MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

when is win8 going to be released? do you have a date?

 

 

 

"Stan Starinski" wrote in message

 

news:i31prf$g83$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

 

 

Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon.

 

If you like Linux, please enjoy.

 

 

 

We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason:

 

It's a paid-for product, not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff

 

BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS + TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs, it

 

creates cheap or no jobs. It's a hobby. It's great, but let people also

 

use Windows, please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed with Open

 

Sores Software.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:25:53 -0500, Stan Starinski wrote:

 

 

> Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon. If you like Linux,

 

> please enjoy.

 

>

 

> We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason: It's a paid-for product,

 

> not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS +

 

> TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs, it creates cheap or no

 

> jobs. It's a hobby. It's great, but let people also use Windows,

 

> please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed with Open Sores

 

> Software.

 

 

 

If you insist, you can indeed buy a commercial Linux version: SLES (SuSE

 

Linux Enterprise) or RedHat Enterprise are two that come to mind. You

 

also purchase support when you do that.

Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon.

 

If you like Linux, please enjoy.

 

 

 

We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason:

 

It's a paid-for product, not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff

 

BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS + TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs, it

 

creates cheap or no jobs. It's a hobby. It's great, but let people also

 

use Windows, please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed with Open

 

Sores Software.

On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

computers' memory. It also failed to work on older PCs. Windows 7 has

 

been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

computer hardware.

alias hates Microsoft and never used Vista!

 

On 7/31/2010 9:44 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else?

 

 

 

Oh? Who told you that little tidbit of misinformation?

 

Wait...you made that up all by your little self didn't you, sheep-fucker!

 

Your MS hatred is noted.

 

 

 

Windows 98 SE was OK

 

> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

 

 

hehehe...does the fact that Vista SP2 is an excellent OS still used by

 

millions and wholly supported by Microsoft get your panties all in a bunch?

 

Good!

 

 

 

It is also noted that you never, ever, used Vista so you really have no

 

first hand knowledge of just how good it really is.

 

We also note that you're an MS hating, lying linturd TROLL.

 

Oops!

capin' crunch needs to start saving now...!

 

On 7/31/2010 12:03 PM, capin' crunch wrote:

 

> when is win8 going to be released? do you have a date?

 

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

 

Best you start saving your monthly allowance now!

On 7/31/2010 12:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>

 

>

 

>

 

> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

> computers' memory.

 

 

 

Only in some obscure configurations, but not for the majority of users.

 

Did you use or are you using Vista?

 

 

 

It also failed to work on older PCs.

 

 

 

Not in the majority of case.

 

 

 

Windows 7 has

 

> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

> computer hardware.

 

 

 

Windows 7 is built on Vista, but with enough changes to not be simply an

 

SP to Vista.

On 7/31/2010 12:25 PM, ray wrote:

 

> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:25:53 -0500, Stan Starinski wrote:

 

>

 

>> Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon. If you like Linux,

 

>> please enjoy.

 

>>

 

>> We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason: It's a paid-for product,

 

>> not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS +

 

>> TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs, it creates cheap or no

 

>> jobs. It's a hobby. It's great, but let people also use Windows,

 

>> please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed with Open Sores

 

>> Software.

 

>

 

> If you insist, you can indeed buy a commercial Linux version: SLES (SuSE

 

> Linux Enterprise) or RedHat Enterprise are two that come to mind. You

 

> also purchase support when you do that.

 

 

 

Still dodging my question ray?

 

Why is that? Are you afraid of the truth?

 

Figures!

Your brain was built with shit, but with enough changes so that you could

 

bable at least some nonsense in newsgroups

 

 

 

"Frank" wrote in message news:4c548053$1@news.x-privat.org...

 

 

 

On 7/31/2010 12:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>

 

>

 

>

 

> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

> computers' memory.

 

 

 

Only in some obscure configurations, but not for the majority of users.

 

Did you use or are you using Vista?

 

 

 

It also failed to work on older PCs.

 

 

 

Not in the majority of case.

 

 

 

Windows 7 has

 

> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

> computer hardware.

 

 

 

Windows 7 is built on Vista, but with enough changes to not be simply an

 

SP to Vista.

>Still dodging my question ray?

 

>Why is that? Are you afraid of the truth?

 

>Figures!

 

 

 

Why are you asking Franky boy? want to rent him space in your

 

basement-hideout from the truth?

 

 

 

And no the fact that you have decorated it like the batcave DOES NOT MAKE IT

 

COOL!

 

 

 

"Frank" wrote in message news:4c54807a$1@news.x-privat.org...

 

 

 

On 7/31/2010 12:25 PM, ray wrote:

 

> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:25:53 -0500, Stan Starinski wrote:

 

>

 

>> Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon. If you like Linux,

 

>> please enjoy.

 

>>

 

>> We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason: It's a paid-for product,

 

>> not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS +

 

>> TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs, it creates cheap or no

 

>> jobs. It's a hobby. It's great, but let people also use Windows,

 

>> please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed with Open Sores

 

>> Software.

 

>

 

> If you insist, you can indeed buy a commercial Linux version: SLES (SuSE

 

> Linux Enterprise) or RedHat Enterprise are two that come to mind. You

 

> also purchase support when you do that.

 

 

 

Still dodging my question ray?

 

Why is that? Are you afraid of the truth?

 

Figures!

capin' crunch, the goat fucker, thinks he is Batman!

 

On 7/31/2010 3:04 PM, capin' crunch, the goat fucker wrote:

 

>> Still dodging my question ray?

 

>> Why is that? Are you afraid of the truth?

 

>> Figures!

 

>

 

> Why are you asking Franky boy? want to rent him space in your

 

> basement-hideout from the truth?

 

 

 

Try speaking English, you moron.

 

>

 

> And no the fact that you have decorated it like the batcave DOES NOT

 

> MAKE IT COOL!

 

 

 

capin' crunch, the goat fucker, thinks he is Batman!...Hahahaha!!!

capin' crunch, the goat fucker, likes to babble...LOL!

 

On 7/31/2010 3:02 PM,capin' crunch, the goat fucker wrote:

 

My brain was built with shit, but with enough changes so that I

 

could bable at least some nonsense in newsgroups

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

And babble you do!

 

Oops!

On 07/31/2010 09:25 PM, Stan Starinski wrote:

 

> Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon.

 

> If you like Linux, please enjoy.

 

 

 

I like both.

 

 

>

 

> We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason:

 

> It's a paid-for product, not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff

 

> BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS + TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs,

 

> it creates cheap or no jobs.

 

 

 

Except for those people who cannot afford Windows and it affords them a

 

way to start their own business on line or find a job.

 

 

> It's a hobby. It's great, but let people

 

> also use Windows, please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed

 

> with Open Sores Software.

 

 

 

I didn't ask you to switch.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 07/31/2010 09:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>

 

>

 

>

 

> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

> computers' memory. It also failed to work on older PCs. Windows 7 has

 

> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

> computer hardware.

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

Windows 7 is pretty piggy with resources compared to XP or Linux.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 31/07/2010 8:58 PM, Frank wrote:

 

> On 7/31/2010 12:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

>> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

>>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

>> computers' memory.

 

>

 

> Only in some obscure configurations, but not for the majority of users.

 

> Did you use or are you using Vista?

 

>

 

> It also failed to work on older PCs.

 

>

 

> Not in the majority of case.

 

>

 

> Windows 7 has

 

>> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

>> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

>> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

>> computer hardware.

 

>

 

> Windows 7 is built on Vista, but with enough changes to not be simply an

 

> SP to Vista.

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

I've been using Windows since Win 95 and I've got to say Vista was bad

 

and the company I work for downgraded back to XP. Win 98Se and 2000

 

are/were superb. It seems odd, doesn't it, that Windows 7 has come just

 

two-and-a-half years after Vista, which came after many delays and about

 

seven years in development?

On 7/31/2010 4:18 PM, Alias wrote:

 

> On 07/31/2010 09:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

>> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

>>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

>> computers' memory. It also failed to work on older PCs. Windows 7 has

 

>> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

>> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

>> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

>> computer hardware.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Windows 7 is pretty piggy with resources compared to XP or Linux.

