http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml

A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
other quirks that left them less than satisfied.

The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical new
release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major vendor,
Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade nightmares.
Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at a minimum to
avoid complications.

The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows XP,
dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a functional
improvement, and several things that work at best intermittently and at
worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never moved," Angus Kidman said
in a Blog report carried by ITWire.

The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
"...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty fundamental
is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.

Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
"...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince us
to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox, which
doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run faster as
well."

Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though Vista
was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound card
"weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that none of
the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
certification."

The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.

Oh its a dog alright.... a big fat ugly lazy incompetent dog!

As many wise men have said over the centuries.. LONG LIVE XP!
The last OS of the golden age of microsoft (TM)

"Tiberius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>
> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>
> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical new
> release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
> vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
> nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at a
> minimum to avoid complications.
>
> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows XP,
> dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a functional
> improvement, and several things that work at best intermittently and at
> worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never moved," Angus Kidman
> said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>
> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty
> fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>
> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince
> us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox,
> which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run
> faster as well."
>
> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though
> Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound
> card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that
> none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
> certification."
>
> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>
>

You got to be kidding me. Sure they did not make a fake story up? I disagree
with the below quoted. Not the experience I have with Vista, my PC runs very
smooth and fast.

"The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
were longer than the predecessor."

"Tiberius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>
> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>
> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical new
> release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
> vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
> nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at a
> minimum to avoid complications.
>
> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows XP,
> dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a functional
> improvement, and several things that work at best intermittently and at
> worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never moved," Angus Kidman
> said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>
> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty
> fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>
> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince
> us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox,
> which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run
> faster as well."
>
> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though
> Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound
> card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that
> none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
> certification."
>
> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>
>
>

sorry... its the same results I have seen on several machines....

Its not a lie.. Vista has many many many many many problems
and is as slow as a prehistoric giant sloth in hibernation.


"Sharon T" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You got to be kidding me. Sure they did not make a fake story up? I
> disagree with the below quoted. Not the experience I have with Vista, my
> PC runs very smooth and fast.
>
> "The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
> were longer than the predecessor."
>
> "Tiberius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>>
>> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
>> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
>> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
>> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>>
>> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical
>> new release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
>> vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
>> nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at
>> a minimum to avoid complications.
>>
>> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows
>> XP, dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
>> functional improvement, and several things that work at best
>> intermittently and at worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never
>> moved," Angus Kidman said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>>
>> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
>> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
>> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
>> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
>> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty
>> fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>>
>> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
>> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
>> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
>> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince
>> us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox,
>> which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run
>> faster as well."
>>
>> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
>> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though
>> Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound
>> card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that
>> none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
>> certification."
>>
>> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
>> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>>
>>
>>
>

Tiberius wrote:

> Oh its a dog alright.... a big fat ugly lazy incompetent dog!
>
I take exception to that statement. I like dogs.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

> As many wise men have said over the centuries.. LONG LIVE XP!
> The last OS of the golden age of microsoft (TM)
>


--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl

Although I have read that others have had the major slowdowns and other
problems they mention, I have yet to experience it, and I've done several
dozen Vista installs on different hardware. I'm not denying they exist,
though. However, it is kind of weird that all these problems happen at the
same time for the author...

A few little quirks that are easily overcome. And yes, it is different than
XP on a lot of things. It's a lot better than making subtile differences and
having people bash it because it wasn't different enough!

--
Dustin Harper
(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

--
"Tiberius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>
> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>
> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical new
> release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
> vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
> nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at a
> minimum to avoid complications.
>
> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows XP,
> dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a functional
> improvement, and several things that work at best intermittently and at
> worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never moved," Angus Kidman
> said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>
> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty
> fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>
> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince
> us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox,
> which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run
> faster as well."
>
> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though
> Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound
> card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that
> none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
> certification."
>
> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>
>

I love dogs too....

This one seems to be some freak genetic experiment to merge the dogs dna
with that of a snail a hippo
and implant a retarded jellyfish brain.

nothing else can explain its sluggyness, its bloatedness and its stupidity~!




"Doris Day - MFB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tiberius wrote:
>
>> Oh its a dog alright.... a big fat ugly lazy incompetent dog!
>>
> I take exception to that statement. I like dogs.
>
> Love and Kisses,
> Doris
>
>> As many wise men have said over the centuries.. LONG LIVE XP!
>> The last OS of the golden age of microsoft (TM)
>>
>
>
> --
> My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
> Title Says It All ... http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl
>
>
>

they say that they have made differences but none that are beneficiary for
the user....

and I agree big time!!!

there were 1000000 things they could do to improve upon XP, and what did
they do instead?
they played around with the interface making stupid changes, installed
services that slow down the pc,
bloated it to smithereens, and made it full of compatibility problems, so
many that people
are starting to think linux or MACOS could be an alternative! lol

The word will get out : Companies keep away from anything Vista... as long
as possible.. its not fixable
even with service packs... keep away and perhaps MS will wise up and make
windows 2010 what
vista should have been.

"Dustin Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:B74E5786-E16C-48BC-AFBD-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Although I have read that others have had the major slowdowns and other
> problems they mention, I have yet to experience it, and I've done several
> dozen Vista installs on different hardware. I'm not denying they exist,
> though. However, it is kind of weird that all these problems happen at the
> same time for the author...
>
> A few little quirks that are easily overcome. And yes, it is different
> than XP on a lot of things. It's a lot better than making subtile
> differences and having people bash it because it wasn't different enough!
>
>
> --
> Dustin Harper
> (E-Mail Removed)
> http://www.vistarip.com
>
> --
> "Tiberius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>>
>> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
>> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
>> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
>> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>>
>> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical
>> new release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
>> vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
>> nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at
>> a minimum to avoid complications.
>>
>> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows
>> XP, dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
>> functional improvement, and several things that work at best
>> intermittently and at worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never
>> moved," Angus Kidman said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>>
>> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
>> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
>> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
>> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
>> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty
>> fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>>
>> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
>> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
>> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
>> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince
>> us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox,
>> which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run
>> faster as well."
>>
>> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
>> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though
>> Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound
>> card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that
>> none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
>> certification."
>>
>> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
>> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>>
>>
>

Tiberius wrote:
> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>
> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>
> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical new
> release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major vendor,
> Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade nightmares.
> Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at a minimum to
> avoid complications.
>
> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows XP,
> dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a functional
> improvement, and several things that work at best intermittently and at
> worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never moved," Angus Kidman said
> in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>
> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty fundamental
> is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>
> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince us
> to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox, which
> doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run faster as
> well."
>
> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though Vista
> was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound card
> "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that none of
> the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
> certification."
>
> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>
>


Only an idiot like you would bother to post an article from the
"macobserver", (an unbiased opinion right?) about one laptop computer
that came with Vista (we don't know which version of Vista) that one
company bought and was not impressed with its performance.
Of course, that's MS's fault right? Or did you ever in your little pea
brain stop to think it might be the vendors fault for not including
updated hardware?
Moron!
Frank

ok mr moron.. if you like it better from the original NON mac site here it
is:
this is the original location of the article, that other site just copied
it...

but YOU are biased enough to not want to believe it because you happened to
see its a mac site didn't you?
You think I am a mac user or lover just because I posted that?

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12147/1101/1/0

Let the truth be heard you stupid vista blind follower troll!

It might save people from adopting vista before they find out how fully
horrible it is!

"Frank" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u7%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tiberius wrote:
>> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml
>>
>> A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to Vista
>> recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their account,
>> company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be problematic, and
>> other quirks that left them less than satisfied.
>>
>> The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical
>> new release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
>> vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
>> nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer at
>> a minimum to avoid complications.
>>
>> The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows
>> XP, dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
>> functional improvement, and several things that work at best
>> intermittently and at worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd never
>> moved," Angus Kidman said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.
>>
>> The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
>> Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot times
>> were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys router
>> failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the problem.
>> "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something pretty
>> fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.
>>
>> Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML home
>> page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with Vista,
>> "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a new window
>> because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has managed to convince
>> us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and switch to Firefox,
>> which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour, and seems to run
>> faster as well."
>>
>> Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run. It
>> reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even though
>> Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display and sound
>> card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us was that
>> none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready. So much for
>> certification."
>>
>> The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista, "a
>> dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.
>>
>
>
> Only an idiot like you would bother to post an article from the
> "macobserver", (an unbiased opinion right?) about one laptop computer that
> came with Vista (we don't know which version of Vista) that one company
> bought and was not impressed with its performance.
> Of course, that's MS's fault right? Or did you ever in your little pea
> brain stop to think it might be the vendors fault for not including
> updated hardware?
> Moron!
> Frank