You make no sense in your post.

But, most of what you post is either senseless or blind bias lacking

in facts.

It is noted that although there are a few of your posts in this

thread, as is typical of you, you did NOTHING to help the OP with a

solution.

Typical of those driven with a blind agenda.

 

Windows Vista continues to perform well on two older computers of

mine.

A simple FACT you seem unable to accomplish and can NOT disprove.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

wrote in message

news:atfnq3l32lgvui9fc32ptqn9t3nnovj3ff@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:54:19 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

> wrote:

> Not his bubba

Very typical of you yet again.

A post attacking those you disagree.

When you are unable to prove what you say, you attack others.

 

"you have no facts to support your story"

The FACT is my computers perform well with windows Vista.

You can attack me, but you are again unable to disprove the facts.

Read my post again, possibly for the first time.

You have apparently missed much.

 

Those competent and secure in their position have no need for attacks.

That you seem to regularly attack others while contributing NOTHING to

the issues speaks much of your own insecurities and little of others.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

wrote in message

news:lmfnq3pb1f75q0ph7h202dqnl4i84pqj3g@4ax.com...

> AMEN BROTHER

>

> oops you have no facts to support your story. well it did sound

> good,

> but hey never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

>

> I think you are an IDIOT. A FACT you can NOT disprove.

Now that I think about it, you are probably right about the camera. I was

just calling manufacturers about compatibility and the kodak person didn't

really sound like they knew what they were talking about. What about

software? Are there any issues with older software not working on newer OS?

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:36:01 -0800, mh64

> wrote:

>

> > Well, I have researched and found out my scanner and my digital camera will

> > not support Vista. (both are probably 5+ years old but working just fine for

> > what i need) So I seriously have to get new periperals if want to use

> > vista???

>

>

> Two points:

>

> 1. In general, older peripherals are often not supported on newer

> operating systems. This is true regardless of what the peripheral is,

> and what operating system you are talking about. If the manufacturer

> of the peripheral is no longer actively selling that particular

> product, he is often reluctant to invest money to write a new driver

> for it. That's a simple economic fact, and again has nothing to do

> with Vista. No vendor ever promises someone buying his peripheral that

> he will write drivers for it for every new operating system that comes

> onto the market.

>

> 2. Regarding your camera, you should not need Vista support for it.

> Worst case, you could buy an inexpensive USB media card reader, and

> use it to transfer your pictures to the Vista computer.

>

> But your choice. If your scanner isn't supported in Vista, you either

> need to get a new scanner or stay with the operating system you

> presently have.

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>

Well most people are not having problems and they generally don't go on

line to find an answer to their problem or to complain about them.

Satisfied users are generally quiet.

 

--

Joseph Meehan

 

Dia 's Muire duit

 

 

 

"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 Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:03:00 -0800, mh64

wrote:

> Now that I think about it, you are probably right about the camera. I was

> just calling manufacturers about compatibility and the kodak person didn't

> really sound like they knew what they were talking about. What about

> software? Are there any issues with older software not working on newer OS?

 

 

Of course, there are always such issues. There's never a guarantee

that every existing program will work with any new operating system.

 

If the software you use is old enough, it's likely that some of it

won't work with XP. Many people have had such problems. Sometimes

running in compatibility mode fixes those problems, but some programs

won't run at all.

 

Check your applications at "Windows Application Compatibility" at

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/desktop...t/bb414773.aspx

 

My personal experience has been that, with the exception of two minor

utilities I didn't really need, every program I ran under XP also ran

under Vista, and I did not need compatibility mode for any of them.

 

 

> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

>

> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:36:01 -0800, mh64

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Well, I have researched and found out my scanner and my digital camera will

> > > not support Vista. (both are probably 5+ years old but working just fine for

> > > what i need) So I seriously have to get new periperals if want to use

> > > vista???

> >

> >

> > Two points:

> >

> > 1. In general, older peripherals are often not supported on newer

> > operating systems. This is true regardless of what the peripheral is,

> > and what operating system you are talking about. If the manufacturer

> > of the peripheral is no longer actively selling that particular

> > product, he is often reluctant to invest money to write a new driver

> > for it. That's a simple economic fact, and again has nothing to do

> > with Vista. No vendor ever promises someone buying his peripheral that

> > he will write drivers for it for every new operating system that comes

> > onto the market.

> >

> > 2. Regarding your camera, you should not need Vista support for it.

> > Worst case, you could buy an inexpensive USB media card reader, and

> > use it to transfer your pictures to the Vista computer.

> >

> > But your choice. If your scanner isn't supported in Vista, you either

> > need to get a new scanner or stay with the operating system you

> > presently have.

> >

> > --

> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> >

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

All software is different.

If possible try it on a Windows Vista computer.

You may be surprised at what will work even if the manufacturers say

no.

But if the manufacturer says no to Vista compatibility, there may be a

reason that is not readily apparent.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"mh64" wrote in message

news:4AA68A5F-C782-4B49-91C2-52830D2EECDD@microsoft.com...

> Now that I think about it, you are probably right about the camera.

> I was

> just calling manufacturers about compatibility and the kodak person

> didn't

> really sound like they knew what they were talking about. What

> about

> software? Are there any issues with older software not working on

> newer OS?

>

> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

>

>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:36:01 -0800, mh64

>> wrote:

>>

>> > Well, I have researched and found out my scanner and my digital

>> > camera will

>> > not support Vista. (both are probably 5+ years old but working

>> > just fine for

>> > what i need) So I seriously have to get new periperals if want

>> > to use

>> > vista???

>>

>>

>> Two points:

>>

>> 1. In general, older peripherals are often not supported on newer

>> operating systems. This is true regardless of what the peripheral

>> is,

>> and what operating system you are talking about. If the

>> manufacturer

>> of the peripheral is no longer actively selling that particular

>> product, he is often reluctant to invest money to write a new

>> driver

>> for it. That's a simple economic fact, and again has nothing to do

>> with Vista. No vendor ever promises someone buying his peripheral

>> that

>> he will write drivers for it for every new operating system that

>> comes

>> onto the market.

>>

>> 2. Regarding your camera, you should not need Vista support for it.

>> Worst case, you could buy an inexpensive USB media card reader, and

>> use it to transfer your pictures to the Vista computer.

>>

>> But your choice. If your scanner isn't supported in Vista, you

>> either

>> need to get a new scanner or stay with the operating system you

>> presently have.

>>

>> --

>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>>

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message

news:O#A0UEhaIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Very typical of you yet again.

> A post attacking those you disagree.

> When you are unable to prove what you say, you attack others.

>

> "you have no facts to support your story"

> The FACT is my computers perform well with windows Vista.

> You can attack me, but you are again unable to disprove the facts.

> Read my post again, possibly for the first time.

> You have apparently missed much.

>

> Those competent and secure in their position have no need for attacks.

> That you seem to regularly attack others while contributing NOTHING to the

> issues speaks much of your own insecurities and little of others.

 

Jupiter, when trying to enlighten smacktards like this you must remember

it's like arguing with a retard. Even if you win, they're still retarded.

(to coin a phrase)

 

--

Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel

Undo the munge to reply by email

 

 

> wrote in message

> news:lmfnq3pb1f75q0ph7h202dqnl4i84pqj3g@4ax.com...

>> AMEN BROTHER

>>

>> oops you have no facts to support your story. well it did sound good,

>> but hey never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

>>

>> I think you are an IDIOT. A FACT you can NOT disprove.

>

Well, get Vista with the enterprise pack: Windows XP free downgrade.

 

If you want to use your computer in 2-3 years, vista "should" be fine.

The downgrade to XP is efficient if you want to use it now.

 

I'm so sorry to have to say this, but vista doesn't seems to be an OS

for professionals ( as some bugs because of UAC "png not displayed"

that occured in feb 2007 are still present after new updates ) and

doesn't seems to be an OS for Home users ( as even people working

on computers need 2 hours to source a problem like UAC modifications ).

 

The XP downgrade available for professionals seems to be a good

aletrnative if you want to stay on Microsoft OS. I will not talk about

other free OS to be installed, as I am thinking about it but was too lazy

to install them.

 

XP has no future (as said by MVPs)

Vista has no present (as said by beta-users)

(2)

 

XP has no future (as MVPs say)

Vista has no present (as user can see)

 

There is an alternative with XP downgrade for Vista (proposed

to professionals as a sale argument) if you want to stay on a

Microsoft based OS.

 

Geoffrey.

(3)

 

XP has no future (as MVPs say)

Vista has no present (as user can see)

 

There is an alternative with XP downgrade for Vista (proposed

to professionals as a sale argument) if you want to stay on a

Microsoft based OS.

 

Geoffrey.

"gkersale" wrote in message

news:1F60153E-A265-451C-9D05-058026F209AE@microsoft.com...

> Well, get Vista with the enterprise pack: Windows XP free downgrade.

>

> If you want to use your computer in 2-3 years, vista "should" be fine.

> The downgrade to XP is efficient if you want to use it now.

 

XP downgrade then if you have that option. Buy the time Vista is tuned and

stabalized, you will need a new PC.

> I'm so sorry to have to say this, but vista doesn't seems to be an OS

> for professionals ( as some bugs because of UAC "png not displayed"

> that occured in feb 2007 are still present after new updates ) and

> doesn't seems to be an OS for Home users ( as even people working

> on computers need 2 hours to source a problem like UAC modifications ).

>

> The XP downgrade available for professionals seems to be a good

> aletrnative if you want to stay on Microsoft OS. I will not talk about

> other free OS to be installed, as I am thinking about it but was too lazy

> to install them.

>

> XP has no future (as said by MVPs)

 

MVPs are pushing the MS line.

 

Many consumers are pissed.

> Vista has no present (as said by beta-users)

 

I am a Vista release user, and I want XP Pro 64 bit. Can't get it with

pirating it.

 

Vista sucks.

"XP has no future (as said by MVPs)"

Your generalization makes it seem as if all MVPS say this.

I have seen some people say this, MVP and otherwise.

As most generalizations, this is simply FALSE.

Convenient how you ignore the FACT many point out that Windows XP will be

supported for a while and probably will be supported for several more years.

So obviously Windows XP does have a future.

But that goes against the incorrect bias you want to spread.

 

Those that say one has no future are speaking from ignorance or blind bias.

Those that say windows Vista has no presant are also speaking from blind

bias or ignorance.

The generalizations go a long way toward making those ASSUMPTIONS simply

FALSE.

 

Windows Vista performs well on two older computers of mine.

A simple fact, an experience shared by many.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"gkersale" wrote in message

news:1F60153E-A265-451C-9D05-058026F209AE@microsoft.com...

> Well, get Vista with the enterprise pack: Windows XP free downgrade.

>

> If you want to use your computer in 2-3 years, vista "should" be fine.

> The downgrade to XP is efficient if you want to use it now.

>

> I'm so sorry to have to say this, but vista doesn't seems to be an OS

> for professionals ( as some bugs because of UAC "png not displayed"

> that occured in feb 2007 are still present after new updates ) and

> doesn't seems to be an OS for Home users ( as even people working

> on computers need 2 hours to source a problem like UAC modifications ).

>

> The XP downgrade available for professionals seems to be a good

> aletrnative if you want to stay on Microsoft OS. I will not talk about

> other free OS to be installed, as I am thinking about it but was too lazy

> to install them.

>

> XP has no future (as said by MVPs)

> Vista has no present (as said by beta-users)

Frank wrote:

> thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

>

>> Yeah pretty much. Trust me Vista looks cool and the rest is down

>> hill. Stay with XP.

>

> How would a fukkin loser like you know you moron.

> You don't even use Vista...you queen of idiots!

> Frank

Gee Whiz

 

how come he did not go hehehe...LOL! in this ng because he should go ha

ha ha. And the imbecile is calling someone else a moron

Frank wrote:

> NoStop wrote:

>

>

>>

>> His point is that along with a P.O.S. toy operating system, he also

>> likes to

>> use P.O.S. hardware.

>>

>> Cheers.

>

> So he's using that POS toy os urbuttoo huh?

Better than windows except for the hardware mfg support.

> Well good luck having any hardware work on that crap os!

> Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> NoStop wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> His point is that along with a P.O.S. toy operating system, he also

>>>> likes to

>>>> use P.O.S. hardware.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>>

>>>

>>> So he's using that POS toy os urbuttoo huh?

>>> Well good luck having any hardware work on that crap os!

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> I just nuked an XP installation and installed Ubuntu. XP's silly BSOD

>> said it was a hardware problem and it wouldn't boot into Normal or

>> Safe Mode. I wiped XP and installed Ubuntu and Ubuntu had NO problem

>> with the hardware and the client, needless to say, was thrilled.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Having those "delusional fantasies" again mr liar, mr troll, mr

> spammer, mr bigot...LOL!

> Frank

da shmuck calls poster liars and trolls for not agreeing with him.

 

The people in this ng need to know that this.

 

Some people like mac

Some like various flavors of windows for various reasons. I happen to

like Visual Studio and SQL Server

 

But at home after testing Linux Ubuntu in a dual boot system I found my

self very stable with Ubuntu and never needing to go back to windows.

And to pay over a $1000 for application software on top of $400 for

Vista Ultimate I decided to do other things with my money.

 

But the Viet Nam Vet who is over 60 is a bit senile.

 

He volunteered to be a target for the Viet Cong traineers. Yes they

used him for target practice. That explains why he as a small hole in

his head and why is mouth is so stupid. It is a total disconnect from

is meager gray matter.

Both. I have dual booted my machine with XP Pro SP3 for my older programs and

peripherals, and with Vista Ultimate. I much prefer the GUI and the search

feature in Vista and I use it most of the time even with it's problems.

However, I still use XP for many applications that I can't use on Vista. XP

will not be supported after this year, and Windows 7 is slated to come out in

2010...

"unknown" wrote:

>

Hi

Don't listen to Mr Angry....sorry Rich T.

Go for vista I've been using it for nearly a year and in the beginning

it was, I must admit, a bit flaky but I find it very stable now and

although I have XP as a dual boot I never use it. Oh,and all my

accessories work fine.

As the others have said it needs plenty of power to be at its best

though and I’m not too sure about Vista Home.

Forester style_emoticons//smile.gif

 

 

--

forester

Posted via http://www.vistaheads.com

Hi, me again.

When I posted the above message I hadn't noticed there where loads more

pages, wow, this has really got the fingers tapping.

All I can say is I have no problems with my computers running Vista

Ultimate if you have problems, why is that?

Forester

 

 

--

forester

Posted via http://www.vistaheads.com

"forester" wrote in message

news:forester.3axu4f@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...

>

> Hi, me again.

> When I posted the above message I hadn't noticed there where loads more

> pages,

 

There aren't any PAGES. What you are doing is accessing a global Usenet

NEWSGROUP that Vistaheads have poached and are passing off as their forum.

It is not true that XP will not be supported after this year. XP SP2 and

SP3 will continue to receive mainstream support until April 2009 and XP SP3

will receive extended support through April of 2014. XP will not be retired

until then. All that is happening this year is that distribution of retail

copies of XP will end. Some retailers will continue to have stock for a

while.

 

There is an incompatibility between XP and Vista such that booting XP can

destroy your recovery files, such as restore points, backup and restore

center backup files, shadow copies, etc. To prevent this you can use

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926185

It involves a simple registry key.

 

"CoCo" wrote in message

news:D99FDF65-863B-491B-BE4D-CEA9A584E0A9@microsoft.com...

> Both. I have dual booted my machine with XP Pro SP3 for my older programs

> and

> peripherals, and with Vista Ultimate. I much prefer the GUI and the

> search

> feature in Vista and I use it most of the time even with it's problems.

> However, I still use XP for many applications that I can't use on Vista.

> XP

> will not be supported after this year, and Windows 7 is slated to come out

> in

> 2010...

> "unknown" wrote:

>

>>

come again?

 

 

--

forester

Posted via http://www.vistaheads.com

I much preferred Windows XP. The biggest problem is trying to join my

favorite bridge site only to find in fine print that I cannot get in with

Vista.

 

"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?

You cannot get 'in' with IE7, or IE8.... or Firefox? It's nothing to do

with the O/S, it's to do with whatever browser you're using.

--

Cari (MS-MVP)

Windows Technologies - Printing & Imaging

http://www.coribright.com/windows

 

 

"visualsummer" wrote in message

news:43236DAB-3C6F-4AE3-9401-5A64B00B06A6@microsoft.com...

>I much preferred Windows XP. The biggest problem is trying to join my

> favorite bridge site only to find in fine print that I cannot get in with

> Vista.

>

> "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?

Huh?

 

'Sounds like you need a new bridge site!? LOL No, no - it's probably a

browser issue.

 

Try using Internet Explorer 8 - if that doesn't work, visit the website

again using IE 8, only this time click on the 'Compatibility View' button at

the right of the address bar. The button looks like a torn piece of paper -

this will change the rendering engine to IE 7 mode and the page should

render correctly and enable you to use the website.

 

Saucy

 

 

"visualsummer" wrote in message

news:43236DAB-3C6F-4AE3-9401-5A64B00B06A6@microsoft.com...

> I much preferred Windows XP. The biggest problem is trying to join my

> favorite bridge site only to find in fine print that I cannot get in with

> Vista.

>

> "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?