What flavor of Vista should I get?

I am a pretty experienced user of PCs, programming and building from
scratch several Pentium-based Windows OS systems.

I have a simple home network (two PCs, shared printer) behind a
standard firewall with DSL internet access.

I would like to run some older Windows 95 programs. Right now I am
running these older programs using XP Professional with no problem (I
didn't even have to switch, under the Properties tab, the
"Compatibility Mode"). I understand the most expensive flavor of
Vista has a Windows 3.1/DOS "emulation", but I would be surprised if I
had to use this emulation to run these older Windows 95 programs I
wish to run under Vista.

Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?

Thanks in advance,

RL

Kier wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:09:33 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
>> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
>> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?
>
> 'Privilege of using Vista'? What's a privilege about that?
>
The "privilege" to be recognized as an idiot
He wants to pay for something which he already can do now.
And he wants to pay for something which is inferior to the stuff he already
has. A typical widiot

>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>
> Why on Earth should anyone in COLA give you advice, after being insulted
> as 'cheap'? Particularly about Vista.
>
Well, he obviously is not even smart enough to ask his stupid question in a
windows group only. But maybe he thinks that the smartest windows users (ie
those nearly as smart as cow dung) are in the linux groups, trolling
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent

Kier <> did eloquently scribble:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:09:33 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

> <snip>
>
>> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
>> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
>> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?

> 'Privilege of using Vista'? What's a privilege about that?

He seems to be basking in delight at having to pay microsoft for the
privilage screwing his machine up and deciding what he can and can't do on it.

>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>

> Why on Earth should anyone in COLA give you advice, after being insulted
> as 'cheap'? Particularly about Vista.

Indeed.
What a jolly uncouth fellow, I think he should leave. Now.
--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
| | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:09:33 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

<snip>

> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?

'Privilege of using Vista'? What's a privilege about that?

>
> Thanks in advance,
>

Why on Earth should anyone in COLA give you advice, after being insulted
as 'cheap'? Particularly about Vista.

--
Kier

Good morning

Am not in a position to advise with any authority. That said, my
understanding is that this is one area that is dealt with the same by all
the flavours of Vista - the experts in this forum should be able to confirm
or correct this thought.

The choice would revolve more around your other needs for the operating
system. Do you need or want networking? Do you want or need the Media
Centre. What other wants/needs/requirements do you have for your Operating
System? How much time do you want to spend evaluating the various flavours
before making a choice? How far to the future are you looking in your
choice?

Me, I found that no single flavour had all the functionality I wanted now,
or may need or want in the future. For that reason, I settled for Vista
Ultimate. Been a fair learning curve over the past four or so weeks, but
slowly getting there.

And yes, I also run Linux on another computer, and for those few programs
that seem to have a heartache with Vista, still run an XP box - the issue
has nothing to do with cost, but need. List your needs, then find the
solution that fills those needs.

R.

"raylopez99" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I am a pretty experienced user of PCs, programming and building from
> scratch several Pentium-based Windows OS systems.
>
> I have a simple home network (two PCs, shared printer) behind a
> standard firewall with DSL internet access.
>
> I would like to run some older Windows 95 programs. Right now I am
> running these older programs using XP Professional with no problem (I
> didn't even have to switch, under the Properties tab, the
> "Compatibility Mode"). I understand the most expensive flavor of
> Vista has a Windows 3.1/DOS "emulation", but I would be surprised if I
> had to use this emulation to run these older Windows 95 programs I
> wish to run under Vista.
>
> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> RL
>

raylopez99 wrote:

> I am a pretty experienced user of PCs, programming and building from
> scratch several Pentium-based Windows OS systems.
>
> I have a simple home network (two PCs, shared printer) behind a
> standard firewall with DSL internet access.
>
> I would like to run some older Windows 95 programs. Right now I am
> running these older programs using XP Professional with no problem (I
> didn't even have to switch, under the Properties tab, the
> "Compatibility Mode"). I understand the most expensive flavor of
> Vista has a Windows 3.1/DOS "emulation", but I would be surprised if I
> had to use this emulation to run these older Windows 95 programs I
> wish to run under Vista.
>
> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> RL

<Peter K, for some reason when I replied to your post I get a 441 posting
error, but only to your post on this thread>

Now now Peter K, you know very well that they would have lied to him. They
would have said something like 'Get Vista and all your software will work
and you will be incredibly safe'. They would not have even blushed as they
said it.

We of cause can tell him the truth, because we haven't taken the shrinkwrap
off a Vista box therefore giving our souls to MS.

Ray, Vista does not work. If you replace your XP with Vista then you might
as well throw all of the software you ever bought for XP in the trash can.
This isn't anti-MS fud, it is simply the truth. You might also have a nice
printer near you, throw that in the trash can too because you are very
unlikely to find a compatible driver for Vista, scanner? other peripherals?
I just hope you have a large trash can.

Vista is pants, everyone knows it including MS folk. But the oddity is that
it is still on sale. Openly selling software that is largely faulty, where
are the Consumer Advice people now? If I tried to sell a washing machine
that doesn't wash they would jump on me, but sell Vista that doesn't work
and it's ok. Can't see the logic in that myself.

"BearItAll" <> wrote in message
news:...

> Ray, Vista does not work. If you replace your XP with Vista then you might
> as well throw all of the software you ever bought for XP in the trash can.
> This isn't anti-MS fud, it is simply the truth. You might also have a nice
> printer near you, throw that in the trash can too because you are very
> unlikely to find a compatible driver for Vista, scanner? other
> peripherals?
> I just hope you have a large trash can.

That is a strange statement. I have only one program that I cannot get to
run on Vista (Canon's CD Label Print), and one set of programs that takes
forever (it seems) to load (Lotus Suite 9.5), but otherwise everything that
ran on my XP box runs on my Vista box without a hitch. The 'not responding'
windows issue seems to have been resolved with the latest drivers available
for my Intel board, and the problems with my CPU power being consumed turned
out to be NON-Microsoft software (something from Nero) which I have now
disabled). My minor difficulty with the video appears resolved with the
latest version of drivers from nVidea (even if they are beta). It
successfully runs software that has not even considered a rewrite for Vista,
and not one of them have I yet had to set the compatibility mode for.

> We of cause can tell him the truth, because we haven't taken the
> shrinkwrap
> off a Vista box therefore giving our souls to MS.

Enough said. The veracity of your statements is proven false by your own
statements. Consider yourself ignored henceforth. Goodnight Mr BearItAll

R.

BearItAll <> did eloquently scribble:
> raylopez99 wrote:

>> I am a pretty experienced user of PCs, programming and building from
>> scratch several Pentium-based Windows OS systems.
>>
>> I have a simple home network (two PCs, shared printer) behind a
>> standard firewall with DSL internet access.
>>
>> I would like to run some older Windows 95 programs. Right now I am
>> running these older programs using XP Professional with no problem (I
>> didn't even have to switch, under the Properties tab, the
>> "Compatibility Mode"). I understand the most expensive flavor of
>> Vista has a Windows 3.1/DOS "emulation", but I would be surprised if I
>> had to use this emulation to run these older Windows 95 programs I
>> wish to run under Vista.
>>
>> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
>> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
>> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> RL

> <Peter K, for some reason when I replied to your post I get a 441 posting
> error, but only to your post on this thread>

Could it be that he set followups, just as you did...
But you don't have microsoft.public.windows.vista.general in your news feed,
meaning your newsreader had no-where to post it?

--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Em Quinta, 5 de Julho de 2007 10:09, raylopez99 escreveu:

> I am a pretty experienced user of PCs, programming and building from
> scratch several Pentium-based Windows OS systems.
>
> I have a simple home network (two PCs, shared printer) behind a
> standard firewall with DSL internet access.
>
> I would like to run some older Windows 95 programs. Right now I am
> running these older programs using XP Professional with no problem (I
> didn't even have to switch, under the Properties tab, the
> "Compatibility Mode"). I understand the most expensive flavor of
> Vista has a Windows 3.1/DOS "emulation", but I would be surprised if I
> had to use this emulation to run these older Windows 95 programs I
> wish to run under Vista.
>
> Given the above, and also the fact I am not against paying Microsoft
> for the priviledge of using Vista so I am not as cheap as the Linux
> crowd, what flavor of Vista should I get?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> RL

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forge...ft-58752.shtml

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:11:23 +0000, spike1 wrote:

> Kier <> did eloquently scribble:

>> Why on Earth should anyone in COLA give you advice, after being insulted
>> as 'cheap'? Particularly about Vista.
>
> Indeed.
> What a jolly uncouth fellow, I think he should leave. Now.

I second that motion :-)

--
Kier