Hi,

If I remembered correctly, one of my office systems (as a personal file
backup machine) is using GeForce 5xxx series card with 128MB and I had no
problem seeing Aero. OK - I admitted it, it's not a 100% business-use but
also for some light games (Age of Empire, etc.) when I'm bored

But I'd suggest you to wait until Vista is released and there will be lots
of new cards coming out and you can buy this one at even lower price.



Good luck!

"Daze N. Knights" <Daze@microchip.com> wrote in message
news:%23YJxq9NDHHA.3492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Jane C wrote:
>> Daze, you're confusing the Intel chipset that has onboard graphics, such
>> as the 945 with the 950 onboard gpu, with the standard Intel chipsets
>> with no onboard graphics. Not all Intel chipsets have onboard graphics.
>> You have a separate dedicated graphics card, so whether the Intel chipset
>> supports Aero is a moot point in your case. Aero is a feature of the
>> graphics card or integrated graphics chip, not the motherboard chipset.
>> In any case, your Geforce MX 400 will not support Aero. Geforce 5200
>> series and above only have the requisites for Aero glass, such as Pixel
>> Shader 2.
>>
>
> WHAT?!?! So I really only need a new video card, as I originally believed,
> and have just become confused over the chipset issue, which only relates
> to *onboard* graphics? What WONDERFUL news!!!! Thanks for being so clear
> in your correction of my points of confusion, Jane C. And thanks to Bill G
> for first pointing out that my Intel 845 MB should not be an issue here. I
> am SO relieved!
>
> So then, THAT sends me back to just dealing with my earlier quandary: What
> would be the best (AGP 4x) video card for me (a non-gamer) to get that
> would cost me the absolute least money? I had originally settled on the
> 256MB 128bit NVIDIA GeForce FX5500 ($56 at NewEgg). Assuming my
> motherboard issue has become (thankfully) moot, do I hear any good
> arguments for me (a non-gamer) investing in a more expensive video card?
>
> --
> Daze

xfile wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I remembered correctly, one of my office systems (as a personal file
> backup machine) is using GeForce 5xxx series card with 128MB and I had no
> problem seeing Aero. OK - I admitted it, it's not a 100% business-use but
> also for some light games (Age of Empire, etc.) when I'm bored
>
> But I'd suggest you to wait until Vista is released and there will be lots
> of new cards coming out and you can buy this one at even lower price.
>
> Good luck!
>
> "Daze N. Knights" <Daze@microchip.com> wrote in message
> news:%23YJxq9NDHHA.3492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Jane C wrote:
>>> Daze, you're confusing the Intel chipset that has onboard graphics, such
>>> as the 945 with the 950 onboard gpu, with the standard Intel chipsets
>>> with no onboard graphics. Not all Intel chipsets have onboard graphics.
>>> You have a separate dedicated graphics card, so whether the Intel chipset
>>> supports Aero is a moot point in your case. Aero is a feature of the
>>> graphics card or integrated graphics chip, not the motherboard chipset.
>>> In any case, your Geforce MX 400 will not support Aero. Geforce 5200
>>> series and above only have the requisites for Aero glass, such as Pixel
>>> Shader 2.
>>>
>> WHAT?!?! So I really only need a new video card, as I originally believed,
>> and have just become confused over the chipset issue, which only relates
>> to *onboard* graphics? What WONDERFUL news!!!! Thanks for being so clear
>> in your correction of my points of confusion, Jane C. And thanks to Bill G
>> for first pointing out that my Intel 845 MB should not be an issue here. I
>> am SO relieved!
>>
>> So then, THAT sends me back to just dealing with my earlier quandary: What
>> would be the best (AGP 4x) video card for me (a non-gamer) to get that
>> would cost me the absolute least money? I had originally settled on the
>> 256MB 128bit NVIDIA GeForce FX5500 ($56 at NewEgg). Assuming my
>> motherboard issue has become (thankfully) moot, do I hear any good
>> arguments for me (a non-gamer) investing in a more expensive video card?
>>
>> --
>> Daze
>
>

Might be good advice. Thanks for the input!

--
Daze

Bill G. wrote:
> I have an Intel 845 m/b, P4 @ 2.26GHz, 40 GB UATA w/ 2 partitions for XP
> and Vista, 768 ram, and an ATI 9600. Aero works fine for me (so it
> should for you, Daze)

I see you've got 768MB RAM to my 512. I've been debating as to whether
spending $56 to add an additional 256 RAM to mine would suffice, or if I
should invest $40 more to up my RAM to a full gig. Do you think I'm
likely to see much difference between 768MB and 1GB?


--
Daze

OK. MVPs do not take on responsibility to help. We are not MS employees.
We try to be helpful where we can, and if we are helpful enough that other
MVPs notice, then we're nominated into a program where there are a few
perks. By no means is it compensation for work performed, and after you've
been awarded, it is very explicit that the award is for past performance and
there is no obligation. So any help is voluntary. We have lives too, but
sometimes in our free time we offer free help, instead of private consulting
during that time for $75/hr plus.

I have an HP NX9005e Athlon XP 2400+ with 768 MB RAM. It installs Vista in
under 45 minutes, I'd say it's more like 25-30 minutes for a clean install.
I just installed on my Sempron 3100 a couple of days ago and it took about
20 minutes. I installed it on a virtual machine and it took around an hour.
I have a couple of P4s at work, 2.4 and 3.2 GHz, with either 512 MB or 1 GB
of RAM, and I installed on them in about 30 minutes tops. I just upgraded
my RC2 x64 EMT64T 3.4 to RTM x64, 1 GB of RAM. It had a fair bit of stuff
on it. It took under 2 hours.
All the machines I have installed Vista on have been snappy, almost as fast
as XP to sometimes faster.

If you don't see benefits to Vista, you're not looking close enough. Paul
Thurrott said it well, from far away it doesn't look like a compelling
upgrade, but from close examination, the benefits are very numerous. (I
don't reference him often but IMO his latest articles were well-written and
mostly accurate).

Anyway sorry for the rant. It's just that I had a lot of things to do
tonight and instead spent time helping people online... for free....

