We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

available computer selection?

I've been using Windows Vista for well over a year now

and have not encountered any significant issues.

I would highly recommend Windows Vista for your new computer.

Make sure you order at least 2GB of RAM.

 

--

Carey Frisch

Microsoft MVP

Windows Shell/User

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

"mh64" wrote:

 

We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

available computer selection?

My computer was getting old and I thought I needed to upgrade. I bought a

new Dell that came with Vista. I didn't really want Vista from all I heard

but after a while I resolved all the issues. Most of them were caused by a

misunderstanding of how the new OS worked. Now everything is stable.

 

I would suggest if you are changing out ALL your computers, get the fastest

Dell you can, make sure it has at least 2 gig of Ram (4 works slightly

better but not much...depends on applications) and the biggest drive(s) you

can get.

 

Bob F.

 

 

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in message

news:4F3D4EFE-5723-4C15-AFA3-EBA612371832@microsoft.com...

> I've been using Windows Vista for well over a year now

> and have not encountered any significant issues.

> I would highly recommend Windows Vista for your new computer.

> Make sure you order at least 2GB of RAM.

>

> --

> Carey Frisch

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Shell/User

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

>

> "mh64" wrote:

>

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

> 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> limit

> available computer selection?

There are two primary considerations for a new PC with Vista. First

will all your existing peripherals ( Printer, Scanner, Camera...) work

with Vista. Secondly do you have any software that you'll want to use

on the Vista machine. Some software is not compliant.

Vista is not bad, that's a public perception that has taken hold. As to

choosing XP that's an option but over your 5-6 year life cycle XP is

set to become unsupported by Microsoft. There are other things to

consider such as the fact that new peripherals will soon have ONLY

driver support for Vista. If you buy a new machine with XP you may

lock yourself out from using newer devices. The same thing may apply

to newer applications they may only run on the Vista platform.

 

"mh64" wrote in message

news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

> 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> limit

> available computer selection?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64

wrote:

>We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

>years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

>using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

>with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

>Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

>available computer selection?

 

-----------------

 

My personal solution to this same question was to buy a computer with

Vista on it (alas), but to make sure it could run XP if I chose to

install it later. Not all computers that come with Vista will run XP

due to lack of drivers, or lack of support from the vendor. None of

the ones I checked on from Sony or Toshiba for example, at the time I

was looking.

 

I ended up with an HP/Compaq laptop which HP assures me will run XP

and which they will support. Check with them about individual models

though - don't take that as a blanket statement.

 

Anyhow, I've had Vista a week or so. I spent hours figuring out how

to turn off all the Vista eye candy, indexing, Vista interface, etc.,

et al. As a result I now have a system that looks pretty much like my

old XP system and which I've been happy enough with thus far. I still

have XP in my back pocket though if things become untenable.

 

Good luck.

 

Bill

Vista, of course, but don't expect to use your 5-year old scanner or your

4-year old webcam, not that you couldn't, but have those drivers been

updated?

 

 

"mh64" wrote in message

news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

> 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> limit

> available computer selection?

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in message

news:4F3D4EFE-5723-4C15-AFA3-EBA612371832@microsoft.com...

> I've been using Windows Vista for well over a year now

> and have not encountered any significant issues.

 

No significant issues? How about answering some of my "insignificant issues"

on this forum then?

 

eg - completely random, unpredictable USB driver failures casuing repeated

catastrophic loss of computer use - even mouse fails! Vista unable to load

new hardware drivers etc?

 

eg - massive problems with drivers for sound cards so it is impossible to

use Skype on my Dimension 9200?

 

eg - perfectly good software and hardware not backwards compatible - ie

forced to throw out and replace a perfectly good HP printer, Adobe

Professional 6.0, Garmin 1000 simulator does not work, Symantec Winfax pro

does not work.

 

Vista not even compatible with Microsoft products - eg appalling interface

with Live One Care (which was a brilliant program on XP), Vista does not

work with my Microsoft mouse, Vista shuts down because of DEP whenever I try

to import a jpeg movie from my Microsoft PDA phone, Microsoft digital

fingerprint reader making Windows sidebar gadgets unusable because of the

red splodge over the gadget - and I could go on and on. I have repeatedly

sought solutions to these problems on this and other forums and no answers.

ANd then MVP claim there are no problems !!!! LOOOOOOOOL!!!!

mh64597205 Wrote:

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer

> every 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that

> time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives &

> problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> limit

> available computer selection?

 

You'll want to go with Vista.

 

Just be sure you get the fastest computer you can, and depending on

your budget, 2 - 4 GB memory.

 

Once you've confirmed 64-Bit driver availablity for all you devices,

you way even want to consider using Vista x64. Most newer software that

will work under XP will work ok under Vista x64

 

 

--

dzomlija

 

_____________________

Peter Alexander Dzomlija

-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as

you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

 

-Download MP3 Media Properties Explorer: --http://www.phx.co.za-

 

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe

- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+

- 4GB DDR400

- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600

- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Chassis

- 1207GB Formatted Storage

- Vista Ultimate x64

- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at: http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/Dzomlija/Venus/

What is so bad about a four year old scanner then? They are just as good as

a brand new one.

Same for webcams.

No significant technical progress (except they are cheaper).

So why make them obsolete?

 

Vista is a rip off - just forces users to shell out loads of dosh for

replacement hardware and software that has no significant advantage.

 

Would you throw away a car every three or four years? Of course not! But

Vista insists that everything older than three years is "obsolete"!!!!

 

Tell me, what can Office 2007 do that Office 2003 cannot do? Answer -

absolutely nothing to anybody who lives in the real world.

 

 

 

"Cameron Snyder" wrote in message

news:e3oP1uCaIHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Vista, of course, but don't expect to use your 5-year old scanner or your

> 4-year old webcam, not that you couldn't, but have those drivers been

> updated?

>

>

> "mh64" wrote in message

> news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...

>> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

>> 5-6

>> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that

>> time(currently

>> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

>> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

>> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

>> limit

>> available computer selection?

>

mh64 wrote:

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

> available computer selection?

 

Wait a month or so if you can -- and make sure the Vista version comes

with SP1 updated (just released today). It is supposed to solve a lot of

the instability issues of Vista.

i like vista, but it does have its problems, thats why these forums

exist. i was happy with XP SP2, it was very stable and did not have

many issues with most hardware/software. however i felt the need to

learn about vista and the only way to do that is to live with it. if a

problem arises i don't mind spending time resolving it, but this can

drive some people insane when all they want to do is use the computer

for whatever. vista is good to look at and very intelligent when

plugging in periferal devices, but is very resource hungry and needs

tweaking to perform better. so in conclusion it much depends on your

temperament and whether you want to learn vista. decide between want

and need.

 

 

--

MIC

------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIC's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39365

View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=908780

 

http://forums.techarena.in

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64

wrote:

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

 

 

Whenever anything new comes out, you hear about people having problems

with it. That's because those having problems are looking for help,

and are the most vocal. For example, if you're reading about problems

*here*, this where people come with their problems, not with their

successes. You get a very distorted view of what's going on in the

real world here as someone once said, "hang around a transmission

shop and you will think that all cars have transmission problems."

 

Moreover, most problems, by far, that people report here have nothing

to do with defects in the software. They result from people's

ignorance, from bad or inadequate hardware, from old drivers, from

viruses, from spyware, and so on. And except for very rare situations,

they always get a fix for their problems, and in most cases, that fix

is a very simple one to implement.

 

My experience with Vista has been very positive, and I'm happy with

it. But be aware that there are differences between XP and Vista, and,

as with anything else new, learning to get accustomed to those

differences can take some time and be frustrating at first. Give

yourself time to learn and get accustomed to what's new.

 

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

> available computer selection?

 

 

If you were asking about upgrading an existing machine running XP, my

reply would be to go slowly and not rush into it. But to me it makes

no sense to get a new machine with yesterday's operating system. Yes,

get Vista, not XP.

 

Just make sure that the machine you get has adequate hardware for

Vista. In particular, most people should have at least 2GB of RAM, and

I wouldn't recommend getting less.

 

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

The date and time was 2/5/2008 10:53 AM, and on a whim, mh64 pounded out

on the keyboard:

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

> available computer selection?

 

Well, you can see the good and the bad by the replies. I would ask

yourself

 

1. Is there anything Vista offers that I need?

2. Is there any hardware or software that I currently use that I will

have to purchase because it won't work in Vista? Can I afford the upgrades?

 

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

It's not Microsoft that is making the hardware obsolete, it is the hardware

manufacturers who do not want to write a Vista driver and would rather you

purchase a new piece of hardware.

--

Paul

 

 

"Rich T" wrote:

> What is so bad about a four year old scanner then? They are just as good as

> a brand new one.

> Same for webcams.

> No significant technical progress (except they are cheaper).

> So why make them obsolete?

>

> Vista is a rip off - just forces users to shell out loads of dosh for

> replacement hardware and software that has no significant advantage.

>

> Would you throw away a car every three or four years? Of course not! But

> Vista insists that everything older than three years is "obsolete"!!!!

>

> Tell me, what can Office 2007 do that Office 2003 cannot do? Answer -

> absolutely nothing to anybody who lives in the real world.

>

>

>

> "Cameron Snyder" wrote in message

> news:e3oP1uCaIHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > Vista, of course, but don't expect to use your 5-year old scanner or your

> > 4-year old webcam, not that you couldn't, but have those drivers been

> > updated?

> >

> >

> > "mh64" wrote in message

> > news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...

> >> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

> >> 5-6

> >> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that

> >> time(currently

> >> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> >> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> >> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> >> limit

> >> available computer selection?

> >

>

>

By the way Office 2003 works fine in Vista.

--

Paul

 

 

"Rich T" wrote:

> What is so bad about a four year old scanner then? They are just as good as

> a brand new one.

> Same for webcams.

> No significant technical progress (except they are cheaper).

> So why make them obsolete?

>

> Vista is a rip off - just forces users to shell out loads of dosh for

> replacement hardware and software that has no significant advantage.

>

> Would you throw away a car every three or four years? Of course not! But

> Vista insists that everything older than three years is "obsolete"!!!!

>

> Tell me, what can Office 2007 do that Office 2003 cannot do? Answer -

> absolutely nothing to anybody who lives in the real world.

>

>

>

> "Cameron Snyder" wrote in message

> news:e3oP1uCaIHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > Vista, of course, but don't expect to use your 5-year old scanner or your

> > 4-year old webcam, not that you couldn't, but have those drivers been

> > updated?

> >

> >

> > "mh64" wrote in message

> > news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...

> >> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

> >> 5-6

> >> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that

> >> time(currently

> >> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> >> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> >> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> >> limit

> >> available computer selection?

> >

>

>

"mh64" wrote in message

news:0E052ADD-743A-4E58-9414-88780E9AE765@microsoft.com...

> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

> 5-6

> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

> limit

> available computer selection?

 

Sure, get Vista if you want to buy almost all new hardware and software. See

how your boss likes that.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

news:i8ehq3podlj84nfc67bgrhh3vicom785lh@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64

> wrote:

>

>> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

>> 5-6

>> years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that

>> time(currently

>> using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

>> with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

>

>

> Whenever anything new comes out, you hear about people having problems

> with it. That's because those having problems are looking for help,

> and are the most vocal. For example, if you're reading about problems

> *here*, this where people come with their problems, not with their

> successes. You get a very distorted view of what's going on in the

> real world here as someone once said, "hang around a transmission

> shop and you will think that all cars have transmission problems."

>

> Moreover, most problems, by far, that people report here have nothing

> to do with defects in the software. They result from people's

> ignorance, from bad or inadequate hardware, from old drivers, from

> viruses, from spyware, and so on. And except for very rare situations,

> they always get a fix for their problems, and in most cases, that fix

> is a very simple one to implement.

>

> My experience with Vista has been very positive, and I'm happy with

> it. But be aware that there are differences between XP and Vista, and,

> as with anything else new, learning to get accustomed to those

> differences can take some time and be frustrating at first. Give

> yourself time to learn and get accustomed to what's new.

>

>

>> Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really

>> limit

>> available computer selection?

>

>

> If you were asking about upgrading an existing machine running XP, my

> reply would be to go slowly and not rush into it. But to me it makes

> no sense to get a new machine with yesterday's operating system. Yes,

> get Vista, not XP.

>

> Just make sure that the machine you get has adequate hardware for

> Vista. In particular, most people should have at least 2GB of RAM, and

> I wouldn't recommend getting less.

>

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

Yes, it makes real sense to go incrementally.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:30:18 +0100, "Rich T" wrote:

>

>"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in message

>news:4F3D4EFE-5723-4C15-AFA3-EBA612371832@microsoft.com...

>> I've been using Windows Vista for well over a year now

>> and have not encountered any significant issues.

>

>No significant issues? How about answering some of my "insignificant issues"

>on this forum then?

>

>eg - completely random, unpredictable USB driver failures casuing repeated

>catastrophic loss of computer use - even mouse fails! Vista unable to load

>new hardware drivers etc?

>

>eg - massive problems with drivers for sound cards so it is impossible to

>use Skype on my Dimension 9200?

>

>eg - perfectly good software and hardware not backwards compatible - ie

>forced to throw out and replace a perfectly good HP printer, Adobe

>Professional 6.0, Garmin 1000 simulator does not work, Symantec Winfax pro

>does not work.

>

>Vista not even compatible with Microsoft products - eg appalling interface

>with Live One Care (which was a brilliant program on XP), Vista does not

>work with my Microsoft mouse, Vista shuts down because of DEP whenever I try

>to import a jpeg movie from my Microsoft PDA phone, Microsoft digital

>fingerprint reader making Windows sidebar gadgets unusable because of the

>red splodge over the gadget - and I could go on and on. I have repeatedly

>sought solutions to these problems on this and other forums and no answers.

>ANd then MVP claim there are no problems !!!! LOOOOOOOOL!!!!

 

Read again.

 

He said that HE has not encountered significant issues, nor have I.

Vista isn't everything it's touted to be....yet. As I remember,

neither was XP at first. Any compatibility problems that I've

experienced have been cleared up by contacting the app's support

group.

 

It's a drag that you've had this bad experience. Hope it works out

better for you.

bk

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64

wrote:

>We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

>years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

>using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

>with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

>Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

>available computer selection?

 

For a non-technical user, you should definitely go with XP unless you

intend to install zero apps and install zero peripherals after your

new PC arrives. Vista is plagued with compability problems, many of

which still exist even with SP1.

The date and time was 2/5/2008 12:35 PM, and on a whim, Bobby Knight

pounded out on the keyboard:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:30:18 +0100, "Rich T" wrote:

>

>> He said that HE has not encountered significant issues, nor have I.

>> Vista isn't everything it's touted to be....yet. As I remember,

>> neither was XP at first.

 

 

When people use that as an excuse for Vista, it doesn't hold water. If

you remember correctly, most users moved from Win9x to XP (I'll leave Me

out of it). Those who were using W2K didn't have the extreme

incompatibility issues that plagued those moving from XP to Vista. In

fact, XP was MORE compatible than W2K. XP was a major rewrite of the OS

from Win9x. The same cannot be said about XP to Vista.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Hi, occam.

 

I agree. But to clarify...

 

Vista SP1 was RTM (Released to Manufacturing) yesterday, February 4, 2008.

It will take a month or so to hit store shelves. Some computer makers may

have machines with SP1 pre-installed before then, but be sure to check

first.

 

We've been beta-testing SP1 for months and the final Release Candidate is

looking good! mh64 wrote:

>> We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every

>> 5-6 years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that

>> time(currently using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the

>> negatives & problems with Vista, is it really that bad for a

>> non-technical user like myself? Should I be opting for XP instead,

>> because if I do it seems to really limit available computer selection?[/color]

>

> Wait a month or so if you can -- and make sure the Vista version comes

> with SP1 updated (just released today). It is supposed to solve a lot of

> the instability issues of Vista.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:45:19 -0800, "Terry R."

wrote:

>The date and time was 2/5/2008 12:35 PM, and on a whim, Bobby Knight

>pounded out on the keyboard:

>

>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:30:18 +0100, "Rich T" wrote:

>>

>

>>> He said that HE has not encountered significant issues, nor have I.

>>> Vista isn't everything it's touted to be....yet. As I remember,

>>> neither was XP at first.

>

>

>When people use that as an excuse for Vista, it doesn't hold water. If

>you remember correctly, most users moved from Win9x to XP (I'll leave Me

>out of it). Those who were using W2K didn't have the extreme

>incompatibility issues that plagued those moving from XP to Vista. In

>fact, XP was MORE compatible than W2K. XP was a major rewrite of the OS

>from Win9x. The same cannot be said about XP to Vista.

 

My opinion is different, but it really doesn't matter. I have had

very minor problems with both XP and Vista.

wrote in message

news:ugihq3t2nmmuq2ursggfvc5226162vdveg@4ax.com...

> new PC arrives. Vista is plagued with compability problems, many of

> which still exist even with SP1.

 

And you are plagued with mental problems but you still post here. Just FYI

"Rich T" wrote in message

news:%23mt0Q4CaIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> What is so bad about a four year old scanner then? They are just as good

> as a brand new one.

> Same for webcams.

> No significant technical progress (except they are cheaper).

> So why make them obsolete?

 

Vista did not make them obsolete. Lack of updated drivers from the

manufacturer did.

 

No OS maker can assure compatability of legacy items...unless you

straight-jacket the market place with a true monopoly...such as APPLE!

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:04 -0800, mh64

> wrote:

>

>

>>We are getting a new computer and generally only buy a new computer every 5-6

>>years, so we take whatever OS comes on the computer at that time(currently

>>using XP with no real issues). I keep seeing all the negatives & problems

>>with Vista, is it really that bad for a non-technical user like myself?

>>Should I be opting for XP instead, because if I do it seems to really limit

>>available computer selection?

>

>

> For a non-technical user, you should definitely go with XP unless you

> intend to install zero apps and install zero peripherals after your

> new PC arrives. Vista is plagued with compability problems, many of

> which still exist even with SP1.

 

 

Only if you're a fukkin moron idiot like you...LOL!

Loser!

Frank