[VHMP01]

@rgreen4. You really should try Virtual PC mate, here is a link to an article on how to install Win7 under Virtual PC.

http://blogs.msdn.co...c-2007-sp1.aspx

I have one VPC for DOS 6.22, Win 3.11 (running Excel 3.0), MicroXP, Win2000, Win95, Win98, XP (all with OEMs that were stored away), also an OsX Simulator that runs under XP, and now Win7.

[got2gohunt]

I also have Vista on my new machine it is working better than XP for me I am very happy with Vista. But I also have a machine designed for it by me it is fast and efficient with enough ram and a great processor. I expect Vista 7 to be a little better at some things but not a complete makeover. Vista is fine just get a machine that can run it and you will enjoy it.... got2gohunt

[TechieXP]

To install Windows 7 on a Virtual Machine, you simply Choose Windows Vista as your Virtual Machine. Quick Easy. and uses less hardware then using several drives :-)

[ZACommando]

Very easy actually. Unfortunately, Windows 7 won't run the computer rating inside of a virtual machine so Aero will not run inside the VM. Aero requires the capability rating of the machine before it will turn on. That's a minor caveat to being in a VM, but it does mean 7 runs faster.

[rupaa62]

I've enjoyed using Vista, the only people who says Vista is bad or stinks are the users who have no clue on computing and expect Vista to serve them Breakfast. I can't wait for SP2 on Vista it will be a big improvement. Also people who use and like XP remember they put out other service packs too to improve the OS. As for people comparing Vista with ME. Well I guess you folks who said ME sucked did not know that ME was one of the Rare 32 bit OS's that came out and your lousy 16 bit software did not work on it hence the fact 32 bit software only folks. Also PCworld should stop bashing Microsoft They should take a look at the title of their Mag its PC WORLD, not Mac World or LINUX WORLD. but PC World. They should stop biting the hand who feeds it all of the time. Also I can't wat to hear the Morons scream that windows 7 stinks too. These are going to be the same morons who said Vista stinks. We folks if you have not already switched over to Vista Guess what! Wndows 7 is Vista on steroids, get used to it.

[GetReal]

Edited by MPHEnterprises - Posting of Private Messages are against the {document:id=1000}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Further reading of your private message to me (above) warrants a better answer than my previous effort!

First: Your post was inflamatory and apparantly designed expressly to insult many people reading the blog, directly by calling them "morons" and indirectly by implying they were stupid, and in generaln a put-down to millions of computer users. Over-all an invitation to more posts to rebut your silly comments and adding nothing to the usefullness of the discussion. Few people reading the blog would appreciate comments about "morons" in any context.

Second: Parts of your post were inaccurate---Win-ME will run 16-bit apps---I know this because I have done so, apparantly you have not, or not successfully. My dissatisfaction with ME, and I think that of many others, had nothing to do generically with 16-bit software but that overall it was released by MS almost at the same time as Win-2000, costing only slightly less but extremely pickey and unstable---similar to but maybe not so bad as Win-98 in many ways, plus the range of drivers at release time was inadequate---regardless of who was supposed to generate these drivers. Hardware vendors soon dumped preparation of drivers simply to better support Win-2000. So it can be said it just seemed a ploy by MS to take advantage of people that did not know what they were buying---but MS did, aka generate revenue.

Third: Your perception that PCWorld should only support and involve exclusively Windows users. The PCWorld title of the magazine does not support that exclusiveness---PC's are generic computers of the x86 family that have various OS available.

Fourth: Your support of MS is laudable---if you had terminated your comments at that. But there are serious numbers of MS software users that have had problems, both percieved and real, both of their on fault AND of MS fault. Attacking users serves no useful purpose in the blog >>> re-read my first objection above.

I was inclined to include these comment into my post but decided that it would be excessively lengthly, so I closed it with just a simple statement "Opinions only are like..." and let you deduce your own conclusion. Either you or PCWorld objected to the tone of my reply, deleating it from the blog, but I find/thought it less controversial and more applicable than anything you had posted.

Last: Your statement that you would paste my comments back into the blog, letting people know exactly who I am, is welcomed by me. I am not ashamed of anything I posted or of who I am or of anyone knowing who I am, so, carry on! I only ask that if you do cut/paste, be man/woman enough to include this private message!

[TechieXP]

Windows ME certainly was a 16bit OS as it was part of the 9x family which include 95,98,98SE. The concept of ME was to help people transition from 9x to NT aka Windows 2000. I thought it was stupid. Windows ME was suppose to have an interface similar to Windows 2000. It was not even close. Windows ME sucked big time, even MSFT admitted it. It crashed more then Windows 98 ever did. Windows 98SE which was suppose to originally be the forst Service Pack for a consumer version of Windows, became a goldmine for MSFT. Instead of making it a free download, it turn into 98SE which MS sold. Probbaly to make up for cash it lost making internet Explorer free. That's my own speculation. But I think the file download was way to big as it would have been teh size of a full CD. Back then with dialup eing the viable solution for most...using 33.6 or 56k modems, that would have been a nightmare. MSFT could have provided the CD for free and just charged for shipping. But good ole MSFT isn't going to pass up a chance. To get ME to run good you had to get a CD and install it clean. Most systems that even came with it pre-installed (especially eMachines) ran terrible. Most users went back to SE ot choose Windows 2000.

That created a bigger problem for MSFT. Windows 2000 built on NT was more stable then any 9x version. People noticed that their machines at work seldom or never crashed. Which is why using ME as a stepping stone was stupid. But this was MSFT bad attempt to let ppl know they were dropping the 9x family and that every subsequent OS would be built on NT. Since 2k wasn't 16bit compatible all Windows 9x and DOS programs failed. The only time some Windows 9x progs worked, is if you did an upgrade from 98 to 2K. There was no upgrade from ME. I wonder why?! With hardware not working in 2K because it was a Business OS, MSFT had to run to fix teh issue. With SP1 they introduce Compatibility Mode which allow for some 16bit compatibility. It sucked thought. During this time MSFT release more SP that improved this ability and code in support for Legacy based hardware. Which is why drivers for older hardware became available. But it didn't solve enough problems. The solution ended up being Windows XP. It offered better backwards caompatibility for DOS and 9x. But it to at first had huge problems. And just like here we all complained about how bad XP was. Once SP1a was released that fixed lots of issues. That was a quick fix until SP1 was released.

There have been users here comparing Vista to ME. Vista does have problems, but it is nowhere as bad as ME was. Vista is teh most secure and stable NT release and has be compared to several other x86 based OS's. Its even better than XP SP3, and Linux Ubuntu and even Mac OS. Its slow adoption could be attributed too, users not wanting to spend the money to update hardware to properly run it. The second is teh bad press Vista has obviously gotten. However there are way more ppl having a good time with Vista and there are some who aren't. Read around and you see that ppl are still even having issues with XP even after SP3.

I agree that many users don't know what they are doing. This last virus attack proves it. Everyone would have been proteced if they simply update there software. MS tried to make it a total complete automatic thing. But ppl complained about MSFT having to much control over their PC. So now you have choice and even with all the news, ppl aren't smart enough to update. The person may not be stupid...but not properly taking care of your PC is stupid.

SP2 ore than likely will improve on other performance issues in Vista. It will also bring teh code closer to Windows 7 and help Vista work better with newer features of Windows Server 2008, which is built on Vista's kernel. Notice you haven't heard any issue with Enterprise users having trouble with Windows Server 2008?!

Most users were not ready for Vista, just like many were not ready for XP...and again many won't be ready for Windows 7. And yes these same said ppl will be online compalining about how bad MS software is. Figures show that most issues in Windows are indeed caused by the knowledge base of teh user. While many are wasting time surfing and reading information on th efantasy lives of movies stars, and downloading music/movies...they could be educating themselves on being more familiar with software they use. They never will which is why we IT ppl make so uch money to deal with it. Its probably better users don't get to sart, or we will be out of a job.

MSFT has spent an awesome amount of money to make Windows more secure. Starting with Windows XP Sp1...when you install new, the intsallation when complete...the last screen that pops up is teh setting for auto-updates. I have watch many choose option 2 even though option 1 is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. These are the same users who complain later their crap doesn't work. Or I have a virus infection...the list goes on. These users are in fact the cause of many problems we have and they certain are not proficient users. They're not stupid, they are simply uneducated. But fact is, with all this wealth of information online there is no reason not to take advantage of it...not doing so is stupid.

Also to fix a misunderstanding of Service Packs. This would be similar to taking your car in for service. A Service Pack for your car would simply improve things your car does already. It would not add new features. For exaple, lets say you wanted Turbo for your car, but your engine doesn't support it. That would ean you would need a full modification made to the car. This goes beyond simple service. A Service Pack is typically a rollup of updates, and new code to fix problems and add enhancements. Its not going to add features. In order to add features many need to be added at the kernel level, which means a rewrite. In a rewrite teh version of Windows also gets updated. I am going to assume SP2 for Vista will make it 6.0.6002 as SP! made Vista 6.0.6001. Windows 7, being 6.1.7000 means in Fact Windows 7 is new code and yes it is built on 6.x...which insures it will be compatibil e with Vista, and Windows Server 2008. But some drivers will need to be patched. In therory SP2 shouldn't break anything...if it does it was probably broke in teh first place...and SP2 will just make it known to you so you can fix it.

I wouldn't install a beta of a SP. In NT versions of Windows, Service Packs normally can't be removed without causing more issues. Restore Points may also get screweed as well. It is best to wait for teh full release...lets other download it first, get some feed back..and then apply the update. This is espcially if you don't dual boot another OS as backup, if you're not savvy enough to work to fix issues, and ost importantly if this is your everyday used system. SP3 for Xo caused a lot of issues for many espcially if they had AMD based CPU's. Check your OEM's web site to see what the test resukts are for your system. They will outline for you in deatiled what preinstalled software could have issues with SP2. This doesn't include any software you installed yourself. You should check those yourself as well. One of those days you're sitting around doing nothing (whenever that happens) is a good time to get yourself updated to things you dont know. Computer stuff is pretty easy...there are even more females getting into IT. Many things are only as hard as you make it. If you can't do it, there is nothing wrong with paying soone to do it for you. Not doing so, means you'll pay more to fix the problem later. Just like your car. And just like your car, your pc will warn you it is having problems. They have mechanices too...use them to your benefit...

If you don't and you post your message...someone is going to criticize you. I wouldn't use such harsh words...sometimes the truth is harder to handle than a lie.

[cubbage]

Thank you for your candid advice. I always recommend that poeple do a clean install of any Windows OS, but wait for SP1 before that. I have done the same for all Windows OS's I own, which is all of them, version 1.0 to Vista 64. I will say that I have not and will not get Vista 32 bit, I went straight to Vista64 and never had any problems with it but then again I did not go to Vista until SP1. I will do the same for Windows 7 when it is released since all first releases of new Windows OS's are should be classified as final beta not RTM. But then Microsoft would have to do more testing which will involve them spending money and time.

[TechieXP]

Well Windows is always work in progress even after its release. Vista was not ready for full release. Many who beta tested Vista said it wasn't ready for full release. XP wasn't either. However MSFT will always have to fix something after Windows is released. But I think people don't really understand the task at hand.

Unlike Apple who builds their own system and the OS that goes on it, and fully gets to test everything before releasing, MSFT doesn't have that avail to them. They have to design and OS that is made to run on someone elses system that could have literally 100's of different configurations. On to of that you have people who build there own custom systems that could have any of number of different hardware and software combinations. Many issues in Windows are cause by developers who write bad driver, thus why MSFT wants to certify them and bad software development. Some even are upset bec SFT charges to certify drivers. Well they won't have to certify the in the first place if developers wrote them properly. And if they didn't make so many version of teh same hardware they wouldn't have so many to get certified. And they want Microsoft to take time out of their schedule to do it for the...and they expect free? Drivers are harder to deal with then applications are. And teh ore complicated teh hardware teh more complicated teh software. One reason why video and sound cards always have updates, because one issue may not show when teh card is used on one brand, but may show on another. Each OE builds system differently. Retail drivers have to be rewritten because retail drivers are designed to look for a coplete card vs just chips. OEM's buy the chips for Nvidia and ATI for example and solder them to their own boards. This is why you shouldn't use retail drivers on an OEM system. But there are cases when you can.

Software has the same issue. This is why for one, you should never install more than 1 programs that does teh same thing. We all ahve our favorites. But most users could use Windows only and have everything they need. Unless you own an iPod, Itunes does nothing more then can be done by Windows Media Player. Windows can burns disk, has its own firewall, email, text editor and simple picture format editiing. If you install a good anti-virus that incorporate malware and spyware scanning..then you don't need several applications to do one of each. This is why Security Suites are better than stand-alone programs. Espcially for a Novice. The less complicated things you install, teh less complicated things will be. SB2 for Vista especially so quickly after SP1 shows MS is working very hard to fix Vista's issues. Same as they did for XP. In fact SP1a and SP1 were release very quickly after XP was.

But OEM have 5 years to test and OS before RTM. If you buy a brand new system and it has problems, that is an OE issue...not an MS issue. I use to work in a call center for MSFT, and the majority of the calls aren't MSFT related. But everytime a box pops up saying error, they think it is a MSFT problems. Again that comes from not actually reading and diagnosing the problem.

Even though it sounds weird, your computer can be alergic to software just like your body can be to eds. It may not be teh software itself, but a combination of them. My practice is to stick with programs from one vendor where possible. Same for hardware. ATI vs Nvidia. Just from watch forum, it appears Nvidia has way ore issues and updates vs ATI. Same for communication devices. Broadcom or Intel based hardware seem to have less problems. It is also prabable teh Windows installation CD will have native drivers...especially for Intel since they are a MSFT Partner. Most new systems come with Soundcards...installing one from lets say Creative is inviting issues. If you have one type of hardware integrated, and want to use a card instead...it is best to disable the onboard card first. On new boards even OEM's, this can be done in the BIOS setup screen.

When it comes to features or progras in Windows, I think it sucks you can't remove the ones that are there. But you can avoid some conflicts if you use teh tool in Windows that lets you set the default programs for particular file types you use often.

I would be cool if people commend MSFT soetimes vs bashing them all the time. Out of all 3 OS's, MSFT has the shortest turn-around on addressing and fixing problems. In many cases they have a fix with hours...vs weeks by others. MSFT has to deal with billions of users vs just a few million like Linux and Mac OS. Since they have less users, they technically have lest problems. A single problem in Windows could cause issues for way more ppl. THis last update which was avail in Oct that effect 9 Million is crazy. That was 9 million lazy users who all they had to do was run Windows Update once per week or set it to be automatic. And Enterprises should fire every IT guy who didn't do their job. For the money they make, a problem like this shouldn't have every happened in the first place. The average IT person makes at least 40K for a job that isn't always hard or time consuming, depending on company size.

The stats say 23% percent of Windows usage is users with Vista. The earths populat is about close to 8 Billion. If 1/2 own a computer and 23% are running Vista, that means several million are using Vista with no problems. And for those avoiding Vista should look at those numbers as oppose to pre-judging a product you ahve never used. It basically means, more ppl are using Vista legally and plenty not legally without any problems. and it is more of them vs those that are having problems. Which eans if it was a product that was as bad as ME, no one would be using it. If 60% are using XP it would be for 1, XP has been out almost 10 years while Vista is only 3 years old. New system are being downgraded to XP, but this is far less then those already using XP in the first place. Most who upgraded to Vista, should have been using XP anyways bec their system wasn't esigned to run any more then. And no matter how many Service Packs, updates, or any new version of Windows, is going to ever solve their problems. The only solution is for MSFT to make a locked pc with everything set for them allowing them to change nothing, accept power on and power off. With software that doesn't allow user to install software they already have or don't need. And a lock that prevents them from going online if they don't have sufficient anti-virus running. This would be an equivilent to have teh Denver Boot placed on your car for unpaid parking tickets, or having driving priviledges suspended until you meet the proper criteria to have them. But if MSFT did that then ppl would be crying lawsuite for compromising their free rights. Or be like handing them a Mac (sarcasm) :-))

I been using Vista since beta and I hope SP2 doesn't break it. And as you said...it si a good idea to install teh final release of a service pack after a few weeks. So just in case there are issues, you can have a chance to wait for them to get worked out.

And remember software is never ever truly complete. Thats why it has updates. Same for hardware, but software is a bit more forgiving as teh fix doesn't aways mean replacing. Which is why when other OS users suggest juping fro Windows to Mac or Linux as a solution, may or may not be a good idea.

[GetReal]

TechieXp I almost always enjoy reading your posts, I learn things occasionally but usually you cover so much it takes me a long time to get to all. You made some good points.

[rtfire1]

Techiexp very nice write up.

[TechieXP]

Much of your post didn't show here. It appears it has to do with your spacings. It did appear in the email
Here is what you said:
TechieXp I almost always enjoy reading your posts, I learn things occasionally but usually you cover so much it takes me a long time to get to all. Having said that I want a follow-up on something you covered. Software: As example, I use at home Office-2000 as it does absolutely everything I want to do and I know how to do what I want---I like it even if it is 8 years old. I had used Office-2003 at work---didn't add ANYthing to my life over Office-2000 so I never upgraded my home version. I was pleasantly surprised to discover Office-2000 still worked under Vista home premium, but then the same company wrote both, so... Anyway, lets alternatively and only as example, say I am using Word Perfect, which again does all I want, etc. In either case that software is paid for, so, why do I need to buy new?

The short answer is that my version of Word Perfect worked fine under Win-2000, but Win-2000 is little, if any, supported now. So sooner rather than later I face the necessity of buying Xp, Vista or Win-7. Now I do need also to buy a replacement for Word Perfect because it was not made by MS. I don't accept other posts idea that WP was bad software or not written to professional standards---thats just people posting without thinking. So, now in example, I have bought a new MS OS to keep up with support but because of MS's efforts to reduce competition >>> built into the new OS---some or possibly lots of what software I have gets toss'd down the tube (yes Vista runs fine on my hardware-finally). Please don't respond that this is not the case because we both know it is, its been seriously documented. This obsolecence was understandable when we changed from 16 to 32 bit OS, and will be again whenever changing to 64 bit, but Xp, Vista and Win-7 still are/will be issued in 32-bit. You make a good point in that MS should write an OS that works with everyones everything and that being difficult, I mean to say also they want to be tops and have the whole market---but they don't, and mostly what gets toss'd in the process is NON-MS software.

There are other examples I could add, such as browsers or networking, etc. but I guess what mostly I want to say is that with MS, not everything that glitters is gold---nor is it as honest as we are led to believe. I think that parts of MS perpetual upgrades, service packs and fix's involve such activity and that his is part of peoples ongoing irritation with MS---they have been burned and there is nothing VIABLE that can be done about it.

My answer. Fact is, if what you have no matter how old will offer you resaonable compatibility with todays software, then you don't need to upgrade. There are plenty of users still using Windows 95. MSFT has made sure that if you have Office 2000 at least, you can still edit Office 2007 files as long as you install the patch. Since all versions of Windows still uses older TCP/IP network protocols...it will always be backwards compatibile with older systems. But the newer stuff offer new abilities for people who need them.

Even MSFT said, if you don't need to upgrade...don't. But things do change. And the problems it causes is, if you wait to long to change, then the cost to so is much more expensive. And that si for hardware and software. I look at it like this. I too agree with teh markethsrae MSFT has, they don't need to charge as much. However, if you look at how much software save you time and money then the cost is practically justified. Example...imagine if you had to pay someone money to manually do many of the things we do easily in Windows alone. Imagine if you had to pay someone to do what you can do with Office alone.As another commeter in another forum said, why should I pay oney for software if I don't need all of it, why can't i pay for what I want. Well with Office you can. If you don't want to pay $400 for teh Suite...then pay $80 for each of teh ones you do need which is typically Word and Excel. One even said MS should make a basic version and allow the other options to be purchased if you need them. Seem like a good idea...but there are lots of things ppl actually do need and they don't download them. Everyone needs anti-virus...most dont keep it up to date or even have one installed. If they can't make a good judgement call, why should MSFT trust them to do so with their software. MSFT is simply trying to make things a bit easier by having it there for you. Someties they over kill, but what can you do...no ones perfect. But they do go beyond teh call of duty a lot which is why i try not to bash them at every turn. For a company that supplies products to billions of ppl, vs millions and does it with the few problems they have...i'd say they are doing pretty good.

[GetReal]

Thanks for your considered reply. I owe you an apology in that the reason my post seemed incomplete was that a few hours after the fact, having in the interum read so much useless venting and moaning about MS vs Apple vs Linux (different flavors of Win-7 etc.) that I decided my post fell into the same catagory and it was not how I wanted myself represented, so I deleated most of it. Sorry, did not realize it would get to you anyway. I am not even slightly a fan of MS but I do realize they are about the only option we have if we want to do real work on a computer and further realize that, even if MS is as sleazy a company as I personally think, all my posts of complaint & comparason are never going to effect/change anyone at Redmond or in any department of justice anywhere on the planet, or even any other user, so I will probably withdraw from future posts in PCWorld.

Have a good day!

[rgreen4]

I'm not sure which version of WordPerfect you are using, but you may be able to check with Corel and see if it will work with Vista or even XP. I started with WordPerfect in the early '80's, I think it was version 3 or something similiar. I remember clearly the updates to 4.1 and 4.2 and then later version 5. I converted to WordPerfect for Windows when it came out. I used it at home and at work.

For a long time in our Accounting Department, we used WordPerfect for documents and Lotus 1-2-3 for spreadsheets. Finally about 1998, Corporate came down with the mandate that all locations standardize on Microsoft Office. I could do more with WordPerfect then, than I can do with Word today, even Word 2007.

[cubbage]

GetReal,

I for one do not want to see you leave the forums, all opinions are welcome. I am agnostic on OS's, if it will do the job for me great, if not get another one. This is PCWorld, not WindowsWorld so if you have a computer you have a say here. I have installed all of the OS's and used them both past and present starting in 1970 (helped with IBM mainframe OS's also). Some of 8 bit OS's were the most fun while being fustrating, go figure. Anyway please stay around, your opinion does count.

[talon1812]

No, it's NOT your imagination. That's why I didn't renew my magazine subscription to them. Seems like all I was reading was about Mac's or Iphones or I-Tunes. To me, it was more like reading MacWorld than PC World. I got tired of reading about it. Instead of ranting and raving, I simply did not renew my subscription and hit them where it hurts the most-monetarily.

Frank in Texas