I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different
places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small
business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista
Business and Home Edition.

My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an
acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.

All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to
say it would be fine for Windows XP.

512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and
certainly no WOW factor!

The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they
all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely
it should be really fast with the new vista on it?

As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I
find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they
should ask advice before just buying something cheap.

As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about
computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is
that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec
pc's that will work better for the end user!

Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that
Vista
was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the
new
lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell
is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end
up
selling expensive upgrades on every one.

I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But
Vista
is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
disbelief. MS
really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying
higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.

The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me
a lot of money, isn't it?"


"Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different
>places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few
>small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista
>Business and Home Edition.
>
> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an
> acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>
> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to
> say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>
> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and
> certainly no WOW factor!
>
> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but
> they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow?
> Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>
> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I
> find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future,
> they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>
> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about
> computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is
> that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec
> pc's that will work better for the end user!
>
>[/color]

"Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors
> that Vista
> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the
> new
> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
> Dell
> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will
> end up
> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>
> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But
> Vista
> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
> disbelief. MS
> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
> buying
> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>
> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost
> me
> a lot of money, isn't it?"[/color]


Its simple......people should do their homework


Hey, do you believe car salesmen when buying a car ?

Hi,

Vista was designed to take advantage of the newer hardware, something XP
could no longer do. This has pretty much been the pattern for any OS
release, not just Windows. Hardware from 4-5 years ago got cheaper, so
selling XP systems with spec's from that time got cheaper. Newer high-end
hardware needed for a newer OS is, and should be, more expensive. Problem is
that people still want to buy cheap. They want Lamborghini performance from
their Ford Escort, and that's just not realistic.

Dell's selling model has been and always will be to advertise low and upsell
at the purchase, this is a common technique not isolated to them alone. They
rely on the person going through thier online ordering steps or over the
phone to select at least 2-3 upgrades for the "small additional cost". I've
seen someone with the intent of not spending over $900 come away with a
system running close to $1700 after taking all the offers.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
[url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]

"Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors
> that Vista
> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the
> new
> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
> Dell
> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will
> end up
> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>
> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But
> Vista
> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
> disbelief. MS
> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
> buying
> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>
> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost
> me
> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>
>
> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>>I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment.
>>A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of
>>Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>
>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be
>> an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>
>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have
>> to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>
>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and
>> certainly no WOW factor!
>>
>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but
>> they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow?
>> Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>
>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and
>> I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future,
>> they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>>
>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about
>> computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is
>> that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec
>> pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the
others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on
its release..

To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
simple..


"Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors
> that Vista
> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the
> new
> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
> Dell
> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will
> end up
> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>
> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But
> Vista
> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
> disbelief. MS
> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
> buying
> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>
> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost
> me
> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>
>
> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>>I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment.
>>A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of
>>Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>
>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be
>> an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>
>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have
>> to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>
>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and
>> certainly no WOW factor!
>>
>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but
>> they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow?
>> Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>
>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and
>> I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future,
>> they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>>
>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about
>> computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is
>> that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec
>> pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
[url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url]

"Will" <willsjunk@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:u01rgffbHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors
>> that Vista
>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of
>> the new
>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
>> Dell
>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will
>> end up
>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>
>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But
>> Vista
>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>> disbelief. MS
>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
>> buying
>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>
>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost
>> me
>> a lot of money, isn't it?"[/color]
>
>
> Its simple......people should do their homework
>
>
> Hey, do you believe car salesmen when buying a car ?
>
>[/color]
It's a fair point to make, but the lack of "WOW" will all be down to a
system that is way under rated for the o.s. to shine.
Everywhere you look now on the Dell site it's Vista.. unless of course you
want XP (hidden away) and then they charge you an extra £50.00 for the
pleasure of a downgrade!!!!
Crazy!

"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23PJ8X7fbHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Vista was designed to take advantage of the newer hardware, something XP
> could no longer do. This has pretty much been the pattern for any OS
> release, not just Windows. Hardware from 4-5 years ago got cheaper, so
> selling XP systems with spec's from that time got cheaper. Newer high-end
> hardware needed for a newer OS is, and should be, more expensive. Problem
> is that people still want to buy cheap. They want Lamborghini performance
> from their Ford Escort, and that's just not realistic.[/color]
Very very true... it's the same old line I hear when I go to a site.... oh I
got this cheap!
And you think to yourself.... no... you are going to spend more now trying
to get it up and running to a decent spec....
When you start to add-on to a Dell system, the prices become horrific!!!
The thought that local PC builders could vanish due to the Dell hard selling
techniques is thankfully somethign that won't happen once people get burnt
once with their nice looking CHEAP PC.

[color=blue]
> Dell's selling model has been and always will be to advertise low and
> upsell at the purchase, this is a common technique not isolated to them
> alone. They rely on the person going through thier online ordering steps
> or over the phone to select at least 2-3 upgrades for the "small
> additional cost". I've seen someone with the intent of not spending over
> $900 come away with a system running close to $1700 after taking all the
> offers.
>[/color]
Yep - and people pay it..... "There is one born every day....."
[color=blue]
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> [url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
> Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url][/color]

Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of
> the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP
> did on its release..
>
> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
> simple..[/color]

"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.

