It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life, limit my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade" XP
recover CD, HiHi.

Good, now you can go away

"Simon" wrote in message
...
It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life, limit my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade" XP
recover CD, HiHi.

"Simon" wrote in message
...
It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life, limit my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade" XP
recover CD, HiHi.


Two points..

If you have only 1gb RAM, part of that will be used for video. You need to
install another 1gb RAM. If you don't want to do that, use of a flash drive
in Ready Boost mode goes some way to aiding speed, but it is not as fast as
extra RAM would be.

Also, laptops are set NOT to run at full CPU speed in order to preserve
battery life. You may want to look at Vista's power settings..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

So basically Mike is saying that Vista is not advsable for use on a laptop
unless it is fully loaded with memory. what a way to promote a usless
operating system.

The reason for throttling back the cpu is to overcome battery problems NOT
operating system failures.

All the pre SP1 hype proved fuitless other than microsoft shooting its self
in its corperate foot.

When is the next version of windows going to be released so that this usless
sub standard system can be withdrawn.


"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

"Simon" wrote in message
...
It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life, limit my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade" XP
recover CD, HiHi.


Two points..

If you have only 1gb RAM, part of that will be used for video. You need to
install another 1gb RAM. If you don't want to do that, use of a flash drive
in Ready Boost mode goes some way to aiding speed, but it is not as fast as
extra RAM would be.

Also, laptops are set NOT to run at full CPU speed in order to preserve
battery life. You may want to look at Vista's power settings..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"Mark" wrote in message
...
So basically Mike is saying that Vista is not advsable for use on a laptop
unless it is fully loaded with memory. what a way to promote a usless
operating system.

The reason for throttling back the cpu is to overcome battery problems NOT
operating system failures.

All the pre SP1 hype proved fuitless other than microsoft shooting its
self
in its corperate foot.

When is the next version of windows going to be released so that this
usless
sub standard system can be withdrawn.


"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

"Simon" wrote in message
...
It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life, limit
my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade" XP
recover CD, HiHi.


Two points..

If you have only 1gb RAM, part of that will be used for video. You need
to
install another 1gb RAM. If you don't want to do that, use of a flash
drive
in Ready Boost mode goes some way to aiding speed, but it is not as fast
as
extra RAM would be.

Also, laptops are set NOT to run at full CPU speed in order to preserve
battery life. You may want to look at Vista's power settings..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx







The same considerations applied equally to XP. In systems where video memory
is a shared portion of the total RAM installed, unless 768mb or 1gb was
installed, XP performance was compromised. I have seen it on laptops and
desktops alike.

Video memory has increased from 32 and 64mb to 128 and 256mb. On the basis
that Vista requires at least 1gb for its own use (not shared with anything
else), you can see that 1gb is not enough in a shared video memory system.

The manufacturers should install at least 1.5gb RAM in ANY machine, but they
don't purely to keep the price down.

Laptops also have the disadvantage of heat build up, so can't use the
fastest of components. The CPU is throttled back so that battery life looks
better, XP or Vista. Laptops are and always have been a compromise, offering
reasonable performance AND portability..

And Vista is not a useless operating system, working very well for many
people.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

I would like to know how you would install 1.5 Gb of ram as I have not see a
1.5 Gb stick or a 750 Mb stick and I kbnow not of any popular manufactura of
laptop who provides more than 2 memory slots, surely you mean that if Vista
must be installed then microsoft should only allow the install to start when
2Gb of ram is installed and the operating systen can claim 1.5Gb for its self,
I think that you have confirmed when you say:-

" Laptops also have the disadvantage of heat build up, so can't use the
fastest of components. The CPU is throttled back so that battery life looks
better, XP or Vista. Laptops are and always have been a compromise, offering
reasonable performance AND portability.."

Therfore I would like to point out that you have agreed with me that Vista
in any form or guise should not be installed on a laptop because of its
inherint problems of wishing to use ALL of the avalible system resourse's, as
it is only suitable for high end PC's what a waste of time and money MS has
made, this would explain why so many microsoft people are trying to defend
what the industry knows as substandard

"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
...
So basically Mike is saying that Vista is not advsable for use on a laptop
unless it is fully loaded with memory. what a way to promote a usless
operating system.

The reason for throttling back the cpu is to overcome battery problems NOT
operating system failures.

All the pre SP1 hype proved fuitless other than microsoft shooting its
self
in its corperate foot.

When is the next version of windows going to be released so that this
usless
sub standard system can be withdrawn.


"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

"Simon" wrote in message
...
It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life, limit
my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade" XP
recover CD, HiHi.


Two points..

If you have only 1gb RAM, part of that will be used for video. You need
to
install another 1gb RAM. If you don't want to do that, use of a flash
drive
in Ready Boost mode goes some way to aiding speed, but it is not as fast
as
extra RAM would be.

Also, laptops are set NOT to run at full CPU speed in order to preserve
battery life. You may want to look at Vista's power settings..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx







The same considerations applied equally to XP. In systems where video memory
is a shared portion of the total RAM installed, unless 768mb or 1gb was
installed, XP performance was compromised. I have seen it on laptops and
desktops alike.

