oscar wrote:
> 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

It's funny how everyone says windows is the OS for the masses because it
is so user friendly, etc. When one really needs to do all of this
research to make sure their current programs and devices will work with
it, because the average computer user doesn't know they need to do this.

>
>
> "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
>>



--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

Dear former poster,

You're right. There is no OS for the masses which doesn't involve some kind
of thinking and education on the part of the user.

Computers are complicated. But not impossible to understand. There will
never be a computer for the masses that will be as easy to operate as a TV or
radio. Those who market computers and promise the masses that they won't have
to study computers in order to operate a computer are con artists, or they
forget that the masses haven't read a book about computers and don't want to.

Point is: buyers must educate themselves.

Vista is going in the right direction. Through restructure, Windows is doing
a better job of protecting its operating files from being damaged by the
user... or outside hackers.

I used to debug software and hardware for a living. From experience, every
OS has a weakness that is vulnerable to be damage by the user or outside
hackers. There should be no surprise that Windows would have problems. Apple
has its share of problems, too.

To the others who are disenchanted with Vista. Don't give up on Vista. Enjoy
the challenge. Once you learn how it's suppose to be working, you'll be
humming along with your applications at a faster speed than XP.

Viva La Vista!



"The poster formerly known as 'The poster" wrote:

> oscar wrote:
> > 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
>
> It's funny how everyone says windows is the OS for the masses because it
> is so user friendly, etc. When one really needs to do all of this
> research to make sure their current programs and devices will work with
> it, because the average computer user doesn't know they need to do this.
>
> >
> >
> > "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
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
> legality."
> - Linus Torvalds
>

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:33:04 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> "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 would say you have an anomalous test bed.
>
> 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.

You must not be familiar with what is available. Some Linux distros have
beefy hardware requirements, whereas other currently supported versions
(like DSL) will run on a 486.
>
> 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?

I wouldn't complain if Vista offered some kind of important new
capabilities. But it doesn't. It's a replacement for something that
didn't need replacing.

Charlie

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.21.19.55.08@users.easynews.com...
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:33:04 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>> "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 would say you have an anomalous test bed.

And what makes you think that?

>>
>> 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.
>
> You must not be familiar with what is available. Some Linux distros have
> beefy hardware requirements, whereas other currently supported versions
> (like DSL) will run on a 486.

I am familiar with what's available... I'm comparing apples to apples... I'm
not interested in running a character based OS on a 486. I'm interested in
running a GUI based system that will run multimedia stuff like photo
organizers and movie editing software. Don't tell me I can run movie editing
software at an acceptable speed on any OS, Windows, nix, OS X, with 256MB
RAM.

>>
>> 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?
>
> I wouldn't complain if Vista offered some kind of important new
> capabilities. But it doesn't. It's a replacement for something that
> didn't need replacing.
>

Well, then, I can only spew your own words back at you: "You must not be
familiar with..." Vista. Improved memory management. Improved security (not
perfect, but improved nonetheless). Improved system tools. Those are
important to me. The other stuff, like Aero, is way less important, but Aero
doesn't make me froth at the mouth like it does many others, both pro and
con. LOL. And my Vista experience has generally been quite good. All my
Vista installs have been clean installs. I believe that has helped with my
Vista experience. I am cognizant, only too well, having hung out in this ng
for a year, that others have not had great Vista experiences. But, still,
that doesn't mean MS made conscious design choices to ensure
incompatibilities with older software and hardware. As others have pointed
out, MS goes to great lengths to try to get older hw and sw working with
Vista. If a third party company doesn't want to write Vista drivers for hw
or update their sw, MS cannot be held accountable.

Lang

> Charlie

Thank you for all of the feedback, both the helpful, and that which was just
critical of my naivete in thinking that Micosoft would be making things
simpler rather than more complicated.

1) I am not a techie. I use my computer for genealogy, medical research,
and communication with friends. I only got a new computer because the other
one was deemed unsalvageable.

2) I asked when I got the computer if I could have XP instead, and was told
that the package I got only came with Vista. I accepted that it would be
better than XP and that I would get used to it. When I got my last computer
it had, I believe, 2000 and it took me awhile to get used to it, but all of
my old programs ran on the XP as well. Thought the same would go with Vista.

3) For those who criticized me for not "knowing what I was getting into"
and that "I got what I deserved", let me say that I am a medical provider,
and I could say the same for the majority of my patients, so if you are
without sin, then go ahead and throw stones, but realize that there are
people in all walks of life that know more than you and less than you about
some subjects, and we should be helpful, not critical.

4) For those who were helpful and requested information about the programs
that I had to replace, they are replaced, so I am dealing with it. The
features that I wanted for my photo editing were simplicity, a clone tool,
and a photo managing program. Mostly the cloning tool and simplicity. I am
still looking and am also considering trying to go back to XP.

5) Oh, and Rich, I know I spelled ridiculous wrong, but I had already
posted, so didn't go back and change it. I am so sorry I offended your
aesthetics.

Thank you

"schafferde" wrote:

> 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.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:32:58 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> I've gotten Aero to run on boxes with 64MB video RAM. Can't get Beryl
>>> to run on the same system.
>>
>> I would say you have an anomalous test bed.
>
> And what makes you think that?
>
Because I have a couple of boxes with 64mb Nvidia cards that run Beryl
just fine. And I have read that MS recommends 128mb of video RAM for
Aero. But I won't argue this further because I couldn't care less about
Beryl anyway. That's not what matters in a desktop UI for people over 21.


>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I wouldn't complain if Vista offered some kind of important new
>> capabilities. But it doesn't. It's a replacement for something that
>> didn't need replacing.
>>
> Well, then, I can only spew your own words back at you: "You must not be
> familiar with..." Vista. Improved memory management. Improved security
> (not perfect, but improved nonetheless). Improved system tools. Those
> are important to me.

They may be important to tech enthusiasts, but do they even register with
the average user? Joe Schmoe bought W95 because all the best new
software was 32-bit. He bought W98 because he wanted to use all that
cool USB stuff. He bought XP to play 3d games that take a gig of RAM.
Is he gonna buy Vista for improved memory management and system tools???
Answer -- not unless he has to, which he will because Vista will be on
the new computer at Best Buy.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Vista embodies some important
new technology advances, which it probably does. My question then is,
did these advances require a completely rebuilt OS, or could similar
changes have been made over time by continuing to develop XP? I remember
when 2k/XP first came out... consumers may have griped about the bugs,
but techies were saying, Microsoft finally got it right in terms of the
basic OS design. Were they wrong?

That (along with the Vista EULA) is really the difference in approach
that is steering me toward Linux... it's not that Linux is perfect... the
difference is that Linux evolves incrementally. It doesn't just get
replaced, so that one day when I decide to buy a new computer, bang, I'm
dealing with a completely new OS with all the BUGS of a new OS. I mean,
how many more times is Microsoft gonna do this to its customers? And how
many more times will the customers go along with it?


>The other stuff, like Aero, is way less important,
> but Aero doesn't make me froth at the mouth like it does many others,
> both pro and con. LOL. And my Vista experience has generally been quite
> good. All my Vista installs have been clean installs. I believe that has
> helped with my Vista experience. I am cognizant, only too well, having
> hung out in this ng for a year, that others have not had great Vista
> experiences. But, still, that doesn't mean MS made conscious design
> choices to ensure incompatibilities with older software and hardware.

I didn't express myself clearly enough... the goal was not to ensure
incompatibilities, but to ensure a fresh revenue cycle. Look, I've got
several Windows computers scattered around my house, ranging from new
last year to several years old. I need the newest one if I want to
render video... but for anything else, any of these machines is as good a
choice as the others. That is Microsoft's biggest marketing problem --
how to get all those complacent, satisfied Windows customers to ditch
their old systems and buy new ones. The easiest way to do it is to
release a glitzy OS that needs and uses the sexiest, hottest, most
powerful new hardware... and then market it in such a way that Joe Schmoe
feels like his 2-year-old XP laptop is already obsolete.

Charlie

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:33:04 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> "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.

Depends, I have a co-worker running Ubuntu with 256 megs RAM (shared with
the video card) happier than ever!

Matter of fact, it is interesting to see how he feels it to be
significantly faster, 4 year newer, faster processor and 1 gig of RAM XP
machine in the office....

