Re: Vista

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Michael wrote:
> They feel Vista machines need a minimum of 2-4GB of RAM and their vendors
> are not currently offering this as a base configuration on new machines,

Understood--but if I'm buying a new laptop, I could just get it with 2GB.
> They also echo the chatter on most tech sites on the WEB about Vista being
> convoluted and so forth, all anecdotal, and somewhat atavistic, of course.
I'm sure it's convoluted. They all are. There's always this chatter when a
new Win OS is debuted. Recall when it was found that XP had some divide
error or something? The sky was falling!
> Finally they cite many of the reviews of Vista, which seem to be
> luke-warm, at best. I'm retiring one of the computers in the house, a W98
> machine, a Dell Optiplex (runs like a tank) because there's software we
> use that it can't handle and some new hardware that would require too many
> work-arounds. University offers two new Optiplexes -- both Vista-ready,
> they say, with 1 GB of RAM (the bare minimum) -- that come with XP PRO
I have heard, as probably you have, that upgrading is never the way to go
with OS's.
>  and an upgrade-to-Vista coupon. I'm going to put 4GB of ram in one of
> them and get it, roughly $950.

Great price.
> And I'm going to run XP. Six months or a year down the line when my work
> load will be lighter, I might consider an upgrade. Until a year ago I was
> using W98. Progress.
I waited a long time before doing XP--mistake. But jumping in too early has
to be a mistake too. I guess waiting a year is optimal. Don't know,
however, if I can hold on for that long with the old laptop (old = 2 years).



Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx