Mike Hall - MVP

Of course XP ran faster on a new dual core machine, but lets go back five
years and run XP on a laptop of the day. Indifferent graphics, small hard
drive, 512mb RAM, slow processor because of heat generation problems.
Windows 2000 did it better, Win 98 better still. Business people didn't want
to know it. Too much change for changes sake, they said. Too Fisher-Price.
What will it do that Win 2000 couldn't?

And why run the test using laptops, where the testers know only too well
that most lack the ability to really fly anyway? Because it suited their
purpose is why. On desktops where heat generation is not a problem and more
powerful components can strut their stuff, Vista holds up very well indeed.
It is easier to use after a bit of messing around, and it offers better
security than ever XP could do.

We all know that Vista was designed for the latest and greatest hardware,
for the future!!

What is more, Vista runs more older programs than XP ever did from day one.
Those who have taken the time to persevere a little have been surprised at
just how much does work.

Give Vista a fair trial, and then come back and tell us it is crap, because
some of the information you use is out of date, or rigged in some way.
Explain why my computer works as well as it does even though it is three
years old. I can't afford the latest and greatest hardware for sure, much as
I would like to have it.

Others have come here and said the same as me. We are not just saying it
because we feel like being contrary. It works for us, the applications work
for us, we like the way it looks, we like the way it works. That is NO
crime. It is the findings of 'real' users who use their computers for work
and for play.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




"Alias" <alias@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:fihrb5$703$1@xxxxxx