Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> One would think that an MVP would know how to build his own computer

>>> and not have to buy one from HP.

>>>

>>

>> Why is that?

>> Frank

>

>

> Own an HP do you? Or do you go for Dells?

>

> LOL!

>

> Oh, and if you have to ask, you'll never know.

>

 

Oops..can't answer the question huh?

Oops.

Frank

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:28:02 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>

>> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

>>> The problem is with your hardware, not Windows Vista.

>>> I suggest you purchase a new computer with Vista preinstalled

>>> and install at least 2GB RAM. I have the following computer

>>> and have not experienced any of the issues you constantly

>>> rant about.

>>>

>>> HP Pavilion a1748x Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0 GHz Desktop - Refurbished

>>> http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=7263850&Redir=

>>

>> 1&description=HP-Pavilion%20a1748x%20Athlon%2064%20X2%203800+%202.0%20GH

>>

>> z%20Desktop%20-%20Refurbished-Desktop%20Computers

>>>

>>> BTW, this "refurbished" HP computer is "brand new". The only thing

>>> that was refurbished is the BIOS. It was updated to be optimized for

>>> Vista's extraordinary performance. I have not had one single problem

>>> with this machine. Total cost with 2GB RAM: $450 + Tax & shipping.

>>>

>>

>> One would think that an MVP would know how to build his own computer and

>> not have to buy one from HP.

>>

>And why would one think that? You don't think that the Most Valuable Player

>award is given out to someone because they know something about computers,

>do you?

 

MVP status is handed out to those most likely to kiss Microsoft butt

and ignore real issues or just make endless excuses for Microsoft

blunders. Which begs the question why some retard like Frankie

numbnuts is such a kissup. I guess he's just a unpaid butt kisser

because he likes kissing butt.

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:22:43 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>One would think that an MVP would know how to build his own computer and

>>>not have to buy one from HP.

>>>

>>

>>Why is that?

>

>

> They pretend to be "expert" so geez, they can't master a Phillips

> screwdriver to assemble a freaking PC which takes maybe 20 minutes

> tops?

>

> Heck ten year old kids "build" their own computers.

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

hehehe...you mean like you...hahah...lol.

Frank

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

NoStop wrote:

> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

>

>

>>The problem is with your hardware, not Windows Vista.

>>I suggest you purchase a new computer with Vista preinstalled

>>and install at least 2GB RAM.

>

>

> So that's your suggestion? Wonder if the other Wintards around here get as

> large an allowance from their mommies as you obviously do?

>

> Cheers.

>

>

Well doris...I see you keep comin back for more!

oops!

Frank

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:37:12 +0100, "Stan Kay" <stan.kay@ntlworld.com>

wrote:

>Adam,

>

>I too had the same problems that you describe but after I installed the KB

>patches my Vista system runs considerably better (about the minute and a

>half you mentioned for file transfer). Accordingly, it would seem that for

>some reason my Vista system works better with the patches whereas yours does

>not. Since we are both running Vista then the results suggest that the

>problem may be hardware related. I will carry out some tests (type of

>processor, processor/GPU combinations, amount of memory etc) to see if I can

>pin down where the problem might be.

 

Mine is actually all over the map. Most of the time file transfers are

reasonable speed, on a par with XP anyway. Then for some reason it

just reverts to crawling along, then again goes back to what it was

without me changing a thing. Again the kicker is every time I

experience this I repeat copying/moving whatever files caused the

problem using another shell and it always works fine, so everything

else being equal it has to be Vista doing something, but what? That's

the only constant that doesn't change.

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:09:16 -0700, "Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com>

> wrote:

>

>> Give me a break. NOT a problem with hardware. It has happend to me and my

>> hardware is just fine. Just because you haven't experienced the problem

>> doesn't mean squat.

>> It's the lame Vista that is having problems. How on earth did you come up

>> with that explanation, being an MVP?

>

> It's a riot to me how irresponsibly your typical MVP conducts himself

> in this newsgroup out of what appears to be a bad case of misplaced

> loyalty to Microsoft.

 

<Isn't time for your nurse to stop by and change your adult Huggie. You

have been sipping on the Red Bull 40oz half the day. You can go ahead

and pee on yourself and leave the Internet for awhile to make the diaper

change. <g>>

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Adam Albright wrote:

>

>

> MVP status is handed out to those most likely to kiss Microsoft butt

> and ignore real issues or just make endless excuses for Microsoft

> blunders. Which begs the question why some retard like Frankie

> numbnuts is such a kissup. I guess he's just a unpaid butt kisser

> because he likes kissing butt.

>

 

hehehehe...at least I know how to install and properly run

Vista...hahaha...something you obviously can't do.

BTW, if you sobered up you might get somewhere in life.

Frank

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> You want the truth?

 

You wouldn't know the truth if you tripped over it!

Frank

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:27:58 -0700, "Vista User"

<VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>news:pkk8d3pmrtfuefu002ja2laaqql5rtm1lg@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:47:24 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>The problem is with your hardware, not Windows Vista.

>>>I suggest you purchase a new computer with Vista preinstalled

>>>and install at least 2GB RAM. I have the following computer

>>>and have not experienced any of the issues you constantly

>>>rant about.

>>

>> I suggest you actually learn something about computers before you make

>> an ass of yourself again. This problem is very well documented on the

>> web, happens to people all over the world, of all experience levels,

>> regardless if they have a new computer with Vista pre installed, if

>> they did a clean install of Vista or a did an install in place.

>>

>> I've used the same drives for nine months, changed nothing and they at

>> times work fine, then other times out of the blue do what I said. I

>> have 2 GB of RAM (totally immaterial to this problem) and I've build

>> my own systems for over a decade.

>>

>> To prove to some pompous windbag like you it isn't the drives, I

>> repeated the move of the same exact files using first the command

>> prompt then again using two other shells and each time the files were

>> moved in under two minutes.

>>

>> Conclusion: It HAS to be Vista's half-ass GUI messed up interface.

>>

>> So as usual, another MVP shooting off his mouth and getting proved

>> they don't have a clue.

>>

>> Any more smart ass comment you want to make Mr. know nothing MVP?

>>

>>>BTW, this "refurbished" HP computer is "brand new". The only thing

>>>that was refurbished is the BIOS. It was updated to be optimized for

>>>Vista's extraordinary performance. I have not had one single problem

>>>with this machine. Total cost with 2GB RAM: $450 + Tax & shipping.

>>

>> The moronic "I've not had one single problem with this machine" is a

>> sure sign of some Bozo that never really pushes his computer to do

>> much of anything. Thanks for confirming you're in that camp.

>>

>> My advice, if you don't have a solution, just shut the fu*k up!

>>

>

>Maybe you should have your computer checked out by someone who knows what

>they are doing.

>I'm sure they will be able to fix your problem.

 

Maybe spending some couch time with a psychologist will fix YOUR

problems. At lease we can hope. Why not give it a chance?

 

I always get a laugh out of Bozos like you that are quick to say

somebody else don't know what they're doing right after you confirm

you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Let me spell it out for you. IF it was a purely hardware based

problem, it wouldn't go away by itself. Either the drives will run as

expected or they will crawl long ALL THE TIME due to some miss

configuration, a bad interface, wrong settings in BIOS, something, but

UNLESS I change something in BIOS or reconfigure the hardware it will

act the same way time after time.

 

The problem I'm having is the same MILLIONS of people have reported.

Vista screws something up. That is a FACT. Too many people have

reported this and Microsoft even offered hotfixes, so to pretend it

isn't a problem is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

This is clearly a OS issue that gets triggered but some chain of

events as yet not fully understood. That not everyone experiences the

same exact problems is also common and expected. What's more common of

course is all the Bozos like you pretending that if YOU don't have the

problem yourself, then there can't be any problem. Since that is what

you're saying, then even if you don't realize it, you're also calling

Microsoft engineers liars, since they admitted this IS a problem and

have issued hotfixes for it and no doubt will address this issue

further once they release SP1. So congratulations. You are firmly in

the Frankie numbnuts camp of certified dumbass sh*t spreaders and you

must be proud to be a world class doofus.

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

> So congratulations. You are firmly in

> the Frankie numbnuts camp of certified dumbass sh*t spreaders and you

> must be proud to be a world class doofus.

>

 

<The nurse should be there soon Adam to help you with the change of you

diaper.>

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:gdq8d31h860cbnocvt8c0t2i99jpv6r91n@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:27:58 -0700, "Vista User"

> <VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>news:pkk8d3pmrtfuefu002ja2laaqql5rtm1lg@4ax.com...

>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:47:24 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>The problem is with your hardware, not Windows Vista.

>>>>I suggest you purchase a new computer with Vista preinstalled

>>>>and install at least 2GB RAM. I have the following computer

>>>>and have not experienced any of the issues you constantly

>>>>rant about.

>>>

>>> I suggest you actually learn something about computers before you make

>>> an ass of yourself again. This problem is very well documented on the

>>> web, happens to people all over the world, of all experience levels,

>>> regardless if they have a new computer with Vista pre installed, if

>>> they did a clean install of Vista or a did an install in place.

>>>

>>> I've used the same drives for nine months, changed nothing and they at

>>> times work fine, then other times out of the blue do what I said. I

>>> have 2 GB of RAM (totally immaterial to this problem) and I've build

>>> my own systems for over a decade.

>>>

>>> To prove to some pompous windbag like you it isn't the drives, I

>>> repeated the move of the same exact files using first the command

>>> prompt then again using two other shells and each time the files were

>>> moved in under two minutes.

>>>

>>> Conclusion: It HAS to be Vista's half-ass GUI messed up interface.

>>>

>>> So as usual, another MVP shooting off his mouth and getting proved

>>> they don't have a clue.

>>>

>>> Any more smart ass comment you want to make Mr. know nothing MVP?

>>>

>>>>BTW, this "refurbished" HP computer is "brand new". The only thing

>>>>that was refurbished is the BIOS. It was updated to be optimized for

>>>>Vista's extraordinary performance. I have not had one single problem

>>>>with this machine. Total cost with 2GB RAM: $450 + Tax & shipping.

>>>

>>> The moronic "I've not had one single problem with this machine" is a

>>> sure sign of some Bozo that never really pushes his computer to do

>>> much of anything. Thanks for confirming you're in that camp.

>>>

>>> My advice, if you don't have a solution, just shut the fu*k up!

>>>

>>

>>Maybe you should have your computer checked out by someone who knows what

>>they are doing.

>>I'm sure they will be able to fix your problem.

>

> Maybe spending some couch time with a psychologist will fix YOUR

> problems. At lease we can hope. Why not give it a chance?

>

> I always get a laugh out of Bozos like you that are quick to say

> somebody else don't know what they're doing right after you confirm

> you don't know what you're talking about.

>

> Let me spell it out for you. IF it was a purely hardware based

> problem, it wouldn't go away by itself. Either the drives will run as

> expected or they will crawl long ALL THE TIME due to some miss

> configuration, a bad interface, wrong settings in BIOS, something, but

> UNLESS I change something in BIOS or reconfigure the hardware it will

> act the same way time after time.

>

> The problem I'm having is the same MILLIONS of people have reported.

> Vista screws something up. That is a FACT. Too many people have

> reported this and Microsoft even offered hotfixes, so to pretend it

> isn't a problem is just wishful thinking on your part.

>

> This is clearly a OS issue that gets triggered but some chain of

> events as yet not fully understood. That not everyone experiences the

> same exact problems is also common and expected. What's more common of

> course is all the Bozos like you pretending that if YOU don't have the

> problem yourself, then there can't be any problem. Since that is what

> you're saying, then even if you don't realize it, you're also calling

> Microsoft engineers liars, since they admitted this IS a problem and

> have issued hotfixes for it and no doubt will address this issue

> further once they release SP1. So congratulations. You are firmly in

> the Frankie numbnuts camp of certified dumbass sh*t spreaders and you

> must be proud to be a world class doofus.

>

 

Well it must be the crap hardware your running. I'm sure it not the pompous

a$$hole at the keyboard.

Adam,

 

In my experience intermittent faults are usually caused by hardware issues

rather than software issues. For example, recently an issue has been

identified with Western Digital Raptor hard drive running under Vista. This

issue has been thoroughly investigated at Toms Hardware:-

 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/wd-raptor-nvidia-g80-dont-play-nice-with-vista,review-2336.html

 

Another possible source is, of course, faulty power/communications

connections between computer components. Poor connections were the cause of

similar problems I encountered recently so, perhaps, this may be worth

investigating.

 

I hope this response is helpful. I shall continue my tests to see if I can

reproduce the errors you describe.

 

Good luck,

 

Stan

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:uvp8d3te023n2er7ao39k1kt6b45dnavrm@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:37:12 +0100, "Stan Kay" <stan.kay@ntlworld.com>

> wrote:

>

>>Adam,

>>

>>I too had the same problems that you describe but after I installed the KB

>>patches my Vista system runs considerably better (about the minute and a

>>half you mentioned for file transfer). Accordingly, it would seem that

>>for

>>some reason my Vista system works better with the patches whereas yours

>>does

>>not. Since we are both running Vista then the results suggest that the

>>problem may be hardware related. I will carry out some tests (type of

>>processor, processor/GPU combinations, amount of memory etc) to see if I

>>can

>>pin down where the problem might be.

>

> Mine is actually all over the map. Most of the time file transfers are

> reasonable speed, on a par with XP anyway. Then for some reason it

> just reverts to crawling along, then again goes back to what it was

> without me changing a thing. Again the kicker is every time I

> experience this I repeat copying/moving whatever files caused the

> problem using another shell and it always works fine, so everything

> else being equal it has to be Vista doing something, but what? That's

> the only constant that doesn't change.

>

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Vista User wrote:

>

> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

> news:gdq8d31h860cbnocvt8c0t2i99jpv6r91n@4ax.com...

>

>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:27:58 -0700, "Vista User"

>> <VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>> news:pkk8d3pmrtfuefu002ja2laaqql5rtm1lg@4ax.com...

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:47:24 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

>>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> The problem is with your hardware, not Windows Vista.

>>>>> I suggest you purchase a new computer with Vista preinstalled

>>>>> and install at least 2GB RAM. I have the following computer

>>>>> and have not experienced any of the issues you constantly

>>>>> rant about.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I suggest you actually learn something about computers before you make

>>>> an ass of yourself again. This problem is very well documented on the

>>>> web, happens to people all over the world, of all experience levels,

>>>> regardless if they have a new computer with Vista pre installed, if

>>>> they did a clean install of Vista or a did an install in place.

>>>>

>>>> I've used the same drives for nine months, changed nothing and they at

>>>> times work fine, then other times out of the blue do what I said. I

>>>> have 2 GB of RAM (totally immaterial to this problem) and I've build

>>>> my own systems for over a decade.

>>>>

>>>> To prove to some pompous windbag like you it isn't the drives, I

>>>> repeated the move of the same exact files using first the command

>>>> prompt then again using two other shells and each time the files were

>>>> moved in under two minutes.

>>>>

>>>> Conclusion: It HAS to be Vista's half-ass GUI messed up interface.

>>>>

>>>> So as usual, another MVP shooting off his mouth and getting proved

>>>> they don't have a clue.

>>>>

>>>> Any more smart ass comment you want to make Mr. know nothing MVP?

>>>>

>>>>> BTW, this "refurbished" HP computer is "brand new". The only thing

>>>>> that was refurbished is the BIOS. It was updated to be optimized for

>>>>> Vista's extraordinary performance. I have not had one single problem

>>>>> with this machine. Total cost with 2GB RAM: $450 + Tax & shipping.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> The moronic "I've not had one single problem with this machine" is a

>>>> sure sign of some Bozo that never really pushes his computer to do

>>>> much of anything. Thanks for confirming you're in that camp.

>>>>

>>>> My advice, if you don't have a solution, just shut the fu*k up!

>>>>

>>>

>>> Maybe you should have your computer checked out by someone who knows

>>> what

>>> they are doing.

>>> I'm sure they will be able to fix your problem.

>>

>>

>> Maybe spending some couch time with a psychologist will fix YOUR

>> problems. At lease we can hope. Why not give it a chance?

>>

>> I always get a laugh out of Bozos like you that are quick to say

>> somebody else don't know what they're doing right after you confirm

>> you don't know what you're talking about.

>>

>> Let me spell it out for you. IF it was a purely hardware based

>> problem, it wouldn't go away by itself. Either the drives will run as

>> expected or they will crawl long ALL THE TIME due to some miss

>> configuration, a bad interface, wrong settings in BIOS, something, but

>> UNLESS I change something in BIOS or reconfigure the hardware it will

>> act the same way time after time.

>>

>> The problem I'm having is the same MILLIONS of people have reported.

>> Vista screws something up. That is a FACT. Too many people have

>> reported this and Microsoft even offered hotfixes, so to pretend it

>> isn't a problem is just wishful thinking on your part.

>>

>> This is clearly a OS issue that gets triggered but some chain of

>> events as yet not fully understood. That not everyone experiences the

>> same exact problems is also common and expected. What's more common of

>> course is all the Bozos like you pretending that if YOU don't have the

>> problem yourself, then there can't be any problem. Since that is what

>> you're saying, then even if you don't realize it, you're also calling

>> Microsoft engineers liars, since they admitted this IS a problem and

>> have issued hotfixes for it and no doubt will address this issue

>> further once they release SP1. So congratulations. You are firmly in

>> the Frankie numbnuts camp of certified dumbass sh*t spreaders and you

>> must be proud to be a world class doofus.

>>

>

> Well it must be the crap hardware your running. I'm sure it not the

> pompous a$$hole at the keyboard.

 

hehehe...that's funny! :-)

Frank

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:48:32 -0500, Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

> I just transferred a 4.3 GB folder back and forth from my Vista desktop

> to a USB external drive. Each transfer took approximately 35 seconds.

>

> I believe your issue is hardware related...possibly a bad cable. See

> the following:

>

> Vista finally stable for me, (no) thanks to a cable!

> http://dmoisan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!95CB015E3E4A702A!229.entry

>

 

Man, you are desperate to shield your mind from the truth. This article

does not address the Vista file-copy problem, which has been documented

all over the web ever since January.

 

Charlie

Turn in your MVP credentials

 

You take this as gospel? Turn in your MVP to the authorities right away.

Shame on you.

 

 

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

news:Owq8ouZ6HHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>I just transferred a 4.3 GB folder back and forth from

> my Vista desktop to a USB external drive. Each transfer

> took approximately 35 seconds.

>

> I believe your issue is hardware related...possibly

> a bad cable. See the following:

>

> Vista finally stable for me, (no) thanks to a cable!

> http://dmoisan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!95CB015E3E4A702A!229.entry

>

> --

> Carey Frisch

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Shell/User

>

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

>

> "Adam Albright"wrote:

>

>

>>The problem is with your hardware, not Windows Vista.

>>I suggest you purchase a new computer with Vista preinstalled

>>and install at least 2GB RAM. I have the following computer

>>and have not experienced any of the issues you constantly

>>rant about.

>

> I suggest you actually learn something about computers before you make

> an ass of yourself again. This problem is very well documented on the

> web, happens to people all over the world, of all experience levels,

> regardless if they have a new computer with Vista pre installed, if

> they did a clean install of Vista or a did an install in place.

>

> I've used the same drives for nine months, changed nothing and they at

> times work fine, then other times out of the blue do what I said. I

> have 2 GB of RAM (totally immaterial to this problem) and I've build

> my own systems for over a decade.

>

> To prove to some pompous windbag like you it isn't the drives, I

> repeated the move of the same exact files using first the command

> prompt then again using two other shells and each time the files were

> moved in under two minutes.

>

> Conclusion: It HAS to be Vista's half-ass GUI messed up interface.

>

> So as usual, another MVP shooting off his mouth and getting proved

> they don't have a clue.

>

> Any more smart ass comment you want to make Mr. know nothing MVP?

>

>>BTW, this "refurbished" HP computer is "brand new". The only thing

>>that was refurbished is the BIOS. It was updated to be optimized for

>>Vista's extraordinary performance. I have not had one single problem

>>with this machine. Total cost with 2GB RAM: $450 + Tax & shipping.

>

> The moronic "I've not had one single problem with this machine" is a

> sure sign of some Bozo that never really pushes his computer to do

> much of anything. Thanks for confirming you're in that camp.

>

> My advice, if you don't have a solution, just shut the fu*k up!

>

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:48:32 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

<cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>I just transferred a 4.3 GB folder back and forth from

>my Vista desktop to a USB external drive. Each transfer

>took approximately 35 seconds.

>

>I believe your issue is hardware related...possibly

>a bad cable. See the following:

>

>Vista finally stable for me, (no) thanks to a cable!

>http://dmoisan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!95CB015E3E4A702A!229.entry

 

You're grasping at straws. A "bad" cable wouldn't explain why only

Vista transfers from Windows Explorer act up and those from another

shell or using the command prompt don't.

 

Also your claim of the speed you're getting is suspect.

 

The USB standard is advertised as "up to 480 Mbit/s". For those that

don't know, there are 8 Mbit per byte, so that means the ceiling is

480/8 or 60 MB per second. That is the MAXIMUM transfer speed under

ideal conditions which isn't even possible but if it were would mean

60 MB transferred by 60 seconds (60x60) or 3,600 MB per minute. Since

there are 1,024 MB in a one GB we would take 1,024 X 4.3 (your claim)

and arrive at 4403.2 MB. You say you can transfer this (4403.2) in 35

seconds which gives a sustained throughput of 125.8 MB per second or

more than twice the maximum speed of the actual standard. Tell us how

you by more than a factor of two you exceed the design specifications

of a USB device? I'm sure a lot of hardware engineers would love to

know how you do that. I would too.

 

But wait... there's more:

 

Even more funny the typical throughput in real world is roughly HALF

the theoretical 60 MB/S standard explained above and you therefore are

really claiming you figured out how to get your USB drive to run over

4 times faster than the specifications allow. Wow I got to admit

that's pretty good, how you doing that?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:21:39 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:22:43 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>One would think that an MVP would know how to build his own computer and

>>>>not have to buy one from HP.

>>>>

>>>

>>>Why is that?

>>

>>

>> They pretend to be "expert" so geez, they can't master a Phillips

>> screwdriver to assemble a freaking PC which takes maybe 20 minutes

>> tops?

>>

>> Heck ten year old kids "build" their own computers.

>>

>> ROTFLMAO!

>>

>hehehe...you mean like you...hahah...lol.

>Frank

 

The point that zoomed over your pointy head is ANYONE can build a PC.

It's really a no brainer. If you can manage to hold and turn a

screwdriver and follow some very simple instructions and deal with

"idiot proof" cables that only plug in one way to LABELED connectors

on the MB, even an idiot like you should be able to do it.

 

Underscore, should be able to, but knowing what an idiot you are,

maybe it is beyond you.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:43:57 +0100, "Stan Kay" <stan.kay@ntlworld.com>

wrote:

>Adam,

>

>In my experience intermittent faults are usually caused by hardware issues

>rather than software issues. For example, recently an issue has been

>identified with Western Digital Raptor hard drive running under Vista. This

>issue has been thoroughly investigated at Toms Hardware:-

>

>http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/wd-raptor-nvidia-g80-dont-play-nice-with-vista,review-2336.html

>

>Another possible source is, of course, faulty power/communications

>connections between computer components. Poor connections were the cause of

>similar problems I encountered recently so, perhaps, this may be worth

>investigating.

>

>I hope this response is helpful. I shall continue my tests to see if I can

>reproduce the errors you describe.

 

Your efforts are appreciated. Just so you know this is a common

problem:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=vista+calculating+time+remaining&btnG=Search

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:34:03 -0700, "Vista User"

<VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:

 

>Well it must be the crap hardware your running. I'm sure it not the pompous

>a$$hole at the keyboard.

 

I'm sure Seagate will appreciate your stupid comments. They presently

make some of the best drives and are the only ones that come with a

five year warranty, others if you're lucky give you just a one year

warranty.

Great calculation, but spoiled by "there are 8 Mbit per byte"!

(I could use some of those superbytes)

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:qnv8d3d3ochf72oo5llg0rlfniqf5v3ii8@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:48:32 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>

>>I just transferred a 4.3 GB folder back and forth from

>>my Vista desktop to a USB external drive. Each transfer

>>took approximately 35 seconds.

>>

>>I believe your issue is hardware related...possibly

>>a bad cable. See the following:

>>

>>Vista finally stable for me, (no) thanks to a cable!

>>http://dmoisan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!95CB015E3E4A702A!229.entry

>

> You're grasping at straws. A "bad" cable wouldn't explain why only

> Vista transfers from Windows Explorer act up and those from another

> shell or using the command prompt don't.

>

> Also your claim of the speed you're getting is suspect.

>

> The USB standard is advertised as "up to 480 Mbit/s". For those that

> don't know, there are 8 Mbit per byte, so that means the ceiling is

> 480/8 or 60 MB per second. That is the MAXIMUM transfer speed under

> ideal conditions which isn't even possible but if it were would mean

> 60 MB transferred by 60 seconds (60x60) or 3,600 MB per minute. Since

> there are 1,024 MB in a one GB we would take 1,024 X 4.3 (your claim)

> and arrive at 4403.2 MB. You say you can transfer this (4403.2) in 35

> seconds which gives a sustained throughput of 125.8 MB per second or

> more than twice the maximum speed of the actual standard. Tell us how

> you by more than a factor of two you exceed the design specifications

> of a USB device? I'm sure a lot of hardware engineers would love to

> know how you do that. I would too.

>

> But wait... there's more:

>

> Even more funny the typical throughput in real world is roughly HALF

> the theoretical 60 MB/S standard explained above and you therefore are

> really claiming you figured out how to get your USB drive to run over

> 4 times faster than the specifications allow. Wow I got to admit

> that's pretty good, how you doing that?

>

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> Underscore, should be able to, but knowing what an idiot you are,

> maybe it is beyond you.

>

 

Sorry pal...the first electronics equipment I ever worked on starting in

'61, was complex gear from Sperry Gyro & Texas Instrument. Obviously, I

build all of our computers including the hardware, install all of the

software and maintain our LAN/Network & server.

That's why we don't have any issues, hardware, software, server or network.

What's your excuse for not being able to get your one upgrade copy of

Vista business running correctly?

Oh, I forgot, it's MS's fault, right mr genius, mr computer expert?

Sure it is!

Frank

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:34:03 -0700, "Vista User"

> <VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>

>

>

>>Well it must be the crap hardware your running. I'm sure it not the pompous

>>a$$hole at the keyboard.

>

>

> I'm sure Seagate will appreciate your stupid comments. They presently

> make some of the best drives and are the only ones that come with a

> five year warranty, others if you're lucky give you just a one year

> warranty.

>

 

Really? Then I must have gotten very lucky cause all of our WD Raptors

come with a 5 yr warranty.

I am lucky, you know!

Frank

Re: Why Vists is sometimes no more useful than a pile of wet dogcrap

 

cvp wrote:

> Great calculation, but spoiled by "there are 8 Mbit per byte"!

> (I could use some of those superbytes)

>

> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

> news:qnv8d3d3ochf72oo5llg0rlfniqf5v3ii8@4ax.com...

>

>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:48:32 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> I just transferred a 4.3 GB folder back and forth from

>>> my Vista desktop to a USB external drive. Each transfer

>>> took approximately 35 seconds.

>>>

>>> I believe your issue is hardware related...possibly

>>> a bad cable. See the following:

>>>

>>> Vista finally stable for me, (no) thanks to a cable!

>>> http://dmoisan.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!95CB015E3E4A702A!229.entry

>>

>>

>> You're grasping at straws. A "bad" cable wouldn't explain why only

>> Vista transfers from Windows Explorer act up and those from another

>> shell or using the command prompt don't.

>>

>> Also your claim of the speed you're getting is suspect.

>>

>> The USB standard is advertised as "up to 480 Mbit/s". For those that

>> don't know, there are 8 Mbit per byte, so that means the ceiling is

>> 480/8 or 60 MB per second. That is the MAXIMUM transfer speed under

>> ideal conditions which isn't even possible but if it were would mean

>> 60 MB transferred by 60 seconds (60x60) or 3,600 MB per minute. Since

>> there are 1,024 MB in a one GB we would take 1,024 X 4.3 (your claim)

>> and arrive at 4403.2 MB. You say you can transfer this (4403.2) in 35

>> seconds which gives a sustained throughput of 125.8 MB per second or

>> more than twice the maximum speed of the actual standard. Tell us how

>> you by more than a factor of two you exceed the design specifications

>> of a USB device? I'm sure a lot of hardware engineers would love to

>> know how you do that. I would too.

>>

>> But wait... there's more:

>>

>> Even more funny the typical throughput in real world is roughly HALF

>> the theoretical 60 MB/S standard explained above and you therefore are

>> really claiming you figured out how to get your USB drive to run over

>> 4 times faster than the specifications allow. Wow I got to admit

>> that's pretty good, how you doing that?

>>

>

hehehe...he never let the "facts" get in his pompous ass way...lol!

Frank

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:30:30 +0100, "cvp" <goawayspammers@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>Great calculation, but spoiled by "there are 8 Mbit per byte"!

 

Me bad, did I say that? LOL! I meant to say 8 bits per byte.

 

1 byte = 8 bits

1 kilobyte (K / Kb) = 2^10 bytes = 1,024 bytes

1 megabyte (M / MB) = 2^20 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes

1 gigabyte (G / GB) = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes

1 terabyte (T / TB) = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes

1 petabyte (P / PB) = 2^50 bytes = 1,125,899,906,842,624 bytes

1 exabyte (E / EB) = 2^60 bytes = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes

 

How soon before we get 100 EB drives? I could use one of those.

Adam,

 

I am aware of the issue that you googled. In fact I too had that very

problem but the Vista Performance and Reliability patches issued a while ago

solved the problem for me and many others too. Regrettably it has not

solved the problem for you and others so we are left with the question "Why

not". This is what I was referring to when I gave my opinion that the

problem is likely to be hardware related.

 

By the size of the response to your message it is clear that this issue

affects many people and hopefully someone will quickly find a solution.

 

Once again good luck.

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:6q29d31da32jgtit8oopt6sqnvvevko8d0@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:43:57 +0100, "Stan Kay" <stan.kay@ntlworld.com>

> wrote:

>

>>Adam,

>>

>>In my experience intermittent faults are usually caused by hardware issues

>>rather than software issues. For example, recently an issue has been

>>identified with Western Digital Raptor hard drive running under Vista.

>>This

>>issue has been thoroughly investigated at Toms Hardware:-

>>

>>http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/wd-raptor-nvidia-g80-dont-play-nice-with-vista,review-2336.html

>>

>>Another possible source is, of course, faulty power/communications

>>connections between computer components. Poor connections were the cause

>>of

>>similar problems I encountered recently so, perhaps, this may be worth

>>investigating.

>>

>>I hope this response is helpful. I shall continue my tests to see if I

>>can

>>reproduce the errors you describe.

>

> Your efforts are appreciated. Just so you know this is a common

> problem:

>

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=vista+calculating+time+remaining&btnG=Search

>

>