http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39087

Don't believe the hype.

When persons actually follow the hardware/software compatibility list of Vista, everything is okay. Windows users have continued to fall into the trap of believing the Apple/Linux faithfuls cry of "see, it doesn't work"

Most people/techies do not want to admit that if you follow the rules, Windows will/can work perfectly. If Microsoft had as much control over the hardware that their software is put upon as Apple did, they would have a simple reputation of reliability.

Dell builds cheap systems for the most part, so the hardware would tend to have a bit more problems than usual. With the greater expense for the OS, Dell would have had to cut corners on the hardware even more. They were probably taking too much of a loss and had to change their strategy. Eventually they had to pull out - thereby making persons more tentative about the new Windows OS.

The moral of the story is to buy a new "Vista-ready" system if you want the new OS or if you are upgrading use the Vista Upgrade Advisor to make sure that you wont run into any problems. The tech world is really beginning to get lazy - even in our thinking about Microsoft's products.

Yeah but in the software world, not many developers are going to Vista yet, its going to be quite a while until most 3rd party apps are Vista Ready, without Error that is. Right now most that are supporting Vista, are typically doing so to support existing client needs, not because they want to though.

Also, hardware wise, most laptops the brands are throwing at us now for $500-800 are just not ready for Vista yet, at least without a huge decrease in speed - though it can be tweaked as can XP to make it much faster, but they dont tell anyone that. The best tweak though is to format and load XP, but then good luck finding XP drivers for some brands ... eg. Gateway Laptops! ;)

I think that if you want a Vista PC, dont go cheap, expect to spend US$800-1000+ (right now) for anything that will run smooth and fast; and also don't expect all of your 3rd party apps to work for a while - in other words be prepared to dish out some cash on big name software or stick with MS apps.

I foresee XP to be around for much longer than 2008 at this rate though. :D
But hey, hardware pricing is dropping as we speak, so who knows, maybe sooner that later.

I think that if you want a Vista PC, dont go cheap, expect to spend US$800-1000+ (right now) for anything that will run smooth and fast; and also don't expect all of your 3rd party apps to work for a while - in other words be prepared to dish out some cash on big name software or stick with MS apps.

I foresee XP to be around for much longer than 2008 at this rate though. :D
But hey, hardware pricing is dropping as we speak, so who knows, maybe sooner that later.
I agree with this, especially the first part, but it is interesting to see hardware and software vendors messing with Microsoft, instead of pushing out new drivers and software which are compatible with the new OS.

If hardware vendors in particular are not careful, Microsoft does have the capability to become like Apple and enter the desktop and laptop market. Imagine the freak-out dance that those vendors would do if Microsoft unleashed a Microsoft PC with no hardware or software compatibility problems.

Entering the PC market probably would get Microsoft another lawsuit related to monopoly, but it would also highlight that vendors and techies consistently have not told the general public what they really should do to get the best Microsoft experience. Most just fly by the seat of their pants, pushing inexpensive pc parts and untested software on the consumers and then using Microsoft as the scapegoat.

You get what you pay for in the computer world -point blank.

(I know some Linux and Apple faithfuls will call me a Microsoft evangelist for saying the above, but it's all true - except for the Microsoft evangelist part. :angel: )

I cannot compete with you two tech guys but have heard from a friend that some hardware and software previously used on XP cannot work on Vista. That would be my concern. I could not possibly afford to buy new MS Office programs, Adobe Photoshop, Dreamweaver and so on...not too mention all the hardware I have plugged into my computer! So I hope XP is around for a long time.

I cannot compete with you two tech guys but have heard from a friend that some hardware and software previously used on XP cannot work on Vista. That would be my concern. I could not possibly afford to buy new MS Office programs, Adobe Photoshop, Dreamweaver and so on...not too mention all the hardware I have plugged into my computer! So I hope XP is around for a long time.

Oh, it will be around for a while. Perhaps it will not be supported by Microsoft with updated etc. but it will still work. I met a guy the other day - he is still using Win 95. My wife uses Win 98 And I know person that still has Win3x none of which are supported by Microsoft anymore. I intend to keep XP for a long time yet.:)

Oh, it will be around for a while. Perhaps it will not be supported by Microsoft with updated etc. but it will still work. I met a guy the other day - he is still using Win 95. My wife uses Win 98 And I know person that still has Win3x none of which are supported by Microsoft anymore. I intend to keep XP for a long time yet.:)

The problem is not MS Support though. If thats all it is then yes 95 rocks~!

I used 95 until ME came out, and i used ME until XP SP2 came out .. each time I upgraded because of support for other software, not Windows itself.

Many updated software programs tend to be developed on the latest hardware, and hence they typically require that kind of hardware to run at any usable speed. Finding drivers for that newer hardware to work on the older OS, is the difficult part. In basic terms many new versions of popular software such as MS Office, Nortons, IE, Java, etc, are slower than their predecessors, and require adequate hardware. They all tend to list a minimum requirement for hardware, but you can pretty much put that down to marketing, as in the real world you cant be productive if your applications run that slow, or crash all the time.

I develop my software on an older 2.0Ghz system, and i notice the considerable speed increase when running it on newer systems such as the P4, and now the Core 2 Duo. Though it works fine on systems as low as 1.5Ghz tested. But most developers don't use old hardware like me, and even so I will be upgrading in the very near future, if anything to meet the requirements for Vista, but also in my case for 64+ camera video streaming, which currently pushes my hardware to the max! Other newer apps I test also have issues running on a system this old, even XP itself, hence it required extra tweaking. Many other things also come into play as well, including but not limited to the Video Adapter, and Security related issues using older web browsers.

Lets face it though, what it costs for a tech to come and service an old PC, replace a part here and there, in the long run its just cheaper to buy a new PC these days, and highly recommended.

The problem is not MS Support though. If thats all it is then yes 95 rocks~!

I used 95 until ME came out, and i used ME until XP SP2 came out .. each time I upgraded because of support for other software, not Windows itself.


True, but if one has an old system with old software that works for that person then support and upgrades and other supports are not needed.

I run XP. I also have a lot of software from places other than Microsoft. I seldom upgrade that software because the original works for me. Also, once I upgraded Nero and it crashed my computer so I am not too keen on upgrading after that! My computer was out for a week! I almost died!!!!!! lol. lol.

True, but if one has an old system with old software that works for that person then support and upgrades and other supports are not needed.
I run XP. I also have a lot of software from places other than Microsoft. I seldom upgrade that software because the original works for me. Also, once I upgraded Nero and it crashed my computer so I am not too keen on upgrading after that! My computer was out for a week! I almost died!!!!!! lol. lol.


Yes but for example, if they are going to go anywhere on the internet these days, they will want a fairly recent browser, and new Flash and java, if they want that stuff to work smoothly, if at all. Those, well Java particularly, require a much faster PC than the typical older 98 PC; sucks up all the memory until in many cases it would crash (I have a client that uses a browser based app which uses IE and Java, its an old 98 booksize PC and well its slow, so slow that Java locks up the PC frequently, and when it doesnt, it takes forever to load and process data). Also, older browsers are like having secks in a crack house without a condom, you will no doubt catch a virus, or something bad :D Then there is the screen resolutions of 800x600 and in some cases 640x480 ..

Minimal upgrades to software like Nero arent normally required, if anything it just has fixes for bugs that might not effect you, or additional features for DVDs etc. If you try and install a version made for todays Windows OS though, on a Windows 95 machine, highly unlikely it would work properly.

As to why it "crashed" your PC, cant say as I would need to know more, but in no way should you have been out for a week from that - it takes approx just 30 minutes to install XP, or approx 1 and 1/2 hours to install XP plus all the additional software and all the updates - back up data and restore not included. That said, I cant remember a single time installing software on Windows XP caused such an error that required a Windows Reinstall; ME, 98, and 95, for certain though. Next time call a PC Tech ;)

, but in no way should you have been out for a week from that - it takes approx just 30 minutes to install XP, or approx 1 and 1/2 hours to install XP plus all the additional software and all the updates ..... Next time call a PC Tech ;)

The guy that does the work for me, the only one I trust, was off the island.