Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> Here we go again!
>
> TWO GB of RAM, as a minimum, if you intend to do any serious
> Photoshop work with Vista.
>
> The TRUTH is always SLOW to emerge in these discussions.
>
> We are beginning to clear away the bafflegab, blather,
> codswallop, balderdash and rusty boilerplate persiflage.
>
> "Your machine will run Vista" -- that should be the punch line
> to a bad joke.
>
> "Your car will run -- of course, climbing hills may be a
> problem -- or driving over 40 miles per hour."
>
> DSH
>
> "Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" <mikehall@mvps.org>
> wrote in message news:uMPa2$bWHHA.4252@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
>> Your machine will run Vista, but bear in mind that XP users
>> were advised to run 1-1.5gb if working with Photoshop and
>> similar.. memory required is down to what will be run on the
>> machine, not just the OS in use.. look to upgrading RAM to
>> 2gb or more if you find that you need more.[/color][/color]

Spence, I think you and I are in pretty good agreement, but in
this forum, we're spitting into a strong wind. CPU, memory and HD
intensive applications like computer graphics on 6,8, 12 mega
pixel files will bring even a very hot box with 4 or more gigs or
memory to its knees even on XP. And, perception is everything.
What is fast or slow to one person may be the opposite to
another.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Jerry, I'm not entirely sure you understand my position.

I WANT people to buy Vista or a better MS OS.

I WANT Microsoft to make money.

Hades, I'm a stockholder.

But I do NOT want Microsoft to push an inferior product on people and I
think they have done a completely terrible and incompetent marketing job on
Vista.

Hades, they can't even provide TEN Good Reasons for XP users to upgrade to
Vista.

All they can do is mumble and pass gas and tell us support for XP will
eventually be cut off and they will obsolete their own product -- which they
felt they were not doing fast enough before.

Heads should roll at Redmond.

These MVP's are being put in a very difficult and untenable position where
they are not being provided with the Good Information they need to tell us
about the Vista product and easily absorbed technical information, which
they can then pass on to us, concerning capabilities and liabilities.

I get the impression they are being muzzled and micro-managed to the point
where their options are very limited as to what they can tell us. The MVP's
are Smart, Savvy People I'm sure -- and they should be kept on a looser rein
to the point where they can give us Good Gouge.

I fully realize they are not marketers or hacks working for Microsoft, just
pushing product -- nor should they be.

But they should be IN THE Know more -- and not be hamstrung so much by
bureaucrats.

'Nuff Said.

So, where are you posting from?

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98E3BD7A8DEE2ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
[color=blue]
> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>
> Spence, by and large, you are correct, but speaking to the choir.
> Thinking people not easily swayed by marketing hype designed to
> scare them aren't worried. And, the last time I looked, nobody
> was holding an Uzi to anyone's head to make them BUY an new O/S.
> The real issue, not necessarily being debated here is what do NEW
> PC buyers do? Ya can't buy XP anymore.
>[color=green]
>> This risible business about "being told to uninstall a few
>> applications because Vista won't run with them" -- before
>> installing Vista on a box is appalling.
>>
>> I certainly don't want to uninstall any applications in order
>> to make Vista operate properly.
>>
>> Far better to wait until applications and Vista are more
>> sympatico with each other and THEN install Vista -- IF someone
>> can tell us TEN Good Reasons that are not fluff, smoke and
>> mirrors why Vista is far better than XP Pro SP2.
>>
>> I'll even buy an entirely new system if required.
>>
>> This silly-buggers, repeated cry to:
>>
>> "Tell me how you use your computer and the hardware
>> description and I'll tell you if Vista is right for you" is
>> kindergarten stuff.
>>
>> Joe Doaks may be using his computer one way today and then get
>> a digital camera and want to be rapidly processing mega-pixel
>> image files a month from now -- so that methodology is flawed
>> from the get-go.
>>
>> Today's Requirements May Be A Far Cry From One's Requirements
>> Six Months From Now -- As Technologies & Requirements Evolve.
>>
>> The Burden of Proof is on Microsoft to tell us TEN Good
>> Reasons why Vista is better than XP Pro SP2 NOW.
>>
>> So far, they have struck out.
>>
>> Is anyone still buying Windows Millennium Edition that was
>> once so widely touted as a breakthrough edition?
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>>
>> Fortem Posce Animum
>>[/color]
> --
> HP, aka Jerry[/color]

Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> Jerry, I'm not entirely sure you understand my position.
>
> I WANT people to buy Vista or a better MS OS.
>
> I WANT Microsoft to make money.
>
> Hades, I'm a stockholder.[/color]

I useta was, but sold it for half-price.

If you WANT people to buy Vista, why are you asking MS to give
you 10 reasons to? I understand being a owner of the company, but
I don't lobby against companies I own stock in, and no, I'm not
talking about Chrysler, I actually do have a broader portfolio
than that. <grin>
[color=blue]
> But I do NOT want Microsoft to push an inferior product on
> people and I think they have done a completely terrible and
> incompetent marketing job on Vista.[/color]

Good luck, Spence. We probably got a hint that it was problematic
for MS when they delayed the release from October/November to
January, and were **** lucky to make that. Rumors swirled around
here and other places but their press releases used weasal words
about ensuring a quality product which is probably a euphemism
for "it is too buggy to release." I don't know and don't want to
speculate, but as far as making it a superior product, if I even
knew what that might be, the basic features were in stone years
ago, it is a fact now, and all of us aruing about the degree of
bloatware it may or may not be is a pointless exercise.

I have a saying that may apply here: "reality trumps any card in
the game of life." I am a realist/pragmatist, and also a cynic -
what a surprise! So, I know that it isn't the truth about
anything, including Vista, that is important, it is how the truth
is perceived.

As to incompetent marketing, MS has the OEMs sewed up tight, so
no issue there. And, from what I can see locally, there's a major
feeding frenzy to be the first one on your block to buy it. I
don't have a clue as to the early sales numbers, but there ain't
nothing wrong with the marketing blitz I can see. Misguided,
perhaps, but effective as people ARE paying some pretty big bucks
to get it.
[color=blue]
> Hades, they can't even provide TEN Good Reasons for XP users
> to upgrade to Vista.[/color]

I suppose it would be a good notion for them to do so. But, I am
2nd generation Chrysler and like to think I know a thing or two
about product development, CAD, and OA, and I can't recall any of
our advertising providing 10 reasons to buy a new Plymouth,
Dodge,DeSoto, Chrysler or Imperial. Yes, the ads would and still
do extol unique features and reasons to buy, but car people kind
of think that if you need 10 reasons to convince you, you
probably have no intension anyway.

So, all MS has to do is give you a few sound bytes about new whiz
bang graphics, better help screens, improved drivers, and the
like and you will WANT to own the 2007 model desperately. OR,
they want to scare you blind that if you don't upgrade right
away, you're missing something so earthshatter it cannot be
described. Or, can it?
[color=blue]
> All they can do is mumble and pass gas and tell us support for
> XP will eventually be cut off and they will obsolete their own
> product -- which they felt they were not doing fast enough
> before.[/color]

This has been discussed, by me this time. LONG after MS
"stopped" support of Win 98SE, I was still getting patches. My
wife's SP1 box is getting "obsolete version" messages, but she is
still getting updates. Think about it a minute: for the millions
who cannot - or will not - upgrade, does MS really want to drive
them either to a Mac or, gasp! to a free O/S with competitive
apps, like Linux?
[color=blue]
> Heads should roll at Redmond.
>
> These MVP's are being put in a very difficult and untenable
> position where they are not being provided with the Good
> Information they need to tell us about the Vista product and
> easily absorbed technical information, which they can then
> pass on to us, concerning capabilities and liabilities.[/color]

No comment. I can and do talk about the travails about my company
but I do not disparage them. However, I also do not shill for
them. I would hope that employees of all the companies I buy
products and services from would be so candid, but just ain't so.
And, no, again, I am NOT singling out MS here, merely commenting
that the MVPs, whether I personally like it or not, somehow feel
compelled to primarily recommend MS solutions rather than
competitors and to put a positive spin on things. Run Vista on
512 MB? I really don't think so, but I obviously have no facts
and no experience as I am not a beta tester (and refuse to use my
Visa card for that).
[color=blue]
> I get the impression they are being muzzled and micro-managed
> to the point where their options are very limited as to what
> they can tell us. The MVP's are Smart, Savvy People I'm sure
> -- and they should be kept on a looser rein to the point where
> they can give us Good Gouge.[/color]

