S
SXTC
I didn't know mr Frank Gates had a collegue on this forum )Hooray for MS's worst OS then? CHEERS ! :hehe:
Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
I didn't know mr Frank Gates had a collegue on this forum )Hooray for MS's worst OS then? CHEERS ! :hehe:
Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
C
cheley_bonstell88@live.com
On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
> wrote:
>
> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>
> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
> machines.
>
- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
- at considerable savings.
> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
> >installed on it.
>
> Not much longer, however.
>
This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
digging in it's corporate heels,
but by consumers who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
offerings and go buy Macs.
From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
hardware needed to run it properly
is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
HumVee
>
> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>
> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
> decisions.
>
Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
Links
( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
> >than Windows XP when ,
> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>
> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>
> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
> comparing apples and oranges.
Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
> wrote:
>
> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>
> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
> machines.
>
- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
- at considerable savings.
> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
> >installed on it.
>
> Not much longer, however.
>
This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
digging in it's corporate heels,
but by consumers who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
offerings and go buy Macs.
From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
hardware needed to run it properly
is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
HumVee
>
> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>
> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
> decisions.
>
Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
Links
( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
> >than Windows XP when ,
> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>
> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>
> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
> comparing apples and oranges.
Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================
L
Leanne Liston
lAfter a year of vista i've had it and I'm putting in windows px. I want
something that works.
"cheley_bonstell88@live.com" wrote:
> On May 25, 9:06 am, "Talal Itani" <tit...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
> > XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now. Is
> > Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
> > computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
> > with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>
>
> I would suggest XP:
>
> - I talked to the local PC repair guy, who recommended the same
> thing..
>
> Google Vista
>
> & here's a link to some stories concerning Vista
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/05/infoworlds_othe.html
>
>
>
>
>
something that works.
"cheley_bonstell88@live.com" wrote:
> On May 25, 9:06 am, "Talal Itani" <tit...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
> > XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now. Is
> > Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
> > computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
> > with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>
>
> I would suggest XP:
>
> - I talked to the local PC repair guy, who recommended the same
> thing..
>
> Google Vista
>
> & here's a link to some stories concerning Vista
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/05/infoworlds_othe.html
>
>
>
>
>
S
SXTC
I'm gona trow Vista in the trash, I'm not gona sell it because I think no one diserves to be punished with this OS
Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
D
Dave
What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
--
Vista Home Premium 32 SP1
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview
"SXTC" wrote in message news:#$SJS6hwIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
I'm gona trow
> Vista in the trash, I'm not gona sell it because I think no one diserves
> to be punished with this OS
>
>
> Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
--
Vista Home Premium 32 SP1
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview
"SXTC" wrote in message news:#$SJS6hwIHA.5584@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
I'm gona trow
> Vista in the trash, I'm not gona sell it because I think no one diserves
> to be punished with this OS
>
>
> Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
P
Pete Stavrakoglou
<cheley_bonstell88@live.com> wrote in message
news:eafbde3f-9052-4d0f-99a7-e317a570c8ca@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>
>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>> machines.
>>
>
> - But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
> by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
> Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
As a business, priority #1 is to earn a profit. If their profit line is
best served by eliminating one product and replacing it with another, that's
what they'll do. They're free to do so.
> - at considerable savings.
>
>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>> >installed on it.
>>
>> Not much longer, however.
>>
>
> This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
> digging in it's corporate heels,
> but by consumers who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
> offerings and go buy Macs.
In most cases that's a more expensive option, IMO. A comparable Mac system
is more expensive than a windows system.
> From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
> machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
> Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
If MS decides to continue to offer both XP and Vista, great but they are
under no obligation to do so. Not having a viable OS (Linux is not a vialbe
solution for the average PC user) to run on a Wintel system helps Microsoft
when they want to dig in their heels. Other than Mac, there's really
nowhere else to turn to.
> such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
>
>
> Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
> hardware needed to run it properly
> is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
> HumVee
I don't see it that way. I wasn't forced to upgrade to Vista, it came with
a new PC that was purchased. In my home, there are four system, two with
XP, one with Vista, and a Mac. No one is forcing me to upgrade the XP
systems to Vista. I can run XP on them as long as I want to.
>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>>
>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>> decisions.
>>
>
> Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
> Links
> ( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
I know this post wasn't directed towards me so this is no challenge aimed at
me. I have no links to offer. I use Vista and I've come to like it, just
as I did XP. XP is quicker in some cases (copying files and a few Photoshop
operations that I've noticed which are slightly faster in XP) but on the
whole I am very satisfied with the performance of Vista. I did downgrade
the system to XP to see how the performance would be improved and it wasn't
really noticable at all so I went back to using Vista once SP1 was released.
>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>> >than Windows XP when ,
>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>>
>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>
>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>> comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
> that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
Again, I can continue to use XP on the systems that have it installed as
long as I choose. In my case, there is nothing forcing me to upgrade.
========================================================
news:eafbde3f-9052-4d0f-99a7-e317a570c8ca@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>
>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>> machines.
>>
>
> - But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
> by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
> Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
As a business, priority #1 is to earn a profit. If their profit line is
best served by eliminating one product and replacing it with another, that's
what they'll do. They're free to do so.
> - at considerable savings.
>
>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>> >installed on it.
>>
>> Not much longer, however.
>>
>
> This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
> digging in it's corporate heels,
> but by consumers who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
> offerings and go buy Macs.
In most cases that's a more expensive option, IMO. A comparable Mac system
is more expensive than a windows system.
> From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
> machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
> Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
If MS decides to continue to offer both XP and Vista, great but they are
under no obligation to do so. Not having a viable OS (Linux is not a vialbe
solution for the average PC user) to run on a Wintel system helps Microsoft
when they want to dig in their heels. Other than Mac, there's really
nowhere else to turn to.
> such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
>
>
> Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
> hardware needed to run it properly
> is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
> HumVee
I don't see it that way. I wasn't forced to upgrade to Vista, it came with
a new PC that was purchased. In my home, there are four system, two with
XP, one with Vista, and a Mac. No one is forcing me to upgrade the XP
systems to Vista. I can run XP on them as long as I want to.
>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>>
>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>> decisions.
>>
>
> Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
> Links
> ( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
I know this post wasn't directed towards me so this is no challenge aimed at
me. I have no links to offer. I use Vista and I've come to like it, just
as I did XP. XP is quicker in some cases (copying files and a few Photoshop
operations that I've noticed which are slightly faster in XP) but on the
whole I am very satisfied with the performance of Vista. I did downgrade
the system to XP to see how the performance would be improved and it wasn't
really noticable at all so I went back to using Vista once SP1 was released.
>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>> >than Windows XP when ,
>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>>
>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>
>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>> comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
> that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
Again, I can continue to use XP on the systems that have it installed as
long as I choose. In my case, there is nothing forcing me to upgrade.
========================================================
D
Donald L McDaniel
On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
wrote:
>On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>
>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>> machines.
>>
>
>- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
>by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
>Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
I partially agree with your sentiment. But "business" has little to
do with "sentimentality", and MUCH to do with the "Bottom-Line".
Never-the-less, MIcrosoft has made its decision. The sooner YOU
accept their decision, the happier you will be, eventually.
>> >- at considerable savings.
>
>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>> >installed on it.
I'm sure that the larger OEMs will continue offering XP on some of
their machines for some time, until all stocks of XP distribution
media are depleted.
Microsoft will NOT produce any more after that.
And the OEMs will not have Microsoft's permission to distribute its OS
any longer.
>> Not much longer, however.
>>
>
>This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
>digging in it's corporate heels,
>but by consumers
Sorry, bud, but it's already been decided by Microsoft: on June 30,
2008, the OS will no longer be generally available, whether we like it
or not.
>who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
>offerings and go buy Macs.
Say what? Intels are more expensive than Macs? You gotta be
joking! In the first place, Apple's Intel-based Macs ARE "Intels".
PERIOD. Else a Microsoft OS woudn't be able to use the CPU.
Also, if you purchase a Mac, you have to contend with the Mac OS and
all the Mac idiocy surrounding it.
PLEASE, DO NOT PURCHASE a MAC. You will become a lying, hateful
backbiter, eventually, like all the rest of the "Mac Corps".
IF you value your humanity, stay away from the Mac OS.
The Apple Intel PC, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for
Vista, IF it's not a Mac Mini or a low-end iMac.
I should know: I abandoned the "Wintel" platform (as you call it) for
over 2 years. I finally grew extremely tired of the OS X desktop, and
went back to a "normal" Intel platform.
However, you will have to purchase a MacPro if you want to see Vista
run as well on a Macintosh as it does on what you refer to as a
"Wintel". NOT exactly "cheaper". Obviously, you probably prefer OS
X. You are certainly welcome to their P.O.S. OS.
>
>From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
>machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
>Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
I certainly see nothing wrong with this. If you hurry, you will be
still be able to buy a few copies of XP Pro before the cut-off date.
Just keep them in a drawer somewhere, until they are needed.
>such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
Not the word I would use, friend. I would use "capable", but NOT
"screamingly-fast".
>
>
>Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
>hardware needed to run it properly
In the first place, Microsoft has no ability to "force" anyone to do
anything, being a publically-traded company owned largely by the
stockholders. Until Microsoft stands over you and physically twists
your arm, please refrain from such lies.
And the hardware is NOT "expensive", unless it is VERY HIGH-END,
indeed!
Anyway, what about your comment about "consumers who throw up their
hands at expensive non-Apple PCs and go buy Macs"?
The facts are, a screamingly-decent Dell may be had for less than the
price of a stock iMac, which cannot be upgraded by the user.
>is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
>HumVee
I guess that's the way you see it. Many others see it differently.
Of course, since the GOVERNMENT doesn't decide what may or may not be
sold, I guess such a decision is up to the owner of the Service
Station, isn't it?
>>
>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
I've not found this to be the case on my shop-built Vista Desktop.
>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>> decisions.
>>
>
>Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
>Links
>( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
Vista developers should be the ones you DO Listen to, since they must
contend with the OS each time they do development on it.
IF THEY were having problems, I could understand your concern. But
for the most part, they are not.
How about reading posts from Vista USERS?
Start reading the posts by those who are HAPPY with Vista, and learn
WHY they are happier. Then make your decision.
>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>> >than Windows XP when ,
>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
I haven't found this to be the case, thus far. Folks may be talking
about it, but as far as I know, there is no scientific data to bear it
out. My experience has been that it is simply not the case. I'm
happy that Vista is at least running stably now. And for all intents
and purposes, I can see little difference in speed.
I also remember when XP first came out. Someone like yourself would
have been complaining that Microsoft was "forcing" everyone to upgrade
from Win9x. I read their posts. They were much like yours.
And NOW you are complaining about Vista. When Windows 7 is released,
you will start complaining about Microsoft "forcing" everyone to
upgrade to Windows 7.
Our memories tend to be short when it comes to our current "love".
>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>
>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>> comparing apples and oranges.
>
>Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
>that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
Again, no one is being "forced". If they want to replace their 5-year
old machines with Vista capable ones, what is that to you?
Anyway, I guess it's Microsoft's call, isn't it? NO one is being
"forced' to do this. They have several OSes they may choose from. Why
not talk with those who have removed all Microsoft OSes? They weren't
"forced" to do it. NO one was standing over them threatening them.
That is what it is all about, friend. The owner of an OS has every
right to discontinue its production at any time he pleases.
Just so you won't forget, MICROSOFT is the owner of both XP and Vista,
and has every right to do what it wishes with its own products.
You, sir, only have the rights to remove it, or use is. NO other
rights.
Get used to it.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
wrote:
>On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>
>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>> machines.
>>
>
>- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
>by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
>Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
I partially agree with your sentiment. But "business" has little to
do with "sentimentality", and MUCH to do with the "Bottom-Line".
Never-the-less, MIcrosoft has made its decision. The sooner YOU
accept their decision, the happier you will be, eventually.
>> >- at considerable savings.
>
>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>> >installed on it.
I'm sure that the larger OEMs will continue offering XP on some of
their machines for some time, until all stocks of XP distribution
media are depleted.
Microsoft will NOT produce any more after that.
And the OEMs will not have Microsoft's permission to distribute its OS
any longer.
>> Not much longer, however.
>>
>
>This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
>digging in it's corporate heels,
>but by consumers
Sorry, bud, but it's already been decided by Microsoft: on June 30,
2008, the OS will no longer be generally available, whether we like it
or not.
>who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
>offerings and go buy Macs.
Say what? Intels are more expensive than Macs? You gotta be
joking! In the first place, Apple's Intel-based Macs ARE "Intels".
PERIOD. Else a Microsoft OS woudn't be able to use the CPU.
Also, if you purchase a Mac, you have to contend with the Mac OS and
all the Mac idiocy surrounding it.
PLEASE, DO NOT PURCHASE a MAC. You will become a lying, hateful
backbiter, eventually, like all the rest of the "Mac Corps".
IF you value your humanity, stay away from the Mac OS.
The Apple Intel PC, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for
Vista, IF it's not a Mac Mini or a low-end iMac.
I should know: I abandoned the "Wintel" platform (as you call it) for
over 2 years. I finally grew extremely tired of the OS X desktop, and
went back to a "normal" Intel platform.
However, you will have to purchase a MacPro if you want to see Vista
run as well on a Macintosh as it does on what you refer to as a
"Wintel". NOT exactly "cheaper". Obviously, you probably prefer OS
X. You are certainly welcome to their P.O.S. OS.
>
>From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
>machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
>Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
I certainly see nothing wrong with this. If you hurry, you will be
still be able to buy a few copies of XP Pro before the cut-off date.
Just keep them in a drawer somewhere, until they are needed.
>such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
Not the word I would use, friend. I would use "capable", but NOT
"screamingly-fast".
>
>
>Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
>hardware needed to run it properly
In the first place, Microsoft has no ability to "force" anyone to do
anything, being a publically-traded company owned largely by the
stockholders. Until Microsoft stands over you and physically twists
your arm, please refrain from such lies.
And the hardware is NOT "expensive", unless it is VERY HIGH-END,
indeed!
Anyway, what about your comment about "consumers who throw up their
hands at expensive non-Apple PCs and go buy Macs"?
The facts are, a screamingly-decent Dell may be had for less than the
price of a stock iMac, which cannot be upgraded by the user.
>is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
>HumVee
I guess that's the way you see it. Many others see it differently.
Of course, since the GOVERNMENT doesn't decide what may or may not be
sold, I guess such a decision is up to the owner of the Service
Station, isn't it?
>>
>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
I've not found this to be the case on my shop-built Vista Desktop.
>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>> decisions.
>>
>
>Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
>Links
>( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
Vista developers should be the ones you DO Listen to, since they must
contend with the OS each time they do development on it.
IF THEY were having problems, I could understand your concern. But
for the most part, they are not.
How about reading posts from Vista USERS?
Start reading the posts by those who are HAPPY with Vista, and learn
WHY they are happier. Then make your decision.
>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>> >than Windows XP when ,
>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
I haven't found this to be the case, thus far. Folks may be talking
about it, but as far as I know, there is no scientific data to bear it
out. My experience has been that it is simply not the case. I'm
happy that Vista is at least running stably now. And for all intents
and purposes, I can see little difference in speed.
I also remember when XP first came out. Someone like yourself would
have been complaining that Microsoft was "forcing" everyone to upgrade
from Win9x. I read their posts. They were much like yours.
And NOW you are complaining about Vista. When Windows 7 is released,
you will start complaining about Microsoft "forcing" everyone to
upgrade to Windows 7.
Our memories tend to be short when it comes to our current "love".
>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>
>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>> comparing apples and oranges.
>
>Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
>that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
Again, no one is being "forced". If they want to replace their 5-year
old machines with Vista capable ones, what is that to you?
Anyway, I guess it's Microsoft's call, isn't it? NO one is being
"forced' to do this. They have several OSes they may choose from. Why
not talk with those who have removed all Microsoft OSes? They weren't
"forced" to do it. NO one was standing over them threatening them.
That is what it is all about, friend. The owner of an OS has every
right to discontinue its production at any time he pleases.
Just so you won't forget, MICROSOFT is the owner of both XP and Vista,
and has every right to do what it wishes with its own products.
You, sir, only have the rights to remove it, or use is. NO other
rights.
Get used to it.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
D
Donald L McDaniel
On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:06:38 -0700, SXTC wrote:
>
I didn't know mr Frank Gates had a collegue on this forum )Hooray for MS's worst OS then? CHEERS ! :hehe:
>
>
>Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
Mr/Ms/Mrs. SXTC, would you PLEASE use a proper Usenet client to post
with?
Try setting your right margin to something like 72, or even 80.
Also, learn HOW to reply to a post...The person you replied to was the
OP of this thread, not me.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
>
I didn't know mr Frank Gates had a collegue on this forum )Hooray for MS's worst OS then? CHEERS ! :hehe:
>
>
>Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
Mr/Ms/Mrs. SXTC, would you PLEASE use a proper Usenet client to post
with?
Try setting your right margin to something like 72, or even 80.
Also, learn HOW to reply to a post...The person you replied to was the
OP of this thread, not me.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
D
Donald L McDaniel
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:46:04 -0400, "Dave" <dave@beepbeep.com> wrote:
>What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
I think he/she/it has failed to set their right-margin to a reasonable
width.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
>What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
I think he/she/it has failed to set their right-margin to a reasonable
width.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
G
Gordon
"Dave" <dave@beepbeep.com> wrote in message
news:ulUzrMlwIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
>
>
www.vistaforums.com - a web forum. Why, I don't know....
news:ulUzrMlwIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
>
>
www.vistaforums.com - a web forum. Why, I don't know....
D
Donald L McDaniel
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:01:36 +0100, "Gordon"
<gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Dave" <dave@beepbeep.com> wrote in message
>news:ulUzrMlwIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
>>
>>
>
>www.vistaforums.com - a web forum. Why, I don't know....
Gordon, I've seen other posts from that forum in these newsgroups.
They weren't all messed up.
Obviously, the OP doesn't have even the little skill needed to use a
Web Forum, much less a stand-alone NNTP client, since the Web Forums I
use allow one to set the right margin.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
<gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Dave" <dave@beepbeep.com> wrote in message
>news:ulUzrMlwIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> What are you posting with, that creates such a mess?
>>
>>
>
>www.vistaforums.com - a web forum. Why, I don't know....
Gordon, I've seen other posts from that forum in these newsgroups.
They weren't all messed up.
Obviously, the OP doesn't have even the little skill needed to use a
Web Forum, much less a stand-alone NNTP client, since the Web Forums I
use allow one to set the right margin.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
C
Canuck57
"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vhh044hh3s24e6ct72hbibf7b2jmg2836v@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
> wrote:
>
>>On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>>
>>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>>> machines.
>>>
>>
>>- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
>>by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
>>Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
>
> I partially agree with your sentiment. But "business" has little to
> do with "sentimentality", and MUCH to do with the "Bottom-Line".
>
> Never-the-less, MIcrosoft has made its decision. The sooner YOU
> accept their decision, the happier you will be, eventually.
>
>>> >- at considerable savings.
>
>
>
>>
>>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>>> >installed on it.
>
> I'm sure that the larger OEMs will continue offering XP on some of
> their machines for some time, until all stocks of XP distribution
> media are depleted.
>
> Microsoft will NOT produce any more after that.
> And the OEMs will not have Microsoft's permission to distribute its OS
> any longer.
>
>
>>> Not much longer, however.
>>>
>>
>>This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
>>digging in it's corporate heels,
>>but by consumers
>
> Sorry, bud, but it's already been decided by Microsoft: on June 30,
> 2008, the OS will no longer be generally available, whether we like it
> or not.
>
>>who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
>>offerings and go buy Macs.
>
> Say what? Intels are more expensive than Macs? You gotta be
> joking! In the first place, Apple's Intel-based Macs ARE "Intels".
> PERIOD. Else a Microsoft OS woudn't be able to use the CPU.
>
> Also, if you purchase a Mac, you have to contend with the Mac OS and
> all the Mac idiocy surrounding it.
>
> PLEASE, DO NOT PURCHASE a MAC. You will become a lying, hateful
> backbiter, eventually, like all the rest of the "Mac Corps".
>
> IF you value your humanity, stay away from the Mac OS.
>
> The Apple Intel PC, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for
> Vista, IF it's not a Mac Mini or a low-end iMac.
>
> I should know: I abandoned the "Wintel" platform (as you call it) for
> over 2 years. I finally grew extremely tired of the OS X desktop, and
> went back to a "normal" Intel platform.
>
> However, you will have to purchase a MacPro if you want to see Vista
> run as well on a Macintosh as it does on what you refer to as a
> "Wintel". NOT exactly "cheaper". Obviously, you probably prefer OS
> X. You are certainly welcome to their P.O.S. OS.
>
>>
>>From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
>>machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
>>Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
>
> I certainly see nothing wrong with this. If you hurry, you will be
> still be able to buy a few copies of XP Pro before the cut-off date.
>
> Just keep them in a drawer somewhere, until they are needed.
>
>>such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
>
> Not the word I would use, friend. I would use "capable", but NOT
> "screamingly-fast".
>
>>
>>
>>Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
>>hardware needed to run it properly
>
> In the first place, Microsoft has no ability to "force" anyone to do
> anything, being a publically-traded company owned largely by the
> stockholders. Until Microsoft stands over you and physically twists
> your arm, please refrain from such lies.
>
> And the hardware is NOT "expensive", unless it is VERY HIGH-END,
> indeed!
>
> Anyway, what about your comment about "consumers who throw up their
> hands at expensive non-Apple PCs and go buy Macs"?
>
> The facts are, a screamingly-decent Dell may be had for less than the
> price of a stock iMac, which cannot be upgraded by the user.
>
>>is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
>>HumVee
>
> I guess that's the way you see it. Many others see it differently.
> Of course, since the GOVERNMENT doesn't decide what may or may not be
> sold, I guess such a decision is up to the owner of the Service
> Station, isn't it?
>
>>>
>>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>
> I've not found this to be the case on my shop-built Vista Desktop.
>
>>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>
>>Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
>>Links
>>( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
>
> Vista developers should be the ones you DO Listen to, since they must
> contend with the OS each time they do development on it.
>
> IF THEY were having problems, I could understand your concern. But
> for the most part, they are not.
>
> How about reading posts from Vista USERS?
> Start reading the posts by those who are HAPPY with Vista, and learn
> WHY they are happier. Then make your decision.
>
>>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>>> >than Windows XP when ,
>>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>
> I haven't found this to be the case, thus far. Folks may be talking
> about it, but as far as I know, there is no scientific data to bear it
> out. My experience has been that it is simply not the case. I'm
> happy that Vista is at least running stably now. And for all intents
> and purposes, I can see little difference in speed.
>
> I also remember when XP first came out. Someone like yourself would
> have been complaining that Microsoft was "forcing" everyone to upgrade
> from Win9x. I read their posts. They were much like yours.
>
> And NOW you are complaining about Vista. When Windows 7 is released,
> you will start complaining about Microsoft "forcing" everyone to
> upgrade to Windows 7.
>
> Our memories tend to be short when it comes to our current "love".
>
>>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>>
>>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>>> comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>>Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
>>that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
>
> Again, no one is being "forced". If they want to replace their 5-year
> old machines with Vista capable ones, what is that to you?
>
> Anyway, I guess it's Microsoft's call, isn't it? NO one is being
> "forced' to do this. They have several OSes they may choose from. Why
> not talk with those who have removed all Microsoft OSes? They weren't
> "forced" to do it. NO one was standing over them threatening them.
>
> That is what it is all about, friend. The owner of an OS has every
> right to discontinue its production at any time he pleases.
>
> Just so you won't forget, MICROSOFT is the owner of both XP and Vista,
> and has every right to do what it wishes with its own products.
>
> You, sir, only have the rights to remove it, or use is. NO other
> rights.
>
> Get used to it.
Yep, WeSaySo Corporation has spoken. http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO
People are being more or less forced into Vista. And I would bet 90+
percent or more of the 140 licenses MS has claimed to have sold were bundled
OEM Vista. Many people are not happy with that.
Eee PC, while the stores have waiting lists and out of stock on the Linux
versions, the XP versions can be had. So at least the ice is cracking.
Most companies are quite content is selling stuff people want, especially
when the R&D was already paid for. XP, buy the books is a high profit
margin sale. Sounds to me like Microsoft wants to tell us what we want to
run. Many are jumping off to Linux or Apple.
news:vhh044hh3s24e6ct72hbibf7b2jmg2836v@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
> wrote:
>
>>On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>>
>>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>>> machines.
>>>
>>
>>- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
>>by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
>>Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
>
> I partially agree with your sentiment. But "business" has little to
> do with "sentimentality", and MUCH to do with the "Bottom-Line".
>
> Never-the-less, MIcrosoft has made its decision. The sooner YOU
> accept their decision, the happier you will be, eventually.
>
>>> >- at considerable savings.
>
>
>
>>
>>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>>> >installed on it.
>
> I'm sure that the larger OEMs will continue offering XP on some of
> their machines for some time, until all stocks of XP distribution
> media are depleted.
>
> Microsoft will NOT produce any more after that.
> And the OEMs will not have Microsoft's permission to distribute its OS
> any longer.
>
>
>>> Not much longer, however.
>>>
>>
>>This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
>>digging in it's corporate heels,
>>but by consumers
>
> Sorry, bud, but it's already been decided by Microsoft: on June 30,
> 2008, the OS will no longer be generally available, whether we like it
> or not.
>
>>who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
>>offerings and go buy Macs.
>
> Say what? Intels are more expensive than Macs? You gotta be
> joking! In the first place, Apple's Intel-based Macs ARE "Intels".
> PERIOD. Else a Microsoft OS woudn't be able to use the CPU.
>
> Also, if you purchase a Mac, you have to contend with the Mac OS and
> all the Mac idiocy surrounding it.
>
> PLEASE, DO NOT PURCHASE a MAC. You will become a lying, hateful
> backbiter, eventually, like all the rest of the "Mac Corps".
>
> IF you value your humanity, stay away from the Mac OS.
>
> The Apple Intel PC, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for
> Vista, IF it's not a Mac Mini or a low-end iMac.
>
> I should know: I abandoned the "Wintel" platform (as you call it) for
> over 2 years. I finally grew extremely tired of the OS X desktop, and
> went back to a "normal" Intel platform.
>
> However, you will have to purchase a MacPro if you want to see Vista
> run as well on a Macintosh as it does on what you refer to as a
> "Wintel". NOT exactly "cheaper". Obviously, you probably prefer OS
> X. You are certainly welcome to their P.O.S. OS.
>
>>
>>From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
>>machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
>>Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
>
> I certainly see nothing wrong with this. If you hurry, you will be
> still be able to buy a few copies of XP Pro before the cut-off date.
>
> Just keep them in a drawer somewhere, until they are needed.
>
>>such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
>
> Not the word I would use, friend. I would use "capable", but NOT
> "screamingly-fast".
>
>>
>>
>>Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
>>hardware needed to run it properly
>
> In the first place, Microsoft has no ability to "force" anyone to do
> anything, being a publically-traded company owned largely by the
> stockholders. Until Microsoft stands over you and physically twists
> your arm, please refrain from such lies.
>
> And the hardware is NOT "expensive", unless it is VERY HIGH-END,
> indeed!
>
> Anyway, what about your comment about "consumers who throw up their
> hands at expensive non-Apple PCs and go buy Macs"?
>
> The facts are, a screamingly-decent Dell may be had for less than the
> price of a stock iMac, which cannot be upgraded by the user.
>
>>is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
>>HumVee
>
> I guess that's the way you see it. Many others see it differently.
> Of course, since the GOVERNMENT doesn't decide what may or may not be
> sold, I guess such a decision is up to the owner of the Service
> Station, isn't it?
>
>>>
>>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>
> I've not found this to be the case on my shop-built Vista Desktop.
>
>>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>
>>Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
>>Links
>>( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
>
> Vista developers should be the ones you DO Listen to, since they must
> contend with the OS each time they do development on it.
>
> IF THEY were having problems, I could understand your concern. But
> for the most part, they are not.
>
> How about reading posts from Vista USERS?
> Start reading the posts by those who are HAPPY with Vista, and learn
> WHY they are happier. Then make your decision.
>
>>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>>> >than Windows XP when ,
>>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>
> I haven't found this to be the case, thus far. Folks may be talking
> about it, but as far as I know, there is no scientific data to bear it
> out. My experience has been that it is simply not the case. I'm
> happy that Vista is at least running stably now. And for all intents
> and purposes, I can see little difference in speed.
>
> I also remember when XP first came out. Someone like yourself would
> have been complaining that Microsoft was "forcing" everyone to upgrade
> from Win9x. I read their posts. They were much like yours.
>
> And NOW you are complaining about Vista. When Windows 7 is released,
> you will start complaining about Microsoft "forcing" everyone to
> upgrade to Windows 7.
>
> Our memories tend to be short when it comes to our current "love".
>
>>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>>
>>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>>> comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>>Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
>>that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
>
> Again, no one is being "forced". If they want to replace their 5-year
> old machines with Vista capable ones, what is that to you?
>
> Anyway, I guess it's Microsoft's call, isn't it? NO one is being
> "forced' to do this. They have several OSes they may choose from. Why
> not talk with those who have removed all Microsoft OSes? They weren't
> "forced" to do it. NO one was standing over them threatening them.
>
> That is what it is all about, friend. The owner of an OS has every
> right to discontinue its production at any time he pleases.
>
> Just so you won't forget, MICROSOFT is the owner of both XP and Vista,
> and has every right to do what it wishes with its own products.
>
> You, sir, only have the rights to remove it, or use is. NO other
> rights.
>
> Get used to it.
Yep, WeSaySo Corporation has spoken. http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO
People are being more or less forced into Vista. And I would bet 90+
percent or more of the 140 licenses MS has claimed to have sold were bundled
OEM Vista. Many people are not happy with that.
Eee PC, while the stores have waiting lists and out of stock on the Linux
versions, the XP versions can be had. So at least the ice is cracking.
Most companies are quite content is selling stuff people want, especially
when the R&D was already paid for. XP, buy the books is a high profit
margin sale. Sounds to me like Microsoft wants to tell us what we want to
run. Many are jumping off to Linux or Apple.
F
Frank
Canuck57 wrote:
-------------------------------------
Nothing but pack of lies.
You do seem to enjoy making a fool out of yourself don't you canadian bacon.
Frank
-------------------------------------
Nothing but pack of lies.
You do seem to enjoy making a fool out of yourself don't you canadian bacon.
Frank
D
Donald L McDaniel
On Fri, 30 May 2008 23:06:49 GMT, "Canuck57"
<dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote:
>
>"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vhh044hh3s24e6ct72hbibf7b2jmg2836v@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>>>
>>>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>>>> machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>>- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
>>>by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
>>>Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
>>
>> I partially agree with your sentiment. But "business" has little to
>> do with "sentimentality", and MUCH to do with the "Bottom-Line".
>>
>> Never-the-less, MIcrosoft has made its decision. The sooner YOU
>> accept their decision, the happier you will be, eventually.
>>
>>>> >- at considerable savings.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>>>> >installed on it.
>>
>> I'm sure that the larger OEMs will continue offering XP on some of
>> their machines for some time, until all stocks of XP distribution
>> media are depleted.
>>
>> Microsoft will NOT produce any more after that.
>> And the OEMs will not have Microsoft's permission to distribute its OS
>> any longer.
>>
>>
>>>> Not much longer, however.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
>>>digging in it's corporate heels,
>>>but by consumers
>>
>> Sorry, bud, but it's already been decided by Microsoft: on June 30,
>> 2008, the OS will no longer be generally available, whether we like it
>> or not.
>>
>>>who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
>>>offerings and go buy Macs.
>>
>> Say what? Intels are more expensive than Macs? You gotta be
>> joking! In the first place, Apple's Intel-based Macs ARE "Intels".
>> PERIOD. Else a Microsoft OS woudn't be able to use the CPU.
>>
>> Also, if you purchase a Mac, you have to contend with the Mac OS and
>> all the Mac idiocy surrounding it.
>>
>> PLEASE, DO NOT PURCHASE a MAC. You will become a lying, hateful
>> backbiter, eventually, like all the rest of the "Mac Corps".
>>
>> IF you value your humanity, stay away from the Mac OS.
>>
>> The Apple Intel PC, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for
>> Vista, IF it's not a Mac Mini or a low-end iMac.
>>
>> I should know: I abandoned the "Wintel" platform (as you call it) for
>> over 2 years. I finally grew extremely tired of the OS X desktop, and
>> went back to a "normal" Intel platform.
>>
>> However, you will have to purchase a MacPro if you want to see Vista
>> run as well on a Macintosh as it does on what you refer to as a
>> "Wintel". NOT exactly "cheaper". Obviously, you probably prefer OS
>> X. You are certainly welcome to their P.O.S. OS.
>>
>>>
>>>From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
>>>machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
>>>Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
>>
>> I certainly see nothing wrong with this. If you hurry, you will be
>> still be able to buy a few copies of XP Pro before the cut-off date.
>>
>> Just keep them in a drawer somewhere, until they are needed.
>>
>>>such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
>>
>> Not the word I would use, friend. I would use "capable", but NOT
>> "screamingly-fast".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
>>>hardware needed to run it properly
>>
>> In the first place, Microsoft has no ability to "force" anyone to do
>> anything, being a publically-traded company owned largely by the
>> stockholders. Until Microsoft stands over you and physically twists
>> your arm, please refrain from such lies.
>>
>> And the hardware is NOT "expensive", unless it is VERY HIGH-END,
>> indeed!
>>
>> Anyway, what about your comment about "consumers who throw up their
>> hands at expensive non-Apple PCs and go buy Macs"?
>>
>> The facts are, a screamingly-decent Dell may be had for less than the
>> price of a stock iMac, which cannot be upgraded by the user.
>>
>>>is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
>>>HumVee
>>
>> I guess that's the way you see it. Many others see it differently.
>> Of course, since the GOVERNMENT doesn't decide what may or may not be
>> sold, I guess such a decision is up to the owner of the Service
>> Station, isn't it?
>>
>>>>
>>>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>>
>> I've not found this to be the case on my shop-built Vista Desktop.
>>
>>>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>>>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>>>> decisions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
>>>Links
>>>( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
>>
>> Vista developers should be the ones you DO Listen to, since they must
>> contend with the OS each time they do development on it.
>>
>> IF THEY were having problems, I could understand your concern. But
>> for the most part, they are not.
>>
>> How about reading posts from Vista USERS?
>> Start reading the posts by those who are HAPPY with Vista, and learn
>> WHY they are happier. Then make your decision.
>>
>>>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>>>> >than Windows XP when ,
>>>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>>
>> I haven't found this to be the case, thus far. Folks may be talking
>> about it, but as far as I know, there is no scientific data to bear it
>> out. My experience has been that it is simply not the case. I'm
>> happy that Vista is at least running stably now. And for all intents
>> and purposes, I can see little difference in speed.
>>
>> I also remember when XP first came out. Someone like yourself would
>> have been complaining that Microsoft was "forcing" everyone to upgrade
>> from Win9x. I read their posts. They were much like yours.
>>
>> And NOW you are complaining about Vista. When Windows 7 is released,
>> you will start complaining about Microsoft "forcing" everyone to
>> upgrade to Windows 7.
>>
>> Our memories tend to be short when it comes to our current "love".
>>
>>>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>>>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>>>
>>>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>>>> comparing apples and oranges.
>>>
>>>Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
>>>that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
>>
>> Again, no one is being "forced". If they want to replace their 5-year
>> old machines with Vista capable ones, what is that to you?
>>
>> Anyway, I guess it's Microsoft's call, isn't it? NO one is being
>> "forced' to do this. They have several OSes they may choose from. Why
>> not talk with those who have removed all Microsoft OSes? They weren't
>> "forced" to do it. NO one was standing over them threatening them.
>>
>> That is what it is all about, friend. The owner of an OS has every
>> right to discontinue its production at any time he pleases.
>>
>> Just so you won't forget, MICROSOFT is the owner of both XP and Vista,
>> and has every right to do what it wishes with its own products.
>>
>> You, sir, only have the rights to remove it, or use is. NO other
>> rights.
>>
>> Get used to it.
>
>Yep, WeSaySo Corporation has spoken. http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO
>
>People are being more or less forced into Vista. And I would bet 90+
>percent or more of the 140 licenses MS has claimed to have sold were bundled
>OEM Vista. Many people are not happy with that.
Actually, Microsoft has made a claim that 140 MILLION licenses have
been sold to-date. But I understand that you "probably" forgot to add
the "million" to your statement.
So? What is it to anyone who uses the OS and is happy with it?
I say, "they are free to be happy or unhappy, as they wish." I
prefer to be happy with what I possess, not unhappy. Spoils the whole
experience.
>
>Eee PC, while the stores have waiting lists and out of stock on the Linux
>versions, the XP versions can be had. So at least the ice is cracking.
That may be so, but as soon as all consumer stocks of XP are depleted,
no more will be produced. The "ice" can crack only so far.
>
>Most companies are quite content is selling stuff people want, especially
>when the R&D was already paid for.
Evidently, Microsoft thinks differently, since they have announced
that retail sales of XP will stop on June 30, 2008.
And they have extended its availability, but ONLY on UMPCs.
>XP, buy the books is a high profit
>margin sale.
That's great. But Microsoft owns the product, and decides who may or
may not sell it. Have you understood this yet? Or do I have to KEEP
REPEATING IT till you do understand it?
>Sounds to me like Microsoft wants to tell us what we want to
>run.
Why is that? Microsoft unashamedly decides how and when its OSes are
going to be used. They have every right to do this. Your inability
to understand this basic truth is indicative of a criminal mind-set,
in my opinion.
>Many
Sir, your "many" are nothing but a VERY SMALL minority in the world of
Computing. Trying to puff that minority into a majority is stupid and
irrational. Windows users are, for the most part, very satisfied with
Vista.
> are jumping off to Linux or Apple.
That's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Apple tells you EXACTLY what you may or may not run. In fact, they
spend beau-coup bucks ENSURING that their hynotized users do exactly
what they want. They've even decided that their machines are useless
without their force-fed OS being jammed down the throats of their
users.
But you are free to continue using XP, if that is your wish. Microsoft
won't stop you, and we won't care anyway. You are free to use which
ever OS you choose to. XP will be lawfully for retail sale until June
30, 2008. After this, you must purchase a new computer with XP
preinstalled if you want a new copy. But eventually, even those
sales will stop. Instead of crying about it, why not purchase a FULL
RETAIL (boxed) copy of XP Pro while they are still available. Then you
will be able to keep it forever, and put it on your new machines
anytime you wish.
MICROSOFT is the ONLY company which can decide on whether one of their
OSes have reached "End of Life" or not, and whether or not it will
continue to be produced or sold. Microsoft has so decided in the case
of XP. I advise you to simply surrender to the inevitable. You will
be much happier.
If you don't like this, work to bring Soviet-style communism to the
United States, because you have no idea what you are talking about. WE
are a free-enterprise economy here. NOT a totalitarian government,
which can tell a company what it may or may not do with its own
products.
The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
<dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote:
>
>"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vhh044hh3s24e6ct72hbibf7b2jmg2836v@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 29, 4:10 pm, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>>>>
>>>> It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
>>>> machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>>- But, if XP does the job peopl ewnat, Why shouldn't tehy be allowed
>>>by Microsoft to continue Purchasing
>>>Windows XP on machies that are set up for Windos XP
>>
>> I partially agree with your sentiment. But "business" has little to
>> do with "sentimentality", and MUCH to do with the "Bottom-Line".
>>
>> Never-the-less, MIcrosoft has made its decision. The sooner YOU
>> accept their decision, the happier you will be, eventually.
>>
>>>> >- at considerable savings.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> >or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>>>> >installed on it.
>>
>> I'm sure that the larger OEMs will continue offering XP on some of
>> their machines for some time, until all stocks of XP distribution
>> media are depleted.
>>
>> Microsoft will NOT produce any more after that.
>> And the OEMs will not have Microsoft's permission to distribute its OS
>> any longer.
>>
>>
>>>> Not much longer, however.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This again is a problem that will be decided not just by Microsoft,
>>>digging in it's corporate heels,
>>>but by consumers
>>
>> Sorry, bud, but it's already been decided by Microsoft: on June 30,
>> 2008, the OS will no longer be generally available, whether we like it
>> or not.
>>
>>>who throw up their hands at Wintels expensive
>>>offerings and go buy Macs.
>>
>> Say what? Intels are more expensive than Macs? You gotta be
>> joking! In the first place, Apple's Intel-based Macs ARE "Intels".
>> PERIOD. Else a Microsoft OS woudn't be able to use the CPU.
>>
>> Also, if you purchase a Mac, you have to contend with the Mac OS and
>> all the Mac idiocy surrounding it.
>>
>> PLEASE, DO NOT PURCHASE a MAC. You will become a lying, hateful
>> backbiter, eventually, like all the rest of the "Mac Corps".
>>
>> IF you value your humanity, stay away from the Mac OS.
>>
>> The Apple Intel PC, on the other hand, is an excellent platform for
>> Vista, IF it's not a Mac Mini or a low-end iMac.
>>
>> I should know: I abandoned the "Wintel" platform (as you call it) for
>> over 2 years. I finally grew extremely tired of the OS X desktop, and
>> went back to a "normal" Intel platform.
>>
>> However, you will have to purchase a MacPro if you want to see Vista
>> run as well on a Macintosh as it does on what you refer to as a
>> "Wintel". NOT exactly "cheaper". Obviously, you probably prefer OS
>> X. You are certainly welcome to their P.O.S. OS.
>>
>>>
>>>From a consumer standpoint, why shouldn't I be able to order a new
>>>machine in a few years, running Intels Latest & greatest ( Think
>>>Larabee) and also Running Windows XP.
>>
>> I certainly see nothing wrong with this. If you hurry, you will be
>> still be able to buy a few copies of XP Pro before the cut-off date.
>>
>> Just keep them in a drawer somewhere, until they are needed.
>>
>>>such a machine would be Screamingly fast.
>>
>> Not the word I would use, friend. I would use "capable", but NOT
>> "screamingly-fast".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Forcing everyone to Senselessly upgrade to Vista , and the expensive
>>>hardware needed to run it properly
>>
>> In the first place, Microsoft has no ability to "force" anyone to do
>> anything, being a publically-traded company owned largely by the
>> stockholders. Until Microsoft stands over you and physically twists
>> your arm, please refrain from such lies.
>>
>> And the hardware is NOT "expensive", unless it is VERY HIGH-END,
>> indeed!
>>
>> Anyway, what about your comment about "consumers who throw up their
>> hands at expensive non-Apple PCs and go buy Macs"?
>>
>> The facts are, a screamingly-decent Dell may be had for less than the
>> price of a stock iMac, which cannot be upgraded by the user.
>>
>>>is like refusing to sell gasoline to people who don't have the latest
>>>HumVee
>>
>> I guess that's the way you see it. Many others see it differently.
>> Of course, since the GOVERNMENT doesn't decide what may or may not be
>> sold, I guess such a decision is up to the owner of the Service
>> Station, isn't it?
>>
>>>>
>>>> >from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>>
>> I've not found this to be the case on my shop-built Vista Desktop.
>>
>>>> Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
>>>> Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
>>>> decisions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well sir, I stand ready to be educated, throw out a few Pro Vista
>>>Links
>>>( that don't come from , say , Vista developers. )
>>
>> Vista developers should be the ones you DO Listen to, since they must
>> contend with the OS each time they do development on it.
>>
>> IF THEY were having problems, I could understand your concern. But
>> for the most part, they are not.
>>
>> How about reading posts from Vista USERS?
>> Start reading the posts by those who are HAPPY with Vista, and learn
>> WHY they are happier. Then make your decision.
>>
>>>> >Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>>>> >than Windows XP when ,
>>>> >one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>>
>> I haven't found this to be the case, thus far. Folks may be talking
>> about it, but as far as I know, there is no scientific data to bear it
>> out. My experience has been that it is simply not the case. I'm
>> happy that Vista is at least running stably now. And for all intents
>> and purposes, I can see little difference in speed.
>>
>> I also remember when XP first came out. Someone like yourself would
>> have been complaining that Microsoft was "forcing" everyone to upgrade
>> from Win9x. I read their posts. They were much like yours.
>>
>> And NOW you are complaining about Vista. When Windows 7 is released,
>> you will start complaining about Microsoft "forcing" everyone to
>> upgrade to Windows 7.
>>
>> Our memories tend to be short when it comes to our current "love".
>>
>>>> One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
>>>> or as well as it would on a Vista machine.
>>>>
>>>> You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
>>>> comparing apples and oranges.
>>>
>>>Again, Why should users be forced to spend more dollars on hardware so
>>>that they can just remain in the same place when running Vista.
>>
>> Again, no one is being "forced". If they want to replace their 5-year
>> old machines with Vista capable ones, what is that to you?
>>
>> Anyway, I guess it's Microsoft's call, isn't it? NO one is being
>> "forced' to do this. They have several OSes they may choose from. Why
>> not talk with those who have removed all Microsoft OSes? They weren't
>> "forced" to do it. NO one was standing over them threatening them.
>>
>> That is what it is all about, friend. The owner of an OS has every
>> right to discontinue its production at any time he pleases.
>>
>> Just so you won't forget, MICROSOFT is the owner of both XP and Vista,
>> and has every right to do what it wishes with its own products.
>>
>> You, sir, only have the rights to remove it, or use is. NO other
>> rights.
>>
>> Get used to it.
>
>Yep, WeSaySo Corporation has spoken. http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO
>
>People are being more or less forced into Vista. And I would bet 90+
>percent or more of the 140 licenses MS has claimed to have sold were bundled
>OEM Vista. Many people are not happy with that.
Actually, Microsoft has made a claim that 140 MILLION licenses have
been sold to-date. But I understand that you "probably" forgot to add
the "million" to your statement.
So? What is it to anyone who uses the OS and is happy with it?
I say, "they are free to be happy or unhappy, as they wish." I
prefer to be happy with what I possess, not unhappy. Spoils the whole
experience.
>
>Eee PC, while the stores have waiting lists and out of stock on the Linux
>versions, the XP versions can be had. So at least the ice is cracking.
That may be so, but as soon as all consumer stocks of XP are depleted,
no more will be produced. The "ice" can crack only so far.
>
>Most companies are quite content is selling stuff people want, especially
>when the R&D was already paid for.
Evidently, Microsoft thinks differently, since they have announced
that retail sales of XP will stop on June 30, 2008.
And they have extended its availability, but ONLY on UMPCs.
>XP, buy the books is a high profit
>margin sale.
That's great. But Microsoft owns the product, and decides who may or
may not sell it. Have you understood this yet? Or do I have to KEEP
REPEATING IT till you do understand it?
>Sounds to me like Microsoft wants to tell us what we want to
>run.
Why is that? Microsoft unashamedly decides how and when its OSes are
going to be used. They have every right to do this. Your inability
to understand this basic truth is indicative of a criminal mind-set,
in my opinion.
>Many
Sir, your "many" are nothing but a VERY SMALL minority in the world of
Computing. Trying to puff that minority into a majority is stupid and
irrational. Windows users are, for the most part, very satisfied with
Vista.
> are jumping off to Linux or Apple.
That's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Apple tells you EXACTLY what you may or may not run. In fact, they
spend beau-coup bucks ENSURING that their hynotized users do exactly
what they want. They've even decided that their machines are useless
without their force-fed OS being jammed down the throats of their
users.
But you are free to continue using XP, if that is your wish. Microsoft
won't stop you, and we won't care anyway. You are free to use which
ever OS you choose to. XP will be lawfully for retail sale until June
30, 2008. After this, you must purchase a new computer with XP
preinstalled if you want a new copy. But eventually, even those
sales will stop. Instead of crying about it, why not purchase a FULL
RETAIL (boxed) copy of XP Pro while they are still available. Then you
will be able to keep it forever, and put it on your new machines
anytime you wish.
MICROSOFT is the ONLY company which can decide on whether one of their
OSes have reached "End of Life" or not, and whether or not it will
continue to be produced or sold. Microsoft has so decided in the case
of XP. I advise you to simply surrender to the inevitable. You will
be much happier.
If you don't like this, work to bring Soviet-style communism to the
United States, because you have no idea what you are talking about. WE
are a free-enterprise economy here. NOT a totalitarian government,
which can tell a company what it may or may not do with its own
products.
The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
A
Alias
Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>
> The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
> like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
No it's run by a idiot cowboy who spends the taxpayers money like a
drunken sailor and who has run up both deficits to epic proportions,
gone to war on the basis of lies, given the terrorists the best presents
they could ever get: two Muslim countries occupied by infidels and
Guatamano. And, if that ain't enough stupidity, driving the price of oil
up has given the likes of Iran and Venezuela more money than they know
what do with. The US economy is heading into depression and the dollar
is at an all time low. Shall we also talk about the wonderful job done
when Katrina hit or how the Bush Administration is the most hated
administration round the world? Yeah, the rule by the Supreme Court is a
wonderful example of how the US is ruled by, for and of the people.
Alias
>
> The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
> like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
No it's run by a idiot cowboy who spends the taxpayers money like a
drunken sailor and who has run up both deficits to epic proportions,
gone to war on the basis of lies, given the terrorists the best presents
they could ever get: two Muslim countries occupied by infidels and
Guatamano. And, if that ain't enough stupidity, driving the price of oil
up has given the likes of Iran and Venezuela more money than they know
what do with. The US economy is heading into depression and the dollar
is at an all time low. Shall we also talk about the wonderful job done
when Katrina hit or how the Bush Administration is the most hated
administration round the world? Yeah, the rule by the Supreme Court is a
wonderful example of how the US is ruled by, for and of the people.
Alias
D
Donald L McDaniel
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:48:55 +0200, Alias
<iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote:
>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>
>>
>> The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
>> like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
>>
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>
>No it's run by a idiot cowboy who spends the taxpayers money like a
>drunken sailor and who has run up both deficits to epic proportions,
>gone to war on the basis of lies, given the terrorists the best presents
>they could ever get: two Muslim countries occupied by infidels and
>Guatamano. And, if that ain't enough stupidity, driving the price of oil
>up has given the likes of Iran and Venezuela more money than they know
>what do with. The US economy is heading into depression and the dollar
>is at an all time low. Shall we also talk about the wonderful job done
>when Katrina hit or how the Bush Administration is the most hated
>administration round the world? Yeah, the rule by the Supreme Court is a
>wonderful example of how the US is ruled by, for and of the people.
>
>Alias
"Alias", you're preaching to the choir right now. There is no need to
convert me. I've already been converted.
I did something about it: I cast my vote for Barak Obama in our
state's Democratic Primary. Other than keeping the Law myself, I can
do nothing more.
Hopefully, I will also cast my vote for Barak Obama in the General
Election this November.
What is your practical solution? I uphold the Constitution of the
United States where possible, not "The Supreme Court of Donald
McDaniel".
The Supreme Court does not in any way "rule the United States".
Although it is the highest court of the Judicial branch of the United
States Government, and as such, has charge over the Constitution's
application, it still has limited powers, as each of the other two
branches of the Government. Even the Supreme Court Justices swear
oaths of fealty to the Constitution. No man is above or below the
Constitution, or outside its Laws.
The crimes of Mr. Bush are his crimes, not mine, or my neighbors, or
yours. He will answer for them, one way or another.
But, "Alias", both you and I haved digressed:
Mr. Bush's rule is passing away in January of next year.
Having seen many anarchists in action during the WTO meeting in
Seattle a few years back, I doubt seriously whether they would have
done a better job of handling the aftermath of Katrina. I certainly
wouldn't wish an anarchist "government" (an oxymoron of massive
proportions, by the way) on any free people.
This is not about Mr. Bush, "Alias", it is about the struggle between
the forces of evil and the forces of good, with the hearts and minds
of free men everywhere as the prize.
Anarchism is no better or worse than unbridled capitalism or
one-man/one-vote democracy.
Anyway, so long for now...
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
<iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote:
>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>
>>
>> The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
>> like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
>>
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>
>No it's run by a idiot cowboy who spends the taxpayers money like a
>drunken sailor and who has run up both deficits to epic proportions,
>gone to war on the basis of lies, given the terrorists the best presents
>they could ever get: two Muslim countries occupied by infidels and
>Guatamano. And, if that ain't enough stupidity, driving the price of oil
>up has given the likes of Iran and Venezuela more money than they know
>what do with. The US economy is heading into depression and the dollar
>is at an all time low. Shall we also talk about the wonderful job done
>when Katrina hit or how the Bush Administration is the most hated
>administration round the world? Yeah, the rule by the Supreme Court is a
>wonderful example of how the US is ruled by, for and of the people.
>
>Alias
"Alias", you're preaching to the choir right now. There is no need to
convert me. I've already been converted.
I did something about it: I cast my vote for Barak Obama in our
state's Democratic Primary. Other than keeping the Law myself, I can
do nothing more.
Hopefully, I will also cast my vote for Barak Obama in the General
Election this November.
What is your practical solution? I uphold the Constitution of the
United States where possible, not "The Supreme Court of Donald
McDaniel".
The Supreme Court does not in any way "rule the United States".
Although it is the highest court of the Judicial branch of the United
States Government, and as such, has charge over the Constitution's
application, it still has limited powers, as each of the other two
branches of the Government. Even the Supreme Court Justices swear
oaths of fealty to the Constitution. No man is above or below the
Constitution, or outside its Laws.
The crimes of Mr. Bush are his crimes, not mine, or my neighbors, or
yours. He will answer for them, one way or another.
But, "Alias", both you and I haved digressed:
Mr. Bush's rule is passing away in January of next year.
Having seen many anarchists in action during the WTO meeting in
Seattle a few years back, I doubt seriously whether they would have
done a better job of handling the aftermath of Katrina. I certainly
wouldn't wish an anarchist "government" (an oxymoron of massive
proportions, by the way) on any free people.
This is not about Mr. Bush, "Alias", it is about the struggle between
the forces of evil and the forces of good, with the hearts and minds
of free men everywhere as the prize.
Anarchism is no better or worse than unbridled capitalism or
one-man/one-vote democracy.
Anyway, so long for now...
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
A
Alias
Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:48:55 +0200, Alias
> <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>
>>> The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
>>> like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> Donald L McDaniel
>> No it's run by a idiot cowboy who spends the taxpayers money like a
>> drunken sailor and who has run up both deficits to epic proportions,
>> gone to war on the basis of lies, given the terrorists the best presents
>> they could ever get: two Muslim countries occupied by infidels and
>> Guatamano. And, if that ain't enough stupidity, driving the price of oil
>> up has given the likes of Iran and Venezuela more money than they know
>> what do with. The US economy is heading into depression and the dollar
>> is at an all time low. Shall we also talk about the wonderful job done
>> when Katrina hit or how the Bush Administration is the most hated
>> administration round the world? Yeah, the rule by the Supreme Court is a
>> wonderful example of how the US is ruled by, for and of the people.
>>
>> Alias
>
>
> "Alias", you're preaching to the choir right now. There is no need to
> convert me. I've already been converted.
>
> I did something about it: I cast my vote for Barak Obama in our
> state's Democratic Primary. Other than keeping the Law myself, I can
> do nothing more.
>
> Hopefully, I will also cast my vote for Barak Obama in the General
> Election this November.
>
> What is your practical solution? I uphold the Constitution of the
> United States where possible, not "The Supreme Court of Donald
> McDaniel".
>
> The Supreme Court does not in any way "rule the United States".
> Although it is the highest court of the Judicial branch of the United
> States Government, and as such, has charge over the Constitution's
> application, it still has limited powers, as each of the other two
> branches of the Government. Even the Supreme Court Justices swear
> oaths of fealty to the Constitution. No man is above or below the
> Constitution, or outside its Laws.
>
> The crimes of Mr. Bush are his crimes, not mine, or my neighbors, or
> yours. He will answer for them, one way or another.
>
> But, "Alias", both you and I haved digressed:
>
> Mr. Bush's rule is passing away in January of next year.
>
> Having seen many anarchists in action during the WTO meeting in
> Seattle a few years back, I doubt seriously whether they would have
> done a better job of handling the aftermath of Katrina. I certainly
> wouldn't wish an anarchist "government" (an oxymoron of massive
> proportions, by the way) on any free people.
>
> This is not about Mr. Bush, "Alias", it is about the struggle between
> the forces of evil and the forces of good, with the hearts and minds
> of free men everywhere as the prize.
>
> Anarchism is no better or worse than unbridled capitalism or
> one-man/one-vote democracy.
>
> Anyway, so long for now...
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================
I don't know where you got the notion that I support anarchy. I don't.
I'm more into socialized democracy. I, too, will vote for Obama but not
because he's great but because he's the lessor of three evils and, from
a selfish point of view, he will be the best for the USA's reputation
abroad. I also think he -- or Hilliary -- will bring the dollar back up
which, considering I will start getting social security this year in
dollars, is also a good thing for me
Fundamentally, what needs to happen is that everyone change and become
better human beings and humans have a tendency to do that at the last
moment so I still have hope.
Alias
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:48:55 +0200, Alias
> <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>
>>> The United States of America is not yet ruled by a gang of anarchists
>>> like yourself. I advise you to start accepting that fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> Donald L McDaniel
>> No it's run by a idiot cowboy who spends the taxpayers money like a
>> drunken sailor and who has run up both deficits to epic proportions,
>> gone to war on the basis of lies, given the terrorists the best presents
>> they could ever get: two Muslim countries occupied by infidels and
>> Guatamano. And, if that ain't enough stupidity, driving the price of oil
>> up has given the likes of Iran and Venezuela more money than they know
>> what do with. The US economy is heading into depression and the dollar
>> is at an all time low. Shall we also talk about the wonderful job done
>> when Katrina hit or how the Bush Administration is the most hated
>> administration round the world? Yeah, the rule by the Supreme Court is a
>> wonderful example of how the US is ruled by, for and of the people.
>>
>> Alias
>
>
> "Alias", you're preaching to the choir right now. There is no need to
> convert me. I've already been converted.
>
> I did something about it: I cast my vote for Barak Obama in our
> state's Democratic Primary. Other than keeping the Law myself, I can
> do nothing more.
>
> Hopefully, I will also cast my vote for Barak Obama in the General
> Election this November.
>
> What is your practical solution? I uphold the Constitution of the
> United States where possible, not "The Supreme Court of Donald
> McDaniel".
>
> The Supreme Court does not in any way "rule the United States".
> Although it is the highest court of the Judicial branch of the United
> States Government, and as such, has charge over the Constitution's
> application, it still has limited powers, as each of the other two
> branches of the Government. Even the Supreme Court Justices swear
> oaths of fealty to the Constitution. No man is above or below the
> Constitution, or outside its Laws.
>
> The crimes of Mr. Bush are his crimes, not mine, or my neighbors, or
> yours. He will answer for them, one way or another.
>
> But, "Alias", both you and I haved digressed:
>
> Mr. Bush's rule is passing away in January of next year.
>
> Having seen many anarchists in action during the WTO meeting in
> Seattle a few years back, I doubt seriously whether they would have
> done a better job of handling the aftermath of Katrina. I certainly
> wouldn't wish an anarchist "government" (an oxymoron of massive
> proportions, by the way) on any free people.
>
> This is not about Mr. Bush, "Alias", it is about the struggle between
> the forces of evil and the forces of good, with the hearts and minds
> of free men everywhere as the prize.
>
> Anarchism is no better or worse than unbridled capitalism or
> one-man/one-vote democracy.
>
> Anyway, so long for now...
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================
I don't know where you got the notion that I support anarchy. I don't.
I'm more into socialized democracy. I, too, will vote for Obama but not
because he's great but because he's the lessor of three evils and, from
a selfish point of view, he will be the best for the USA's reputation
abroad. I also think he -- or Hilliary -- will bring the dollar back up
which, considering I will start getting social security this year in
dollars, is also a good thing for me
Fundamentally, what needs to happen is that everyone change and become
better human beings and humans have a tendency to do that at the last
moment so I still have hope.
Alias
S
SXTC
Donald L McDanielI just don't get it why guys you like spend their time letting others know that Vista does work...I mean.. what's the point? If your not having problems then why not enjoy yourself and leave this place be.. unless ofcourse you had the problem yourself and you were originaly here to help people "identify" and fix the problem...Eitherways you've convinced me to try Vista once more because I've read a recent article, can't be more then a week old that suggested that it were an early drivers related problem (driver incompatibility with vista).. And that might indeed be a reason. I'll have to wait for now but if I find time, I'll try it by monday or tuesday and get back to you.
Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums