The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

kind!!!

 

I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

 

Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

 

STEP 1)

 

Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

configuration for vista

along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

 

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 GB of system memory

40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

WDDM Driver

128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

32 bits per pixel

DVD-ROM drive

Audio Output

 

These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

makers, just to be sure

that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

 

NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

following:

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

 

800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for Super VGA graphics

CD-ROM drive

 

STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They will

have to find

drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista show

an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

 

STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

 

STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them vista

will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost of

replacing all that software with new versions.

 

STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION HATE

ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

towards vista.

 

STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated site,

to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

 

 

Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

SLOPPY code of vista.

Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

situation.

 

HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

will encounter with the hardware they already own.

oh for those who don't know what MOJAVE IS please see links

 

Windows XP Users Actually Love Vista... If They Think It's Something Else

http://gizmodo.com/5028903/windows-xp-users-actually-love-vista-if-they-think-its-something-else

 

Is Microsoft's Mojave Vista experiment backfiring with users?

http://www.betanews.com/article/Is_Microsofts_Mojave_Vista_experiment_backfiring_with_users/1217535233

 

 

 

 

 

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

> kind!!!

>

> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

> are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>

> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>

> STEP 1)

>

> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

> configuration for vista

> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>

> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

> 1 GB of system memory

> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

> WDDM Driver

> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

> 32 bits per pixel

> DVD-ROM drive

> Audio Output

>

> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

> makers, just to be sure

> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>

> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

> following:

> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>

> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for Super VGA graphics

> CD-ROM drive

>

> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

> will have to find

> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista show

> an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>

> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>

> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost of

> replacing all that software with new versions.

>

> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

> towards vista.

>

> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated site,

> to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>

>

> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

> SLOPPY code of vista.

> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

> situation.

>

> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>

>

>

>

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

> kind!!!

>

> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

> are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>

> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>

> STEP 1)

>

> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

> configuration for vista

> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>

> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

> 1 GB of system memory

> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

> WDDM Driver

> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

> 32 bits per pixel

> DVD-ROM drive

> Audio Output

>

> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

> makers, just to be sure

> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>

> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

> following:

> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>

> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for Super VGA graphics

> CD-ROM drive

>

> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

> will have to find

> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista show

> an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>

> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>

> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost of

> replacing all that software with new versions.

>

> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

> towards vista.

>

> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated site,

> to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>

>

> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

> SLOPPY code of vista.

> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

> situation.

>

> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>

>

>

>

 

 

At least quote the requirements correctly..

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx

 

The basic requirements are ok to run Vista, but as with all other operating

systems, when you start to add programs and devices over and above what is

OS supplied, you have to add resources.

 

Bear in mind that run does not imply run really fast, and only an idiot

would believe that any operating system will run at full speed regardless of

spec.

 

Much of the bloat is added by OEMs. If installed from an MS DVD, there is no

more bloat than one might expect from an OS which has the capability of

Vista.

 

Drivers have ALWAYS been the responsibility of the peripheral device

hardware manufacturers. My five year old printer and scanner worked great.

 

Anybody upgrading to Vista has a responsibility to ensure that there is

enough hardware resource to run the OS and any applications which will be

used. Nothing has changed in this respect.

 

The biggest frustration for new users is UAC which can be disabled easily

enough.

 

My computer is not exactly high end for Vista or XP.

 

I am running Ubuntu on a PIII 933, 512mb, 32mb video, and it is worse than

useless. No fancy graphics, appalling desktop, slow, constant updates,

wireless adapter will not work with it.

 

Before too long, I will re-install Win 2000 and make it a usable piece of

equipment again..

 

 

 

 

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:47:10 +0300, gerooky wrote:

>snipped

 

There's something wrong with you.

Don't use Vista if you don't like it.

 

Install the Linux distro of your choice ... and use it.

Then go hound their NG's with all the downfalls of Linux, and why if you

had any talent, you could do something besides whine.

 

We all know no talent people ... and their incessant whining / bitching

makes them even easier to avoid.

 

--

Ens causa sui

Fit caedes omnibus locis

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

> kind!!!

>

> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

> are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>

 

Ok, if all of your hardware stuff is taken out of the equation and you had a

computer and peripherals that run Vista well, do you like the OS and it's

features? Let's stop comparing a used Ford Fiesta to a new Ford Explorer. No

matter what you do with the Fiesta it's never gonna carry a family of 6 nor

go from 0-60 very quickly.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:18:37 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"

<mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

 

>The basic requirements are ok to run Vista, but as with all other operating

>systems, when you start to add programs and devices over and above what is

>OS supplied, you have to add resources.

 

Sorry Mike, but those requirements are total BS. Vista can't run at a

usable speed on that config.

>Bear in mind that run does not imply run really fast, and only an idiot

>would believe that any operating system will run at full speed regardless of

>spec.

 

Actually, when I see the hardware requirements for most software

packages, including those from MS, I find that they are fairly

accurate. True, you run more slowly thorough large operations with the

products but they are usable on the minimum config. Vista is not

usable on the stated config.

>Much of the bloat is added by OEMs. If installed from an MS DVD, there is no

>more bloat than one might expect from an OS which has the capability of

>Vista.

 

Please tell me what capabilities Vista has over XP (which runs faster

on half the hardware and is far more compatible).

>Drivers have ALWAYS been the responsibility of the peripheral device

>hardware manufacturers. My five year old printer and scanner worked great.

 

But there were plenty of XP compatible drivers. Why couldn't MS build

an interface back to those drivers? They either did it intentionally,

or simply declined to spend the money to do it.

>Anybody upgrading to Vista has a responsibility to ensure that there is

>enough hardware resource to run the OS and any applications which will be

>used. Nothing has changed in this respect.

 

Except that Vista obsoleted a huge share of hardware and software and

previous releases of MS OS's did not.

>The biggest frustration for new users is UAC which can be disabled easily

>enough.

 

Agreed. It sucks. It's worthless. Instead of actually making the OS

more secure, they stuck a useless feature on top as a band-aid.

>My computer is not exactly high end for Vista or XP.

 

My XP machine with 50% of the hardware capability runs faster through

the same applications.

>I am running Ubuntu on a PIII 933, 512mb, 32mb video, and it is worse than

>useless. No fancy graphics, appalling desktop, slow, constant updates,

>wireless adapter will not work with it.

>

>Before too long, I will re-install Win 2000 and make it a usable piece of

>equipment again..

 

Win2000 is an excellent choice. Fast, efficient, with almost all the

capabilities we needed. XP was a little bloated but could be

corrected. It added little except VPN but it was usable. Vista is

beyond correction and requires "toleration" instead.

I copy pasted the requirements from the microsoft site. They are correct.

If people want more details there is a thing called google.

> Bear in mind that run does not imply run really fast, and only an idiot

> would believe that any operating system will run at full speed regardless

> of spec.

 

No, It will run unbearably SLOW! So slow you can see grass grow faster! lol

Even on a single core 2.6 ghz with 1.25 gigs ram (my test machine) vista was

far too slow to be a good experience.

> Anybody upgrading to Vista has a responsibility to ensure that there is

> enough hardware resource to run the OS and any applications which will be

> used. Nothing has changed in this respect.

 

Yeah make an OS based on NT that cant use many of the drivers XP had, then

blame all the problems on the user!

GOOD RESPONSE, one of a parrot repeating trained MVP! Sorry sir, Vista could

have been FAR MORE COMPATIBLE with XP drivers!

It's a matter of Vista design!

> The biggest frustration for new users is UAC which can be disabled easily

> enough.

 

No the biggest frustration about vista is that it basically doesn't work as

it should, its unreliable and has so many bugs and problems that each day

people have new challenges with it.

Don't believe me? SURF THE WEB AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT VISTA!

lol

> I am running Ubuntu on a PIII 933, 512mb, 32mb video, and it is worse than

> useless. No fancy graphics, appalling desktop, slow, constant updates,

> wireless adapter will not work with it.

 

It can also run XP with some tweaks or XP fundamentals, with no problem at

all. They are planning to put XP on the OLPC small laptops!

 

Its your US economy that is going down the drain, and people don't have

enough to survive, let alone to buy new 4 core computers just to run vista!

 

That was Microsofts mistake, they didn't care about people, they wrongly

thought that people could be still buy a new computers every 3 or 4 years.

That model is no longer valid, and microsoft AT LAST has realized this,

and is planning on making PERFORMANCE the number one goal for IE8 and

Windows7. People want to still be able to use their investment for as long

as possible,

without MS making bloat for bloat without thinking.

 

in order them (microsoft) to wake up to this reality it means that a whole

lot of people complained about vistas bloat.

 

Vista is the worst OS... its totally crap.. and it's a big disapointment.

 

 

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message

news:u1qkT1$GJHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

> news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

>> kind!!!

>>

>> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think

>> you are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>>

>> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>>

>> STEP 1)

>>

>> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

>> configuration for vista

>> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>>

>> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

>> 1 GB of system memory

>> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

>> WDDM Driver

>> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

>> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

>> 32 bits per pixel

>> DVD-ROM drive

>> Audio Output

>>

>> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

>> makers, just to be sure

>> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>>

>> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

>> following:

>> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

>> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>>

>> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

>> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>> Support for Super VGA graphics

>> CD-ROM drive

>>

>> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

>> will have to find

>> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

>> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista

>> show an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>>

>> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

>> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

>> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>>

>> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

>> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost

>> of replacing all that software with new versions.

>>

>> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

>> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

>> towards vista.

>>

>> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated

>> site, to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>>

>>

>> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

>> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

>> SLOPPY code of vista.

>> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

>> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

>> situation.

>>

>> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

>> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> At least quote the requirements correctly..

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx

>

> The basic requirements are ok to run Vista, but as with all other

> operating systems, when you start to add programs and devices over and

> above what is OS supplied, you have to add resources.

>

> Bear in mind that run does not imply run really fast, and only an idiot

> would believe that any operating system will run at full speed regardless

> of spec.

>

> Much of the bloat is added by OEMs. If installed from an MS DVD, there is

> no more bloat than one might expect from an OS which has the capability of

> Vista.

>

> Drivers have ALWAYS been the responsibility of the peripheral device

> hardware manufacturers. My five year old printer and scanner worked great.

>

> Anybody upgrading to Vista has a responsibility to ensure that there is

> enough hardware resource to run the OS and any applications which will be

> used. Nothing has changed in this respect.

>

> The biggest frustration for new users is UAC which can be disabled easily

> enough.

>

> My computer is not exactly high end for Vista or XP.

>

> I am running Ubuntu on a PIII 933, 512mb, 32mb video, and it is worse than

> useless. No fancy graphics, appalling desktop, slow, constant updates,

> wireless adapter will not work with it.

>

> Before too long, I will re-install Win 2000 and make it a usable piece of

> equipment again..

>

>

>

>

> --

> Mike Hall - MVP

> How to construct a good post..

> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

> Mike's Window - My Blog..

> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

>

>

>

>

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:47:10 +0300, "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote:

>The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

>kind!!!

>

>I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

>are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

 

It's CYA time to try to defray some of the bad press. Don't blame

them, pity them instead.

 

<experiment snipped>

>Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

>high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

>SLOPPY code of vista.

 

Too true.

>Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

>that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

>situation.

>HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

>will encounter with the hardware they already own.

 

Again, too true. But, MS isn't going to tell you that :-)

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:21:30 +0200 (CEST), "D.Eth" <death@thedoor.nxt>

wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:47:10 +0300, gerooky wrote:

>

>>snipped

>

>There's something wrong with you.

>Don't use Vista if you don't like it.

>

>Install the Linux distro of your choice ... and use it.

>Then go hound their NG's with all the downfalls of Linux, and why if you

>had any talent, you could do something besides whine.

>

>We all know no talent people ... and their incessant whining / bitching

>makes them even easier to avoid.

 

No talent? You means idiots like you that stick their heads in the

sand and try to pretend nothing is wrong with Vista. I guess.

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>

> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think

> you are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>

 

That's a bit rich as you do little else but claim any other perception

but you own is invalid.

 

Tom

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d66cf7$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> This is not about me... I have vista running perfectly on an extremely

> fast computer.

>

> Its about all the people of the world who are complaining that vista is

> crap. And for good reason.

>

> When MS comes out with shit like the MOJAVE experiment trying to tell us

> that the stupidity of vista is only our perception of it,

>

> there HAS be be an answer to this.

 

So you don't think there are a lot of people out there who haven't tried

Vista because they have been watching fictitious Mac commercials and hearing

second hand reports from M$ haters that abound? You don't think that a good

number of those people might actually like Vista if they gave it a try

without preconceived venom?

"+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message

news:cvqcd49cqtibjs294uovn33nmjtlmqbo0a@4ax.com...

> But there were plenty of XP compatible drivers. Why couldn't MS build

> an interface back to those drivers? They either did it intentionally,

> or simply declined to spend the money to do it.

 

At some point, legacy support has to be compromised for things to move

forward. Microsoft has had some of the best legacy support of any OS maker

over the years and in many ways it has handicapped them from advancing in

anything other than market share.

They are claiming that the perception of those who have never used Vista may

be invalid - as shown by the experiment.

 

Your perception of Vista is what it is!

 

--

 

Richard Urban

Microsoft MVP

Windows Desktop Experience

 

 

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

> kind!!!

>

> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

> are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>

> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>

> STEP 1)

>

> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

> configuration for vista

> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>

> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

> 1 GB of system memory

> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

> WDDM Driver

> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

> 32 bits per pixel

> DVD-ROM drive

> Audio Output

>

> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

> makers, just to be sure

> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>

> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

> following:

> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>

> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for Super VGA graphics

> CD-ROM drive

>

> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

> will have to find

> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista show

> an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>

> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>

> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost of

> replacing all that software with new versions.

>

> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

> towards vista.

>

> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated site,

> to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>

>

> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

> SLOPPY code of vista.

> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

> situation.

>

> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>

>

>

>

The mojave experiment only shows that vista is good under a controlled

environment, meaning fast computers and selected software and hardware.

 

I do not disagree with that, since in the ending of my original post that's

what I saw too. I am disagreeing that this reflects reality

where there are a multitude of different computers and hardware and

software. The world is not a rigged experiment made to show what we want to

see.

 

My opinion is not written in stone, but from my experience along with the

reaction of all the world including the best professional ITs that work for

corporations agrees that vista is an OS to be avoided, even microsoft at

last knows this and is trying to find ways to fix its reputation and quality

of future OS's ... lets see if windows7 will be any better.

 

If not, XP is the best choice still after 6 years it was created. How

pathetic.

 

"Tom Allen" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:OuJewQAHJHA.3140@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

> "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

> news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>

>>

>> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think

>> you are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>>

>

> That's a bit rich as you do little else but claim any other perception but

> you own is invalid.

>

> Tom

>

"Ringmaster" <bigtop@VistaGeneralCircus.net> wrote in message

news:pvrcd4hnuh8f6vnah30ad1jb7ad5bmktk0@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:21:30 +0200 (CEST), "D.Eth" <death@thedoor.nxt>

> wrote:

>

>>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:47:10 +0300, gerooky wrote:

>>

>>>snipped

>>

>>There's something wrong with you.

>>Don't use Vista if you don't like it.

>>

>>Install the Linux distro of your choice ... and use it.

>>Then go hound their NG's with all the downfalls of Linux, and why if you

>>had any talent, you could do something besides whine.

>>

>>We all know no talent people ... and their incessant whining / bitching

>>makes them even easier to avoid.

>

> No talent? You means idiots like you that stick their heads in the

> sand and try to pretend nothing is wrong with Vista. I guess.

>

 

 

Nothing is wrong with it.

 

It's the best OS I've ever used ... and I've used all the MS ones since

Win3.1 (execpt 95 and Me).

I put it on a PC that ran XP for 2 years...so my PC isn't cutting edge.

 

I've used almost every major linux distro.

I don't touch Macs.

 

It's not without its quirks ... but all OS's have their quirks. I guess.

I think it's great !

 

--

Ens causa sui

Fit caedes omnibus locis

> At some point, legacy support has to be compromised for things to move

> forward.

 

Vista was a huge leap BACKWARDS, by totally destroying the trust of the

consumer had for Microsoft's products.

 

there was no significant reason to break so many drivers.

 

If Microsoft was to make vista all over again, they wouldn't make vista like

it is!

 

They would make it so it could use all XP drivers.

 

MS is paying not for the advancement (you would wish it was like that but

its not), but because of lack of foresight and bad decisions.

 

 

 

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message

news:5quBk.27095$QF5.5964@newsfe08.iad...

>

> "+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message

> news:cvqcd49cqtibjs294uovn33nmjtlmqbo0a@4ax.com...

>

>> But there were plenty of XP compatible drivers. Why couldn't MS build

>> an interface back to those drivers? They either did it intentionally,

>> or simply declined to spend the money to do it.

>

> At some point, legacy support has to be compromised for things to move

> forward. Microsoft has had some of the best legacy support of any OS maker

> over the years and in many ways it has handicapped them from advancing in

> anything other than market share.

>

The mojave experiment only shows that vista is good under a controlled

environment, meaning fast computers and selected software and hardware.

 

I do not disagree with that, since in the ending of my original post that's

what I say too. I am disagreeing that this reflects reality

where there are a multitude of different computers and hardware and

software. The world is not a rigged experiment made to show what we want to

see.

 

You can make any experiment show whatever you want, but it is not science.

If not done correctly (like the insulting mojave experiment) then its

worthless.

 

 

 

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:upRdXbAHJHA.4600@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> They are claiming that the perception of those who have never used Vista

> may be invalid - as shown by the experiment.

>

> Your perception of Vista is what it is!

>

> --

>

> Richard Urban

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Desktop Experience

>

>

> "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

> news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

>> kind!!!

>>

>> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think

>> you are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>>

>> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>>

>> STEP 1)

>>

>> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

>> configuration for vista

>> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>>

>> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

>> 1 GB of system memory

>> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

>> WDDM Driver

>> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

>> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

>> 32 bits per pixel

>> DVD-ROM drive

>> Audio Output

>>

>> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

>> makers, just to be sure

>> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>>

>> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

>> following:

>> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

>> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>>

>> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

>> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>> Support for Super VGA graphics

>> CD-ROM drive

>>

>> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

>> will have to find

>> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

>> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista

>> show an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>>

>> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

>> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

>> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>>

>> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

>> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost

>> of replacing all that software with new versions.

>>

>> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

>> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

>> towards vista.

>>

>> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated

>> site, to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>>

>>

>> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

>> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

>> SLOPPY code of vista.

>> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

>> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

>> situation.

>>

>> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

>> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

Try comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges (pun intended).

Here's the minimum and suggested minimum recommendations for XP.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

 

What is the user experience like with that setup? It's about as good as

Vista with the suggested minimum recommendations. Microsoft has never been

very good with either minimum or suggested minimum requirements. Here's some

more that are way off.

 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/system-requirements.aspx

 

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

 

Oops that last one isn't Windows but using the recommended minimums would

still be a bad user experience. It's just the way it is with software guys

recommending hardware. The point is these are the suggested MINIMUM

requirements.

 

--

Kerry Brown

MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

> kind!!!

>

> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think you

> are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>

> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>

> STEP 1)

>

> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

> configuration for vista

> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>

> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

> 1 GB of system memory

> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

> WDDM Driver

> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

> 32 bits per pixel

> DVD-ROM drive

> Audio Output

>

> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

> makers, just to be sure

> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>

> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

> following:

> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>

> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

> Support for Super VGA graphics

> CD-ROM drive

>

> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

> will have to find

> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista show

> an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>

> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>

> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost of

> replacing all that software with new versions.

>

> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

> towards vista.

>

> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated site,

> to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>

>

> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

> SLOPPY code of vista.

> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

> situation.

>

> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>

>

>

>

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d677d4$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> At some point, legacy support has to be compromised for things to move

>> forward.

>

> Vista was a huge leap BACKWARDS, by totally destroying the trust of the

> consumer had for Microsoft's products.

 

No, you are just mentally challenged. You have no idea how Vista works.

>

> there was no significant reason to break so many drivers.

>

> If Microsoft was to make vista all over again, they wouldn't make vista

> like it is!

 

So are you their consultant? Don't think so. You probably would have

trouble working at McDonalds.

>

> They would make it so it could use all XP drivers.

>

> MS is paying not for the advancement (you would wish it was like that but

> its not), but because of lack of foresight and bad decisions.

>

 

 

MS wouldn't pay you to clean their toilets.

Kerry, your post would be a good one but your logic and facts are invalid.

 

XP is going to be used on the OLPC laptop per child project,

there is a XP fundamentals version for computers that are slower that what

you posted, made for companies that want to use their older hardware,

and in fact XP is so versatile that I have been able to install it on far

LESS powerful hardware than what you posted.

 

For example on a Pentium 133 with 64 mb ram. Try that with Vista.. lol

 

It is this flexibility of XP and the ability for it to be adapted to work on

far less hardware the reason why XP is still being used.

 

XP is still being sold by Microsoft on new machines, but not on all

machines, only ones with lower capabilities. Why not push vista on those?

The clear truth is, that vista has outbloated itself so badly that it can be

used only on very high end machines.

 

Xp is STILL outselling Vista even though MS has tried to block and stop the

selling of Vista...

XP is still asked for far more than Vista.

Vista is being sold mainly because of ignorance of the buyer or plain force

because the consumers cant get the comptuer they want with XP.

VISTA IS BEING FORCED DOWN THE THROATS of consumers, people are complaining

but its MS's MONOPOLY that has control over the market.

 

vista is just crap, and don't push numbers and requirments on me.. I know

them far too well.

 

 

 

 

 

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message

news:#EEqQlAHJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Try comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges (pun

> intended). Here's the minimum and suggested minimum recommendations for

> XP.

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

>

> What is the user experience like with that setup? It's about as good as

> Vista with the suggested minimum recommendations. Microsoft has never been

> very good with either minimum or suggested minimum requirements. Here's

> some more that are way off.

>

> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/system-requirements.aspx

>

> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

>

> Oops that last one isn't Windows but using the recommended minimums would

> still be a bad user experience. It's just the way it is with software guys

> recommending hardware. The point is these are the suggested MINIMUM

> requirements.

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

>

> "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

> news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

>> kind!!!

>>

>> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think

>> you are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>>

>> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>>

>> STEP 1)

>>

>> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

>> configuration for vista

>> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>>

>> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

>> 1 GB of system memory

>> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

>> WDDM Driver

>> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

>> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

>> 32 bits per pixel

>> DVD-ROM drive

>> Audio Output

>>

>> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of computer

>> makers, just to be sure

>> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>>

>> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

>> following:

>> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

>> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>>

>> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

>> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>> Support for Super VGA graphics

>> CD-ROM drive

>>

>> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

>> will have to find

>> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

>> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista

>> show an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>>

>> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

>> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

>> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>>

>> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

>> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost

>> of replacing all that software with new versions.

>>

>> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

>> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

>> towards vista.

>>

>> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated

>> site, to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>>

>>

>> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a very

>> high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS BLOAT and

>> SLOPPY code of vista.

>> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making sure

>> that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the above

>> situation.

>>

>> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

>> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d67dc5@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>

> XP is still being sold by Microsoft on new machines, but not on all

> machines, only ones with lower capabilities. Why not push vista on those?

> The clear truth is, that vista has outbloated itself so badly that it can

> be used only on very high end machines.

>

> Xp is STILL outselling Vista even though MS has tried to block and stop

> the selling of Vista...

> XP is still asked for far more than Vista.

 

 

Where are your reference for those statements?

> vista is just crap, and don't push numbers and requirments on me.. I know

> them far too well.

 

Well if you don't believe in actual numbers and factual results, what do you

believe in?

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

news:48d67dc5@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> Kerry, your post would be a good one but your logic and facts are invalid.

>

> XP is going to be used on the OLPC laptop per child project,

> there is a XP fundamentals version for computers that are slower that what

> you posted, made for companies that want to use their older hardware,

> and in fact XP is so versatile that I have been able to install it on far

> LESS powerful hardware than what you posted.

>

> For example on a Pentium 133 with 64 mb ram. Try that with Vista.. lol

>

> It is this flexibility of XP and the ability for it to be adapted to work

> on far less hardware the reason why XP is still being used.

>

> XP is still being sold by Microsoft on new machines, but not on all

> machines, only ones with lower capabilities. Why not push vista on those?

> The clear truth is, that vista has outbloated itself so badly that it can

> be used only on very high end machines.

>

> Xp is STILL outselling Vista even though MS has tried to block and stop

> the selling of Vista...

> XP is still asked for far more than Vista.

> Vista is being sold mainly because of ignorance of the buyer or plain

> force because the consumers cant get the comptuer they want with XP.

> VISTA IS BEING FORCED DOWN THE THROATS of consumers, people are

> complaining but its MS's MONOPOLY that has control over the market.