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:38:01 -0700, oscar wrote:

> Dear former poster,
>
> You're right. There is no OS for the masses which doesn't involve some kind
> of thinking and education on the part of the user.
>
> Computers are complicated. But not impossible to understand. There will
> never be a computer for the masses that will be as easy to operate as a TV or
> radio. Those who market computers and promise the masses that they won't have
> to study computers in order to operate a computer are con artists, or they
> forget that the masses haven't read a book about computers and don't want to.
>
> Point is: buyers must educate themselves.
>
> Vista is going in the right direction. Through restructure, Windows is doing
> a better job of protecting its operating files from being damaged by the
> user... or outside hackers.
>
> I used to debug software and hardware for a living. From experience, every
> OS has a weakness that is vulnerable to be damage by the user or outside
> hackers. There should be no surprise that Windows would have problems. Apple
> has its share of problems, too.
>
> To the others who are disenchanted with Vista. Don't give up on Vista. Enjoy
> the challenge. Once you learn how it's suppose to be working, you'll be
> humming along with your applications at a faster speed than XP.

Seeing how Vista would consume more of my machines resources, that is a
technical impossibility.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:38:01 -0700, oscar wrote:
>
>> Dear former poster,
>>
>> You're right. There is no OS for the masses which doesn't involve some kind
>> of thinking and education on the part of the user.
>>
>> Computers are complicated. But not impossible to understand. There will
>> never be a computer for the masses that will be as easy to operate as a TV or
>> radio. Those who market computers and promise the masses that they won't have
>> to study computers in order to operate a computer are con artists, or they
>> forget that the masses haven't read a book about computers and don't want to.
>>
>> Point is: buyers must educate themselves.
>>
>> Vista is going in the right direction. Through restructure, Windows is doing
>> a better job of protecting its operating files from being damaged by the
>> user... or outside hackers.
>>
>> I used to debug software and hardware for a living. From experience, every
>> OS has a weakness that is vulnerable to be damage by the user or outside
>> hackers. There should be no surprise that Windows would have problems. Apple
>> has its share of problems, too.
>>
>> To the others who are disenchanted with Vista. Don't give up on Vista. Enjoy
>> the challenge. Once you learn how it's suppose to be working, you'll be
>> humming along with your applications at a faster speed than XP.
>
> Seeing how Vista would consume more of my machines resources, that is a
> technical impossibility.
>


Absolutely correct, unless there was something wrong with the old
system, and given the nature of the post I'd guess that there were a
number of things wrong :)

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.22.07.05.14@users.easynews.com...
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:32:58 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've gotten Aero to run on boxes with 64MB video RAM. Can't get Beryl
>>>> to run on the same system.
>>>
>>> I would say you have an anomalous test bed.
>>
>> And what makes you think that?
>>
> Because I have a couple of boxes with 64mb Nvidia cards that run Beryl
> just fine. And I have read that MS recommends 128mb of video RAM for
> Aero. But I won't argue this further because I couldn't care less about
> Beryl anyway. That's not what matters in a desktop UI for people over 21.
>

Well, we agree on that point. Whirling cubes do nothing for me either. And
while MS recommends 128MB vid RAM for Aero, one -can- enable it with less.
The point I was trying to make was, ironically, that, just like Vista,
Ubuntu and Beryl have hardware issues of their own.

>
>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't complain if Vista offered some kind of important new
>>> capabilities. But it doesn't. It's a replacement for something that
>>> didn't need replacing.
>>>
>> Well, then, I can only spew your own words back at you: "You must not be
>> familiar with..." Vista. Improved memory management. Improved security
>> (not perfect, but improved nonetheless). Improved system tools. Those
>> are important to me.
>
> They may be important to tech enthusiasts, but do they even register with
> the average user? Joe Schmoe bought W95 because all the best new
> software was 32-bit. He bought W98 because he wanted to use all that
> cool USB stuff. He bought XP to play 3d games that take a gig of RAM.
> Is he gonna buy Vista for improved memory management and system tools???
> Answer -- not unless he has to, which he will because Vista will be on
> the new computer at Best Buy.
>

Well, I think those kinds of features, while not painfully apparent to the
end user, will impact his or hers experience if they make for a more stable
system. I know others will argue otherwise here, but Vista has been rock
solid on the five different PC's I've installed it and run it on here. That
said, I don't remember it being smooth sailing on any of those Windows
releases you mention above. They all promised those "improvements" but I
don't recall those promises being fulfilled in the first release of any of
them. And to those that like to say that XP is rock solid... well, yeah,
maybe it is, but it's had, what?, five years to get there? I remember quite
clearly that I had to buy a new scanner when XP was released. The W2K driver
was supposed to work, but didn't. There was an XP driver eventually released
and even that didn't work. So, imho, these Vista "growing pains" are nothing
new when it comes to new Windows releases.

> But let's say for the sake of argument that Vista embodies some important
> new technology advances, which it probably does. My question then is,
> did these advances require a completely rebuilt OS, or could similar
> changes have been made over time by continuing to develop XP? I remember
> when 2k/XP first came out... consumers may have griped about the bugs,
> but techies were saying, Microsoft finally got it right in terms of the
> basic OS design. Were they wrong?

Sounds exactly like what folks are saying about Vista. Are they wrong? I
guess time will tell. I'm not technically savvy enough to state beyond doubt
that MS could've rolled Vista's advances into XP.

>
> That (along with the Vista EULA) is really the difference in approach
> that is steering me toward Linux... it's not that Linux is perfect... the
> difference is that Linux evolves incrementally. It doesn't just get
> replaced, so that one day when I decide to buy a new computer, bang, I'm
> dealing with a completely new OS with all the BUGS of a new OS. I mean,
> how many more times is Microsoft gonna do this to its customers? And how
> many more times will the customers go along with it?
>

If one's choice of OS rests on an "approach," well, that takes me out of the
conversation, because I have no issues with MS's "approach." I'm not saying
one shouldn't base one's OS choice on "approach," just that I don't choose
to put that at the top of my decision tree.

>
>>The other stuff, like Aero, is way less important,
>> but Aero doesn't make me froth at the mouth like it does many others,
>> both pro and con. LOL. And my Vista experience has generally been quite
>> good. All my Vista installs have been clean installs. I believe that has
>> helped with my Vista experience. I am cognizant, only too well, having
>> hung out in this ng for a year, that others have not had great Vista
>> experiences. But, still, that doesn't mean MS made conscious design
>> choices to ensure incompatibilities with older software and hardware.
>
> I didn't express myself clearly enough... the goal was not to ensure
> incompatibilities, but to ensure a fresh revenue cycle. Look, I've got
> several Windows computers scattered around my house, ranging from new
> last year to several years old. I need the newest one if I want to
> render video... but for anything else, any of these machines is as good a
> choice as the others. That is Microsoft's biggest marketing problem --
> how to get all those complacent, satisfied Windows customers to ditch
> their old systems and buy new ones. The easiest way to do it is to
> release a glitzy OS that needs and uses the sexiest, hottest, most
> powerful new hardware... and then market it in such a way that Joe Schmoe
> feels like his 2-year-old XP laptop is already obsolete.
>
> Charlie

Ah... well that -is- different, no? The result is the same, yes, but the,
hmm, approach, is different. ;-)

My son is running Vista on a 3 year old computer with 1GB RAM. It runs fine.
I've got a 2.5 year old PC that will run Vista without Aero, when I decide
to upgrade it. (What's holding me back is it's my wife's main computer and
she's resistant to any change on her computer.) Point being... I think
Vista -will- run on older equipment. Maybe not several years old, but I
don't think you need a PC that rolled in the last year to run Vista. I doubt
very much that all 2 year old laptops are incapable of running Vista. Yeah,
they may not be able to run Aero, but that's not the end of the world, Vista
wise.

Lang

I can't love it either. The computer costs lots of money and I can't use it
in usual ways I have used to. This Vista is so controlling and stupid that I
am FRUSTRATED!!
I can't make CDs useable in my other computer and I can't install my
favourite programs and I can't view my videos because they are in MOV format.

Why did they create this ridiculous system anyway?

This is the the last windows in our household.
They should have told us the real new features about Vista and not those
polished cliches how useable it is.

The new commercial should have told :
You can surf in the internet and view some photos and allowed formats of
videos but you can't get them anywhere but in the Internet out of your
computer. You can buy music and movies and do some shopping in the Net but
you can't work by this baby. Think about! I make in best days 1000 photos a
day. Where I am supposed to put those photos if I can't use my burmed CDs in
my other computer containing some nice photoediting programs. This Vista
probably crash soon and there they'll go, all my pretty photos despite of
backups on the same hard disck.


