I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.

I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.

What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff does
not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.

Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).

I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).



That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
fact.

PS

The computer was designed for Vista, by the way. That is the key. I would
never try to retrofit or use it with less than what I got: 2.1 Ghz Dual
Core, ATI graphics, 3 gigs RAM, etc. This machine loads as fast or faster
than XP, and with all the Aero bells and whistles on multitasks with ease
and fluidly.


"Telstar" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:upseHBh8IHA.2548@xxxxxx

>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>
> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>
> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
> XP.
>
> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>
> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>
> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
> fact.
>
>

> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff

> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
> XP.

I completely agree. There are some really rather impressive technical
changes under the hood. The user interface is better than XP's in most
respects, although some change-for-the-sake-of-change did creep in, and a
number of people dislike the poor contrast for highlighted items.

It is even more stable than XP. The only way to crash Vista is to use bad
hardware or bad drivers.

I haven't noticed much difference in performance, although the benchmarks
clearly show that Vista is a bit slower than XP (XP was slower than W2K -
and so it goes).

Having got XP and Vista machines in daily use, I wouldn't consider
downgrading my Vista machine back to XP.

SteveT

"Telstar" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:upseHBh8IHA.2548@xxxxxx

>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>
> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>
> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
> XP.
>
> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>
> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>
> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
> fact.
>
>

No beef here! Recently had to update from an old XP (but kept up to date)
laptop, and the new Vista one is great; it plays nicely with the Vista
desktop I got in April. Both Home Premium, and matched for using graphics
but not games (laptop rating 3.1, desktop 3) and with SP1. And, as you
mentioned in your PS, bought with Vista installed. I was going to get my old
XP box fixed but now don't think I'll bother; will just donate it or recycle
it.

"LesleyO " <lesleyo@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ebZlOVi8IHA.5984@xxxxxx

>
> "Telstar" <none@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:upseHBh8IHA.2548@xxxxxx

>>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>>
>> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>>
>> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
>> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
>> XP.
>>
>> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>>
>> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
>> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>>
>> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project)
>> lead me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not
>> from fact.
>>
>>

> No beef here! Recently had to update from an old XP (but kept up to date)
> laptop, and the new Vista one is great; it plays nicely with the Vista
> desktop I got in April. Both Home Premium, and matched for using graphics
> but not games (laptop rating 3.1, desktop 3) and with SP1. And, as you
> mentioned in your PS, bought with Vista installed. I was going to get my
> old XP box fixed but now don't think I'll bother; will just donate it or
> recycle it.

I dual boot Vista on a couple systems, one a Q6600/4GB the other a 1.73Ghz
core 2/2GB.
XP runs faster on both.
I don't have problems with Vista, I just don't LIKE it.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:48:29 -0700, "Telstar" <none@xxxxxx> wrote:

>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>
>I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>
>What's the beef?

If you have to ask you're probably too dumb to understand the answer.

>It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff does
>not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.
>
>Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>
>I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
>capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>
>That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
>me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
>fact.

Actually the negatives come from people using Vista and watching it
fall flat on it's face doing simple everyday tasks.

Like... Windows Explorer encountered an unexpected problem and needs
to close. The problem with Vista is the same problem Windows 1 had. It
doesn't work as advertised. Lurking deep inside Windows REGARDLESS of
version are coding mistake Microsoft has yet to address. Yes, I know
all software has bugs. What's so annoying with Windows is as each new
version is released the size of Windows grows and new bugs get added
to ones that were already there. The result is Windows gets more and
more bloated, bugs become more random and way more difficult to
isolate meaning they don't get fixed.

A lot of people simply have no idea how bad Microsoft is with fixing
KNOWN bugs. There bears repeating. KNOWN BUGS. For example when the
final version of Vista was released to beta testers it has a bug list
that numbered in the thousands. While most of those were fixed the
SHIPPED version still contained hundreds of known bugs.

I ask you, would you accept a car that GM knew had brake issues but
sold them anyway? Would you buy food from General Mills they knew was
tainted? Would you buy a big screen plasma TV that had several dozen
pixels that were dead?

No to all of the above?

Then why in the hell to people willing hand over their hard earned
money to Microsoft when they ship a product with hundreds of known
errors that will cause many customers issues?

"zuoer" <XP@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:489098ae@xxxxxx-privat.org...

> sorry to inform you...
>
> vista on 4 core machines is slower than XP on a single core...
>
>
> wait till you install apps and vista starts-a-bitching... lol
>
>
> having vista empty with nothing really installed and not many hardware
> installed may be ok...
>
> once you put vista to the test which are conditions based on real work
> scenarios vista fails so bad it's a joke.
>
> Its not a coincidence that all IT's who know what they are talking about
> advise against vista...
>
> Vista is crap... and that's final.. even microsoft knows this

Guess my laptop is different then. I have 2 XP PC's. Desk top has Pentium
dual-Core, with 1 Gig RAM. laptop has an AMD Dual-Core with 1 Gig RAM, this
has Vista with Pentium Dual-Core and 3 Gig RAM. It has the same AV, ASW and
Firewall, and same programs, pluss all the stuff that came with it that I
don't use. I took all the recommended updates from MS. It boots up
noticeably faster, and when I am doing a few things at the same time, it
runs noticeably better. On the XP lap top if I am running the Anti spyware
it slows down real bad, to the point of being annoying. On the desktop it's
not as bad, but you still see it. On this if I run the ASW and AV at the
same time, then this starts to act like the desktop, a little slower. If I
run just one of the other It acts like nothing is going on.
If you like XP by all means stick with it until they cut off support. I am
sure MS will support it for a hell of a long time yet. When it does run out
you can go to an open source or Mac.
--
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Michael Savage

"zuoer" <XP@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4890c6b0$1@xxxxxx-privat.org...

>
> Whatever I say is a result of study and experience and learning ... I am
> far ahead of the crowd...X
>

This being Usenet that "may" be true, but you see all kinds of claims here.
People are everything from secret agents to president of some un named
multinational corporation.Problem is many of them live in their Mothers
basement and work flipping burgers, but put on their cape and come here to
live a fantasy.
<shrug>

> I may exaggerate a little about vista's crappyness and bad performance of
> vista... this is done for mere effect, to get the message across that
> vista is a pile of crap...
>

You admit you lie, yet people are supposed to believe you?
<shrug>

> but to be sure... XP wins Vista on almost any test you can throw it... if
> of course you are using the same exact hardware..
>
> Have you done this? Tested and compared both OS's on the same exact
> hardware and under many different work scenarios?
>
> Well I have...
>

That was my original post that seemed to get you all worked up. The first
time I set up a Vista machine for a co worker I had a XP laptop with A
Celeron processor and 512 RAM. Worked fine. She had a new Dell with the
same, it ran so bad I often thought it had frozen when I was trying to put a
FW & AV on it. I left that experience thinking Vista is garbage. When I
bought this machine, I found the problem was not the OS, it was the machine
they had loaded it on. Now my first PC I learned on was an ME with 64 megs
of RAM, 766meg. processor . Worked fine except for that strange buggy OS.
One of the kids still has that PC and it does still work. Now according to
you if I put XP on that, it would run like ****, so that makes XP ****,
because it will not run with 64 megs of RAM. Since machines that still run
Win.98 will not handle XP, again XP must be ****. This from an expert huh?

> what I say is based on the scientific method... its not mere
> observation...
>

Sure, you said so.

>
> if its fine for your personal needs then ok...
>
> But you must understand I have in mind all kinds of people and businesses,
> even those who have older hardware and software...
>
>

If they have software they like, and do not wish to replace, then they can
use XP, but that does not mean Vista is crap because someone wants to use
old Software that it will not support, or that you because some kind of
expert. I am far from being even close to that. Many kids in Jr. high
probably know more about these things than I do, yet I had no trouble
learning how to use this, so that does not make me think of someone who
can't figure out how to use it as some kind of expert.
--
Note:
If you find a message or posting from me inappropriate or disruptive just
ignore it. If you do not know to ignore it just E-Mail me to complain and I
will be only too happy to demonstrate.