Which Os is better among the Windows Vista.

XP

Forget Vista.

Install XP. It's MUCH better.

Graham

This seems to be the consensus. Probably at least wait until Vista is "fixed" with a service pack or two.

Mark Z.

Pointless. That'll just make it slower still.

Graham

you'd save a lot of time and effort by just going outside, opening your wallet and settings fire to 2 new $100 bills.

don't even consider Vista if you're running XP and everything works.

The first Vista service pack appears to be just a vehicle for features they've forgotten. It doesn't address the problems (mainly software compatibility) that people have been mentioning.

I don't know if it'll make it slower, but it won't actually _fix_ anything.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622

I hexHead® wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I took Vista OFF this Dell Insprion 640 laptop and put XP pro on it.

The department and university pays Microsoft for Site licencing so I can choose without worrying about cost. Microsoft is supposed to start shipping a NEW operating system sometime next year.

I wish they would finish fixing one system before they start shipping another. I wish they didn't feel like they had to give things a 'face lift' and change file formats every few years.

Microsoft, the company you love to hate.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an 
infinite set.

bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I disagree with the consensus. Go for Vista Ultimate. What's wrong with it? Just that it's new?

Of course. DOS 1.0 was perfect, and then they ruined it. Right?

Any variant of unix or linux. If you must test your code, use VMWare.

Mac OS x uses a UNIX backend, and you get the both of both worlds: pretty eye-candy desktop from Apple with bullet-proof UNIX engine under the hood. They come stock with a pretty hefty suite of developer tools too.

If they did, you'd have no motivation to buy the "perfect" new system.

This applies to all software companies, not just Microsoft.

And........ It runs Windows natively.

I just put Windows XP on my MacBook Pro, and it runs it as well and as fast as do my PCs. I installed it in a manner that allows me to switch between OSX and Windows without re-booting, so I can easily run the Windows applications for which there are no Mac equivalent; like the Streets and Trips map software. It's the best of both worlds.

Name something that Vista adds to your computing experience

--y'know besides: Disk writes are slowed down to check for DRM. (Just what I'm looking for in an OS: It slows down while calling you a thief.)

Ever-increasingly buggy product activation. (Again: THIEF.)

Application incompatibility.

My favorite one: "Playing Music Slows Vista's Network Performance"

. . The reviews for Vista that don't blast its poor performance and resource gobbling have been pretty tepid. M$ dropped gobs of promised stuff to meet their WAY over-ambitious (for M$) schedule.

The reviews for Leopard and Gutsy Gibbon have pretty much been glowing. Compare Apple's and Ubuntu's development cycles and you quickly see that M$ should be ashamed to have ever shoved their latest PoS out the door.

Compare the prices as well.

I find that running within VMWare gives an added measure of security against crashes, Windows may cause the VMWare environment to crash but it will not take down the machine. How is yours set up to allow both to run concurrently? I am very curious.

Dave S.

Software named Parallels is used to manage the Windows installation to enable it. I haven't looked into "how." The software Apple seems to be pushing for directing Windows installation, sets them up so you must boot one or the other.

Once installed, I can, at my option, switch between the Systems with a keyclick (background is either XP or OSX), or go into a mode that makes everything transparent and enabling sharing the clipboard and moving between XP and OSX software. It also, seamlessly, manages printers, wireless access, etc.

When I am "in" OSX I run the OSX version of Office, and when I am in XP it lets me run the OSX version of Office also.

I haven't found a downside any of this, and now I find I have surplus application specific computers. For the future, this means less money going for application software.

People who don't want to buy an Apple computer, need an equivalent to Parallels so they can run OSX, and leave Windows in the dust. OTOH, I like XP, so I'm no longer an Apple-only booster, but I still don't like Microsoft in general.

"mc" wrote in news:LPZ_i.7448$A71.2561 @bignews9.bellsouth.net:

When I bought Level 3 basic for my TRS-80 from an unknown company named 'Microsoft', I sent in the registration card expecting that they would keep me informed of problems and updates. They didn't.

DOS 1.0 was a rip off of CPM. A poorly done rip off.

None of their programs have been perfect. But rather than rewrite the software to FIX the problems while keeping the SAME 'look and feel' and keeping the same formats for files, most software vendors opt for making the interface look 'purty'.

It doesn't have to work. It just has to look 'purty'. Extra Purty for XP.

"Oh...that feature? It doesn't work quite right yet but go ahead and ship it out, we will fix it later, if someone complains."

I have 9 computer on my desk. Several XP pros, a 2003 server, a mac mini, a power mac 9500/120, a red hat linux machine.

Several of the machines are running other OS's under VMware. For example, on the linux machine I am running Windows NT4 in a virtual environment.

On my laptop I can run dos, win3.1, win95, Vista, Plan9, WinNT4, WinXP pro, Win2k, Win2k3, Knoppix, and others, all under VMware, and often do when testing software.

I USE computers and software to accomplish tasks. I like it when software 'works'. I like it when it works the same way, day after day.

I don't like it when a new version comes out, looks different, acts different and produces files that are formatted different because I know that my users are going to be getting or sending out files that other people can not access and I am going to need to help them fix these problems.

I don't like it when a company (microsoft, for example) pushes their 'standards' instead of following industry standards.

I don't like it when they 'enhance' e-mail by defaulting their e-mail client to sending in html.

I don't like it when they make their e-mail client EXECUTE programs (html, zip files, exe files) that it finds attached to an e-mail.

I don't like it when they write their operating system, from the ground up, assuming that no one will inject invalid date into any data field. failing to check for buffer overflow.

There are many things about microsoft that I don't like.

No one is perfect. But Microsoft has take developing imperfections to new heights with their release of Vista. They fixed a lot of things but MOST of those were things that they could and should have fixed, years ago, before shipping Window 2.0

--
bz    	73 de N5BZ k

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an 
infinite set.

bz+ser@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

If they traded the idiotic single button trackpad for an industry standard 2 button variety I'd buy one of those. Yeah, I know, there's tricks to get around it, but I want my second button, just like *all* the competition provides.

Haven't checked out the MacBooks, have you? They have a "two-finger" right-button emulation mode that's really sweet -- better than a "real" button because it's always right under your finger.

Plus, of course, multi-button mouses (mice?) are readily available.

Isaac

I don't know if that sounds seet or like a PITA. Guess I'd have to use it to know.