Re: Quicken for 2009

Posted by Han on July 23, 2008, 6:54 am

Please log in for more thread options

> Let me make it clear that I do not recommend upgrades of operating

> systems in general. It's almost always a bad thing and prone to

> problems. It also propagates underlying problems that can only get

> worse. A clean install is always the best option....

> Having said that, I'm comfortable telling folks to get Vista on a new

> computer as long as they configure it with enough horsepower. OEM's

> like Dell tend to start with minimum memory, for example, and that

> will make the experience a bad one.... With Vista, you'll see folks

> like me tell you 1GB is the absolute minimum and 2GB is the strongly

> recommended amount.

Well, maybe. I needed/wanted a new laptop, so took the great deal of an
Acer Aspire 3680-2633 with added memory, and now a bigger drive.
However, this thing only runs Home Basic, and slowly. I still can't get
a simple find file to work with reasonable accuracy and speed. Some
things I rely on in XP don't work in Vista (little things like mailwasher
starting eudora AND making it check mail - it's the check mail that is
not initiated). I also can't get SP1 installed, but have every other
hotfix and update. Now I know, I should reinstall everything ...

I should have gotten something with XP ... But it does work, as you can
see. Xnews runs just fine.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Posted by Calab on July 22, 2008, 11:06 pm

Please log in for more thread options

| I really don't see any reason NOT to run Vista, there's some additional
| security, it handles hardware that XP won't (I can't run my TV Tuner
| card properly in XP) and, although people talk about bloat, that's
| silly. It takes more space to do more and terabyte hard drives are now
| under $170!

But you AREN'T doing more... Any machine that runs Vista well, will run XP
better. PERIOD.

Also, with Vista, it "mangles" media streams, so you aren't getting the
quality that's actually saved in the file. This is done on PURPOSE so you
can't generate new copies. Also, with Vista, Microsoft has the ability to
simply disable any hardware device that they like, whenever they like.

Posted by JimH on July 23, 2008, 12:04 am

Please log in for more thread options

Calab wrote:

> But you AREN'T doing more... Any machine that runs Vista well, will run XP

> better. PERIOD.

> Also, with Vista, it "mangles" media streams, so you aren't getting the

> quality that's actually saved in the file. This is done on PURPOSE so you

> can't generate new copies. Also, with Vista, Microsoft has the ability to

> simply disable any hardware device that they like, whenever they like.

I just bought a high end gaming machine from Vigor Gaming. It has the
latest quad-core Intel chip, and two nVidia 9 series cards in an SLI
configuration with a gig of video ram. It has 2 gigs or RAM, and over a
terabyte of disk storage, and runs everything really well. Even Quicken
2007 runs nicely on it. :-) But, it does warm up the room when I run
Crysis.

I ordered it before the rumored end of XP shipments. I can always add
Vista later if I want it.

--
Jim

Posted by Hank Arnold (MVP) on July 23, 2008, 5:10 am

Please log in for more thread options

Calab wrote:

> | I really don't see any reason NOT to run Vista, there's some additional

> | security, it handles hardware that XP won't (I can't run my TV Tuner

> | card properly in XP) and, although people talk about bloat, that's

> | silly. It takes more space to do more and terabyte hard drives are now

> | under $170!

> But you AREN'T doing more... Any machine that runs Vista well, will run XP

> better. PERIOD.

> Also, with Vista, it "mangles" media streams, so you aren't getting the

> quality that's actually saved in the file. This is done on PURPOSE so you

> can't generate new copies. Also, with Vista, Microsoft has the ability to

> simply disable any hardware device that they like, whenever they like.

It will run Windows 2000 even better.... I bet Windows 98 will scream on
it.... ;-)

The last part is pure paranoia.... Reminds me of my reaction when folks
try to convince me that any deity really cares whether I read a dirty
magazine or not.... :-)

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

Posted by XS11E on July 23, 2008, 12:05 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>| I really don't see any reason NOT to run Vista, there's some

>| additional security, it handles hardware that XP won't (I can't

>| run my TV Tuner card properly in XP) and, although people talk

>| about bloat, that's silly. It takes more space to do more and

>| terabyte hard drives are now under $170!

> But you AREN'T doing more... Any machine that runs Vista well,

> will run XP better. PERIOD.

Simply untrue.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org