Vassal & Vista problems.
- Thread starter katadder
- Start date
i run loads of graphic programs, so i got rid of vista completly as its not compatible with so much, went back to xp pro, but you can fix a lot by turning off a lot of effects on vista to solve probs, specially if you have less than 2gb ram, vassal for me didnt work at all and im running 4gb ram and a core 2 duo at 4.8! but i got some buttons to show after turning off aero
Arch Lector Petrovski
Mongoose
The problems are because Vista is a poor with a capital 'P' operating system; designed largely to 'influence' people into buying more microsoft products because Vista refuses to play nice with the other company's software. Besides, if I remember correctly, I found out from a computer review that there are some interesting elements to the terms and conditions section of Vista, such as the operating system will 'clean-up' systems it doesn't identify as 'safe'; goodbye Linux applications. Plus with the extra hard drive space it occupies compared to XP I don't see any reason to change as it doesn't really offer any worth while improvements over XP, as far as I can see.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well there is the small matter of DirectX10 if you play games... but frankly that should have been available for XP as well (but of course Microsoft wouldnt want anyone to be able to play modern games without paying them 200 quid for Vista....)
In fact:
[Rant!!!!]
In all honesty though from what Ive seen of Vista so far its not really the mostrosity some people are making it out to be. It's hardly essential and not exactly a massive step forward over XP (certainly not for home use anyway, it does have some quite signifigant improvements in network security though but again that wont be of much interest to most people anyway!). When alls said and done it has its faults but certainly no more than XP did at first! Frankly from what limited use of it I've had, it seems a far better operating system than XP was at release!
I also cant help but find it mildly amusing to listen to all the XP is way better dont bother with Vista rantings all over the place. Cast your mind back a few years and I daresay you may recall similar talk about XP and how Windows 98 was obviously way better and how nothing was compatible with XP..... OSes are rarely perfect on release, as people report problems they are fixed, the sheer volume of windows software out there makes testing it all before release frankly impossible. Yes I know I know, here come the Mac crowd to crow about how THEIR OS is fine on release and how all their programs run fine (conveniently omitting the fact that 90% of all the 'compatible software' is in house stuff developed by Apple (it would be like Microsoft boasting that office works on Vista to my eyes).. And Linux, well sure its great but can ANYONE honestly claim its a user friendly OS that most people would be happy to use?
Dont misunderstand, Im no Microsoft fan and frankly some of the crap theyve pulled to basically FORCE Vista down peoples throats should be smegging illegal but it's getting rather tiresome hearing people say 'Vista sucks, XP is clearly better because, erm, well, er, yeah, well, IT JUST IS OK?!?!'
Its just like the whole Mac vs PC thing. I dont think PCs are better than Macs, I dont think Macs are better than PCs. I absolutely hate poncy stuck up Mac fanboys raving on about how a Mac can do everything a PC can better because you can run an emulator... or, my personal favourite, how wonderful Macs are because they CAN RUN WINDOWS.
ARHHGHGHAHGHGHGHGH!!!!!! Ok [Rant!!!!]
That was most theraputic
In fact:
[Rant!!!!]
In all honesty though from what Ive seen of Vista so far its not really the mostrosity some people are making it out to be. It's hardly essential and not exactly a massive step forward over XP (certainly not for home use anyway, it does have some quite signifigant improvements in network security though but again that wont be of much interest to most people anyway!). When alls said and done it has its faults but certainly no more than XP did at first! Frankly from what limited use of it I've had, it seems a far better operating system than XP was at release!
I also cant help but find it mildly amusing to listen to all the XP is way better dont bother with Vista rantings all over the place. Cast your mind back a few years and I daresay you may recall similar talk about XP and how Windows 98 was obviously way better and how nothing was compatible with XP..... OSes are rarely perfect on release, as people report problems they are fixed, the sheer volume of windows software out there makes testing it all before release frankly impossible. Yes I know I know, here come the Mac crowd to crow about how THEIR OS is fine on release and how all their programs run fine (conveniently omitting the fact that 90% of all the 'compatible software' is in house stuff developed by Apple (it would be like Microsoft boasting that office works on Vista to my eyes).. And Linux, well sure its great but can ANYONE honestly claim its a user friendly OS that most people would be happy to use?
Dont misunderstand, Im no Microsoft fan and frankly some of the crap theyve pulled to basically FORCE Vista down peoples throats should be smegging illegal but it's getting rather tiresome hearing people say 'Vista sucks, XP is clearly better because, erm, well, er, yeah, well, IT JUST IS OK?!?!'
Its just like the whole Mac vs PC thing. I dont think PCs are better than Macs, I dont think Macs are better than PCs. I absolutely hate poncy stuck up Mac fanboys raving on about how a Mac can do everything a PC can better because you can run an emulator... or, my personal favourite, how wonderful Macs are because they CAN RUN WINDOWS.
ARHHGHGHAHGHGHGHGH!!!!!! Ok [Rant!!!!]
That was most theraputic
Arch Lector Petrovski
Mongoose
I think the Linux, and probably most of the Mac, compatability issues can be traced back to microsoft not playing ball; which wouldn't surprise me in the least. But as you've demonstrated, for a device that was designed to make life easier and simpler it often seems that its largest input into the modern life is purely to increase stress and thereby the risk of high blood pressure, ulcers, heart attacks and all those other stress related conditions. Hoorah for computers.
Well, Office works. But during installation of the latest Visual Studio you can learn that "this software has known compatibility issues with Vista"Locutus9956 said:
. Wonderful world of in-house developed software, isn't it?As for Mac and PC - Mac can run Windows (either as main os or emulated). Try emulating Mac OS on Windows
I never complained about XP, It has never given me a blue screen of death, never had "compatability issues" or anything, it was such a huge step forward from previous windows, and nearly everyone i know says the same?
maybe you got a very duff version loctus?
thats why I haven't upgraded to Vista, i see no point when my existing OS is stable and functional.
maybe you got a very duff version loctus?
thats why I haven't upgraded to Vista, i see no point when my existing OS is stable and functional.
yep quite agree, i used xp pro, with no problems and it sure gets a work out on mine and its a small install, bought vista, no drivers work properly for the software i use, i hate the big mother thing of asking you 3-4 times you sure you want to delete this......arghhhhhhh.
thats why its safer it dosent let you do anything, backdoor reports to microsoft, ha i stopped that.
got rid of it back to xp far more stable can look just as pretty with windows blinds and not a system hog.
well thats my rant over
thats why its safer it dosent let you do anything, backdoor reports to microsoft, ha i stopped that.
got rid of it back to xp far more stable can look just as pretty with windows blinds and not a system hog.
well thats my rant over
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Ok off I go again 
Less ranty this time though, as Ive not had to deal with the stupid cycle race messing traffic up today 
Thats the point though really, I dont WANT to run Mac OS, if I did then frankly, I'd buy a Mac, I just find it amusing that Mac are advertising the fact that you can now basically turn your mac into a PC as a selling point (albeit a rather expensive PC with somewhat lacking in graphics card power....)
It's just like the fabled 'immunity to viruses' the mac claims, the reason there isnt much emulation softwere to run mac programs or OSes on PC is simply there isnt the demand to run Mac software on PC. The mere fact that so much emulation software is availlable on the mac for me is something of conciet that PCs have stuff that macs need!
Similarly the reason that PCs are so much more at risk of viruses and spyware etc is that the sad little cretins that write them TARGET PCs as PCs (or more accurately Windows PCs) make up the vast majority of computers on earth! As for general security against hacking, people simply dont target macs in the same way as all the systems that hackers are REALLY interested in, banks, coroporate sytems, government agencies etc are more or less all windows based.
Its like saying my car is at far less risk from surface to air missiles than an F15. The reason for that is that noone is likely to ever fire one at my car and if they did, the missile isnt designed to target cars! If one actually HIT my car though I daresay I'd have more chance of surving said hit if I'd been sitting in an F15!
Again, I'm not saying Macs are any WORSE than PCs, and indeed, they do have lots of good things going for them. For home use for whatever reason you cannot deny that you ARE less at risk from viruses and the like, again it may not be because MacOS is really any more secure but the fact still stands (though in all honesty the 'PCs are at risk from 10,000 viruses line is something of a bunch of scaremongering, I personally have had about erm... 1 virus problem in the last 2 years and I use the internet fairly heavily!. HUMAN BEINGS are at risk from MILLIONS of Viruses and Bacteria, but it doesnt mean your liable to cath them just because they EXIST. I think I have suffered from about 3 or 4 different Viruses in my life and only 2 of them more than once or twice! (namely the common cold and flu)).
MacOS is also a nice easy to use operating system but then I cant really say I've ever found it any harder or easier to use than XP or for that matter Vista. If youve used macs for years you'll undoubtedly find it more intuitive to use MacOS as things are obviously a little different on different OSes but not to the point that anyone with any kind of computer litteracy cant overcome with a little time!
Macs also, simply put, LOOK nicer. When alls said and done theyre nicely designed and stylish and if your bothered about interoir design and the like then it wont ruin the look of a room in the way most PCs big metal slabs will. Personally I couldnt give a flying smeg what my computer LOOKS like, its whats on the screen that interests me but for lots of people this is quite understandably a big deal!
In terms of actual hardware though I think the whole Mac vs PC debate is frankly a bit stupid. Look at whats in a Mac these days. Intel processor? NVidia Graphics card? And so on. Macs ARE PCs. Theyre just premade PCs with a very specific component list and their own OS. Ok ok so thats a generalisation and there ARE a few differences (BIOS for one... but frankly I'll take the option to actually tweak my hardware if I choose over being stuck with factory settings any day) but for the most part when you get right down to it the only real difference is the shiny outer shell and operating system. The only point I feel that 'PCs' win out on here is that if you want to upgrade a Mac, you have to get Apple to do it for you for a generally large sum of money and you pay through the nose for the system your getting in the first place. Dont get me wrong, high end PC's cost a fortune too but if someone can show me a Mac that I cant then go out and find a PC with equal or better specs for less cost (usually considerably less) I'd be very very surprised....
And what the hell is the deal with the one mousebutton thing and lack of CD eject button anyway? Oh sure a button on the CD drive would ruin the look but Im sure they could make the tray touch sensitive or something so you dont need a button per se. And just to reitterate, 1 mousebutton, what the hell? Do apple think we cant handle the complexities of choosing between or index and middle fingers? (note: this final paragraph is a JOKE. JOOOOOOOKKKKEEE. Not to be taken seriously! I am fully aware you can plug any old mouse into a Mac these days and with a little patch most will work (hell most probably dont even need that) but surely its not THAT much to ask for apple to release as standard, a 2 button mouse with their nice design standards?
To sum up. Macs and PCs. Really not alot in it for my money, it all comes down to personal preference. Pricewise if Im gonna throw a 2 grand a shiny new computer Id rather have a stupidly powerful top end gaming PC that looks like a Brick with neon underlighting than a stylish elegant Mac but to each their own
Less ranty this time though, as Ive not had to deal with the stupid cycle race messing traffic up today Pietia said:Try emulating Mac OS on Windows
Thats the point though really, I dont WANT to run Mac OS, if I did then frankly, I'd buy a Mac, I just find it amusing that Mac are advertising the fact that you can now basically turn your mac into a PC as a selling point (albeit a rather expensive PC with somewhat lacking in graphics card power....)
It's just like the fabled 'immunity to viruses' the mac claims, the reason there isnt much emulation softwere to run mac programs or OSes on PC is simply there isnt the demand to run Mac software on PC. The mere fact that so much emulation software is availlable on the mac for me is something of conciet that PCs have stuff that macs need!
Similarly the reason that PCs are so much more at risk of viruses and spyware etc is that the sad little cretins that write them TARGET PCs as PCs (or more accurately Windows PCs) make up the vast majority of computers on earth! As for general security against hacking, people simply dont target macs in the same way as all the systems that hackers are REALLY interested in, banks, coroporate sytems, government agencies etc are more or less all windows based.
Its like saying my car is at far less risk from surface to air missiles than an F15. The reason for that is that noone is likely to ever fire one at my car and if they did, the missile isnt designed to target cars! If one actually HIT my car though I daresay I'd have more chance of surving said hit if I'd been sitting in an F15!
Again, I'm not saying Macs are any WORSE than PCs, and indeed, they do have lots of good things going for them. For home use for whatever reason you cannot deny that you ARE less at risk from viruses and the like, again it may not be because MacOS is really any more secure but the fact still stands (though in all honesty the 'PCs are at risk from 10,000 viruses line is something of a bunch of scaremongering, I personally have had about erm... 1 virus problem in the last 2 years and I use the internet fairly heavily!. HUMAN BEINGS are at risk from MILLIONS of Viruses and Bacteria, but it doesnt mean your liable to cath them just because they EXIST. I think I have suffered from about 3 or 4 different Viruses in my life and only 2 of them more than once or twice! (namely the common cold and flu)).
MacOS is also a nice easy to use operating system but then I cant really say I've ever found it any harder or easier to use than XP or for that matter Vista. If youve used macs for years you'll undoubtedly find it more intuitive to use MacOS as things are obviously a little different on different OSes but not to the point that anyone with any kind of computer litteracy cant overcome with a little time!
Macs also, simply put, LOOK nicer. When alls said and done theyre nicely designed and stylish and if your bothered about interoir design and the like then it wont ruin the look of a room in the way most PCs big metal slabs will. Personally I couldnt give a flying smeg what my computer LOOKS like, its whats on the screen that interests me but for lots of people this is quite understandably a big deal!
In terms of actual hardware though I think the whole Mac vs PC debate is frankly a bit stupid. Look at whats in a Mac these days. Intel processor? NVidia Graphics card? And so on. Macs ARE PCs. Theyre just premade PCs with a very specific component list and their own OS. Ok ok so thats a generalisation and there ARE a few differences (BIOS for one... but frankly I'll take the option to actually tweak my hardware if I choose over being stuck with factory settings any day) but for the most part when you get right down to it the only real difference is the shiny outer shell and operating system. The only point I feel that 'PCs' win out on here is that if you want to upgrade a Mac, you have to get Apple to do it for you for a generally large sum of money and you pay through the nose for the system your getting in the first place. Dont get me wrong, high end PC's cost a fortune too but if someone can show me a Mac that I cant then go out and find a PC with equal or better specs for less cost (usually considerably less) I'd be very very surprised....
And what the hell is the deal with the one mousebutton thing and lack of CD eject button anyway? Oh sure a button on the CD drive would ruin the look but Im sure they could make the tray touch sensitive or something so you dont need a button per se. And just to reitterate, 1 mousebutton, what the hell? Do apple think we cant handle the complexities of choosing between or index and middle fingers?
(note: this final paragraph is a JOKE. JOOOOOOOKKKKEEE. Not to be taken seriously! I am fully aware you can plug any old mouse into a Mac these days and with a little patch most will work (hell most probably dont even need that) but surely its not THAT much to ask for apple to release as standard, a 2 button mouse with their nice design standards?To sum up. Macs and PCs. Really not alot in it for my money, it all comes down to personal preference. Pricewise if Im gonna throw a 2 grand a shiny new computer Id rather have a stupidly powerful top end gaming PC that looks like a Brick with neon underlighting than a stylish elegant Mac but to each their own
Man, have you ever actually used a Mac? I guess that you have not - at least not a mac using OSX... Why do I make this guess? This "one mouse button" crap. Sorry, but Mac standard mouse provides three mouse buttons plus two wheels... The Mighty Mouse is simply made for people, who don't need visual hints, like separate buttons, to use left, right and middle buttons. You press on the left - left button. You press on the right - right button...
I'm not Apple fanboy, nor Microsoft fanboy (and definitely not Linux fanboy). I am an IT professional, with 15 years of experience in this business. I am interested in comfort and productivity... Started in the dark ages of DOS and early Windows, went through all the OSes on the market (including the more "proffesional ones"). Guess what I prefer for everyday work? A system, which has most of its software developed in-house, so there are far less glitches than in it, than in software developed by various companies for Windows. One with all the small things that make life easier, one with which I don't have to struggle to make it work (have you ever seen a new graphics card driver disable the sound card driver on Windows? Happened to me). Oh - and one, on which I still can run Windows if I need to do something in Visual Studio...
I'm not Apple fanboy, nor Microsoft fanboy (and definitely not Linux fanboy). I am an IT professional, with 15 years of experience in this business. I am interested in comfort and productivity... Started in the dark ages of DOS and early Windows, went through all the OSes on the market (including the more "proffesional ones"). Guess what I prefer for everyday work? A system, which has most of its software developed in-house, so there are far less glitches than in it, than in software developed by various companies for Windows. One with all the small things that make life easier, one with which I don't have to struggle to make it work (have you ever seen a new graphics card driver disable the sound card driver on Windows? Happened to me). Oh - and one, on which I still can run Windows if I need to do something in Visual Studio...
Locutus9956
Mongoose
2nd_ed_hiffano said:
When did you get XP though, when it first came out or after service pack 1? And how many old pre XP games have you tried to run on XP? Again I'm not knocking XP, far from it, and personally I never had any issues with it other than a few incompatibility problems that I resolved without too much difficulty, but my main point was that there was a massive amount of the same sort of complaints that people are slinging at Vista about XP when it first came out, not that I was one of the complainers!
The only thing that really bugs me this time round is that when XP came out, a wave of new games and the like didnt REQUIRE me to have XP to run them. Microsoft released Directx 8 through 9 on both XP and 98 and it would even work on 95 I believe! Now along comes Vista and its either buy it or no DX10 for you. This is after less than 6 months of the OS being released. I think theres was a good 2 or 3 years before I came across a game that didnt support windows 98 (or that absolutely wouldnt run on it even if it wasnt officially supported).
And simply put thats the problem I have with Vista. As you say Hiff there ISNT anything massively wrong with XP and I really dont feel the need to upgrade, except, Microsoft are twisting things so I either HAVE to or forget about playing any new games that come out. Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm into my PC gaming in a big way so I really dont appreciate having an OS rammed down my throat when Im pretty damn sure Microsoft could quite easily release directX10 for XP if they wanted to. The bugger is of course, that they dont. And theres no law that says they have to. So its not illegal, its just extremely underhanded and amoral. But then this is microsoft were talking about, can anyone honestly say theyre in the least bit surprised?
Locutus9956 said:2nd_ed_hiffano said:
When did you get XP though, when it first came out or after service pack 1? And how many old pre XP games have you tried to run on XP? Again I'm not knocking XP, far from it, and personally I never had any issues with it other than a few incompatibility problems that I resolved without too much difficulty, but my main point was that there was a massive amount of the same sort of complaints that people are slinging at Vista about XP when it first came out, not that I was one of the complainers!
The only thing that really bugs me this time round is that when XP came out, a wave of new games and the like didnt REQUIRE me to have XP to run them. Microsoft released Directx 8 through 9 on both XP and 98 and it would even work on 95 I believe! Now along comes Vista and its either buy it or no DX10 for you. This is after less than 6 months of the OS being released. I think theres was a good 2 or 3 years before I came across a game that didnt support windows 98 (or that absolutely wouldnt run on it even if it wasnt officially supported).
And simply put thats the problem I have with Vista. As you say Hiff there ISNT anything massively wrong with XP and I really dont feel the need to upgrade, except, Microsoft are twisting things so I either HAVE to or forget about playing any new games that come out. Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm into my PC gaming in a big way so I really dont appreciate having an OS rammed down my throat when Im pretty damn sure Microsoft could quite easily release directX10 for XP if they wanted to. The bugger is of course, that they dont. And theres no law that says they have to. So its not illegal, its just extremely underhanded and amoral. But then this is microsoft were talking about, can anyone honestly say theyre in the least bit surprised?
well to be honest, surely anyone who knows anything waits until at least SP1 before upgrading
I ahve to say, i don't buy many games, i don't have the time, and I recently bought an X-box anyway, so if i wanna play a game, I'll play it on that. well apart from football manager, but I can't see that not runnign on XP.. and if it doesn'ty, it's usually duel format for mac use, so when i get my macbook pro it will work on that
Microsoft are asses though, always have been, always will be and they will stick it to you whenever they can.
oh and as for pre xp games, most of them got patched, or compatability mode worked, so I guess I was lucky with what I owned
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Pietia said:
you see what you started kattader?......u see...... :lol:
cool at least what the thread was for, getting vassal to work the cutting of of all visual styles worked for you. it does for a lot of probs.
mmmm wish i could have a mac for my graphic programs anyone got one to donate to a good cause? :lol:
still wouldnt get rid of my pc for games though.
cool at least what the thread was for, getting vassal to work the cutting of of all visual styles worked for you. it does for a lot of probs.
mmmm wish i could have a mac for my graphic programs anyone got one to donate to a good cause? :lol:
still wouldnt get rid of my pc for games though.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
2nd_ed_hiffano said:well to be honest, surely anyone who knows anything waits until at least SP1 before upgrading
Indeed, personally I work in IT so I tend not to upgrade until I can do so for free via work
I personally didnt upgrade to XP till service pack 2 came out!2nd_ed_hiffano said:I ahve to say, i don't buy many games, i don't have the time, and I recently bought an X-box anyway, so if i wanna play a game, I'll play it on that. well apart from football manager, but I can't see that not runnign on XP.. and if it doesn'ty, it's usually duel format for mac use, so when i get my macbook pro it will work on that
Again it all comes down to personal taste really, Im not really big console gamer, I simply prefer the type of games you tend to get on PC (and for FPSes I cant live without mouse and keyboard control
) though the line is blurring more and more these days as consoles increase in sheer performance and TV resolutions shoot up and up!2nd_ed_hiffano said:
No argument here
I dont have a problem with Windows and never really have but thats not to say I dont loathe microsoft as much as everyone else 2nd_ed_hiffano said:
Not really, I have a stupidly large backcatalogue of PC games (about 300 of them I think at last count...) and whilst I havent gone back and played all of them on XP I HAVE by now I think tried most of the old ones at some point or another and I cant actually think of one Ive not managed to get to run by tweaking compatibility settings and/or downloading an 'XP compatibility patch'
Lastly, for the record, I dont use Vista myself yet, and Im certainly not intending to buy it, but if when I get the chance to upgrade my PC via work then I will absolutely do so! Vista may not really be any BETTER but Ive yet to see any actual evidence that its any WORSE
I did read what you wrote. You simply didn't write it clearly enough. Your issue (joke issue, but still issue) in this case was the "one mouse button" problem. As you see, it is an issue with appearance, not functionality. You simply don't like the way MM looks like, 'cause it doesn't have the "crack" between the left and right button...Locutus9956 said:
No, its not fault in the OS. It is the fact that on Windows you're blessed with all those hardware and software vendors, millions of apps, drivers, driver versions etc. Making all this work together is sometimes a nightmare - ask any tech support guy...
I know this. I write the software people use, you know. As for the range of the software - it's not tiny. If you discount games that run natively on OSX, all types of software you need to live comfortably are there. Some are even available earlier than on PC (CS3 for example).
There is really no Mac vs PC debate :lol: . There is even no OSX vs Windows debate. The real issue at hand is "Windows only or OSX+Windows" ;-) (and the debate in this thread is more along the lines "Is Vista crap or no" - my answer "Yes, it is. Many games refuse to work on Vista and many others run much slower").
As for gaming machine - well, my macbook pro is quite good gaming machine. Slightly worse than my desktop pc, but not more than you would expect from a notebook pc able to run on battery power for two hours on 100% power consumption...
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Fair enough mate, wasnt trying to start a heated debate by any means (and I work in IT support for, basically XP and windows server so believe me I am all to aware with the problems that crop up in windows (that said without them I'd be out of a job so I cant complain too much ).
The main thing with Vista vs XP is for me a case that Vista is in my experience (and Ill grant that as I dont personally use it on my home machine yet I've not had the chance to REALLY get to grips with it) no worse than XP was when it started out and once mircosoft release the first proper big service pack for Vista I daresay it will be ready to go! And the debate is largely academic anyway for anyone buying a new PC soon sadly as microsoft is busily putting in rules that will make it illegal to sell a new PC with any version of windows besides Vista which is frankly so unbelievably lame gittish I found myself a little shocked even for microsoft. Ok so they dont want to support an old OS but they didnt kill 98 off THIS fast when XP came out. I dont think even the biggest Vista fan on earth could honestly say that people should have the right to at least decide IF they want to upgrade or not.....
Ohhhh yeah THATS what stareted all this off Glad you got it sorted in the end!
).The main thing with Vista vs XP is for me a case that Vista is in my experience (and Ill grant that as I dont personally use it on my home machine yet I've not had the chance to REALLY get to grips with it) no worse than XP was when it started out and once mircosoft release the first proper big service pack for Vista I daresay it will be ready to go! And the debate is largely academic anyway for anyone buying a new PC soon sadly as microsoft is busily putting in rules that will make it illegal to sell a new PC with any version of windows besides Vista which is frankly so unbelievably lame gittish I found myself a little shocked even for microsoft. Ok so they dont want to support an old OS but they didnt kill 98 off THIS fast when XP came out. I dont think even the biggest Vista fan on earth could honestly say that people should have the right to at least decide IF they want to upgrade or not.....
Ohhhh yeah THATS what stareted all this off
Glad you got it sorted in the end!Similar threads
