CPAPtalk.com

No. NT and XP Pro in the corp world. I can see where the migration would be hair raising and if it were coming out of my pocket, I'd say NO. My Vista Home just would not hold up on a network. Too many Vista flavors for the Corp World too.

Gumby's just got a Celeron - nothing fancy for him.

Personally, I've never found any reason to load SP3....As I read through the release notes I kept asking myself....."Self. What do you need that for??"
I don't so I won't....

I wouldn't touch Vista with a very long pole!!!

Nothing is perfect, but having to release a service pack a couple times a year makes me wonder why they can't write it correctly in the first place (I stopped beta testing M$ stuff at Win98......).

cheers
goose

GumbyCT wrote:Too many Vista flavors for the Corp World too.

XP has more flavors than most people realize and it does have a 64-bit version, too. Only with Vista I think they tried to use it as an advertising point and that just confused the issues.

Other than the speed issues, I really do like Vista (I know I'm in the minority!). 64-bit Ultimate has been amazingly stable - only hung once since I got it which was in the first wave in the stores a couple(?) of years ago. My 32-bit Business edition seemed to have huge problems at first but the crashes turned out to be due to Lenovo's hard drive firmware. I like the improvements in navigating through folders and the way sorted files in a folder keep their sequence when adding a new file by inserting in the right place - compared to XP in which I get tired of doing refresh (I have many, many folders and many, many files plus loads of software). These may seem minor but with the improvements and stability, I'd rather have Vista and pay more for a faster processor - just my opinion!

Mindy

Eliminate all these issues by upgrading to Linux... yes UPGRADE.

Paul56 wrote:Eliminate all these issues by upgrading to Linux... yes UPGRADE.

That's certainly an option ... have considered it but there is software I need that runs only on Windows and I don't feel the need to go to virtualization to run Unix and then Windows in Unix

Mindy

Paul56 wrote:Eliminate all these issues by upgrading to Linux... yes UPGRADE.

That's a lot like moving up to Apple, doesn't quite get you in the real world. Jim

I've never found XP to be unstable, I do find hardware that is, that's not the fault of the OS. Even Bill can't tell you what hardware to buy, until "Vista" came out. Expect the same bloat in the next version of windows, they will never figure our how to make tighter code. They remind me of the Keystone Cops trying to put out fires.

I've heard really good things about Windows7, but I'm going to wait until it's out of beta. For my money, the least troublesome Windows OS has been Win2K. I know some who have said they stopped installing win2k because it was so stable, they'd never get any service calls from the customers for whom they installed it. I've had Win2k on one machine since 2000, and it's never had any problems. I've reinstalled WinXp on my laptop three times in the last five years.

DreamDiver wrote:I've heard really good things about Windows7, but I'm going to wait until it's out of beta. For my money, the least troublesome Windows OS has been Win2K. I know some who have said they stopped installing win2k because it was so stable, they'd never get any service calls from the customers for whom they installed it. I've had Win2k on one machine since 2000, and it's never had any problems. I've reinstalled WinXp on my laptop three times in the last five years.

I'd certainly agree with you points re Win2K stability.
The main issue for a lot of folk is going to WinXP to get more modern drivers for the newer motherboards & disks (such as SATA II etc: )
From a corporate perspective it was getting the ongoing support & moving to the newer versions of office.

DSM