"D. Eth" <death@thedoor.nxt> wrote in news:gb6qmq$ntq$1@aioe.org:

> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message

> news:Xns9B216DEAAA61thisnthatadelphianet@85.214.90.236...

>> "D. Eth" <death@thedoor.nxt> wrote in news:gb6kt5$3oq$1@aioe.org:

>>

>>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message

>>> news:Xns9B20EB701A683thisnthatadelphianet@85.214.90.236...

>>>> "D.Eth" <death@thedoor.nxt> wrote in news:gb63ec$ee$1@aioe.org:

>>>>

>>>>>> That's not true at all. You can easily verify that for

>>>>>> yourself.

>>>>>> A PII-400 using a 8MB video card and 256MB will run XP just fine,

>>>>>> and even play games that were current at the time such as quake.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Not true ^

>>>>>

>>>>> I run XPsp2 on a PIII-600 with a 64MB Geforce400 and 384MB RAM and

>>>>> it runs...but is real laggy. My son hated playing CS on that PC .

>>>>> And god help you if you do an AV scan ... useless PC for 20

>>>>> minutes. And that setup is with ~ 12 running processes and using

>>>>> ~70MB ram post boot.

>>>>>

>>>>> Not true based on my opinion.

>>>>

>>>> I have NEVER seen an XP machine running with 12 processes and only

>>>> 70 megs of RAM directly after boot unless in safe mode....even then

>>>> the 70 megs RAM

>>>> is really pushing it. And a full AV scan on that would take way

>>>> more than 20 minutes...more like 2 hours.

>>>>

>>>> That is totally BS.

>>>

>>>

>>> I put an ~ for approx.

>>>

>>> I just booted in....16 processes right after boot, 15 once the

>>> winupdate goes away.

>>> perhaps you don't know how to disable services.

>>

>> Uh, yeah. That's the first thing I do when I install Window for

>> anyone.

>>

>>>

>>> 82 MB used mem right after boot ... once again, you maybe can't

>>> tweak an XP system.

>>>

>>> A full AV scan on that PC takes 20 minutes monkey boy...its only a

>>> 20GB HD.

>>>

>>> But, ya , idiot...you know my PC's better than me.

>>

>> Why are you calling me monkeyboy and idiot ? Because you

>> underestimated the processes running by ~25% and the RAM usage by

>> ~18%. Even 16 processes is FAR away from 12.

>>

>

> No...you said it was BS...it wasn't BS...it was an estimate.

> I wasn't staring at the PC.

> And my 15 is including taskmgr...so once I close that ...it's 14....my

> "guess was 12"

> My mem usage of 82 included 4 for taskmgr....so 78...my guess was 70.

>

> See how close that is ( without you trying to make it exaggerated by

> turning it into a %).

>

> And taken into the context of the conversation...

 

The context had nothing to do with it. My reply was based on your

statements alone. FWIW, I don't think XP can run 'fine' on any PII

system. I've got Server2003 running on an Intel-based dual P3 450 mHz

system with 512Megs and a SCSI II HD, and no MS services running, like

AD, web server, or anything, it's mostly just a file server and runs a

dynamic IP updater...and it can barely do that.

> it was about a poster

> saying XP ran fine on a PII and 256M ram...if my tweaked down system

> can barely run on a PIII 384M system...yet you chose to say MY

> statement was BS.

>

> So if you cull out my post...call it BS (I got no reason to BS, unlike

> the anti-Vista morons) ... then I don't mind coming right back at ya.

> Can't take it ?

>

> Don't respond.

 

I've got no problem with you 'coming back', and saying you just booted it

up and this is what you saw...blah, blah, blah. If you've got opposing

info say it. Fine. I can take it.

 

But, I do take exception to being insulted...what were they....'perhaps

you don't know how to disable services','monkey boy','idiot', and 'Better

stick to flippen burgers'.......just because I don't believe something

someone says.

 

FWIW, my XPsp2 runs on a 1 Ghz Athlon w/512M RAM and the same video card

as yours, and it runs fairly well. I don't play any games, so I'm sure it

lacks in that. Well, newer games ,Unreal Tournament is installed an runs

adequately, but not up to Crysis requirements obviously.

At last we listened and here are the features of the NEW and IMPROVED

version of windows

 

1) 30% Faster than its predecessor (vista)

2) Compact installation, the installer even fits on a CD

3) Needs half the ram and one fifth the hard disk space to install

4) Now features GDI acceleration for lightning fast window drawing

5) With add on applications, so that you can install features as add ons.

Windows Media Player 11, windows live gallery, IE8, windows live mail,

parenting applications, and messenger are all featured as add ons,

keeping your initial install small if you don't want them

6) We removed shadow copy because it was filling up the hard disks too fast,

and we made a better system restore that can now be controlled via a lever

to define the space it uses.

7) Updated disk defragmenter tool with visual feedback so you will know what

is going on.

8) We removed UAC, after much user complaints, and deciding that it was more

a nuisance than doing any good

9) we added the FAX back to ALL versions of WINDOWS!!!! (vista had it only

in business and premium)

10) We listened to you and made the toolbars of windows explorer

configurable, now you can add that up button and the delete button

12) We removed the breadcrumbs that most people didn't understand and was

confusing.

13) We made all important menus viewable in windows explore and internet

explorer

14) Faster boot times

15) Far more compatible. Now you can use ALL your older hardware with no

problem at all!

16) We limited the versions to less editions to not confuse the consumers

17) A better search that search all your disk without having services

slowing down your computer with no reason.

If indexing is preferred an addon is downloadable via windows update.

 

We call this version of windows>> WINDOWS XP!!!!!!

 

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

news:#bL7zTFHJHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

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

> news:0pmdd4li1n2pue28rm718d88llkgsn6046@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:44:27 -0700, "Kerry Brown"

>> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>>

>>>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.

>>

>> The point is that Vista requires twice the hardware and still runs

>> slower.

>>

>> I invite you (too) to tell me what improvements Vista has that merit

>> the increase in hardware.

>>

>>

>

>

> Built in search, better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,

> better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit

> version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the desktop

> background without using active desktop, active desktop no longer exists,

> S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo gallery, DVD

> maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better performance

> measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility Center, Windows

> Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons, breadcrumbs, usable parental

> controls, ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications,

> credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better

> wireless encryption support, ...

>

> There's a few I can think of. I'm sure I missed more than I could come up

> with off the top of my head. And before you say this can be added to XP -

> Yes some of it can, but at what cost in both money and performance?

>

> Another point is that the minimum recommended system for Vista is

> considerably less expensive than the minimum recommended XP system was

> when both OS's were released. More importantly a decent Vista system is

> about 3/4 the price of decent XP system at a similar point in the timeline

> of XP development. If you take inflation into account it's actually less

> than 1/2 the cost.

>

> I also take issue with your assertion that Vista runs slower than XP. If

> you compare like with like i.e. a decent Vista system from today with a

> decent XP system from 1 1/2 years after XP was released I think you'll

> find the Vista system a better performer. Saying XP outperforms Vista on

> the same hardware is like saying Windows 98 outperforms XP on the same

> hardware. Yes, in both cases this is true. What is also true is that a

> typical XP system would outperform a typical Windows 98 system and be much

> nicer to use. The same holds true with Vista vs. XP. The point is the

> typical system changes over time as hardware comes down in price and has

> better performance. Should we ignore hardware improvements and only

> program for old, outdated hardware. I don't know any OS that does that. Do

> you? I've been running Fedora since it was Redhat 5.2. My first Redhat

> system was a PII with 32 MB. Do you think Fedora 9 would run on it? Would

> Redhat 5.2 outperform Fedora 9 on a new system? How about OS X on my old

> PowerCenter Pro?

>

> Things change. Life and OS's move on. It's too bad some people can't deal

> with this.

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

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

> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

>

>

>

>

"D. Eth" <death@thedoor.nxt> wrote in news:gb6qmq$ntq$1@aioe.org:

 

I forgot to say.....

 

It doesn't really matter anyway, the only important thing today is that the

Bills won....came back for the second game in a row.

 

3 and 0 baby !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Non Sequitur. Your Facts are Uncoordinated.

All that I stated are correct NOW with vista sp1.

I think I know vista far better than you do.

 

Here is a summary of the new version of windows

 

At last we listened and here are the features of the NEW and IMPROVED

version of windows

 

1) 30% Faster than its predecessor (vista)

2) Compact installation, the installer even fits on a CD

3) Needs half the ram and one fifth the hard disk space to install

4) Now features GDI acceleration for lightning fast window drawing

5) With add on applications, so that you can install features as add ons.

Windows Media Player 11, windows live gallery, IE8, windows live mail,

parenting applications, and messenger are all featured as add ons,

keeping your initial install small if you don't want them

6) We removed shadow copy because it was filling up the hard disks too fast,

and we made a better system restore that can now be controlled via a lever

to define the space it uses.

7) Updated disk defragmenter tool with visual feedback so you will know what

is going on.

8) We removed UAC, after much user complaints, and deciding that it was more

a nuisance than doing any good

9) we added the FAX back to ALL versions of WINDOWS!!!! (vista had it only

in business and premium)

10) We listened to you and made the toolbars of windows explorer

configurable, now you can add that up button and the delete button

12) We removed the breadcrumbs that most people didn't understand and was

confusing.

13) We made all important menus viewable in windows explore and internet

explorer

14) Faster boot times

15) Far more compatible. Now you can use ALL your older hardware with no

problem at all!

16) All applications now work with no problem

17) We limited the versions to less editions to not confuse the consumers

18) A better search that search all your disk without having services

slowing down your computer with no reason.

If indexing is preferred an addon is downloadable via windows update.

 

We call this version of windows>> WINDOWS XP!!!!!!

 

 

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

news:u$WnV1FHJHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

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

> news:48d6ff2c@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> let me reply to every single one of those stupid things you list ok?

>>

>> > Built in search,

>> Give me a break the vista search indexing is a buggy problematic horrid

>> defective piece of crap that I disable at once after I install vista!

>>

>>>better firewall

>> The better features are hidden someone where no normal user will look.

>> Usless for the masses.

>>

>>>service hardening

>> The amount of services has increased too much, it's a bloat paradise! MS

>> is trying to REDUCE the amount of services in windows7

>>

>>>much better default user interface

>> You can install a theme for XP, big deal!

>>

>>>64 bit version has much better driver support,

>> 32 bit version has much worse driver support than XP.. lol

>>

>>>can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active desktop

>>

>> Big deal! One click was not that hard to save as bmp. The ram needed to

>> display the wallpaper is the same either in jpg or bmp.

>>

>>>active desktop no longer exists

>>

>> Many people are really mad about this since they used it for tasks!

>>

>>>S3 sleep support,

>> XP could go in standby too.

>>

>>>Windows sidebar,

>> Crap eyecandy, but if you insist google sidebar with google desktop and

>> yahoo gadgets all free.

>>

>>>snipping tool

>> Winsnap free version, better than the stupid snipping tool

>>

>>>photo gallery

>> Live photo gallery installs on XP and is also crap, XNVIEW is free and

>> much better.

>>

>>>much better performance measuring

>> Yeah you need it to try to figure out what the heck is making vista so

>> SLOW!!!!!!!!1

>>

>>>DVD maker

>> I never needed such an app but im sure there are alternative free ones

>> out there.

>>

>>>bitlocker

>> Not on all versions of vista!!!! most people have home premium

>>

>>>image based deployment

>>

>> Boat deployment, XP installs faster and better and is more versatile than

>> vista

>>

>>>directx 10

>> That's a marketing SCAM! there was no reason for it not to be given to XP

>> users.

>> In fact I have seen a version hacked that installs on XP and works great!

>> lol

>>

>>>Mobility Center

>> Not many use it.. if you are going to point every small utility that

>> comes with crapista to try to make it look good

>> then I think I must point to UBUNTU that has THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of

>> free applications !!!!!

>>

>>>Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts,

>>

>> see live messenger, live mail desktop wave 3

>>

>>>scalable icons

>>

>> Insignificant improvement, just eyecandy

>>

>>

>>>breadcrumbs

>> GOD forbid this STUPID MORON IDEA!!!! available on XP with an explorer

>> addon though if you insist

>> NO UP BUTTON!!!! GoD VISTA IS STUPID!

>>

>>>usable parental controls

>> See live wave 3 pls

>>

>>> ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications, credential

>>> providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless

>>> encryption support, ...

>>

>> Yeah yeah things that consumers don't give a heck about...

>>

>> Look vista is just a pile of crap because it offers no significant

>> improvement..

>>

>> all that stuff is mostly BLOAT, and not improvement on the OS itself.

>>

>> The worse thing about this bloat is that it slows the OS itself down,

>> unlike linux

>> where it doesn't slow down, no matter how many apps you install!

>>

>> I would like to see increase in performance and the ability for it to be

>> MORE compatible with applications and

>> hardware... then give me icons that can be scaled.

>>

>> by the way the scalability of icons is MUCH worse than what was promised

>> in longhorn.

>> I know the story, I know the promises.. Vista is a stupid degraded crap

>> OS that was pushed onto people

>> by force.

>>

>>

>> Vista has BAD PERFORMANCE and COMPATIBILITY that's what people care about

>> most...

>> add on small programs and eye candy are the last things they care about.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,

>>> better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit

>>> version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the

>>> desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no

>>> longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo

>>> gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better

>>> performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility

>>> Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons, breadcrumbs,

>>> usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of

>>> applications, credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC

>>> support, better wireless encryption support, ...

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>> news:#bL7zTFHJHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

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

>>> news:0pmdd4li1n2pue28rm718d88llkgsn6046@4ax.com...

>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:44:27 -0700, "Kerry Brown"

>>>> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>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.

>>>>

>>>> The point is that Vista requires twice the hardware and still runs

>>>> slower.

>>>>

>>>> I invite you (too) to tell me what improvements Vista has that merit

>>>> the increase in hardware.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Built in search, better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,

>>> better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit

>>> version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the

>>> desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no

>>> longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo

>>> gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better

>>> performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility

>>> Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons, breadcrumbs,

>>> usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of

>>> applications, credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC

>>> support, better wireless encryption support, ...

>>>

>>> There's a few I can think of. I'm sure I missed more than I could come

>>> up with off the top of my head. And before you say this can be added to

>>> XP - Yes some of it can, but at what cost in both money and performance?

>>>

>>> Another point is that the minimum recommended system for Vista is

>>> considerably less expensive than the minimum recommended XP system was

>>> when both OS's were released. More importantly a decent Vista system is

>>> about 3/4 the price of decent XP system at a similar point in the

>>> timeline of XP development. If you take inflation into account it's

>>> actually less than 1/2 the cost.

>>>

>>> I also take issue with your assertion that Vista runs slower than XP. If

>>> you compare like with like i.e. a decent Vista system from today with a

>>> decent XP system from 1 1/2 years after XP was released I think you'll

>>> find the Vista system a better performer. Saying XP outperforms Vista on

>>> the same hardware is like saying Windows 98 outperforms XP on the same

>>> hardware. Yes, in both cases this is true. What is also true is that a

>>> typical XP system would outperform a typical Windows 98 system and be

>>> much nicer to use. The same holds true with Vista vs. XP. The point is

>>> the typical system changes over time as hardware comes down in price and

>>> has better performance. Should we ignore hardware improvements and only

>>> program for old, outdated hardware. I don't know any OS that does that.

>>> Do you? I've been running Fedora since it was Redhat 5.2. My first

>>> Redhat system was a PII with 32 MB. Do you think Fedora 9 would run on

>>> it? Would Redhat 5.2 outperform Fedora 9 on a new system? How about OS

>>> X on my old PowerCenter Pro?

>>>

>>> Things change. Life and OS's move on. It's too bad some people can't

>>> deal with this.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Kerry Brown

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

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

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

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

>

> Almost all of your arguments against Vista are either personal subjective

> view or are based on the first two months of Vista release..

>

> You are a troll..

>

> --

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

> The worse thing about this bloat is that it slows the OS itself down,

> unlike linux

> where it doesn't slow down, no matter how many apps you install!

>

 

 

Maybe if you actually tried using Linux you could talk sensibly about it. If

you add more services, more daemons and have more apps running it will run

slower just as any other OS. Try running Linux with a minimum recommended

system then add Samba server. See what the performance hit is. On an old

laptop try adding a network manager to manage wireless connections and see

what the performance hit is. All these things take CPU time. The OS is

irrelevant. There's no sense in having better hardware if the OS doesn't use

it.

 

I see you mentioned adding a bunch of 3rd party apps to make XP work like

Vista. Once you do this XP will run about the same as Vista on the same

hardware. At least with Vista you don't have to hunt down all these apps and

install them yourself. You still wouldn't have the security enhancements.

 

You ignored my points about older versions of Linux and Mac OS's vs. newer

versions. Couldn't think of a flaw in my arguments?

 

--

Kerry Brown

MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

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

http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

> Who is bothered to remeber the 100MHz, let a lone still have one. If

> that's a standing ovation point for Linux, best leave it in the past too.

 

Yet if vista could do that, the fanboys would be having a parade with

banners and horns advertising that fact...

To them it would be utter PROOF that vista is flexible.

 

but it aint!

 

lol

 

"Vista Cabal" <vista_cabal@msnews.grp> wrote in message

news:ODx#vzFHJHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

> news:gb62ib$ggh$1@reader1.panix.com...

>>

>> Remember, linux will run on a 100MHz embedded ARM processor.

>>

>

> Who is bothered to remeber the 100MHz, let a lone still have one. If

> that's a standing ovation point for Linux, best leave it in the past too.

>

> - Vista Cabal

>

Evidently, you must be the same troll that recently posted

the following in the Windows 98 newsgroup:

 

"Windows 3.x program won't work on Win98"

 

"I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE."

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion&lang=en&cr=US

 

--

Carey Frisch

Microsoft MVP

Windows Desktop Experience -

Windows Vista Enthusiast

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

"gerooky" wrote:

 

100% non-factual, totally useless garbage - and not worth repeating.

To settle the argument!

 

Vista is the best MS has ever made.

 

Read it!

 

Learn it!

 

Get over it!

 

 

--

joel406

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:53:21 +0300, "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote:

>Non Sequitur. Your Facts are Uncoordinated.

 

The bozo is talking to himself:

 

"gerooky" <g@ish.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: $$5lpnpdinkd7m23.newsgate.x-privat.org

 

"Non Sequitur!" <only@rret.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: $$5lpnpdinkd7m23.newsgate.x-privat.org

 

Same IP... results in same Posting Host with encrypted IP

Your correct best leave that stuff to the Linux mob.

 

- Vista Cabal

 

"gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote in message news:48d70a26$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> Who is bothered to remeber the 100MHz, let a lone still have one. If that's a

>> standing ovation point for Linux, best leave it in the past too.

>

> Yet if vista could do that, the fanboys would be having a parade with banners

> and horns advertising that fact...

> To them it would be utter PROOF that vista is flexible.

>

> but it aint!

>

> lol

>

> "Vista Cabal" <vista_cabal@msnews.grp> wrote in message

> news:ODx#vzFHJHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

>> news:gb62ib$ggh$1@reader1.panix.com...

>>>

>>> Remember, linux will run on a 100MHz embedded ARM processor.

>>>

>>

>> Who is bothered to remeber the 100MHz, let a lone still have one. If that's a

>> standing ovation point for Linux, best leave it in the past too.

>>

>> - Vista Cabal

>>

I have been using Linux since 1998 with the release of KDE 1. That's 10

years of experience you MS blinded MVP!

 

You don't have to add more services, and you can turn them off easily, and

with linux there are no stupid dlls and windows explorer extensions to make

the whole OS slower!

 

Windows is so integrated that when you install programs it becomes slow.

Linux is NOT like that!

 

I know what im talking about!

 

the Bunch of apps you claim I mentioned

where mostly Microsoft live applications that originated with CRAP VISTA.

Some others exist via windows update itself!

 

I don't insist on using those but you want that same stupidity there you

are. they are avaiable for XP too.

 

What else? A 500kb application (winsnap) that can be downloaded as a

portable version too no install needed

 

and google desktop to add the stupid sidebar that you love so much. Which is

a stupid idea in the first place!

 

> You ignored my points about older versions of Linux and Mac OS's vs. newer

> versions. Couldn't think of a flaw in my arguments?

 

I didn't read your stupid post till the end, I was too busy laughing at the

fanboy crap you posted at the beginning!

 

 

 

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

news:#yHUx7FHJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>

>> The worse thing about this bloat is that it slows the OS itself down,

>> unlike linux

>> where it doesn't slow down, no matter how many apps you install!

>>

>

>

> Maybe if you actually tried using Linux you could talk sensibly about it.

> If you add more services, more daemons and have more apps running it will

> run slower just as any other OS. Try running Linux with a minimum

> recommended system then add Samba server. See what the performance hit is.

> On an old laptop try adding a network manager to manage wireless

> connections and see what the performance hit is. All these things take CPU

> time. The OS is irrelevant. There's no sense in having better hardware if

> the OS doesn't use it.

>

> I see you mentioned adding a bunch of 3rd party apps to make XP work like

> Vista. Once you do this XP will run about the same as Vista on the same

> hardware. At least with Vista you don't have to hunt down all these apps

> and install them yourself. You still wouldn't have the security

> enhancements.

>

> You ignored my points about older versions of Linux and Mac OS's vs. newer

> versions. Couldn't think of a flaw in my arguments?

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

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

> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

>

>

>

>

no

 

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message

news:OBK$o9FHJHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Evidently, you must be the same troll that recently posted

> the following in the Windows 98 newsgroup:

>

> "Windows 3.x program won't work on Win98"

>

> "I hate Windows 2000, miss W98 SE."

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion&lang=en&cr=US

>

> --

> Carey Frisch

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Desktop Experience -

> Windows Vista Enthusiast

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

>

> "gerooky" wrote:

>

> 100% non-factual, totally useless garbage - and not worth repeating.

>

In article <#yHUx7FHJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,

Kerry Brown <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>

>Maybe if you actually tried using Linux you could talk sensibly about it. If

>you add more services, more daemons and have more apps running it will run

>slower just as any other OS. Try running Linux with a minimum recommended

 

Linux, in fact all unix based systems, degrade more gracefully

under load because they don't allow cooperative multitasking.

>system then add Samba server. See what the performance hit is. On an old

>laptop try adding a network manager to manage wireless connections and see

 

I use a Dell CS400 as a portable network analyzer. Running KDE

and Ethereal.

>All these things take CPU time. The OS is irrelevant.

 

No. How efficient the operating system is at memory management,

interprocess communication, context switching, and I/O all affect the load

curve.

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

news:48d70c33@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>I have been using Linux since 1998 with the release of KDE 1. That's 10

>years of experience you MS blinded MVP!

>

 

 

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.5027.908

 

You don't use it for posting.

 

--

Kerry Brown

MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

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

http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

news:gb72b8$chn$1@reader1.panix.com...

> In article <#yHUx7FHJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,

> Kerry Brown <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>>

>>Maybe if you actually tried using Linux you could talk sensibly about it.

>>If

>>you add more services, more daemons and have more apps running it will run

>>slower just as any other OS. Try running Linux with a minimum recommended

>

> Linux, in fact all unix based systems, degrade more gracefully

> under load because they don't allow cooperative multitasking.

>

 

The key point is degrade. When you add things it takes CPU time. The more

things you add the less time each one gets. Some OS's manage this better

than others but they all obey the laws of physics.

>>system then add Samba server. See what the performance hit is. On an old

>>laptop try adding a network manager to manage wireless connections and see

>

> I use a Dell CS400 as a portable network analyzer. Running KDE

> and Ethereal.

 

And does it run other tasks faster when you'r not using Ethereal? Of course

it does. This isn't really what I was talking about though. I was talking

about a typical system running on older hardware then adding a service or

app that takes a lot of CPU time. A network manager that does WPA support is

such an app.

>

>>All these things take CPU time. The OS is irrelevant.

>

> No. How efficient the operating system is at memory management,

> interprocess communication, context switching, and I/O all affect the load

> curve.

>

>

 

The OS is irrelevant in that when you split up the time each task gets, the

tasks run slower. Some OS's manage this better but in the end they all

suffer from obeying the laws of physics.

 

--

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:48d708b4@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> 5) With add on applications, so that you can install features as add ons.

> Windows Media Player 11, windows live gallery, IE8, windows live mail,

> parenting applications, and messenger are all featured as add ons,

> keeping your initial install small if you don't want them

 

"keeping your install small" doesn't seem to follow given that a variety of

the predecessors of those components are in-box. Heck, half of those

components don't ship with any OS I'm aware of. If you're going to credit

"optionally" allowing install of IE8 as a feature, you should probably also

count "optionally" allowing any other software ever made. -)

 

But I do appreciate the jokes in that "feature", given that most are

"add-ons only" with Mojave too.

> 8) We removed UAC, after much user complaints, and deciding that it was

> more

> a nuisance than doing any good

 

UAC can be improved, but if applications stop using permissions incorrectly

*everybody* benefits. Grief UAC on their failures, but many of the basic

concepts of Vista (such as don't use permissions incorrectly, don't corrupt

memory, etc) are pretty critical to the advancement of Windows. Everybody,

including XP users, benefits. And if you're not interested... it has an Off

switch.

> 17) We limited the versions to less editions to not confuse the consumers

 

So for the average XP user you have Home, Pro, Tablet, and several versions

of Media Center. That's less than the Vista "consumer stack" of Home Basic,

Home Pro, Ultimate how? -)

 

The SKU story in Vista may be too broad for your personal tastes, but it

sure is a lot more sensible than the XP-era SKU plan where the other SKUs

were more of a patch than a subset/superset. Clearly it could be cleaned up

further, but Vista is a pretty powerful step forward and gets things on the

right track.

 

 

The cool thing is, regardless of your feelings pro or con, there's the

chance to improve and do better in the future. =)

 

--

Speaking for myself only.

See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

All my hardware is Vista compaitble.

I don't have any problems running Vista.

I just don't like the look and feel of it.

All the rearranging and supposed security improvements show me nothing new,

just UAC being a Pain in my ass (and designed that way on purpose according

to MS).

The interface went backwards on intuitive design, not forwards.

The eye candy means nothing, if I want pretty, I'll go to an art gallery.

I just want my computer to work, and XP does everything Vista does, but

faster on the same hardware.

Unless MS actually makes Vista do something that XP can't (besides irritate

me with UAC prompts) they might as well quit making new Vista DVDs.

 

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

news:OWtBk.27317$rV4.1403@newsfe03.iad...

>

> "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.

>

I got a free copy for Beta testing, but I also got Vista preinstalled on 2

brand new machines.

They both dual boot XP/Vista now, and Vista doesn't get much screen time.

 

I've been trying to learn to like Vista for over 3 years, but it hasn't

happened.

I boot it occasionally, but the more I use it, the more I dislike it.

If they had actually listened to those in Beta who said...Why did you do it

that way, they wouldn't be fighting the bad press Vista gets (IMHO

deservedly so).

I didn't get in on the W95 test, so I can't compare that one but I think

the W98/ME/W2K/XP Beta teams were more responsive to the Beta testers than

the Vista team.

XP wasn't perfect when it was released, but IMHO, Vista should never have

gone RTM in it's present form.

 

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

news:48d6a3c4$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>I didn't say that. I said MS should give a good price for those upgrading

>from vista to win7 as a plead for forgiveness for the mistakes they made

>with vista.

>

> HOWEVER....

>

> Im sure you got your copy of vista for free.. didn't you ? Hmmmm?

>

> the truth now! lol

>

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

> news:#RLp63BHJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

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

>> news:48d69200@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>>> And you are always right, yes?

>>>

>>> I am not always right on everything, but in things like this where I

>>> have researched them for endless hours and have personal experience not

>>> only on my machines but others as well, and when I hear the same story

>>> from everyone..

>>>

>>> well I must be right. You even see microsoft trying to figure out how to

>>> make people accept vista somehow...

>>>

>>> Its wasted time, all those stupid advertisements, and mojove experiments

>>> will have no effect, they should hurry up and make windows7 as best as

>>> possible fixing all vista blunders,

>>> and give a super good discount to people upgrading from vista.

>>>

>>>

>>>

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

>>> news:#5U#1XBHJHA.3932@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

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

>>>> news:48d68dab$2@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>>>> You are more of a troll than I. You insist on glorifying a faulty

>>>>> product and claiming its everyone else's fault but vistas!

>>>>>

>>>>> Look on google and see how much people "love" (im saying this

>>>>> ironically of course) vista.

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't hate vista, heck I use vista, but I have full understanding of

>>>>> its qualities and shortcomings.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

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

>>>>> news:eAiQMHBHJHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> "Paul Montgomery" <i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:5a1dd49m2igvqmmtnot0m2v65emibhld9g@4ax.com...

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

>>>>>>> replying to him/her.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> True, but it is Sunday, the day of rest from normal work, and time to

>>>>>> have fun.. :-)

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> 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

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> And you are always right, yes?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> 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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>

>>

>> Ah, I get it now.. you want everything for free.. You should have said so

>> at the beginning..

>>

>>

>> --

>> 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

>>

>>

>>

>>

Geez, can I have some of those drugs? LOL

I'm glad you like it, but some people thought the 73 Chevette was a great

car too...

 

"joel406" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message

news:4090cbb052edbbb1b8b3e9607f827dc2@nntp-gateway.com...

>

> To settle the argument!

> Vista is the best MS has ever made.

> Read it!

> Learn it!

> Get over it!

> --

> joel406

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

news:48d708b4@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> Non Sequitur. Your Facts are Uncoordinated.

> All that I stated are correct NOW with vista sp1.

> I think I know vista far better than you do.

>

> Here is a summary of the new version of windows

>

> At last we listened and here are the features of the NEW and IMPROVED

> version of windows

>

> 1) 30% Faster than its predecessor (vista)

> 2) Compact installation, the installer even fits on a CD

> 3) Needs half the ram and one fifth the hard disk space to install

> 4) Now features GDI acceleration for lightning fast window drawing

> 5) With add on applications, so that you can install features as add ons.

> Windows Media Player 11, windows live gallery, IE8, windows live mail,

> parenting applications, and messenger are all featured as add ons,

> keeping your initial install small if you don't want them

> 6) We removed shadow copy because it was filling up the hard disks too

> fast,

> and we made a better system restore that can now be controlled via a lever

> to define the space it uses.

> 7) Updated disk defragmenter tool with visual feedback so you will know

> what

> is going on.

> 8) We removed UAC, after much user complaints, and deciding that it was

> more

> a nuisance than doing any good

> 9) we added the FAX back to ALL versions of WINDOWS!!!! (vista had it only

> in business and premium)

> 10) We listened to you and made the toolbars of windows explorer

> configurable, now you can add that up button and the delete button

> 12) We removed the breadcrumbs that most people didn't understand and was

> confusing.

> 13) We made all important menus viewable in windows explore and internet

> explorer

> 14) Faster boot times

> 15) Far more compatible. Now you can use ALL your older hardware with no

> problem at all!

> 16) All applications now work with no problem

> 17) We limited the versions to less editions to not confuse the consumers

> 18) A better search that search all your disk without having services

> slowing down your computer with no reason.

> If indexing is preferred an addon is downloadable via windows update.

>

> We call this version of windows>> WINDOWS XP!!!!!!

>

>

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

> news:u$WnV1FHJHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

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

>> news:48d6ff2c@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>> let me reply to every single one of those stupid things you list ok?

>>>

>>> > Built in search,

>>> Give me a break the vista search indexing is a buggy problematic horrid

>>> defective piece of crap that I disable at once after I install vista!

>>>

>>>>better firewall

>>> The better features are hidden someone where no normal user will look.

>>> Usless for the masses.

>>>

>>>>service hardening

>>> The amount of services has increased too much, it's a bloat paradise! MS

>>> is trying to REDUCE the amount of services in windows7

>>>

>>>>much better default user interface

>>> You can install a theme for XP, big deal!

>>>

>>>>64 bit version has much better driver support,

>>> 32 bit version has much worse driver support than XP.. lol

>>>

>>>>can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active

>>>>desktop

>>>

>>> Big deal! One click was not that hard to save as bmp. The ram needed to

>>> display the wallpaper is the same either in jpg or bmp.

>>>

>>>>active desktop no longer exists

>>>

>>> Many people are really mad about this since they used it for tasks!

>>>

>>>>S3 sleep support,

>>> XP could go in standby too.

>>>

>>>>Windows sidebar,

>>> Crap eyecandy, but if you insist google sidebar with google desktop and

>>> yahoo gadgets all free.

>>>

>>>>snipping tool

>>> Winsnap free version, better than the stupid snipping tool

>>>

>>>>photo gallery

>>> Live photo gallery installs on XP and is also crap, XNVIEW is free and

>>> much better.

>>>

>>>>much better performance measuring

>>> Yeah you need it to try to figure out what the heck is making vista so

>>> SLOW!!!!!!!!1

>>>

>>>>DVD maker

>>> I never needed such an app but im sure there are alternative free ones

>>> out there.

>>>

>>>>bitlocker

>>> Not on all versions of vista!!!! most people have home premium

>>>

>>>>image based deployment

>>>

>>> Boat deployment, XP installs faster and better and is more versatile

>>> than vista

>>>

>>>>directx 10

>>> That's a marketing SCAM! there was no reason for it not to be given to

>>> XP users.

>>> In fact I have seen a version hacked that installs on XP and works

>>> great! lol

>>>

>>>>Mobility Center

>>> Not many use it.. if you are going to point every small utility that

>>> comes with crapista to try to make it look good

>>> then I think I must point to UBUNTU that has THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of

>>> free applications !!!!!

>>>

>>>>Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts,

>>>

>>> see live messenger, live mail desktop wave 3

>>>

>>>>scalable icons

>>>

>>> Insignificant improvement, just eyecandy

>>>

>>>

>>>>breadcrumbs

>>> GOD forbid this STUPID MORON IDEA!!!! available on XP with an explorer

>>> addon though if you insist

>>> NO UP BUTTON!!!! GoD VISTA IS STUPID!

>>>

>>>>usable parental controls

>>> See live wave 3 pls

>>>

>>>> ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications, credential

>>>> providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless

>>>> encryption support, ...

>>>

>>> Yeah yeah things that consumers don't give a heck about...

>>>

>>> Look vista is just a pile of crap because it offers no significant

>>> improvement..

>>>

>>> all that stuff is mostly BLOAT, and not improvement on the OS itself.

>>>

>>> The worse thing about this bloat is that it slows the OS itself down,

>>> unlike linux

>>> where it doesn't slow down, no matter how many apps you install!

>>>

>>> I would like to see increase in performance and the ability for it to be

>>> MORE compatible with applications and

>>> hardware... then give me icons that can be scaled.

>>>

>>> by the way the scalability of icons is MUCH worse than what was promised

>>> in longhorn.

>>> I know the story, I know the promises.. Vista is a stupid degraded crap

>>> OS that was pushed onto people

>>> by force.

>>>

>>>

>>> Vista has BAD PERFORMANCE and COMPATIBILITY that's what people care

>>> about most...

>>> add on small programs and eye candy are the last things they care about.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,

>>>> better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit

>>>> version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the

>>>> desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no

>>>> longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo

>>>> gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better

>>>> performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility

>>>> Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons,

>>>> breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support,

>>>> integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of

>>>> GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

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

>>> news:#bL7zTFHJHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

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

>>>> news:0pmdd4li1n2pue28rm718d88llkgsn6046@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:44:27 -0700, "Kerry Brown"

>>>>> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>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.

>>>>>

>>>>> The point is that Vista requires twice the hardware and still runs

>>>>> slower.

>>>>>

>>>>> I invite you (too) to tell me what improvements Vista has that merit

>>>>> the increase in hardware.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Built in search, better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,

>>>> better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit

>>>> version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the

>>>> desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no

>>>> longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo

>>>> gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better

>>>> performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility

>>>> Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons,

>>>> breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support,

>>>> integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of

>>>> GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

>>>>

>>>> There's a few I can think of. I'm sure I missed more than I could come

>>>> up with off the top of my head. And before you say this can be added to

>>>> XP - Yes some of it can, but at what cost in both money and

>>>> performance?

>>>>

>>>> Another point is that the minimum recommended system for Vista is

>>>> considerably less expensive than the minimum recommended XP system was

>>>> when both OS's were released. More importantly a decent Vista system is

>>>> about 3/4 the price of decent XP system at a similar point in the

>>>> timeline of XP development. If you take inflation into account it's

>>>> actually less than 1/2 the cost.

>>>>

>>>> I also take issue with your assertion that Vista runs slower than XP.

>>>> If you compare like with like i.e. a decent Vista system from today

>>>> with a decent XP system from 1 1/2 years after XP was released I think

>>>> you'll find the Vista system a better performer. Saying XP outperforms

>>>> Vista on the same hardware is like saying Windows 98 outperforms XP on

>>>> the same hardware. Yes, in both cases this is true. What is also true

>>>> is that a typical XP system would outperform a typical Windows 98

>>>> system and be much nicer to use. The same holds true with Vista vs. XP.

>>>> The point is the typical system changes over time as hardware comes

>>>> down in price and has better performance. Should we ignore hardware

>>>> improvements and only program for old, outdated hardware. I don't know

>>>> any OS that does that. Do you? I've been running Fedora since it was

>>>> Redhat 5.2. My first Redhat system was a PII with 32 MB. Do you think

>>>> Fedora 9 would run on it? Would Redhat 5.2 outperform Fedora 9 on a new

>>>> system? How about OS X on my old PowerCenter Pro?

>>>>

>>>> Things change. Life and OS's move on. It's too bad some people can't

>>>> deal with this.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Kerry Brown

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

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

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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>

>>

>> Almost all of your arguments against Vista are either personal subjective

>> view or are based on the first two months of Vista release..

>>

>> You are a troll..

>>

>> --

>> 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

 

XP is not 30% faster than XP, and definitely not on my system.

 

XP, running 512mb, had its best performance if the Classic look was set. The

Fisher-Price color scheme really dragged it down.

 

XP would blue screen if it didn't like drivers, and could not get back up if

it fell over.

 

XP repair installs were more common than Vista system restores.

 

XP needed 40 minutes or so to install. Vista does the same job in 25

minutes.

 

XP hardware and software compatibility at the beginning of its tour sucked

big time.

 

XP would not run on Win98 or ME spec machines. The processors were too slow,

the hard drives too small, and there was never enough RAM. What price an

upgrade back then? The only users who suffer are upgraders.

 

The standard spec of machines has always risen commensurate with the

incumbent OS. We pay no more for a the standard spec than we did six years

ago.

 

Users became paranoiac about hard drive space when trying to run XP on a

drive which previously had Win 98 installed. Old habits die hard, it would

appear.

 

XP really came of age at SP2, which was a major rewrite of 5 million lines

of code. But it still suffered BSODs throughout its lifespan.

 

If you were as competent as you say you are, you would have gotten over many

of the 'problems' you mention continually. But you don't have these

problems, do you. Everything you mention is an assortment of issues that

were around at the beginning of the Vista life cycle.

 

I love the way that you trolls shrug off all of the features of Vista,

claiming that most people will or would not use them. Talk about tailoring

your arguments to fit the case...............!!!

 

Trolls made the same type of comments when XP first appeared. The claim was

that Win 98 was the best ever, even though it had the ability to blue screen

on its first boot after installing, and could blue screen without any input

from the user.

 

You change your name constantly to beat the kill files.

 

You are a troll, and a fairly incompetent troll too if the problems which

you claim to have can't be fixed.

 

--

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

"Vista Cabal" <vista_cabal@msnews.grp> wrote in

news:ODx#vzFHJHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>

> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

> news:gb62ib$ggh$1@reader1.panix.com...

>>

>> Remember, linux will run on a 100MHz embedded ARM processor.

>>

>

> Who is bothered to remeber the 100MHz, let a lone still have one. If

> that's a standing ovation point for Linux, best leave it in the past

> too.

 

They weren't talking 100mhz 486 PC's.

First of all lets get this straight.

I am not a troll.

 

Just because I continuislly bash vista doesn't make me a troll. It makes me

a person with a very valid opinon.

If you don't think its valid.. ok.. good for you, but that doesn't make me a

troll.

>Trolls made the same type of comments when XP first appeared. The claim was

>that Win 98 was the best ever, even though it had the ability to blue

>screen on its first boot after installing, and could blue screen without

>any input from the user.

 

Only a stupid person would say that 98 was better than XP. 98 was a piece of

crap, it has so many problems.

In ever ever ever ever said that .. in fact for me winxp was a MIRACLE right

from the start...

 

There was a guy that actually said that... and I stared at him thinking

"this guy is crazy"!!!

 

Due to its better memory management I was able to increase my productivity

around 200% with it, by creating far more complex graphics that I could

before with stupid win98.

That paid off... I quadrupled my income in 6 months then, and since then XP

has served me very very well.

 

Only later did I use win2000... and was hitting my head on the wall why didn't

I go from 98 to win2k right away once it was available.

I lost 2 years with win98!!!

 

The thing is that win2k was not advertised as an OS for everyone... but XP

was.

>You change your name constantly to beat the kill files.

 

WRONG! I change my nick because I get bored with the same nick, I use many

computers and trolls like spanky de monkey changes their names to yours to

make fun of you

and generally give you a hard time.

> Everything you mention is an assortment of issues that were around at the

> beginning of the Vista life cycle.

 

All these problem still exist... they have not gone away and they will never

go away from vista.

 

And I didn't even mention the problems vista has in the GUI design! lol I

could write a book about the stupidity that's built into vista!

 

stupid changes for the sake of change that make everything crappier!

 

 

 

 

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

news:e8uVbhKHJHA.3640@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

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

> news:48d708b4@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> Non Sequitur. Your Facts are Uncoordinated.

>> All that I stated are correct NOW with vista sp1.

>> I think I know vista far better than you do.

>>

>> Here is a summary of the new version of windows

>>

>> At last we listened and here are the features of the NEW and IMPROVED

>> version of windows

>>

>> 1) 30% Faster than its predecessor (vista)

>> 2) Compact installation, the installer even fits on a CD

>> 3) Needs half the ram and one fifth the hard disk space to install

>> 4) Now features GDI acceleration for lightning fast window drawing

>> 5) With add on applications, so that you can install features as add ons.

>> Windows Media Player 11, windows live gallery, IE8, windows live mail,

>> parenting applications, and messenger are all featured as add ons,

>> keeping your initial install small if you don't want them

>> 6) We removed shadow copy because it was filling up the hard disks too

>> fast,

>> and we made a better system restore that can now be controlled via a

>> lever

>> to define the space it uses.

>> 7) Updated disk defragmenter tool with visual feedback so you will know

>> what

>> is going on.

>> 8) We removed UAC, after much user complaints, and deciding that it was

>> more

>> a nuisance than doing any good

>> 9) we added the FAX back to ALL versions of WINDOWS!!!! (vista had it

>> only

>> in business and premium)

>> 10) We listened to you and made the toolbars of windows explorer

>> configurable, now you can add that up button and the delete button

>> 12) We removed the breadcrumbs that most people didn't understand and was

>> confusing.

>> 13) We made all important menus viewable in windows explore and internet

>> explorer

>> 14) Faster boot times

>> 15) Far more compatible. Now you can use ALL your older hardware with no

>> problem at all!

>> 16) All applications now work with no problem

>> 17) We limited the versions to less editions to not confuse the consumers

>> 18) A better search that search all your disk without having services

>> slowing down your computer with no reason.

>> If indexing is preferred an addon is downloadable via windows update.

>>

>> We call this version of windows>> WINDOWS XP!!!!!!

>>

>>

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

>> news:u$WnV1FHJHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

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

>>> news:48d6ff2c@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>>> let me reply to every single one of those stupid things you list ok?

>>>>

>>>> > Built in search,

>>>> Give me a break the vista search indexing is a buggy problematic horrid

>>>> defective piece of crap that I disable at once after I install vista!

>>>>

>>>>>better firewall

>>>> The better features are hidden someone where no normal user will look.

>>>> Usless for the masses.

>>>>

>>>>>service hardening

>>>> The amount of services has increased too much, it's a bloat paradise!

>>>> MS is trying to REDUCE the amount of services in windows7

>>>>

>>>>>much better default user interface

>>>> You can install a theme for XP, big deal!

>>>>

>>>>>64 bit version has much better driver support,

>>>> 32 bit version has much worse driver support than XP.. lol

>>>>

>>>>>can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active

>>>>>desktop

>>>>

>>>> Big deal! One click was not that hard to save as bmp. The ram needed to

>>>> display the wallpaper is the same either in jpg or bmp.

>>>>

>>>>>active desktop no longer exists

>>>>

>>>> Many people are really mad about this since they used it for tasks!

>>>>

>>>>>S3 sleep support,

>>>> XP could go in standby too.

>>>>

>>>>>Windows sidebar,

>>>> Crap eyecandy, but if you insist google sidebar with google desktop and

>>>> yahoo gadgets all free.

>>>>

>>>>>snipping tool

>>>> Winsnap free version, better than the stupid snipping tool

>>>>

>>>>>photo gallery

>>>> Live photo gallery installs on XP and is also crap, XNVIEW is free and

>>>> much better.

>>>>

>>>>>much better performance measuring

>>>> Yeah you need it to try to figure out what the heck is making vista so

>>>> SLOW!!!!!!!!1

>>>>

>>>>>DVD maker

>>>> I never needed such an app but im sure there are alternative free ones

>>>> out there.

>>>>

>>>>>bitlocker

>>>> Not on all versions of vista!!!! most people have home premium

>>>>

>>>>>image based deployment

>>>>

>>>> Boat deployment, XP installs faster and better and is more versatile

>>>> than vista

>>>>

>>>>>directx 10

>>>> That's a marketing SCAM! there was no reason for it not to be given to

>>>> XP users.

>>>> In fact I have seen a version hacked that installs on XP and works

>>>> great! lol

>>>>

>>>>>Mobility Center

>>>> Not many use it.. if you are going to point every small utility that

>>>> comes with crapista to try to make it look good

>>>> then I think I must point to UBUNTU that has THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS

>>>> of free applications !!!!!

>>>>

>>>>>Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts,

>>>>

>>>> see live messenger, live mail desktop wave 3

>>>>

>>>>>scalable icons

>>>>

>>>> Insignificant improvement, just eyecandy

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>breadcrumbs

>>>> GOD forbid this STUPID MORON IDEA!!!! available on XP with an explorer

>>>> addon though if you insist

>>>> NO UP BUTTON!!!! GoD VISTA IS STUPID!

>>>>

>>>>>usable parental controls

>>>> See live wave 3 pls

>>>>

>>>>> ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications,

>>>>> credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better

>>>>> wireless encryption support, ...

>>>>

>>>> Yeah yeah things that consumers don't give a heck about...

>>>>

>>>> Look vista is just a pile of crap because it offers no significant

>>>> improvement..

>>>>

>>>> all that stuff is mostly BLOAT, and not improvement on the OS itself.

>>>>

>>>> The worse thing about this bloat is that it slows the OS itself down,

>>>> unlike linux

>>>> where it doesn't slow down, no matter how many apps you install!

>>>>

>>>> I would like to see increase in performance and the ability for it to

>>>> be MORE compatible with applications and

>>>> hardware... then give me icons that can be scaled.

>>>>

>>>> by the way the scalability of icons is MUCH worse than what was

>>>> promised in longhorn.

>>>> I know the story, I know the promises.. Vista is a stupid degraded crap

>>>> OS that was pushed onto people

>>>> by force.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Vista has BAD PERFORMANCE and COMPATIBILITY that's what people care

>>>> about most...

>>>> add on small programs and eye candy are the last things they care

>>>> about.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,

>>>>> better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit

>>>>> version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the

>>>>> desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no

>>>>> longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo

>>>>> gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better

>>>>> performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility

>>>>> Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons,

>>>>> breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support,

>>>>> integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of

>>>>> GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

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

>>>> news:#bL7zTFHJHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

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

>>>>> news:0pmdd4li1n2pue28rm718d88llkgsn6046@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:44:27 -0700, "Kerry Brown"

>>>>>> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>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.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The point is that Vista requires twice the hardware and still runs

>>>>>> slower.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I invite you (too) to tell me what improvements Vista has that merit

>>>>>> the increase in hardware.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Built in search, better firewall, service hardening, IE protected

>>>>> mode, better memory management, much better default user interface, 64

>>>>> bit version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the

>>>>> desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no

>>>>> longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo

>>>>> gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better

>>>>> performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility

>>>>> Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons,

>>>>> breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support,

>>>>> integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of

>>>>> GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

>>>>>

>>>>> There's a few I can think of. I'm sure I missed more than I could come

>>>>> up with off the top of my head. And before you say this can be added

>>>>> to XP - Yes some of it can, but at what cost in both money and

>>>>> performance?

>>>>>

>>>>> Another point is that the minimum recommended system for Vista is

>>>>> considerably less expensive than the minimum recommended XP system was

>>>>> when both OS's were released. More importantly a decent Vista system

>>>>> is about 3/4 the price of decent XP system at a similar point in the

>>>>> timeline of XP development. If you take inflation into account it's

>>>>> actually less than 1/2 the cost.

>>>>>

>>>>> I also take issue with your assertion that Vista runs slower than XP.

>>>>> If you compare like with like i.e. a decent Vista system from today

>>>>> with a decent XP system from 1 1/2 years after XP was released I think

>>>>> you'll find the Vista system a better performer. Saying XP outperforms

>>>>> Vista on the same hardware is like saying Windows 98 outperforms XP on

>>>>> the same hardware. Yes, in both cases this is true. What is also true

>>>>> is that a typical XP system would outperform a typical Windows 98

>>>>> system and be much nicer to use. The same holds true with Vista vs.

>>>>> XP. The point is the typical system changes over time as hardware

>>>>> comes down in price and has better performance. Should we ignore

>>>>> hardware improvements and only program for old, outdated hardware. I

>>>>> don't know any OS that does that. Do you? I've been running Fedora

>>>>> since it was Redhat 5.2. My first Redhat system was a PII with 32 MB.

>>>>> Do you think Fedora 9 would run on it? Would Redhat 5.2 outperform

>>>>> Fedora 9 on a new system? How about OS X on my old PowerCenter Pro?

>>>>>

>>>>> Things change. Life and OS's move on. It's too bad some people can't

>>>>> deal with this.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Kerry Brown

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

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

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

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Almost all of your arguments against Vista are either personal

>>> subjective view or are based on the first two months of Vista release..

>>>

>>> You are a troll..

>>>

>>> --

>>> 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

>

> XP is not 30% faster than XP, and definitely not on my system.

>

> XP, running 512mb, had its best performance if the Classic look was set.

> The Fisher-Price color scheme really dragged it down.

>

> XP would blue screen if it didn't like drivers, and could not get back up

> if it fell over.

>

> XP repair installs were more common than Vista system restores.

>

> XP needed 40 minutes or so to install. Vista does the same job in 25

> minutes.

>

> XP hardware and software compatibility at the beginning of its tour sucked

> big time.

>

> XP would not run on Win98 or ME spec machines. The processors were too

> slow, the hard drives too small, and there was never enough RAM. What

> price an upgrade back then? The only users who suffer are upgraders.

>

> The standard spec of machines has always risen commensurate with the

> incumbent OS. We pay no more for a the standard spec than we did six years

> ago.

>

> Users became paranoiac about hard drive space when trying to run XP on a

> drive which previously had Win 98 installed. Old habits die hard, it would

> appear.

>

> XP really came of age at SP2, which was a major rewrite of 5 million lines

> of code. But it still suffered BSODs throughout its lifespan.

>

> If you were as competent as you say you are, you would have gotten over

> many of the 'problems' you mention continually. But you don't have these

> problems, do you. Everything you mention is an assortment of issues that

> were around at the beginning of the Vista life cycle.

>

> I love the way that you trolls shrug off all of the features of Vista,

> claiming that most people will or would not use them. Talk about tailoring

> your arguments to fit the case...............!!!

>

> Trolls made the same type of comments when XP first appeared. The claim

> was that Win 98 was the best ever, even though it had the ability to blue

> screen on its first boot after installing, and could blue screen without

> any input from the user.

>

> You change your name constantly to beat the kill files.

>

> You are a troll, and a fairly incompetent troll too if the problems which

> you claim to have can't be fixed.

>

> --

> 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 wrote:

 

--------------------------------------

 

STFU!

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:58:29 +0300, "gerooky" <g@ish.com> wrote:

> First of all lets get this straight.

> I am not a troll.

>

> Just because I continuislly bash vista doesn't make me a troll. It makes me

> a person with a very valid opinon.

> If you don't think its valid.. ok.. good for you, but that doesn't make me a

> troll.

 

 

That is exactly what *does* make you a troll.

 

This is a newsgroup for a single purpose: helping people with general

Windows Vista problems.

 

If you are asking for help or providing it to those who ask, you are

on topic and not trolling.

 

If you are continually bashing Vista, you are off-topic and clearly

trolling. Whether your opinion or right is wrong doesn't matter it's

off-topic, therefore trolling, and doesn't belong here.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Re: Ringmaster, Frank's, Ass Licker:

 

Ringmaster, Frank's Ass Licker wrote:

 

<---insane rage rant deleted as a public service->

 

hehehe...what's wrong you fat little cock-sucking PIG? Did your

butt-buddy bubba turn you down last night!...LOL!

Get some help, you insane demented lunatic!