For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.

wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.

Try Irfanview. It's a great little utility for that sort of thing...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller, Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Registered Linux User No: 307357

Kevin Miller wrote:

wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista

Of course not, if you were able to manipulate images, the RIAA might get
mad.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.

Try Irfanview. It's a great little utility for that sort of thing...

...Kevin

... or GIMP (www.gimp.org). Does more than re-size, it's a pretty
powerful little program and works with linux as well as windows.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:14:42 -0800, Kevin Miller wrote:

wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.

Try Irfanview. It's a great little utility for that sort of thing...

...Kevin

yep... been using it for years as my default viewer and it does a quick & dirty
resize/web optimization.. great program at a great price..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Mark & Juanita" wrote
wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista

Of course not, if you were able to manipulate images, the RIAA might get
mad.

LOL ... IIRC, they're mainly concerned with "sound recordings"!

In Vista, Paint will easily resize an image in less time than it takes to
tell, and it's already onboard.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.


Resizing is also built right into "Microsoft Photo Editor", included
with XP.

File - Properties - set to Resolution to "72 DPI"

- Then -

Image - Resize - and set Units to "Pixels" and the numbers to
800x600 or something else reasonable

Utilities are faster, but for a few photos the capability is already
there.

B a r r y wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.


Resizing is also built right into "Microsoft Photo Editor", included
with XP.


Microsoft photo editor does not come with every version of XP. It seems to
be tied to the Microsoft Office product. When I was using Msoft at home, I
had Microsoft Photo Editor but it appears to have come with the Office 97
Small Business product. My wife's laptop, for which we did not get Office
(using OpenOffice instead), does not have Microsoft Photo Editor. At work,
machines had the Photo Editor on them until the latest "upgrade" to the
newest Office product. Photo Editor is no longer on those machines, much
to my chagrin. I had to load the GIMP in order to be able to modify images
for presentations.

File - Properties - set to Resolution to "72 DPI"

- Then -

Image - Resize - and set Units to "Pixels" and the numbers to
800x600 or something else reasonable

Utilities are faster, but for a few photos the capability is already
there.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:160320081017199436%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article ,
wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista

You should upgrade back to XP...


We just bought new computers for work. Our guy won't install Vista on a
network. He says maybe next year; too many bugs yet.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:32:32 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

We just bought new computers for work. Our guy won't install Vista on a
network. He says maybe next year; too many bugs yet.

Even Microsoft EXECUTIVES won't run Vista.

We have (6) registers running Vista at the bicycle shop with no
issues.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

We just bought new computers for work. Our guy won't install Vista on a
network. He says maybe next year; too many bugs yet.

I just bought a new computer for work today. The primary software that I
use still won't run on vista. It may be a year before it does. A lot of the
financial software still runs only on XP.

And to show you what an old fart I am, I had to pay extra to have them
istall a floppy drive and a parallel printer port. This was needed to make
the computer compatable with the rest of the office.

"B a r r y" wrote

We have (6) registers running Vista at the bicycle shop with no
issues.

Actually, I've been running Vista Business since last June with fewer
problems than any other _newly introduced_ OS I've run since the
introduction of release candidates Win3.0, Win95, and NT4, all of which I
beta tested for months prior to their introduction.

The information in that posted link of MSFT e-mails is neither new, nor
unique, for that stage of OS development. The main problem experienced with
Vista's "performance and reliability" upon it's introduction, and still
remains, understandably, to an less than desirable extent, is both normal,
expected, and was clearly laid out in the quoted e-mail - DRIVERS.

Hardware driver/new OS incompatibility has been an understood and accepted
issue since day one. It has historically taken a couple of years for these
third party driver incompatibilities to be resolved, and about the time all
are resolved in a mature OS, along comes its replacement and the cycle
starts over.

As for the reluctance of corporate IT to introduce a new OS, 'mission
critical' or not, into a known computing network environment, DUH! ... what
else is new?

What is new is that, while there has never been a shortage of detractors
completely ignorant of the issues involved, what is increasingly unique
these days is that it's never been easier to display such ignorance.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
news
"B a r r y" wrote

We have (6) registers running Vista at the bicycle shop with no
issues.

Actually, I've been running Vista Business since last June with fewer
problems than any other _newly introduced_ OS I've run since the
introduction of release candidates Win3.0, Win95, and NT4, all of which I
beta tested for months prior to their introduction.

The information in that posted link of MSFT e-mails is neither new, nor
unique, for that stage of OS development. The main problem experienced
with
Vista's "performance and reliability" upon it's introduction, and still
remains, understandably, to an less than desirable extent, is both normal,
expected, and was clearly laid out in the quoted e-mail - DRIVERS.

Hardware driver/new OS incompatibility has been an understood and accepted
issue since day one. It has historically taken a couple of years for these
third party driver incompatibilities to be resolved, and about the time
all
are resolved in a mature OS, along comes its replacement and the cycle
starts over.

As for the reluctance of corporate IT to introduce a new OS, 'mission
critical' or not, into a known computing network environment, DUH! ...
what
else is new?

What is new is that, while there has never been a shortage of detractors
completely ignorant of the issues involved, what is increasingly unique
these days is that it's never been easier to display such ignorance.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)


Yep, I have been running Vista for 9 months with out a glitch. It probably
has been better than XP! But there is the issues with drivers, and older
programs too. I tell everyone that asks about vista that you you are going
all new, programs and all hardware it won't be any problems.
Greg

Swingman wrote:

"B a r r y" wrote

We have (6) registers running Vista at the bicycle shop with no
issues.

.... snip

As for the reluctance of corporate IT to introduce a new OS, 'mission
critical' or not, into a known computing network environment, DUH! ...
what else is new?

What is new is that, while there has never been a shortage of detractors
completely ignorant of the issues involved, what is increasingly unique
these days is that it's never been easier to display such ignorance.


Actually there is a little more to it than that. Aside from a few
cosmetic changes and some arguable improvements to security, there is
little to justify the cost of transition from the existing operating system
to Vista. Previous Windows versions could claim improved interoperability,
improved ability to self-identify and install peripherals, or improved
autodetection of network settings and self-attachment to networks compared
to the previous version. Windows Vista has no such improvements that
provide a business case for accepting the cost and pain of migrating from
XP to Vista. AAMOF, the current state of the OS, drivers, and other third
party software actually argue against such a business case. The only case
to be made is Msoft's threat of retiring XP. That is hardly a good argument
on Msoft's side -- there are instances of businesses jumping to Mac or
other OS's since they have to deal with re-training anyway.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Actually there is a little more to it than that. Aside from a few
cosmetic changes and some arguable improvements to security, there is
little to justify the cost of transition from the existing operating
system
to Vista. Previous Windows versions could claim improved
interoperability,
improved ability to self-identify and install peripherals, or improved
autodetection of network settings and self-attachment to networks compared
to the previous version. Windows Vista has no such improvements that
provide a business case for accepting the cost and pain of migrating from
XP to Vista.

You have to be kidding? And just how long you been running Vista?

.... "arguable improvements to security"?; "no improved detection of network
setting"?; a lack of "interoperability""; That's incredulous ... let's see
how long XP lasts in an ipv6/DHCPv6/PPPv6/IPv6 Mobility world, so much for
broadband wireless/3G under XP.

AAMOF, the current state of the OS, drivers, and other third
party software actually argue against such a business case

? Did you even bother to read what you replied to?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:32:32 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Edwin
Pawlowski wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:160320081017199436%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article ,
wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista

You should upgrade back to XP...


We just bought new computers for work. Our guy won't install Vista on a
network. He says maybe next year; too many bugs yet.

Even Microsoft EXECUTIVES won't run Vista.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/132891.asp
sounds just like the ME operating (not) system....
once again proving that Micro$oft can sell **** in a bag if they advertise it
enough..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Swingman wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Actually there is a little more to it than that. Aside from a few
cosmetic changes and some arguable improvements to security, there is
little to justify the cost of transition from the existing operating
system
to Vista. Previous Windows versions could claim improved
interoperability,
improved ability to self-identify and install peripherals, or improved
autodetection of network settings and self-attachment to networks
compared
to the previous version. Windows Vista has no such improvements that
provide a business case for accepting the cost and pain of migrating from
XP to Vista.

You have to be kidding? And just how long you been running Vista?


I'm not, after reading numerous sources, I upgraded to linux. My employer
is currently evaluating Vista, but has no immediate plans to transition
because of the numerous issues with Vista.


... "arguable improvements to security"?; "no improved detection of
network setting"?; a lack of "interoperability""; That's incredulous ...
let's see how long XP lasts in an ipv6/DHCPv6/PPPv6/IPv6 Mobility world,
so much for broadband wireless/3G under XP.

You aren't reading what I was saying. My point was that each of the other
OS upgrades, 95 to 98, 98 to 2000 (let's skip ME), 2000 to XP each brought
a demonstrable improvement either to operability, inter-operability, or
peripheral detection to the table, making a business case for improved
supportability or reduced support costs. Vista, aside from some eye candy
but carrying a whole lot of DRM nastiness, doesn't bring that kind of
improvement with it. Yes, Vista does all those things I listed, but it
does them no better (and in some cases right now because of driver issues,
does them much worse) than the existing OS (XP). Making a business case
for widespread adoption of Vista is a tough sell; it makes an even tougher
sell when, to do the same things that XP does right now with the same user
experience vis a vis response times, requires greatly increased hardware
resources.



AAMOF, the current state of the OS, drivers, and other third
party software actually argue against such a business case

? Did you even bother to read what you replied to?


Yes I did, I might ask the same of you. It was that snarky end comment
how the folks dissing Vista were somehow showing ignorance. Take a browse
through Infoworld or other trades, there is significant discussion
regarding Vista, take a look at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html regarding the
world of DRM that Vista carries with it. The people raising flags here are
far from ignorant. Right now, about the only case people are making *for*
Vista are the fact that Msoft is going to stop selling XP, and that in a
year or so, drivers will catch up, and that it's OK that Vista uses more
resources to provide the same experience since computer hardware is
constantly improving and people are going to upgrade hardware anyway.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

mac davis wrote:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:32:32 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Edwin
Pawlowski wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:160320081017199436%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article ,
wrote:

unfortunately it wont work with windows vista

You should upgrade back to XP...


We just bought new computers for work. Our guy won't install Vista on a
network. He says maybe next year; too many bugs yet.

Even Microsoft EXECUTIVES won't run Vista.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/132891.asp
sounds just like the ME operating (not) system....
once again proving that Micro$oft can sell **** in a bag if they advertise
it enough..


Robert Cringely had a notable quote several weeks ago: "Microsoft finally
figured out how to get respect for one of its operating systems: release a
new one that sucks worse than the last."


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:


You have to be kidding? And just how long you been running Vista?

I'm not, after reading numerous sources,

Ahh yes ... the 21st centruy version of "expertise ... no experience other
than Internet hearsay, but an expert on the matter nonetheless.

You aren't reading what I was saying.

Is there any wonder? Judging from your own admission that you have no
experience with what your're talking about, it would be a waste of time.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
to the previous version. Windows Vista has no such improvements that
provide a business case for accepting the cost and pain of migrating from
XP to Vista. AAMOF, the current state of the OS, drivers, and other third
party software actually argue against such a business case.

EVERYTHING you've said has been part and parcel of EVERY new operating
system, without exception. It's natural for improvements like new drivers to
be needed and improved hardware to be considered as an addition for better
operation. That's nothing new. In effect, all your statement does is to
contribute to the fear mongering that always happens with a new operating
system. Essentially, you've said nothing and contributed nothing. Enjoy your
Linux.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Robert Cringely had a notable quote several weeks ago: "Microsoft
finally
figured out how to get respect for one of its operating systems: release a
new one that sucks worse than the last."

And there it is, mob rule for no other reason than a group of other people
are so engaged. Your lack of knowledge fully betrays you. Windows XP runs
better, faster and more efficiently than all previous versions. It's more
compatible than all previous versions and infinitely more capable of running
windows programs.

HOW that makes the last version one that sucks is beyond me. The only thing
that does suck here is your innate rush to jump on the bandwagon with this
zealot.

........A popular depiction of Robert Cringely.......
"The sex symbol, airplane enthusiast and adventurer continues to write about
personal computers and has an active consulting business in Silicon Valley,
selling his cybersoul to the highest bidder."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/about/

Just the fact that you agree with this idiot says a whole lot about you.

"Upscale" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote in message
Ahh yes ... the 21st century version of "expertise ... no experience
other
than Internet hearsay, but an expert on the matter nonetheless.

Isn't that all it takes to make an expert these days?

Hell, if Vista was the best OS in the world, which it is NOT, the ubuntu
fanbois would still be FUD'ing.

yawn

But I do have an 'only opened once' copy of OS/2 for sale, if they're
interested ...



Spreading FUD about any OS is practiced only by those ignorant (willfully,
gullibly, or otherwise) of the underlying issues.

The savvy, informed computer user operates the OS upon which his chosen
software runs best, and knows better than to diss someone else's experienced
based choice.

... 'nuff said.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
Ahh yes ... the 21st century version of "expertise ... no experience other
than Internet hearsay, but an expert on the matter nonetheless.

Isn't that all it takes to make an expert these days?

"Swingman" wrote

The savvy, informed computer user operates the OS upon which his chosen
software runs best, and knows better than to diss someone else's
experienced
based choice.


I do a lot of graphics (and data) intensive applications on multiple
monitors. Not only do some programs require a specific operating system, but
some of them will not work on certain CPU's. This creates some real
complications when buy/upgrading computers. It can real complicated when you
update or change software.

I have tried to emulate certain graphic computer configerations. My track
record there is about 50/50. Any big machine that I or my clients need will
go to an expert that tests this stuff out constantly in their shop.
Needless to say, anything that Microsoft or the graphic card vendors have to
say on this topic is totally non applicable for extreme applications like
this.

You have to go with what works. And in many cases, it boils down to trial
and error. You keep trying until you find something that works. Reminds me
of electroncs school many years ago. My digital teacher basically told us
that you just keep at it until you make it work. Pure tenacity can solve
many problems. It may not be high tech or sophisticated, but it gets the job
done.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote

The savvy, informed computer user operates the OS upon which his chosen
software runs best, and knows better than to diss someone else's
experienced
based choice.


I do a lot of graphics (and data) intensive applications on multiple
monitors. Not only do some programs require a specific operating system,
but
some of them will not work on certain CPU's. This creates some real
complications when buy/upgrading computers. It can real complicated when
you
update or change software.

I have tried to emulate certain graphic computer configerations. My track
record there is about 50/50. Any big machine that I or my clients need
will
go to an expert that tests this stuff out constantly in their shop.
Needless to say, anything that Microsoft or the graphic card vendors have
to
say on this topic is totally non applicable for extreme applications like
this.

You have to go with what works. And in many cases, it boils down to trial
and error. You keep trying until you find something that works. Reminds
me
of electroncs school many years ago. My digital teacher basically told us
that you just keep at it until you make it work. Pure tenacity can solve
many problems. It may not be high tech or sophisticated, but it gets the
job
done.

Know the feeling all too well. Recently shut down 4 public DNS servers,
running NT4, because that particular OS was the only one which would run
the version of BIND that the underlying system software was written for ...
a security nightmare of gigantic proportions, as those servers were attacked
thousands of times a day and little could be done about it because of lack
of security updates. I got utterly sick of 'formatting and reinstalling'
four servers on a weekly, sometimes daily basis to get rid of malicious
software, not to mention the risk to the rest of the network.

Operator of servers that must be exposed, more or less, to such exploits are
pawns in a little known war that has been going on for years with China and
Russia, and that you are only now starting to hear about in the media the
last couple of years.

My frame of mind took a decided turn for the better when that nightmare was
a thing of the past.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
And to show you what an old fart I am, I had to pay extra to have them
istall a floppy drive and a parallel printer port. This was needed to make
the computer compatable with the rest of the office.

The computer shop can get a floppy for $9. Our new one have them but I
can't remember the last time I actually used one. At home I tried to use
mine about 2 years ago and it broke. Never fixed it. But for $9, you just
never know, handy to have it.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

B a r r y wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:55:42 GMT, Pat Barber
wrote:

For all that have XP...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

Small download that will resize your pictures for posting.

It is tiny and will take no time even for dial up folks.


Resizing is also built right into "Microsoft Photo Editor", included
with XP.


Microsoft photo editor does not come with every version of XP. It seems
to
be tied to the Microsoft Office product. When I was using Msoft at home,
I had Microsoft Photo Editor but it appears to have come with the Office
97
Small Business product. My wife's laptop, for which we did not get Office
(using OpenOffice instead), does not have Microsoft Photo Editor. At
work, machines had the Photo Editor on them until the latest "upgrade" to
the
newest Office product. Photo Editor is no longer on those machines, much
to my chagrin. I had to load the GIMP in order to be able to modify
images for presentations.


Yes, photo editor comes with office. It also doesn't properly support exif
data so be cafeful with any edits you make, they can loose the date/time
stamp among other interesting or useful data. I recommend not using it at
all for this reason.

Swingman wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:


You have to be kidding? And just how long you been running Vista?

I'm not, after reading numerous sources,

Ahh yes ... the 21st centruy version of "expertise ... no experience other
than Internet hearsay, but an expert on the matter nonetheless.

You know, this is just frustrating. Because I spent a great deal of time
and research looking into the new OS but decided not to use it based upon
that research, this somehow makes what I said "hearsay" and by innuendo
uninformed?


You aren't reading what I was saying.

Is there any wonder? Judging from your own admission that you have no
experience with what your're talking about, it would be a waste of time.

I've read both the good and the bad. The fact that Vista requires twice
the horsepower to deliver the same performance was a significant decision
factor. I would prefer to use that horsepower for something besides
delivering the same experience. YMMV, and you are free to use your CPU
cycles as you see fit.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Upscale wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Robert Cringely had a notable quote several weeks ago: "Microsoft
finally
figured out how to get respect for one of its operating systems: release
a new one that sucks worse than the last."

And there it is, mob rule for no other reason than a group of other people
are so engaged. Your lack of knowledge fully betrays you. Windows XP runs
better, faster and more efficiently than all previous versions. It's more
compatible than all previous versions and infinitely more capable of
running windows programs.


Wow, this OS stuff is more touchy than religious or political discussions.
What is so unclear about what I wrote? Was it denigrating XP? The
inference from Cringely was that "Windows XP runs well". It also runs much
better than Vista at this time. Thus, many people are eschewing Vista at
this time and continuing to use XP (i.e, the OS for which Msoft is now
getting respect) or, more damaging, backdating from Vista to XP.



HOW that makes the last version one that sucks is beyond me. The only
thing that does suck here is your innate rush to jump on the bandwagon
with this zealot.

Umm, I think Cringely's point was directed at Vista. i.e., XP has now
gained respect because Vista sucks worse than XP.



.......A popular depiction of Robert Cringely.......
"The sex symbol, airplane enthusiast and adventurer continues to write
about personal computers and has an active consulting business in Silicon
Valley, selling his cybersoul to the highest bidder."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/about/

Just the fact that you agree with this idiot says a whole lot about you.

Oh please, I found an amusing quote from him and shared it. Good grief.
I certainly don't agree with all of his stuff, this was just funny.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:


You have to be kidding? And just how long you been running Vista?

I'm not, after reading numerous sources,

Ahh yes ... the 21st centruy version of "expertise ... no experience
other
than Internet hearsay, but an expert on the matter nonetheless.

Does anybody else see the irony of this -- we come to this newsgroup to
share ideas and experiences and to learn things about wood turning and we
think that is a good thing. But if someone goes to the same resource
(internet) to learn about an operating system for a computer he gets put
down.

Am I wasting my time reading this forum because it is nothing more that the
"21st century version of expertise"? Nothing more than "Internet hearsay"?
Information to be ignored because it is unreliable.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

You know, this is just frustrating. Because I spent a great deal of
time
and research looking into the new OS but decided not to use it based upon
that research, this somehow makes what I said "hearsay" and by innuendo
uninformed?

Well, you apparently settled upon what suits your needs, which means in your
case your research was indeed sucessful. However, most users better be very
careful where they do "research" these days, or the rampant, bias based,
ignorance on this issue bites them firmly in the butt.

I've read both the good and the bad. The fact that Vista requires twice
the horsepower to deliver the same performance was a significant decision
factor. I would prefer to use that horsepower for something besides
delivering the same experience.

I would agree that you're correct about the above with the amount of RAM
needed for practical application with Vista. There is indeed a sweet spot at
2 GB RAM, anything less does show a degradation in performance, and anything
more, no noticeable improvement.

Updated drivers are of critical importance, and a robust video/graphics
system is also mandatory if you want the "eye candy", but not necessary at
all for normal business use. Vista also runs every single program that I've
been using on a daily business basis for the past ten years. The _only_
program I had problems with was Outlook for XP, which had years of business
contacts, and a $60 upgrade took care of that.

My Vista laptop, which has a Core2Duo T-7400 processor of early vintage and
2 GB RAM, runs noticeably faster, with much more multi-tasking power (which
you would expect from the Core2Duo) than my favorite Win2K desktop, which
has a Celeron with the same amount of RAM.

IME, Vista is far superior in "mobile computing" (which includes "security",
in a big way), to anything I've used thus far ... and "mobile computing",
IMO, is where computing is increasingly headed in the future.

An unbiased comparison between SWMBO's laptop running XP SP2, and mine
running Vista (with no SP as of yet, although with all "performance and
reliability fixes applied) is where you can readily see (a valid
observation, as maintain both machines), and appreciate, the difference in
this regard.

With regard to your remark about "security" ... having administered three
geographically disparate networks, and having suffered mightily due to
security issues, I'm probably much more prone than the average bear to put
up with the minor inconveniences of Vista's UCA, than the major PITA of
repairing a breached machine/network ... just like beefing up the security
on your home is a minor, but worthwhile, inconvenience.

Vista certainly isn't perfect ... but I've yet to see the perfect operating
system after almost 40 years of computing.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

Vista certainly isn't perfect ... but I've yet to see the perfect operating
system after almost 40 years of computing.

If you have been doing this for 40 years, you sure have had your head up
your ass for 40 years.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Vista certainly isn't perfect ... but I've yet to see the perfect
operating
system after almost 40 years of computing.

If you have been doing this for 40 years, you sure have had your head up
your ass for 40 years.

Leave it to Microsoft to bring out the shining, glowing qualities in all
of us. Wouldn't now be a good time to steer back on topic and just
forget this conversation ever occurred?

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.

"Jack Stein" wrote
Swingman wrote:

Vista certainly isn't perfect ... but I've yet to see the perfect
operating
system after almost 40 years of computing.

If you have been doing this for 40 years, you sure have had your head up
your ass for 40 years.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

LOL ... As an OS/2 enthusiast in the 21st century, it's _you_ who would be
much more familiar with that terrain.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

figured out how to get respect for one of its operating systems:
release
a new one that sucks worse than the last."

What is so unclear about what I wrote? Was it denigrating XP? The
inference from Cringely was that "Windows XP runs well".

The inference is that XP sucks, just not as badly as Vista sucks. Your
interpretation of Cringely's inference is about as poor as it gets. Where
exactly did you learn English?

.......A popular depiction of Robert Cringely.......
"The sex symbol, airplane enthusiast and adventurer continues to write
about personal computers and has an active consulting business in
Silicon
Valley, selling his cybersoul to the highest bidder."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/about/

Oh please, I found an amusing quote from him and shared it. Good grief.
I certainly don't agree with all of his stuff, this was just funny.

You're trying to get your opinion across about Vista, but as a reference
you're quoting someone whom you find amusing, funny and out for attention.
Don't ever take part in a debate class of any type because your reasoning
skills are woefully inadequate. In other words, at this point all you've
done is make a fool of yourself.

"Scratch Ankle" wrote

Am I wasting my time reading this forum

That, my friend, is a function of intelligence ... it obviously takes some
folks longer to learn where the "next" key is.

This is Usenet ... either go somewhere there is a netnanny to coddle you,
learn to ignore what doesn't interest you, or learn to live with it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Scratch Ankle" wrote

Does anybody else see the irony of this -- we come to this newsgroup to
share ideas and experiences and to learn things about wood turning and we
think that is a good thing. But if someone goes to the same resource
(internet) to learn about an operating system for a computer he gets put
down.

There is no "irony"... would you rather rely on advice on "wood turning"
from someone who has actual experience in "wood turning", or from someone
who admits that they have no experience with "wood turning"?

The Internet is a fine place to learn, but you need be able to separate the
wheat from the chaff, and the topic you take issue with is a perfect example
of that.

IOW, when taking advice on building chairs in an Internet forum, don't take
the advice for granted until you've seen the chairs they've built, or for
gospel until you've sat on one.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Obviously you didn't get the point since you only looked at that one
sentence rather than the context. So to explain it clearly -- if relying on
what the internet information found involves stupidity if someone is looking
for information about an operating system then it would seem that coming
here to get information about wood turning is the same stupidity.

I don't have a problem, just trying to point out the irony. No need for a
net nanny for my sensitivities which aren't offended by the discussion
anyway. Twit filters work fine.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Scratch Ankle" wrote

Am I wasting my time reading this forum

That, my friend, is a function of intelligence ... it obviously takes some
folks longer to learn where the "next" key is.

This is Usenet ... either go somewhere there is a netnanny to coddle you,
learn to ignore what doesn't interest you, or learn to live with it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/8/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Swingman" wrote

IOW, when taking advice on building chairs in an Internet forum, don't
take
the advice for granted until you've seen the chairs they've built, or for
gospel until you've sat on one.


Ahhhh...., the butt knows. You can't fake chair comfort.

Reminds me of all those crapola theories about which gun is best for the
missus. Two answers there. One that fits her hand. And one that SHE picks
out. Ain't no other way.

Again, the whole theory versus reality thing. What may sound good versus
what actually works. Pragmatism wins over internet theory anyday.

Upscale wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

figured out how to get respect for one of its operating systems:
release
a new one that sucks worse than the last."

What is so unclear about what I wrote? Was it denigrating XP? The
inference from Cringely was that "Windows XP runs well".

The inference is that XP sucks, just not as badly as Vista sucks. Your
interpretation of Cringely's inference is about as poor as it gets. Where
exactly did you learn English?


The inference is it doesn't suck as bad as Vista.

What is JT's statement about the "humor impaired?"


.......A popular depiction of Robert Cringely.......
"The sex symbol, airplane enthusiast and adventurer continues to write
about personal computers and has an active consulting business in
Silicon
Valley, selling his cybersoul to the highest bidder."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/about/

Oh please, I found an amusing quote from him and shared it. Good
grief.
I certainly don't agree with all of his stuff, this was just funny.

You're trying to get your opinion across about Vista, but as a reference
you're quoting someone whom you find amusing, funny and out for attention.
Don't ever take part in a debate class of any type because your reasoning
skills are woefully inadequate. In other words, at this point all you've
done is make a fool of yourself.

Like I say, JT's comment regarding the humor impaired applies, and it
ain't me.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough