I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).

Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
different users on the same PC. It is not as direct to shut down the PC. You
can't tell the PC to stop telling you that you directed the PC not to load
all programs in the startup list under "msconfig". My list of these minor
annoyances is long but none of these are deal brakers (although my kids are
miffed by the fact that our TV tuner no longer loads).

I assume that most of these minor issues are related to the fact that the
Vista team needed more time to polish the system and that these issues will
be addressed in SP1 or 2.

In the end I switched to Vista Ultimate because I like to play with the
latest software, but I see no compelling reason for anyone to make the
switch at this time if XP is running their PC's as intended.

Richard.

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:134gv83t06tdg07@corp.supernews.com...
>I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
>usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).
>
> Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
> looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
> that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
> different users on the same PC. It is not as direct to shut down the PC.
> You can't tell the PC to stop telling you that you directed the PC not to
> load all programs in the startup list under "msconfig". My list of these
> minor annoyances is long but none of these are deal brakers (although my
> kids are miffed by the fact that our TV tuner no longer loads).
>
> I assume that most of these minor issues are related to the fact that the
> Vista team needed more time to polish the system and that these issues
> will be addressed in SP1 or 2.
>
> In the end I switched to Vista Ultimate because I like to play with the
> latest software, but I see no compelling reason for anyone to make the
> switch at this time if XP is running their PC's as intended.
>
> Richard.
>
Well, I like Vista and I'll switch as soon as possible because of
sentimental reasons (I never got to liking XP). Till then I'll use Windows
2000.

Once I installed it on my new, more powerful stratchbuild I have been very
happy with it. Peronal preference but I like the regular Vista better than
Aero.

"Elian" wrote:

>
> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:134gv83t06tdg07@corp.supernews.com...
> >I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
> >usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).
> >
> > Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
> > looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
> > that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
> > different users on the same PC. It is not as direct to shut down the PC.
> > You can't tell the PC to stop telling you that you directed the PC not to
> > load all programs in the startup list under "msconfig". My list of these
> > minor annoyances is long but none of these are deal brakers (although my
> > kids are miffed by the fact that our TV tuner no longer loads).
> >
> > I assume that most of these minor issues are related to the fact that the
> > Vista team needed more time to polish the system and that these issues
> > will be addressed in SP1 or 2.
> >
> > In the end I switched to Vista Ultimate because I like to play with the
> > latest software, but I see no compelling reason for anyone to make the
> > switch at this time if XP is running their PC's as intended.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> Well, I like Vista and I'll switch as soon as possible because of
> sentimental reasons (I never got to liking XP). Till then I'll use Windows
> 2000.
>
>
>

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:134gv83t06tdg07@corp.supernews.com...
>I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
>usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).
>
> Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
> looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
> that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
> different users on the same PC.

Things like that are probably a judgment call on making the user accounts
more secure against the ease of swapping.

On the whole I would expect the number of users who need to swap accounts
pales into insignificance compared to the number who wish their accounts
to be secure from other users of the same PC.

With so many competing requirements of the system
compromises are inevitable.

No system can be all things to all users.

Making a system secure for users is liable to miff crooks
while satisfying nosey parkers would screw privacy.

There has to be losers..... ie. compromises.

I just bought my new HP notebook a month ago and before I bought it with all
the things I've heard of Vista I was **** sure I'll erase all of it as soon
as I lay my hands on the notebook. Yet, a month later and I'm still using
Vista. I do think they've got a lot of polishing to do and waiting eagerly
for SP1. I do think people who already own an XP PC shouldn't upgrade
(especially with Micro$oft promising support for it as late as 2014). Yet,
if a user buys a new computer, I'd say he/she should buy it with Vista in
it.

Me too.

But I hate current marketing plan by big companies (not only Microsoft, the
list also go to UbiSoft, bla bla bla), where they release first and fix
later.

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:134gv83t06tdg07@corp.supernews.com...
>I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
>usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).
>
> Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
> looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
> that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
> different users on the same PC. It is not as direct to shut down the PC.
> You can't tell the PC to stop telling you that you directed the PC not to
> load all programs in the startup list under "msconfig". My list of these
> minor annoyances is long but none of these are deal brakers (although my
> kids are miffed by the fact that our TV tuner no longer loads).
>
> I assume that most of these minor issues are related to the fact that the
> Vista team needed more time to polish the system and that these issues
> will be addressed in SP1 or 2.
>
> In the end I switched to Vista Ultimate because I like to play with the
> latest software, but I see no compelling reason for anyone to make the
> switch at this time if XP is running their PC's as intended.
>
> Richard.
>

Richard wrote:

> I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
> usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).
>
> Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
> looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
> that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
> different users on the same PC. It is not as direct to shut down the PC.
> You can't tell the PC to stop telling you that you directed the PC not to
> load all programs in the startup list under "msconfig". My list of these
> minor annoyances is long but none of these are deal brakers (although my
> kids are miffed by the fact that our TV tuner no longer loads).
>
> I assume that most of these minor issues are related to the fact that the
> Vista team needed more time to polish the system and that these issues
> will be addressed in SP1 or 2.
>
> In the end I switched to Vista Ultimate because I like to play with the
> latest software, but I see no compelling reason for anyone to make the
> switch at this time if XP is running their PC's as intended.
>
> Richard.

THE advantage with Vista is that Microsoft can disable anyones computer at
any time.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl

I can fully agree with you.

There are though some disadvantages still. The most anoying part is the User
Acount Control (or UAC). This can be switched of.

Offcourse there are bugs in Windows Vista. Some off them should be fixed
already, but besides of that the operating system is good. I don't care if it
is a rip-off, it's just what everyone wants. Microsoft just puts it into
their Vista.

"Richard" wrote:

> I am a long time Windows user and find that XP is now a very stable and
> usable operating system (SP2 + subsequent fixes).
>
> Vista seems like XP with some superficial changes that make it better
> looking on high performing PC's. But our friends at MS made some changes
> that don't make it easier to use. It is not as easy to bounce between
> different users on the same PC. It is not as direct to shut down the PC. You
> can't tell the PC to stop telling you that you directed the PC not to load
> all programs in the startup list under "msconfig". My list of these minor
> annoyances is long but none of these are deal brakers (although my kids are
> miffed by the fact that our TV tuner no longer loads).
>
> I assume that most of these minor issues are related to the fact that the
> Vista team needed more time to polish the system and that these issues will
> be addressed in SP1 or 2.
>
> In the end I switched to Vista Ultimate because I like to play with the
> latest software, but I see no compelling reason for anyone to make the
> switch at this time if XP is running their PC's as intended.
>
> Richard.
>
>
>

On Wed, 23 May 2007 08:08:00 -0700, hans
<hans@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I can fully agree with you.
>
>There are though some disadvantages still. The most anoying part is the User
>Acount Control (or UAC). This can be switched of.



I'm not a fan of UAC either, but I don't recommend turning it off. The
problem is that, with it off, some program installations fail. And
they fail mysteriously, without a clue as to why they didn't run.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup