It's not Vista there's something wrong with, it's the hardware requirements.

  • Thread starter Thread starter ceed
  • Start date Start date
C

ceed

Hi,

I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems whatsoever.
Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and installed Vista
on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered "old"). Lots of
problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly since it was new. I
had to go back to XP. Simple as that.

I just read this blog post:

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962

It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving to
Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the quality of
the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main concern for
consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware needed I should not
upgrade. The situation is actually similar to what people experience
with some of the new games coming out. Let's take Crysis, unless you
have the latest and greatest in graphics acceleration hardware on your
computer it simply won't run! That doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does
it?

This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.
 
If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't been using
Vista.
 
ceed said:
Hi,

I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems whatsoever.
Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and installed Vista
on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered "old"). Lots of
problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly since it was new. I
had to go back to XP. Simple as that.

I just read this blog post:

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962

It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving to
Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the quality of
the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main concern for
consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware needed I should not
upgrade. The situation is actually similar to what people experience
with some of the new games coming out. Let's take Crysis, unless you
have the latest and greatest in graphics acceleration hardware on your
computer it simply won't run! That doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does
it?

This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.
Click to expand...


Your old laptop may have run Vista better if it had more resources. Bear in
mind that the manufactures offer one model at varying levels of overall
competence..


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Waldorf Astoria wrote:

|If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't
|been using Vista.
|
|
|||Hi,
||
||I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems
||whatsoever. Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and
||installed Vista on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered
||"old"). Lots of problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly
||since it was new. I had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
||
||I just read this blog post:
||
||http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
||
||It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving
||to Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the
||quality of the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main
||concern for consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware
||needed I should not upgrade. The situation is actually similar to
||what people experience with some of the new games coming out. Let's
||take Crysis, unless you have the latest and greatest in graphics
||acceleration hardware on your computer it simply won't run! That
||doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does it?
||
||This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
||actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is
||not able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready"
||sticker on it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's
||bad of course, but doesn't take away the fact that I really like
||Vista on my new laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job
||done.
||
||
||-- //ceed

I've been using Vista on 5 different machines since it came out. I use
Vista for work and are online with OS at least 12 hours every day.

As I've said on the newer hardware I have not had problems at all
except for UAC and stuff which is easy to disable.

Come to think of it, why do I even respond to someone who claims to
know if someone else has been using Vista or not.
 
Hi,

Just a comment, as I don't disagree with your observations:

Part of the problem is that the terms "Vista Ready" and "Vista Capable"
weren't defined well by Microsoft and the system vendors. The consumer
expectation was, and I think reasonably so, that it mean the system would be
able to run Vista and all of it's high end graphics and peformance standards
in full glory. The actual intent of those terms is that those systems would
be able to run Vista, but without all the higher end functions enabled. Just
as my old 1997 AMD 333 processor w/128MB of ram would run XP, just without
all the fancy, or as they were called at the time, comic-book graphics.

In a similar fashion, if you want to think of it this way, a Ford Escort is
capable of 90mph, but it won't do it like a Mustang will.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
ceed said:
Waldorf Astoria wrote:

|If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't
|been using Vista.
|
|
|||Hi,
||
||I got a new powerful laptop with Vista on it. No problems
||whatsoever. Everything works and looks good. So I got excited and
||installed Vista on my old laptop (if 18 months years is considered
||"old"). Lots of problems on a laptop which had run XP flawlessly
||since it was new. I had to go back to XP. Simple as that.
||
||I just read this blog post:
||
||http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/93962
||
||It shows that the main reason for major corporations against moving
||to Vista is hardware cost related, not necessarily tied to the
||quality of the OS. To be realistic, I think this should be the main
||concern for consumers as well: If I can't afford the hardware
||needed I should not upgrade. The situation is actually similar to
||what people experience with some of the new games coming out. Let's
||take Crysis, unless you have the latest and greatest in graphics
||acceleration hardware on your computer it simply won't run! That
||doesn't make Crysis a bad game, does it?
||
||This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
||actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is
||not able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready"
||sticker on it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's
||bad of course, but doesn't take away the fact that I really like
||Vista on my new laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job
||done.
||
||
||-- //ceed

I've been using Vista on 5 different machines since it came out. I use
Vista for work and are online with OS at least 12 hours every day.

As I've said on the newer hardware I have not had problems at all
except for UAC and stuff which is easy to disable.

Come to think of it, why do I even respond to someone who claims to
know if someone else has been using Vista or not.
Click to expand...

You can install and use Windows Me but that doesn't make it a good OS.

Alias
 
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

|
|
|Your old laptop may have run Vista better if it had more resources.
|Bear in mind that the manufactures offer one model at varying levels
|of overall competence..

You are absolutely right. But when something comes with a sticker
saying it's ready for Vista I was stupid enough to believe it. I did
add another gig of memory on it, but it still didn't work right, and
the manufacturer still doesn't have all the needed Vista updates for it.
 
If you can say there is nothing wrong with OSX, Ubuntu, or ANY other OS or
for that matter, ANY thing you can think of in the universe, then you are
dead........

Kurt
 
Rick Rogers wrote:

|Hi,
|
|Just a comment, as I don't disagree with your observations:
|
|Part of the problem is that the terms "Vista Ready" and "Vista
|Capable" weren't defined well by Microsoft and the system vendors.
|The consumer expectation was, and I think reasonably so, that it mean
|the system would be able to run Vista and all of it's high end
|graphics and peformance standards in full glory. The actual intent of
|those terms is that those systems would be able to run Vista, but
|without all the higher end functions enabled. Just as my old 1997 AMD
|333 processor w/128MB of ram would run XP, just without all the
|fancy, or as they were called at the time, comic-book graphics.
|
|In a similar fashion, if you want to think of it this way, a Ford
|Escort is capable of 90mph, but it won't do it like a Mustang will.

Very good points!

However, on my older laptop I was not even able to run some of it's
built in functionality like web cab and multimedia buttons under Vista.
Eventually updates were made available, but they didn't work well, so I
went back to XP.
 
Hi ceed,
However, on my older laptop I was not even able to run some of it's
built in functionality like web cab and multimedia buttons under Vista.
Eventually updates were made available, but they didn't work well, so I
went back to XP.
Click to expand...

On the webcam, it likely needed a firmware update - many of these did. The
multimedia buttons are a function of the keyboard driver, and they won't
work as they should unless a Vista-specific driver is written to enable
them.

Sometimes a machine will simply function better with one OS over the other.
I try to stick with what works.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

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

<snip>
 
Waldorf Astoria said:
If you can say there is nothing wrong with Vista then you haven't been
using Vista.
Click to expand...

Every OS has problems of one kind or another, the majority of which can
be overcome if you seek advice from knowledgeable people or research the
issues yourself.
By the same token, all newsgroups have problem posters, such as
yourself. Your post is of no assistance whatsoever and offers nothing of
value.

C.B.
 
Every OS has problems of one kind or another, the majority of which can
be overcome if you seek advice from knowledgeable people or research the
issues yourself.
By the same token, all newsgroups have problem posters, such as
yourself. Your post is of no assistance whatsoever and offers nothing of
value.

C.B.
Click to expand...

What C. B. meant to say was this newsgroup has a well established
clique of up tight, mostly know nothing posters that think this place
is suppose to be fan club for Microsoft and everybody not a
cheerleader is fair game with this clique trying to attack or
discredit anyone not supporting their narrow and often backward views.
 
Adam said:
What C. B. meant to say was this newsgroup has a well established
clique of up tight, mostly know nothing posters that think this place
is suppose to be fan club for Microsoft and everybody not a
cheerleader is fair game with this clique trying to attack or
discredit anyone not supporting their narrow and often backward views.
Click to expand...

Oh my good! Someone should look at your history in this NG as you
routinely attack people and their character. You are no Saint Albright
far from it.
 
Adam Albright said:
What C. B. meant to say was this newsgroup has a well established
clique of up tight, mostly know nothing posters that think this place
is suppose to be fan club for Microsoft and everybody not a
cheerleader is fair game with this clique trying to attack or
discredit anyone not supporting their narrow and often backward views.
Click to expand...

What Adam Albright means is that he puts people down for any view that isn't
HIS view and Adam runs the Retard Fan Club and everyone is fair game for an
attack by Adam. That is exactly what the douche bag Adam means. Just FYI
 
ceed said:
This brings me to my main problem with Microsoft and Vista: They
actually led us to believe we could run Vista on hardware which is not
able to handle it at all. My old laptop had a "Vista Ready" sticker on
it. It wasn't even close to be ready for Vista. That's bad of course,
but doesn't take away the fact that I really like Vista on my new
laptop. It's stable, it looks good, it gets the job done.
Click to expand...

Psst! Microsoft didn't put the "Vista Ready" sticker on your laptop.
 
HeyBub wrote:

|Psst! Microsoft didn't put the "Vista Ready" sticker on your laptop.

No they didn't, but they probably didn't tell the PC manufacturers not
to use those stickers either. Or do you think HP, Dell and the others
put them on there randomly without any involvement from Microsoft at
all? I don't. This article indicates that Microsoft isn't completely
innocent when it comes to these stickers:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/were_vista_capable_stickers_incapable.html
 
Back
Top