what s so great windows vista after it s no longer va

I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro and Windows ME (dual boot) and I love them both for different reasons.
Before anybody wastes time flaming me about WME, please understand that WME can do some things W2K can't, and is completely reliable (yes, really), as long as it is not patched and not connected to the Internet, which is true for me. Please also understand that upgrading any of my software is a severe expense on my tiny income. I cannot do it lightly.
It does bug me I admit that 2K cannot run some XP-only pgms.
(It particularly bugs me that Fred Langa almost never mentions that such pgms are indeed XP-only. But that's another story. www.langa.com, for free and plus versions of the famous LangaList Windows newsletter. I have no connection with Fred or Langa.com.)
I put all the heavy lifting (of which there is very little) on W2K, which is religiously Service Packed and patched, and which runs tons of apps, mostly system and gfx pgms--but all only as a hobby.
It does frustrate me that I cannot run the latest Expression versions (e.g. Interactive Designer), but I can live without them, since I have at 40+ aging gfx pgms.
My main question is, if I wait for and buy Vista Basic, will I be able to run Acrylic and its friends? Will I find gfx happiness at last? Or will I spend my days thereafter upgrading hardware and learning quirky new MSFT gfx interfaces?
My system is an AMD Athlon 2000 (plenty fast enough now, but I could consider upgrading--if there were any real benefit to Vista to begin with) with 512 MB RAM (upgradeable to 2 GB or more), an integrated SiS gfx card that robs its <currently 32 MB> VRAM from main RAM, two 60 GB HDDs, USB2, BellSouth DSL (medium version) running on a Westell USB modem (it won't run with Ethernet), DVD, CD, diskette, 19" monitor, and whatever I forgot.
I am concerned about gfx, because I keep reading that Vista wants the last gasp in gfx cards. What are the main benefits if any of Vista's new gfx engines?
I don't play any fancy games, so that's not an issue.
My main concern is does an old fart like me need to keep upgrading Windows (since 3.0) when my current system is so tweaked that it's virtually hand-carved, and does, if truth be known, virtually everything I need it to? I may have just answered my own question, but I'd value your comments.
Walterius Old, and increasingly outmoded in Fort Lauderdale

Now that virtualization software (and upcoming hardware) makes it possible to host older OSs that can run all those "golden oldies" apps, there's no reason not to take advantage of the new stuff Vista will provide. OTOH, it WILL cost money to upgrade. There's no way around that.
"Walterius" wrote in message

I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro and Windows ME (dual boot) and I love them both for different reasons.
Before anybody wastes time flaming me about WME, please understand that WME can do some things W2K can't, and is completely reliable (yes, really), as long as it is not patched and not connected to the Internet, which is true for me. Please also understand that upgrading any of my software is a severe expense on my tiny income. I cannot do it lightly.
It does bug me I admit that 2K cannot run some XP-only pgms.
(It particularly bugs me that Fred Langa almost never mentions that such pgms are indeed XP-only. But that's another story. www.langa.com, for free and plus versions of the famous LangaList Windows newsletter. I have no connection with Fred or Langa.com.)
I put all the heavy lifting (of which there is very little) on W2K, which is religiously Service Packed and patched, and which runs tons of apps, mostly system and gfx pgms--but all only as a hobby.
It does frustrate me that I cannot run the latest Expression versions (e.g. Interactive Designer), but I can live without them, since I have at 40+ aging gfx pgms.
My main question is, if I wait for and buy Vista Basic, will I be able to run Acrylic and its friends? Will I find gfx happiness at last? Or will I spend my days thereafter upgrading hardware and learning quirky new MSFT gfx interfaces?
My system is an AMD Athlon 2000 (plenty fast enough now, but I could consider upgrading--if there were any real benefit to Vista to begin with) with 512 MB RAM (upgradeable to 2 GB or more), an integrated SiS gfx card that robs its <currently 32 MB> VRAM from main RAM, two 60 GB HDDs, USB2, BellSouth DSL (medium version) running on a Westell USB modem (it won't run with Ethernet), DVD, CD, diskette, 19" monitor, and whatever I forgot.
I am concerned about gfx, because I keep reading that Vista wants the last gasp in gfx cards. What are the main benefits if any of Vista's new gfx engines?
I don't play any fancy games, so that's not an issue.
My main concern is does an old fart like me need to keep upgrading Windows (since 3.0) when my current system is so tweaked that it's virtually hand-carved, and does, if truth be known, virtually everything I need it to? I may have just answered my own question, but I'd value your comments.
Walterius Old, and increasingly outmoded in Fort Lauderdale

Walterius, you have not answered my PhotoDraw 2000 v2 question concerning issues with Office XP. -- -- Andre Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Walterius" wrote in message

I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro and Windows ME (dual boot) and I love them both for different reasons.
Before anybody wastes time flaming me about WME, please understand that WME can do some things W2K can't, and is completely reliable (yes, really), as long as it is not patched and not connected to the Internet, which is true for me. Please also understand that upgrading any of my software is a severe expense on my tiny income. I cannot do it lightly.
It does bug me I admit that 2K cannot run some XP-only pgms.
(It particularly bugs me that Fred Langa almost never mentions that such pgms are indeed XP-only. But that's another story. www.langa.com, for free and plus versions of the famous LangaList Windows newsletter. I have no connection with Fred or Langa.com.)
I put all the heavy lifting (of which there is very little) on W2K, which is religiously Service Packed and patched, and which runs tons of apps, mostly system and gfx pgms--but all only as a hobby.
It does frustrate me that I cannot run the latest Expression versions (e.g. Interactive Designer), but I can live without them, since I have at 40+ aging gfx pgms.
My main question is, if I wait for and buy Vista Basic, will I be able to run Acrylic and its friends? Will I find gfx happiness at last? Or will I spend my days thereafter upgrading hardware and learning quirky new MSFT gfx interfaces?
My system is an AMD Athlon 2000 (plenty fast enough now, but I could consider upgrading--if there were any real benefit to Vista to begin with) with 512 MB RAM (upgradeable to 2 GB or more), an integrated SiS gfx card that robs its <currently 32 MB> VRAM from main RAM, two 60 GB HDDs, USB2, BellSouth DSL (medium version) running on a Westell USB modem (it won't run with Ethernet), DVD, CD, diskette, 19" monitor, and whatever I forgot.
I am concerned about gfx, because I keep reading that Vista wants the last gasp in gfx cards. What are the main benefits if any of Vista's new gfx engines?
I don't play any fancy games, so that's not an issue.
My main concern is does an old fart like me need to keep upgrading Windows (since 3.0) when my current system is so tweaked that it's virtually hand-carved, and does, if truth be known, virtually everything I need it to? I may have just answered my own question, but I'd value your comments.
Walterius Old, and increasingly outmoded in Fort Lauderdale

Sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Walterius Old and approaching senility.
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Walterius, you have not answered my PhotoDraw 2000 v2 question concerning issues with Office XP.

Walterius wrote:

I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro and Windows ME (dual boot) and I love them both for different reasons.
Before anybody wastes time flaming me about WME, please understand that WME can do some things W2K can't, and is completely reliable (yes, really), as long as it is not patched and not connected to the Internet, which is true for me. Please also understand that upgrading any of my software is a severe expense on my tiny income. I cannot do it lightly.
It does bug me I admit that 2K cannot run some XP-only pgms.
(It particularly bugs me that Fred Langa almost never mentions that such pgms are indeed XP-only. But that's another story. www.langa.com, for free and plus versions of the famous LangaList Windows newsletter. I have no connection with Fred or Langa.com.)
I put all the heavy lifting (of which there is very little) on W2K, which is religiously Service Packed and patched, and which runs tons of apps, mostly system and gfx pgms--but all only as a hobby.
It does frustrate me that I cannot run the latest Expression versions (e.g. Interactive Designer), but I can live without them, since I have at 40+ aging gfx pgms.
My main question is, if I wait for and buy Vista Basic, will I be able to run Acrylic and its friends? Will I find gfx happiness at last? Or will I spend my days thereafter upgrading hardware and learning quirky new MSFT gfx interfaces?
My system is an AMD Athlon 2000 (plenty fast enough now, but I could consider upgrading--if there were any real benefit to Vista to begin with) with 512 MB RAM (upgradeable to 2 GB or more), an integrated SiS gfx card that robs its <currently 32 MB> VRAM from main RAM, two 60 GB HDDs, USB2, BellSouth DSL (medium version) running on a Westell USB modem (it won't run with Ethernet), DVD, CD, diskette, 19" monitor, and whatever I forgot.
I am concerned about gfx, because I keep reading that Vista wants the last gasp in gfx cards. What are the main benefits if any of Vista's new gfx engines?
I don't play any fancy games, so that's not an issue.
My main concern is does an old fart like me need to keep upgrading Windows (since 3.0) when my current system is so tweaked that it's virtually hand-carved, and does, if truth be known, virtually everything I need it to? I may have just answered my own question, but I'd value your comments.
Walterius Old, and increasingly outmoded in Fort Lauderdale

You probably will not want to 'upgrade' Windows 2000 to Windows Home Basic. That probably would be more of a 'downgrade'. If you decide upon Vista, in your case, it would probably be better to pop for the more expensive "Business" edition which is roughly equivalent to Windows 2000/XP Professional. Save your pennies.
Obviously there's no pressing need to "upgrade" for you. But, you know, this has been the longest stretch between client operating systems that Microsoft has let slip. We had 95 to 98 to 98SE to Me to XP .. each only a year or two apart. Upgrade fatigue set in for many people. But Vista is a whole four almost five years from when XP came out. The integration of security, the whole slew of new features, and yes the new interface, should make this one of the most interesting new Windows operating systems ever. Some people will move to it out of sheer hobbiest interest in what's going on.
Your computer would probably only need at most an AGP graphics card to boost to the graphic demands of Vista. But that's about it because it is already a robust machine.
Are you really that old? My great Aunt took on a full time directors job at 75 and climbed small mountains when she was 76 .. she was still knitting and cooking and doing things for people at 96 and still editing and proof-reading letters at 97 .. so I don't buy this "old and increasingly outmoded" nonsense from you unless you can tell me you are over a hundred. Don't be lazy.

I recently updated to Office XP, then install Service Pack 3 for Office XP. After doing this, I launch PhotoDraw 2000 V2 to work on a project, then the Windows Installer started and could configure whatever it had to for PhotoDraw. I have see this before, but it always requested the CD and did what it had to do. Its not doing that anymore. Are ther incompatibilities between Office XP SP3 and PhotoDraw 2000 V2? Are there any work arounds, or do I have to settle for Virtual PC running 98 which is better suited for this app? -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
"Walterius" wrote in message

Sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Walterius Old and approaching senility.
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Walterius, you have not answered my PhotoDraw 2000 v2 question concerning issues with Office XP.

What? Your Aunt is just not lasy? Nay, Your Aunt is the "SUPER GREAT AUNT!!!"
Being my notorius self, it's fortunately for me mine isn't that strong (bless her), nor any other: mum, gradma etc
If ANY were that "great" I would probably have to leave the country, join the army, go under witness potection...
How do you survive?
lol
"Infosink" wrote:

Walterius wrote: I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro and Windows ME (dual boot) and I love them both for different reasons.
Before anybody wastes time flaming me about WME, please understand that WME can do some things W2K can't, and is completely reliable (yes, really), as long as it is not patched and not connected to the Internet, which is true for me. Please also understand that upgrading any of my software is a severe expense on my tiny income. I cannot do it lightly.
It does bug me I admit that 2K cannot run some XP-only pgms.
(It particularly bugs me that Fred Langa almost never mentions that such pgms are indeed XP-only. But that's another story. www.langa.com, for free and plus versions of the famous LangaList Windows newsletter. I have no connection with Fred or Langa.com.)
I put all the heavy lifting (of which there is very little) on W2K, which is religiously Service Packed and patched, and which runs tons of apps, mostly system and gfx pgms--but all only as a hobby.
It does frustrate me that I cannot run the latest Expression versions (e.g. Interactive Designer), but I can live without them, since I have at 40+ aging gfx pgms.
My main question is, if I wait for and buy Vista Basic, will I be able to run Acrylic and its friends? Will I find gfx happiness at last? Or will I spend my days thereafter upgrading hardware and learning quirky new MSFT gfx interfaces?
My system is an AMD Athlon 2000 (plenty fast enough now, but I could consider upgrading--if there were any real benefit to Vista to begin with) with 512 MB RAM (upgradeable to 2 GB or more), an integrated SiS gfx card that robs its <currently 32 MB> VRAM from main RAM, two 60 GB HDDs, USB2, BellSouth DSL (medium version) running on a Westell USB modem (it won't run with Ethernet), DVD, CD, diskette, 19" monitor, and whatever I forgot.
I am concerned about gfx, because I keep reading that Vista wants the last gasp in gfx cards. What are the main benefits if any of Vista's new gfx engines?
I don't play any fancy games, so that's not an issue.
My main concern is does an old fart like me need to keep upgrading Windows (since 3.0) when my current system is so tweaked that it's virtually hand-carved, and does, if truth be known, virtually everything I need it to? I may have just answered my own question, but I'd value your comments.
Walterius Old, and increasingly outmoded in Fort Lauderdale
You probably will not want to 'upgrade' Windows 2000 to Windows Home Basic. That probably would be more of a 'downgrade'. If you decide upon Vista, in your case, it would probably be better to pop for the more expensive "Business" edition which is roughly equivalent to Windows 2000/XP Professional. Save your pennies.
Obviously there's no pressing need to "upgrade" for you. But, you know, this has been the longest stretch between client operating systems that Microsoft has let slip. We had 95 to 98 to 98SE to Me to XP .. each only a year or two apart. Upgrade fatigue set in for many people. But Vista is a whole four almost five years from when XP came out. The integration of security, the whole slew of new features, and yes the new interface, should make this one of the most interesting new Windows operating systems ever. Some people will move to it out of sheer hobbiest interest in what's going on.
Your computer would probably only need at most an AGP graphics card to boost to the graphic demands of Vista. But that's about it because it is already a robust machine.
Are you really that old? My great Aunt took on a full time directors job at 75 and climbed small mountains when she was 76 .. she was still knitting and cooking and doing things for people at 96 and still editing and proof-reading letters at 97 .. so I don't buy this "old and increasingly outmoded" nonsense from you unless you can tell me you are over a hundred. Don't be lazy.

Sometimes I think I'm losing my mind in these newsgroups...
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Simply Awesome" wrote in message

What? Your Aunt is just not lasy? Nay, Your Aunt is the "SUPER GREAT AUNT!!!"
Being my notorius self, it's fortunately for me mine isn't that strong (bless her), nor any other: mum, gradma etc
If ANY were that "great" I would probably have to leave the country, join the army, go under witness potection...
How do you survive?
lol
"Infosink" wrote:
Walterius wrote: I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro and Windows ME (dual boot) and I love them both for different reasons.
Before anybody wastes time flaming me about WME, please understand that WME can do some things W2K can't, and is completely reliable (yes, really), as long as it is not patched and not connected to the Internet, which is true for me. Please also understand that upgrading any of my software is a severe expense on my tiny income. I cannot do it lightly.
It does bug me I admit that 2K cannot run some XP-only pgms.
(It particularly bugs me that Fred Langa almost never mentions that such pgms are indeed XP-only. But that's another story. www.langa.com, for free and plus versions of the famous LangaList Windows newsletter. I have no connection with Fred or Langa.com.)
I put all the heavy lifting (of which there is very little) on W2K, which is religiously Service Packed and patched, and which runs tons of apps, mostly system and gfx pgms--but all only as a hobby.
It does frustrate me that I cannot run the latest Expression versions (e.g. Interactive Designer), but I can live without them, since I have at 40+ aging gfx pgms.
My main question is, if I wait for and buy Vista Basic, will I be able to run Acrylic and its friends? Will I find gfx happiness at last? Or will I spend my days thereafter upgrading hardware and learning quirky new MSFT gfx interfaces?
My system is an AMD Athlon 2000 (plenty fast enough now, but I could consider upgrading--if there were any real benefit to Vista to begin with) with 512 MB RAM (upgradeable to 2 GB or more), an integrated SiS gfx card that robs its <currently 32 MB> VRAM from main RAM, two 60 GB HDDs, USB2, BellSouth DSL (medium version) running on a Westell USB modem (it won't run with Ethernet), DVD, CD, diskette, 19" monitor, and whatever I forgot.
I am concerned about gfx, because I keep reading that Vista wants the last gasp in gfx cards. What are the main benefits if any of Vista's new gfx engines?
I don't play any fancy games, so that's not an issue.
My main concern is does an old fart like me need to keep upgrading Windows (since 3.0) when my current system is so tweaked that it's virtually hand-carved, and does, if truth be known, virtually everything I need it to? I may have just answered my own question, but I'd value your comments.
Walterius Old, and increasingly outmoded in Fort Lauderdale
You probably will not want to 'upgrade' Windows 2000 to Windows Home Basic. That probably would be more of a 'downgrade'. If you decide upon Vista, in your case, it would probably be better to pop for the more expensive "Business" edition which is roughly equivalent to Windows 2000/XP Professional. Save your pennies.
Obviously there's no pressing need to "upgrade" for you. But, you know, this has been the longest stretch between client operating systems that Microsoft has let slip. We had 95 to 98 to 98SE to Me to XP .. each only a year or two apart. Upgrade fatigue set in for many people. But Vista is a whole four almost five years from when XP came out. The integration of security, the whole slew of new features, and yes the new interface, should make this one of the most interesting new Windows operating systems ever. Some people will move to it out of sheer hobbiest interest in what's going on.
Your computer would probably only need at most an AGP graphics card to boost to the graphic demands of Vista. But that's about it because it is already a robust machine.
Are you really that old? My great Aunt took on a full time directors job at 75 and climbed small mountains when she was 76 .. she was still knitting and cooking and doing things for people at 96 and still editing and proof-reading letters at 97 .. so I don't buy this "old and increasingly outmoded" nonsense from you unless you can tell me you are over a hundred. Don't be lazy.

Simply Awesome wrote:

What? Your Aunt is just not lasy? Nay, Your Aunt is the "SUPER GREAT AUNT!!!"
Being my notorius self, it's fortunately for me mine isn't that strong (bless her), nor any other: mum, gradma etc
If ANY were that "great" I would probably have to leave the country, join the army, go under witness potection...
How do you survive?
lol

:) She just wasn't lazy. She decided she was going to live her life with her ass in gear. I think that mostly explains her longevity and her sharp mind ...
You know, a significant number of people die soon after they retire. But those same people tend to be the ones that truly retire i.e. they withdraw from life. They do nothing, act lazily, and have no interests. They die . . but they pretty much chose to .. and on they day they die they were already well dead. I'm not saying some good people don't die young, God has His purposes, but otherwise a person can live, well, indefinitely if they stay interested. It's all in the mind.

Is this a psychology lesson or are these public Vista newsgroups? I mean, if it is a psychology lesson, feel free to ask me about therapeutic psychoanalysis but until then, let's crack on with the questions :o)
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!
--- Original message follows --- "Infosink" wrote in message

Simply Awesome wrote: What? Your Aunt is just not lasy? Nay, Your Aunt is the "SUPER GREAT AUNT!!!"
Being my notorius self, it's fortunately for me mine isn't that strong (bless her), nor any other: mum, gradma etc
If ANY were that "great" I would probably have to leave the country, join the army, go under witness potection...
How do you survive?
lol
:) She just wasn't lazy. She decided she was going to live her life with her ass in gear. I think that mostly explains her longevity and her sharp mind ..
You know, a significant number of people die soon after they retire. But those same people tend to be the ones that truly retire i.e. they withdraw from life. They do nothing, act lazily, and have no interests. They die . . but they pretty much chose to .. and on they day they die they were already well dead. I'm not saying some good people don't die young, God has His purposes, but otherwise a person can live, well, indefinitely if they stay interested. It's all in the mind.

I think it's more philosophy than psychology ;) but it is getting slightly off, well, everything... ;)
Scøtt Live Messenger FAQs - http://wlm.scottisafool.co.uk/
Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor) wrote:

Is this a psychology lesson or are these public Vista newsgroups? I mean, if it is a psychology lesson, feel free to ask me about therapeutic psychoanalysis but until then, let's crack on with the questions :o)