Microsoft, are you reading this ?

[AnOther]

In other threads I have said that I was perfectly happy with XP and had no interest in upgrading to Vista any time soon and I meant it.

However, whilst I've been at work offshore over the Christmas period, I've had an opportunity to properly try out Vista and must admit that I'm actually rather taken with it but let me explain.

No I haven't bought a copy nor have I been playing with somebody else's machine, what I did was use a pirated download of Vista Ultimate brought offshore by a colleague to install it on a spare hard drive I had for my own laptop.

Thief do I hear someone cry, maybe, but consider this; through the act of being able to install this pirated version and discover that not only was all of my 3.5 year old laptop's hardware properly recognised but that it actually runs as quick if not quicker than XP, I'm now very seriously considering buying a genuine copy.

You see my point I hope, I was (am) happy with XP and as curious as I might have been about Vista there was no way I was going to fork out for what hitherto was an unknown quantity which may, or may not, have run satisfactorily on my laptop, if indeed it installed at all, and with no chance of getting my money back if it didn't.

Cripple if you want, make it time expire, even charge a nominal amount for a trial version CD or DVD, whatever you feel you have do to protect actual sales but get it out there for people to try.

There is actually a name for this process, it's Trialware, and the vast majority of software companies practice it by providing "try before you buy" versions of their programmes and they don't go broke because of it so why can't Microsoft do likewise, I'll wager that in the long run they'd sell more legitimate copies.

There must be hundreds of thousands like me, millions maybe, who might like to give it a try and quite possibly become converts but aren't going to risk a substantial sum of money to do it which forces them into seeking the pirate versions which are most definately out there.

 

 

[woolybanana]

No, no pirate versions around at all. Just rumourmongering. certainly none in France where everyone is honest.

[Russethouse]

It came pre installed on my daughters lap top which I sometimes use - its the devils spawn AFAIAC, I just can't see any improvement at all...good job we are not all the same...[:)]

[Jacqui Too]

I have Vista on my new computer.

I have only found two things that are 'flaws' if thats the word!

Firstly, when connected to my BT BB every time I left the PC unattended on return I would find it had disconnected from the Internet, this drove me mad, even called BT BB tec to see if they could help and no they could not!!!

Finally I solved it myself when I realised it only went off when the screen saver went on [:-))] so now no screen saver!!!

Secondly BT BB have not yet adapted their system to run completely with Vista and I am informed that they will advise me when I can download their BB help. Not really a Vista problem though.

I like it, can't really say I see a lot of difference from XP myself[Www]

My daughter bought a laptop at the same time with vista ( she works for a software company) and after 3 months of problems has wiped it out and installed XP pro!

Jackie

[Clair]

[quote user="Chipie"]I have Vista on my new computer... when connected to my BT BB every time I left the PC unattended on return I would find it had disconnected from the Internet, this drove me mad, even called BT BB tec to see if they could help and no they could not!!!

Finally I solved it myself when I realised it only went off when the screen saver went on [:-))] so now no screen saver!!![/quote]

I too have Vista on my new laptop and I can and do run a screensaver without any problem and with no wifi/ADSL disconnection.

I ran XP for a bout a year on my old laptop and I find Vista is roughly the same beast, although under very different clothes. If that's a problem, it can be made to look like XP.

On a day-to-day use, there are no major differences and I find access to all the tools much easier.

To run properly (with all its pretty features), Vista does need a fair bit of the computer memory, but these features can be disabled if you want.

As you can see, no problem on my side![:)] and I was not looking forward to it! Ask Ernie! [:-))]

EDIT: as a Vista novice, I found these pages very useful:

Switching to Vista 1

Switching to Vista 2

Vista Tuning tips part 1

Vista Tuning tips part 2

Vista Tuning tips part 3

Vista Tuning tips part 4

[powerdesal]

I run XP Pro on my laptop and my wife has Vista Premium as a preload on her new pc.

Vista is a pain in the neck. Particularly the fact that the premium edition does not include the fax utility which XP does. The trouble is you dont know what it has until you have got (or not) the programme. I am with Ernie on this.

[groslard]

[quote user="powerdesal"] I am with Ernie on this.

[/quote]

And you two guys are practical people who earn your living in technical areas, so your advice carries a lot of weight.

[Clair]

[quote user="groslard"]

And you two guys are practical people who earn your living in technical areas, so your advice carries a lot of weight.

[/quote]

No disrespect to Ernie and Powerdesal, but I think their technical knowledge makes them probably a lot more demanding in the computing world than Joe Bloggs at home or John Smith in the office![:)]

[AnOther]

There is a blow by blow description and comparison chart for Vista HERE

*********************

I understand that a lot of people have reverted back to XP.

Some of those will undoubtedly have been for little other reason than wanting the familiarity of XP but also many will have been disappointed with Vista's performance, particularly those who have bought one of the budget laptops so prominently in the shops these days. One of the major problems with these is that the graphics usually don't have their own memory but instead steal it from the system memory so your already inadequate 512mb is yet further compromised.

It's no secret that with each successive Windows version Microsoft have grossly under stated the hardware requirements, particularly in regard to memory.

Somewhat disingenuously I feel, MS quote 2 different sets of specs for Vista, one labelled "Vista Capable" and the other "Vista Ready". According to them the minimum for "Vista Capable" is:

A modern processor (at least 800MHz). 

512 MB of system memory.

A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

and "Vista Ready":

• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor¹).

• 1 GB of system memory.

• Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)², Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.

• 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.

• DVD-ROM Drive³.

• Audio output capability.

• Internet access capability.

In the case of "Vista Capable" I think the least said the better. Put it this way; a moped is quite "capable" of transporting you from Toulouse to Paris but what a miserable trip it would be! Also, quite how anybody can, in all sincerity, call an 800mb processor "modern", borders on the bizarre, however what is truly astonishing and misleading is the 512 mb of memory which is unquestionably utterly inadequate for any sort of even remotely satisfactory experience.

The "Vista Ready" specs look a bit better but even so a 1gb processor is still going to be pretty marginal and now that it's been out on the street for a while the overwhelming concensus is that 1gb of memory just isn't enough and  that 2gb is the sweet spot. This is especially so if you want to run the Aero screen which, lets face it, is probably the only significant differentiating factor for a great many non technical users, but also happens to be one of the greatest consumer of resources and the reason it can run like a lame dog on poorly specced machines.

The Aero eye candy rubbish is the one thing my laptop doesn't support and I'm glad of it. I'll continue to play with my new hookey installation and decide whether I do indeed want to put my hand in my pocket, but if I do you can rest assured that it will be coming from either eBay or direct from the US as no way will I even contemplate paying retail for it [:-))]

[Bob T]

I run XP on a dual boot PC. I have been using Windows since it was known as Windows 3.1, back in the early 90's. Rather than try Vista which is expensive and power hungry, I downloaded Suse Linux 10.3, which is free as are all the programs for it. When I turn on the PC, I decide if it should boot into XP or Linux, and I have found that I use Linux more than XP now. I would no longer dream of internet banking in Windows as Linux is so secure.

I know that Linux is not for everyone, as people are reluctant to try something new, and also believe that if it is free, it can't be any good, a misguided belief.

[groslard]

I have been very tempted by Linux for all the reasons usually cited: my problem is that I need high quality Music arranging/Composing software, which I believe is an area not fully develped in Linux yet.

[Bob T]

Not my area at all, but I have seen programs around for that sort of thing. If you do a google search for Linux and music, I think that you will find that there is loads of stuff there.

Because the code for linux is free and not hidden as with MS, there are many musicians writing their own software, which due to the opensource nature of linux can only be distributed for free. You will find many people with different interests have made programs that are very similar to the windows specialist programs that are sold commercially. One example of this is MS Office, which can cost a tidy sum, but there is openoffice for linux which is just as good and free. Many of these opensource programs are now appearing for windows too, a good example is the web browser Firefox, free to download and use. Openoffice can also be used with windows and downloaded for free at openoffice.org.

[Jacqui Too]

[quote user="Clair"][quote user="Chipie"]I have Vista on my new computer... when connected to my BT BB every time I left the PC unattended on return I would find it had disconnected from the Internet, this drove me mad, even called BT BB tec to see if they could help and no they could not!!!
Finally I solved it myself when I realised it only went off when the screen saver went on [:-))] so now no screen saver!!![/quote]
I too have Vista on my new laptop and I can and do run a screen saver without any problem and with no wifi/ADSL disconnection.

[/quote]

I also forgot to mention that I had it hibernate at the same time, so not sure if it was screen saver or hibernation that caused the problem, I just switch them off.

I will have a look at your links to see if I am useing my Vista to its best a advantage

Jackie

[AnOther]

[quote user="Clair"]No disrespect to Ernie and Powerdesal, but I think their technical knowledge makes them probably a lot more demanding in the computing world than Joe Bloggs at home or John Smith in the office![:)][/quote]Not sure why you would consider that disrespectful Clair, quite the opposite in fact, but you are quite right of course and being so frequently "down and dirty", as it were [geek], I'm often delving into facets of Windows and doing things the average user is probably completely unaware of, nor has any need to be.

This can sometimes make one lose sight of certain basics though.

 

 

[Onion van man]

well, I knew you would like it Ernie once you had tried it! I'm surprised that you had not been using it during the MS Beta tester trials. I had a Beta version of Vista about a year ago and although it was not perfect at that time it was interesting to try.

MS don't advertise the Beta testers program, so most people are completely unaware of its existance.

I still can't decide which version of Vista would suit be best and then do I go 64bit or 32bit ? Too many choices.

[AnOther]

Too much else going on in my life to be bothered in truth.

Bit of the blase about it too, been there done that etc. what with DOS, Win3.1, 95, 98, definately NO ME!, NT, 2000, and finally XP, eventually you can't help getting a bit jaded by it all and XP is doing all I want and need and in fact it was about a year after release that I even bothered to have a proper look at that.

It's inevitable that I would go over to Vista at some time, if for nothing else people habitually come to me for help and I feel a bit of a fraud when I say sorry, can't help you with it because I don't know anything about it.

Still have great difficulty in coming to terms with spending the money for something I don't actually need though [;-)]

[tel]

Hi ErnieY,

Have been running Vista Home Premium on one of my PC's for about 9 months (XP Pro on the other) and now the Vista machine is my main one.  Like any new operating system Vista has its drawbacks, it is designed for the 'Novice' user with lots of hand holding for many of the tasks, however when you turn off these annoying intrusions then basically the system is great.  Not interested in faxing from my PC, if I need to send a document I scan and attach to email.  ADSL doesn't use PC faxing anyway.  As mentioned in another thread you don't need to buy the retail version as OEM versions cost considerably less.  In 15 years of computing I have never needed or wanted support from Microsoft so why pay £195 for retail when the OEM costs less than £60 for Vista Home Premium.

Regards

[powerdesal]

Its difficult to believe but... there  are still some companies who dont use e mail ( or who dont accept e mail) and need a faxed copy, particularly of signatures. Scanning and attaching would be my preference. Thats why the computer fax facility on my XP laptop is so useful. Just unplug the phone line, plug in the laptop, send the fax, unplug etc. Dead easy. Thats why Vista Premium is so frustrating.

[AnOther]

Very true PD and done this myself many times

There is of course 3rd party software for faxing from Vista but it it's petty of MS to have left it out of the lower versions when in fact it's more likely to be home users who need it. Professional and commercial users will likely have independant fax facilities.