Rich
MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
"tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
> The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
> either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives. That's
> my
> point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
> memory.
> It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people
> still
> using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long install
> times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect long
> install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
>
> The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
> MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and should
> be
> trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
> one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed of
> themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on
> these
> boards.
>
> As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm saying
> don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate and
> Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of years
> for
> Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
> something to make this a better operating system and not a multi-million
> dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have spent
> tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
>
> So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
> Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about
> Vista
> makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
> Vista?
> So far, absolutely nothing.
>
> "Tim Draper" wrote:
>
>> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
>> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
>> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
>>
>> i installed with 1gb ram
>> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
>>
>> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
>> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
>> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same thing
>> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
>>
>> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
>> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
>> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
>>
>> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail yet
>> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
>> media player is unstable then use something else.
>>
>> tim
>>
>> tairobi wrote:
>> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad Harris,
>> > who
>> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
>> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
>> >
>> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta 3
>> > to
>> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
>> > comparing to
>> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with
>> > Windows
>> > Vista.
>> >
>> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
>> > installed
>> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
>> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I popped
>> > in
>> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
>> > operating
>> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades
>> > from
>> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows XP
>> > SP2 to
>> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums,
>> > other
>> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was going
>> > on for
>> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically
>> > take
>> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours is
>> > slow.
>> > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It
>> > upgrades
>> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here internally
>> > at
>> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>> >
>> >
>> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>> >
>> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes to
>> > go
>> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let me
>> > do
>> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and
>> > the OS
>> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it
>> > takes
>> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely unresponsive
>> > for at
>> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at
>> > 100%.
>> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so I
>> > have
>> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a
>> > services
>> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which one
>> > is
>> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
>> > monitor and
>> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of
>> > your CPU,
>> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become usable
>> > as
>> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards
>> > from
>> > what we, the users, wanted.
>> >
>> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
>> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
>> > Windows XP
>> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was
>> > full of
>> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off
>> > before it
>> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
>> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this
>> > problem
>> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>> >
>> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't run
>> > at
>> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are
>> > dying
>> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the
>> > Office
>> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
>> > Microsoft to
>> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several
>> > users
>> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
>> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system running
>> > a
>> > clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that
>> > Time.Windows.Com
>> > (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was seeing.
>> > Colin
>> > Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
>> >
>> > Translation: We don't believe you.
>> >
>> > Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
>> > largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
>> >
>> > 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
>> > constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I
>> > double
>> > clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in Internet
>> > Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at first,
>> > but
>> > now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid
>> > warnings
>> > off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
>> >
>> > Pros:
>> >
>> > I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can think
>> > of
>> > to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice
>> > and
>> > creative.
>> >
>> > Cons:
>> >
>> > Takes hours to install or upgrade.
>> >
>> > The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the background
>> > crap
>> > that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better
>> > performance,
>> > plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and
>> > there's no
>> > guarantee that will help much).
>> >
>> > Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows XP
>> > took.
>> >
>> > Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
>> >
>> > The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for
>> > annoying
>> > dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user,
>> > it's not
>> > easy to disable these dialogs.
>> >
>> > Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that little
>> > yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way
>> > to
>> > disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus
>> > software.
>> >
>> > The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems
>> > only
>> > improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the same
>> > as in
>> > Windows XP.
>> >
>> > Bottom Line:
>> >
>> > It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted in
>> > an
>> > operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for at
>> > least
>> > a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number
>> > one
>> > issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and small
>> > business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.
>>

> OK. MVPs do not take on responsibility to help. We are not MS employees.
> We try to be helpful where we can, and if we are helpful enough that other
> MVPs notice, then we're nominated into a program where there are a few
> perks. By no means is it compensation for work performed, and after
> you've been awarded, it is very explicit that the award is for past
> performance and there is no obligation. So any help is voluntary. We
> have lives too, but sometimes in our free time we offer free help, instead
> of private consulting during that time for $75/hr plus.

Then don't come here to help and don't paint yourself as Mother Teresa!

If all MVPs are indeed here ONLY for the holly voluntary works and have no
other "business" interests, remove your company web site and any reference
to your business.

PR is legitimate and co-op marketing is also good and valid for small
business, but using this to paint yourself as an volunteer is to disgrace
and insult those who have been doing true voluntary works without any other
interests.

I respect those who are here (MVPs or not) to really help others without any
business interests.

Finally, nobody forced you and it was your decision to wear the hat, so live
with it or take it off if it's beyond your capabilities!


