Geez, you sound like me. It's so confusing. I go through this each year lately and every year there are so many new things. When you think you have it down pat, it all changes again. I'm looking for an inexpensive desktop or laptop for my adult son. This is what I'm looking at. 3gig Ram, 250-320 hard drive, Intel Dual Core Processor, 17" monitor, wireless card, media card reader, MS Office (Word, Excel) Student, Intergrated Sound Card is fine for me.

I'm just giving you an idea of what I'm looking at as an inexperienced shopper. I will pay for the option of XP and Vista and leave it up to him which he prefers. I like the option.

I purchased a desktop and laptop last year and requested XP on both. I'm not ready to learn the new operating system. Software I use at work still runs on XP. I'm hoping to skip Vista completely and use the next operating system Microsoft will come out with in 2010.

Keep reading and researching. This site give info on various processors. I don't think a large hard drive makes a computer faster. It is just storage. Ram is important but with XP 3Gigs is all it will use. Anything more is wasted. Vista is different. For me, 3 Gigs is enough.

If you keep your machine clean of spyware and virus, it should be fast enough. My computers work quickly without problems. I have a 3yr old Dell XPS which is the fastest and can handle multiple heavy programs at the same time. It only has 2 gigs and a smaller hard drive. It is my favorite. My newer machines are bigger and more expensive but do not have the 'snap' of the older machine.

Good luck,

Jane

Here is a link that might be useful: reading material

Rather than try understanding the technicalities of the processor why not assume it will be matched to everything else inside the case? If money is an issue then set an upper limit, then look. These days most computer brands are good. I think computer prices have never been better.

Regarding Vista, we have had this now for 2 years and it is here to stay. Jane suggests the new operating system will be out in 2010 but MS has never been on time before, should we assume they will get it right this time with their dubious track record? With computers the idea of waiting for the next big upgrade seems futile, and yes, we have all done the waiting bit.

DellÂs offer of Vista and XP seems odd if you intend to use 4 gigs of RAM because XP can only handle up to 3 gigs as I understand it. Most computers use 2 gigs in XP with 2 sticks as a matched pair.

Speed is elusive! You new computer will be very swift. But, you will start adding for favourite programs and so many of these place themselves in your start up that soon you begin to slow. For example why do MS Office, Quicktime and many other Âimportant programs need to be running in the background for the average user? They do not but they are set up that way and it is not helpful.

If you intend to run more than one computer you will need a router. You then hook the router in between the modem and your computers and off you go. Setting up a network will allow you to transfer data or use CDs, thumb drive or external drive. The CDs might be a good way, then you have your important data backed up in case of failure.

In general Vista's original release concerns were basically dedicated to two areas; incompatible peripherals/software and systems which were upgraded from XP to Vista.

XP is in itself a fine system, but it is coming to an end. I believe Microsoft support for XP is still ending in 2009, though sites like this forum will always be available.

There are absolutely differences between XP and Vista, but they are not ridiculous. In fact, I have never understood why so many users complained about the changes as who would want to spend money to purchase the same thing. My only thought, and I absolutely mean no disrespect, is that perhaps newbies who faced the challenge of recently learning XP were not yearning to relive the trials and tribulations with Vista.

With your defined personal requirements why do you"need something super fast"? Perhaps you meant that you wanted a system configured to be powerful to multi-task. It is my recommendation for your system:

any 2.0 or more dual core processor, I am an Intel person but hold no fault with an AMD

minimum of 2 GB of RAM,but 3GB would be better.

Since you should be storing your music and photos off your system a mid-size H/D is sufficient.

Unless you are a connoisseur of music an onboard sound card should be just fine.

If MS Office is a selling point for you, please be certain it is a full application and not a trial version. My Vista system came with a trial version. Open Office is a free viable alternative.

Whatever you chose good luck with it.

DA

thanks for the great advice/recommendations.. i don't understand about storing music and photos off the system using an external hard drive..
My main thing is deciding on what processor,,there are just so many how on earth do you choose? If you say any 2.0 or more dual processor would be good.. i will trust you...
why do i need omething superfast? because my husband is inpatient lol and doesn't like to wait for pages to load. he wants them to open instantly. he looks at alot of sites with lists of trucks and photos.. and they justtake too long to load, and then when he clicks on a photo and goes back.. it takes forever for that too...

I may be wrong, but the quickness of the pages opening could be your internet signal, not the computer. I don't think the computer determines that. My computers are fast doing tasks, but if the internet is bogged down, websites take time to load.

Hopefully, someone can explain it better.

Jane

DA, I decided against Vista because so many people were having problems with it. Friends couldn't get their programs to operate and spent so much time and money getting their machines to operate well. I use software for work which did not work with Vista initially and we were warned against getting a new computer with Vista.

XP is smooth and well functioning. We have many programs which we've had for years and did not want to take the risk of problems. Time is important and we could see no reason to take on the task of getting everything to work with Vista.

Dell still sells XP on their business machines and now offers XP and Vista disc on their new computers. I read today that support will continue until 2014 and the new operating system from MS will come out next year - 2009.

I'm hoping to skip Vista completely.

Jane

I was thinking the same thing. What are you using to connect to the internet?

my husband is inpatient lol and doesn't like to wait for pages to load. he wants them to open instantly. he looks at alot of sites with lists of trucks and photos.. and they justtake too long to load, and then when he clicks on a photo and goes back.. it takes forever for that too...

