I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.

I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.

What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff does
not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.

Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).

I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).

That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
fact.

PS

The computer was designed for Vista, by the way. That is the key. I would
never try to retrofit or use it with less than what I got: 2.1 Ghz Dual
Core, ATI graphics, 3 gigs RAM, etc. This machine loads as fast or faster
than XP, and with all the Aero bells and whistles on multitasks with ease
and fluidly.


"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:upseHBh8IHA.2548@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>
> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>
> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
> XP.
>
> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>
> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>
> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
> fact.
>
>[/color]

> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff[color=blue]
> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
> XP.[/color]

I completely agree. There are some really rather impressive technical
changes under the hood. The user interface is better than XP's in most
respects, although some change-for-the-sake-of-change did creep in, and a
number of people dislike the poor contrast for highlighted items.

It is even more stable than XP. The only way to crash Vista is to use bad
hardware or bad drivers.

I haven't noticed much difference in performance, although the benchmarks
clearly show that Vista is a bit slower than XP (XP was slower than W2K -
and so it goes).

Having got XP and Vista machines in daily use, I wouldn't consider
downgrading my Vista machine back to XP.

SteveT

"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:upseHBh8IHA.2548@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>
> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>
> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
> XP.
>
> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>
> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>
> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
> fact.
>
>[/color]
No beef here! Recently had to update from an old XP (but kept up to date)
laptop, and the new Vista one is great; it plays nicely with the Vista
desktop I got in April. Both Home Premium, and matched for using graphics
but not games (laptop rating 3.1, desktop 3) and with SP1. And, as you
mentioned in your PS, bought with Vista installed. I was going to get my old
XP box fixed but now don't think I'll bother; will just donate it or recycle
it.

"LesleyO " <lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:ebZlOVi8IHA.5984@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
> news:upseHBh8IHA.2548@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>>
>> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>>
>> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
>> does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
>> XP.
>>
>> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>>
>> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
>> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>>
>> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project)
>> lead me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not
>> from fact.
>>
>>[/color]
> No beef here! Recently had to update from an old XP (but kept up to date)
> laptop, and the new Vista one is great; it plays nicely with the Vista
> desktop I got in April. Both Home Premium, and matched for using graphics
> but not games (laptop rating 3.1, desktop 3) and with SP1. And, as you
> mentioned in your PS, bought with Vista installed. I was going to get my
> old XP box fixed but now don't think I'll bother; will just donate it or
> recycle it.[/color]

I dual boot Vista on a couple systems, one a Q6600/4GB the other a 1.73Ghz
core 2/2GB.
XP runs faster on both.
I don't have problems with Vista, I just don't LIKE it.

Where to begin?

1.) Whats with the new My Documents? Why all these extra "My ......" such
as My Downloads? Its confusing! and more than a small pain when in the
corporate enviroment, more folder redirection to do, on folders we do not
want.

2.) The new Save/Open dialogue boxes, not as clear or quick to use as the XP
one.

3.) When deploying software with group policy on a Windows 2000 or Windows
XP it would say on boot "Installing Managed Software ... Office 2003 Pro" for
example. What does Vista do? "Please Wait....." hmmm, thats useful, now i
know whats going on!

4.) New logon screen (Domain CTRL+ALT+DEL one). Its slower to use. Say i
have a domain called ACCOUNTS, and a PC called PC1. On XP and 2000, NT 4, NT
3.51.... to logon as Administrator you just type Administrator in the
username box. Not in Vista it now takes longer because if you type
Administrator in the username box, it switches the "Logon To" to PC1 from
ACCOUNTS, so now i have to type ACCOUNTS\Administrator ... WHY O WHY!!!!
Bring back GINA!

5.) Navagating files and folders in Vista just seems to make my head hurt,
its cluttered with gunk, too many thumbnails now, and when you turn it off,
it turns it off for the 1 thing you do want it on for, Pictures!, add to the
fact that when it first came out simple things such as copying a file accross
a network did not work correctly, took 100x longer than it should......

6.) New start menu, why does the Programs menu expand within a box now
instead of outwards like it has always done since Windows 95? I now end up
scrolling up and down which takes longer. I know there is a search box, but 1
peice of software we have alone puts over 100 shortcuts on the start menu,
you try remembering the name of every peice of software you want, sometimes
you need it in front of you to remember the full name.

7.) New control panel, its just a MAZE. Do not need so many control panels,
and its gone to flashy, you have to wait for the icons to load in. Plus for
example Wireless Control panel was quick and easy to use in XP, under Vista
what took 1 or 2 clicks takes more, again its a maze and cannot do simple
things quickly its cluttered again. clutter clutter clutter!!!!!

i could go on and on and on and on, Microsoft have made Windows bulky,
cluttered, and slow to use. I'm all for change, but not just for the sake of
it, and thats what they have done with a lot of Vistas parts.



"Telstar" wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>
> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>
> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff does
> not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.
>
> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>
> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>
> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
> fact.
>
>
>[/color]

I was an XP user from day until I started using Vista , I haven't booted
much lately with XP . I still like XP but we all know it, sooner or
later you have to catch up with the Jones . This ( Vista ) platform is
here to stay .


--
fredharvey

Vista Ultimate sp1 full retail , 2gb Ram , Diamond Radeon HD 3870 PCI
512mb GDDR4 , PS 650 watts and Asus P5K Premium WIFI-AP ATX LGA775
Cool Master Cosmos 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fredharvey's Profile: [url]http://winvistaclub.com/forum/member.php?userid=72[/url]
View this thread: [url]http://winvistaclub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17804[/url]

I put my observations to your replies inline.. Most of your "negatives"
aren't really there in Vista.

----- Original Message -----
From: "D Lawton" <DLawton@discussions.microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: I do not understand the negatives for Vista .. new computer

[color=blue]
> Where to begin?
>
> 1.) Whats with the new My Documents? Why all these extra "My ......" such
> as My Downloads? Its confusing! and more than a small pain when in the
> corporate enviroment, more folder redirection to do, on folders we do not
> want.[/color]

Why not use a roaming profile? That's what my corporation does. The heavy
stuff stays on the system (/AppData/Local/), but everything else gets 2-way
synced with the server.
[color=blue]
>
> 2.) The new Save/Open dialogue boxes, not as clear or quick to use as the
> XP
> one.
>[/color]

I can't find a signficant difference except that you have to press "down" to
see the full list.
[color=blue]
> 3.) When deploying software with group policy on a Windows 2000 or Windows
> XP it would say on boot "Installing Managed Software ... Office 2003 Pro"
> for
> example. What does Vista do? "Please Wait....." hmmm, thats useful, now i
> know whats going on![/color]

True...
[color=blue]
>
> 4.) New logon screen (Domain CTRL+ALT+DEL one). Its slower to use. Say i
> have a domain called ACCOUNTS, and a PC called PC1. On XP and 2000, NT 4,
> NT
> 3.51.... to logon as Administrator you just type Administrator in the
> username box. Not in Vista it now takes longer because if you type
> Administrator in the username box, it switches the "Logon To" to PC1 from
> ACCOUNTS, so now i have to type ACCOUNTS\Administrator ... WHY O WHY!!!!
> Bring back GINA![/color]

We use the standard Vista one here.. works great for the most part, though
it takes longer to login to a local account.
[color=blue]
>
> 5.) Navagating files and folders in Vista just seems to make my head hurt,
> its cluttered with gunk, too many thumbnails now, and when you turn it
> off,
> it turns it off for the 1 thing you do want it on for, Pictures!, add to
> the
> fact that when it first came out simple things such as copying a file
> accross
> a network did not work correctly, took 100x longer than it should......[/color]

I think that's why they invented Windows Search. However, from expereicne,
its mostly similar to a hybrid of the way XP did it and the way every other
major desktop operating system does it.
[color=blue]
>
> 6.) New start menu, why does the Programs menu expand within a box now
> instead of outwards like it has always done since Windows 95? I now end up
> scrolling up and down which takes longer. I know there is a search box,
> but 1
> peice of software we have alone puts over 100 shortcuts on the start menu,
> you try remembering the name of every peice of software you want,
> sometimes
> you need it in front of you to remember the full name.[/color]

Switch to the classic one. It's still there.
[color=blue]
>
> 7.) New control panel, its just a MAZE. Do not need so many control
> panels,
> and its gone to flashy, you have to wait for the icons to load in. Plus
> for
> example Wireless Control panel was quick and easy to use in XP, under
> Vista
> what took 1 or 2 clicks takes more, again its a maze and cannot do simple
> things quickly its cluttered again. clutter clutter clutter!!!!![/color]

Switch to the classic view. it's still there
[color=blue]
>
> i could go on and on and on and on, Microsoft have made Windows bulky,
> cluttered, and slow to use. I'm all for change, but not just for the sake
> of
> it, and thats what they have done with a lot of Vistas parts.[/color]

Actually.. on this machine, its more responsive than the XP that originally
shipped on it...

2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
2.0 GB RAM
500 GB Western Digital GreenPower drive
Geforce 7900 GS

Vista boot time to useable desktop: 2 minutes
XP boot time to useable desktop: 10 minutes

Vista time to open "Computer": instantly
XP time to open "My Computer": 2 minutes

Occurence of whole desktop freezing on Vista: never. Individual programs do
lock up still
Occurence of whole desktop freezing on XP: often. One program locks up, and
the rest seize up until that program is killed.
[color=blue]
>
>
>
> "Telstar" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>>
>> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>>
>> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
>> does
>> not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.
>>
>> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).
>>
>> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
>> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>>
>> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project)
>> lead
>> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
>> fact.
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