"Rich Milburn [MVP]" <richdotmilburn@applebeesdot.com> wrote in message
news:E2C33185-7BB2-4CA3-A5B1-7B53FEB4328F@microsoft.com...
> OK. MVPs do not take on responsibility to help. We are not MS employees.
> We try to be helpful where we can, and if we are helpful enough that other
> MVPs notice, then we're nominated into a program where there are a few
> perks. By no means is it compensation for work performed, and after
> you've been awarded, it is very explicit that the award is for past
> performance and there is no obligation. So any help is voluntary. We
> have lives too, but sometimes in our free time we offer free help, instead
> of private consulting during that time for $75/hr plus.
>
> I have an HP NX9005e Athlon XP 2400+ with 768 MB RAM. It installs Vista
> in under 45 minutes, I'd say it's more like 25-30 minutes for a clean
> install. I just installed on my Sempron 3100 a couple of days ago and it
> took about 20 minutes. I installed it on a virtual machine and it took
> around an hour. I have a couple of P4s at work, 2.4 and 3.2 GHz, with
> either 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM, and I installed on them in about 30 minutes
> tops. I just upgraded my RC2 x64 EMT64T 3.4 to RTM x64, 1 GB of RAM. It
> had a fair bit of stuff on it. It took under 2 hours.
> All the machines I have installed Vista on have been snappy, almost as
> fast as XP to sometimes faster.
>
> If you don't see benefits to Vista, you're not looking close enough. Paul
> Thurrott said it well, from far away it doesn't look like a compelling
> upgrade, but from close examination, the benefits are very numerous. (I
> don't reference him often but IMO his latest articles were well-written
> and mostly accurate).
>
> Anyway sorry for the rant. It's just that I had a lot of things to do
> tonight and instead spent time helping people online... for free....
>
> Rich
> MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
>> The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
>> either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives. That's
>> my
>> point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
>> memory.
>> It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people
>> still
>> using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long install
>> times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect long
>> install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
>>
>> The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
>> MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and should
>> be
>> trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
>> one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed of
>> themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on
>> these
>> boards.
>>
>> As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm saying
>> don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate and
>> Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of years
>> for
>> Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
>> something to make this a better operating system and not a multi-million
>> dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have spent
>> tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
>>
>> So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
>> Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about
>> Vista
>> makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
>> Vista?
>> So far, absolutely nothing.
>>
>> "Tim Draper" wrote:
>>
>>> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
>>> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
>>> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
>>>
>>> i installed with 1gb ram
>>> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
>>>
>>> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
>>> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
>>> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same thing
>>> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
>>>
>>> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
>>> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
>>> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
>>>
>>> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail yet
>>> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
>>> media player is unstable then use something else.
>>>
>>> tim
>>>
>>> tairobi wrote:
>>> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad Harris,
>>> > who
>>> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
>>> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
>>> >
>>> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta 3
>>> > to
>>> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
>>> > comparing to
>>> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with
>>> > Windows
>>> > Vista.
>>> >
>>> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
>>> > installed
>>> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
>>> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I
>>> > popped in
>>> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
>>> > operating
>>> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades
>>> > from
>>> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows XP
>>> > SP2 to
>>> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums,
>>> > other
>>> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was going
>>> > on for
>>> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically
>>> > take
>>> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours
>>> > is slow.
>>> > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It
>>> > upgrades
>>> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here
>>> > internally at
>>> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>>> >
>>> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes to
>>> > go
>>> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let
>>> > me do
>>> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and
>>> > the OS
>>> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it
>>> > takes
>>> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely unresponsive
>>> > for at
>>> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at
>>> > 100%.
>>> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so
>>> > I have
>>> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a
>>> > services
>>> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which one
>>> > is
>>> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
>>> > monitor and
>>> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of
>>> > your CPU,
>>> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become
>>> > usable as
>>> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards
>>> > from
>>> > what we, the users, wanted.
>>> >
>>> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
>>> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
>>> > Windows XP
>>> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was
>>> > full of
>>> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off
>>> > before it
>>> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
>>> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this
>>> > problem
>>> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>>> >
>>> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't
>>> > run at
>>> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are
>>> > dying
>>> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the
>>> > Office
>>> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
>>> > Microsoft to
>>> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several
>>> > users
>>> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
>>> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system running
>>> > a
>>> > clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that
>>> > Time.Windows.Com
>>> > (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was seeing.
>>> > Colin
>>> > Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
>>> >
>>> > Translation: We don't believe you.
>>> >
>>> > Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
>>> > largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
>>> >
>>> > 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
>>> > constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I
>>> > double
>>> > clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in
>>> > Internet
>>> > Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at
>>> > first, but
>>> > now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid
>>> > warnings
>>> > off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
>>> >
>>> > Pros:
>>> >
>>> > I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can
>>> > think of
>>> > to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice
>>> > and
>>> > creative.
>>> >
>>> > Cons:
>>> >
>>> > Takes hours to install or upgrade.
>>> >
>>> > The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the background
>>> > crap
>>> > that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better
>>> > performance,
>>> > plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and
>>> > there's no
>>> > guarantee that will help much).
>>> >
>>> > Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows XP
>>> > took.
>>> >
>>> > Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
>>> >
>>> > The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for
>>> > annoying
>>> > dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user,
>>> > it's not
>>> > easy to disable these dialogs.
>>> >
>>> > Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that
>>> > little
>>> > yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way
>>> > to
>>> > disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus
>>> > software.
>>> >
>>> > The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems
>>> > only
>>> > improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the
>>> > same as in
>>> > Windows XP.
>>> >
>>> > Bottom Line:
>>> >
>>> > It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted in
>>> > an
>>> > operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for at
>>> > least
>>> > a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number
>>> > one
>>> > issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and small
>>> > business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.
>>>
>

We are 'others' before receiving the MS award.. it is strange indeed that
upon receiving it, we become targets for abuse by some..


"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYKnSTUDHHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> OK. MVPs do not take on responsibility to help. We are not MS
>> employees. We try to be helpful where we can, and if we are helpful
>> enough that other MVPs notice, then we're nominated into a program where
>> there are a few perks. By no means is it compensation for work
>> performed, and after you've been awarded, it is very explicit that the
>> award is for past performance and there is no obligation. So any help is
>> voluntary. We have lives too, but sometimes in our free time we offer
>> free help, instead of private consulting during that time for $75/hr
>> plus.
>
> Then don't come here to help and don't paint yourself as Mother Teresa!
>
> If all MVPs are indeed here ONLY for the holly voluntary works and have no
> other "business" interests, remove your company web site and any reference
> to your business.
>
> PR is legitimate and co-op marketing is also good and valid for small
> business, but using this to paint yourself as an volunteer is to disgrace
> and insult those who have been doing true voluntary works without any
> other interests.
>
> I respect those who are here (MVPs or not) to really help others without
> any business interests.
>
> Finally, nobody forced you and it was your decision to wear the hat, so
> live with it or take it off if it's beyond your capabilities!
>
>
> "Rich Milburn [MVP]" <richdotmilburn@applebeesdot.com> wrote in message
> news:E2C33185-7BB2-4CA3-A5B1-7B53FEB4328F@microsoft.com...
>> OK. MVPs do not take on responsibility to help. We are not MS
>> employees. We try to be helpful where we can, and if we are helpful
>> enough that other MVPs notice, then we're nominated into a program where
>> there are a few perks. By no means is it compensation for work
>> performed, and after you've been awarded, it is very explicit that the
>> award is for past performance and there is no obligation. So any help is
>> voluntary. We have lives too, but sometimes in our free time we offer
>> free help, instead of private consulting during that time for $75/hr
>> plus.
>>
>> I have an HP NX9005e Athlon XP 2400+ with 768 MB RAM. It installs Vista
>> in under 45 minutes, I'd say it's more like 25-30 minutes for a clean
>> install. I just installed on my Sempron 3100 a couple of days ago and it
>> took about 20 minutes. I installed it on a virtual machine and it took
>> around an hour. I have a couple of P4s at work, 2.4 and 3.2 GHz, with
>> either 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM, and I installed on them in about 30 minutes
>> tops. I just upgraded my RC2 x64 EMT64T 3.4 to RTM x64, 1 GB of RAM. It
>> had a fair bit of stuff on it. It took under 2 hours.
>> All the machines I have installed Vista on have been snappy, almost as
>> fast as XP to sometimes faster.
>>
>> If you don't see benefits to Vista, you're not looking close enough.
>> Paul Thurrott said it well, from far away it doesn't look like a
>> compelling upgrade, but from close examination, the benefits are very
>> numerous. (I don't reference him often but IMO his latest articles were
>> well-written and mostly accurate).
>>
>> Anyway sorry for the rant. It's just that I had a lot of things to do
>> tonight and instead spent time helping people online... for free....
>>
>> Rich
>> MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
>> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
>>> The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
>>> either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives.
>>> That's my
>>> point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
>>> memory.
>>> It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people
>>> still
>>> using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long
>>> install
>>> times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect long
>>> install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
>>>
>>> The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
>>> MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and
>>> should be
>>> trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
>>> one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed
>>> of
>>> themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on
>>> these
>>> boards.
>>>
>>> As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm saying
>>> don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate and
>>> Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of
>>> years for
>>> Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
>>> something to make this a better operating system and not a multi-million
>>> dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have
>>> spent
>>> tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
>>>
>>> So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
>>> Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about
>>> Vista
>>> makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
>>> Vista?
>>> So far, absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> "Tim Draper" wrote:
>>>
>>>> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
>>>> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
>>>> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
>>>>
>>>> i installed with 1gb ram
>>>> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
>>>>
>>>> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
>>>> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
>>>> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same
>>>> thing
>>>> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
>>>>
>>>> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
>>>> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
>>>> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
>>>>
>>>> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail
>>>> yet
>>>> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
>>>> media player is unstable then use something else.
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> tairobi wrote:
>>>> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad
>>>> > Harris, who
>>>> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
>>>> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
>>>> >
>>>> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta
>>>> > 3 to
>>>> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
>>>> > comparing to
>>>> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with
>>>> > Windows
>>>> > Vista.
>>>> >
>>>> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
>>>> > installed
>>>> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
>>>> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I
>>>> > popped in
>>>> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
>>>> > operating
>>>> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades
>>>> > from
>>>> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows
>>>> > XP SP2 to
>>>> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums,
>>>> > other
>>>> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was
>>>> > going on for
>>>> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically
>>>> > take
>>>> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours
>>>> > is slow.
>>>> > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It
>>>> > upgrades
>>>> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here
>>>> > internally at
>>>> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes
>>>> > to go
>>>> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let
>>>> > me do
>>>> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and
>>>> > the OS
>>>> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it
>>>> > takes
>>>> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely
>>>> > unresponsive for at
>>>> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at
>>>> > 100%.
>>>> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so
>>>> > I have
>>>> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a
>>>> > services
>>>> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which
>>>> > one is
>>>> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
>>>> > monitor and
>>>> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of
>>>> > your CPU,
>>>> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become
>>>> > usable as
>>>> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards
>>>> > from
>>>> > what we, the users, wanted.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
>>>> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
>>>> > Windows XP
>>>> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was
>>>> > full of
>>>> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off
>>>> > before it
>>>> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
>>>> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this
>>>> > problem
>>>> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>>>> >
>>>> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't
>>>> > run at
>>>> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are
>>>> > dying
>>>> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the
>>>> > Office
>>>> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
>>>> > Microsoft to
>>>> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several
>>>> > users
>>>> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
>>>> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system
>>>> > running a
>>>> > clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that
>>>> > Time.Windows.Com
>>>> > (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was
>>>> > seeing. Colin
>>>> > Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
>>>> >
>>>> > Translation: We don't believe you.
>>>> >
>>>> > Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
>>>> > largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
>>>> >
>>>> > 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
>>>> > constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I
>>>> > double
>>>> > clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in
>>>> > Internet
>>>> > Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at
>>>> > first, but
