TOT Vista

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:45:26 -0000, "nickm" wrote:



In my opinion Vista is OK,

I agree. I find it more stable than XP on the same system. My accounts
package has not been upgraded to 32 bit so I run that in an XP virtual
machine on top of Vista (using MS Virtual PC for those who want to
know).

(Enjoyed the rest of Nick's exposition on aspects of Vista too.)

nickm wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or
shall I stick with an earlier version of Windows?

Bill


Just to take it somewhat back On-Topic, you will of course be able to
add a USB Freeview Digital or Satellite Tuner to your new PC and whether
you have Vista or XP installed it should work perfectly well provided
you have a decent aerial attached (but then you'd know more about that
than me...)


If the Vista version is Home Premium, it'll have Media
Center (sic) which, with a £20 USB Freeview stick,
will give you a very usable Freeview PVR, without the
need for half-tested, 3rd-party software.

I have Vista and XP on mine, but only go back to XP
for one or two rarely-used, non-Vista-compatible
applications.

I like it, but really you are better off with it installed on a machine that
is built for it rather than upgrade an existing one.
I've still got my XP and WinMe machines running, I let my husband have my XP
and the WinME is just turned on occasionally to keep it updated and as a
stand by machine if my daughter comes over she can use that if the others
are in use, in fact she was using the WinME machine all the time up until
she left home last year.

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or shall
I stick with an earlier version of Windows?

Bill

On 2008-11-11, Michael Chare wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or shall
I stick with an earlier version of Windows?

Bill

Given that it is a new machine, and therefore I assume reasonably powerful
Vista should run fine.

You're overlooking the fact that many would argue Vista is incapable of
running fine by design.

--
David Taylor

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:22:46 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

Go LINUX even, its far far better then that heap of toss..

The most sensible advice so far.

Now which distribution do you think would best suit
Bill's abilities/personality/style?

I would at first suggest openSUSE, but perhaps Linux Mint would
be more appropriate.

http://linuxmint.COM/

Bill Wright said the following on 11/11/2008 01:41:
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or shall I
stick with an earlier version of Windows?

Bill



You could always bypass Vista and wait for Windows 7 (Win 3.1 with a
new front end) :-)

Depends what you want the computer to do, what the spec of the computer is
and even which version of Vista.

Like if you like XP and need not ever want to use stuff wot only runs on
Vista, what is the point of it?

Now if the hardware is so new that th vendors have decided to not worry
about drivers for XP, then you are stuffed and have to have Vista.

I still don't like it. I have not got it here and the only time I used it I
broke the system in ten minutes using it with a screenreader. Maybe its just
me.....

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or shall
I stick with an earlier version of Windows?

Bill

Genrerely I've not had problems with windows updates. The one proviso was
the first incarnation of sp3 with amd processor equipped pcs getting their
microcode updaters screwed up.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Crosland wrote:
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or
shall I stick with an earlier version of Windows?


Stick with XP if you want to retain what vestiges of sanity you have
left!

I've got an upgrade of XP waiting to be installed - it was downloaded
automatically. Should I?

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I would add that there have recently sprung up some mysterious crashes of
Firefox 3.xx with Vista Ultimate only, but this is probably going to take
some real finding!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"nickm" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Shall I allow the computer man to load Vista on the new machine, or shall
I stick with an earlier version of Windows?

Bill


Sorry for the long reply, but here goes :-)

In my opinion Vista is OK, but out of the box it looks and feels different
to XP. This can be, shall we say: irritating at first.

Because of Microsoft's 'new and enhanced' security features, you will
undoubtedly come across something called User Account Control (UAC) which
will cause a message to pop up pretty much every time you want to install
something just to check that it is bona fide. In essence this is a good
idea for most users, but in practice it's often a pain in the a**e :-)
You can turn it off if you wish - I always do. Screen icons look a bit
different than they used to in XP. The Control Panel has some different
names (I don't know why they did this other than for pure devilment) for
some things such as: 'Add and remove Programs' has become 'Programs and
Features'.

Vista also likes to have more memory available to it than XP needs, but
any new machine will probably have 2GB so that's pretty much what Vista
needs anyway. Then there's the much trumpeted Vista Aero graphical
interface. A complete waste of time and effort in my opinion, but some
people like it. You can turn it off.

Then there's the Windows Side Bar: Again I don't see much use for it, but
some will - it takes up a couple of inches or so down the right side of
your desktop. Again, you can turn it off.

For someone new to Vista this stuff can be a bit annoying. Vista can be
tweaked to appear and operate almost (close enough) like XP, but not
quite. It takes a little bit of time to tweak to taste and also to get
used to the slightly different ways of working.

If your new computer comes with a license for Vista Business or Vista
Ultimate, you are entitled to have Windows XP Professional installed as a
legal downgrade on your Vista license. HP for one, are selling some
machines with a Windows Vista Certificate of Authenticity and Product Key
on the side, along with the installation media for Vista Business or
Ultimate, but with XP professional actually installed. This is handy for
people who still have a need for XP either because of compatibility issues
with existing systems such as some centrally managed accounts/stock
control systems in some businesses, or because they haven't got the
time/inclination to learn a new operating system.

Vista comes in four or five variants of which three are OK for most uses
in my opinion: Windows Vista Home Premium (Home users - legal downgrade to
XP Pro NOT available), Vista Business (Business users and those who may
need to connect to a corporate network rather than a home network - legal
downgrade to XP Pro available), Windows Vista Ultimate (covers most
business and home use - legal downgrade to XP Pro available).

Then there's the fact that most users of XP currently use a 32bit version
of the OS (Windows XP Professional 64bit was available for a while, but
wasn't a runaway success) and the fact that Vista is available as either a
32bit or 64bit OS (certainly in Home Premium, Business and Ultimate
variants).

I've been using Vista Ultimate 32bit and Vista Ultimate 64bit as well as
XP Pro/Home and Vista Home Premium 32bit since Vista came out at the end
of January 2007 (I run my own business and I do a lot of work with small
to medium businesses in terms of IT management and support, so I had to
get on-board fairly early with Vista).

All this stuff about 32bit or 64bit is confusing to say the least for most
people. Most people who have moved over to Vista are using a 32bit
version, and for most 'normal' stuff, 32bit Vista is absolutely fine.
64bit Vista will run most 32bit applications like Microsoft Office without
problems, but not all legacy applications will work properly. Whilst I
wouldn't say that 64bit Vista is exactly in the domain of the specialist
user, it does still have a bit of that feel about it, and whilst the
number of 64bit Vista users is growing, it's got a long way to go before
matching the number of 32bit users.

I have found, like a lot of other people that there's not really much
practical benefit at the moment in swapping to any 32 bit variant of Vista
from Windows XP Pro (32bit). In other words, yes, it's OK but it's a bit
slower than XP for some things, and in terms of stability it's no better
or worse than XP Pro on average. Some older hardware might not work with
Vista because of a lack of drivers (scanners, sound cards etc...). Some
older software may not work either, but there's very little mainstream
software I've found that won't work.

On the subject of Vista Ultimate 64bit, I have to say that with the
exception of some third party hardware drivers not being available yet,
that I have found it very good and very stable - more so than XP Pro.
Increased stability is probably due to the fact that Microsoft controlled
third party hardware installation pretty tightly at first on Vista 64 by
insisting that associated drivers were 'signed' (meaning fully tested and
approved by Microsoft to work with Vista 64).

The only real reason I use Vista 64 is because, I also play an instrument
and do a bit of recording now and then - some audio recording software and
associated sample playback software that I use likes to have access to
more memory than any 32bit operating system will allow (4GB max for any
32bit OS). Vista Ultimate 64bit will allow a machine to have up to 128GB
of RAM installed and accessible in theory, although at present let's just
say it supports more than 4GB, with 8GB not being an unreasonable target
for those who need a bit more.

For most users though, 2GB or 4GB of RAM is plenty and a 32bit OS is more
than adequate.

Windows 64bit operating systems are not currently what I'd call quite
mainstream at the moment, but they will be. We're still in a transition
period, and whilst nearly every new dual core PC sold is capable of having
a 64bit OS installed, most will still be supplied with a 32 bit OS - just
because that's what will support the majority of legacy peripheral
hardware and software and that's where the majority of users are up to
currently.

Windows Vista has taken a lot of criticism like any new OS always does
from Microsoft and sometimes simply because it's Microsoft. Some of the
criticism is justified and some not. I don't think it has been the
marketing success that Microsoft hoped. The WOW factor has become the
WHY? factor for some. I think it has become an interim solution, not
dissimilar in some ways to Windows ME which was supposed to bridge the gap
between Windows 98 and Windows XP. ME was a disaster in most ways and in
my experience it was a bad OS on almost every level. Vista is not what I
would call a disaster by a very long way - it works for one thing :-), but
for the time and effort that Microsoft put into it, it doesn't - at least
on the surface, seem to do anything much that XP can't do, and it doesn't
do most things any better than XP - and in fact does some things less well
than XP.

The next version of Windows - Windows 7 (or whatever they end up calling
it when it eventually hits the shelves) is due within 12 - 18 months, and
will apparently run on machines that are currently 'Designed for Windows
Vista'. many say that Windows 7 will be what Windows Vista was originally
intended to be. Many businesses are currently sitting tight with XP and
may even skip Vista altogether. Microsoft stopped selling Windows XP on
30th June this year in a bid to 'help' users move to Vista.

In short, there will be a learning curve if you go with Vista - whichever
version. If you just want a new machine and you just need to use it as a
tool without having to spend too much time learning the in's and out's,
then XP Pro will be fine for now.

In your shoes, I think I'd get the Vista Business or Ultimate license with
the machine but have XP Pro installed, so that you have the future option
of upgrading to Vista if you wish. You'll be paying for the Vista license
anyway, whichever OS is actually installed.

Just to take it somewhat back On-Topic, you will of course be able to add
a USB Freeview Digital or Satellite Tuner to your new PC and whether you
have Vista or XP installed it should work perfectly well provided you have
a decent aerial attached (but then you'd know more about that than me...)

I could go on, but I think that's quite enough technobabble from me for
today ..... :-)

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Bill, you will see that there is a lot of irrational anti-Vista sentiment
around here!

It is interesting that almost everyone who has posted to say they like
Vista, has then gone on to say that;
A) It does not really offer anything new, and
B) Vista requires a lot more resources.
I would add
C) Price. Home Premium is £140! Even OEM it is £80.

Given that A) and B) are true, and taking C) into account, then the question
must surely be: For what logical reason would I ever want to install Vista?

I did install Vista Ultimate (borrowed a friends DVD and used it for the
30-day 'trial'. I used it intensively for the month, and I liked two things
about it - the panning of pictures in the built-in slideshow, and the
Dreamscape add-on for Aero that enables a video desktop. It was pointed out
to me that the picture panning was copied from a Mac OS from years ago and a
2004 freeware program does the same on XP. I have two applications that give
me a video desktop in XP - WinDVD from 2004 for video files, and Compro DTV
software for DVB-T or DVB-S TV desktop. So I was not sorry to delete Vista
after 30 days, and unless some 'killer app' needs it to run, won't be buying
it.