"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:19:37 -0500, cybercat wrote:
>
>> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and
>> is
>> fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system
>> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but
>> with
>> a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does
>> fine.
>>
>> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both
>> mail
>> and news in the same interface, like OE.)
>
> i have vista home premium (32-bit) on my new (in december) desktop
> machine,
> and i found it very irritating until i turned off User Account Control
> (UAC). (yes, i know there are security issues involved). now it now
> longer asks for permission before i can scratch my butt. 3gb sdram and
> 2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
> piggishness vista possesses.
>
> there were a few other tweaks, and at least one program i used to use that
> has no version for vista, but i'm reasonably content with it.


The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable machines
to run it are very cheap these days as is memory which you'll need as much
as you can cram into it. Where Vista does not fit in is in a corporate
environment which is nothing less than a support nightmare and requires
heavy investments in new hardware and retraining.

Windows 7 is looking good. I instructed all my clients to pass on Vista for
as long as possible and now it appears Vista will have the shortest life of
any of M$'s OSs save for ME. The W7 rollout hopefully will coincide with
some finanancial lubrication and that means a lot of work for me.

Paul