Vista - everything Vista

Cannot get help!

Vista is worse than Windows 3.2-WindowsXP.

WindowsXP best by far!

I have expressed my dissatisfaction to Microsoft.

I hope that if you agree, you will do the same.

My most recent dissatisfaction was with multiple install of KB936181 and

the inability of the search feature to find anything.

well, good luck to all using Vista

You speak English, Windows 3.2 was only released in Chinese.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"D" <snbaerz@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O4Jz6KWDIHA.4584@xxxxxx

Yep. I agree with you. XP is the best by far. There is too many eye candies
on vista. Microsoft engineers should put their best efforts at the
functionality, not the look.

-- Too many eye candies is bad for your performance teeth --

"D" <snbaerz@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O4Jz6KWDIHA.4584@xxxxxx

they know.a lot of people have let them know..i emailed them many times..but
they have people to just answer the emailland they7 dont care..

"bamsan" wrote:

> There is too many eye candies on vista.

Eye candy - are you serious? Do you honestly think the hideous Fisher Price
colour scheme of XP is BETTER than Vista? And the patronizing "My" in front
of everything? And the stupid giggling children sound when you log off, and
the intrusive fanfare when you start XP?

Yes, yes, I KNOW you can turn all that crap off in XP, but you can turn it
off in Vista, too.

To my eyes, Vista is a model of subtle elegance compared with XP (and with
all the Linuxes I've tried).

SteveT

I guess you haven't looked at the latest versions of OS X (Leopard) and
Linux distros.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"wheelman" <wheelman@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:41E25E4D-2595-4988-A754-8E6BC2F71494@xxxxxx

"D" <snbaerz@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O4Jz6KWDIHA.4584@xxxxxxI agree that Vista is a PITA but where did you get Windows 3.2 from?
AFAIK the last version of Windows 3.x was Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Regards Mike.

Some mention XP being the best OS so far. Did you think that when it first
came out? I remember when Windows 2000 cam out and how everyone wanted it
because it is the Business version of Windows and those versions are more
stable then client (desktop) versions. Normal home users jumped at buying
it, which Microsoft didn't expect bec they specifically mentioned it was for
business.

Then hardware vendors had a task of trying to make consumer drivers for all
types of hardware. They begged MS to help. SP1 included a new set of drivers
but it didn't solve many problems. Windows 9x compatibility was the biggest
problem. People wanted to run there Windows 9x programs in it. 9x is 16bit
while 2000 was 32bit. Then MS made Compatibility as a work around that
helped some programs.

The final fix was the introduction of Windows XP which is basically an
update to Windows 2000. Improved backwards compatibility and drivers made it
good now. But not in the beginning. We all hate XP when it first came
out...even MS said if Windows 98 works for you go back to it.

XP is better than Vista bec its 5 years old. You have the update and patches
so yes it is good now. Since Vista is brand new it will take time for progs
to catch up.

In my opinion my only true problem is when you first install it, it's taking
up 500MB of ram just to run itself. So 1GB of ram isn't enogh if you plan to
use programs beyond Office. As soon as i install NIS after that 700MB of ram
is being used. I installed a 2GB memory card in my PC to check out the
Readyboost feature. I didn't notice any speed difference.

The other problem Aero Glass. Why have it? I was imprssed with how you can
flip the windows sideways and they still be live. But i haven';t use it at
all. The grphics son't look all that much bettr. I do like the black, but
not the green.

Its not an XP upgrade thats for sure. But i paid 399 for this? XP runs way
better on my Dual Core 1.6 w/2GB, then Vista does. Just like any version of
Windows after a fresh install everything runs fast. After installing just a
few programs it starts to drag. I notice a performance hit after install
Adobe programs.

I think MS should have just spent more time on it. Forget about thinking
they need to release a new product every 5 years. I could have been happy
with XP for another 5.

I almost stopped running it bec of so many programs not being compatible.
Flash 8 had issues with Aero as does most XP based progs. To fix many
software vendors just made a whole new prog with the improvements instead of
just making patches. Bec they in many cases couldnt patch be of Vista's new
security system...which is flawed. Tho it was thought out, the loopholes are
still easy to get around.

So here is a work-around. If you just only like the look of Vista...which i
do; just use Vista Inspirat 2 from www.crystalxp.net and fix your XP to look
like Vista and have teh graphical benefits plus the XP benefit of software
compatibility. Or use virtual software to run Vista in a virtual world.

I use Vista now only to play games and play with IIS6 trying to get ready
for the Server version of Vista. From playing with the beta, IT people are
going to faace teh same trouble us home users have. Program incompatibility,
hardware as far as older systems. Companies who did switch to Vista are
complaining about how much money they are spending just to meet system
requirments which more than double XP's recommended requirements.

It use to be that new versions of Windows forced hardware vendors to catch
up meeting requirements.Now its vice versa. Intel and others are making
things faster and with new features that now Microsoft makes a new version
of Windows to support them. Which means more money for both side. With MS
being in th drivers seat.

An there isnt a good alternative since Mac is basically a PC now with a
different logo. And MS owns a piece of that 'apple' how do we even know if
there really is a difference. Isn't Windows just Mac OS X written in a
different language?

Even tho MS has more money than God, they not using enough of it to make
Windows what it really should be.Their main concern is meeting deadlines
then just making a good product. I'd rather wait extra time then to fool
with ruched crap. Vista was rushed to beat Apple to the door. And the price
tag is way to high.

But you can live or live without. Give Vista another 2 years and when the
next Windows comes we will be saying how great Vista is and how the new OS
is crappy. At this pace Next Windows will at the very least require double
what we use now.

My guess on recommended specs? The Next Windows will probably be 64bit

Minimum requirements:

Dual Core 2 - 2 x 3.0 w/4GB of ram

Recommended:

Quad Core 4 x 2.0 w/4GB and a harddrive with 20GB of free space.

Vista's footprint is 10GB...does it really need that much space? Vista has
40 million lines of code....so does XP...but XP uses only 1.5GB of drive
space on an install. What is Vista claiming the extra space for. System
files? almost 3GB worth...

Turn off Aero doesnt free up much system ram...neither does turn off the
graphics in XP either. It does however free up video ram. But i have an ATI
with 128 and Vista with Aero is only using about 40%.

But my plan is to use XP, store all my patches and keep using it until we
see whats nexts. By the time teh next Windows is released, XP will alreday
be over 10 years old and MS wont be supporting it anymore. Software vendors
programs wont be XP compatibile. They will require at least Vista as most
now require XP or better.

So burn yoiur dvd's with XP backup...the updates and patches. And your XP
sofware and dont ry any new softs until a little later when everyone catches
up.by the time SP1 for Vista is release it will be good.



Isn't that true of every

The fix...

> Vista is worse than Windows 3.2-WindowsXP.Y'know, people ragged on XP when it was first released. Then after a
service pack or two, it was fine. I know we should not have to wait for MS
to get it right, but one always takes a risk when buying the 'latest and
greatest', as up to that point it was only used by Beta testers, not "in the
wild".