I Love Vista

> So what you are saying is that you were abandoned as a child, had no
> father and mother figures in your life, and you're just grasping at any
> old OS that says it loves you?

No, that is what YOU are saying, see the difference?

Rich

Yes, but I was just Pulling-thy-chain !

:-)


"Rich" <r.green@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23wvuY$eWHHA.4668@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> So what you are saying is that you were abandoned as a child, had no
>> father and mother figures in your life, and you're just grasping at any
>> old OS that says it loves you?
>
> No, that is what YOU are saying, see the difference?
>
> Rich

Bill, is that you?


"Hellzbellz" <Hellzbellz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8113A361-4E5B-4A2A-ADC0-EC955272ED03@microsoft.com...
> Installed Vista this weekend and I love it. It's so much faster than XP on
> the same computer, taking advantage of all the processing speed of my Pentium
> Duo Core. I love how the windows are somewhat transparent so you can see
> what's behind them, which gives the desktop a kind of 3D effect (the next
> step is holographic) and I really love how windows don't automatically go to
> the background when you maximize something else. It feels robust and secure.
> Well worth the effort to upgrade.
>
> Caveat. Be sure to backup your data files before upgrading. I got stuck in
> a loop with Vista telling me I could only upgrade from a previous version of
> windows, but that version didn't exist on my hard drive any more. So I had
> to restore the factory settings, which involved reformatting my hard drive.
> BACKUP your FILES! And if the upgrade advisor tells you that there are going
> to be problems with certain software on your system, just delete it.

I love it as well

I does have some draw back for now, but if you recall a few years back when
XP first arrived, there were as much draw back and thing that didn't worked
properly or even at all, the same is happening with Vista

In the long run it will all be back to the normal

--
--------------------------
Thank you in Advance
Merci a l'avance

Martin
"Sean C." <mrconnery64@hwood.vine.com.net.gov> wrote in message
news:uH$PSVgWHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill, is that you?
>
>
> "Hellzbellz" <Hellzbellz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8113A361-4E5B-4A2A-ADC0-EC955272ED03@microsoft.com...
>> Installed Vista this weekend and I love it. It's so much faster than XP
>> on
>> the same computer, taking advantage of all the processing speed of my
>> Pentium
>> Duo Core. I love how the windows are somewhat transparent so you can see
>> what's behind them, which gives the desktop a kind of 3D effect (the next
>> step is holographic) and I really love how windows don't automatically go
>> to
>> the background when you maximize something else. It feels robust and
>> secure.
>> Well worth the effort to upgrade.
>>
>> Caveat. Be sure to backup your data files before upgrading. I got stuck
>> in
>> a loop with Vista telling me I could only upgrade from a previous version
>> of
>> windows, but that version didn't exist on my hard drive any more. So I
>> had
>> to restore the factory settings, which involved reformatting my hard
>> drive.
>> BACKUP your FILES! And if the upgrade advisor tells you that there are
>> going
>> to be problems with certain software on your system, just delete it.
>
>

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:03:28 -0500, Martin Racette wrote:
>
> I love it as well
>
> I does have some draw back for now, but if you recall a few years back when
> XP first arrived, there were as much draw back and thing that didn't worked
> properly or even at all, the same is happening with Vista
>
> In the long run it will all be back to the normal

But the resources needed are more than double what it was to move from
Windows 2000 to XP.

In the old days, you could run 2000 on 128MB or 256MB for most business
apps and be comfortable. XP bumped that to 256 to 512, vista seems to be
happy with at least 1GB and 2GB seems to make it real happy for running
most MS based desktop apps. It also needs a fast video card with a good
amount of memory, something that was no really needed for 2000/98SE to XP
migrations.


--
Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

So what's your point? That new Windows OS's require more resources? Uh,
yeah? So what's your point?

Lang

"Leythos" <Void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1172545803_129@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:03:28 -0500, Martin Racette wrote:
>>
>> I love it as well
>>
>> I does have some draw back for now, but if you recall a few years back
>> when
>> XP first arrived, there were as much draw back and thing that didn't
>> worked
>> properly or even at all, the same is happening with Vista
>>
>> In the long run it will all be back to the normal
>
> But the resources needed are more than double what it was to move from
> Windows 2000 to XP.
>
> In the old days, you could run 2000 on 128MB or 256MB for most business
> apps and be comfortable. XP bumped that to 256 to 512, vista seems to be
> happy with at least 1GB and 2GB seems to make it real happy for running
> most MS based desktop apps. It also needs a fast video card with a good
> amount of memory, something that was no really needed for 2000/98SE to XP
> migrations.
>
>
> --
> Leythos
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:22:10 -0800, "Sean C."
<mrconnery64@hwood.vine.com.net.gov> spake thusly:

>Bill, is that you?

It's either Bill or Steve "Developers!,Developers!,Developers!"
Ballmer. ;-)
--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:03 -0600, Leythos <Void@nowhere.com> spake
thusly:

>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:03:28 -0500, Martin Racette wrote:
>>
>> I love it as well
>>
>> I does have some draw back for now, but if you recall a few years back when
>> XP first arrived, there were as much draw back and thing that didn't worked
>> properly or even at all, the same is happening with Vista
>>
>> In the long run it will all be back to the normal
>
>But the resources needed are more than double what it was to move from
>Windows 2000 to XP.
>
>In the old days, you could run 2000 on 128MB or 256MB for most business
>apps and be comfortable. XP bumped that to 256 to 512,

I recall the recommendations for 2000 and XP were identical in the RAM
dept. I ran 2000 with 256 MB of RAM, albeit slowly.

>vista seems to be
>happy with at least 1GB and 2GB seems to make it real happy for running
>most MS based desktop apps. It also needs a fast video card with a good
>amount of memory, something that was no really needed for 2000/98SE to XP
>migrations.

We've got two computers with Vista here both run (with Aero) just
fine. The less powerful one[1] is lousy with 3D (not that it matters)
and it's only used for Webesurfing, email and word processing, so I
can't speak to other software.

The better box[2] (mine) does all that, plus decent 3D (I'm not a
gamer) and is a bit faster due to having twice the RAM of the other
box.

[1] http://preview.tinyurl.com/38upx6

[2] http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xl7x9
--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.