Moving from XP to Vista is like ... ?

Let's leave the move from DOS to Windows out of the discussion -- that's
on a whole different level. Instead, really, what is it like to move
from XP to Vista?

It's not like moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. That particular
move was a sea change -- a breakthrough the likes of which we really
haven't seen since.

It's more like moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98, isn't it? They
weren't the same operating systems, but they were similar, and while
there was a learning curve with Win98, it wasn't too steep and the pain
wasn't so great.

It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME. In fact, I
never made that transition successfully. I struggled and struggled with
WinME and finally gave up. Fortunately it wasn't too long after WinME
that Windows XP came along and I just skipped WinME.

Moving from WinXP to Vista certainly wasn't as traumatic for me as
moving from FAT32/Win98 to NTFS/WinXP. (Yep, I skipped Win2K too.) In
fact, I found moving to Vista from WinXP really wasn't traumatic at all
-- at least it wasn't after I'd turned off User Account Control.

So yeah, I guess I have concluded that the closest comparison to moving
from XP to Vista is moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98. They're
different certainly, but the similarities outweigh the differences.

I've been dual booting XP and Vista for six months or so now, and it's
only recently that I've found myself booting into Vista more often than
I boot into XP. It has taken a while, but I've finally found either
Vista-updated versions of the software I need, or acceptable
substitutions. I'm pretty much happy with Vista.

And what is it about Vista that I like better than XP? The truth? The
real, honest truth?

It's prettier. That's it. Seriously. OK, maybe with Vista it's a tiny
bit easier to navigate through Windows Explorer, but the differences
aren't worth all the effort it took to offer them. And aside from that
I have found nothing (so far) in Vista to recommend over XP.

But Aero sure is pretty. Dreamscene is too, but I've found Dreamscene
crashes some of my video applications, so I've turned it off. Still --
Aero -- nice. But worth the price? Um, well, no.

If I were buying a new computer today I'd get Vista. But I sure
wouldn't buy a new computer simply for the purpose of having Vista.
It's nowhere near the disaster some are claiming claim it is. But it's
also nowhere near being a must-have.

And now that I think a little more about it, I believe Win98 was a
bigger improvement over Win95 than Vista is over XP. Yep, I do believe
it was. Vista is nice, but it's not necessary.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

>It's nowhere near the disaster some are claiming claim it is

It is a wonderful OS, a giant step forward and people who assault it are
either incompetent or have ulterior motives--they are malware developers who
benefit from other people's computers insecurity. They are crooks.

I suggest you turn the UAC ON.

"Bill Anderson" <> wrote in message
news:ga-...
> Let's leave the move from DOS to Windows out of the discussion -- that's
> on a whole different level. Instead, really, what is it like to move from
> XP to Vista?
>
> It's not like moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. That particular move
> was a sea change -- a breakthrough the likes of which we really haven't
> seen since.
>
> It's more like moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98, isn't it? They
> weren't the same operating systems, but they were similar, and while there
> was a learning curve with Win98, it wasn't too steep and the pain wasn't
> so great.
>
> It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME. In fact, I never
> made that transition successfully. I struggled and struggled with WinME
> and finally gave up. Fortunately it wasn't too long after WinME that
> Windows XP came along and I just skipped WinME.
>
> Moving from WinXP to Vista certainly wasn't as traumatic for me as moving
> from FAT32/Win98 to NTFS/WinXP. (Yep, I skipped Win2K too.) In fact, I
> found moving to Vista from WinXP really wasn't traumatic at all -- at
> least it wasn't after I'd turned off User Account Control.
>
> So yeah, I guess I have concluded that the closest comparison to moving
> from XP to Vista is moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98. They're
> different certainly, but the similarities outweigh the differences.
>
> I've been dual booting XP and Vista for six months or so now, and it's
> only recently that I've found myself booting into Vista more often than I
> boot into XP. It has taken a while, but I've finally found either
> Vista-updated versions of the software I need, or acceptable
> substitutions. I'm pretty much happy with Vista.
>
> And what is it about Vista that I like better than XP? The truth? The
> real, honest truth?
>
> It's prettier. That's it. Seriously. OK, maybe with Vista it's a tiny
> bit easier to navigate through Windows Explorer, but the differences
> aren't worth all the effort it took to offer them. And aside from that I
> have found nothing (so far) in Vista to recommend over XP.
>
> But Aero sure is pretty. Dreamscene is too, but I've found Dreamscene
> crashes some of my video applications, so I've turned it off. Still --
> Aero -- nice. But worth the price? Um, well, no.
>
> If I were buying a new computer today I'd get Vista. But I sure wouldn't
> buy a new computer simply for the purpose of having Vista. It's nowhere
> near the disaster some are claiming claim it is. But it's also nowhere
> near being a must-have.
>
> And now that I think a little more about it, I believe Win98 was a bigger
> improvement over Win95 than Vista is over XP. Yep, I do believe it was.
> Vista is nice, but it's not necessary.
>
> --
> Bill Anderson
>
> I am the Mighty Favog

Or they just like to complain about everything... Vista is a great OS, I
agree.

--
Dustin Harper

http://www.VistaRIP.com | Vista Resource & Information Page


"AlexB" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> >It's nowhere near the disaster some are claiming claim it is
>
> It is a wonderful OS, a giant step forward and people who assault it are
> either incompetent or have ulterior motives--they are malware developers
> who benefit from other people's computers insecurity. They are crooks.
>
> I suggest you turn the UAC ON.
>
> "Bill Anderson" <> wrote in message
> news:ga-...
>> Let's leave the move from DOS to Windows out of the discussion -- that's
>> on a whole different level. Instead, really, what is it like to move
>> from XP to Vista?
>>
>> It's not like moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. That particular
>> move was a sea change -- a breakthrough the likes of which we really
>> haven't seen since.
>>
>> It's more like moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98, isn't it? They
>> weren't the same operating systems, but they were similar, and while
>> there was a learning curve with Win98, it wasn't too steep and the pain
>> wasn't so great.
>>
>> It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME. In fact, I
>> never made that transition successfully. I struggled and struggled with
>> WinME and finally gave up. Fortunately it wasn't too long after WinME
>> that Windows XP came along and I just skipped WinME.
>>
>> Moving from WinXP to Vista certainly wasn't as traumatic for me as moving
>> from FAT32/Win98 to NTFS/WinXP. (Yep, I skipped Win2K too.) In fact, I
>> found moving to Vista from WinXP really wasn't traumatic at all -- at
>> least it wasn't after I'd turned off User Account Control.
>>
>> So yeah, I guess I have concluded that the closest comparison to moving
>> from XP to Vista is moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98. They're
>> different certainly, but the similarities outweigh the differences.
>>
>> I've been dual booting XP and Vista for six months or so now, and it's
>> only recently that I've found myself booting into Vista more often than I
>> boot into XP. It has taken a while, but I've finally found either
>> Vista-updated versions of the software I need, or acceptable
>> substitutions. I'm pretty much happy with Vista.
>>
>> And what is it about Vista that I like better than XP? The truth? The
>> real, honest truth?
>>
>> It's prettier. That's it. Seriously. OK, maybe with Vista it's a tiny
>> bit easier to navigate through Windows Explorer, but the differences
>> aren't worth all the effort it took to offer them. And aside from that I
>> have found nothing (so far) in Vista to recommend over XP.
>>
>> But Aero sure is pretty. Dreamscene is too, but I've found Dreamscene
>> crashes some of my video applications, so I've turned it off. Still --
>> Aero -- nice. But worth the price? Um, well, no.
>>
>> If I were buying a new computer today I'd get Vista. But I sure wouldn't
>> buy a new computer simply for the purpose of having Vista. It's nowhere
>> near the disaster some are claiming claim it is. But it's also nowhere
>> near being a must-have.
>>
>> And now that I think a little more about it, I believe Win98 was a bigger
>> improvement over Win95 than Vista is over XP. Yep, I do believe it was.
>> Vista is nice, but it's not necessary.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Anderson
>>
>> I am the Mighty Favog
>

The date and time was 2/5/2008 3:41 PM, and on a whim, Bill Anderson
pounded out on the keyboard:

<snip>

> And what is it about Vista that I like better than XP? The truth? The
> real, honest truth?
>
> It's prettier. That's it. Seriously. OK, maybe with Vista it's a tiny
> bit easier to navigate through Windows Explorer, but the differences
> aren't worth all the effort it took to offer them. And aside from that
> I have found nothing (so far) in Vista to recommend over XP.
>
> But Aero sure is pretty. Dreamscene is too, but I've found Dreamscene
> crashes some of my video applications, so I've turned it off. Still --
> Aero -- nice. But worth the price? Um, well, no.
>
> If I were buying a new computer today I'd get Vista. But I sure
> wouldn't buy a new computer simply for the purpose of having Vista.
> It's nowhere near the disaster some are claiming claim it is. But it's
> also nowhere near being a must-have.
>
> And now that I think a little more about it, I believe Win98 was a
> bigger improvement over Win95 than Vista is over XP. Yep, I do believe
> it was. Vista is nice, but it's not necessary.
>

That's exactly it Bill. Nice, but not necessary. Couldn't say that
about Win9x to W2K/XP. Memory/resource management alone was worth any
discomfort caused by upgrading.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

"Dustin Harper" <> wrote in message
news:60A1133A-AF7D-43EC-A6E5-...
> Or they just like to complain about everything... Vista is a great OS, I
> agree.

Yeah, right. Like the difference between biting you fingernails and s**king
a
c**k

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:39:32 -0600, "HLS" <> wrote:

>
>"Dustin Harper" <> wrote in message
>news:60A1133A-AF7D-43EC-A6E5-...
>> Or they just like to complain about everything... Vista is a great OS, I
>> agree.
>
>Yeah, right. Like the difference between biting you fingernails and s**king
>a
>c**k

And you know this because.........?

>It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME

That's the best comparison. Only vista is worse than windowsME.


"Bill Anderson" <> wrote in message
news:ga-...
> Let's leave the move from DOS to Windows out of the discussion -- that's
> on a whole different level. Instead, really, what is it like to move from
> XP to Vista?
>
> It's not like moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. That particular move
> was a sea change -- a breakthrough the likes of which we really haven't
> seen since.
>
> It's more like moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98, isn't it? They
> weren't the same operating systems, but they were similar, and while there
> was a learning curve with Win98, it wasn't too steep and the pain wasn't
> so great.
>
> It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME. In fact, I never
> made that transition successfully. I struggled and struggled with WinME
> and finally gave up. Fortunately it wasn't too long after WinME that
> Windows XP came along and I just skipped WinME.
>
> Moving from WinXP to Vista certainly wasn't as traumatic for me as moving
> from FAT32/Win98 to NTFS/WinXP. (Yep, I skipped Win2K too.) In fact, I
> found moving to Vista from WinXP really wasn't traumatic at all -- at
> least it wasn't after I'd turned off User Account Control.
>
> So yeah, I guess I have concluded that the closest comparison to moving
> from XP to Vista is moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98. They're
> different certainly, but the similarities outweigh the differences.
>
> I've been dual booting XP and Vista for six months or so now, and it's
> only recently that I've found myself booting into Vista more often than I
> boot into XP. It has taken a while, but I've finally found either
> Vista-updated versions of the software I need, or acceptable
> substitutions. I'm pretty much happy with Vista.
>
> And what is it about Vista that I like better than XP? The truth? The
> real, honest truth?
>
> It's prettier. That's it. Seriously. OK, maybe with Vista it's a tiny
> bit easier to navigate through Windows Explorer, but the differences
> aren't worth all the effort it took to offer them. And aside from that I
> have found nothing (so far) in Vista to recommend over XP.
>
> But Aero sure is pretty. Dreamscene is too, but I've found Dreamscene
> crashes some of my video applications, so I've turned it off. Still --
> Aero -- nice. But worth the price? Um, well, no.
>
> If I were buying a new computer today I'd get Vista. But I sure wouldn't
> buy a new computer simply for the purpose of having Vista. It's nowhere
> near the disaster some are claiming claim it is. But it's also nowhere
> near being a must-have.
>
> And now that I think a little more about it, I believe Win98 was a bigger
> improvement over Win95 than Vista is over XP. Yep, I do believe it was.
> Vista is nice, but it's not necessary.
>
> --
> Bill Anderson
>
> I am the Mighty Favog

Moving from SunOS to Solaris.

"fridau" <> wrote in message
news:47a97915$...
> >It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME
>
> That's the best comparison. Only vista is worse than windowsME.


I don't know about that comment. ME crashed all the time. I've had Vista
for a year now and it has never crashed.



>
> "Bill Anderson" <> wrote in message
> news:ga-...
>> Let's leave the move from DOS to Windows out of the discussion -- that's
>> on a whole different level. Instead, really, what is it like to move
>> from XP to Vista?
>>
>> It's not like moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. That particular
>> move was a sea change -- a breakthrough the likes of which we really
>> haven't seen since.
>>
>> It's more like moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98, isn't it? They
>> weren't the same operating systems, but they were similar, and while
>> there was a learning curve with Win98, it wasn't too steep and the pain
>> wasn't so great.
>>
>> It certainly isn't like moving from Win98 to Windows ME. In fact, I
>> never made that transition successfully. I struggled and struggled with
>> WinME and finally gave up. Fortunately it wasn't too long after WinME
>> that Windows XP came along and I just skipped WinME.
>>
>> Moving from WinXP to Vista certainly wasn't as traumatic for me as moving
>> from FAT32/Win98 to NTFS/WinXP. (Yep, I skipped Win2K too.) In fact, I
>> found moving to Vista from WinXP really wasn't traumatic at all -- at
>> least it wasn't after I'd turned off User Account Control.
>>
>> So yeah, I guess I have concluded that the closest comparison to moving
>> from XP to Vista is moving from Windows 95 to Windows 98. They're
>> different certainly, but the similarities outweigh the differences.
>>
>> I've been dual booting XP and Vista for six months or so now, and it's
>> only recently that I've found myself booting into Vista more often than I
>> boot into XP. It has taken a while, but I've finally found either
>> Vista-updated versions of the software I need, or acceptable
>> substitutions. I'm pretty much happy with Vista.
>>
>> And what is it about Vista that I like better than XP? The truth? The
>> real, honest truth?
>>
>> It's prettier. That's it. Seriously. OK, maybe with Vista it's a tiny
>> bit easier to navigate through Windows Explorer, but the differences
>> aren't worth all the effort it took to offer them. And aside from that I
>> have found nothing (so far) in Vista to recommend over XP.
>>
>> But Aero sure is pretty. Dreamscene is too, but I've found Dreamscene
>> crashes some of my video applications, so I've turned it off. Still --
>> Aero -- nice. But worth the price? Um, well, no.
>>
>> If I were buying a new computer today I'd get Vista. But I sure wouldn't
>> buy a new computer simply for the purpose of having Vista. It's nowhere
>> near the disaster some are claiming claim it is. But it's also nowhere
>> near being a must-have.
>>
>> And now that I think a little more about it, I believe Win98 was a bigger
>> improvement over Win95 than Vista is over XP. Yep, I do believe it was.
>> Vista is nice, but it's not necessary.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Anderson
>>
>> I am the Mighty Favog
>
>

Is this what commies prefer?

"the wharf rat" <> wrote in message
news:foce0f$rq4$...
> Moving from SunOS to Solaris.
>