That brought back memories of watching images load (sometimes line by line) on dialup. Computer was perfectly capable of faster speed, connection was not. Sandy

.....my husband is inpatient lol and doesn't like to wait for pages to load. he wants them to open instantly. he looks at alot of sites with lists of trucks and photos.....

This may possibly be nothing to do with your computer. Web developers work hard to keep image sizes down to as small a file size as possible but if a pages has lots of photos and the webmaster has used larger photo files then it will take so much longer to load.

Your husband should open 3 or 4 tabs to the internet, then he can click a link but instead of waiting for it to load he can use another tab to view other things.

I am not quite sure I agree with DA on storing photos externally. I did that and then found myself forever getting up and looking through the CDs. Of course they should be saved elsewhere as well as on the computer for safety. Each must determine our needs on things like this.

I do wish success for anyone who wants to use XP. However, there is going to be a time when "old" applications with out-dated code will be even more reduced or eliminated. I have several old applications in the drawer which do not work on this Vista system and I cannot tell you why I still have them. However, I don't miss one of them. I went out and found replacements current with today's technology. Without a doubt they are truly better.

Now if updating to current standards is not available, cost prohibitive or financially impossible by all means continue with what works. My point is that in my opinion a user has to sooner or later stop marching in place and move forward.

Permanent storing of documents, music and pictures on a system is an invitation to a calamity. A user should only retain them on the system when an adequate backup is created. One virus or trojan, one crash, one H/D failure and all can/will be lost. We have had members report disasters right here on this forum, and all we can do is feel for them as we point them towards a file recovery service with fingers crossed. It can happen to anyone, and yes it has happened to me when I got lazy. So in this case experience counts.

DA

I march, just slow. I held on to Win 98 until the computer died due to lightening. Loved it! Got Win ME - disaster! Only updated to XP after SP2. I know what I'm in for, but prefer to enjoy using my computers without having to spend hours getting everything up to par. Transferred everything over to my new computers, up and running. Nothing to fool around with.

As long as they keep offering XP that will be my choice.

Jane

As I hope I shared if a user wants to use XP forever so be it. I wish them success.

I too was attached to my Win98 system before purchasing this Vista system. It was efficient and loyal for everything I wanted to do, albeit I was limited to two tasks at once and overall it was slower.

Fortunately for me I had been a long time member here and other forums which allowed me to develop an understanding of the subsequent O/Ss. Another plus was I was able to read the Help files on the XP and Win2000 systems at work along with ferreting around the O/Ss. The downside was I was unable to do any hands on work as IT people have no sense of humor. As time went on the learning gap became larger and larger so if I was to grow with the technology I had to buy a system. I chose Vista over XP as Vista was the newest and I personally feel the best for the average user.

Any comparison between Vista and Windows ME is invalid. ME, the original NT structure O/S, was on paper a fine O/S. It was research and practicality issues which caused it to fail. Some, and I am not one, feel that the only thing wrong with ME is that it was released before its time. Who am I to judge?

DA

You are probably right about ME but whatever the reason it was a major headache. We kept 98 on our old computer until its demise a few years ago. Our other computer was 2000 and I didn't upgrade until XP2.

For a non-tech, my workday is spent on my computer. I don't have time, nor knowledge to spend getting my computer to work nice with my software and settings, nor the funds to hire a tech. It took many hours to get everything working the way I needed and wanted. When I sit down at the machine, I need it to do what I want as my day is busy. My computer is networked with my other computer they work well together. I use remote connections from home and can work from here.

XP is agreeable and familiar. It is so much more than 98 was. I remember all the 'restarts' and love the stability of XP. I think if I had gone from 98 straight to Vista I probably would enjoy Vista, although what I have seen and read about Vista doesn't inspire me enough to change. I hate MS Office 07. It was forced on me when I purchased this machine a year ago. Why they made the changes they did make no sense. It is non-intuitive and confusing to use. I have decided to stop using it and do all my work on my machine at work which still has 03. I can't express how angry I get each time I need to type a letter on 07. Hate it!

At my age, I find computers frustrating enough, and don't want to add to it. I'll wait a few years,

Jane

Jane what are you using for your remote connections? I seem to recollect you were very interested in a thread a while back. Was that TeamViewer? I recently installed TeamViewer and find it incredible. Before that I was happy with Crossloop but there is no comparison between the 2 programs. Now I can go on a computer and take control of every aspect whereas with Crossloop my keyboard would not work.

Now instead of talking over Skype while the other person does as I suggest they can sit back and watch as I do the chores. I can even reboot and continue work or shut down the other computer.

Hi Owbist, I've been using Go To My PC which costs $9.95 a month and lets me have complete control over my office computer. It works so easily and allows me to access the office from any computer, anywhere. Because I do medical work there are security issues working remotely and Go To My PC is accepted as a secure setup. I considered VPN but this set-up is easier. I can even print documents from the office machine at home.

Sometimes I find technology so amazing, I can't fathom it. Of course there is the other part of me who gets so impatient with it. Many times it takes so much longer to get something done the 'new' way when it would take me a minute to do it the 'old' way.

Its just not second nature to me and heaven knows if it will ever be. I just wish my husband would retire!

Jane