>>>> > now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid
>>>> > warnings
>>>> > off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
>>>> >
>>>> > Pros:
>>>> >
>>>> > I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can
>>>> > think of
>>>> > to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice
>>>> > and
>>>> > creative.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cons:
>>>> >
>>>> > Takes hours to install or upgrade.
>>>> >
>>>> > The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the
>>>> > background crap
>>>> > that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better
>>>> > performance,
>>>> > plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and
>>>> > there's no
>>>> > guarantee that will help much).
>>>> >
>>>> > Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows
>>>> > XP took.
>>>> >
>>>> > Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
>>>> >
>>>> > The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for
>>>> > annoying
>>>> > dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user,
>>>> > it's not
>>>> > easy to disable these dialogs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that
>>>> > little
>>>> > yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way
>>>> > to
>>>> > disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus
>>>> > software.
>>>> >
>>>> > The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems
>>>> > only
>>>> > improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the
>>>> > same as in
>>>> > Windows XP.
>>>> >
>>>> > Bottom Line:
>>>> >
>>>> > It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted
>>>> > in an
>>>> > operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for
>>>> > at least
>>>> > a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number
>>>> > one
>>>> > issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and
>>>> > small
>>>> > business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.
>>>>
>>
>
>

HUH Tairobi? When you signed up to test Vista you did read that MS would
offer little support right?

"tairobi" wrote:

> The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
> either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives. That's my
> point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of memory.
> It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people still
> using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long install
> times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect long
> install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
>
> The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
> MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and should be
> trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
> one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed of
> themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on these
> boards.
>
> As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm saying
> don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate and
> Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of years for
> Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
> something to make this a better operating system and not a multi-million
> dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have spent
> tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
>
> So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
> Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about Vista
> makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to Vista?
> So far, absolutely nothing.
>
> "Tim Draper" wrote:
>
> > no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
> > took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
> > comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
> >
> > i installed with 1gb ram
> > a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
> >
> > theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
> > called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
> > code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same thing
> > happened with XP and drivers afaik.
> >
> > do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
> > always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
> > jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
> >
> > if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail yet
> > & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
> > media player is unstable then use something else.
> >
> > tim
> >
> > tairobi wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad Harris, who
> > > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
> > > Microsoft's newest operating system.
> > >
> > > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta 3 to
> > > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and comparing to
> > > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with Windows
> > > Vista.
> > >
> > > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and installed
> > > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
> > > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I popped in
> > > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the operating
> > > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades from
> > > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows XP SP2 to
> > > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums, other
> > > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was going on for
> > > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically take
> > > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours is slow.
> > > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It upgrades
> > > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here internally at
> > > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
> > >
> > > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes to go
> > > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let me do
> > > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and the OS
> > > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it takes
> > > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely unresponsive for at
> > > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at 100%.
> > > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so I have
> > > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a services
> > > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which one is
> > > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource monitor and
> > > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of your CPU,
> > > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become usable as
> > > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards from
> > > what we, the users, wanted.
> > >
> > > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
> > > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on Windows XP
> > > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was full of
> > > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off before it
> > > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
> > > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this problem
> > > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
> > >
> > > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't run at
> > > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are dying
> > > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the Office
> > > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect Microsoft to
> > > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several users
> > > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
> > > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system running a
> > > clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that Time.Windows.Com
> > > (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was seeing. Colin
> > > Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
> > >
> > > Translation: We don't believe you.
> > >
> > > Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
> > > largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
> > >
> > > 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
> > > constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I double
> > > clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in Internet
> > > Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at first, but
> > > now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid warnings
> > > off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
> > >
> > > Pros:
> > >
> > > I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can think of
> > > to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice and
> > > creative.
> > >
> > > Cons:
> > >
> > > Takes hours to install or upgrade.
> > >
> > > The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the background crap
> > > that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better performance,
> > > plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and there's no
> > > guarantee that will help much).
> > >
> > > Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows XP took.
> > >
> > > Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
> > >
> > > The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for annoying
> > > dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user, it's not
> > > easy to disable these dialogs.
> > >
> > > Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that little
> > > yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way to
> > > disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus software.
> > >
> > > The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems only
> > > improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the same as in
> > > Windows XP.
> > >
> > > Bottom Line:
> > >
> > > It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted in an
> > > operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for at least
> > > a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number one
> > > issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and small
> > > business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.
> >

