Canuck57 wrote:

Let him do it. I have Vista on what was supposed to be my next main
desktop. Not shabby either, quad processor, 8gb of RAM, 2 500GB hard drives
and copying file is a painful experience compared to any of XP, Mac or
Linux.

Vista is worse than Win-Me.


What version of VISTA are you running?

I don't have any problems copying files. It seems faster under VISTA SP1
than it was previously, but I don't do a lot of file copying, so it's
never been an annoyance for me.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 9:32 pm, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:30:55 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ME.
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ....YOU??

Cripes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me

Moron... :)

You have to wonder about the level of, well, hatred in this newsgroup
for a computer operating system virtually none of the naysayers run.

=
Do you think the programmers and engineers at Microsoft itself don't
know what they are talking about when they acknowledge numerous
problems and try to offer fixes for those problems? Are they doing it
out of hatred?
=

Not hatred. But....

Why pull your best running model from the shelves and then pander a product
no one wants because it is slow and lesser quality?

Coke tried it. MS is just learning this lesson all over again.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:32 pm, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:30:55 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ME.
Vista will be the 21st Century version of ....YOU??
Cripes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me
Moron... :)
You have to wonder about the level of, well, hatred in this newsgroup
for a computer operating system virtually none of the naysayers run.

Do you think the programmers and engineers at Microsoft itself don't
know what they are talking about when they acknowledge numerous
problems and try to offer fixes for those problems? Are they doing it
out of hatred?

It isn't the engineers causing the problem.

Insightful. Problems of this magnitude are always senior management.

Especially the ones, "Tell me what I want to hear, forget the truth or I
will fire you" types.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops, one a Dell,
the other a HP, one had at 2gb and the other had 3 gb of RAM and a Dual
Core Processor with at least 4mg of Cache. They had the exact same
complaint. They had a replaced 4 and 5 year old computers, and could not
see any additional speed when opening their software.

Ditto's my experience. And it isn't under powered unless you want to
compare it to something not invented yet.

Q6600 Quad Processor @ 2.4GHz. Vista 64 bit, and 8GB or RAM. 2 SATA 500GB
drives that go like smoke with Linux. 3 year older XP machine, 2GB RAM, 2 x
160GB IDE drives is 4 times faster copying files, that is after Vista SP1,
which did improve not no slave the performance issues.

Hm, wish I could get a refund for the OS part of it. Would people buy cars
that get 5mpg on a promise if you spend more and in 2 years we can fix it?

Canuck57 wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..

I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops, one a Dell,
the other a HP, one had at 2gb and the other had 3 gb of RAM and a Dual
Core Processor with at least 4mg of Cache. They had the exact same
complaint. They had a replaced 4 and 5 year old computers, and could not
see any additional speed when opening their software.

Ditto's my experience. And it isn't under powered unless you want to
compare it to something not invented yet.

Q6600 Quad Processor @ 2.4GHz. Vista 64 bit, and 8GB or RAM. 2 SATA 500GB
drives that go like smoke with Linux. 3 year older XP machine, 2GB RAM, 2 x
160GB IDE drives is 4 times faster copying files, that is after Vista SP1,
which did improve not no slave the performance issues.

Hm, wish I could get a refund for the OS part of it. Would people buy cars
that get 5mpg on a promise if you spend more and in 2 years we can fix it?


\

What is stopping you from dumping VISTA and using LINUX as your sole OS?

Incidentally, what are you running that requires a 64-bit OS?

"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:



How about the average computer user who does not have advanced computer
skills or even the technical knowledge of what to buy?
My daughter recently replaced their computer with a new HP Pavilion
laptop preloaded with some version of Vista. They bought the best model
they could afford, but she doesn't know a megabit from a horsefly.

I was playing with it the other day. It just doesn't have the "snap"
opening programs or even simple navigation to files or folders that my 4
year old HP Pavilion running XP has. I neglected to check what her
processor type, speed or RAM capacity is, so it may not be a fair
comparison. Mine has a Pentium 4, 3.00GHz processor and 2.0 GB of RAM.
Next time I visit, I'll check and see what her new one has.

Point is, to us non-hobbyist or geeks, it seems that if Vista requires
certain minimums in terms of processors and RAM capacity to operate
properly, (which I am sure raises the cost of the computer) Microsoft
is sorta screwing many customers by forcing Vista onto all new Windows
based computers.

I also may not know what I am talking about, because my daughter's
computer .... which is only a month old .... is my first experience with
Vista. So, I am one of those "know-nothings" who claims Vista is
slower than XP. In this particular case, it *is* noticeably slower
than the 4 year old computer I am using now.

Eisboch


Eisboch,

I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops

Bull****. There hasn't been one post in this newsgroup that indicates you
know anything about computers or operating systems. All you have ever done
is cut and pasted negative news stories about VISTA.

Having worked with everything MS has produced since DOS 2.10, I can say this
for Vista, for the hype and the marketing BS is a PoC. Worse than the WinMe
stuff by a long shot. WinMe worked, just boring.

And users who only do email, news, basic web surfing and haven't used
anything else might not notice too much.

On to double and triple dipping the customer. The Microsoft monopoly and
bundling practices now have us whe

-You buy a MS Vista OS on a commodity PC from Best Buy as that is all they
sell.
-You then by XP so you have something that works, your second time you pay
MS.
-Now MS is going to cut a new Win7 version this for next year and Vista
isn't even fixed?

The triple consumer dip is what I call it. MS is in trouble, doing the
new-Coke, classic Coke is going to tank consumer confidence in the MS OSes.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..


If your daughter is up to the task, she can ask HP for a free Install
Disk for Vista and do a clean install in the HP. Without all of the junk
they preload in their machines it will run faster,just not as fast as it
would with WinXP. HP might be willing to sell her a XP install disk at a
reasonable price.



My daughter is happy with the new computer and Vista. It replaced a
clunky, very old desktop that was still working, running Windows '98.

*I* am the one that happened to notice that it runs somewhat sluggishly
compared to the older, HP Pavilion that I use (running XP) or my wife's
laptop .... also a HP Pavilion, but the model optimized for "Multimedia".
It also runs XP.

Like Harry suggested, my daughter's new computer may be shy some RAM and
may have a bunch of applications running in the background that slows it
down. But that was not my point.

My point was that for the average computer user who has limited knowledge
of how to optimize a computer, Vista may be somewhat disappointing, even
in a new computer shipped with Vista as the OS. Many people treat a
computer like a toaster. Plug it in and use it. Not all people have the
knowledge of how to optimize it, add memory, etc., nor do they care. They
expect it to work, as advertised.

That's why I think Vista is having a poor introduction.

Eisboch

Well, now that user skipped:

Win 98
Win Me
W2000
XP
Vista

Yep, 4 generations of OS with hardware on 10 years or so, it had better be
faster.

You are very correct, 98% of the users, the computer is an expensive
toaster.

Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


How about the average computer user who does not have advanced computer
skills or even the technical knowledge of what to buy?
My daughter recently replaced their computer with a new HP Pavilion
laptop preloaded with some version of Vista. They bought the best model
they could afford, but she doesn't know a megabit from a horsefly.

I was playing with it the other day. It just doesn't have the "snap"
opening programs or even simple navigation to files or folders that my 4
year old HP Pavilion running XP has. I neglected to check what her
processor type, speed or RAM capacity is, so it may not be a fair
comparison. Mine has a Pentium 4, 3.00GHz processor and 2.0 GB of RAM.
Next time I visit, I'll check and see what her new one has.

Point is, to us non-hobbyist or geeks, it seems that if Vista requires
certain minimums in terms of processors and RAM capacity to operate
properly, (which I am sure raises the cost of the computer) Microsoft
is sorta screwing many customers by forcing Vista onto all new Windows
based computers.

I also may not know what I am talking about, because my daughter's
computer .... which is only a month old .... is my first experience with
Vista. So, I am one of those "know-nothings" who claims Vista is
slower than XP. In this particular case, it *is* noticeably slower
than the 4 year old computer I am using now.

Eisboch

Eisboch,
I have helped two friends setup their Windows Vista desktops
Bull****. There hasn't been one post in this newsgroup that indicates you
know anything about computers or operating systems. All you have ever done
is cut and pasted negative news stories about VISTA.

Having worked with everything MS has produced since DOS 2.10, I can say this
for Vista, for the hype and the marketing BS is a PoC. Worse than the WinMe
stuff by a long shot. WinMe worked, just boring.

And users who only do email, news, basic web surfing and haven't used
anything else might not notice too much.


Notice what? I run some fairly heavy duty apps that require intensive
use of the CPU and the system. They run perfectly well under VISTA.
Please enlighten me: what is it I should be noticing?

Any computer, regardless of the OS it is running, initially needs tweaking
so it can reach it's full speed potential.

I've got a new Dell laptop with 2 gig, running Vista being delivered
Wednesday. How should I tweak it?

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:01:22 GMT, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Let him do it. I have Vista on what was supposed to be my next main
desktop. Not shabby either, quad processor, 8gb of RAM, 2 500GB hard drives
and copying file is a painful experience compared to any of XP, Mac or
Linux.

Vista is worse than Win-Me.

This is pretty funny, re file copying . Read at your own risk.
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...4/2826167.aspx

My takeaway is I don't want Vista yet, but not necessarily because of
Explorer, since I've been using Powerdesk Pro for years as my file
manager.
Don't know if Powerdesk obviates this Vista issue, but Total
Commander, another file manager, is supposed to.

--Vic