Justin Haygood wrote:[color=blue]
> I put my observations to your replies inline.. Most of your "negatives"
> aren't really there in Vista.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Lawton"
> <DLawton@discussions.microsoft.com>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:16 AM
> Subject: RE: I do not understand the negatives for Vista .. new computer
>
>[color=green]
>> Where to begin?
>>
>> 1.) Whats with the new My Documents? Why all these extra "My ......"
>> such
>> as My Downloads? Its confusing! and more than a small pain when in the
>> corporate enviroment, more folder redirection to do, on folders we do not
>> want.[/color]
>
> Why not use a roaming profile? That's what my corporation does. The heavy
> stuff stays on the system (/AppData/Local/), but everything else gets 2-way
> synced with the server.
>[color=green]
>>
>> 2.) The new Save/Open dialogue boxes, not as clear or quick to use as the
>> XP
>> one.
>>[/color]
>
> I can't find a signficant difference except that you have to press
> "down" to
> see the full list.
>[color=green]
>> 3.) When deploying software with group policy on a Windows 2000 or
>> Windows
>> XP it would say on boot "Installing Managed Software ... Office 2003 Pro"
>> for
>> example. What does Vista do? "Please Wait....." hmmm, thats useful, now i
>> know whats going on![/color]
>
> True...
>[color=green]
>>
>> 4.) New logon screen (Domain CTRL+ALT+DEL one). Its slower to use. Say i
>> have a domain called ACCOUNTS, and a PC called PC1. On XP and 2000, NT 4,
>> NT
>> 3.51.... to logon as Administrator you just type Administrator in the
>> username box. Not in Vista it now takes longer because if you type
>> Administrator in the username box, it switches the "Logon To" to PC1 from
>> ACCOUNTS, so now i have to type ACCOUNTS\Administrator ... WHY O WHY!!!!
>> Bring back GINA![/color]
>
> We use the standard Vista one here.. works great for the most part, though
> it takes longer to login to a local account.
>[color=green]
>>
>> 5.) Navagating files and folders in Vista just seems to make my head
>> hurt,
>> its cluttered with gunk, too many thumbnails now, and when you turn it
>> off,
>> it turns it off for the 1 thing you do want it on for, Pictures!, add to
>> the
>> fact that when it first came out simple things such as copying a file
>> accross
>> a network did not work correctly, took 100x longer than it should......[/color]
>
> I think that's why they invented Windows Search. However, from expereicne,
> its mostly similar to a hybrid of the way XP did it and the way every other
> major desktop operating system does it.
>[color=green]
>>
>> 6.) New start menu, why does the Programs menu expand within a box now
>> instead of outwards like it has always done since Windows 95? I now
>> end up
>> scrolling up and down which takes longer. I know there is a search box,
>> but 1
>> peice of software we have alone puts over 100 shortcuts on the start
>> menu,
>> you try remembering the name of every peice of software you want,
>> sometimes
>> you need it in front of you to remember the full name.[/color]
>
> Switch to the classic one. It's still there.
>[color=green]
>>
>> 7.) New control panel, its just a MAZE. Do not need so many control
>> panels,
>> and its gone to flashy, you have to wait for the icons to load in. Plus
>> for
>> example Wireless Control panel was quick and easy to use in XP, under
>> Vista
>> what took 1 or 2 clicks takes more, again its a maze and cannot do simple
>> things quickly its cluttered again. clutter clutter clutter!!!!![/color]
>
> Switch to the classic view. it's still there
>[color=green]
>>
>> i could go on and on and on and on, Microsoft have made Windows bulky,
>> cluttered, and slow to use. I'm all for change, but not just for the sake
>> of
>> it, and thats what they have done with a lot of Vistas parts.[/color]
>
> Actually.. on this machine, its more responsive than the XP that originally
> shipped on it...
>
> 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
> 2.0 GB RAM
> 500 GB Western Digital GreenPower drive
> Geforce 7900 GS
>
> Vista boot time to useable desktop: 2 minutes
> XP boot time to useable desktop: 10 minutes
>
> Vista time to open "Computer": instantly
> XP time to open "My Computer": 2 minutes
>
> Occurence of whole desktop freezing on Vista: never. Individual programs do
> lock up still
> Occurence of whole desktop freezing on XP: often. One program locks up, and
> the rest seize up until that program is killed.
>[color=green]
>>[/color][/color]

Although I generally prefer Vista to XP, myself, it sounds like there
was something wrong with your XP installation to be so slow-responding
on a system like you describe.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Telstar" wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.
>>>
>>> I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.
>>>
>>> What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
>>> does
>>> not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.
>>>
>>> Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in
>>> particular).
>>>
>>> I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
>>> capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).
>>>
>>> That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project)
>>> lead
>>> me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
>>> fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>[/color][/color]
>[/color]

"Justin Haygood" <justinhaygood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:CAC122F5-881A-4E5A-8233-B4EEC2753FDB@microsoft.com:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> i could go on and on and on and on, Microsoft have made Windows
>> bulky, cluttered, and slow to use. I'm all for change, but not just
>> for the sake of
>> it, and thats what they have done with a lot of Vistas parts.[/color]
>
> Actually.. on this machine, its more responsive than the XP that
> originally shipped on it...
>
> 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
> 2.0 GB RAM
> 500 GB Western Digital GreenPower drive
> Geforce 7900 GS
>
> Vista boot time to useable desktop: 2 minutes
> XP boot time to useable desktop: 10 minutes
>
> Vista time to open "Computer": instantly
> XP time to open "My Computer": 2 minutes[/color]

There *absolutely* had to be something borked with XP, so I don't think
comparing the two is valid.

I would think that would be the general concensus looking at the XP boot
time, and opening 'My Computer'.

I've *never* worked on an XP box that took 10 minutes to boot unless it
was infested with malware/spyware.

I know you won't, but if you did a clean install of XP on that box from
retail/OEM MS media (which means an actual install and not an OEM mfg
'restore' with all the extra crap), you'd find that it ran waaaay faster
than before.