Alias[color=blue]
>
>
> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the
>> Rumors that Vista
>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of
>> the new
>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
>> Dell
>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they
>> will end up
>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>
>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying
>> "But Vista
>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>> disbelief. MS
>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
>> buying
>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>
>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to
>> cost me
>> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>>
>>
>> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
>> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>> different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer
>>> Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a
>>> combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>>
>>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to
>>> be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>>
>>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I
>>> have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>>
>>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users
>>> and certainly no WOW factor!
>>>
>>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better
>>> but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running
>>> so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>>
>>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram,
>>> and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in
>>> future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>>>
>>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS
>>> about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good
>>> thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of
>>> making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>[/color]

"Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:eu33hh$kic$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=green]
>> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of
>> the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP
>> did on its release..
>>
>> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
>> simple..[/color]
>
> "Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
>
> Alias[color=green]
>>[/color][/color]
It's a fair point - While I still like using Vista, I think it has taken a
step backwards for ease of IT support and speedy configuration and
diagnostics.
The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias)
it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of
Vista appeals to the masses...
The demands of the O.S. are all to do with the fancy GFX side of things in
my opinion, but I would like MS to drop this multiple versions nonsense and
have one o.s. that we ALL USE and can all get the help and support in one
place!

Alias

It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..

"Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:eu33hh$kic$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=green]
>> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of
>> the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP
>> did on its release..
>>
>> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
>> simple..[/color]
>
> "Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
>
> Alias[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
>> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors
>>> that Vista
>>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of
>>> the new
>>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
>>> Dell
>>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will
>>> end up
>>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>>
>>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But
>>> Vista
>>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>>> disbelief. MS
>>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
>>> buying
>>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>>
>>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to
>>> cost me
>>> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
>>> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...
>>>> I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>>> different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer
>>>> Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a
>>>> combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>>>
>>>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be
>>>> an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>>>
>>>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have
>>>> to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>>>
>>>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>>>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users
>>>> and certainly no WOW factor!
>>>>
>>>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but
>>>> they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so
>>>> slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>>>
>>>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram,
>>>> and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in
>>>> future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>>>>
>>>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS
>>>> about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good
>>>> thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making
>>>> good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color][/color]

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
[url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url]

It seems the lesson of this discussion, if your aim is to save money, buy
one of the new, cheap computers, then install XP on it. The cheap computer
will have plenty of resources to run XP adequately, and the OS downgrade
from Vista to XP will cost much less than adding the memory and other
features needed to make a cheap computer run Vista adequately.

Larry

Certainly is just like all the others. While I was at school, they
upgraded all the machines from Windows 95 to 98, without upgrading the
hardware. For starters, these machines had minimum memory for 95, so
shouldn't even have been capable of running 98, having half the required
memory, let alone recommended. They ended up painfully slow - sometimes
taking several minutes just to log on (from entering username and
password to being able to do anything - not counting boot time)

Can installing Vista on underrated hardware be expected to be any
different? I guess now people want the latest flashy software, but don't
want to pay for the hardware to run it. We have an 8 year old Windows 98
PC which still does its job. Doesn't need upgrading. Doesn't need a
flashy new OS. I certainly wouldn't expect Vista to run on it though.

Although I do agree that new computers sold with Vista should be capable
of running it at a reasonable speed from the start, without requiring
immediate upgrades or "optional" extras.


Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of
> the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP
> did on its release..
>
> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
> simple..
>
>
> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the
>> Rumors that Vista
>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of
>> the new
>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect
>> Dell
>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they
>> will end up
>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>
>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying
>> "But Vista
>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>> disbelief. MS
>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people
>> buying
>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>
>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to
>> cost me
>> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>>
>>
>> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
>> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>> different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer
>>> Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a
>>> combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>>
>>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to
>>> be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>>
>>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I
>>> have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>>
>>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users
>>> and certainly no WOW factor!
>>>
>>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better
>>> but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running
>>> so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>>
>>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram,
>>> and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in
>>> future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
>>>
>>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS
>>> about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good
>>> thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of
>>> making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> Alias
>
> It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..[/color]

LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying
your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't
play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of
forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you
update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?

Does it surf the web faster? No.

Does it send email quicker? No.

What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?

Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or
otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
[color=blue]
>
> "Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:eu33hh$kic$1@aioe.org...[color=green]
>> Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all
>>> of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more
>>> than XP did on its release..
>>>
>>> To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that
>>> simple..[/color]
>>
>> "Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
>>
>> Alias[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wrecklass" <wrecklass1******.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ONwSnxebHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the
>>>> Rumors that Vista
>>>> was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face
>>>> of the new
>>>> lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I
>>>> suspect Dell
>>>> is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they
>>>> will end up
>>>> selling expensive upgrades on every one.
>>>>
>>>> I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying
>>>> "But Vista
>>>> is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in
>>>> disbelief. MS
>>>> really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most
>>>> people buying
>>>> higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
>>>>
>>>> The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to
>>>> cost me
>>>> a lot of money, isn't it?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gordon Keenan" <gordon@tasystems.org(removeme)> wrote in message
>>>> news:E46E012E-B40C-4BD9-BF35-57F8402B899C@microsoft.com...
>>>>> I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at
>>>>> different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer
>>>>> Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been
>>>>> a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
>>>>>
>>>>> My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers
>>>>> to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I
>>>>> have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> 512MB RAM - it's crippling the system!
>>>>> On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these
>>>>> users and certainly no WOW factor!
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better
>>>>> but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running
>>>>> so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of
>>>>> ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them
>>>>> that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something
>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS
>>>>> about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the
>>>>> good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance
>>>>> of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>[/color][/color]
>[/color]

Gordon Keenan wrote:[color=blue]
> The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias)
> it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of
> Vista appeals to the masses...[/color]

Have you tried Ubuntu 6.06?

Alias

"Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:eu36k2$r6r$2@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Gordon Keenan wrote:[color=green]
>> The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias)
>> it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of
>> Vista appeals to the masses...[/color]
>
> Have you tried Ubuntu 6.06?
>
> Alias[/color]

Ok - Will download it and try.. Will report back on my LINUX-WOW
experience!!!