>

> vista is just crap, and don't push numbers and requirments on me.. I know

> them far too well.

>

>

>

>

>

> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message

> news:#EEqQlAHJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Try comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges (pun

>> intended). Here's the minimum and suggested minimum recommendations for

>> XP.

>>

>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

>>

>> What is the user experience like with that setup? It's about as good as

>> Vista with the suggested minimum recommendations. Microsoft has never

>> been very good with either minimum or suggested minimum requirements.

>> Here's some more that are way off.

>>

>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx

>>

>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/system-requirements.aspx

>>

>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

>>

>> Oops that last one isn't Windows but using the recommended minimums would

>> still be a bad user experience. It's just the way it is with software

>> guys recommending hardware. The point is these are the suggested MINIMUM

>> requirements.

>>

>> --

>> Kerry Brown

>> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

>> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

>> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

>>

>> "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message

>> news:48d65e96@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>> The Mojave experiment was no less than MICROSOFT PROPAGANDA of the worst

>>> kind!!!

>>>

>>> I find it INSULTING and DEGRADING of my INTELLIGENCE! Who do you think

>>> you are Microsoft, claiming that my perception of vista is not VALID?

>>>

>>> Let me tell you what a correct Vista experiment would be like:

>>>

>>> STEP 1)

>>>

>>> Buy people a computer such as the microsoft sites calls a RECOMMENDED

>>> configuration for vista

>>> along with a new copy of Vista ultimate or home premium:

>>>

>>> 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

>>> 1 GB of system memory

>>> 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>>> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

>>> WDDM Driver

>>> 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

>>> Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

>>> 32 bits per pixel

>>> DVD-ROM drive

>>> Audio Output

>>>

>>> These machines will be not from one vendor but from all kinds of

>>> computer makers, just to be sure

>>> that we are covering a large array of different hardware.

>>>

>>> NOTE: this is not the basic requirements for Vista... these are the

>>> following:

>>> Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

>>> Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

>>>

>>> 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

>>> 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

>>> Support for Super VGA graphics

>>> CD-ROM drive

>>>

>>> STEP 2) They will NOT be allowed to buy new peripherial hardware. They

>>> will have to find

>>> drivers for their old printers, scanners, webcams etc.

>>> Let them SUFFER by searching endless hours for these, and watch vista

>>> show an array of nice stupid blue screens and crashes

>>>

>>> STEP 3) If its too hard for them, we will supply a tech to help them get

>>> over the problems so that vista is installed on their new computers.

>>> We are doing this to prolong their torchure with the next step:

>>>

>>> STEP 4) They will have to install all their software, and some of them

>>> vista will no longer be compatible with them. They will add up the cost

>>> of replacing all that software with new versions.

>>>

>>> STEP 5) In the meanwhile a camera will be recording all the FRUSTRATION

>>> HATE ANGER AND DISGUST that the users will have

>>> towards vista.

>>>

>>> STEP 6) Upload this experiment on YOUTUBE on a channel and dedicated

>>> site, to show the world the TRUE CRAPPY NATURE OF VISTA!

>>>

>>>

>>> Conclusion: Vista is "OK" only when you get it PREINSTALLED and on a

>>> very high end computer that is fast enough to handle the TREMENDOUS

>>> BLOAT and SLOPPY code of vista.

>>> Then you will be in warrantee and IF YOU GET all new hardware making

>>> sure that there are vista drivers, the experience MAY be better than the

>>> above situation.

>>>

>>> HOWEVER we must understand that the above experiment is what MOST people

>>> will encounter with the hardware they already own.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

 

 

Have you tried XP on a P133 and 64mb? even Ubuntu requires a minimum of

256mb..

 

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message

news:cvqcd49cqtibjs294uovn33nmjtlmqbo0a@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:18:37 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"

> <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

>

>

>>The basic requirements are ok to run Vista, but as with all other

>>operating

>>systems, when you start to add programs and devices over and above what is

>>OS supplied, you have to add resources.

>

> Sorry Mike, but those requirements are total BS. Vista can't run at a

> usable speed on that config.

>

>>Bear in mind that run does not imply run really fast, and only an idiot

>>would believe that any operating system will run at full speed regardless

>>of

>>spec.

>

> Actually, when I see the hardware requirements for most software

> packages, including those from MS, I find that they are fairly

> accurate. True, you run more slowly thorough large operations with the

> products but they are usable on the minimum config. Vista is not

> usable on the stated config.

>

>>Much of the bloat is added by OEMs. If installed from an MS DVD, there is

>>no

>>more bloat than one might expect from an OS which has the capability of

>>Vista.

>

> Please tell me what capabilities Vista has over XP (which runs faster

> on half the hardware and is far more compatible).

>

>>Drivers have ALWAYS been the responsibility of the peripheral device

>>hardware manufacturers. My five year old printer and scanner worked great.

>

> But there were plenty of XP compatible drivers. Why couldn't MS build

> an interface back to those drivers? They either did it intentionally,

> or simply declined to spend the money to do it.

>

>>Anybody upgrading to Vista has a responsibility to ensure that there is

>>enough hardware resource to run the OS and any applications which will be

>>used. Nothing has changed in this respect.

>

> Except that Vista obsoleted a huge share of hardware and software and

> previous releases of MS OS's did not.

>

>>The biggest frustration for new users is UAC which can be disabled easily

>>enough.

>

> Agreed. It sucks. It's worthless. Instead of actually making the OS

> more secure, they stuck a useless feature on top as a band-aid.

>

>>My computer is not exactly high end for Vista or XP.

>

> My XP machine with 50% of the hardware capability runs faster through

> the same applications.

>

>>I am running Ubuntu on a PIII 933, 512mb, 32mb video, and it is worse than

>>useless. No fancy graphics, appalling desktop, slow, constant updates,

>>wireless adapter will not work with it.

>>

>>Before too long, I will re-install Win 2000 and make it a usable piece of

>>equipment again..

>

> Win2000 is an excellent choice. Fast, efficient, with almost all the

> capabilities we needed. XP was a little bloated but could be

> corrected. It added little except VPN but it was usable. Vista is

> beyond correction and requires "toleration" instead.

>

>

>

>

 

 

But it can run, yes? Minimum requirements are exactly what they say they

are.. for better performance, one has to go above minimum. Rocket science? I

don't think so..

 

Vista has shadow copies, and can recover from some driver errors. XP could

recover itself from nothing, and would require a repair install and

subsequent update session.

 

It manages memory better than XP. It is a more secure platform than XP, even

without UAC running..

 

One would expect a six year old OS to be compatible, but there was a time

when it wasn't..

 

Drivers were always up and down in XP.. some hardware would run

intermittently. Vista does a better job providing that drivers are

available..

 

Manufacturers used the change to Vista to write off some of their older

product ranges. HP would have done this but for the outcry, at which point

they released drivers which didn't have the 'XP only' code written into

them.

 

Old stuff is old stuff.. ask the device manufacturers..

 

Vista made only the oldest stuff obsolete. The device manufacturers did the

rest of the damage..

 

The only thing I increased on my XP machine in order to run Vista was RAM..

It is a single core AMD 3500+, spec lower than the last of the XP machines

available commercially..

 

Win 2000 had its problems. Its only saving grace now is that it works with

XP and Vista and can handle wireless devices..

 

Win 2000 seemed bloated and resource hungry after Win 98 (32mb) or ME

(64mb). XP needed at least 512mb to run happily and sustain other running

applications. I guess that you can work out how many 32 or 64mb RAM modules

constitute 512mb.

 

Many XP users pushed up to 1gb and more, especially gamers..

 

So will Ubuntu run on my old 286? It has the full complement of memory?

Answer simply please. The old 286 is not as fast on its feet as it once

appeared to be..

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

Mike Hall - MVP

How to construct a good post..

http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm

How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc

Mike's Window - My Blog..

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"gerooky" is obviously a troll. I can't understand why everyone is

replying to him/her.

I'm impressed you can use your keyboard since Vista was to much for ya.

 

Since your so frustrated with Vista, I would have hated to be around

when you moved from fat32 to NTFS.

 

Any inovation will break something. Change destroys the

old...sometimes. Sometimes the change is more gradual.

 

Maybe you need to take a class or get a for dummies book. So you can

catch up to those who have moved on from the old platform.

 

Instead of complaining maybe you should try to learn. No matter what

kind of fit you throw about the change. THe change will still come.

Change with it or sit at home and watch spongebob.

 

 

--

joel406