"Ian Semmel" wrote:

>
>
> > -----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).
>
>

Are you using a compatible burning program?
If you are sharing data among computers, you may need to install some
of the same programs on both computers.
This applies to all computers, not just those running Windows Vista.

"they'll go, all my pretty photos despite of backups on the same hard
disk"
That is the risk with any computer using any operating system.
You MUST always have good backups of all essential data to prevent
loss caused by hardware or software.

Post specifics on the favorite programs and someone may be able to
help.
Try Compatibility Mode.
Check the manufacturers web site for updates.
Contact the program manufacturers and ask about Windows Vista
compatibility.
Ask other users of the same programs.

"This is the the last windows in our household"
If I felt that way, I would immediately return the computer.
Or at least talk the the seller/manufacturer and see if they can
resolve your issues.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Rosie" <Rosie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C44E63C-5EE2-4B32-B6EF-798F37227C76@microsoft.com...
>I can't love it either. The computer costs lots of money and I can't
>use it
> in usual ways I have used to. This Vista is so controlling and
> stupid that I
> am FRUSTRATED!!
> I can't make CDs useable in my other computer and I can't install
> my
> favourite programs and I can't view my videos because they are in
> MOV format.
>
> Why did they create this ridiculous system anyway?
>
> This is the the last windows in our household.
> They should have told us the real new features about Vista and not
> those
> polished cliches how useable it is.
>
> The new commercial should have told :
> You can surf in the internet and view some photos and allowed
> formats of
> videos but you can't get them anywhere but in the Internet out of
> your
> computer. You can buy music and movies and do some shopping in the
> Net but
> you can't work by this baby. Think about! I make in best days 1000
> photos a
> day. Where I am supposed to put those photos if I can't use my
> burmed CDs in
> my other computer containing some nice photoediting programs. This
> Vista
> probably crash soon and there they'll go, all my pretty photos
> despite of
> backups on the same hard disck.
>
>
> "Ian Semmel" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > -----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).
>>
>>

I agree with you totally that vista stinks big time!
You are correct and lets leave it at that...

as for a possible solution to your problems...

1) to view MOV video files download and install this: (free)
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/...lternative.htm

install the full version not the lite one... this will enable you to view
MOV files via windows media player.

2) To burn CD's and DVD's download this VISTA COMPATIBLE free Burner
program: http://www.cdburnerxp.se/home This is fully vista compatible.

3) I suggest you download and use these 2 programs:
a) www.gomplayer.com for viewing almost all types of videos with no
problem at all. FREE
b) www.xnview.com to view hundreds of types of images very fast. FREE


whatever else you need, I am here to help you..




"Rosie" <Rosie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C44E63C-5EE2-4B32-B6EF-798F37227C76@microsoft.com...
>I can't love it either. The computer costs lots of money and I can't use
>it
> in usual ways I have used to. This Vista is so controlling and stupid that
> I
> am FRUSTRATED!!
> I can't make CDs useable in my other computer and I can't install my
> favourite programs and I can't view my videos because they are in MOV
> format.
>
> Why did they create this ridiculous system anyway?
>
> This is the the last windows in our household.
> They should have told us the real new features about Vista and not those
> polished cliches how useable it is.
>
> The new commercial should have told :
> You can surf in the internet and view some photos and allowed formats of
> videos but you can't get them anywhere but in the Internet out of your
> computer. You can buy music and movies and do some shopping in the Net
> but
> you can't work by this baby. Think about! I make in best days 1000 photos
> a
> day. Where I am supposed to put those photos if I can't use my burmed CDs
> in
> my other computer containing some nice photoediting programs. This Vista
> probably crash soon and there they'll go, all my pretty photos despite of
> backups on the same hard disck.
>
>
> "Ian Semmel" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > -----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).
>>
>>

Rosie wrote:
> I can't make CDs useable in my other computer and I can't install my
> favourite programs and I can't view my videos because they are in MOV format.

Most of what you'll need, includes new vista iso format.

http://www.videolan.org/
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/...ec_Package.htm
http://infrarecorder.sourceforge.net/
http://www.faststone.org/FSMaxViewDetail.htm

> Why did they create this ridiculous system anyway?

Obviously so more people would post messages. ;)

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'