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.)

In article >,
"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 am a Mac user, but I use Vista every day in small doses for work. My
Vista installation has hardly any software on it. Just MS Office 2007,
and two Java apps. Nothing else. I do not keep any data on that PC.
Period. I seriously doubt that anyone has a more bland and vanilla Vista
system as I do. Despite that, Vista has crashed on me hard several
times. I had to reinstall it at least three times before I finally got
it to a point where it is reasonably stable. I saw a demo of Windows 7
beta recently and it looks a lot better than Vista. The big thing about
Windows 7 that appeals to me is that Microsoft finally is taking out
those annoying pop up status balloons. They are so damned annoying in
Vista and XP. Windows 7 has those notifications, but they can be
configured to appear from within a system utility instead of being so
intrusive on the screen. Then again, I get almost all the functionality
of Windows 7 already on my Mac via Mac OS X. Vista only users had to
wait years for much of the functionality we Mac users have, and on top
of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.

On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.

Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight face.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>
> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight face.

That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
looking until he could find one with XP on it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-01-23, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>
>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>
>> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight face.
>
> That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
> heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
> what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
> selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
> selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
> looking until he could find one with XP on it.

Whoosh!!

The height of absurdity is a Mac owner making despariging remarks about the
hight cost of another platform.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
> >>
> >> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
> >>
> >> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight
> >> face.
> >
> > That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
> > heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
> > what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
> > selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
> > selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
> > looking until he could find one with XP on it.
>
> Whoosh!!
>
> The height of absurdity is a Mac owner making despariging remarks about the
> hight cost of another platform.

So who's doing that?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
> >>
> >> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
> >>
> >> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight
> >> face.
> >
> > That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
> > heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
> > what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
> > selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
> > selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
> > looking until he could find one with XP on it.
>
> Whoosh!!
>
> The height of absurdity is a Mac owner making despariging remarks about the
> hight cost of another platform.

Really? I am using a 15" 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro laptop now. It has 2GB RAM,
a high res display, a 250GB hard drive, and dual graphics cards. I
purchased it nearly a month ago. A laptop with similar specifications
and features as mine, but with a Sony, Toshiba, or HP label on it would
have been similarly priced, but the others don't include anywhere near
the amount and qualify of media software that came on my MacBook Pro
right out of the box.

On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.

Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>
> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>
> nb

On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>
>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>
>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>
>> nb
>
>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.

I don't think "PC" people care. Mac and PC platforms are used by
distinctly different user groups.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>
>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>
>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>
>> nb
>
>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.

Now go compare prices for PCs and Macs to run those systems and come
back and talk.

Boron

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:51:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>>
>>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>>
>>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.
>
>Now go compare prices for PCs and Macs to run those systems and come
>back and talk.
>

Who buys a computer without a pre-installed OS? I don't know a single
soul. I use my computers until they die and they die with the OS that
came with it. I don't "upgrade" operating systems. That would be
opening up a can of worms because I'd need to upgrade all sorts of
hardware and software too. Might as well buy a new computer.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:35:27 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
>> of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>
> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>
> nb

this got a chuckle from me as well.

your pal,
blake

In article
>
,
Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:

> > (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
> > and news in the same interface, like OE.)

We've all had wonderful experiences here with Windows Mail. "How could
you post such a thing?". "I never posted that!". "Yes you did". In
every case, somebody was using Windows Mail, which doesn't quote, so
what one person posted was attributed to another. Thanks, MicroSoft!


> I am a Mac user,

I was a Mac user for a long time, both at work and at home. For some
years, I worked on an application that only ran on under Windows, so I
mostly used a PC then. I did occasional conversion work. I
particularly remember helping people who were switching from PC to Mac,
or vice versa. Switching to the Mac was trivial. In fact, most people
refused to believe me when I said that I was done. I hadn't taught them
anything! Going the other way caused a lot of hard feelings. They
sometimes got very angry at me. I would try to explain that IT didn't
decide that they should switch from Mac to PC, their boss had made that
decision. They often didn't believe me. Why would their boss screw
them over like that? Well, either their boss was more familiar with a
PC, or usually, they saw that they could save a few hundred dollars in
purchase cost.

I am retired now, and my wife and I use two Macs. The kids are in and
out, and my oldest son keeps a PC here (in fact, he lives here, although
he's only here a couple of days a week, and works four consecutive 24
hour shifts, and keeps his fancy PC at work in his bedroom).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:31:54 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>I was a Mac user for a long time, both at work and at home. For some
>years, I worked on an application that only ran on under Windows, so I
>mostly used a PC then. I did occasional conversion work. I
>particularly remember helping people who were switching from PC to Mac,
>or vice versa. Switching to the Mac was trivial. In fact, most people
>refused to believe me when I said that I was done. I hadn't taught them
>anything! Going the other way caused a lot of hard feelings. They
>sometimes got very angry at me. I would try to explain that IT didn't
>decide that they should switch from Mac to PC, their boss had made that
>decision. They often didn't believe me. Why would their boss screw
>them over like that? Well, either their boss was more familiar with a
>PC, or usually, they saw that they could save a few hundred dollars in
>purchase cost.

I've wasted too much time in a Mac lab fighting with the OS when I
should have been learning a software application. I HATE Mac/Apple!


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>> It's not so bad after all.
>>
>> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both
>> mail
>> and news in the same interface, like OE.)
>

Yeah, Vista let's me killfile cybercat and lots of other people simply with
one click. I love Windows Mail.

Jill

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.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> 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.

Hey that's a great idea. I'll try it.

>3gb sdram and
> 2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
> piggishness vista possesses.

You have a faster processor than I do.

>
> 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.
>

I got such a great deal at Tiger Direct (they have a store here in Raleigh)
that I didn't blink when it said it came with Vista. (I bought a new desktop
last May, and insisted it had XP Pro on it, though. I do most of my work
there, so I figured I can afford to try out Vista. If for any reason it
sucks in time, I will just reformat it and put XP on.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:44:07 -0500, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>I got such a great deal at Tiger Direct (they have a store here in Raleigh)
>that I didn't blink when it said it came with Vista. (I bought a new desktop
>last May, and insisted it had XP Pro on it, though. I do most of my work
>there, so I figured I can afford to try out Vista. If for any reason it
>sucks in time, I will just reformat it and put XP on.

I want a hybrid (PC) next because they're small and cute - I
especially like what Dell has to offer. http://www.dell.com/hybrid


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:44:07 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> 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.
>
> Hey that's a great idea. I'll try it.
>

this is the drill, in case you don't know:

Open up Control Panel, and type in "UAC" into the search box. You'll see a
link for "Turn User Account Control (UAC) on or off":

On the next screen you should uncheck the box for "Use User Account Control
(UAC)", and then click on the OK button.

You'll need to reboot your computer before the changes take effect, but you
should be all done with annoying prompts.


>>3gb sdram and
>> 2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
>> piggishness vista possesses.
>
> You have a faster processor than I do.
>
well, it's very much quicker than my steam-powered millennium machine.
videos don't look like stop-motion photography anymore.

your pal,
blake

"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

On 2009-01-23, Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>
> The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable machines
> to run it are very cheap these days.....

Are they? I recall the $300 Vista boxes at Walmart. I also recall the
scandal over boxes (computers) that were lableled Vista ready when, in fact,
they were not. Plus, these same low end boxes come with Vista home edition,
the version that has none of the neato trick features that are supposed to
make Vista a good reason to upgrade. In the end, the need to buy a new
piece of hardware just to take advantage of a questionable new operation
system is just plain stupid. M$ and Intel have been foisting this scam off
on the public for a couple decades, now, and it's finally bit them both in
the ass.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-01-23, Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>>
>> The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable
>> machines
>> to run it are very cheap these days.....
>
> Are they? I recall the $300 Vista boxes at Walmart. I also recall the
> scandal over boxes (computers) that were lableled Vista ready when, in
> fact,
> they were not. Plus, these same low end boxes come with Vista home
> edition,
> the version that has none of the neato trick features that are supposed to
> make Vista a good reason to upgrade.

Anyone who buys a computer at WalMart deserves what the get. By cheap I
mean 700 bucks for a box with a fast core-2 duo, 4 gig of ram, 300 gig hard
drive, nice graphics card and usb ports galore, Vista Business plus a
warranty and tech support. Go get what you pay for.

In the end, the need to buy a new
> piece of hardware just to take advantage of a questionable new operation
> system is just plain stupid. M$ and Intel have been foisting this scam
> off
> on the public for a couple decades, now, and it's finally bit them both in
> the ass.

It is stupid. I see nothing in Vista that people actually need. It's
really got nothing new just a lot of changes to the old stuff. Neither do
most people disagree. They get Vista when they buy a new system which they
would have done anyway and sales have been flat since the time they released
Vista.

This time M$ blew it. It's really their first big blunder. The world just
reached saturation point and preferred stability to whiz bang. And the
corporate world had just finished amortizing their huge investment in XP
when they were presented with having to do it all over again.

Paul

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:49:08 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-01-23, Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>>
>> The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable machines
>> to run it are very cheap these days.....
>
>Are they? I recall the $300 Vista boxes at Walmart. I also recall the
>scandal over boxes (computers) that were lableled Vista ready when, in fact,
>they were not. Plus, these same low end boxes come with Vista home edition,
>the version that has none of the neato trick features that are supposed to
>make Vista a good reason to upgrade. In the end, the need to buy a new
>piece of hardware just to take advantage of a questionable new operation
>system is just plain stupid. M$ and Intel have been foisting this scam off
>on the public for a couple decades, now, and it's finally bit them both in
>the ass.
>
Oh, come on. The average home user has little reason to switch OS.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> The average home user has little reason to switch OS.

That depends on how often you buy a new computer. Suppose, hypothetically,
that your home computer was running an operating system which was obsolete.
(Windows 98, for example, is no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows XP
*would* have already been consigned to the "obsolete bin" if not for the
outcry about how shitty an operating system Vista is.)

Now suppose that a heinous security flaw was uncovered for your operating
system: There would be no way of making your computer secure, because nobody
is writing security patches for that operating system anymore. You could
lose everything stored on your computer, and there's nothing you could do
about it.

If you buy a new computer every time a new OS comes out, then you're right;
you don't need to switch your OS -- because you spend fifteen times as much
to buy a whole new computer instead.

Bob

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.

Vista ain't bad if you have a capable machine. It's awesome on my son's
fancy n' fast computer with 8Gs of RAM. I also have it on two of my
laptops which are fairly lightweight power-wise, they work well enough
although I would recommend turning off the Aero-interface on these.
Putting Vista on my 5 year old machines at work would be a big mistake.
I don't think it would be a smart move to install Vista on my newest
machine either - an Intel Atom based desktop with a motherboard that
allows a maximum RAM of 2 Gigs, although I would like some info from
folks that are running Vista on this configuration. What can I say? The
board was less than 80 bucks with the processor. :-)

>
> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
> and news in the same interface, like OE.)

How do you like Windows Mail? I'm kind of hung up on T-bird but willing
to try other programs. Speaking of trying new programs, My default
browser is Google's Chrome. Awesomely fast! I'll still use Firefox when
I need the tools. IE? What's IE? :-)

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:03:07 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

> My default
>browser is Google's Chrome. Awesomely fast! I'll still use Firefox when
>I need the tools.

This is the first positive review I've read about chrome. Do you find
most websites are written to accommodate it now?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:03:07 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> My default
>> browser is Google's Chrome. Awesomely fast! I'll still use Firefox when
>> I need the tools.
>
> This is the first positive review I've read about chrome. Do you find
> most websites are written to accommodate it now?
>
>

I don't think very many websites are being written or adapted for
Chrome, I'm guessing that it's Chrome being updated although I don't
really recall the browser getting updated. Currently, I don't have many
problems with compatibility. This is remarkable considering how new
Chrome is. Your mileage may vary. :-)

The goofy thing is that Chrome used to have problems playing the vids on
the Google-owned Youtube site, now there's no problems. It could very
well be that Youtube has been changed to accommodate Chrome.

The main advantage of Chrome is it's speed. I use it as the default
browser because if I click on a link in an email, it opens and is up
there very fast. The Firefox browser takes a while - a long while. The
problem being that I have a lot of tools that take some time to load
when I open Firefox. Typically, the browser also will look for updates
for these extensions before opening. All this takes time and action on
my part. The utility value of Firefox is undeniable but most of the time
it's more than I need.

Oddly enough, Chrome is based on the same open-source application engine
as Apple's Safari. I tried Safari on my PC for a short while and didn't
care much for it but my guess is that they're probably similar. Chrome
probably has a better chance of being accepted by PC users.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
> 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.)


The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig is
bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different settings
should you have them. Most new laptops have them

Dimitri

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.)
>
>
> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig is
> bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different
> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them
>
> Dimitri
>

and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86.

--
C.D

"C.D" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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.)
>>
>>
>> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig is
>> bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different
>> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them
>>
>> Dimitri
>>
>
> and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86.
>
> --
> C.D


I know but you can't easily get to 3.5 - 4 is usually less expensive.

Dimitri

C.D wrote:
>
> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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.)
>>
>>
>> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig
>> is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different
>> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them
>>
>> Dimitri
>>
>
> and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86.
>

3.5GB is maximum for a laptop?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:21:24 -0600, phaeton >
wrote:

>C.D wrote:
>>
>> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig
>>> is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different
>>> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them
>>>
>>> Dimitri
>>>
>>
>> and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86.
>>
>
>3.5GB is maximum for a laptop?

I wondered what x86 meant.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:21:24 -0600, phaeton >
> wrote:
>
>> C.D wrote:
>>> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig
>>>> is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different
>>>> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them
>>>>
>>>> Dimitri
>>>>
>>> and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86.
>>>
>> 3.5GB is maximum for a laptop?
>
> I wondered what x86 meant.
>
>
"x86" is slang for the instruction set of the Intel "8086" family of
processors (and clones), which modern PC processors have decended from
(80286, 80386, 80486, 80586, 80686, etc). So when someone says "way
back in the day on my 486!" they're talking about the 80486 processor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86