"hk" wrote in message
...
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 noticiWhcihng?

Which heavy duty apps?

"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .

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?


With a feather right next to one of the USB ports. 8-)

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
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?

Which heavy duty apps?



One is a fairly heavy duty Adobe suite for DV and HDV editing from Adobe.

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:41:14 GMT, "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.


Ever try and use it on a Novell network?




I don't recall running into anyone who used Windows ME. Just about
everyone I know seemed to jump from Windows 98 to Windows 2000, I think.
I might still have my original beta CD of Win2k around somewhere, just
for grins.

On Apr 7, 5:32*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 17:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:16*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

More like BOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hyjEGkm-A

Wrong BOB. MS came out with a... wait for it... dumbed down version of Windows
they called BOB. Looked like it was designed by Mr. Rogers in collaboration with
Fisher-Price. It was a major flop, but subsequent versions of Windows have
interfaces that look more and more like BOB, with vivid, cartoonish, brightly
colored rounded icons, etc.

I thought I was in your bozo bin?

I guess you missed it when I explained that I rarely kill off anybody
permanently. I first set a 7-10 day filter that marks their posts "READ" so my
reader skips right over them. If one of those is in a thread I'm following, I
sometimes read it to see if its anything other than more of the stuff I killed
them about. After 10 days, the filter expires and they are back to normal. If
they still haven't changed their tune, I once again set a "READ" filter, but
usually for 30 days. If they are still acting like a jackass after that, I
permanently filter them, either completely, or to mark as "READ".

Periodically I delete ALL my filters, as most of the posters involved are no
longer posting, or the overly long thread I filtered is so old that it's no
longer a problem.

I usually refer to my filter as "The Penalty Box", not the Bozo Bin, although
many Bozo's get put there.

yeah, yeah.. I read of your hypocracies. First you arogantly announce
to the world that i was in your "bin" now you say it is a "penalty
box?"

Because I had already explained at length how my penalty box works. You got a
time out in the corner for posting those idiotic dots. Post some more, and
you'll be back in the corner wearing a dunce hat for a week or so.

Good lord. that's like announcing that one is pregnant, then
saying one is *"a little bit pregnant". Well, you either are or you
arn't.

If you had read and understood what I wrote, you'd be embarrassed that you used
a totally stuipd analogy that doesn't fit at all.

pardone me I didn't see anything that you wrote that would make sense.

That says a lot more about you, than it does about me, cheesewhiz.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whatever, Soggy....

On Apr 7, 8:19*am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

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?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

"JimH" wrote in message
...


"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .

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?



I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).
I'm one of those "toaster" users referred to here. How do you look at and
modify the programs running in the background?

D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
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?
I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....


The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.




"LoogyPicker" is part of the unnecessary crap that loads when you want
to read posts in rec.boats, so, if you filter out the "LoogyPicker"
crap, reading of the newsgroup takes a lot less time. :)

wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:
"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

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?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....


The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.

On Apr 7, 9:24*am, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 7, 8:19 am, "JimH" wrote:

"William Bruce" wrote in message
. ..

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?

I would start by looking at the programs running in the background and
disabling all but the necessary ones such as your firewall, antivirus and
antispyware (speaking of which, make sure you install good antivirus and
antispyware programs).

Why? You've stated here that Vista isn't a resource hog.....

The unnecessary crap that loads when the PC is booted is installed by the PC
manufacturer and in no way has anything to do with Vista and is operation.
Whether it runs as TSRs or is just pre-installed "trial" applications, the
stuff is a revenue generator for the manufacturer. *It helps to keep the
price of the hardware down.

BUT, if Vista wasn't the resource hog that it is, the TSR's would run
fine.