Video memory has increased from 32 and 64mb to 128 and 256mb. On the basis
that Vista requires at least 1gb for its own use (not shared with anything
else), you can see that 1gb is not enough in a shared video memory system.

The manufacturers should install at least 1.5gb RAM in ANY machine, but they
don't purely to keep the price down.

Laptops also have the disadvantage of heat build up, so can't use the
fastest of components. The CPU is throttled back so that battery life looks
better, XP or Vista. Laptops are and always have been a compromise, offering
reasonable performance AND portability..

And Vista is not a useless operating system, working very well for many
people.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"Mark" wrote in message
...
I would like to know how you would install 1.5 Gb of ram as I have not see
a
1.5 Gb stick or a 750 Mb stick and I kbnow not of any popular manufactura
of
laptop who provides more than 2 memory slots, surely you mean that if
Vista
must be installed then microsoft should only allow the install to start
when
2Gb of ram is installed and the operating systen can claim 1.5Gb for its
self,
I think that you have confirmed when you say:-

" Laptops also have the disadvantage of heat build up, so can't use the
fastest of components. The CPU is throttled back so that battery life
looks
better, XP or Vista. Laptops are and always have been a compromise,
offering
reasonable performance AND portability.."

Therfore I would like to point out that you have agreed with me that Vista
in any form or guise should not be installed on a laptop because of its
inherint problems of wishing to use ALL of the avalible system resourse's,
as
it is only suitable for high end PC's what a waste of time and money MS
has
made, this would explain why so many microsoft people are trying to defend
what the industry knows as substandard


I don't know what you're talking about. Vista Home Premium is running on my
laptop beautifully. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo - and not the fastest at
that - 2GB RAM, and an integrated Intel graphics chip. System Video Memory
is 32MB, Shared System Memory is 192MB. RAM utilization during routine
tasks is under 50%, CPU use varies.

He didn't agree with you at all. You just twisted what he said around to
fit your only bias.


"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
...
So basically Mike is saying that Vista is not advsable for use on a
laptop
unless it is fully loaded with memory. what a way to promote a usless
operating system.

The reason for throttling back the cpu is to overcome battery problems
NOT
operating system failures.

All the pre SP1 hype proved fuitless other than microsoft shooting its
self
in its corperate foot.

When is the next version of windows going to be released so that this
usless
sub standard system can be withdrawn.


"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

"Simon" wrote in message
...
It is my last time to use Vista, it slow my work, slow my life,
limit
my
ablility. It's time to say goodbye.

My configuration is Lenovo T61p. Luckily, Lenovo has the "downgrade"
XP
recover CD, HiHi.


Two points..

If you have only 1gb RAM, part of that will be used for video. You
need
to
install another 1gb RAM. If you don't want to do that, use of a flash
drive
in Ready Boost mode goes some way to aiding speed, but it is not as
fast
as
extra RAM would be.

Also, laptops are set NOT to run at full CPU speed in order to
preserve
battery life. You may want to look at Vista's power settings..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx







The same considerations applied equally to XP. In systems where video
memory
is a shared portion of the total RAM installed, unless 768mb or 1gb was
installed, XP performance was compromised. I have seen it on laptops and
desktops alike.

Video memory has increased from 32 and 64mb to 128 and 256mb. On the
basis
that Vista requires at least 1gb for its own use (not shared with
anything
else), you can see that 1gb is not enough in a shared video memory
system.

The manufacturers should install at least 1.5gb RAM in ANY machine, but
they
don't purely to keep the price down.

Laptops also have the disadvantage of heat build up, so can't use the
fastest of components. The CPU is throttled back so that battery life
looks
better, XP or Vista. Laptops are and always have been a compromise,
offering
reasonable performance AND portability..

And Vista is not a useless operating system, working very well for many
people.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

So the laptop manufacturer installs 2gb because it is known that Vista is
better for having 2gb fitted.

Nope, too easy a solution, and they will lose customers who can't quite
afford 2gb.

Then again, RAM would come down in price if more was manufactured and
installed by the OEMs

Vista performs adequately in 1gb, assuming that there is no call on the RAM
by any part of the system. In laptops, there always is, and desktops with
integrated video have the same issue. The manufacturers are quite aware of
this fact, yet they still choose to sell underpowered systems..

They did it with XP too. Remember, it is better to have sold an underpowered
system than to have lost the sale completely..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

I don't follow you Mike. Are you saying persons spending around $1,000 or
2,000 on a new laptop can't afford an extra strip of ram which is extremely
affordable? Have you done any pricing lately?

"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote in message
...
So the laptop manufacturer installs 2gb because it is known that Vista is
better for having 2gb fitted.

Nope, too easy a solution, and they will lose customers who can't quite
afford 2gb.

Then again, RAM would come down in price if more was manufactured and
installed by the OEMs

Vista performs adequately in 1gb, assuming that there is no call on the
RAM by any part of the system. In laptops, there always is, and desktops
with integrated video have the same issue. The manufacturers are quite
aware of this fact, yet they still choose to sell underpowered systems..

They did it with XP too. Remember, it is better to have sold an
underpowered system than to have lost the sale completely..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

The manufacturers should install at least 1.5gb RAM in ANY machine, but
they don't purely to keep the price down.


I agree. Why do MS not suggest this to PC vendors?
http://warworld13.myminicity.com/