REMEMBER THE TIME???

[kreg]

Remember a long time ago... on a distant version of windows.... when
installing windows it had a HYPE screen saying

"YOUR COMPUTER WILL RUN FASTER AND WILL BE MORE RELIABLE!"

I wonder why they removed that from the VISTA installer?

Perhaps because it would read:

"YOUR COMPUTER WILL RUN FAR SLOWER AND YOU WILL SEE MORE BLUE SCREENS THAN
WIN95" ?


LOL!

 

[Dustin Harper]

Try running it on a computer that wasn't built for Windows 95. I think there
is where your problem is.

 

[SG]

LMAO...good reply Dustin

--
All the best,
SG

Try running it on a computer that wasn't built for Windows 95. I think
there is where your problem is.

 

[Just.some.guy]

Dustin, are you for or against Vista?

Try running it on a computer that wasn't built for Windows 95. I think
there is where your problem is.

 

[Dustin Harper]

I am for Vista. I really like it, haven't had any problems with it at all.
However, I am not blinded by it and do realize that some people do have some
major problems with it. I would say that 90% of those problems are hardware
or user related. I like to help people out with problems, and am trying to
learn as much as I can about Vista (among other Microsoft OS's).

 

[kreg]

NO Im running it dual boot with a computer that is extremly fast with XP

with Vista its running like an ederly TURTLE with ARTHRITIS!!!

no there is no problem with drivers or the operator (me)... its just that

VISTA SUCKS!

 

[Jake]

I am duel booting Vista and XP as well and have no problems at all.
So?

 

[Rick Rogers]

I would hope XP would run faster than Vista on the same hardware. After all,
it was developed some 8 years ago for the hardware of that era and has far
less overhead, just as Win95 had far lower requirements than it (and lots of
people at the time claimed XP was a dog - wanna guess why?). You need to run
Vista on the hardware that it was designed for.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[kreg]

XP was released oct 2001, almost 2002

thats more like 6 years

Vista is far more bloated than anyone expected in all ways...

You need to run Vista on the hardware that it was designed for.

HOGWASH!!!! TELL MICROSOFT THAT!

I must remind you the requirments to install vista according to MS?

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements
Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for Super VGA graphics
CD-ROM drive

YEAH RIGHT!!!!

Microsoft should have FORCED its developers to work on THAT machine! lol

Really you should get an RSS program and start reading what people are
saying from various tech sites...

everyone is making fun of vista, or insulting it... your insult vocabulary
grow by reading the news about vista..

 

[kreg]

in that DUEL (not dual) XP will win.... HAHAH!

DUEL to the death...

(its called *dual* boot, dual and in two?)

 

[Dustin Harper]

Minimum requirements for XP were what? 200 MHz CPU and 64 MB of RAM? Yeah,
try running XP on that. Slower than 95, 98 or even Millenium!

Vista on a recommended system is much better. MINIMUM are just that:
minimum. Your experience won't be great, you will probably have to turn
settings down to get it to run great. Just as in any other program (game,
application, etc), your experience gets better with better hardware.

 

[Just.some.guy]

XP was released oct 2001, almost 2002

thats more like 6 years

Vista is far more bloated than anyone expected in all ways...


HOGWASH!!!! TELL MICROSOFT THAT!

I must remind you the requirments to install vista according to MS?

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements
Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for Super VGA graphics
CD-ROM drive

YEAH RIGHT!!!!

Microsoft should have FORCED its developers to work on THAT machine! lol

I'm NOT a computer tech...far from it. But I know a good joke when I hear
one, and *that* was funny as hell. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

 

[Rick Rogers]

XP was released oct 2001, almost 2002

thats more like 6 years

Released in Oct 2001, in development since 1999, or nearly 9 years ago now.
Specs were set back then.

I must remind you the requirments to install vista according to MS?

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements
Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for Super VGA graphics
CD-ROM drive

Yup, based on common hardware specs about 3 years ago. Are you aware of the
minimum specs for XP? Similarly, they were just barely enough to make it
run. Specifically:

- PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz
minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron
family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
- 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported;
may limit performance and some features)
- 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

You'd be sorely dissappointed, as were many, with the performance of XP on a
system of those specifications as well. Win2000 would run ok, and Win98
would smoke it.

The point is that the comparison you are making is unrealistic. Compare
Vista on its minimum spec machine against XP on a machine with its minimum
specs, and you will see they are virtually the same. Now, in 6 years check
the performance of Vista on a machine available then, and it'll probably be
pretty quick by comparison to whatever version of Windows (7, maybe 8?) is
available then.

Really you should get an RSS program and start reading what people are
saying from various tech sites...

I read far more than most would want to.

everyone is making fun of vista, or insulting it... your insult vocabulary
grow by reading the news about vista..

And so the cycle continues, as it did with XP, as it did with ME, as it did
with 98, etc., etc.

Microsoft should have FORCED its developers to work on THAT machine! lol

I don't disagree, they should set expectations more realistically.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[kreg]

Released in Oct 2001, in development since 1999, or nearly 9 years ago

now. Specs were set back then.

Then Vista is already 6 years old!!!

GREAT SCOTT a 6 year old OS and it needs hardware from the FUTURE to run????


Let me get in the DELORIAN to bring BACK FROM THE FUTURE a 128 CPU core
machine with 12 terrabytes of ram

PERHAPS THAT will be enough for Vista! LOL

 

[Jake]

Maybe I can't spell but YOU are the moron with the crappy running machine,
not me.
Can I LOL and laugh now?

 

[kreg]

Yes but I am triple booting (XP VISTA AND UBUNTU), and you are stuck with a
slow and crappy OS!

Can I laugh more now? My machine is NOT slow... Vista is just bloated..

many people in here with very new machines come here complaining about how
slow vista is,
to a point were you cant really do productive work on it.

 

[john sumner]

Yes but I am triple booting (XP VISTA AND UBUNTU), and you are stuck
with a slow and crappy OS!

Can I laugh more now? My machine is NOT slow... Vista is just
bloated..

many people in here with very new machines come here complaining about
how slow vista is,
to a point were you cant really do productive work on it.

Does your mommy know you are playing with her computer.

 

[Jake]

<"Vista its running like an ederly TURTLE with ARTHRITIS!!!">

Hey moron, if your OS is running slow then your machine is running slow
since it's the OS that makes your machine run. Vista runs just as well as XP
on my machine.
Remember, you're the idiot who can't get Vista to run properly.
It's too bad that your spell check wont make you any smarter.
BTW what is an "ederly" turtle??

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"I must remind you the requirements to install vista"
The minimum, not recommended, not even by Microsoft.
Windows XP minimum RAM is 64 MB RAM
Windows XP runs about as well on the XP minimum as Windows Vista runs
on the Vista minimum,

"everyone is making fun of vista"
How can everyone do one thing while many are not doing it?
Obvious exaggerations do little for anything except bring the rest of
the post into the same question as the obvious exaggeration.

 

[Andrew Harris]

I agree. The optimum requirements should be what people go for. Sure I have
2GB memory, 1.8ghz CPU eetc etc - runs just as fine as XP.

Somethings I would do to make your experience faster is 1) Turn off system
restore
2) turn off indexing service 3) do a defragmentation because there is even
fragmentation after an install (per microsoft documentation, MVP please back
me up on this)

Thanks,
Andrew