 

>

 

What a stupid statement seeing as how resources on a computer are there

 

to be used, not "saved".

On 7/31/2010 4:16 PM, Alias wrote:

 

> On 07/31/2010 09:25 PM, Stan Starinski wrote:

 

>> Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon.

 

>> If you like Linux, please enjoy.

 

>

 

> I like both.

 

 

 

You only need Windows 7 to do everything and anything on a desktop computer.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason:

 

>> It's a paid-for product, not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff

 

>> BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS + TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs,

 

>> it creates cheap or no jobs.

 

>

 

> Except for those people who cannot afford Windows and it affords them a

 

> way to start their own business on line or find a job.

 

 

 

If they can afford a computer, odds are, it already has Windows installed.

 

>

 

>> It's a hobby. It's great, but let people

 

>> also use Windows, please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed

 

>> with Open Sores Software.

 

>

 

> I didn't ask you to switch.

 

 

 

LIAR! You push switching to linux all the time while spreading FUD about

 

MS & Windows.

you are retired and have time to bust our balls with nonsense every day? go

 

fuck yourself!

 

go to a nursing home, better yet to a cemetery! PS you will find your son

 

spanky there feeding off the dead corpses

 

 

 

"Frank" wrote in message news:4c54ba23$1@news.x-privat.org...

 

 

 

On 7/31/2010 4:18 PM, Alias wrote:

 

> On 07/31/2010 09:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

>> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE was OK

 

>>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

>> computers' memory. It also failed to work on older PCs. Windows 7 has

 

>> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

>> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

>> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

>> computer hardware.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Windows 7 is pretty piggy with resources compared to XP or Linux.

 

>

 

What a stupid statement seeing as how resources on a computer are there

 

to be used, not "saved".

On 7/31/2010 5:04 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

> On 31/07/2010 8:58 PM, Frank wrote:

 

>> On 7/31/2010 12:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

>>> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>>>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE

 

>>>> was OK

 

>>>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>>>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

>>> computers' memory.

 

>>

 

>> Only in some obscure configurations, but not for the majority of users.

 

>> Did you use or are you using Vista?

 

>>

 

>> It also failed to work on older PCs.

 

>>

 

>> Not in the majority of case.

 

>>

 

>> Windows 7 has

 

>>> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

>>> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

>>> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

>>> computer hardware.

 

>>

 

>> Windows 7 is built on Vista, but with enough changes to not be simply an

 

>> SP to Vista.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> I've been using Windows since Win 95 and I've got to say Vista was bad

 

> and the company I work for downgraded back to XP.

 

 

 

How many seats does your company have? Did they test Vista before

 

rolling it out to all seats? Did they actually roll it out to all and

 

then downgrade back to XP?

 

 

 

Win 98Se and 2000

 

> are/were superb. It seems odd, doesn't it, that Windows 7 has come just

 

> two-and-a-half years after Vista,

 

 

 

Three years...which is the "normal" development/release cycle for MS's OS's.

 

 

 

which came after many delays and about

 

> seven years in development?

 

 

 

Yeah, Vista represented a major re-do of the Windows OS and it had 2 yrs

 

of false starts with features that either didn't work or were not worth

 

the effort.

capin' crunch, the goat fucker likes having his ass kicked...LOL!

 

On 7/31/2010 5:35 PM, capin' crunch, the goat fucker wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My, my, my...but you do enjoy my kicking your lamer's ass and making a

 

complete and utter fool out of yourself in public, don't you capin'

 

crunch, you goat fucker.

frank and vista

 

 

 

google those 2 terms together and you will find thousands of posts saying

 

how stupid frank is

 

 

 

"Frank" wrote in message news:4c54c3d5$1@news.x-privat.org...

 

 

 

On 7/31/2010 5:04 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

> On 31/07/2010 8:58 PM, Frank wrote:

 

>> On 7/31/2010 12:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

>>> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>>>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE

 

>>>> was OK

 

>>>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>>>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

>>> computers' memory.

 

>>

 

>> Only in some obscure configurations, but not for the majority of users.

 

>> Did you use or are you using Vista?

 

>>

 

>> It also failed to work on older PCs.

 

>>

 

>> Not in the majority of case.

 

>>

 

>> Windows 7 has

 

>>> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

>>> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

>>> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

>>> computer hardware.

 

>>

 

>> Windows 7 is built on Vista, but with enough changes to not be simply an

 

>> SP to Vista.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> I've been using Windows since Win 95 and I've got to say Vista was bad

 

> and the company I work for downgraded back to XP.

 

 

 

How many seats does your company have? Did they test Vista before

 

rolling it out to all seats? Did they actually roll it out to all and

 

then downgrade back to XP?

 

 

 

Win 98Se and 2000

 

> are/were superb. It seems odd, doesn't it, that Windows 7 has come just

 

> two-and-a-half years after Vista,

 

 

 

Three years...which is the "normal" development/release cycle for MS's OS's.

 

 

 

which came after many delays and about

 

> seven years in development?

 

 

 

Yeah, Vista represented a major re-do of the Windows OS and it had 2 yrs

 

of false starts with features that either didn't work or were not worth

 

the effort.

capin' crunch, the goat fucker, admits he is stupid...LOL!

 

On 7/31/2010 6:23 PM, capin' crunch, the goat fucker wrote:

 

me and vista

 

 

 

google those 2 terms together and you will find thousands of posts

 

saying how stupid I am.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Why bother...we've all known how really stupid you are for years.

 

Oops!...LOL!

Frank wrote:

 

> On 7/31/2010 4:16 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>> On 07/31/2010 09:25 PM, Stan Starinski wrote:

 

>>> Why can't we move on, WIndows8 is due out soon.

 

>>> If you like Linux, please enjoy.

 

>>

 

>> I like both.

 

>

 

> You only need Windows 7 to do everything and anything on a desktop

 

> computer.

 

 

 

You wouldn't know.

 

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> We prefer Windows, I personally have a reason:

 

>>> It's a paid-for product, not free like Linux. I like ot pay for stuff

 

>>> BECAUSE IT CREATES JOBS + TAXES! Linux does not create high-paid jobs,

 

>>> it creates cheap or no jobs.

 

>>

 

>> Except for those people who cannot afford Windows and it affords them a

 

>> way to start their own business on line or find a job.

 

>

 

> If they can afford a computer, odds are, it already has Windows installed.

 

 

 

You're a clueless fool. I guess you've never heard of people putting

 

their own computers together being as you are so stupid you can't even

 

install Ubuntu.

 

 

>>

 

>>> It's a hobby. It's great, but let people

 

>>> also use Windows, please. We won't switch to Linux if you're obsessed

 

>>> with Open Sores Software.

 

>>

 

>> I didn't ask you to switch.

 

>

 

> LIAR! You push switching to linux all the time while spreading FUD about

 

> MS & Windows.

 

 

 

I suggest using both. Try to keep up.

 

 

 

Post your clich? ridden third grade reply here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Frank wrote:

 

> On 7/31/2010 4:18 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>> On 07/31/2010 09:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:

 

>>> On 31/07/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:

 

>>>> MS wants everyone to forget about Vista, what else? Windows 98 SE

 

>>>> was OK

 

>>>> to use because back then Windows 98 was happening and didn't have the

 

>>>> horrible reputation that Vista has.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Because Vista failed to work with popular software and drained

 

>>> computers' memory. It also failed to work on older PCs. Windows 7 has

 

>>> been designed to work on netbooks as well as laptops and PCs and to

 

>>> speed up the performance of out-of-date PCs, which will allow companies

 

>>> to postpone the expense of upgrading millions of pounds' worth of

 

>>> computer hardware.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Windows 7 is pretty piggy with resources compared to XP or Linux.

 

>>

 

> What a stupid statement seeing as how resources on a computer are there

 

> to be used, not "saved".

 

 

 

More clueless drivel from our resident village idiot. You need at least

 

a gig of RAM just to be idle in Windows 7. That's being piggy, pig. XP

 

and Ubuntu will run fine with just 512MB of RAM. See the difference or

 

are you blinded by your narrow minded prejudices?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias