# Vista



## nova

Well,... bought my wife a new laptop for Christmas. Dunno why she does not like the souped up, overclocked monster desktop I built her, but, laptops are,...ok I guess.
Other than the fact that it came with Vista,....hmmm.... got two words for this and can't decide which better describes it, ... ICK, or ... YUCK, ....OK, OK, I can think of many other words to describe it but I won't go there.

This is the first machine I've bought in many, many, many years (I prefer to build them) and was really surprised at all the junk that is loaded on them these days,... deleted or un-installed ~1.08GHz of junk.


----------



## Guest

I've heard some not so good things about Vista... more so on the operations side of things. I have a free upgrade with my laptop but I've procrastinated installing it in fear it won't work smoothly with all of my apps.


----------



## mechman

I've done the same as you Sonnie. My Vista upgrade has collected dust since it arrived. I've seen how poorly it runs and have no desire to slow down any of my machines.

Mark - how much is 1.08GHz of junk? LOL! :rofl: :neener:

mech


----------



## wbassett

Like all of MS's Operatings systems, definitely wait until at least Service Pack 2 is out. 

I work for a big company and we're something like 2-3 years behind the 'most current' OS Microsoft has out. Sounds odd at first, you'd think a multibillion dollar a year company would be bleeding edge, but the truth is they'd rather play it safe and wait until all the kinks are ironed out... and that's usually sometime after SP2 comes out. 

That's my personal recommendation for us consumers... wait for SP2. Sonnie and Mech I'd also check your free upgrade vouchers and make sure they don't expire. If they do, I'd say go ahead and get the disc and just shelve it until SP2.

Oh, not that this matters because I think everyone now has a DVD Rom in their computer, but you need a DVD drive to install Vista. The disc image is over 2Gigs in size!

In the past I usually had one system sitting here with the latest and greatest OS on it for testing purposes and so I could get used to the OS, but my wife decided to blow up her PC and the spares so no more test units for now 

In March I will be building a HTPC from the ground up as an HTS project and I'll be installing Vista on that. Not because I am in love with it or anything like that, but to identify any problems that people may run into. Wish I had a free upgrade, that way I wouldn't have to shell out the bucks for it!


----------



## nova

Been a couple of days now, and it is NOT growing on me in any way, shape, or form. Just about ready to wipe it out and install XP, except for two little issues; 1. my wife has not complained one bit about it :coocoo: 2. not sure if there are drivers (or lack there of) or other reasons that would prevent XP from running properly on this laptop. :dunno:


----------



## Guest

I have Vista 32 running on a UMPC (Fujitsu U810) and Vista 64 running on a E6600 desktop. No real problems. It does help to learn how to turn things that are not required off (use msiexec as needed). Also set back the look and feel to classic Windows.

What are you trying to do that Vista is stopping?

It does a much nicer job of burning CD's for use in the car for me -- includes artist name, song title, etc for car player LCD display.


----------



## Big Worm

I actually installed Vista on my wifes machine as soon as it came out. She has been running it great with no real problems. I love the new eye candy! I am about to rebuilt my desktop and put Vista on it. Also going to be putting on Visual Studio 2008!  Vista is here to stay. SP1 comes out here soon and it should help things.


----------



## imbeaujp

Hello, got a new HP Pavillion with Intel Dual Core Quatro 2.6 Ghz and 2Gig memory. It came with Vista Home premium and many trial stuff from Micosoft (office, etc.).

What I really like is the new user interface and the Media Center. All my CD are on that PC now and it plays verry fine using the bulit in RCA digital coax output.

But yes, some "old" software does not work yet with Vista and you got to upgrade some. But many new PC only supports Vista...


----------



## JimP

Something else to think about is that Vista is more secure than earlier MS operating systems and there is some debate as to whether or not you need to run additional antivirus software.

A week or two after getting my laptop to run REW, I reformatted the hard drive and reintalled Vista. Did not reinstall the antivirus software (McAffee). Laptop boots and runs noticably faster.

Now I would be hesitant to recommend that everyone should eliminate their antivirus software, but if your computer is only going to be used for something very limited, what's the harm. Worst that can happen is that you reload your OS.


----------



## nova

bobgpsr said:


> Also set back the look and feel to classic Windows.
> What are you trying to do that Vista is stopping?


Oh,... nuthin'. Bought the laptop for my wife. Everything works, I just really don't like the,...ummm "feel" of it. Or the look of it. Then again maybe I'm just fighting the change. I get the feeling Vista is just a big flop, it's right there with Millenium and 2000 in my book. :hide:


----------



## nova

I also bought an HP Pavilion but it is an AMD X2 also 2 gig mem.

The interface is one of the things I really don't like. I just like to get in there and do what I want to do, I really hate having to follow a "script". Couple of examples, I really hate Kodak's Easy Share Software and Harmony's set-up program. Probably sounds like I'm making a bigger deal of it than it really is.

Vista is not getting anywhere near any of my desktop's :nono:


----------



## Big Worm

nova said:


> Oh,... nuthin'. Bought the laptop for my wife. Everything works, I just really don't like the,...ummm "feel" of it. Or the look of it. Then again maybe I'm just fighting the change. I get the feeling Vista is just a big flop, it's right there with Millenium and 2000 in my book. :hide:


XP has been around for such a long time now that everybody is fighting change. Everybody feels that nothing wrong with it so why change it. But unlike Millenium, Vista has to much invested in it to not continue. So my opinion is get used it because it is here to stay.

Windows 2000 is still used my a **** load of companies so that was not such a bad operating system. 

I guess for me I love the look and feel of it. I am one of those people that never used the "Windows Classic" look in XP. I turned on all the eye candy in XP.


----------



## Guest

I have found vista to be fine. It takes a little more machine to run it, and there are some differences, but I have not had any problems with it compared to the move to XP. I agree, people are resistant to change.


----------



## wbassett

I will be installing Vista on the HTPC I'm building. I do expect some quirks but in the end think it will be fine.

For you guys that have it installed, what's your take on the multimedia features?


----------



## warpdrive

I'm running Vista on my home PC and it's fine. It does have 2GB RAM but RAM is dirt cheap these days. I don't notice it being any slower (I do have a very nice video card which means Aero runs fine)

I had issues with Nvidia's drivers at first but otherwise, I think it's no worse than XP...at least there is no reason for me to switch back to XP. There are a few programs which I run in XP compatibility mode but other than that, I have had no other reason to complain about it.

I was in the market for a handheld PC and I decided to buy one of Sony's VAIO UX series PC's that come with Vista.

I bought a 3850 ATi card and I run Call of Duty 4 on it on a AMD x4200


----------



## drf

I have been consulting, building pc's and doing basic tech support on the side for about 10 years now. It maybe just my Autistic traits but I find Vista to be confusing to navigate, a real resource hog (especially on run of the mill home pcs), not compatible with old people who are trying to upgrade from 95' and is basically a bloated DOS/network controller. The only reason I run XP now is for compatibilty with my clients otherwise I would rather be running one of the many available linux distros. 
I guess for those with the time to sit down and learn its quirks theres probably nothing to horrid about it, but for average everyday people (the ones who rely on me to advise them on the easiest and cheapest wordprocessor/email computer to get) its just too much.


----------



## imbeaujp

Hello again,

I understand that many people wants to stay with their old operating system. But if you want to go Microsoft, you do not have choice: You must go Vista. It is like saying that you stay with windows 95 or 3.11 and thay you will not upgrade. It's ok if you do not change your PC or software but...

The choice you have, if you do not want to go Vista, is eventualy to switch to Mac or Linux. But you can not stay XP for the future.

JP


----------



## JimP

drf,

What would you recommend as a word processor containing spell check thats compatible with MS Word?

I have a friend who would like to add word processing to her Vista laptop but doesn't want to spend to get the latest version of Word.

For compatibility purposes, does it make more sense to find an older version that can be bought for less?


----------



## wbassett

One that I like is Open Office by Sun. It is compatable with MS Word as well as many other programs and you can even export to HTML or PDF without any additional software.


----------



## drf

imbeaujp said:


> Hello again,
> 
> I understand that many people wants to stay with their old operating system. But if you want to go Microsoft, you do not have choice: You must go Vista. It is like saying that you stay with windows 95 or 3.11 and thay you will not upgrade. It's ok if you do not change your PC or software but...
> 
> The choice you have, if you do not want to go Vista, is eventualy to switch to Mac or Linux. But you can not stay XP for the future.
> 
> JP


Thats what I don't like about it, for majority of my clients they have to learn a whole new operating system, previously the jump from 95 to 98 was small, then 98 to ME was small also. Unfortunately from ME to Xp was a step which meant that I had to spend an extra 4 hours with each client tutoring how to navigate, install and run programs with compatibility issues. But on Vista I can't do this as I no longer have the time that 4 hours became ???. Basically MS are making very complicated operating systems for people who only want to wright letters, send emails and occasionaly surf the web. My cliants aren't interested in multitasking, network compatability/sharing, 3D games, multiple monitors or hard drive control and maintenance. 



> What would you recommend as a word processor containing spell check thats compatible with MS Word?


What wbassett said, open office is a very good alternative and one that I would recommend alot more often if my clients were able to adapt to new software easliy. The only reason I would tend to promote MS and maintstream software like Norton AV over the free stuff is for the 24/7 tech support these companies provide, which in turn saves me a lot of time sorting out minor issues. So in short if your friend is computer savy and doesn't mind surfing forums/manuals problem solving then get open office.


----------



## nova

Don't agree with that. I totally skipped 98SE, NT, 2000 and Millennium, went from 98 to XP. Vista may go the way of 2000 or ME in the next year or so, and we will have Windows 7 or Vienna and then ???? I think it is totally realistic to think I/we could skip 2 or 3 generations of Windows upgrades,...I believe there is a choice.






imbeaujp said:


> I understand that many people wants to stay with their old operating system. But if you want to go Microsoft, you do not have choice: You must go Vista. It is like saying that you stay with windows 95 or 3.11 and thay you will not upgrade. It's ok if you do not change your PC or software but...
> The choice you have, if you do not want to go Vista, is eventualy to switch to Mac or Linux. But you can not stay XP for the future.JP


----------



## drf

nova said:


> Don't agree with that. I totally skipped 98SE, NT, 2000 and Millennium, went from 98 to XP. Vista may go the way of 2000 or ME in the next year or so, and we will have Windows 7 or Vienna and then ???? I think it is totally realistic to think I/we could skip 2 or 3 generations of Windows upgrades,...I believe there is a choice.


There is only a choice if the current upgrade options (including not upgrading) don't pose an obstacle. I guess what I was trying to say before is that there are people out there (usually over 50) that do not have the disposition or educational resources to embrace OS's that are becoming overly complicated to navigate, the learning curve is just too much. At least with the minor differences between 95 ->98-> me each step is not so demanding. While the jump to vista is not a must as imbeaujp said, it is currently the closest OS to what people are already using. And that is, I'm afraid, not close enough for some people.


----------



## Fincave

drf said:


> I would rather be running one of the many available linux distros.


Not meaning to hijack this thread but which linux would you recommend. I was given a live cd of Ubuntu 7.10 to try out. It seems to work ok but my laptops keyboard is not fully functional, ALT-GR does not work etc. Not being too computer savvy makes me a bit hesitant to make the switch, ideally would like to run both XP and linux. Any thoughts?


----------



## drf

> Any thoughts?


Get a second computer while you learn linux, The learning curve for linux varies depending on the distro and the user (obviously) but I have seen both experienced PC users take upto 4 months to iron out device issues and user habit issues and I have seen noobs make the change overnight. You may ask why change if there are issues that need remedeing? well 99% of the time once linux is up and running the amount of unexpected conflicts and crashes significantly reduce. When I started to learn debian (jumping in at the deep end) I had it running on a second PC right beside my main pc so I could jump between manuals and forums while running the OS.

Ubuntu is probably one of the more stable releases as it is basically debian with a gnome interface. For those who want to know: debian is a command based OS like the original DOS except much more powerfull, and gnome is a graphical user interface that is designed to allow people to control command prompt based os's like debian from a desktop environment. If ubuntu becomes an issue and you still want to play with linux then may I suggest Xandros 3 desktop, It was supposedly design to coax windows users to try linux.

And now a disclaimer:
It has been a while since I last played with linux or ran in geek circles :whistling: so my current understanding and thus advice on linux may be a little outdated or mis-informational. 

For more info try here:


----------



## warpdrive

I knew the L word would eventually creep up. Personally I really don't see it as a viable alternative for a mainstream desktop unless you have a lot of time on your hands. It makes switching from XP to Vista seem like a stroll on the sidewalk.


----------



## JimP

I think if someone is trying to avoid problems with an operating system, they're not likely to try one that inherantly has a strong learning curve much less have to buy a second computer to use while they figure out their linux box.

But then again...I'm always up to a good challenge.


----------



## wbassett

I agree with drf, warpdrive and JimP... Linix is cool and 'sexy' but there is a bit of a learning curve and sometimes driver issues.

As much as people sometimes hate MS, when setup right it can be a very stable OS. I can't remember when the last time I had a system crash. 

One of the problems Windows has is it has to accomodate a huge range of third party hardware and software, so that causes a lot of time and space to have drivers for everything, even if it's a general driver to get a card up and running and then have the latest one applied. Linux may or may not have drivers and Mac has a tight, almost closed environment.

I personally like Windows. I remember the days of DOS and 3.1 and now it's a breeze and in my opinion much better and more stable. I'm going to get clubbed to death for this I know it... but Gates took computers from a command line interface to a more intuitive graphical interface that was easier for new users to understand.

I do know that Apple and even the often forgotten Amiga's has gui's a long long time and it's nothing new, but the IBM Compatable PC is undeniably more widely used and for that platform he really revolutionized things. 

I used to have an Amiga and was a die hard Amiga fan and supporter. It was doing things with video back when IBM compatibles were struggling with stereo sound. Not only could it play video, but it was being used as a non-linear editing system with the addition of the Video Toaster. It really was a power house that was years ahead of its time, but poorly marketed and it died a lonely death.

It took me awhile to accept Windows, especially 3.1 with the extended memory issues, but 98SE was a breakthrough in my opinion. I've used NT, XP, Server 2000 and a slew of other operating systems at work, including Sun and AIX and now I'm getting formal training on Linux as well. Still Windows is the easiest and most accomodating for most people.

Again, don't club me to death! That's an opinion. I do respect Mac's, and went through a time when I was curious about Linux, but when I couldn't get everything up and running I scrapped Linux and went back to 98SE. I still say wait until at least SP2 is released and more hotfixes are put out. Vista is an early adoption right now and there will be some issues with it, but for a person that has the hardware and can work through any new OS problems that always crop up, I think it will eventually be worth the upgrade. Especially for the media integration end of things.


----------



## tonyvdb

Get a Mac and don't worry about it


----------



## drf

warpdrive said:


> I knew the L word would eventually creep up. Personally I really don't see it as a viable alternative for a mainstream desktop unless you have a lot of time on your hands. It makes switching from XP to Vista seem like a stroll on the sidewalk.


Definitely, except that those who have succesfully made the leap will tell you that linux is a viable mainstream alternative. However I suspect if linux cost $600 and windows was open source the arguments would be exactely opposite. 



> Get a Mac and don't worry about it


 :gah: :boxer: 

To be honest I have no idea what the current generation of macs are like.


----------



## tonyvdb

The latest Mac's are intel based and will run XP and Vista flawlessly in emulation but this is not the usual emulation as it is fully compatible with all software that runs on a PC and runs faster and better than a PC. I have a close friend who has a new mac and says its the best investment he ever made.


----------



## warpdrive

drf said:


> Definitely, except that those who have succesfully made the leap will tell you that linux is a viable mainstream alternative. However I suspect if linux cost $600 and windows was open source the arguments would be exactely opposite. .


Making the leap is the problem really. Math is easy once you've completed your Masters Degree. 

I still don't agree that it's a good alternative. The operating system is only as good as the apps that run on them and no Linux is going to compete against PC or Mac. Until you can load your iTunes on it, run your Hallmark card maker software, and run the latest Dora game, then Linux is a good mainstream operating system


----------



## nova

Interesting conversation,.... I do not have a problem with Vista, nor do I have a probem learning some of the new stuff in Vista. I just don't like the look/feel of it. Really have not had it long enough to evaluate it's stability and all the new stuff it offers.


----------



## Guest

I have found it to be perfectly stable for what I do. The only issues that I have found have had to do with added levels of security, which can be tedious, and the annoying fact that when installing software, you can get a request for authorization that is not prioritized to the front of the window layers, so you don't notice it. Other than that, it seems very nice to me and everything that I have used has run fine. My calibration software has had no problems, other than making sure that I had the latest version of everything. The search feature in the start menu works great.


----------



## imbeaujp

nova said:


> Don't agree with that. I totally skipped 98SE, NT, 2000 and Millennium, went from 98 to XP. Vista may go the way of 2000 or ME in the next year or so, and we will have Windows 7 or Vienna and then ???? I think it is totally realistic to think I/we could skip 2 or 3 generations of Windows upgrades,...I believe there is a choice.


This is true if you stay with your "old" PC, but if you buy a new one today, many brands do not provide the drivers for "old" operating system and you must run Vista in it. This is the case with my new HP Pavillion.

But like many says, Vista works perfectly to date and it is a powerful OS for multimedia. I understand that for some people the learning curve is hard, but the "next generation" of power user seems to not have problems with "complex" OS. Old ones still have problems programing their VCR...


----------



## thxgoon

As an engineering student we are actually advised _not_ to switch to Vista due to compatability issues with networking and current software. Even the new office had quite a learning curve the first few times I used it and I got frustrated when completing a spreadsheet took 3 times as long because I had to relearn excel. I can sympathize with the older crowd who just want to use the same computer every day and not have to relearn it to do the same things. I have and probably always will use a mac.. except for those pesky engineering apps that only run on windows...


----------



## Guest

thxgoon said:


> I got frustrated when completing a spreadsheet took 3 times as long because I had to relearn excel.


I do not understand the Excel issue. I run MS Office 2003 with Excel on a Vista 64 PC with no problems or new learning curve. The same Excel that I previously used with XP.

Doesn't everyone know that you do not have to put up with a lot of the "new look and feel" of Vista if you configure the user perferences to do Standard Windows or Classic Windows. Turn off the Aero stuff, reset your mouse pointers to Windows Standard or Windows Black, change Explorer/Control Panel/WMP to use classic menus, etc. Then you mostly get back the old familiar Windows "look and feel" but with a lot of improvements & extra features under the hood. IMHO & IME.


----------



## imbeaujp

bobgpsr said:


> I do not understand the Excel issue. I run MS Office 2003 with Excel on a Vista 64 PC with no problems or new learning curve. The same Excel that I previously used with XP.
> 
> Doesn't everyone know that you do not have to put up with a lot of the "new look and feel" of Vista if you configure the user perferences to do Standard Windows or Classic Windows. Turn off the Aero stuff, reset your mouse pointers to Windows Standard or Windows Black, change Explorer/Control Panel/WMP to use classic menus, etc. Then you mostly get back the old familiar Windows "look and feel" but with a lot of improvements & extra features under the hood. IMHO & IME.


Totaly agree with you !


----------



## ACGREEN

This is the same arguement that I heard when XP was introduced. vista is better and is an improvement. i love vista over XP.


----------



## Big Worm

ACGREEN said:


> This is the same arguement that I heard when XP was introduced. vista is better and is an improvement. i love vista over XP.


Bingo!!!! When XP came out same story as today with Vista. It took some time but people came to like it. You will have the same thing with Vista.


----------



## thxgoon

bobgpsr said:


> I do not understand the Excel issue. I run MS Office 2003 with Excel on a Vista 64 PC with no problems or new learning curve. The same Excel that I previously used with XP.


I was talking about Office 2007 and comparing the difficullty I had with that change to the difficulty I think some have upgrading to Vista. They just want their computer to be the same, day after day.


----------



## drf

ACGREEN said:


> This is the same arguement that I heard when XP was introduced. vista is better and is an improvement. i love vista over XP.


Of course it is the same argument, it is same issues, the problems people have aren't about whether or not vista is better, it is about their ability to upgrade to a new OS. Some people can't because they don't have the cash to update software that will no longer work with vista (I haven't experienced this with vista but I did with XP) others can't becasue they don't have the mental capacity to get their heads around what you and I do intuitively.


----------



## JimP

drf said:


> ...snip... others can't becasue they don't have the mental capacity to get their heads around what you and I do intuitively.


Sad but true. I've tried to help people who are familiar with something as simple as word and when the new version came out under Office 2007, they totally lost it. You might be thinking that I'm referring to a senior citizen, but I'm not...its a 46 year old who works in an office environment.

I guess the truth of the matter is that Microsoft on one hand changes things to do not much more than just to change things. What new features are added don't really apply to most of us. By the same token, users shouldn't be expected to have to figure things out. Unfortunately, if you use a computer and are not somewhat of a geek, you better know someone who is and is willing to help you out when you run into trouble.


----------



## warpdrive

We go through this every time a new OS comes out. There are always people that have trouble adapting. I think part of the blame is also the third party vendors, they all knew that Vista was coming but true Vista support from these vendors has been very slow


----------



## drf

warpdrive said:


> We go through this every time a new OS comes out. There are always people that have trouble adapting. I think part of the blame is also the third party vendors, they all knew that Vista was coming but true Vista support from these vendors has been very slow


And vice versa, MS are slow if non-existant in making there OSes backwards compatible. They seem to stop updating and providing hardware support for the previous version after every new OS come out. Imagine if a car company did that or even stoped making spares after 5 years? Everyone one would be in the poopies, not just those who couldn't afford a new car ever 5 years.


----------



## warpdrive

drf said:


> And vice versa, MS are slow if non-existant in making there OSes backwards compatible. They seem to stop updating and providing hardware support for the previous version after every new OS come out. Imagine if a car company did that or even stoped making spares after 5 years? Everyone one would be in the poopies, not just those who couldn't afford a new car ever 5 years.


It's called progress. As a programmer I know that you have to break some existing applications to add features that are, on a whole, better for the user. The old Windows operating systems were full of security holes, stability. Microsoft has to take a stance on this and provide a new architecture. The whole driver and security model is different and it was done that way because there were too many flaws in the old system. Programs had too much control over the innards of the OS and thus security was a nightmare. It's easy to argue Microsoft is evil but I know there is a lot more going on....it's a really complex problem to solve.

I know what you mean but there is definitely a limit on what they can do to support old programs and compatibility. I certainly wouldn't expect all older apps to work on Vista as they worked on XP, some programs are just not well done and use undocumented features of the operating system, so it's no wonder some of them don't run properly.

And car companies do run out of parts eventually, it takes longer that's all.

Like all brand new things (like a new car model), it takes time to discover all the flaws even though you did a good job testing it. Vista will become the norm and be as stable as XP is. Users also need time to familiarize themselves as they do when they buy a new receviver or any other complex item (phone, PDA, whatever)


----------



## drf

warpdrive said:


> And car companies do run out of parts eventually, it takes longer that's all.


Usually they provide parts while there is a market, however in Australia a company must provide 100% spare parts for ten years for every vehical they sell. 

My beef with not supporting older os programs and such is as much with the software companies as MS, After upgrading to Xp I was left with 3 options concerning my cd/dvd burner. 
1) buy new burning software that is compatible with XP $100 (for nero), 
2)buy a new burner that comes with software $80, 
3) go without burning software except the basic builtin xp stuff. 
Great options:sarcastic:, spend more money or go without. :rant:

Trying to explain to my clients that they have to buy a new OS becuase their hardrive died and becasue of the new OS they have to buy new versions of half their software is what is lowering my desire to work in IT (even part time).


----------



## nova

ACGREEN said:


> This is the same arguement that I heard when XP was introduced. vista is better and is an improvement. i love vista over XP.


No,...not in my case. I really liked XP when it came out even though no one else did. Still don't care for Vista, but I have not replaced it with XP,....yet :devil:


----------



## warpdrive

drf said:


> Great options:sarcastic:, spend more money or go without. :rant:
> 
> Trying to explain to my clients that they have to buy a new OS becuase their hardrive died and becasue of the new OS they have to buy new versions of half their software is what is lowering my desire to work in IT (even part time).



Why would they need a new OS because the hard drive died? I'd just reinstall XP from the recovery disk or original disk.


----------



## drf

warpdrive said:


> Why would they need a new OS because the hard drive died? I'd just reinstall XP from the recovery disk or original disk.


Because they were running win95a, and as you probably know it does not support drivers larger than 32G in 2G partitions. So only two solutions present themselves 1) I source a 40G drive of the market (smallest posible at the time) and partition it into 20 drives :dizzy: Could you imagine windows explora with 4/5 of the alphabet in it? it would look like a college server. 2) upgrade the OS and get whatever drive is best.


----------



## warpdrive

drf said:


> Because they were running win95a,


I certainly wouldn't expect to run programs that worked in win95 to run in Vista. It's like buying a new DVD player and expecting to play your Laserdiscs.


----------



## imbeaujp

I do not think so, Windows 95 is more than 12 years ago !

Why would you want to use a program that old ?

and what about cobolt programs ?


----------



## nova

imbeaujp said:


> I do not think so, Windows 95 is more than 12 years ago !
> Why would you want to use a program that old ?


Because they still work just fine. While maybe not quite 12 years old (I think it's about 11 :bigsmile, I still use Corel Draw7, Corel Photo Paint 7, and a number of other old programs. They do everything I need them to do and I don't need to fork out a ton of cash (can you say $449.99 for Photoshop CS3?) on upgrades or new programs. Fortunately, so far, all my old programs still work with XP.


----------



## warpdrive

Well, as I said, to expect Microsoft to keep backward compatibility all the way back to Win95 is unreasonable IMHO


----------



## Big Worm

nova said:


> Because they still work just fine. While maybe not quite 12 years old (I think it's about 11 :bigsmile, I still use Corel Draw7, Corel Photo Paint 7, and a number of other old programs. They do everything I need them to do and I don't need to fork out a ton of cash (can you say $449.99 for Photoshop CS3?) on upgrades or new programs. Fortunately, so far, all my old programs still work with XP.


I think the truth finally came out. You just don't like any kind of modern software. :bigsmile:

Let me guess you still use filemanager? :jiggy:


----------



## drf

imbeaujp said:


> I do not think so, Windows 95 is more than 12 years ago !
> 
> Why would you want to use a program that old ?
> 
> and what about cobolt programs ?


As has been said, becasue they still do exactely what is needed. Alot of my clients only upgrade becasue of hardware failure, no other reason.


----------



## thxgoon

Big Worm said:


> I think the truth finally came out. You just don't like any kind of modern software. :bigsmile:
> 
> Let me guess you still use filemanager? :jiggy:


What's wrong with that? I have members of my family who gave the computer and internet thing a shot. They bought a computer so they could use email and learn the internet. It might have been used about once a week. Well after having to install new updates constantly, new virus protection software, an ever changing AOL interface and just the weird things that windows will do from time to time they finally said screw it. It's not worth it. 

I can understand the need to have more advanced systems that can do the amazingly advanced things that about 10% of it's users will actuallly need, but why can't they design it in such a way that the 90% of people can still use the basics without dealing with all of the problems or having to relearn how to 'drive' the computer?? You can drive any car on the market if you have the keys. Gas on the right, brake on the left. Turn the wheel clockwise and you go right and vise versa. This hasn't changed EVER. But cars have obviously advanced. Why can't MS figure this out? 

On a side note, tonight I tried running microsoft flight sim in a multiplayer mode for the first time and after 3 hours of fiddling I still couldn't get it to work - and I consider myself fairly savvy with computers.


----------



## drf

thxgoon said:


> What's wrong with that? I have members of my family who gave the computer and internet thing a shot. They bought a computer so they could use email and learn the internet. It might have been used about once a week. Well after having to install new updates constantly, new virus protection software, an ever changing AOL interface and just the weird things that windows will do from time to time they finally said screw it. It's not worth it.
> 
> I can understand the need to have more advanced systems that can do the amazingly advanced things that about 10% of it's users will actuallly need, but why can't they design it in such a way that the 90% of people can still use the basics without dealing with all of the problems or having to relearn how to 'drive' the computer?? You can drive any car on the market if you have the keys. Gas on the right, brake on the left. Turn the wheel clockwise and you go right and vise versa. This hasn't changed EVER. But cars have obviously advanced. Why can't MS figure this out?
> 
> On a side note, tonight I tried running microsoft flight sim in a multiplayer mode for the first time and after 3 hours of fiddling I still couldn't get it to work - and I consider myself fairly savvy with computers.



Precisely, All some people need is a very basic version of windows that will run a word processor, IE and email. Believe it or not, but there are PC users out there that don't need to be on the bleeding edge of technology soley so they can email there son in England.


----------



## nova

Big Worm said:


> I think the truth finally came out. You just don't like any kind of modern software. :bigsmile:
> Let me guess you still use filemanager? :jiggy:


No,... I usually like new software, I just don't like having to pay $500 for new software when I just spent $500 for new software last year that does not work this year.

File Manager,....nah,..... I'm hip with Windows Explorer :bigsmile: Although I gotta admit, I really hated to give up DCOM. That's DCOM the file manager (Directory Commander by Dave Frailey, for those that remember, it was tons better than file manager), not the current MS DCOM (Distributed Component Object Manager). BTW, this old DOS program still works with XP. Go figure :coocoo: :dontknow: I may just have to try it out with Vista also.


----------



## Fincave

warpdrive said:


> Why would they need a new OS because the hard drive died? I'd just reinstall XP from the recovery disk or original disk.


I do not think it is always all that easy. I installed Ubuntu over XP, since then decided I want both. I have the recovery discs that I made when I bought my laptop but they do not work as the 'hidden partition' that XP makes and that the recovery discs need, is no longer there.

It seems to be becoming rare for people to get an installation disc with their machine, par for the course is having to make your own recovery discs, should you accidentally, inadvertantly or even on purpose erase XP completely from your hd and later decide you want XP back and only have recovery discs, you are out of luck! I am waiting to see if someone I work with has/can find original installation discs and will then re-install XP and activate it with my product key.


----------



## drf

Fincave said:


> It seems to be becoming rare for people to get an installation disc with their machine, par for the course is having to make your own recovery discs.


That is very true and one of the first things I recommend is that if someone is buying a new machine that "comes with windows" that they ask the saleperson to either show them the disc, or garuntee that it is a complete stand alone installation disc and not a recovery disc or pre-installed no-disc deal. and most importantly that the disc isn't locked to a particular brand of computer.


----------



## imbeaujp

drf said:


> That is very true and one of the first things I recommend is that if someone is buying a new machine that "comes with windows" that they ask the saleperson to either show them the disc, or garuntee that it is a complete stand alone installation disc and not a recovery disc or pre-installed no-disc deal. and most importantly that the disc isn't locked to a particular brand of computer.


This is a verry goog advice, I totally agree with you on that. But many brands like HP do not pakage anymore their products with thoses discs... And if you want a "real" OS pakage instead the preload version, you got to buy one.

They want to keep the pice as low as possible and they also do not test thier products on previous os (they will not provide-test driver or support you). When you buy a new PC "designed for Vista" it is made for vista, period.

But it doesn't means that your new PC will not work with XP, it only means that they did not spends many days to test it on previous versions and that they will not test new drivers to work on "old" OS.


----------



## drf

imbeaujp said:


> But it doesn't means that your new PC will not work with XP, it only means that they did not spends many days to test it on previous versions and that they will not test new drivers to work on "old" OS.


If I am not careful I could get rather conrtadictory. You are right, I would add though that from about ME onwards there has been very little new hardware that needs a newer OS to work properly, yet there are countless examples of software.


----------



## Guvner57

Upgrade to Windows 7. Microsoft have finally got things right.


----------

