Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

February 20, 2008

Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if you

have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have

SP1...

I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

taste.

But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

Article

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

again...

"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to manage

retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and

businesses that were loath to switch."

--

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive

Get a New Mac , Jack

Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

Just get yourself free

Boot from a *nix, Jix

You don't need to discuss much

Install XP, Lee

And get yourself free

February 20, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

"On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

> you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have

> SP1...

> I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

> taste.

>

> But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

> dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>

> Article

> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>

> I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

> again...

>

> "Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

> trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

> organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

> manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and

> businesses that were loath to switch."

>

> --

> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>

> CHORUS:

>

> You just format the drive , Clive

> Get a New Mac , Jack

> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

> Just get yourself free

> Boot from a *nix, Jix

> You don't need to discuss much

> Install XP, Lee

> And get yourself free

>

With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for themselves,

indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's

hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

which were and are still FUD.

The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load slow

in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers play

up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP

ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so what!!

Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista

takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

operating system..

Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over

15 years ago..

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

February 20, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

As I said.. after SP1 vista has become "somewhat acceptible", and thats why

I have stopped bashing it..

And by the way this proves I was never a troll as you and many others

claimed. It was not my fault, that vista was faulty.

But still lots of people are having problems, so I decided to focus my

energy now to help everyone I can with these problems

instead of making fun of vista.

With SP1, vista passed the threshold of total CRAP, to only annoying

requiring you to have patience.

Sure a Vista joke here in there is a must, just to keep that smile on our

face.. but I have decided to

help the users.. they are who I care about.

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote in message

news:e8%23sGw8cIHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

> news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>> you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you

>> have SP1...

>> I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

>> taste.

>>

>> But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>> dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>

>> Article

>> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>

>> I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>> again...

>>

>> "Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>> trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>> organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>> manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores

>> and businesses that were loath to switch."

>>

>> --

>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>>

>> CHORUS:

>>

>> You just format the drive , Clive

>> Get a New Mac , Jack

>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

>> Just get yourself free

>> Boot from a *nix, Jix

>> You don't need to discuss much

>> Install XP, Lee

>> And get yourself free

>>

>

> With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

> newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for

> themselves, indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party

> manufacturers, it's hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could

> become the next ME.

>

> But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

> problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

> were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

> fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

> which were and are still FUD.

>

> The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

> package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load

> slow in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to

> tell.

>

> UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

> case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers

> play up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than

> XP ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so

> what!! Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms,

> Vista takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>

> Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

> new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

> such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>

> The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

> the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>

> Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

> selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

> care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

> this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

> 'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

> operating system..

>

> Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

> after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

> users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

> accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics

> over 15 years ago..

>

> --

> Mike Hall - MVP

> How to construct a good post..

> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

> Mike's Window - My Blog..

> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

>

February 20, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

>>>With SP1, vista passed the threshold of total CRAP, to only annoying

requiring you to have patience<<<

Well that I don't agree with, however you have your opinion and I do respect

that. One thing I do agree with and glad to see is your change of mind to

start helping people on these groups. That's why they are here and MOST come

here seeking help.

BTW, a joke or two is fine with me, it's a joke and laughter is indeed the

best medicine.

All the best,

SG

"On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

news:47bc3aa1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> As I said.. after SP1 vista has become "somewhat acceptible", and thats

> why I have stopped bashing it..

> And by the way this proves I was never a troll as you and many others

> claimed. It was not my fault, that vista was faulty.

>

> But still lots of people are having problems, so I decided to focus my

> energy now to help everyone I can with these problems

> instead of making fun of vista.

> With SP1, vista passed the threshold of total CRAP, to only annoying

> requiring you to have patience.

>

> Sure a Vista joke here in there is a must, just to keep that smile on our

> face.. but I have decided to

> help the users.. they are who I care about.

>

> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote in message

> news:e8%23sGw8cIHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

>> news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>> Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>>> you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you

>>> have SP1...

>>> I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for

>>> my taste.

>>>

>>> But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>>> dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>>

>>> Article

>>> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>>

>>> I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>>> again...

>>>

>>> "Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>>> trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>>> organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>>> manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores

>>> and businesses that were loath to switch."

>>>

>>> --

>>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>>>

>>> CHORUS:

>>>

>>> You just format the drive , Clive

>>> Get a New Mac , Jack

>>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

>>> Just get yourself free

>>> Boot from a *nix, Jix

>>> You don't need to discuss much

>>> Install XP, Lee

>>> And get yourself free

>>>

>>

>> With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

>> newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for

>> themselves, indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party

>> manufacturers, it's hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could

>> become the next ME.

>>

>> But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

>> problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

>> were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

>> fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

>> which were and are still FUD.

>>

>> The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

>> package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load

>> slow in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to

>> tell.

>>

>> UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

>> case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers

>> play up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better

>> than XP ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this,

>> but so what!! Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage

>> terms, Vista takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>>

>> Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

>> new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

>> such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>>

>> The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

>> the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>>

>> Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>> selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>> care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>> this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>> 'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>> operating system..

>>

>> Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

>> after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it

>> for users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped

>> lifestyle accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good

>> graphics over 15 years ago..

>>

>> --

>> Mike Hall - MVP

>> How to construct a good post..

>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

>> Mike's Window - My Blog..

>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

>>

>

February 20, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:39:49 +0200, "On the Bridge"

<OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote:

>Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if you

>have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have

>SP1...

>I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

>taste.

>

>But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>

>Article

>http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>

>I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>again...

>

>"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to manage

>retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and

>businesses that were loath to switch."

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

You're making the implicit assumption that Win 7 won't be even slower

and more sluggish than Vista is. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that.

Microsoft IMHO needs to give all their developers weak, wimpy

computers equivelent to what the bulk of their customers use rather

than high end development machines. Then they might have a better

appreciation for how sluggish it can be when a machine goes to sleep

for an extended time to index files or something else that doesn't

actually contribute to completeing the task at hand.

Even their Office 2007 has been a disappointment with lots of effort

put into making things look newer and better at the expense of

exection speed which is all I really care about in Excel. I don't

think that would have happened either if their developers were all on

1GHz single processor machines with 1GB or less of RAM.

That said, if you have a high end machine both Vista and Excel seem to

work ok once you kill a lot of the eye candy features. But they're

forcing the retailers to also put it on low end machines that just

suck with Vista, but would be ok with XP. And these low end machines

go into the hands of people who don't know enough to kill the resource

hogging features. (What percentage of Microsoft's customers don't

even know they can change their browser's home page?)

Bill

February 20, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

Hi here is a post below I made some time ago, it reflects what you are

saying..

--

I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the state

of the art machines

with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.

There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of

Vista.

Its slow

its bloated

its ugly on CRT screens,

with bad colors and darn right bad taste!

They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY

vista can run on...

a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT

screens!!!!

THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!

The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER

FASTER LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!

This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of

ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !

--

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive

Get a New Mac , Jack

Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

Just get yourself free

Boot from a *nix, Jix

You don't need to discuss much

Install XP, Lee

And get yourself free

"Bill Martin" <martin_spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:e22pr3l49j829nd39gqj4o52c0ba2a74tq@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:39:49 +0200, "On the Bridge"

> <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote:

>

>>Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>>you

>>have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have

>>SP1...

>>I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

>>taste.

>>

>>But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>>dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>

>>Article

>>http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>

>>I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>>again...

>>

>>"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>>trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>>organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>>manage

>>retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and

>>businesses that were loath to switch."

>

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

>

> You're making the implicit assumption that Win 7 won't be even slower

> and more sluggish than Vista is. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that.

>

> Microsoft IMHO needs to give all their developers weak, wimpy

> computers equivelent to what the bulk of their customers use rather

> than high end development machines. Then they might have a better

> appreciation for how sluggish it can be when a machine goes to sleep

> for an extended time to index files or something else that doesn't

> actually contribute to completeing the task at hand.

>

> Even their Office 2007 has been a disappointment with lots of effort

> put into making things look newer and better at the expense of

> exection speed which is all I really care about in Excel. I don't

> think that would have happened either if their developers were all on

> 1GHz single processor machines with 1GB or less of RAM.

>

> That said, if you have a high end machine both Vista and Excel seem to

> work ok once you kill a lot of the eye candy features. But they're

> forcing the retailers to also put it on low end machines that just

> suck with Vista, but would be ok with XP. And these low end machines

> go into the hands of people who don't know enough to kill the resource

> hogging features. (What percentage of Microsoft's customers don't

> even know they can change their browser's home page?)

>

> Bill

February 21, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

Per Mike Hall - MVP:

>Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>operating system..

Think about what the above seems to imply.

With XP, people could buy those cheap, junk PCs and have Windows

XP run on them, no problem.

One of my boxes is an old Compaq that I rescued from the

dumpster: 1.1 ghz, a half gig of memory.

XP runs ok on it.

My "real" PCs are Intel P4's - and XP runs like a dream on them -

yet I strongly suspect that Vista would bring them to their

knees.

So it sounds like with Vista, people will need better (and more

expensive) PCs.

Sure - maybe it's just a matter of memory, but it still means

more money spent on the PC.

Not everybody has a lot of money - and things aren't going to get

any better over the coming years.

Place I worked a couple jobs back, a Linux enthusiast had a sign

on his cubicle wall:

"Intel Givith.

Microsoft Taketh Away."

--

PeteCresswell

February 21, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

Per Bill Martin:

>Microsoft IMHO needs to give all their developers weak, wimpy

>computers equivelent to what the bulk of their customers use rather

>than high end development machines. Then they might have a better

>appreciation for how sluggish it can be....

When I develop MS Office suite stuff, I'm still periodically

dismayed when something I develop - that runs like a champ on my

developer box - slows to a crawl on the user groups' laptops.

You'd think I'd learn.... but developing on a slow PC is just too

cruel and unusual to the developer IMHO.

But at least now I sneak a few tests in on one of the user's PCs

before saddling them with something.

--

PeteCresswell

February 21, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

its about economics.. how much more work would you need to put into a

program for it to work

blazing fast?

I bet a lot...

MS is gonna make the money anyway.. why put in extra effort? Thats why they

love being a monopoly (not in theory but in practice)

--

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive

Get a New Mac , Jack

Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

Just get yourself free

Boot from a *nix, Jix

You don't need to discuss much

Install XP, Lee

And get yourself free

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message

news:rflpr3llppmib1632fm1uu2vn1bar051rt@4ax.com...

> Per Bill Martin:

>>Microsoft IMHO needs to give all their developers weak, wimpy

>>computers equivelent to what the bulk of their customers use rather

>>than high end development machines. Then they might have a better

>>appreciation for how sluggish it can be....

>

> When I develop MS Office suite stuff, I'm still periodically

> dismayed when something I develop - that runs like a champ on my

> developer box - slows to a crawl on the user groups' laptops.

>

> You'd think I'd learn.... but developing on a slow PC is just too

> cruel and unusual to the developer IMHO.

>

> But at least now I sneak a few tests in on one of the user's PCs

> before saddling them with something.

> --

> PeteCresswell

February 21, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

"Intel Givith.

Microsoft Taketh Away."

wise words lol

--

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive

Get a New Mac , Jack

Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

Just get yourself free

Boot from a *nix, Jix

You don't need to discuss much

Install XP, Lee

And get yourself free

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message

news:8gkpr3pvtq9spcm61d23elsejl74ldl2f5@4ax.com...

> Per Mike Hall - MVP:

>>Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>>selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>>care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>>this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>>'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>>operating system..

>

> Think about what the above seems to imply.

>

> With XP, people could buy those cheap, junk PCs and have Windows

> XP run on them, no problem.

>

> One of my boxes is an old Compaq that I rescued from the

> dumpster: 1.1 ghz, a half gig of memory.

>

> XP runs ok on it.

>

> My "real" PCs are Intel P4's - and XP runs like a dream on them -

> yet I strongly suspect that Vista would bring them to their

> knees.

>

> So it sounds like with Vista, people will need better (and more

> expensive) PCs.

>

> Sure - maybe it's just a matter of memory, but it still means

> more money spent on the PC.

>

> Not everybody has a lot of money - and things aren't going to get

> any better over the coming years.

>

> Place I worked a couple jobs back, a Linux enthusiast had a sign

> on his cubicle wall:

>

> "Intel Givith.

> Microsoft Taketh Away."

> --

> PeteCresswell

February 21, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

XP was an excellent product sp1 onwards, not sp2 onwards.

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote in message

news:e8%23sGw8cIHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

> news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>> you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you

>> have SP1...

>> I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

>> taste.

>>

>> But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>> dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>

>> Article

>> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>

>> I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>> again...

>>

>> "Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>> trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>> organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>> manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores

>> and businesses that were loath to switch."

>>

>> --

>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>>

>> CHORUS:

>>

>> You just format the drive , Clive

>> Get a New Mac , Jack

>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

>> Just get yourself free

>> Boot from a *nix, Jix

>> You don't need to discuss much

>> Install XP, Lee

>> And get yourself free

>>

>

> With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

> newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for

> themselves, indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party

> manufacturers, it's hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could

> become the next ME.

>

> But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

> problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

> were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

> fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

> which were and are still FUD.

>

> The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

> package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load

> slow in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to

> tell.

>

> UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

> case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers

> play up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than

> XP ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so

> what!! Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms,

> Vista takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>

> Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

> new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

> such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>

> The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

> the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>

> Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

> selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

> care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

> this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

> 'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

> operating system..

>

> Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

> after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

> users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

> accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics

> over 15 years ago..

>

> --

> Mike Hall - MVP

> How to construct a good post..

> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

> Mike's Window - My Blog..

> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

>

February 21, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

"kookieman" <a@bbccd.com> wrote in message

news:%23PbfWtHdIHA.5984@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> XP was an excellent product sp1 onwards, not sp2 onwards.

>

> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote in message

> news:e8%23sGw8cIHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> "On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

>> news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>> Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>>> you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you

>>> have SP1...

>>> I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for

>>> my taste.

>>>

>>> But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>>> dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>>

>>> Article

>>> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>>

>>> I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>>> again...

>>>

>>> "Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>>> trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>>> organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>>> manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores

>>> and businesses that were loath to switch."

>>>

>>> --

>>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>>>

>>> CHORUS:

>>>

>>> You just format the drive , Clive

>>> Get a New Mac , Jack

>>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

>>> Just get yourself free

>>> Boot from a *nix, Jix

>>> You don't need to discuss much

>>> Install XP, Lee

>>> And get yourself free

>>>

>>

>> With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

>> newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for

>> themselves, indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party

>> manufacturers, it's hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could

>> become the next ME.

>>

>> But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

>> problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

>> were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

>> fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

>> which were and are still FUD.

>>

>> The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

>> package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load

>> slow in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to

>> tell.

>>

>> UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

>> case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers

>> play up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better

>> than XP ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this,

>> but so what!! Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage

>> terms, Vista takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>>

>> Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

>> new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

>> such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>>

>> The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

>> the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>>

>> Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>> selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>> care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>> this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>> 'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>> operating system..

>>

>> Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

>> after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it

>> for users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped

>> lifestyle accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good

>> graphics over 15 years ago..

>>

>> --

>> Mike Hall - MVP

>> How to construct a good post..

>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

>> Mike's Window - My Blog..

>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

>>

>

It really came of age after SP2 which was not just a patch roll up. It was a

major rewrite of more than a few lines of code..

