Question: I got a laptop that runs Windows Vista, and I've heard many rumors about vista... not good ones.

Here are the main specs:
XPS M1530
Intel Core 2 duo processor T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 3MB Cache)
3GB Shared Duel Channel DDR2 SDRAM at667 MHz (2 dimms)
Hopefully this is all you need to figure out if i may or may not have problems.

-submitted by codify

Answer: Things haven't been good for the folks at Redmond since Vista debuted. With any major OS revision, in this case the move from XP to Vista, there are always going to be problems. The Internet boards haven't exactly been kind to Microsoft's latest; spouting off problems, issues, and complaints at every major corner. Some of these can be substantiated, others are just dribble posted by the Apple fanboys of the world or those who fear change (you know... the folks who like things the "way they used to be.")

I've had the opportunity to play with Vista for a while, and while I too can be frustrated with it, it's typically not because the OS has major flaws, but because it doesn't work exactly like the OS I've used for nearly six years. Vista really isn't that bad (in fact, I like it better than XP in many ways), but it definitely takes some hands on time to get it down.

I'm no Vista fanboy... it does have its problems, but so does XP for that matter. We've just all learned how to get around XP's shortcomings. Of course, there are some things you need to be aware of when making the move to Vista, including some of Vista's top complaints.

Things you should know about Vista:

* 32-bit vs. 64-bit - Windows Vista comes in two flavors: 32-bit and 64-bit. It's important to know which you're getting when you purchase a Vista system. Windows Vista 64-bit marks Microsoft's first real attempt to move to a 64-bit architecture.

What makes 64-bit systems different is technical, but the general gist is it's all about memory. 32-bit operating systems (like most versions of XP) can only handle upt o 4GB of physical RAM (3GB realistically). It may have been enough back in the day, but these days it's not uncommon to want 8GB of RAM in a computer. 64-bit systems have the ability to address 16 exabytes of memory (that's 17.2 BILLION gigabytes or 16.8 MILLION terrabytes for those not used to seeing anything past the terrabyte mark.)

This higher memory cap lays the foundation for faster computing on many levels, and some benefits can even be seen in computers without 4GB or more of RAM.

There are some drawbacks though, and that has to do with a world that's still primarily operating in the 32-bit world. At some point you have to cut off the past, and that means that older hardware may not work with Vista unless you can find 64-bit device drivers for your product. If your laptop ships with Vista 64-bit, then your hardware will work fine. For those looking to upgrade or build something new, be sure 64-bit device drivers are available for your hardware.

* Software compatibility - One common Vista rumor is that regardless of which version of Vista you get, your current software won't work. In reality, the vast majority of software you try to install will run just fine on Vista, in both 32 and 64-bit flavors. Vista 64-bit won't support older 16-bit installers or any 16-bit code for that matter, so really old software may have some problems. There are exceptions on programs that won't play nice with Vista, but the vast majority will work fine.

*Gaming -If you've been reading the boards, you've no doubt heard that gaming on Vista yeilds lower performance. I don't argue with benchmarks... Vista does run games slower compared to XP on similar system configurations. For anyone other than the hardcore, the difference of a few fps won't mean much.  Plus, Vista supports DirectX 10, which when fully embraced by developers, will mean you'll see higher detail and more realism when gaming on Vista. It also wasn't nice when hardware accelerated DirectSound 3D support was removed (for those with certain power user sound cards), but this doesn't affect everyone and won't be an issue much going forward on future gaming titles.

*Vista's performance -You've also heard that Vista just runs slower because it has super-high system requirements. I'll agree that Vista does feel a little slower than XP, and it does have dramatically high system requirements when compared to XP. There's eye candy, effects, and a whole lot more going on in Vista than in XP. Does this make Vista bad? 

NO! Let's face it. XP is old, and it was designed during a different time of computer hardware specifications. In fact, I remember running it on a 450Mhz Pentium 2 and complaining that it felt slow compared to Windows 98. When you throw XP on a 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, a processor that exceeds XPs minimum requirements by about 20+ times, you bet it's going to feel peppy. In five years, when there's 8 10GHz cores in your processor, Vista's going to feel peppy, too. You can disable much of the candy that ships with Vista to help rev it up, but it looks like the specs on your notebook will handle Vista just fine. Having solid graphics capabilities is much more important than it used to be, even for the non-gamers, particularly if you want all of Vista's UI effects running.

*UAC (User Account Control) - You've heard that UAC is annoying. You're right, it is. But...

Not everyone is a PC guru. Grandmas, small kids, and many other "regular" people don't understand it and don't want to. They don't want to learn the computer, they just want it to work. XP was almost too open from a security perspective. Users would do stuff that could seriously harm their PCs and never know it.

UAC is a good idea (even Linux has something similar), but it needs to be refined. It pops up too often and gets very easy to ignore.  Hopefully in time this will get better, but for now the above average computer user will find it irritating. If it bugs you that bad, turn it off.

*Vista hides stuff from the user - This is both true and false. Microsoft has put some effort into making advanced user stuff more difficult to find (see UAC above for an idea why), but at the end of the day, it normally turns out that it's just not in the same place on Vista that it was on XP. I've found just about everything I've needed (advanced or otherwise) in Vista, it just often takes a little hunting. 

Better in some ways?

I could put together a pretty long list of the things I like better in Vista, but here's my top five:

1. Included Windows Media center - If you get Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate, you also get Windows Media Center. Tie it with a remote control and it's pretty awesome. 

2. Sleep and Hibernation -  These functions actually work WELL in Vista. For a laptop owner, sleep and hibernate make a huge difference in how quick you can whip out your notebook.

3. Better Wireless Networking support - I find it much easier to locate and connect to Wireless Networks than I did with XP. It's simple, and it just works better... also important for laptop owners.

4. The UI - The additional eye-candy in Vista does take up more resources, but it really does look light years better than what came before it. It's not critical, but it sure does make using it more fun.

5.  Integrated search - The search tool in XP is archaic. The indexed search capabilities in Vista work really well.

This is one man's take, and of course, others have differing opinions. What do you like and not like about Vista? Post your comments below.

Have a technology question? Join the TechLore Community and Ask The Experts today!   

See More Ask The Experts Answers

Question: On my Mitsubishi TV I have the option of "Fast Power On" or "Low Power." Fast Power On brings the the video up very fast and Low Power takes some time. They say that Low Power uses less energy, but TV power-on takes longer and some TV features may be unavailable.

What I am wondering is if I use the Low Power setting, would that extend my bulb life?

-submitted by Brandon C

Answer: Given the way that feature is worded and presented in the Mitsubishi TV's menu, I can see how it can be confusing. On other TVs I've used in the past, particularly with LCD, Plasma, and CRT sets, a low power mode often indicates that it's driving the image with less brightness and contrast, and thus operating using less electricity.

In Mitsubishi's case however, this is not true. Their Low Power / Fast Power On mode refers to how much electricity the TV uses while in stand by, not operating. Modern day televisions are commonly referred to as power or electricity 'vampires' since they continue to draw power from the wall even when off to support some of the various electronic doo-dads, like the clock or your video settings for example.

Mitsubishi's Low Power mode comes with some caveats. When operating in Low Power mode, there will be some features or functions that won't operate. These are:

• You can't do recordings to an IEEE 1394 device while the TV is off.
• You can't schedule future IEEE 1394 recordings for a time when the TV will be off.
• You can't using the TV Timer function to turn on the TV at a preselected time.
• The TV clock won't remain accurate for the TV Timer and for scheduling recordings. With the Low Power setting, you must reset the TV Clock if the TV is left turned off for over 48 hours.
• You won't receive receive updates to the ChannelView channel listings.
• Note: if you use a CableCard, you won't have the option to use the Low Power mode.
• Using Low Power mode increases the boot up time.

As an advocate for a greener world, I would typically recommend taking advantage of energy savings. According to other reports online, the typically savings is in the neighborhood of around 10 to 12 watts between the two modes, which could equate to $15-20$ per year on your electric bill.

Many of the features disabled by this mode could be things you don't even use (besides the clock). If that's the case, and you can handle some additional start up time, it may very well help you save a little bit of coin.

For your lamp, however, it won't affect it in the slightest.

Have a technology question? Join the TechLore Community and Ask The Experts today!   

Learn More About Televisions and Projectors at TechLore | See More Ask The Experts Answers

Question:  I downloaded pictures from my camera's SD card to my computer.  Then, I cropped, adjusted, etc. to my liking and created a Photo CD.  Can I put those photos from the disk back onto the SD card? (Contributed by BillyZ)

Answer:  It depends on your camera and your editing software.  Let me continue on to explain the details!

When your camera formats the SD card that you have inserted, it usually sets up directories in the card, that help it to figure out where pictures are located.  You can navigate to these directories using the File Manager in Windows or the Finder in Mac OS X.  The labels on the directories depend on what model camera you have.

In addition, when you snap photos and videos, the filenames are automatically created by the camera, and placed in the directories that it chooses.  Here, you can see how my Casio camera displays its file scructure and filenames for both movies and photos.

Now, on to your question - now that you know what's going on behind the scenes.  There are a number of ways you can manipulate your photos once you have the card out of the camera.  You can copy them straight to your hard drive from the card, or you can import them into photo management software, such as iPhoto.  It sounds like you have done exactly this, and made modifications to your photos such as cropping, etc., and also created a Photo CD.

I'm assuming that you want to put these photos back on the SD card to accomplish a variety of goals - including taking the freshly modified digital photos to be printed at a store kiosk, or maybe to use the camera to show the photos on your television directly.

It's easy to put the photos back on the card - simply open the card in your file manager, and copy the files from the Photo CD or your hard drive back onto the card.  You should now be able to bring the card to a store or camera retailer and have them print your photos.

However, this probably will not work if you are planning on using the camera to show off the pictures to others.  You'll need to make sure of a few things before you can try to get this to work:

• You must ensure the files are placed in the right directory on the card.  If the directories have been erased, format the card using your camera and take a few pictures.  The camera should re-create the proper directories.
• You must ensure the file names and extensions are the same.  It's possible that when you burned the Photo CD, it changed the filenames or other attributes of the file, that will make it impossible for the camera to read.

Once you've checked on these two things, go ahead and copy the modified files to the proper directory on your camera. 

Remember, that it's possible that your photo editing software could have changed the files in some way that will make it impossible for your camera to read them, so even if you follow these steps, it still may not function as you expect.

I tried this exact same procedure using iPhoto on Mac with my Casio camera.  I took some photos that I had enhanced, rotated, and cropped and copied them out of iPhoto onto the SD card into the proper directories, and it worked like a charm.  Depending on your photo editing software and your camera, you should have similar luck!

Some elements of this question were also answered in a past Ask the Experts column, which you can check out here!

Have a technology question? Join the TechLore Community and Ask The Experts today!   

Learn More About Digital Cameras at TechLore