Your "rejection" doesn't mean anything because when you post fiction or
something off the wall delusional, one of us will put it into perspective.
I installed Vista on another box with 1GB RAM and 2MHz CPU and it took 29
minutes for setup and another 2.5 minutes to install drivers for 3 devices.

CH

"tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:421857F6-CABA-4613-BD46-8DBCC5A5973F@microsoft.com...
> It's not that I am rejecting help - I am rejecting your help. One has only
> to
> look at your history of posts to see that you clearly have mental
> problems.
> Okay, maybe you have some skill with computers. But your terse postings
> and
> piss poor attitude turn me off and I'm sure many others. In all honesty, I
> couldn't care if you could build a PC from a baby monitor. I still
> wouldn't
> want help or advice from someone like you.
>
> And this is the last posting from you that I will dignify with a response.
> Welcome to my "twit list".
>
> "Chad Harris" wrote:
>
>> tairobi--
>>
>> You can twist and shout and yell "bull" all you want. But it's not going
>> to
>> take very long here to see who knows what they're talking about and who
>> doesn't. I am bemused that you would diss people who genuinely want to
>> help
>> you enjoy your PC and in this case Windows Vista on it. What you
>> posted
>> was surreal as to setup time being several hours. No one is saying
>> you're a
>> bad person because the burn went wrong. Most of us have thick skins
>> because
>> although it shouldn't, abuse comes when you help frequently on these
>> groups.
>> I long ago learned that people have more respect in any profession for
>> help
>> they pay for with the exception of the very indigent or very sick who are
>> often grateful to just get the help.
>>
>> So you can rant and rave like an infant, or you can go about getting
>> constructive help. I have timed some builds of Vista and set them up in
>> 16-20minutes on a Dell P4 with 1GB RAM. If you're dumb enough to think
>> that
>> people would post stuff like this taking their valuable time for the
>> purpose
>> of a fictional pissing contest, then you grew up perhaps with
>> irreversible
>> stupidity born of stubborn ignorance and I couldn't be paid enough to
>> help
>> you.
>>
>> We have watched setup problems from the first Beta builds of Vista and
>> far
>> and away I can tell you that the etiology of the biggest majority of
>> these
>> long setup problems is a bad burn. That is not to say that you didn't do
>> what you had to do to burn correctly--and of course it should be at the
>> slowest possible speed if you have had trouble--Paul Donnelly [MSFT]
>> recommended a while back 2X in some directions I remember he offered, and
>> my
>> experience is that 4X worked fine although again, if you have trouble
>> burning slowly is always helpful. I remember countless posts where Colin
>> Barnhorst who helped tirelessly here over the months with consistently
>> great
>> quality posts urged people to burn as slow as they can around 2X but
>> depending on your burning software that number could vary.
>>
>> With those speeds I saw from you that would be at the top of my
>> differential
>> diagnosis.
>>
>> I would go after some of those task man anomalies you mentioned running
>> System File Checker once you had Vista setup at a decent speed for setup
>> and
>> were sure it was correct.
>>
>> I would also recommend that when you burn you check the box to do a
>> CRC/checksum or MD5 hash of your burn which is part of most burning
>> software
>> as an option and also available on the web by searching appropriate to
>> any
>> build of Vista you're concerned with.
>>
>> As to your problems with CPU being 100% do a search because I and several
>> other people have posted systematic steps you can take in Vista to reduce
>> CPU demand with a number of links on how to correct them.
>>
>> CH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:48E1E57C-6CCE-4A84-AD75-DDF845862BF6@microsoft.com...
>> > "I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes
>> > period.
>> > "
>> >
>> > Bull****. Plain and simple. Next.
>> >
>> > "Chad Harris" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes
>> >> period.
>> >> The fault lies with you not Vista. You're delusion that you need Duo
>> >> anything or AMD's version or SATA or X64 is pure crap.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what you stand by, but you're sitting at a box that needs
>> >> competent on site help and you need lessons in Windows and hardware.
>> >> Spend
>> >> your time ranting getting help on site.
>> >>
>> >> MVPs are not MSFT employees. They are extremely talented, unselfish
>> >> enthusiasts and sometimes IT is in there background and often it is
>> >> not.
>> >> They provide help on these groups that provide one of the best free
>> >> learning
>> >> experiences that could come into your life if you quit ranting and
>> >> start
>> >> reading.
>> >>
>> >> My experience has been that the MVPs offer extremely high quality
>> >> help,
>> >> and
>> >> reflect a high standard of professionalism. They are volunteers and
>> >> are
>> >> under no obligation.
>> >>
>> >> The level of spoon feeding you seem to require from your couple posts
>> >> suggest to me you need to get on site help and pay attention to what
>> >> they
>> >> teach you since you're unwilling to post specific, cogent, mature
>> >> adult
>> >> questions in here.
>> >>
>> >> Lose the delusion that you need high end cutting edge machines to run
>> >> Vista,
>> >> because most of us can take a 6 year old machine and setup Vista
>> >> relatively
>> >> quickly--any build from July '05 to RTM.
>> >>
>> >> I have every driver for every device I need working well (there are a
>> >> few
>> >> tricks and workarounds with some of the older drivers, and at this
>> >> moment
>> >> X64 is more of a challenge, but that's going to change.
>> >>
>> >> I have every pice of software working well. There is plenty to
>> >> critique
>> >> in
>> >> Vista but your observations don't comport with reality. Again get
>> >> competent
>> >> on site help.
>> >>
>> >> CH
>> >> _________________
>> >>
>> >> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
>> >> > The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they
>> >> > are
>> >> > either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives.
>> >> > That's
>> >> > my
>> >> > point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
>> >> > memory.
>> >> > It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of
>> >> > people
>> >> > still
>> >> > using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long
>> >> > install
>> >> > times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect
>> >> > long
>> >> > install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
>> >> >
>> >> > The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are
>> >> > still
>> >> > MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and
>> >> > should
>> >> > be
>> >> > trying to help people actually using this software instead of
>> >> > offering
>> >> > one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be
>> >> > ashamed
>> >> > of
>> >> > themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people
>> >> > on
>> >> > these
>> >> > boards.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm
>> >> > saying
>> >> > don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate
>> >> > and
>> >> > Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of
>> >> > years
>> >> > for
>> >> > Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually
>> >> > do
>> >> > something to make this a better operating system and not a
>> >> > multi-million
>> >> > dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have
>> >> > spent
>> >> > tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up
>> >> > with.
>> >> >
>> >> > So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp
>> >> > to
>> >> > Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What
>> >> > about
>> >> > Vista
>> >> > makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
>> >> > Vista?
>> >> > So far, absolutely nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Tim Draper" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
>> >> >> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on
>> >> >> DVD)....
>> >> >> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i installed with 1gb ram
>> >> >> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb
>> >> >> drive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases.
>> >> >> it's
>> >> >> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on
>> >> >> 3.11
>> >> >> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same
>> >> >> thing
>> >> >> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+)
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
>> >> >> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public
>> >> >> retail
>> >> >> yet
>> >> >> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable.
>> >> >> if a
>> >> >> media player is unstable then use something else.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> tim
>> >> >>
>> >> >> tairobi wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad
>> >> >> > Harris,
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts
>> >> >> > about
>> >> >> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from
>> >> >> > Beta
>> >> >> > 3
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
>> >> >> > comparing to
>> >> >> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > Windows
>> >> >> > Vista.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
>> >> >> > installed
>> >> >> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
>> >> >> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I
>> >> >> > popped
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
>> >> >> > operating
>> >> >> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input.
>> >> >> > Upgrades
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from
>> >> >> > Windows
>> >> >> > XP
>> >> >> > SP2 to
>> >> >> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very
>> >> >> > forums,
>> >> >> > other
>> >> >> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was
>> >> >> > going
>> >> >> > on for
>> >> >> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista
>> >> >> > typically
>> >> >> > take
>> >> >> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10
>> >> >> > hours
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > slow.
>> >> >> > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation:
>> >> >> > It
>> >> >> > upgrades
>> >> >> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here
>> >> >> > internally
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5
>> >> >> > minutes
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > go
>> >> >> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to
>> >> >> > let
>> >> >> > me
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > the OS
>> >> >> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop,
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > takes
>> >> >> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely
>> >> >> > unresponsive
>> >> >> > for at
>> >> >> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > 100%.
>> >> >> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task
>> >> >> > manager,
>> >> >> > so I
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > services
>> >> >> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you
>> >> >> > which
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
>> >> >> > monitor and
>> >> >> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > your CPU,
>> >> >> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become
>> >> >> > usable
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step
>> >> >> > backwards
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > what we, the users, wanted.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues.
>> >> >> > After
>> >> >> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
>> >> >> > Windows XP
>> >> >> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and
>> >> >> > was
>> >> >> > full of
>> >> >> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely
>> >> >> > off
>> >> >> > before it
>> >> >> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real
>> >> >> > Player
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > problem
>> >> >> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or
>> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> > run
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > dying
>> >> >> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > Office
>> >> >> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
>> >> >> > Microsoft to
>> >> >> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example,
>> >> >> > several
>> >> >> > users
>> >> >> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8.
>> >> >> > Jim
>> >> >> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system
>> >> >> > running

"terse postings" lol I like that. If you mean the crabby flip postings that
ocassionally show up without answering a question, I don't do those.

I bet one thing. You are damn high maintainance for mommy, daddy, and
whomever you live with now including yourself.

CH


"tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:421857F6-CABA-4613-BD46-8DBCC5A5973F@microsoft.com...
> It's not that I am rejecting help - I am rejecting your help. One has only
> to
> look at your history of posts to see that you clearly have mental
> problems.
> Okay, maybe you have some skill with computers. But your terse postings
> and
> piss poor attitude turn me off and I'm sure many others. In all honesty, I
> couldn't care if you could build a PC from a baby monitor. I still
> wouldn't
> want help or advice from someone like you.
>
> And this is the last posting from you that I will dignify with a response.
> Welcome to my "twit list".
>
> "Chad Harris" wrote:
>
>> tairobi--
>>
>> You can twist and shout and yell "bull" all you want. But it's not going
>> to
>> take very long here to see who knows what they're talking about and who
>> doesn't. I am bemused that you would diss people who genuinely want to
>> help
>> you enjoy your PC and in this case Windows Vista on it. What you
>> posted
>> was surreal as to setup time being several hours. No one is saying
>> you're a
>> bad person because the burn went wrong. Most of us have thick skins
>> because
>> although it shouldn't, abuse comes when you help frequently on these
>> groups.
>> I long ago learned that people have more respect in any profession for
>> help
>> they pay for with the exception of the very indigent or very sick who are
>> often grateful to just get the help.
>>
>> So you can rant and rave like an infant, or you can go about getting
>> constructive help. I have timed some builds of Vista and set them up in
>> 16-20minutes on a Dell P4 with 1GB RAM. If you're dumb enough to think
>> that
>> people would post stuff like this taking their valuable time for the
>> purpose
>> of a fictional pissing contest, then you grew up perhaps with
>> irreversible
>> stupidity born of stubborn ignorance and I couldn't be paid enough to
>> help
>> you.
>>
>> We have watched setup problems from the first Beta builds of Vista and
>> far
>> and away I can tell you that the etiology of the biggest majority of
>> these
>> long setup problems is a bad burn. That is not to say that you didn't do
>> what you had to do to burn correctly--and of course it should be at the
>> slowest possible speed if you have had trouble--Paul Donnelly [MSFT]
>> recommended a while back 2X in some directions I remember he offered, and
>> my
>> experience is that 4X worked fine although again, if you have trouble
>> burning slowly is always helpful. I remember countless posts where Colin
>> Barnhorst who helped tirelessly here over the months with consistently
>> great
>> quality posts urged people to burn as slow as they can around 2X but
>> depending on your burning software that number could vary.
>>
>> With those speeds I saw from you that would be at the top of my
>> differential
>> diagnosis.
>>
>> I would go after some of those task man anomalies you mentioned running
>> System File Checker once you had Vista setup at a decent speed for setup
>> and
>> were sure it was correct.
>>
>> I would also recommend that when you burn you check the box to do a
>> CRC/checksum or MD5 hash of your burn which is part of most burning
>> software
>> as an option and also available on the web by searching appropriate to
>> any
>> build of Vista you're concerned with.
>>
>> As to your problems with CPU being 100% do a search because I and several
>> other people have posted systematic steps you can take in Vista to reduce
>> CPU demand with a number of links on how to correct them.
>>
>> CH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:48E1E57C-6CCE-4A84-AD75-DDF845862BF6@microsoft.com...
>> > "I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes
>> > period.
>> > "
>> >
>> > Bull****. Plain and simple. Next.
>> >
>> > "Chad Harris" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes
>> >> period.
>> >> The fault lies with you not Vista. You're delusion that you need Duo
>> >> anything or AMD's version or SATA or X64 is pure crap.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what you stand by, but you're sitting at a box that needs
>> >> competent on site help and you need lessons in Windows and hardware.
>> >> Spend
>> >> your time ranting getting help on site.
>> >>
>> >> MVPs are not MSFT employees. They are extremely talented, unselfish
>> >> enthusiasts and sometimes IT is in there background and often it is
>> >> not.
>> >> They provide help on these groups that provide one of the best free
>> >> learning
>> >> experiences that could come into your life if you quit ranting and
>> >> start
>> >> reading.
>> >>
>> >> My experience has been that the MVPs offer extremely high quality
>> >> help,
>> >> and
>> >> reflect a high standard of professionalism. They are volunteers and
>> >> are
>> >> under no obligation.
>> >>
>> >> The level of spoon feeding you seem to require from your couple posts
>> >> suggest to me you need to get on site help and pay attention to what
>> >> they
>> >> teach you since you're unwilling to post specific, cogent, mature
>> >> adult
>> >> questions in here.
>> >>
>> >> Lose the delusion that you need high end cutting edge machines to run
>> >> Vista,
>> >> because most of us can take a 6 year old machine and setup Vista
>> >> relatively
>> >> quickly--any build from July '05 to RTM.
>> >>
>> >> I have every driver for every device I need working well (there are a
>> >> few
>> >> tricks and workarounds with some of the older drivers, and at this
>> >> moment
>> >> X64 is more of a challenge, but that's going to change.
>> >>
>> >> I have every pice of software working well. There is plenty to
>> >> critique
>> >> in
>> >> Vista but your observations don't comport with reality. Again get
>> >> competent
>> >> on site help.
>> >>
>> >> CH
>> >> _________________
>> >>
>> >> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
>> >> > The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they
>> >> > are
>> >> > either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives.
>> >> > That's
>> >> > my
>> >> > point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
>> >> > memory.
>> >> > It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of
>> >> > people
>> >> > still
>> >> > using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long
>> >> > install
>> >> > times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect
>> >> > long
>> >> > install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
>> >> >
>> >> > The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are
>> >> > still
>> >> > MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and
>> >> > should
>> >> > be
>> >> > trying to help people actually using this software instead of
>> >> > offering
>> >> > one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be
>> >> > ashamed
>> >> > of
>> >> > themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people
>> >> > on
>> >> > these
>> >> > boards.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm
>> >> > saying
>> >> > don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate
>> >> > and
>> >> > Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of
>> >> > years
>> >> > for
>> >> > Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually
>> >> > do
>> >> > something to make this a better operating system and not a
>> >> > multi-million
>> >> > dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have
>> >> > spent
>> >> > tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up
>> >> > with.
>> >> >
>> >> > So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp
>> >> > to
>> >> > Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What
>> >> > about
>> >> > Vista
>> >> > makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
>> >> > Vista?
>> >> > So far, absolutely nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Tim Draper" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
>> >> >> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on
>> >> >> DVD)....
>> >> >> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i installed with 1gb ram
>> >> >> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb
>> >> >> drive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases.
>> >> >> it's
>> >> >> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on
>> >> >> 3.11
>> >> >> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same
>> >> >> thing
>> >> >> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+)
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
>> >> >> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public
>> >> >> retail
>> >> >> yet
>> >> >> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable.
>> >> >> if a
>> >> >> media player is unstable then use something else.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> tim
>> >> >>
>> >> >> tairobi wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad
>> >> >> > Harris,
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts
>> >> >> > about
>> >> >> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from
>> >> >> > Beta
>> >> >> > 3
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
>> >> >> > comparing to
>> >> >> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > Windows
>> >> >> > Vista.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
>> >> >> > installed
>> >> >> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
>> >> >> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I
>> >> >> > popped
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
>> >> >> > operating
>> >> >> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input.
>> >> >> > Upgrades
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from
>> >> >> > Windows
>> >> >> > XP
>> >> >> > SP2 to
>> >> >> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very
>> >> >> > forums,
>> >> >> > other
>> >> >> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was
>> >> >> > going
>> >> >> > on for
>> >> >> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista
>> >> >> > typically
>> >> >> > take
>> >> >> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10
>> >> >> > hours
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > slow.
>> >> >> > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation:
>> >> >> > It
>> >> >> > upgrades
>> >> >> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here
>> >> >> > internally
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5
>> >> >> > minutes
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > go
>> >> >> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to
>> >> >> > let
>> >> >> > me
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > the OS
>> >> >> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop,
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > takes
>> >> >> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely
>> >> >> > unresponsive
>> >> >> > for at
>> >> >> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > 100%.
>> >> >> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task
>> >> >> > manager,
>> >> >> > so I
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > services
>> >> >> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you
>> >> >> > which
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
>> >> >> > monitor and
>> >> >> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > your CPU,
>> >> >> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become
>> >> >> > usable
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step
>> >> >> > backwards
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > what we, the users, wanted.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues.
>> >> >> > After
>> >> >> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
>> >> >> > Windows XP
>> >> >> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and
>> >> >> > was
>> >> >> > full of
>> >> >> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely
>> >> >> > off
>> >> >> > before it
>> >> >> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real
>> >> >> > Player
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > problem
>> >> >> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or
>> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> > run
>> >> >> > at
>> >> >> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > dying
>> >> >> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > Office
>> >> >> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
>> >> >> > Microsoft to
>> >> >> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example,
>> >> >> > several
>> >> >> > users
>> >> >> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8.
>> >> >> > Jim
>> >> >> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system
>> >> >> > running

MICHAEL --

You have probably posted your hdw profile before, and everyone understands
the dilemma being posed by hdw requirements that might be necessary
depending on what they have for Vista and Aero Glass, and other Aero and
Vista in general, but I'd sure like to see your hardware. Are you certain
that so much hdw is needed?