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

February 22, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

Per Mike Hall - MVP:

>and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

>accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over

>15 years ago..

I'd have to agree with that.

I used tb a Mac fan. Even wrote a little inventory/customer

billing app for one-piece doorstop 7" screen brown box Mac.

That was a looooong time ago.

Couple years back, bought a new Mac for somebody in the family,

who just *had* to have a Mac.

Got to play with it for three weeks before they graduated from

school.

Can't comment on what's under the hood, but my impression of the

UI and ease of installing applications was just a teeny bit

beneath Windows XP. Not a lot worse... but definitely not as

good. Little things - like only having one place to close a

window.

--

PeteCresswell

February 22, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:28 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"

<mikehall@mvps.com> wrote:

>"On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

>news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>> you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have

>> SP1...

>> I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

>> taste.

>>

>> But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>> dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>

>> Article

>> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>

>> I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>> again...

>>

>> "Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>> trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>> organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>> manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and

>> businesses that were loath to switch."

>>

>> --

>> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>>

>> CHORUS:

>>

>> You just format the drive , Clive

>> Get a New Mac , Jack

>> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

>> Just get yourself free

>> Boot from a *nix, Jix

>> You don't need to discuss much

>> Install XP, Lee

>> And get yourself free

>>

>

>With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

>newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for themselves,

>indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's

>hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

>

>But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

>problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

>were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

>fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

>which were and are still FUD.

>

>The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

>package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load slow

>in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

>

>UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

>case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers play

>up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP

>ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so what!!

>Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista

>takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>

>Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

>new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

>such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>

>The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

>the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>

>Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>operating system..

>

>Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

>after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

>users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

>accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over

>15 years ago..

The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is

the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster

hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are

slow to adopt Vista.

February 22, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:28 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"

> <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote:

>

>>"On the Bridge" <OntheBridge@1701.com> wrote in message

>>news:47bc127e@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>

>>>Look I am not a vista basher anymore... Vista can work "well enough" if

>>>you have a very fast computer and you are careful.. and of course you have

>>>SP1...

>>>I still cant use vista for my heavy duty geek stuff.. its too slow for my

>>>taste.

>>>

>>>But even if I get a 8 core machine with 16 gb ram, I will still be

>>>dualbooting Vista with XP, until and IF Windows7 is very good.

>>>

>>>Article

>>>http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/windows-xp-vista-dr-080218/

>>>

>>>I quote here what I have said in the past... it seems that I was right

>>>again...

>>>

>>>"Of course, Microsoft knows the general public can't stand Vista. After

>>>trying to deal with companies like Acer and Dell that forced the

>>>organization to push the end-of-licensing date back, it was forced to

>>>manage retailers that simply didn't want to sell Vista in their stores and

>>>businesses that were loath to switch."

>>>

>>>--

>>>50 Ways to leave your Vista....

>>>

>>>CHORUS:

>>>

>>>You just format the drive , Clive

>>>Get a New Mac , Jack

>>>Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy

>>>Just get yourself free

>>>Boot from a *nix, Jix

>>>You don't need to discuss much

>>>Install XP, Lee

>>>And get yourself free

>>>

>>

>>With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

>>newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for themselves,

>>indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's

>>hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

>>

>>But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

>>problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

>>were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

>>fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

>>which were and are still FUD.

>>

>>The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

>>package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load slow

>>in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

>>

>>UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

>>case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers play

>>up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP

>>ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so what!!

>>Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista

>>takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>>

>>Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

>>new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

>>such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>>

>>The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

>>the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>>

>>Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>>selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>>care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>>this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>>'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>>operating system..

>>

>>Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

>>after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

>>users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

>>accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics over

>>15 years ago..

>

> The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is

> the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster

> hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

>

> UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are

> slow to adopt Vista.

Idiots like you should never (try to) use Vista.

Etch-a-sketch is your technological limit.

Frank

February 23, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

<thetruthhurts @homail.com> wrote in message

news:ohltr3hcdraeu3eis9jonnlndlpf8q7vvd@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:28 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"

> <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote:

> snip <

>>With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

>>newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for

>>themselves,

>>indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's

>>hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

>>

>>But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

>>problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

>>were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

>>fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

>>which were and are still FUD.

>>

>>The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

>>package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load

>>slow

>>in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

>>

>>UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

>>case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers

>>play

>>up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP

>>ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so

>>what!!

>>Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista

>>takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

>>

>>Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

>>new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

>>such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

>>

>>The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

>>the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

>>

>>Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

>>selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

>>care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

>>this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

>>'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

>>operating system..

>>

>>Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

>>after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

>>users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

>>accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics

>>over

>>15 years ago..

>

> The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is

> the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster

> hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.

This same argument has been used each and every time a new OS has come out.

New operating systems and applications are released as a result of

requirements for businesses and users. These requirements come at a price.

You want added functionality, better graphics, better security? This means

faster processors, graphic cards with more than 1MB of memory, more RAM to

handle the load. It's simple business. There's an old saying that is apropos

here. If you want to play, you have to pay. If you have been in the business

long enough, you should understand this.

> UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are

> slow to adopt Vista.

As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I

personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.

Again, you cannot seem to grasp that MS does NOT write the drivers. And

these same problems were had every time a new OS was released. I can

remember people bitching about drivers for NT4, 2000, XP. This is nothing

new. I've already disproven the file copy BS. If I can do it on a POS Acer,

there is no reason it cannot be done on other systems. So this is not why

people are slow to adopt Vista. It's the same old song and dance that has

been heard with every new release.

--

Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel

Undo the munge to reply by email

February 24, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

"DarkSentinel" wrote:

>

> And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.

>If you have been in the business

> long enough, you should understand this.

"Smacktards"?!? LOL! Great!

>

> > UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are

> > slow to adopt Vista.

>

> As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I

> personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.

> Again, you cannot seem to grasp that MS does NOT write the drivers. And

> these same problems were had every time a new OS was released. I can

> remember people bitching about drivers for NT4, 2000, XP. This is nothing

> new. I've already disproven the file copy BS. If I can do it on a POS Acer,

> there is no reason it cannot be done on other systems. So this is not why

> people are slow to adopt Vista. It's the same old song and dance that has

> been heard with every new release.

Amen, brother.

Lang

February 24, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

"On the Bridge" wrote:

> And by the way this proves I was never a troll as you and many others

> claimed. It was not my fault, that vista was faulty.

>

Newsflash: You're still a troll.

Lang

February 24, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:35:04 -0800, "DarkSentinel"

<darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote:

><thetruthhurts @homail.com> wrote in message

>news:ohltr3hcdraeu3eis9jonnlndlpf8q7vvd@4ax.com...

>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:28 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"

>> <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote:

>> snip <

>> The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is

>> the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster

>> hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

>

>And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.

>This same argument has been used each and every time a new OS has come out.

>New operating systems and applications are released as a result of

>requirements for businesses and users. These requirements come at a price.

>You want added functionality, better graphics, better security? This means

>faster processors, graphic cards with more than 1MB of memory, more RAM to

>handle the load. It's simple business. There's an old saying that is apropos

>here. If you want to play, you have to pay. If you have been in the business

>long enough, you should understand this.

You missed the point entirely, which is not surpising for someone with

no business sense. People will buy new hardware for a new M$ OS if

there is benefit to it. Other than a marginally better UI what is the

benefit? That is wny people are not implementing Vista.

>

>> UAC? Driver problems? Really slow file copy? That is why people are

>> slow to adopt Vista.

>

>As stated above, the UAC is a result of requirements for better security. I

>personally turn it off as I have been doing things longer than most users.

>Again, you cannot seem to grasp that MS does NOT write the drivers. And

>these same problems were had every time a new OS was released. I can

>remember people bitching about drivers for NT4, 2000, XP. This is nothing

>new. I've already disproven the file copy BS. If I can do it on a POS Acer,

>there is no reason it cannot be done on other systems. So this is not why

>people are slow to adopt Vista. It's the same old song and dance that has

>been heard with every new release.

Regardless of whose fault, UAC is a disaster. The argument that it is

necessary for better security is simplistic and assumes that there is

not better way to implement UAC. Trust me UAC won't be in 7 or it

will be radically modified.

February 24, 2008

Re: Article: Why Windows XP should be available until Windows 7

You say that Vista and sotware was business driven, why is it that businesses

only upgrade to the next version of operating system/ software revision years

after it initial release date.

BUGS possibly!!!!!!!

"DarkSentinel" wrote:

> <thetruthhurts @homail.com> wrote in message

> news:ohltr3hcdraeu3eis9jonnlndlpf8q7vvd@4ax.com...

> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:28 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"

> > <mikehall@mvps.com> wrote:

> > snip <

>

> >>With the same writers covering all internet magazines, naysayers in

> >>newsgroups and forums, bloggers who just want to make a name for

> >>themselves,

> >>indifferent to very bad support from OEM and 3rd party manufacturers, it's

> >>hardly surprising that Vista looked like it could become the next ME.

> >>

> >>But Vista isn't the next ME at all, and never was. While it did have

> >>problems all of its own, the problems which affected Vista users the most

> >>were out of Microsoft's control. Many of its inherent problems have been

> >>fixed now in the SP1 release and STILL the naysayers harp on about issues

> >>which were and are still FUD.

> >>

> >>The author in the article mentioned installing 'a Microsoft software

> >>package'. Which Microsoft software package? Does this same package load

> >>slow

> >>in XP? He never tells us because it is pertinent to his cause NOT to tell.

> >>

> >>UAC does not bother some users as others would claim it does, and in any

> >>case can be turned OFF. Vista holds up better in the event that drivers

> >>play

> >>up far better than XP ever did. It can recover itself far better than XP

> >>ever did. It needs more HDD space in order to accomplish this, but so

> >>what!!

> >>Hard drives are considerably larger now, and in percentage terms, Vista

> >>takes up no more space than any Windows OS ever did.

> >>

> >>Some hardware doesn't like Vista at all, but you have to wonder why. Most

> >>new hardware plays well with Vista to the point where the owners/users of

> >>such equipment don't understand what all of the fuss and FUD is about.

> >>

> >>The ONLY reason for switching a new computer back to XP should be because

> >>the cost of upgrading mission critical software is not economic sense.

> >>

> >>Sure it needs more power than XP, but not that much more. OEMs are still

> >>selling low specified junk (not enough RAM) just to get sales. They don't

> >>care if users have bad experiences because they just blame Microsoft. In

> >>this way, users may still buy their products in the future, having it on

> >>'good authority' from the manufacturer that it is always the fault of the

> >>operating system..

> >>

> >>Even the author accepts that Microsoft XP only really came into its own

> >>after SP2, but Vista has made it after SP1. Linux still hasn't made it for

> >>users like Joe Average, and Macs are over-priced, over-hyped lifestyle

> >>accoutrements, living off of the reputation they had for good graphics

> >>over

> >>15 years ago..

> >

> > The question all you Einsteins ignore is why switch to Vista? What is

> > the benefit? The migration will surely cost money, new faster

> > hardware, licenses of Vista, training, etc. So what does one get?

>

> And what you smacktards ignore is that we no longer run on 486's anymore.

> This same argument has been used each and every time a new OS has come out.

> New operating systems and applications are released as a result of

> requirements for businesses and users. These requirements come at a price.

> You want added functionality, better graphics, better security? This means

> faster processors, graphic cards with more than 1MB of memory, more RAM to

> handle the load. It's simple business. There's an old saying that is apropos

> here. If you want to play, you have to pay. If you have been in the business