In article <77BB75F9-1E9A-4447-A8AB-39B0CD6631AF@microsoft.com>,
schafferde <schafferde@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I don't suppose this will be allowed to stay on here,

Yeah, because there is *so* much censorship that goes on here!

Mike

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:18:10 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> <snip>
>> It's no accident that you're being fleeced. Microsoft made conscious
>> design choices with Vista to ensure it would be incompatible with older
>> hardware and software.
>>
>>
> <snip>
>
> Whaaaaat? Geez, I've read some crazy stuff in here, but "...Microsoft
> made conscious design choices with Vista to ensure it would be
> imcompatible with older hardware and software." makes me ask... what's
> your source on that? That's nuts.

My source? My source is right on the package. How much video memory
does it take to run Vista? How much RAM?

What do you think is going on here?

Charlie

Charlie - unfortunately mis-information of the type you espouse (been
wanting for opportunituy to use that work -meaning?)

A major difference, initially, between OSs such as Apple, Atari, Linux, etc.
was backward suport for applications writen for previous versions. Windows
consistenly provided backward compatibilty ( still does so), the other OSs
did not. However as programming skills progressed, backward compatibilty
provided opportunity for virus/spyware/malware infection./

Successive versions of "any" OS have require more capibility ( Memory,
storage, Processor upgrade) to run applications as they (applications)
became more complex. Each Windows version has decreased backward
compatibility as new applications are written to take advantage of new OS
feartures.

BTW - Whst program are you using to post to the newsgroup? Evidently to
support your view(s) of Microsoft you are not using any Microsoft products.


"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.19.18.52.54@users.easynews.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:18:10 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>> It's no accident that you're being fleeced. Microsoft made conscious
>>> design choices with Vista to ensure it would be incompatible with older
>>> hardware and software.
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Whaaaaat? Geez, I've read some crazy stuff in here, but "...Microsoft
>> made conscious design choices with Vista to ensure it would be
>> imcompatible with older hardware and software." makes me ask... what's
>> your source on that? That's nuts.
>
> My source? My source is right on the package. How much video memory
> does it take to run Vista? How much RAM?
>
> What do you think is going on here?
>
> Charlie
>

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:26:56 -0400, AJR wrote:

> Charlie - unfortunately mis-information of the type you espouse (been
> wanting for opportunituy to use that work -meaning?)
>
> A major difference, initially, between OSs such as Apple, Atari, Linux,
> etc. was backward suport for applications writen for previous versions.
> Windows consistenly provided backward compatibilty ( still does so), the
> other OSs did not. However as programming skills progressed, backward
> compatibilty provided opportunity for virus/spyware/malware infection./

If you only knew what you're talking about you might be right. You don't.
You aren't.

schafferde wrote:
> I don't suppose this will be allowed to stay on here, but I have to vent.


Why not? You're only "venting" at yourself.

> I
> got Vista with my new Dell computer, and so far, I have had to replace 4
> programs that don't run on vista, and for which the companies "don't plan any
> upgrades in the near future". This has cost me a lot of money that I don't
> have. The computer was a large expense for me, and now it is getting
> rediculous. I am now looking unsuccessfully for a simple photo editing
> software program that will run that has the features my old program had, and
> I am very frustrated. Knowing what I know now, I would have never had Vista,
> and would have paid extra to have XP put on my new computer. Thank you for
> letting me vent.


That's why most people check these things out *before* making a
purchasing decision. Dell still provides WinXP on its computers, as
well as Ubuntu. It's up to the purchaser to determine which OS best
suits his/her needs.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:26:56 -0400, AJR wrote:
>
> Successive versions of "any" OS have require more capibility ( Memory,
> storage, Processor upgrade) to run applications as they (applications)
> became more complex. Each Windows version has decreased backward
> compatibility as new applications are written to take advantage of new
> OS feartures.

Sure. But here is my broad point: the marketplace does not need, and is
not clamoring for, a replacement for XP. But Microsoft needs to replace
XP because its revenue model depends on one-off license fees rather than
ongoing service contracts. The result is an OS that is buggy, unwieldy,
resource-hungry, and expensive... but does not offer any important new
capabilities, and in fact, is a step backwards for many users, including
the OP in this thread.

