Home > Technobuddy > Archives > 2007 > February > 19 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThe hidden cost of Vista
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If you read my column this Sunday in the newspaper, or here on the blog, you know I upgraded one of my computers so that it would do a better job with Vista.
That worked out fine, it’s now doing a good job with Vista. But, even for that small upgrade of video card and RAM, I spent just under $300. And now I’d love to get a flat screen monitor to replace my decent - but heavy - 19-inch CRT monitor.
I did all the upgrade work myself, of course. So the price tag would be even higher if I had taken the machine to a shop. Besides the money, it took some time to get everything done.
So let me repeat my earlier advice. Don’t upgrade now. If you can wait until you need a new PC you’ll save both money and hassle - after all the PC will come with Vista installed (I paid $200 for the upgrade) and if your upgrade costs $300 or so, we’re already talking $500. You can darn near get a new PC for that.
PC World wrote on the same topic - you can read the article here.
Permalink | Comments (14) | Post your comment | Categories: Do-it-Yourself Projects
Comments
By Meg
February 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
AOL 8.0 won’t work with vista and aol 9.0 is nothing but flashing, distracting ads (even in email!) if I upgrade AOL goes, so I’m putting it off for as long as possible, unless someone knows a good program that will transfer my 6000 favorite places to IE.
By DWG
February 19, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this
Hey Meg, get rid of AOL and use Firefox 2.x. Welcome to the world of better software.
By Ken Roberts
February 19, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this
You still use AOL? Are you kidding me? You should be grateful Vista is finally forcing you to switch to something else.
By Meg
February 19, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this
Mock me all you want, I’ve had AOL almost 13 years ( I got the demo disc with the flying toasters software!) and met my husband there. I’m sentimentally attached. I do use Mozilla for email.
By Chris
February 19, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
Meg, not to mock you, but do you think your definition of favorite is a little broad? :-)
By Jud Vann
February 19, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this
Bill, I get cable TV and my internet connection through the same source.
Using a router, I can get a wireless internet connection. Why not wireless TV signals? Then, I could carry my small, battery operated TV anywhere in the house. Jud Vann Camilla, Georgia 070219
By John
February 19, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
That’s Microsoft for you. Instead of designing an operating system around existing machines like Apple does, they require only the newest and fastest machines just to run the program. Way to go Microsoft.
By ebj
February 19, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this
Jud Vann,
You could get ‘Remote Free TV’ from sony and watch TV on a Laptop or your PC and move around the house.
By Bill
February 19, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this
Me too, I’d love to have real wireless TV. There are sure some starts at it - and it’s getting better. But I think - at least for wireless that’s seamless and offers just as good a picture as an HDTV connected to a cable - we are a couple of years away.
Some of the computer stuff is interesting but - when it comes to real TVs - I think we have a wait.
Bandwidth is the problem - even the stuff out there now has occasionally blocking. It’ll come though.
Truth is I can’t even find affordable wireless speakers that please me. I’ve tried some - and some very high end ones apparently work great - but when you stay in the couple of hundred dollar range the quality is iffy.
I’m pasting in a link here to a small Sony TV set with a built-in wireless connection.
By Fred
February 19, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this
The Free Avg Antivirus says my free option has expired. Did really, or must I buy their software? Fred.
By Jeff
February 19, 2007 05:19 PM | Link to this
Hey, I grew up using a wireless TV! In fact I only switched to cable last year. Such capable devices are available at all major stores and even yard sales if you are cost conscious.
By Bill
February 19, 2007 07:54 PM | Link to this
Fred if you got it at http://free.grisoft.com it’s free, no charge ever. If you got one of the demo versions - it isn’t free.
By jlewis
February 20, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this
I feel that I’m in the stone ages. I still have Windows 98 at home. I rarely use my computer at home but I purchased a digital camera (Kodak EasyShare) and it requires that you have Windows 2000, Windows XP or better to download their software for loading pictures etc. Do anyone know if this will be costly?
By Bill
February 20, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this
Hi Jlewis, I’m not a bug on upgrading operating system on a whim, but - no kidding - you are due for an upgrade. Windows 98 was a really buggy operating system.
Before you go to any expense, as far as upgrading make sure that your computer is up to the job. If you’re running 98 it could be that your old hardware just isn’t going to be up to the job to moving to XP or 2000.
It could be that you’ll need to buy a new computer that already has XP or Vista installed. Either that or just forgo the image editing software for now and - if the computer works well enough to suit you - find some older shareware software that will run under 98.