If you look at Nvidia cards for example, I don't believe many of them all
require a mobo that is specific. To be sure, 7950 does, but cards with lower
numbers and higher don't,for example the eVGA GeForce 8800 series as well as
many higher end ATI GPUs. The processor might be nice to upgrade, but is it
mandatory for you?

What I have been seeing a lot of with older machines and in particular Dell
because unlike HP it has proprietary wiring, is that when people upgrade
their video card to one of the higher end ones, they need to replace their
PSU because as you know, it is par for most OEM pc makers to ship lower end
PSUs with mid range pcs, and mid range PSUs with higher end pcs.

The upgrade advisor MSFT makes is a good idea, but it is totally inaccurate
much of the time, listing upgrades that not only aren't needed, but without
which you can run Vista and Aero and older sound cards for example very well
and have Vist running quite fast.

Granted, at some point there is the nexus between spending more on hdw and
better off buying a new PC. We've had some really nice examples of that
here and here is one by Pro Networks' Jeff Rosado that illustrates that
point well.

http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/viewstory.php?t=85634

CH



"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:ObYMQYGDHHA.3212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Daze N. Knights" <Daze@microchip.com> wrote in message
> news:eSarL8BDHHA.652@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> MICHAEL wrote:
>>>
>>> "Daze N. Knights" <Daze@microchip.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ufvgAOBDHHA.4224@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Daze N. Knights wrote:
>>>>>> tairobi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bottom Line:
>>>>>>>>> It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user
>>>>>>>>> wanted in an operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista
>>>>>>>>> to mature for at least a couple of years before you decide to
>>>>>>>>> abandon Windows XP. The number one issue I can see Microsoft
>>>>>>>>> getting hit hard with are the home and small business users with
>>>>>>>>> relatively fast machines and performance issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, I upgraded my XP Pro SP2 system with Vista RC2 Build 5744 in 2
>>>>>> 1/4 hrs, which I felt was a long time. But this was with a 1.8 GHz
>>>>>> Pentium 4, Intel chipset 845, 512 MB RAM, and UATA HD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My main complaint is that not only my video card, but even my Intel
>>>>>> D845HV motherboard, won't, and never will, support Aero. So to have
>>>>>> Aero, I need to upgrade not only my video card, but also my
>>>>>> motherboard. And since my Pentium 4 uses a socket 478, which no
>>>>>> recent and decent motherboard sports, I really need a new processor,
>>>>>> as well. And of course, with a newer motherboard, I will need to buy
>>>>>> not only more (at least 1 GB), but all new RAM of a different kind
>>>>>> than I've been using. In other words, I've got a computer that I've
>>>>>> been happy with and which is only a few years old that functions
>>>>>> wonderfully with XP. HOWEVER, although I *can* install Vista on it,
>>>>>> if I want Aero (and also apparently if I want a really perky Vista),
>>>>>> I have to buy or build myself a whole new computer. Regarding this
>>>>>> sad fact, although I am not really dissing MS for it, I am expressing
>>>>>> disappointment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dell and HP scratch Microsoft's back and Microsoft scratches theirs.
>>>>> Wait on Vista; it's still in BETA until SP2 as far as I am concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> No Dell or HP here.
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, the upgrade to Vista on my own system that I mentioned was
>>>> done on Microsoft's campus in Mountain View, CA on Oct.7th as part of
>>>> an "Install Fair," and for which I earned a (as-yet-to-be-delivered, of
>>>> course) retail, boxed copy of Vista Ultimate. But to make full use of
>>>> it, I will have to either spend at least, maybe, $700 or so upgrading
>>>> my system, or just buy a new PC, which would probably be more
>>>> cost-effective.
>>>
>>> Hey, Daze! I'd be more than happy to alleviate you of
>>> that burden. Just send that Vista Ultimate to me. ;-)
>>>
>>> You get to keep the knowledge of the Install Fair,
>>> and I get Vista for pointing you to the Install Fair. :-)
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, Michael, thanks for the generous offer, but I think I should be
>> able to find some better way out of my misery without resorting to that
>> <G>
>> I certainly still regard it as a great stroke of luck to hear about the
>> Install Fair (from you) in time to get an invite, and it was, indeed, a
>> very interesting experience, from which I emerged sporting a snappy MS
>> Vista hat and am now able to look forward to a delivery of Vista Ultimate
>> to my doorstep. All to the good, for sure
>> And since I *can* run the Vista on my current machine (albeit minus the
>> Aero), my miserable situation here could definitely be worse, if, say, I
>> should give away my forthcoming copy of Vista Ultimate <VBG>
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Daze
>
> Daze, there is a way to force your Aero Glass. I forget
> right off hand, not sure which one works or if it takes both.
> Check this link,
> http://www.samspublishing.com/articl...&seqNum=3&rl=1
> Regedit,
>
> HKLM\Software\Microsoft
>
> Add a new subkey named DWM and then create a DWORD setting named
> 'EnableMachineCheck'. Leave the value of this setting at 0, which disables
> Vista's DWM-related hardware checking.
>
>
> And this registry hack:
>
> 1- Ensure that you have the following registry value set to :
>
> HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\DWM\Composition set to 1 (32-bit DWORD)
>
> HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\DWM\CompositionPolicy set to 2 (32-bit
> DWORD)
>
> 2- Restart DWM by opening a command prompt with administrative privileges
> :
>
> - Type 'net stop uxsms'
> - Then 'net start uxsms'
>
> or Restart
>
>
> Good luck and take care.
>
> -Michael