>
> BTW - Whst program are you using to post to the newsgroup? Evidently to
> support your view(s) of Microsoft you are not using any Microsoft
> products.

Indeed. I was a Windows user from 1992 until the beginning of this
year. Consistent with my view that Microsoft is going in the wrong
direction with Vista, I have switched to Linux. I am using the Pan
newsreader, which works fine.

Charlie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: schafferde [mailto:schafferde@discussions.microsoft.com]
> I don't suppose this will be allowed to stay on here, but I have to
> vent. I
> got Vista with my new Dell computer, and so far, I have had to replace
> 4
> programs that don't run on vista, and for which the companies "don't
> plan any
> upgrades in the near future". This has cost me a lot of money that I
> don't
> have. The computer was a large expense for me, and now it is getting
> rediculous. I am now looking unsuccessfully for a simple photo editing
> software program that will run that has the features my old program
> had, and
> I am very frustrated. Knowing what I know now, I would have never had
> Vista,
> and would have paid extra to have XP put on my new computer. Thank you
> for
> letting me vent.
>

What are the 4 programs and what are the feaures ?

Have you tried Paint.NET (free).

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%233lWArp4HHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> schafferde wrote:
>> I don't suppose this will be allowed to stay on here, but I have to vent.
>
>
> Why not? You're only "venting" at yourself.
>
>> I got Vista with my new Dell computer, and so far, I have had to replace
>> 4 programs that don't run on vista, and for which the companies "don't
>> plan any upgrades in the near future". This has cost me a lot of money
>> that I don't have. The computer was a large expense for me, and now it
>> is getting rediculous. I am now looking unsuccessfully for a simple
>> photo editing software program that will run that has the features my old
>> program had, and I am very frustrated. Knowing what I know now, I would
>> have never had Vista, and would have paid extra to have XP put on my new
>> computer. Thank you for letting me vent.
>
>
> That's why most people check these things out *before* making a purchasing
> decision. Dell still provides WinXP on its computers, as well as Ubuntu.
> It's up to the purchaser to determine which OS best suits his/her needs.

This last point is fiction. The newest models (XPS) for home use do NOT
have any options other than Vista.

Telstar wrote:
>
> This last point is fiction. The newest models (XPS) for home use do NOT
> have any options other than Vista.
>
>


The XPS isn't the only model Dell sells.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

The Vista upgrade advisor will also tell you if any installed programs need
to be updated to work with Vista.
It's not 100% accurate, but will give you an idea.

"The Sand" <The.Sand.2vkwm2@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:The.Sand.2vkwm2@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> I thought that Vista Upgrade feature was only to determine if your "old
> computer" could run Vista. Aren't all new computers coming loaded with
> Vista... so if you "need" a new computer you are going to get Vista.
> Vista is "what's ahead"...
>
> I didn't do any checking when I bought my new computer (as far the OS)
> - I knew I was going to get Vista - I knew it could be "troublesome"
> because I remember XP being "troublesome" in the beginning, but as I
> said, Vista is the future...
>
> Sandy
>
>
> --
> The Sand
>
> God is my "back up." :)

So you have to buy an outdated computer to get XP?
That's a crock...

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:e05BYgs4HHA.5984@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Telstar wrote:
>>
>> This last point is fiction. The newest models (XPS) for home use do NOT
>> have any options other than Vista.
>
> The XPS isn't the only model Dell sells.
> Bruce Chambers

Not Me wrote:
> The Vista upgrade advisor will also tell you if any installed programs need
> to be updated to work with Vista.
> It's not 100% accurate, but will give you an idea.


The art of understatement is not dead :)

"Not Me" chocked...
> So you have to buy an outdated computer to get XP?
> That's a crock...
>

No, you go to Dell.com, pick out your preferred model, hit the Customize
button, and then choose Vista or XP.

I've owned personal computers since 1982. I think my first one was a RS
Tandy when Pong was considered one hell of a fun game.

(I never owned an Apple.)

My experience has been that everytime an OS is rewritten or taken to the
next level, there will always be problems with some of the software that was
written for the older version.

I waited until last week to buy a Vista machine. Before I did, I made sure
that my favorite programs would work with Vista or the software developer had
a free upgrade that would work on Vista. I'm keeping my two XP machines
because the software applications on them are humming along just fine and I'm
in no hurry to switch some of those applications- such as video editing- over
to my new Vista machine until I got Visat pretty well mastered and my old XP
machines start dying. And they will, eventually. All of my computers die
because I use them to the max.

I'm taking my time as I make the transition to Vista. Some of my programs
that have worked fine on XP are working fine on Vista, too. I'm gradually
appreciating some of the powerful features Vista has over XP.

To the people who say that Microsoft is trying to rip us off by selling us
machines that need more powerful processors and memory capbilities, my
response is this: if you want more powerful software features and speed, your
machine is going to need more powerful processors, memory and bus systems.
Software isn't going to get faster without more powerfull hardware, unless
programmers go back to writing everything in machine code.

I suppose the pros and cons of Vista, Microsoft and B. Gates could be
discussed until the Gateway cows come home, but I'm more interested in
learning how to use Vista to its fullest capacities.

Vista is a fine product. I'm glad I bought a new computer with Vista. No
regrets.



oscar


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:48:07 -0700, schafferde
> <schafferde@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't suppose this will be allowed to stay on here, but I have to vent.
>
>
> Your choice, but you would do better if you would ask for help with
> your problems instead of venting. Complaining isn't usually the best
> way to get your problems solved.
>
>
> > I
> > got Vista with my new Dell computer, and so far, I have had to replace 4
> > programs that don't run on vista,
>
>
> Did you run the free Microsoft Vista Upgrade Advisor before getting
> Vista? It would have told you what you had on your computer that might
> not be compatible.
>
> What were the programs, by the way?
>
>
> > and for which the companies "don't plan any
> > upgrades in the near future". This has cost me a lot of money that I don't
> > have. The computer was a large expense for me, and now it is getting
> > rediculous.
>
>
> I certainly understand that you are unhappy with the result, but
> please realize that *you* didn't take the trouble to find out whether
> they were compatible before getting Vista. You have nobody to blame
> but yourself. As I said, Microsoft even made a tool available to help
> you get this information.
>
>
> > I am now looking unsuccessfully for a simple photo editing
> > software program that will run that has the features my old program had, and
> > I am very frustrated.
>
>
> What was the old one? It's hard to recommend one with "the features
> [your] old program" if you don't tell us what it was.
>
>
>
> > Knowing what I know now, I would have never had Vista,
>
>
> Once again, who do you want to blame for your not having taken the
> trouble to get needed information *before* you bought? Would you buy a
> car that way?
>
>
> > and would have paid extra to have XP put on my new computer. Thank you for
> > letting me vent.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.19.18.52.54@users.easynews.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:18:10 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>> It's no accident that you're being fleeced. Microsoft made conscious
>>> design choices with Vista to ensure it would be incompatible with older
>>> hardware and software.
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Whaaaaat? Geez, I've read some crazy stuff in here, but "...Microsoft
>> made conscious design choices with Vista to ensure it would be
>> imcompatible with older hardware and software." makes me ask... what's
>> your source on that? That's nuts.
>
> My source? My source is right on the package. How much video memory
> does it take to run Vista? How much RAM?
>
> What do you think is going on here?
>
> Charlie
>


I think what's going on is MS released a new OS that has steeper resource
requirements than previous Windows versions.

I've gotten Aero to run on boxes with 64MB video RAM. Can't get Beryl to run
on the same system.

I'd say 1GB is sufficient to run Vista. And that's from personal experience.
All claims aside, don't think I'd want to run any nix distro with less RAM.
Sure, the OS may load OK, but when one starts using apps... same difference.

So... I'll continue to be skeptical of your claim that MS "...made conscious
design choices... to ensure it would be incompatible with older hardware and
software." There are plenty of folks that hang out in this ng that would beg
to differ. Sure, some old stuff won't work with Vista. So what? That's no
different than when XP was unleashed on the world. That observation is also
from personal experience.

Lang