It's not Vista there's something wrong with, it's the hardware requirements.

Hi,

I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems whatsoever.
Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and installed Vista
on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered "old"). Lots of
problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly since it was new. I
had to go back to XP. Simple as that.

I just read this blog post:

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962

It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving to
Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the quality of
the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main concern for
consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware needed I should not
upgrade. The situation is actually similar to what people experience
with some of the new games coming out. Let's take Crysis, unless you
have the latest and greatest in graphics acceleration hardware on your
computer it simply won't run! That doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does
it?

This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.


--
//ceed

If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't been using
Vista.


"ceed" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> Hi,
>
> I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems whatsoever.
> Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and installed Vista
> on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered "old"). Lots of
> problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly since it was new. I
> had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
>
> I just read this blog post:
>
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
>
> It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving to
> Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the quality of
> the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main concern for
> consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware needed I should not
> upgrade. The situation is actually similar to what people experience
> with some of the new games coming out. Let's take Crysis, unless you
> have the latest and greatest in graphics acceleration hardware on your
> computer it simply won't run! That doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does
> it?
>
> This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
> actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
> able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
> it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
> but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
> laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.
>
>
> --
> //ceed

"ceed" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> Hi,
>
> I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems whatsoever.
> Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and installed Vista
> on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered "old"). Lots of
> problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly since it was new. I
> had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
>
> I just read this blog post:
>
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
>
> It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving to
> Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the quality of
> the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main concern for
> consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware needed I should not
> upgrade. The situation is actually similar to what people experience
> with some of the new games coming out. Let's take Crysis, unless you
> have the latest and greatest in graphics acceleration hardware on your
> computer it simply won't run! That doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does
> it?
>
> This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
> actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
> able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
> it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
> but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
> laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.
>
>
> --
> //ceed


Your old laptop may have run Vista better if it had more resources. Bear in
mind that the manufactures offer one model at varying levels of overall
competence..


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Waldorf Astoria wrote:

|If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't
|been using Vista.
|
|
|"ceed" <> wrote in message
|news: t...
||Hi,
||
||I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems
||whatsoever. Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and
||installed Vista on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered
||"old"). Lots of problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly
||since it was new. I had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
||
||I just read this blog post:
||
||http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
||
||It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving
||to Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the
||quality of the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main
||concern for consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware
||needed I should not upgrade. The situation is actually similar to
||what people experience with some of the new games coming out. Let's
||take Crysis, unless you have the latest and greatest in graphics
||acceleration hardware on your computer it simply won't run! That
||doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does it?
||
||This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
||actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is
||not able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready"
||sticker on it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's
||bad of course, but doesn't take away the fact that I really like
||Vista on my new laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job
||done.
||
||
||-- //ceed

I've been using Vista on 5 different machines since it came out. I use
Vista for work and are online with OS at least 12 hours every day.

As I've said on the newer hardware I have not had problems at all
except for UAC and stuff which is easy to disable.

Come to think of it, why do I even respond to someone who claims to
know if someone else has been using Vista or not.

--
//ceed

Hi,

Just a comment, as I don't disagree with your observations:

Part of the problem is that the terms "Vista Ready" and "Vista Capable"
weren't defined well by Microsoft and the system vendors. The consumer
expectation was, and I think reasonably so, that it mean the system would be
able to run Vista and all of it's high end graphics and peformance standards
in full glory. The actual intent of those terms is that those systems would
be able to run Vista, but without all the higher end functions enabled. Just
as my old 1997 AMD 333 processor w/128MB of ram would run XP, just without
all the fancy, or as they were called at the time, comic-book graphics.

In a similar fashion, if you want to think of it this way, a Ford Escort is
capable of 90mph, but it won't do it like a Mustang will.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"ceed" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> Hi,
>
> I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems whatsoever.
> Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and installed Vista
> on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered "old"). Lots of
> problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly since it was new. I
> had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
>
> I just read this blog post:
>
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
>
> It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving to
> Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the quality of
> the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main concern for
> consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware needed I should not
> upgrade. The situation is actually similar to what people experience
> with some of the new games coming out. Let's take Crysis, unless you
> have the latest and greatest in graphics acceleration hardware on your
> computer it simply won't run! That doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does
> it?
>
> This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
> actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
> able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
> it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
> but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
> laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.
>
>
> --
> //ceed

ceed wrote:
> Waldorf Astoria wrote:
>
> |If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't
> |been using Vista.
> |
> |
> |"ceed" <> wrote in message
> |news: t...
> ||Hi,
> ||
> ||I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems
> ||whatsoever. Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and
> ||installed Vista on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered
> ||"old"). Lots of problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly
> ||since it was new. I had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
> ||
> ||I just read this blog post:
> ||
> ||http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
> ||
> ||It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving
> ||to Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the
> ||quality of the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main
> ||concern for consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware
> ||needed I should not upgrade. The situation is actually similar to
> ||what people experience with some of the new games coming out. Let's
> ||take Crysis, unless you have the latest and greatest in graphics
> ||acceleration hardware on your computer it simply won't run! That
> ||doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does it?
> ||
> ||This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
> ||actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is
> ||not able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready"
> ||sticker on it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's
> ||bad of course, but doesn't take away the fact that I really like
> ||Vista on my new laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job
> ||done.
> ||
> ||
> ||-- //ceed
>
> I've been using Vista on 5 different machines since it came out. I use
> Vista for work and are online with OS at least 12 hours every day.
>
> As I've said on the newer hardware I have not had problems at all
> except for UAC and stuff which is easy to disable.
>
> Come to think of it, why do I even respond to someone who claims to
> know if someone else has been using Vista or not.
>

You can install and use Windows Me but that doesn't make it a good OS.

Alias

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

|
|
|Your old laptop may have run Vista better if it had more resources.
|Bear in mind that the manufactures offer one model at varying levels
|of overall competence..

You are absolutely right. But when something comes with a sticker
saying it's ready for Vista I was stupid enough to believe it. I did
add another gig of memory on it, but it still didn't work right, and
the manufacturer still doesn't have all the needed Vista updates for it.

--
//ceed

If you can say there is nothing wrong with OSX, Ubuntu, or ANY other OS or
for that matter, ANY thing you can think of in the universe, then you are
dead........

Kurt

"Waldorf Astoria" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't been
> using Vista.
>

Rick Rogers wrote:

|Hi,
|
|Just a comment, as I don't disagree with your observations:
|
|Part of the problem is that the terms "Vista Ready" and "Vista
|Capable" weren't defined well by Microsoft and the system vendors.
|The consumer expectation was, and I think reasonably so, that it mean
|the system would be able to run Vista and all of it's high end
|graphics and peformance standards in full glory. The actual intent of
|those terms is that those systems would be able to run Vista, but
|without all the higher end functions enabled. Just as my old 1997 AMD
|333 processor w/128MB of ram would run XP, just without all the
|fancy, or as they were called at the time, comic-book graphics.
|
|In a similar fashion, if you want to think of it this way, a Ford
|Escort is capable of 90mph, but it won't do it like a Mustang will.

Very good points!

However, on my older laptop I was not even able to run some of it's
built in functionality like web cab and multimedia buttons under Vista.
Eventually updates were made available, but they didn't work well, so I
went back to XP.

--
//ceed

Alias wrote:

> ceed wrote:
>
>> Waldorf Astoria wrote:
>>
>> |If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't
>> |been using Vista.
>> |
>> |
>> |"ceed" <> wrote in message
>> |news: t...
>> ||Hi,
>> ||
>> ||I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems
>> ||whatsoever. Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and
>> ||installed Vista on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered
>> ||"old"). Lots of problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly
>> ||since it was new. I had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
>> ||
>> ||I just read this blog post:
>> ||
>> ||http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
>> ||
>> ||It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving
>> ||to Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the
>> ||quality of the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main
>> ||concern for consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware
>> ||needed I should not upgrade. The situation is actually similar to
>> ||what people experience with some of the new games coming out. Let's
>> ||take Crysis, unless you have the latest and greatest in graphics
>> ||acceleration hardware on your computer it simply won't run! That
>> ||doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does it?
>> ||
>> ||This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
>> ||actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is
>> ||not able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready"
>> ||sticker on it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's
>> ||bad of course, but doesn't take away the fact that I really like
>> ||Vista on my new laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job
>> ||done.
>> ||
>> ||
>> ||-- //ceed
>> I've been using Vista on 5 different machines since it came out. I use
>> Vista for work and are online with OS at least 12 hours every day.
>>
>> As I've said on the newer hardware I have not had problems at all
>> except for UAC and stuff which is easy to disable.
>>
>> Come to think of it, why do I even respond to someone who claims to
>> know if someone else has been using Vista or not.
>>
>
> You can install and use Windows Me but that doesn't make it a good OS.
>
> Alias
Got any more stupid, dumb and irrelevant remarks?
Idiot!
Frank