I don't know what the NDA says of what EULA they agreed to, but I
would hazard a guess that putting on a happy face in public is
encouraged. Why would MS what their name on people to disparage
the company?
[color=blue]
> I fully realize they are not marketers or hacks working for
> Microsoft, just pushing product -- nor should they be.
>
> But they should be IN THE Know more -- and not be hamstrung so
> much by bureaucrats.
>
> 'Nuff Said.
>
> So, where are you posting from?
>
> DSH
>
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E3BD7A8DEE2ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>[color=green]
>> Today, D. Spencer Hines made these interesting comments ...
>>
>> Spence, by and large, you are correct, but speaking to the
>> choir. Thinking people not easily swayed by marketing hype
>> designed to scare them aren't worried. And, the last time I
>> looked, nobody was holding an Uzi to anyone's head to make
>> them BUY an new O/S. The real issue, not necessarily being
>> debated here is what do NEW PC buyers do? Ya can't buy XP
>> anymore.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> This risible business about "being told to uninstall a few
>>> applications because Vista won't run with them" -- before
>>> installing Vista on a box is appalling.
>>>
>>> I certainly don't want to uninstall any applications in
>>> order to make Vista operate properly.
>>>
>>> Far better to wait until applications and Vista are more
>>> sympatico with each other and THEN install Vista -- IF
>>> someone can tell us TEN Good Reasons that are not fluff,
>>> smoke and mirrors why Vista is far better than XP Pro SP2.
>>>
>>> I'll even buy an entirely new system if required.
>>>
>>> This silly-buggers, repeated cry to:
>>>
>>> "Tell me how you use your computer and the hardware
>>> description and I'll tell you if Vista is right for you" is
>>> kindergarten stuff.
>>>
>>> Joe Doaks may be using his computer one way today and then
>>> get a digital camera and want to be rapidly processing
>>> mega-pixel image files a month from now -- so that
>>> methodology is flawed from the get-go.
>>>
>>> Today's Requirements May Be A Far Cry From One's
>>> Requirements Six Months From Now -- As Technologies &
>>> Requirements Evolve.
>>>
>>> The Burden of Proof is on Microsoft to tell us TEN Good
>>> Reasons why Vista is better than XP Pro SP2 NOW.
>>>
>>> So far, they have struck out.
>>>
>>> Is anyone still buying Windows Millennium Edition that was
>>> once so widely touted as a breakthrough edition?
>>>
>>> DSH
>>>
>>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>>>
>>> Fortem Posce Animum
>>>[/color]
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry[/color]
>
>
>[/color]



--
HP, aka Jerry

My son's box has 1GB RAM. His main tasks are email, surfing the web, and
playing "Call of Duty," which, as I understand it, is a game that will barf
if the system isn't up to specs. (By barfing, I mean, not play well. I'm not
a gamer, so... I have to rely on my son's reports as to whether or not his
system is working acceptably. And... believe me, if he were having a poor
experience playing his favorite game, I'd hear about it.)

Lang

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98E3404B317C8ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=blue]
> Today, Lang Murphy made these interesting comments ...
>[color=green]
>> My son's running Vista Ultimate with 1GB RAM. Games, streaming
>> video, DVD's, without issue. I define "without issue" as
>> "fine."[/color]
>
> OK. I'm curious, Lang. How much RAM does your son have? I assume
> from your reply to me that it is 1 gig or less. Also, what are his
> main purpose(s) for using a PC, e.g., web surfing or word
> processing vs processing large mega pixel digital camera images. A
> subjective adjective like "fine" in this context highly depends on
> one's perception and, as you say, you use it to mean "I ain't had
> no problems".
>[color=green]
>> Lang
>>
>> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E2F06C02659ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=darkred]
>>> Today, Kerry Brown made these interesting comments ...
>>>
>>>> It depends on what you are doing. For most people Vista runs
>>>> just fine with 1 GB RAM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry, nothing runs fine with only 1 gig. Run, yes. Fine, no.
>>> Not even XP Pro SP1 can, I know.
>>>
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry[/color]

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98E3BD2B92A48ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=blue]
> Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...
>[color=green]
>> How big is the HD? IDE? 5400 or 7200?
>> Hard drive size, especially available hard drive size, has an
>> impact on speed. If Windows runs out of RAM, it uses hard
>> drive for RAM with a swap file, which could be why my system
>> runs pretty smooth. I'm running a 1 GHz AMD with 512 RAM with
>> 2 HDs, a 120 GB and a 40 GB. I'm currently running WinME on
>> that, and it should work even better with XP. I wouldn't try
>> Vista on it...
>>[/color]
> This is a pointless debate, Eric. I am system aware and can
> determine my destiny just fine. The description I have already
> provided is enough for you to answer your own questions.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry[/color]

An AMD 1.6 GHz CPU machine with "just" 512 MB, with at least your typical
old 64MB GeForce2 and a 7200 RPM 40GB IDE, should run really smooth. If it
isn't, it is probably time to backup your data, format that HD, reinstall
from scratch. I think you'll find a huge improvement by doing that. You
may find a drop in performance if you're running junk like a 16 MB video
card or 5400 RPM HD, depending on what you do with the machine. Upgrade a
piece or two there and it will run smooth on Win98SE, perhaps even on
WinXPSP2. Just don't try running Vista on that old machine.

Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
>
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E3BD2B92A48ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=green]
>> Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> How big is the HD? IDE? 5400 or 7200?
>>> Hard drive size, especially available hard drive size, has
>>> an impact on speed. If Windows runs out of RAM, it uses
>>> hard drive for RAM with a swap file, which could be why my
>>> system runs pretty smooth. I'm running a 1 GHz AMD with 512
>>> RAM with 2 HDs, a 120 GB and a 40 GB. I'm currently running
>>> WinME on that, and it should work even better with XP. I
>>> wouldn't try Vista on it...
>>>[/color]
>> This is a pointless debate, Eric. I am system aware and can
>> determine my destiny just fine. The description I have
>> already provided is enough for you to answer your own
>> questions.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry[/color]
>
> An AMD 1.6 GHz CPU machine with "just" 512 MB, with at least
> your typical old 64MB GeForce2 and a 7200 RPM 40GB IDE, should
> run really smooth. If it isn't, it is probably time to backup
> your data, format that HD, reinstall from scratch. I think
> you'll find a huge improvement by doing that. You may find a
> drop in performance if you're running junk like a 16 MB video
> card or 5400 RPM HD, depending on what you do with the
> machine. Upgrade a piece or two there and it will run smooth
> on Win98SE, perhaps even on WinXPSP2. Just don't try running
> Vista on that old machine.[/color]

Tell you what, Eric. Let's agree to disagree. You run your system
the way you think best, that is your right. So, please give me
the same courtesy. I have NO intention in doing a nuke and
reinstall on a working system just to prove that it might run
faster. I already know why it is slow, besides the obvious, and I
have a plan to fix it. But, not now, and certainly NOT with
Vista.

--
HP, aka Jerry

<G>

DSH

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98E47EA73286EReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
[color=blue]
> Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...
>[color=green]
>>
>> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E3BD2B92A48ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=darkred]
>>> Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...
>>>
>>>> How big is the HD? IDE? 5400 or 7200?
>>>> Hard drive size, especially available hard drive size, has
>>>> an impact on speed. If Windows runs out of RAM, it uses
>>>> hard drive for RAM with a swap file, which could be why my
>>>> system runs pretty smooth. I'm running a 1 GHz AMD with 512
>>>> RAM with 2 HDs, a 120 GB and a 40 GB. I'm currently running
>>>> WinME on that, and it should work even better with XP. I
>>>> wouldn't try Vista on it...
>>>>
>>> This is a pointless debate, Eric. I am system aware and can
>>> determine my destiny just fine. The description I have
>>> already provided is enough for you to answer your own
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> HP, aka Jerry[/color]
>>
>> An AMD 1.6 GHz CPU machine with "just" 512 MB, with at least
>> your typical old 64MB GeForce2 and a 7200 RPM 40GB IDE, should
>> run really smooth. If it isn't, it is probably time to backup
>> your data, format that HD, reinstall from scratch. I think
>> you'll find a huge improvement by doing that. You may find a
>> drop in performance if you're running junk like a 16 MB video
>> card or 5400 RPM HD, depending on what you do with the
>> machine. Upgrade a piece or two there and it will run smooth
>> on Win98SE, perhaps even on WinXPSP2. Just don't try running
>> Vista on that old machine.[/color]
>
> Tell you what, Eric. Let's agree to disagree. You run your system
> the way you think best, that is your right. So, please give me
> the same courtesy. I have NO intention in doing a nuke and
> reinstall on a working system just to prove that it might run
> faster. I already know why it is slow, besides the obvious, and I
> have a plan to fix it. But, not now, and certainly NOT with
> Vista.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry[/color]