I might also add that both OSs were installed on brand new, clean formatted hard drives.

--

Steve Easton



"David Dickinson" <eveningstar@die-spammer-die.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:e7TU21GrHHA.3456@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Steve Easton" <admin@95isalive.com> wrote in message
> news:Oja81RGrHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
>> My Vista experience has been fine. ( Vista Ultimate )
>> However, I started with a Vista capable Core 2 Duo machine with plenty of RAM
>> and Vista capable sound and Video.[/color]
>
> Yes, and I should also add that I've seen Vista machines run great right out of the
> box -- not to mention that I'll sleep a little more soundly with Vista's security
> enhancements (including the dreaded UAC, although I, too, have turned it off on on my
> personal machine). But I had to tweak Vista on my kid's new Core 2 before I could get
> C&C to run (almost) as well as it does on his old P4 with XP. (Fortunately, all I
> really care about are business applications, but he's shown me a lot of ways that folks
> can destroy their computers, so I like to keep him happy).
>[color=green]
>> A lot of the problems I've seen posted here and other places seem to evolve around
>> folks trying
>> to run Vista on a machine that just can't handle it.[/color]
>
> We had these experiences with XP and 2000, and even DOS/Win3.1: folks trying to upgrade
> on the cheap. Those problems must be discounted.
>
> Side Note: After years of trying to hide the folder tree from users (in XP and 2000,
> Microsoft even put Windows Explorer on the Accessories menu), they decided to base
> almost the whole Vista user interface on it. Well, better late than never, I guess.
>
> --
> David Dickinson
> eveningstar at die-spammer-die dash mvps dot org
> Please reply only to the newsgroup, not by email.
>
>[/color]