if you want to know if your PC can run vista and if the progs you have will run? then you may want to pop along to microsoft

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=42B5AC83-C24F-4863-A389-3FFC194924F8&displaylang=en
and get ready to cry

actually... all 4 of the PC's here are ready

the 2 new Dell's Betrand and Cerberus (both AMD Dual Core 64's)

and the 2 older 1ghz Semprons.

all passed the test with no problems...

I downloaded something from microsoft that tests stuff on your pc [vista upgrade adviser] and it said mine would be ok for it but I'm not bothering anyway until I get a new pc which isn't for about 18 mths! [LOL].

The advisor wouldn't run on mine LOL - got an error message about a debugger or some such nonense.  I have no plans to upgrade to Vista but wanted to check for a what the hell moment.  So that sums it up - will never know LOL - tells me something right there ;)

I will only have Vista if it's the only option available when buying a new pc.  Same with XP - didn't have that till I bought a new puter.  My hubby uses my old one and is quite happy doing what he does with ME :)

well, that was fast; even the tester only runs on XP...;) never mind..;)

Last time I tried it my pc came through as workable with Vista except for my firewall, antivirus & internet connection. I'll be giving it a miss anyway, I don't fancy spending £150 on something that dangerous to the health of my pc & my hair.

Ya know .. I don't even want to know. Especially since building a new pc about 6 month or so agao that ALREADY can't handle what I'm trying to do with it. Arh!!!!

This program works if you want to upgrade from XP. I ran it on XP and got the results I anticipated. http://www.vista-io.com/0201 

I am putting it on 1 machine to test it out.

Just curious to know (I can't afford to upgrade anyway)...

What does Vista (or XP, for that matter) give me that Win2K doesn't? (Apart from new headaches, that is.)

I don't run graphics-heavy games; I don't want/need "seamlessly-integrated" MS software (which usually isn't seamless and also wants to be so helpful that it jumps in with an "OOOH I know what you're trying to do - I'll do it for you" attitude - except I wasn't trying to do that and have to spend the next 1/2 hour undoing the mess created); I only ever have the minimum of apps that I need running simultaneously (usually only 2); I'm not on-line 24/7; I hate it when something I don't know about starts "calling home" and my HD starts to go berserk...

In short, I prefer to be in charge, not MS.

Cheers,
Diolma

I went straight from '98 to XP and I'm happy with XP, never had any issues with it, no "blue screen of death" or shit like that, don't know about 2000, bypassed that one!!
My motto, like most I'd say "If it aint broke don't fix it" [LOL]

Hi, Fixer

I agree "If it aint (oops - isn't) broke(n) (then) don't fix(repair) it! - Sorry, I couldn't resist - a momentary Anglo-Saxon pedantic moment...but I agree that the American version is more colourful :biggrin:

I went from '98 to Win2K 'cos the company I was working for at the time used Win2K and sometimes I worked from home. So I got a free upgrade. The company bought me a new (home) PC so that I was up-to-date, and that included the Win2K disk - all perfectly legal:-)

I've never needed to upgrade since..

Cheers,
Diolma

About the only need for XP would be if you ran certain programs, like the most recent version of Adobe After Effects (Xp only), or others of the latest. I still have my Win2k and drivers and Service packs all preserved, and if needful, will go back to that as my main OS and use XP and XP64 solely for graphics work....and yank out every service I don't truly need for that purpose. Right now the only true reason to upgrade to Vista is if you are a gamer, and want to play one of the forthcoming DX-10 games...once they are actually released.

I upgraded from Windows 2000 to XP about three years ago and I'm extremely happy with XP.  Mind you, I was very happy with 2000 and the only reason I upgraded was similiar to what diolma said, the company I worked for gave me the upgrade so I was entirely compliant with their system.  Even then, I put off installing it for a few months until I had basically rebuilt my computer.

I think the big difference with XP and 2000 (and I might be wrong about this) is that XP allows larger harddrives.  I don't think you can go beyond 137 GB or something like that with 2000.  I have a 300 GB HD now, so I guess I made the right decision to go to XP.

XP was built on 2000's architecture, thought (whatever that means) and has all the stability that 2000 has.

The biggest reason to ever upgrade, though is support.  They will eventually stop service releases for 2000 and then XP and so on.

I'm not looking forward to Vista (which I know will be pre-installed on my next PC and will start being implemented where ever I work).

I don't buy computers for their operating systems, I buy them to run applications.  This is something that MS and Mac doesn't seem to comprehend.  Each update seems to lock out basic functionality, too.  I miss the days of being able to mass rename things using Windows 3.1's file manager, for example.

Maybe it's because I'm getting old and I resist change.

yeah, vista is really something i want...then i could crash more often than i do now.

mr. gates an i have such a warm fuzzy relationship anyways...he likes when i call for reinstallations almost as much as i do.

@ ThrommArcadia:
Actually, you can do a "Mass Rename" from Win2K - but you have to go back to Dos.
"Start->Run" then "cmd.exe". But you need to know the Dos commands to navigate to around, and that's more than I'm able to help with tonight...

Cheers,
Diolma

(Who also HATES the MS superior attitude of  "OH! That could be dangerous - better not let these ignorant punters access it")

My compy is not "up to Vista" - and if I'd ever get better machine I rather buy P8 (yup, P8, because that won't happen anytime sooner) than Vista ;)

Yep dont want vista but if you have a pc with vista on it, partition hard drive and get either home or pro from ebay or wherever and install.
Use xp for your gaming and internet and as for dix 10 games the pc is dead as a games machine thank's to software houses demanding you upgrade to play next game.
Pro more stable than home as i use both and home is cack, and as for vista home premium it's a update of home and does not have all the security features of, vista buisness.
Vista will need an update by nov dec sp1 patch as vista has lot's fault's microsoft has to fix, plus the hacker's are having fun with it.
Now i tested 98 again and the last updates for it contain sabo code to corrupt 98 and make it unstable as checking with couple hackers they agreed, so you use 98 with so many updates keep it stable.
As from next year xp home will become more unstable forcing many home user's to vista up.
Let's hope the chinese goverment takes linux and makes it into a free full program that will run xp software, as i trust the chinese more than gates and american goverment team up.

Vista is the perfect tool for masochists and every sadist will recomend you to upgrade your PC to Vista.

Four of my machines (including my laptop) are Vista 64 ready.
I'm considering upgrading the laptop to Vista Media Center. For my job I'll have to know about Vista, and that means some hands-on diving in. The lack of OpenGL support is putting me off, however.
My fastest desktop runs XP 64 bit. Fast, stable. Won't upgrade.
My other desktop runs XP 32 bit. It's more likely that I'll upgrade to XP64 than to Vista - I don't want the graphical goodies, but I do want to use more than 2 GB per process..
The fourth one runs a Media Center 32 bit, and it runs fine. No need to upgrade.

My other two machines are 32 bit, AMD Athlon based. Both run 2003 Server. They have hever been crashed or compromised. Won't upgrade.

another reason not to get vista, the uk is being ripped off again. 
have a look at the cost between the usa and the uk. billy boy you can install it were the sun dont shine. i have had it with you and your company

oh..that's been going on for decades..;) the one time I went to London (long time ago), they were offering Word Perfect (told you it was long ago) for about 500 pounds ('91), it was going for about $250 in the States. I thought I was in the wrong business...;)

"The UK is being ripped off again"

Actually, anything non-US is being ripped off. Part of the price difference is due to VAT policies, part of it is due to export taxes from the US.

Some companies also want more money from non-US customers than from US customers. Apple and Adobe for example. As far as I know, Microsoft is one of the few software vendors that do not care what nationality the customer has - as long as MS gets their $ (don't know how much exactly) per license, they don't give a damn whether you're American, British or Swahili.

pakled: that's what I remember too. '91, that was before Novell bought WordPerfect, isn't it? 500 British pounds was about 1800 Dutch guilders in those days.

By the way, I think Vista is too expensive for what it delivers.

I bought this machine with XP installed & that's how it's staying, I don't have the money to buy a new one so this may very well be my last pc.