What inkjet printer prints the best text?

I just checked the links you mentioned, and I'm not sure I understand
what you are stating here. The drivers seem to have the same suffix
(.303130) but the prefixes are different and so are the sizes of the
files, so I'm not sure they are the same files. My experience with
scanners is that the firmware can limit what drivers will work, sometime
to the point of working with only specific serial number groups.

I looked at the several Visioneer scanners I own (all of which are in
storage) and none seem to have XP drivers (the 6100, the 3100 and two of
the paperport MX) that I can find. If you know where they are hiding
I'd love to know.

However, I'll also mention that the quality of the scanners left a lot
to be desired. They suffered from streaking, offset convergence, and
other problems. I finally bought a Umax, and then got an Epson.

Art


kony wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:16:48 -0800, Cal Bubba
wrote:


Burt wrote:


TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.

That's my point. You scanner may, in fact, have worked fine! The
*******s were too sucky to even see if their existing drivers would work
under the new OS (which, in my own case, the driver works just fine).

By the way, Visioneer scanners were/are sold under other brand names
(such as Memorex,Colorado, and private label brands). So when you buy a
scanner sold under one of these brand names, guess whose "support"
you're going to get?

Bubba



Any of the above? Mostly Visioneer since their 'site does
provide the legacy drivers. (see links below).

My Visioneer 4400, Memorex 6142, PrimaScan 2600U (all same
printer/driver, just sold under all these names) has XP
drivers. For the price I paid way back when (under $20
after a rebate) and that it works still today, I can hardly
complain if it wasn't supported by Vista.

http://support.visioneer.com/product...ex/default.asp

Now the funny part, the 2600U claims not designed for XP but
is the same printer, with same driver they claim works for
the Memorex:
http://support.visioneer.com/product.../downloads.asp

Many scanners suffer from either plasticizers or volatiles of the
lubricants vaporizing and redepositing on the bottom surface of the glass.

Most of them can be opened with care, by removing a couple of screws and
carefully cleaning the inside surface. Try not to knock the scanning
bar or moving it, and try to keep dust out and off the mirrors.

Art

Cal Bubba wrote:

Burt wrote:

TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new
Windows version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The
scanner wasn't very old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.
In fairness, technology and associated software for scanners had
advanced to the point where it was actually a blessing after the fact.


Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
text scanning now.

In my case, the Visioneer in question is the OneTouch 7600 USB. I
bought it from Office Max something like 7 years ago for $20 after
rebate. The oddball chipset it uses(What WAS that chipset called? E3?
Something like that.) was also used by at least two other scanner
brand names, though I expect they were probably all made by the same
manufacturer. I've never used Windows XP, so I don't know if they
issued a driver for it or not. I used it with Windows 98SE. It worked
great then and still works now, those infrequent times when I fire up
Windows and use it.

Mine was the first "one-touch" model. It used a parallel cable that
also connected a printer. All pre-USB stuff.


Ohmygod! I've been ripped off! I paid $39.95 at McFrugals.

My Visioneer scanner is a "Colorado Primascan 2400P." It's got a regular
Visioneer name, too, and probably other "brands." I put "brands" in
quotes because it's been a great long time since Memorex was a real
company. They buy stuff and sell stuff. Sometimes, like AT&T, GE
(Thomson), Timex, IBM, etc., they license other companies to use their
name. IBM chewing gum? You heard about it here, first, folks.
When you see products from these companies in unexpected places, read
the fine print on the box. Aha!

My scanner connects to the computer via a printer cable. At the same
time, virtually identical models were being sold with USB interfaces,
which I should have bought -- but didn't know.

No matter, Visioneer simply claims that the thing is, OS-specific,
therefore obsolete, and so they no longer have to support it with
updated drivers: which is arrogant Visioneer bull****.

Visioneer is one of those maddening companies who put a telephone moat
around their business to ensure that customers don't disturb them.

You can imagine my surprise when I just connected the scanner to my new
PC, running XP-Pro SP2, and it worked just fine. My only problem is that
something inside has been outgassing, and there's a resulting coating on
the inside of the glass. This has reduced the contrast. When I get
brave, it'll go onto my workbench and perhaps I'll be able to clean the
glass. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire thing
were held together with glue. A landfill princess.

Bubba
If you're in the West and you need a Bubba, here I am.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:06:57 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

I just checked the links you mentioned, and I'm not sure I understand
what you are stating here. The drivers seem to have the same suffix
(.303130) but the prefixes are different and so are the sizes of the
files, so I'm not sure they are the same files. My experience with
scanners is that the firmware can limit what drivers will work, sometime
to the point of working with only specific serial number groups.

Then let's start with specifics.

What scanner do you have and what OS are you trying to
install this on?

Generally, the most versatile driver is probably the one
here,
http://support.visioneer.com/drivers....303110.EN.exe




I looked at the several Visioneer scanners I own (all of which are in
storage) and none seem to have XP drivers (the 6100, the 3100 and two of
the paperport MX) that I can find. If you know where they are hiding
I'd love to know.

I only spoke of the one I had, you can seek what is
available he
http://support.visioneer.com/



However, I'll also mention that the quality of the scanners left a lot
to be desired. They suffered from streaking, offset convergence, and
other problems. I finally bought a Umax, and then got an Epson.


I had no streaking, or other problems. That certainly
doesn't mean there are no problem with your particular
specimens, I can only speak for 3 Visioneer models here, A
visioneer 4400, Primascan 2600u, and 8100. The Primascan
2600U has the most hours on it by far, and thus the most
CCFL wear, it has worse contrast than the other two due to
this and is most suitable for documents where contrast
tweaks can be later applied in an imaging app.

I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence with
him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he would have to
try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his statements are
level headed evaluations based upon his personal experiences.

However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and it
had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se. I predicted this
backlash nearly 5 years ago, in fact, I actually communicated that to
Microsoft back then, before Vista was even called Vista.

How did I know this? Well, there were a number of issues that told the
story. The first was that XP works, and it works pretty well. Coming
from a psychology background, I have a good idea about how people
respond to change. Change is only voluntarily embraced, especially in
an established population (meaning people who already have a set of
skills under their belt) when benefits obviously outstrip risks or
inconvenience. People were in no rush to change their OS again, finally
having one that did what they expected of it. Almost every one of us
has "survived" through one or more OS upgrades. It didn't take a genius
to know that the same problems were likely to occur again... broken
drivers, buggy initial release, obsolete peripherals, hours figuring out
what is broken and what is just "new and different", needing to learn a
new desktop, conflicts with older software.... etc.

Then there were the promises: Vista had a difficult gestation and birth.
Numerous features which were promised never were implemented, or
failed and had to be removed, the OS was delayed nearly 2 years from its
first announced release date. This doesn't lead to a sense of trust. A
lot of Vista's surface improvements are flashy and for show, to help
sell hardware. A lot of what Vista "can be" requires more cooperation
with software and hardware manufacturers to embrace the architecture.
And to make best use of Vista's most valuable abilities, one needs what
was and may still be "leading edge" technology.

A lot of the initial backlash was because the early "Vista ready" and
Vista on board systems could barely run Vista Basic/Home, which offered
very few improvements over XP and a number of issues. The many versions
of Vista confused the retailers and the consumers.

Things are changing slowly. Hardware and software is catching up with
the feature set Vista Ultimate has built in, and the machines that can
run the highest version of Vista have come way down in cost. Microsoft
is fixing the bugs and fleshing out the unimplimented features they
promised, and many will be made right in SP1.

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft made major errors in their
original design, marketing and release of Vista. It was not ready for
prime time when released, and it was ahead of itself as well. I am not
sure it will ever recover the market it lost by the way they managed
things, but the OS does work for some people, especially those who
bought boxes designed around it.

Vista does have the largest in-box driver set ever offered in a MS OS,
meaning many peripherals are covered even if the manufacturers did not
make upgraded stand alone drivers.

I expect that the reason Vista was received poorly was because the
release mimicked many of the problems XP had on release and people were
less willing to forgive Microsoft again after numerous OS releases not
meeting the hype. The sad part of this is that Vista probably had the
greatest potential to push the Windows technology forward, had it been
introduced in a more appropriate manner and advertised to the correct
demographic.

Art

kony wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:56:06 -0800, Richard Steinfeld
wrote:


Tony wrote:
I have many customers who have

no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would expect, why
migrate until there is a reason to do so.

I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a pity you
made that assumption); in fact I do not and never have marketed or sold any
Microsoft product or service.

I think that Kony is a victim of his own tunnel vision.


Am I?

