it came out, and went back to XP within a month. I installed Vista again in October and haven't looked back since.
Anyways you shouldn't use XP if you have more than 3GB of RAM. XP caps it off at 3.2GB. XP-64 has more problems than Vista and isn't worth using, you your only real choices for a high end system are Vista or a Linux distro.
You can't judge Vista by its performance when it was released. Its still not perfect, but it has come a long ways since then. I got Vista when it came out, and went back to XP within a month. I installed Vista again in October and haven't looked back since.
Anyways you shouldn't use XP if you have more than 3GB of RAM. XP caps it off at 3.2GB. XP-64 has more problems than Vista and isn't worth using, you your only real choices for a high end system are Vista or a Linux distro.
Same here. However, the more than 3GB of RAM also applies to Vista 32 (I know, I have 4 gigs...but they were cheap!), but I hear it works with the Vista 64 version.
Why wouldnt keeping xp alive be the answer? Whats wrong with it? It does everything I need. It does everything most people need. The applications are there, drivers are there, it could be dirt cheap if m$ decided to keep it and still sell it. People would buy it.
Ignorant consumer? Everyones supposed to be a computer specialist? How about people that just see it as a tool. Expect it to be as fast as xp? If i bought a computer today it would be TWICE as powerful as any of the junk I already own. Yes id expect vista to be FASTER. not slower!!
Your post is spot on! I've been working with computers since 1995, I bought my fist PC in the early 80's (Leading Edge 8088 4.77MHz machine), I learn something new every day! Technology is always "a work in process". I can hold my own with advanced computer users, but certainly not with IT/MIS guys and gals! They would smoke me like a cheap cigar!
I'd say they all had problems at first, if not, what was the need for SP 1-2?
Yeah, but Vista is still AFU'd and MS is working on releasing Windows 7 in 2010. Wouldn't it be better to replace the tires on the present Windows OS (Vista), rather than patching the tires and hoping for no blowouts until the next Windows OS is released? BTW, I run (2) Windows machines, one running W2K Pro and the second machine running XP Pro. My XP machine has sufficient processor and RAM resources to run Vista Enhanced Home Version but there is just no way that I would install any version of Vista on my XP Machine! It would be like putting bicycle wheels on a Cadilac!
Last edited by Steve Hazzard; 04-15-2008 at 12:47 PM..
Reason: Additional text.
Your post is spot on! I've been working with computers since 1995, I bought my fist PC in the early 80's (Leading Edge 8088 4.77MHz machine), I learn something new every day! Technology is always "a work in process". I can hold my own with advanced computer users, but certainly not with IT/MIS guys and gals! They would smoke me like a cheap cigar!
Let me illustrate it in a way people with older computers would understand. When Windows 98 came out, the standard was 32MB of RAM and Pentium 1s. When XP came out, many budget PCs had 128MB of RAM and Pentium 3s. That is 4 times the processing power, but Windows 98 would still run faster in 128MB of RAM than XP would. XP didn't really start picking up speed until 512MB of RAM and reached its full potential around 1GB. Vista starts picking up speed around 2GB and you need 4GB + 64-bit Vista before you will notice a huge improvement over XP as far as raw speed is concerned.
The problem is XP was out for too long. People got used to it and now nobody is willing to change. Vista is also the first Windows release in the age of blogs and broadband. It recieved a very negative reputation in the begining (some of it is justified) and that reputation will forever stick.
Let me illustrate it in a way people with older computers would understand. When Windows 98 came out, the standard was 32MB of RAM and Pentium 1s. When XP came out, many budget PCs had 128MB of RAM and Pentium 3s. That is 4 times the processing power, but Windows 98 would still run faster in 128MB of RAM than XP would. XP didn't really start picking up speed until 512MB of RAM and reached its full potential around 1GB. Vista starts picking up speed around 2GB and you need 4GB + 64-bit Vista before you will notice a huge improvement over XP as far as raw speed is concerned.
The problem is XP was out for too long. People got used to it and now nobody is willing to change. Vista is also the first Windows release in the age of blogs and broadband. It recieved a very negative reputation in the begining (some of it is justified) and that reputation will forever stick.
Vista=upgraded hardware=upgraded software/firmware=64 bit processors=64 bit applications=$$$. I had a Gateway 2000 machine that ran Windows 98 Second Edition, Pentium II (200MHz), 64MB of RAM and a 5GB HDD. I was able to run Windows 2000 Pro with basic Internet functionality. I was running a DSL (768X128kbs) ISP which is the same DSL I'm currently running. My point is that the "average" computer user can not afford and/or is not willing to spend the necessary $$$ to make use of the Vista OS. MS flat out lied in its press releases that the low and middle end machines would upgrade to the Vista OS when they were purchased with XP Home Edition installed. The Evil Empire flat out lied! Now all these people that bought these middle and low end machines are stuck with a useless box when it comes to running Vista because these machines do not have the required resources to even run the basic Home Version of Vista! If that's not fraud and deceit, then I must be a dedicated stupid person!
Vista has me rather disgruntled...one error after another when i first got this laptop i was having "compatibility issues" oh and the classic "windows sidebar is restarting" ...
Vista has me rather disgruntled...one error after another when i first got this laptop i was having "compatibility issues" oh and the classic "windows sidebar is restarting" ...
Having to constantly re-start (re-boot) Windows OS's is my number one MS complaint! Sometimes, I'll just shut my machine down in total disgust! It's either shut down the machine, or send it on a 35 foot one-way trip to the ground from my 4th floor apartment balcony!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a Gateway 2000 machine that ran Windows 98 Second Edition, Pentium II (200MHz), 64MB of RAM and a 5GB HDD. I was able to run Windows 2000 Pro with basic Internet functionality. I was running a DSL (768X128kbs) ISP which is the same DSL I'm currently running. My point is that the "average" computer user can not afford and/or is not willing to spend the necessary $$$ to make use of the Vista OS. MS flat out lied in its press releases that the low and middle end machines would upgrade to the Vista OS when they were purchased with XP Home Edition installed. The Evil Empire flat out lied! 
Now all these people that bought these middle and low end machines are stuck with a useless box when it comes to running Vista because these machines do not have the required resources to even run the basic Home Version of Vista! If that's not fraud and deceit, then I must be a dedicated stupid person! 
