What are your thoughts on Vista?

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:53:45 -0500, Cynicor j wrote:


mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

Vista is microsoft latest attempt to provide 64 bit support. If if follows
the trend microsoft has had since dos 2.0, you should expect it to need
two gig of ram and 6 ghz of processor to be comfortable.

Nobody expects XP to run in 64G of ram. You shouldn't expect vista to run
in 512M of ram.

"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer with a Pentium 4 CPU,
3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2, but my understanding is
that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2
on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel

Celcius wrote:
[]
I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista
might be the first OS that may require in a great many instances,
complete revamping of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer
with a Pentium 4 CPU, 3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2,
but my
understanding is that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly
as well as Photoshop CS2 on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel

My test PC with a Pentium III 550MHz processor, 512MB of memory, and
Voodoo-3 2000 graphics card, loads Vista, although you would prefer a
faster machine for working in a production environment. Your PC should be
just fine. I think that, as usual, a lot of FUD has been spread by those
with no direct experience!

David

"mark_digital©" wrote in message
. ..
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

I was going to buy a new dual core cpu computer with Vista 64 bit but I am
now going to put that off indefinitely. At this point, I am not at all
satisfied that the software that I will want to use will go to 64 bit, my
experience with IE7 which is supposed to give some insight into Vista was an
unmitigated failure and I just hated the look and feel of it. I refuse to
pay to be a "beta tester" for Microsoft and the other software and hardware
manufacturers. Get the bugs worked out and I might change my mind.

Going to the Vista site at Microsoft and seeing the advertising, I didn't
think there was anything there that I would pay a nickel for and most of it
I wouldn't install if given the choice.

Celcius wrote:
"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.
Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer with a Pentium 4 CPU,
3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2, but my understanding is
that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2
on it. What do you say?

I'm running it on a Compaq tc4400 at 2GHz and 2GB memory. CS2 works fine
for me, as does a bunch of other stuff. One of the things that Vista
does is downrate itself depending on your capabilities. If I had a
slower graphics card, it would automatically turn off the Aero glass
interface.

If you're running Windows XP, you can check right now with the Upgrade
Advisor: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...pgradeadvisor/.
It's a small program that runs on your machine and reports a number from
1.0 to 5.0 to tell you which parts of your machine are "Vista-ready." My
machine is a 3.0 and it runs everything. The advisor lost a few
fractions of a point because my drive was a tad slow.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:29:20 -0500, Ron P wrote:
I was going to buy a new dual core cpu computer with Vista 64 bit but I am
now going to put that off indefinitely. At this point, I am not at all
satisfied that the software that I will want to use will go to 64 bit, my

Wait for the prices to come down. For now, a 3ghz machine is plenty. It will
be a few years before vista really bloats out (as well its apps) and you need
more. By then, dual core machines will be cheap.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:07:47 -0800, Celcius wrote
(in article ):


"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
mark_digital© wrote:
It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself
will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Could you be more specific? I work for a small software concern based in
the Seattle area that just released a new OS....

I've had Vista on my laptop for a couple of months now, and it's really
nice how I can just plug in new USB devices and they work.

I suppose you're right on this one, but from my perspective, Vista might be
the first OS that may require in a great many instances, complete revamping
of the hardware. For example, I work on a computer with a Pentium 4 CPU,
3.20 GHz, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP, Service Pack 2, but my understanding is
that this wouldn't be enough to run Vista properly as well as Photoshop CS2
on it. What do you say?
Thanks,
Marcel



Interesting. Parallels Software says Vista will run on a MacBook Pro with 2Gb
RAM. The thing is, any PC application that you would run on a MacBook would
probably not be very demanding. Photoshop, Aperture, and most games would
probably be run under OS X (well, Aperture will not run under anything else).
Personally, the only thing I would run under Vista would be Jeppesen's flight
planning software. Nothing else requires a PC. And even there, it might be
just cheaper and easier to switch to some web-based software like AirNav. If
I was still preparing corporate tax returns I probably would use a web-based
application there, too.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that a lot of systems
managers are switching everybody over to Google office applications instead
of upgrading to Office 2007. Those run on Macs, too.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:50:04 -0800, mark_digital© wrote
(in article ):

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our computers
for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much Microsoft itself will
become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's nothing
to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.



I wouldn't know; I use a Mac. :-)

Seriously, Microsoft's grip is tenuous, at best -- a point that Microsoft
itself makes frequently in anti-trust court. The trend has been more toward
web-based applications. And although Explorer is still the top browser at
home, more and more people are switching to competitors like Firefox.