There wasn't such a bachlash from consumers that OEMs
continued to offer Win9x when XP was released.

There weren't multiple websites claiming (the OS du jour)
had won worst product of the year when XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.1,
DOS, (take your pick), came out.

The truth is , never in the history of mankind have so many
people (revolted, I suppose a MS zealot would use this
term?) chose to avoid the next version of the software/OS
they were running.


Well, I've had
my moments, too. No way, though, will I buy Vista right now. I'm a home
user, which is an important fact to bear in mind. I don't think that
Vista is ready for me. Yet.


I don't think home user is relevant, at least not as you
imply, in a context. Businesses are rather bullish about OS
upgrade, it is startling how many still run Win98 or 2K. It
would not surprise me at all if more businesses still run
Win2k and '98, than Vista.



Damned if I have any interest in bailing from XP; after all, it's not
been so long since MS worked out the significant bugs. Why jump into
buggy frying pan now?


There is a good logic in this, let others be the beta
testers, but even moreso, the EULA and potential to lose
useability of the system keeps escalating.

My work demands that I maintain OS and software compatibility with my
clients. As they move to Vista, which they certainly will, I will have
to move with them. Regardless of whether I hate Microsoft or not (I do),
this will be my reality as it has been a few times earlier. Taking an
ostrich stance is not wise, in my case.


Agreed, an ostrich stance is not of benefit. At the same
time, benefit vs detriment must be weighed. If someone
expresses a clear need for Vista features, that being more
important to them subjectively, it is the better OS for
their use. That is unfortunately not what we're discussing
here, rather blanket statements about needs not mattering,
we should instead just wait for our needs to be met because
someday the sky will be rosey and all will be OK. That idea
is counter to productivity, using what already works without
making concessions.

Tony and I may both "violate" your sense of Usenet convention, no matter
which end of the message you tack it on to, doesn't make your point of
view any more valid.

People relating their personal experiences, especially when those are
based upon a wide base and incorporate the experiences of others one
knows and respects, is not "BS", it is a person expressing their
authoritative opinion based upon intelligent observation. Just because
that does not agree with your personal point of view, which seems based
mainly on the opinions of others you don't know personally, rather than
experience, doesn't make your statements more valid.

Yes, a lot of people were dissatisfied with Vista, for many of the
reasons I expressed in my earlier message, and many more rejected it out
of hand based upon much of the talk you mention, but Tony is simply
stating that he is aware of people who have been pleased with the
product, and that it seems to be fulfilling those people's needs well,
perhaps meaning the product shouldn't be rejected out of hand, without
consideration.

Each of us learn what level of trust and authority we are willing to
endow people with, and over a period of many months, I have learned that
Tony provides accurate and verifiable information on the printer
newsgroup. I have no reason to believe he would suddenly change that
approach.

I suspect you do not know Tony's reputation and integrity, and
therefore, I question why you would decide to challenge the expression
of his personal experiences, other than that he doesn't necessarily
agree with you.

Art



kony wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:32:08 -0600, Tony
wrote:



Richard
I couldn't agree with you more. If there is no reason to upgrade to Vista then
why do so? That however doesn't mean that Vista is bad, merely a fledgling.
I wasn't suggesting that people upgrade without good reason, only trying to
bring a bit of balance to a completely unbalanced thread. Not sure I should
have bothered however, it seems to me that once some people have established a
view they are completely immovable; hardly a path to enlightenment!
Tony



First of all, if you can't respecty usenet conventions of
not top-posting, you shouldn't be allowed on usenet at all.

Seriously, your ISP TOS have been violated most likely, you
seem like the type of person who has no regard for anything
except what benefits himself.

Yes, Vista is fledgling. It may someday be an acceptible
alternative, but promoting it before that day has come is
deceiving at best, and senseless at worse.

Yes balance is a good idea, but balance does not include
promotion including an idea that we should "wait and see"
what might be better from the next generation of patches.

It is ridiculous that you pretend to claim a concept of
enlightenment. You hide behind bull**** deception.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


If you can't bother to continue the previous conversation by
posting in context, your post is wasted.

Show a little effort, or you have only shown you want to
sidetrack the topic at hand.


Is this seriously what you consider reasonable discussion,
not replying to the context but instead making a speach?

Sorry, but that is only reasonable in some alternate
reality. I may reply to your original post, or may not, but
it doesn't excuse your distraction from the topic.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence with
him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he would have to
try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his statements are
level headed evaluations based upon his personal experiences.

Tony may be a geat guy. Personally from my brief exposure,
I think he may have offered a fair, maybe even large amount
of help in the past.

Unfortunately, this is not an issue that is based around
character. It is not based around your perception of level
headedness either. It is based on the specific topic and
facts, and the arguments made when those facts were
presented.

Do try to backtrack and see this. It is not a fan club, it
is a discussion based on fact not loyalty.


However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and it
had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se.

Not just predicable, there were plenty of those who not only
had an open mind, but had no idea and just bought their next
system with it installed. This isn't a political issue, not
a matter of bias.


I predicted this
backlash nearly 5 years ago, in fact, I actually communicated that to
Microsoft back then, before Vista was even called Vista.

Then maybe you were ahead of your time, when someone makes a
statement like this I would love to accept it at full face
value, but do appreciate that on usenet, everything must be
taken with a grain of salt.

I am not anti-Vista. I am against blanket statements
without the customer being informed. CBFalconer provided
very pertinent information and that was brushed aside with
no justification. I am always offended when someone does
that, and hope you do see as I do that it is a clear choice
to ignore facts... because in fact, the issues linked are
not mostly addressed by patches or SP1, not even close. It
seems almost insulting that someone makes such a statement
when clearly it is impossible that they even read the links
and compared to patches... because there is clearly no
justification whatsoever for the statement made.


How did I know this? Well, there were a number of issues that told the
story. The first was that XP works, and it works pretty well. Coming
from a psychology background, I have a good idea about how people
respond to change. Change is only voluntarily embraced, especially in
an established population (meaning people who already have a set of
skills under their belt) when benefits obviously outstrip risks or
inconvenience. People were in no rush to change their OS again, finally
having one that did what they expected of it. Almost every one of us
has "survived" through one or more OS upgrades. It didn't take a genius
to know that the same problems were likely to occur again... broken
drivers, buggy initial release, obsolete peripherals, hours figuring out
what is broken and what is just "new and different", needing to learn a
new desktop, conflicts with older software.... etc.


You may be right on some factors, but did YOU even read the
links CBFalconer provided?

No this is not just about change. In addition to issues
linked, it is about quite higher overhead, bloating of an OS
already bloated beyond imagination. It is about an extreme
EULA. It is about extreme cost in a monopoly environment.
It is about years of delays and even then releasing an OS
that couldn't even copy a lot of files without severe lag.

I accept a new OS will have problems. I feel MS has done a
lot of good in developing an OS so many people find useful.
That does not make any particular OS ready for mass
consumption before major bugs are resolved, and someone
trying to ignore those bugs by stating "oh but WinXP was
once this bad" is missing a crucial element. We're not
looking to switch from a mature OS that works (XP today, not
years ago), based on the sayso of someone who claims it will
eventually be ok.

If it will eventually be ok, let's see it happen, THEN make
the decision. Before that point, having consumers fullly
informed is important, not having someone like Tony try to
casually make excuses and claim it's ok, because bugs a

REALLY, REALLY NOT OK!
It is stupidity to promote something new when there is no
expressed need, when it only offers detriment.

Granted, we didn't get that far into the conversation before
everyone with ridiculously sensitive defense of Tony started
getting upset. Perhaps those people should be considered
the trolls since they took what could have been an
intelligent discussion and turned it into a drauma instead.

Then again, Tony was also choosing not to address the linked
facts, so by definition we seem to have a conspiracy here
whether it was intentional or not.



Then there were the promises: Vista had a difficult gestation and birth.
Numerous features which were promised never were implemented, or
failed and had to be removed, the OS was delayed nearly 2 years from its
first announced release date. This doesn't lead to a sense of trust. A
lot of Vista's surface improvements are flashy and for show, to help
sell hardware. A lot of what Vista "can be" requires more cooperation
with software and hardware manufacturers to embrace the architecture.
And to make best use of Vista's most valuable abilities, one needs what
was and may still be "leading edge" technology.



While some of your points I agree with, the overall concept
of stating the obvious is not especially useful.

So yes, I agree with much of what you're writing above and
below this text, but it isn't especially relevant to the
issues discussed which were not just a general overview of
Vista in general.



A lot of the initial backlash was because the early "Vista ready" and
Vista on board systems could barely run Vista Basic/Home, which offered
very few improvements over XP and a number of issues. The many versions
of Vista confused the retailers and the consumers.

Things are changing slowly. Hardware and software is catching up with
the feature set Vista Ultimate has built in, and the machines that can
run the highest version of Vista have come way down in cost. Microsoft
is fixing the bugs and fleshing out the unimplimented features they
promised, and many will be made right in SP1.

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft made major errors in their
original design, marketing and release of Vista. It was not ready for
prime time when released, and it was ahead of itself as well. I am not
sure it will ever recover the market it lost by the way they managed
things, but the OS does work for some people, especially those who
bought boxes designed around it.

Vista does have the largest in-box driver set ever offered in a MS OS,
meaning many peripherals are covered even if the manufacturers did not
make upgraded stand alone drivers.

That is good for those who have no other avenue for drivers,
but a bit like cheating others since getting drivers is a
pretty basic, one-time event for most users, and with the
more modern FULL drivers one has more features instead of
the stripped down functionality MS is so renowned for
limiting.


I expect that the reason Vista was received poorly was because the
release mimicked many of the problems XP had on release and people were
less willing to forgive Microsoft again after numerous OS releases not
meeting the hype. The sad part of this is that Vista probably had the
greatest potential to push the Windows technology forward, had it been
introduced in a more appropriate manner and advertised to the correct
demographic.


That might be one reason, among many reasons more
significant to other users.

More significant might be the idea that we should excuse or
understand or forgive or wait.

We are not *compelled* to find a reason to use Vista.

Some people truely do have a good reason and should use it.
This is a matter of specifics, not overgeneralized bull****.

I'm sorry if the term bull**** offends, but when you write
generic statements then close with the idea that all we're
focusing on is being convinced to us Vista, you entirely
miss the bigger picture that we aren't naive customers,
we're evaluating what is best suited to the jobs at hand.

Someday, Vista may be the best choice for everyone. Today,
there is much work to be done towards that end and until
then, it's a very subjective thing, and choice depends on
having good information, NOT what Tony was doing which was
ignoring facts presented because he either chose to, or
didn't feel that they subjectively mattered.

It is crazy that you and he go out of your way to *defend*
Vista. I seriously wonder about your agenda now too.

Realize something. A product can stand on it's own merit if
it has enough for the purpose. Extra effort just raises a
red flag that the merits need srutinization.

It doesn't effect me either way if someone runs Vista or XP
or some 'nix variant. Note I didn't try to argue any
particular alternative, though I did assume the average
person was probably running XP at this point.

People need clear facts. CBFalconer linked to several
sources, but so far we have deliberate attempts to do
anything except address facts. That is a very damning
position to be in for anyone who cares to take it.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
Many scanners suffer from either plasticizers or volatiles of the
lubricants vaporizing and redepositing on the bottom surface of the glass.

Most of them can be opened with care, by removing a couple of screws and
carefully cleaning the inside surface. Try not to knock the scanning
bar or moving it, and try to keep dust out and off the mirrors.

And if the mirrors are coated?...


Well, I'll find out, won't I?

PS: Hell with all this cross-posting. I've cut it down to one.

Bubba
When you're far from home in the west, desperate for a Bubba, just call
my name.

kony wrote:


It is crazy that you and he go out of your way to *defend*
Vista. I seriously wonder about your agenda now too.


Each of us has an agenda, kony. Most of us are complex enough to have
more than one. I have several myself. Even you have them, though you may
deny it. Oh, that's not a slam. Many do deny their agendas, and a number
of those that deny them don't realize they exist. But they're there.
It's the nature of the beast.

TJ

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arthur Entlich wrote:
I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence
with him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he would
have to try to deceive anyone here.

He is in the printer business therefore not impartial.
I therefore believe his statements are level headed evaluations based
upon his personal experiences.
I do not believe anybody who is in the printer business.

However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and it
had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se. I predicted this
backlash nearly 5 years ago, in fact, I actually communicated that to
Microsoft back then, before Vista was even called Vista.

How did I know this? Well, there were a number of issues that told
the story. The first was that XP works, and it works pretty well.

XP like all Windows OS is not as good and the latest Aple OS and that is
not as good as Linux.
Coming from a psychology background, I have a good idea about how
people respond to change.
I do not have a psychology background and I have a good idea about how
people respond to change. You do not need to be a quiz kid to do that.
Change is only voluntarily embraced, especially in an established
population (meaning people who already have a set of skills under
their belt) when benefits obviously outstrip risks or inconvenience.
People were in no rush to change their OS again, finally having one
that did what they expected of it. Almost every one of us has
"survived" through one or more OS upgrades. It didn't take a genius
to know that the same problems were likely to occur again... broken
drivers, buggy initial release, obsolete peripherals, hours figuring
out what is broken and what is just "new and different", needing to
learn a new desktop, conflicts with older software.... etc.

Then there were the promises: Vista had a difficult gestation and
birth. Numerous features which were promised never were implemented,
or failed and had to be removed, the OS was delayed nearly 2 years
from its first announced release date. This doesn't lead to a sense
of trust. A lot of Vista's surface improvements are flashy and for
show, to help sell hardware. A lot of what Vista "can be" requires
more cooperation with software and hardware manufacturers to embrace
the architecture. And to make best use of Vista's most valuable
abilities, one needs what was and may still be "leading edge" technology.

A lot of the initial backlash was because the early "Vista ready" and
Vista on board systems could barely run Vista Basic/Home, which
offered very few improvements over XP and a number of issues. The
many versions of Vista confused the retailers and the consumers.

Things are changing slowly. Hardware and software is catching up with
the feature set Vista Ultimate has built in, and the machines that can
run the highest version of Vista have come way down in cost.
Microsoft is fixing the bugs and fleshing out the unimplimented
features they promised, and many will be made right in SP1.

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft made major errors in their
original design, marketing and release of Vista. It was not ready for
prime time when released, and it was ahead of itself as well. I am
not sure it will ever recover the market it lost by the way they
managed things, but the OS does work for some people, especially those
who bought boxes designed around it.

Vista does have the largest in-box driver set ever offered in a MS OS,
meaning many peripherals are covered even if the manufacturers did not
make upgraded stand alone drivers.

I expect that the reason Vista was received poorly was because the
release mimicked many of the problems XP had on release and people
were less willing to forgive Microsoft again after numerous OS
releases not meeting the hype. The sad part of this is that Vista
probably had the greatest potential to push the Windows technology
forward, had it been introduced in a more appropriate manner and
advertised to the correct demographic.

Art

kony wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:56:06 -0800, Richard Steinfeld
wrote:


Tony wrote:
I have many customers who have

no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would
expect, why migrate until there is a reason to do so.

I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a
pity you made that assumption); in fact I do not and never have
marketed or sold any Microsoft product or service.

I think that Kony is a victim of his own tunnel vision.


Am I?

There wasn't such a bachlash from consumers that OEMs
continued to offer Win9x when XP was released.

There weren't multiple websites claiming (the OS du jour)
had won worst product of the year when XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.1,
DOS, (take your pick), came out.

The truth is , never in the history of mankind have so many
people (revolted, I suppose a MS zealot would use this
term?) chose to avoid the next version of the software/OS
they were running.


Well, I've had my moments, too. No way, though, will I buy Vista
right now. I'm a home user, which is an important fact to bear in
mind. I don't think that Vista is ready for me. Yet.


I don't think home user is relevant, at least not as you
imply, in a context. Businesses are rather bullish about OS
upgrade, it is startling how many still run Win98 or 2K. It
would not surprise me at all if more businesses still run
Win2k and '98, than Vista.



Damned if I have any interest in bailing from XP; after all, it's
not been so long since MS worked out the significant bugs. Why jump
into buggy frying pan now?


There is a good logic in this, let others be the beta
testers, but even moreso, the EULA and potential to lose
useability of the system keeps escalating.

My work demands that I maintain OS and software compatibility with
my clients. As they move to Vista, which they certainly will, I will
have to move with them. Regardless of whether I hate Microsoft or
not (I do), this will be my reality as it has been a few times
earlier. Taking an ostrich stance is not wise, in my case.


Agreed, an ostrich stance is not of benefit. At the same
time, benefit vs detriment must be weighed. If someone
expresses a clear need for Vista features, that being more
important to them subjectively, it is the better OS for
their use. That is unfortunately not what we're discussing
here, rather blanket statements about needs not mattering,
we should instead just wait for our needs to be met because
someday the sky will be rosey and all will be OK. That idea
is counter to productivity, using what already works without
making concessions.