|
Dunyasha |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 177
Member No.: 1179
Joined: 04-August 07
|
I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
ravenous |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 150
Member No.: 1098
Joined: 10-February 08
|
Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan"
| QUOTE | I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
blue |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 103
Member No.: 1271
Joined: 10-August 07
|
"Wrecklass"
| QUOTE | Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?" |
Its simple......people should do their homework
Hey, do you believe car salesmen when buying a car ?
|
|
|
|
gweilo8888 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Member No.: 349
Joined: 27-January 08
|
Hi,
Vista was designed to take advantage of the newer hardware, something XP could no longer do. This has pretty much been the pattern for any OS release, not just Windows. Hardware from 4-5 years ago got cheaper, so selling XP systems with spec's from that time got cheaper. Newer high-end hardware needed for a newer OS is, and should be, more expensive. Problem is that people still want to buy cheap. They want Lamborghini performance from their Ford Escort, and that's just not realistic.
Dell's selling model has been and always will be to advertise low and upsell at the purchase, this is a common technique not isolated to them alone. They rely on the person going through thier online ordering steps or over the phone to select at least 2-3 upgrades for the "small additional cost". I've seen someone with the intent of not spending over $900 come away with a system running close to $1700 after taking all the offers.
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - rickrogers.org
"Wrecklass"
| QUOTE | Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
Jusuff |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1185
Member No.: 926
Joined: 03-May 08
|
Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Wrecklass"
| QUOTE | Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
|
|
Mike |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 197
Member No.: 835
Joined: 30-October 07
|
"Will"
| QUOTE | "Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
Its simple......people should do their homework
Hey, do you believe car salesmen when buying a car ?
It's a fair point to make, but the lack of "WOW" will all be down to a |
system that is way under rated for the o.s. to shine. Everywhere you look now on the Dell site it's Vista.. unless of course you want XP (hidden away) and then they charge you an extra £50.00 for the pleasure of a downgrade!!!! Crazy!
|
|
|
|
gopelaez |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 94
Member No.: 582
Joined: 01-April 08
|
"Rick Rogers"
| QUOTE | Hi,
Vista was designed to take advantage of the newer hardware, something XP could no longer do. This has pretty much been the pattern for any OS release, not just Windows. Hardware from 4-5 years ago got cheaper, so selling XP systems with spec's from that time got cheaper. Newer high-end hardware needed for a newer OS is, and should be, more expensive. Problem is that people still want to buy cheap. They want Lamborghini performance from their Ford Escort, and that's just not realistic. Very very true... it's the same old line I hear when I go to a site.... oh I |
got this cheap! And you think to yourself.... no... you are going to spend more now trying to get it up and running to a decent spec.... When you start to add-on to a Dell system, the prices become horrific!!! The thought that local PC builders could vanish due to the Dell hard selling techniques is thankfully somethign that won't happen once people get burnt once with their nice looking CHEAP PC.
| QUOTE | Dell's selling model has been and always will be to advertise low and upsell at the purchase, this is a common technique not isolated to them alone. They rely on the person going through thier online ordering steps or over the phone to select at least 2-3 upgrades for the "small additional cost". I've seen someone with the intent of not spending over $900 come away with a system running close to $1700 after taking all the offers.
Yep - and people pay it..... "There is one born every day....." |
| QUOTE | Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - rickrogers.org |
|
|
|
|
Lanttu |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 47
Member No.: 515
Joined: 07-April 08
|
Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:
| QUOTE | Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple.. |
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
| QUOTE |
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
ladyhotsocks |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 161
Member No.: 1272
Joined: 06-May 08
|
"Alias"
| QUOTE | Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
It's a fair point - While I still like using Vista, I think it has taken a |
step backwards for ease of IT support and speedy configuration and diagnostics. The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias) it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of Vista appeals to the masses... The demands of the O.S. are all to do with the fancy GFX side of things in my opinion, but I would like MS to drop this multiple versions nonsense and have one o.s. that we ALL USE and can all get the help and support in one place!
|
|
|
|
crew2382 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 111
Member No.: 1324
Joined: 22-September 07
|
Alias
It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..
"Alias"
| QUOTE | Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
|
|
rofar |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1146
Member No.: 889
Joined: 10-February 08
|
It seems the lesson of this discussion, if your aim is to save money, buy one of the new, cheap computers, then install XP on it. The cheap computer will have plenty of resources to run XP adequately, and the OS downgrade from Vista to XP will cost much less than adding the memory and other features needed to make a cheap computer run Vista adequately.
Larry
|
|
|
|
ingenvzla |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 144
Member No.: 881
Joined: 07-January 08
|
Certainly is just like all the others. While I was at school, they upgraded all the machines from Windows 95 to 98, without upgrading the hardware. For starters, these machines had minimum memory for 95, so shouldn't even have been capable of running 98, having half the required memory, let alone recommended. They ended up painfully slow - sometimes taking several minutes just to log on (from entering username and password to being able to do anything - not counting boot time)
Can installing Vista on underrated hardware be expected to be any different? I guess now people want the latest flashy software, but don't want to pay for the hardware to run it. We have an 8 year old Windows 98 PC which still does its job. Doesn't need upgrading. Doesn't need a flashy new OS. I certainly wouldn't expect Vista to run on it though.
Although I do agree that new computers sold with Vista should be capable of running it at a reasonable speed from the start, without requiring immediate upgrades or "optional" extras.
Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:
| QUOTE | Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
somainfopr |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 152
Member No.: 787
Joined: 01-February 08
|
Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:
| QUOTE | Alias
It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing.. |
LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?
Does it surf the web faster? No.
Does it send email quicker? No.
What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?
Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
| QUOTE | "Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
moore |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1191
Member No.: 1316
Joined: 09-March 08
|
Gordon Keenan wrote:
| QUOTE | | The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias) it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of Vista appeals to the masses... |
Have you tried Ubuntu 6.06?
Alias
|
|
|
|
Bipod |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Member No.: 251
Joined: 05-November 07
|
"Alias"
| QUOTE | Gordon Keenan wrote: The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias) it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of Vista appeals to the masses...
Have you tried Ubuntu 6.06?
Alias |
Ok - Will download it and try.. Will report back on my LINUX-WOW experience!!!
|
|
|
|
d.j. houston |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 970
Member No.: 847
Joined: 01-April 08
|
"Gordon Keenan"
| QUOTE | | The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it? |
I suggest they hire me to advise on computer purchases in the future. <g> I promise I won't equip the whole company with super-high-end gaming machines ready for when all the workers want to play Crysis. 8-)
| QUOTE | | As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user! |
It is disgusting seeing these ultra-cheap ultra-low powered machines being sold. You just know that who ever buys those machines is going to have problems and is going to hate the experience.
Paul Smith, Yeovil, UK. Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User. windowsresource.net/
*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
|
|
|
|
phardi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 751
Member No.: 35
Joined: 27-December 07
|
MS One Care is an option.. I don't and wouldn't use it anymore than I want or use Sympatico's firewall and av option.. it is a user choice..
If a user wants top performance, it always costs, regardless of product type.. it is a user choice..
DRM does not affect me, as I choose not to play files that are affected.. it is a user choice..
UAC can be left running or turned off.. it is a user choice..
Most people have only to call an automated service in the event.. I have just one time..
Fast PC + fast connection.. yes, web surfing is faster and a better experience all around.. both are user choices..
Does it send e-mail quicker? lolololololol.. you really are having to dig now.. too funny..
Graphics, looks, memory management, better and more accomplished base for the future..
Alias, I choose to help people with their MS problems.. MY choice..
BTW, I noticed you asking a Linux user about maintenance schedules a couple of weeks back.. do you know what to do now?
"Alias"
| QUOTE | Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Alias
It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..
LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?
Does it surf the web faster? No.
Does it send email quicker? No.
What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?
Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
|
|
Andriy |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 37
Member No.: 415
Joined: 26-May 08
|
Mark
Vendors are responsible.. they purposely fit minimum RAM to keep the price down.. one has only to look at the top model of any vendor to see what will render best performance with any particular OS..
The argument they use is basically that of giving the purchaser a choice..
"Mark Bourne"
| QUOTE | Certainly is just like all the others. While I was at school, they upgraded all the machines from Windows 95 to 98, without upgrading the hardware. For starters, these machines had minimum memory for 95, so shouldn't even have been capable of running 98, having half the required memory, let alone recommended. They ended up painfully slow - sometimes taking several minutes just to log on (from entering username and password to being able to do anything - not counting boot time)
Can installing Vista on underrated hardware be expected to be any different? I guess now people want the latest flashy software, but don't want to pay for the hardware to run it. We have an 8 year old Windows 98 PC which still does its job. Doesn't need upgrading. Doesn't need a flashy new OS. I certainly wouldn't expect Vista to run on it though.
Although I do agree that new computers sold with Vista should be capable of running it at a reasonable speed from the start, without requiring immediate upgrades or "optional" extras.
Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
|
|
mombasa |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11
Member No.: 981
Joined: 30-July 07
|
Question still remains. What compelling thing does Vista do that XP does not ?
|
|
|
|
realdju |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 24
Member No.: 858
Joined: 29-November 07
|
Gordon Keenan wrote:
| QUOTE | "Alias" Gordon Keenan wrote: The same can be said about Linux as well (heheh.. had to say that Alias) it's not end user nice in any way or form, and it's why the fanciness of Vista appeals to the masses...
Have you tried Ubuntu 6.06?
Alias
Ok - Will download it and try.. Will report back on my LINUX-WOW experience!!!
|
Look forward to it. Once you have it installed, install this:
getautomatix.com/apt/dists/dapper/main/binary-i386/automatix2_1.1-2.4-6.06dapper_i386.deb
And you will have access to codecs, a Windows Media Player clone, Real Player and other goodies.
Alias
|
|
|
|
AsydayFal |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 56
Member No.: 488
Joined: 23-November 07
|
Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:
| QUOTE | | MS One Care is an option.. I don't and wouldn't use it anymore than I want or use Sympatico's firewall and av option.. it is a user choice.. |
Also true with XP.
| QUOTE | | If a user wants top performance, it always costs, regardless of product type.. it is a user choice.. |
Also true with XP.
| QUOTE | | DRM does not affect me, as I choose not to play files that are affected.. it is a user choice.. |
We know you kiss Big Brother's arse. Tell us something we don't already know.
| QUOTE | | UAC can be left running or turned off.. it is a user choice.. |
But it's enabled by default and, whether it's disabled or enabled, it doesn't protect the user one iota.
| QUOTE | | Most people have only to call an automated service in the event.. I have just one time.. |
Sure, pull the other one, Mike, it has bells on it.
| QUOTE | | Fast PC + fast connection.. yes, web surfing is faster and a better experience all around.. both are user choices.. |
Also true with XP.
| QUOTE | | Does it send e-mail quicker? lolololololol.. you really are having to dig now.. too funny.. |
Is that a "no"?
| QUOTE | | Graphics, looks, memory management, better and more accomplished base for the future.. |
Sure. That's what MS said about Windows Me.
| QUOTE | | Alias, I choose to help people with their MS problems.. MY choice.. |
I haven't seen you do more than arse kiss MS with your "help".
| QUOTE | | BTW, I noticed you asking a Linux user about maintenance schedules a couple of weeks back.. do you know what to do now? |
Can't help yourself, eh, stalking me over on the Ubuntu group? Yeah, nothing needs to be done, unlike Windows.
Alias
| QUOTE | "Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Alias
It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..
LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?
Does it surf the web faster? No.
Does it send email quicker? No.
What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?
Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
farmboy72 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 150
Member No.: 1030
Joined: 30-March 08
|
That al depends on what a user sees as compelling.. a little subjective, don't you think..
Take a look here..
microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/windowsvista/torres_duel.mspx
You are trying to make case where everybody should be happy with the lowest form of anything.. in the free world, we like a choice..
"KingsHead"
| QUOTE | | Question still remains. What compelling thing does Vista do that XP does not ? |
Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
|
|
Koalas923 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 1319
Joined: 09-January 08
|
Alias
I don't stalk.. you posted your question right here in this newsgroup.. did you think that you were only posting to Linux advocacy?
"Alias"
| QUOTE | Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: MS One Care is an option.. I don't and wouldn't use it anymore than I want or use Sympatico's firewall and av option.. it is a user choice..
Also true with XP.
If a user wants top performance, it always costs, regardless of product type.. it is a user choice..
Also true with XP.
DRM does not affect me, as I choose not to play files that are affected.. it is a user choice..
We know you kiss Big Brother's arse. Tell us something we don't already know.
UAC can be left running or turned off.. it is a user choice..
But it's enabled by default and, whether it's disabled or enabled, it doesn't protect the user one iota.
Most people have only to call an automated service in the event.. I have just one time..
Sure, pull the other one, Mike, it has bells on it.
Fast PC + fast connection.. yes, web surfing is faster and a better experience all around.. both are user choices..
Also true with XP.
Does it send e-mail quicker? lolololololol.. you really are having to dig now.. too funny..
Is that a "no"?
Graphics, looks, memory management, better and more accomplished base for the future..
Sure. That's what MS said about Windows Me.
Alias, I choose to help people with their MS problems.. MY choice..
I haven't seen you do more than arse kiss MS with your "help".
BTW, I noticed you asking a Linux user about maintenance schedules a couple of weeks back.. do you know what to do now?
Can't help yourself, eh, stalking me over on the Ubuntu group? Yeah, nothing needs to be done, unlike Windows.
Alias
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Alias
It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..
LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?
Does it surf the web faster? No.
Does it send email quicker? No.
What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?
Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
|
|
|
|
krikke |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 129
Member No.: 1312
Joined: 18-January 08
|
Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:
| QUOTE | Alias
I don't stalk.. you posted your question right here in this newsgroup.. did you think that you were only posting to Linux advocacy? |
More lies. I posted that in an Ubuntu newsgroup. You went there to seek me out, being as you didn't post one single post there.
Alias
| QUOTE |
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: MS One Care is an option.. I don't and wouldn't use it anymore than I want or use Sympatico's firewall and av option.. it is a user choice..
Also true with XP.
If a user wants top performance, it always costs, regardless of product type.. it is a user choice..
Also true with XP.
DRM does not affect me, as I choose not to play files that are affected.. it is a user choice..
We know you kiss Big Brother's arse. Tell us something we don't already know.
UAC can be left running or turned off.. it is a user choice..
But it's enabled by default and, whether it's disabled or enabled, it doesn't protect the user one iota.
Most people have only to call an automated service in the event.. I have just one time..
Sure, pull the other one, Mike, it has bells on it.
Fast PC + fast connection.. yes, web surfing is faster and a better experience all around.. both are user choices..
Also true with XP.
Does it send e-mail quicker? lolololololol.. you really are having to dig now.. too funny..
Is that a "no"?
Graphics, looks, memory management, better and more accomplished base for the future..
Sure. That's what MS said about Windows Me.
Alias, I choose to help people with their MS problems.. MY choice..
I haven't seen you do more than arse kiss MS with your "help".
BTW, I noticed you asking a Linux user about maintenance schedules a couple of weeks back.. do you know what to do now?
Can't help yourself, eh, stalking me over on the Ubuntu group? Yeah, nothing needs to be done, unlike Windows.
Alias
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Alias
It is way more capable.. live with it, or say nothing..
LOL! Capable of what, having One Care flag MS product files? Of emptying your pockets to buy Vista and Ninja hardware? Of making sure you don't play DRM protected media files? Of driving you crazy with UAC? Of forcing you to call and grovel to some operator in India every time you update the BIOS, hardware or a driver?
Does it surf the web faster? No.
Does it send email quicker? No.
What, exactly makes Vista more capable than Ubuntu or XP?
Alias, not expecting an answer other than to be called a troll or otherwise insulted, the SOP when an MS fan boy is called to the floor.
"Alias" Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote: Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple..
"Capable"? You mean more resource hungry, not more capable.
Alias
"Wrecklass" Valid points. It seems to me that there is a lot of truth in the Rumors that Vista was designed to help sell more hardware. Totally flying in the face of the new lower priced PC's being made by the bigger hardware vendors. I suspect Dell is happily selling these cheap systems knowing full well that they will end up selling expensive upgrades on every one.
I am sad, and a bit surprised by the number of people I see saying "But Vista is newer, so it should be faster, right?" I can only look at them in disbelief. MS really sold people on this idea, but they were banking on most people buying higher end systems, which would mask the performance problems in Vista.
The only WOW I've heard from people is "Wow, this is really going to cost me a lot of money, isn't it?"
"Gordon Keenan" I have (over the last three weeks) had the opportunity to work at different places that have recently purchased new Dell Computer Equipment. A few small business's and some home users, so it's been a combinations of Vista Business and Home Edition.
My experiences have left me extremely cold on what Dell considers to be an acceptable platform for the Vista operating system.
All of the equipment is way under powered for decent use, though I have to say it would be fine for Windows XP.
512MB RAM - it's crippling the system! On-board video - Aero - zero chance of that happening for these users and certainly no WOW factor!
The thing is, the people buying the equipment don't know any better but they all said the same thing... Why is the new computer running so slow? Surely it should be really fast with the new vista on it?
As I run Vista Business on a dual-core Athlon 5600+ with 2GB of ram, and I find it sluggish at times, all I could do is tell them that in future, they should ask advice before just buying something cheap.
As for Dell, a company that is trying to tell people that it KNOWS about computers, they should hang their heads in shame.. but the good thing is that independent computer builders now have a chance of making good spec pc's that will work better for the end user!
|
|
|
|
|
Schilling |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 904
Member No.: 833
Joined: 26-June 08
|
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:01:17 -0400, "Mike Hall - MS MVP" wrote:
| QUOTE | Vista was released as the next stage up in Windows OS, just like all of the others.. it flies in the face of lower end computers no more than XP did on its release..
To have a more capable OS requires more capable hardware.. it is that simple.. |
That's your considered opinion? ROTFLMAO!
I can make it even simpler. Over the years Windows has been endlessly patched and held together with bailing wire and duct tape. The result of patching older patches with newer ones results in code bloat. As Windows evolves, the underlying code gets more complex, much due to trying to stay backward compatible with appplications and devices that used to work, that now may no longer, not always. Add in the push to improve "security" and you have a real mess.
At some point, I sadly suspect we are now there, the complexity of the OS is so entangled with elements of itself NOBODY, not even Microsoft's own software engineers know for sure how it will react in a set of particular circumstances, thus the dawning of a new era where Windows now does "weird" things for SOME people that are so convoluted in nature trying to understand the 'how come' part and come up with a fix that always works for everybody is getting close to impossible. Windows' Vista main problem is its size. A normal install now weights in at around 8.5 GB, which of course is absurd.
The time for "fixing" Windows is past. Long past. I suspect the next version of Windows will be even more radical a departure in what software and hardware requirements will be and sooner or later Microsoft will do what it should have done at least 10 years back. Start over from scratch, totally, instead of endless tinkering, patching and buying tons of duct tape to try to hold things together.
|
|
|
|
darya777 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1048
Member No.: 299
Joined: 17-October 07
|
"Alias"
| QUOTE | | More lies. I posted that in an Ubuntu newsgroup. You went there to seek me out, being as you didn't post one single post there. |
Newsflash - some MVPs work with Linux.
Paul Smith, Yeovil, UK. Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User. windowsresource.net/
*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
|
|
|
Help
Search
Members
