Vista

[celticpilgrim]

I've recently bought a sony laptop complete with vista....

NOW, the problem I haveis....every time you drag your finger from right to left, it back tracks your previous pages!!!!

Fecks me off big time - can it be turned off?

[mattgarnham]

yes























install xp

[Plotloss]

Thats not a feature of Vista, its a feature of the trackpoint software.

You should be able to turn it off in the Mouse section of control panel.

[The_Jackal]

Mine doesnt do that. Is it a feature of IE? If it is, I'm sure you can turn gestures off.
Either way I dont think it is Vista's fault before we start the whole "Vista is crap" stupid thread.

[Blue Meanie]

Vista is crap





(see what I did there?)

[jimmyb]

YES






Yes it is


Utter Boll*cks

[bga]

jimmyb said:

YES






Yes it is


Utter Boll*cks

As is XP

[dilbert]

Dont use it then!

[HRG]

Vista? Cracking bit of kit. When you analysed it which bit didn't you understand or like?

[dilbert]

HRG said:

Vista? Cracking bit of kit. When you analysed it which bit didn't you understand or like?

Personally I quite like it, but I have my reservations about session 0 isolation, particularly the bit that says you can't ask for a session 0 desktop, only be offered one!

[HRG]

dilbert said:

HRG said:

Vista? Cracking bit of kit. When you analysed it which bit didn't you understand or like?

Personally I quite like it, but I have my reservations about session 0 isolation, particularly the bit that says you can't ask for a session 0 desktop, only be offered one!

Yeah, but you're a fellow

I had my reservations at first but on the right hardware with current drivers it's fantastic. My HP lappy suspends immediately and will resume in under ten seconds. It's never BSOD'd and it's a good UI once you are familiar with it.

There are a couple of programs I can't run on it so my desktop has to run on XP still, otherwise that would be Vista too.

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

[Plotloss]

HRG said:

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

I think the vast majority of dissatisfied users are running it on substandard hardware.

On the lappy its not the best, on the beast it runs like a dream.

[HRG]

Plotloss said:

HRG said:

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

I think the vast majority of dissatisfied users are running it on substandard hardware.

On the lappy its not the best, on the beast it runs like a dream.

Quite...

My lappy is new and designed for Vista. It's got 4GB of RAM and eats anything I ask of it. I can imagine it being a bot of a dog if you don't run it on suitable hardware though. Bit like sticking a Fiesta engine in an old Bentley.

[jimmyb]

HRG said:

Plotloss said:

HRG said:

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

I think the vast majority of dissatisfied users are running it on substandard hardware.

On the lappy its not the best, on the beast it runs like a dream.

Quite...

My lappy is new and designed for Vista. It's got 4GB of RAM and eats anything I ask of it. I can imagine it being a bot of a dog if you don't run it on suitable hardware though. Bit like sticking a Fiesta engine in an old Bentley.

Well i'm one of its not so big fans. I am running an alienware designed with vista as its preferred operating system with 2g ram and 4g assigned to ramboost. When I first got my laptop i had to reinstall vista 3 times in 6 weeks or so after it crashed 3-4 times. Eventually worked out that it crashed every time it auto updated from microsoft.

I therefore switched off auto update and it ran fine from pressing power to being ready took around 30-40 secs. After amonth or two i decided to try allowing some updates so allowed the majority of updates from the date after i switched off auto update. However now it takes 3-5mins to start up.

I have no problem with the software useability but what its doing to my laptop is winding me up. I really dont see why it should be such a battle.

[dilbert]

HRG said:

dilbert said:

HRG said:

Vista? Cracking bit of kit. When you analysed it which bit didn't you understand or like?

Personally I quite like it, but I have my reservations about session 0 isolation, particularly the bit that says you can't ask for a session 0 desktop, only be offered one!

Yeah, but you're a fellow

I had my reservations at first but on the right hardware with current drivers it's fantastic. My HP lappy suspends immediately and will resume in under ten seconds. It's never BSOD'd and it's a good UI once you are familiar with it.

There are a couple of programs I can't run on it so my desktop has to run on XP still, otherwise that would be Vista too.

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

If it's just windows stuff, and the apps don't require USB, you might want to try MS Virtual PC. It's pretty whizzy for all those backward compatibility problems, and it's free. Allows you to reduce your "real world" desktop footprint.

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 21st June 21:18

[Noger]

Trainable handwriting. Excellent pen flick support.

What is not to like

[HRG]

jimmyb said:

HRG said:

Plotloss said:

HRG said:

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

I think the vast majority of dissatisfied users are running it on substandard hardware.

On the lappy its not the best, on the beast it runs like a dream.

Quite...

My lappy is new and designed for Vista. It's got 4GB of RAM and eats anything I ask of it. I can imagine it being a bot of a dog if you don't run it on suitable hardware though. Bit like sticking a Fiesta engine in an old Bentley.

Well i'm one of its not so big fans. I am running an alienware designed with vista as its preferred operating system with 2g ram and 4g assigned to ramboost. When I first got my laptop i had to reinstall vista 3 times in 6 weeks or so after it crashed 3-4 times. Eventually worked out that it crashed every time it auto updated from microsoft.

I therefore switched off auto update and it ran fine from pressing power to being ready took around 30-40 secs. After amonth or two i decided to try allowing some updates so allowed the majority of updates from the date after i switched off auto update. However now it takes 3-5mins to start up.

I have no problem with the software useability but what its doing to my laptop is winding me up. I really dont see why it should be such a battle.

But that's not Vista, fully autoupdated my lappy still boots from power off in seconds. Check the Event Viewer, something's not right.

[jimmyb]

HRG said:

jimmyb said:

HRG said:

Plotloss said:

HRG said:

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

I think the vast majority of dissatisfied users are running it on substandard hardware.

On the lappy its not the best, on the beast it runs like a dream.

Quite...

My lappy is new and designed for Vista. It's got 4GB of RAM and eats anything I ask of it. I can imagine it being a bot of a dog if you don't run it on suitable hardware though. Bit like sticking a Fiesta engine in an old Bentley.

Well i'm one of its not so big fans. I am running an alienware designed with vista as its preferred operating system with 2g ram and 4g assigned to ramboost. When I first got my laptop i had to reinstall vista 3 times in 6 weeks or so after it crashed 3-4 times. Eventually worked out that it crashed every time it auto updated from microsoft.

I therefore switched off auto update and it ran fine from pressing power to being ready took around 30-40 secs. After amonth or two i decided to try allowing some updates so allowed the majority of updates from the date after i switched off auto update. However now it takes 3-5mins to start up.

I have no problem with the software useability but what its doing to my laptop is winding me up. I really dont see why it should be such a battle.

But that's not Vista, fully autoupdated my lappy still boots from power off in seconds. Check the Event Viewer, something's not right.

Not so sure youre right. Started immediately after allowing updates. I grant you however it seems to be getting slower so could be something else. Also seems to be overheating. Might need to send it back to the factory.

[HRG]

jimmyb said:

HRG said:

jimmyb said:

HRG said:

Plotloss said:

HRG said:

It seems people prefer to sg it off rather than learn how it works.

I think the vast majority of dissatisfied users are running it on substandard hardware.

On the lappy its not the best, on the beast it runs like a dream.

Quite...

My lappy is new and designed for Vista. It's got 4GB of RAM and eats anything I ask of it. I can imagine it being a bot of a dog if you don't run it on suitable hardware though. Bit like sticking a Fiesta engine in an old Bentley.

Well i'm one of its not so big fans. I am running an alienware designed with vista as its preferred operating system with 2g ram and 4g assigned to ramboost. When I first got my laptop i had to reinstall vista 3 times in 6 weeks or so after it crashed 3-4 times. Eventually worked out that it crashed every time it auto updated from microsoft.

I therefore switched off auto update and it ran fine from pressing power to being ready took around 30-40 secs. After amonth or two i decided to try allowing some updates so allowed the majority of updates from the date after i switched off auto update. However now it takes 3-5mins to start up.

I have no problem with the software useability but what its doing to my laptop is winding me up. I really dont see why it should be such a battle.

But that's not Vista, fully autoupdated my lappy still boots from power off in seconds. Check the Event Viewer, something's not right.

Not so sure youre right. Started immediately after allowing updates. I grant you however it seems to be getting slower so could be something else. Also seems to be overheating. Might need to send it back to the factory.

Could be the old MS provided driver angst of yore...

I can remember all the fuss when people went from 3.xx to 9x Only time they were right was ME IMO.

[jimmyb]

It s weird how sometimes you hanker after the old days. My favourite has to be 3.11 windows or 95/98. Stable and importantly so very very easy to use.