This is an incorrect statement. Older versions of Office run on Vista. My wife is using Office 2000 on her Vista laptop.

My kids have a lot of Win95/98 games but their computer was way old to run anything. I bought them a very fast dual-core, 3 Gigs RAM, 300 GB HD (pretty good for $265). I then downloaded VirtualPC and installed Win 98 on it. Now they can play all of their games that won't work on XP or Vista. Using XP on a VPC might be an option.

Also, as stated previously, you will be surprised with what will still work on Vista. There is also a setting to emulate XP when laucnhing an application.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/using-windows-vista-compatibility-mode/

I see what you mean. This Acer laptop came with a whole lot of junk that is not MS. I will definitely be giving the pcdecrapifier a try!

Kelly

Kelly,



Starting with XP, some bright bulb at Microsoft thought it would be neat to offer different versions of an OS.

XP had "Home" and "Professional" editions with Home being a crippled version of the Pro edition that sells for a little less.

Early releases of Home were buggy as all get out. I guess when they went through it to disable all the features that cripple the Pro edition to make it "Home", they really crippled the whole thing.

With Vista, they really went overboard with the different edition junk.

Here is the comparison on MS's web site.

There are actually even more editions, but the four listed on the linked page are the main ones in the retail channel.

Funny thing is that when you buy any of the editions, the DVD has images of ALL editions on it. It's just that the installer knows which to lay down on your hard drive.

For some, the Home edition will suffice, but I see that as someone who only wants to browse the Net and use e-mail and even then it can bite you in the back side.

I just do not see any reason for any of the Home editions to exist other than to make MS more money.

Many who start off with Home will end up needing features not available with Home and will then need to upgrade.

If anyone is buying a new computer, it is well worth the very small up-charge to get it with the "Ultimate" edition.

And for those who are going to do an upgrade of an existing computer, don't waste your time or money on anything less.

Shop around, you can find the retail box of the Upgrade version for about $120.

I guess Sony was particularly notorious for loading their computers up w/ "crapware". They recently offered a "Fresh Start" computer as an ordering option w/ all trialware, etc removed. Initially they tried to charge $50 for this option, but I believe they have now dropped that charge.

Sony’s amazing crapware-free PC - ZDNet


I'm not techie enough to give insight on Vista vs. XP but I work remotely and the tech support I deal w/ told me they don't support Vista. I recently ordered a Dell laptop w/ XP the last day Dell said they were offering XP for this reason. I haven't checked out Dell since, so there may still be a way around ordering Vista from them. My Dad has a laptop w/ Vista and is happy; he is a light user though.

I may just go ahead and get the laptop. It is a good deal and if I need to run programs that only run on XP, then I will do a dual install or just put it on an XP-only HD and slap it in the machine.

At least that way I'll KNOW it does not have all of that other stuff on it.

Hi Woody,

My name is Rick and I work with the Windows team. I saw that you were concerned with all of the rumblings you have heard about Vista. Vista offers speed, consumes less power, and offers a better online safety then XP and Vista is compatible with over 77k hardware devices. What is your specific concern? Maybe I can help.

Rick

The last guy who posted from the Windows team gave us all free laptops. Offer still good?

At least a free upgrade from home edition is in order I think.

On a lighter note...please make sure whoever is working on Vista's replacement understands USERS do NOT want 15 MILLION different WINDOWS to CHANGE related SETTINGS. I've been an outspoken supporter of Vista for the reasons you site since it's inception. However, after spending the past two days setting up about 5 Vista powered computers...having issues with each of them, i've become frustrated with the dam setup.

Why does one have to toggle between 5 windows to control NETWORK settings?

Buy some Apples and take ques from how simple, concise, and well-thought out their setting panels are.

Thanks!

Right (that being the left) coast, wrong state.

I know that not all MS folks are in Redmond (VPNs are wonderful), but I get suspicious when someone shows up claiming to be from MS and has an IP not even close.

I would also question the wisdom to offering "support" via such an open channel.

Such a thing can come off smelling more like Marketing.

Here's to hoping Windows 7 fulfills Vista's promise.

Some regulars may feel the need to call in the calvary once in a while.

I guess perhaps some are really taking this to heart?

The above partial quote is from an e-mail allegedly from Mr. Ballmer (Head Fred In Charge at MS for those who don't know) to all MS employees. This e-mail is making the rounds in the blogsphere. I am guessing it is real, but will not bet our boat on it.

If by 'matured' you mean has it gotten bigger, then the answer is yes. I'm a MS user, but dang I hate that fact that all of their programs (especially the new Office) just takes up so much space and consume resources like you must have unlimited power/memory/chip speed. What a fat hog...

If PROPERLY set up, Vista can FLY. Vista CAN BE much faster than XP ever dreamed of being, even though Vista's footprint is bigger.

Unfortunately, getting Vista to run optimially is not as easy as it sounds like it should be.

I just got a buddy of my computer's back into specs (it's brand new).

Dell Studio laptop,
Intel Core 2 T8200 2.1Ghz processor.
4gb of DDR2 ram
250gb SATA hard drive.

It's the fastest computer I have yet to use. It is flat out QUICK. I was on an brand new XP machine, Core 2 processor, 2.4 GHz, 2gb of ram, but running XP yesterday. It is nowhere near as quick as this Vista machine is. I suspect it is largely do the chip architecture and hard drive in this Dell, but it's equipment Vista can take advantage of that XP cant. Also, there is no denying that Vista's graphics are much more clear and easier on the eyes.

D