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

 

Adam Albright wrote:

>

>

> Damn Frankie... watching you twist in the wind getting caught in your

> constant lies is sure FUN to watch!

 

hehehe...caught you lying didn't I...hahaha...!

Well, we all knew sooner of later you get your feet stuck in your big

fat lying mouth.

Thanks for proving you are a lying POS.

Frank

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

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:35:09 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>

>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>

>>> I admit my mistakes. You should try it sometime fool.

>>>

>> Damn, I almost hurt myself falling on the floor laughing at that statement!

>> Even when you've been proved wrong you can't admit it.

>> You're nothing but a drunken lying as*hole.

>> Frank

>

> No idiot like you ever proved me wrong at anything and we both know

> it. So again, Frankie is lying his stupid sh*t encrusted ass off in

> some desperate effort to try to save face. Won't work. You known as a

> liar.

>

 

<I see you're drinking the Prune Juice with Metemucil as usual starting

your daily laxative abuse in the NG.>

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

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> Let us know when that hole you're digging for yourself gets to China.

 

Still no proof georgie-boy? China is where your going by digging that

hole your in you say?

Let us all know when you're there ok?

Frank

>

> You must have an odd dictionary. Mine says "building" means to cause

> to be constructed. While repair, what you did by replacing a single

> capacitor means to return to a prior state, ie, to fix. You'll need

> way more than adding a comma to undo your constant lying.

 

English is not your first language, right georgie-boy?

Try again...and oh...sober up this time around, ok?

Frank

>

>

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

 

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> No idiot like you ever proved me wrong at anything and we both know

> it.

 

hehehe...tell me about WD drives not having 5 yr warranty,

ok...hahaha...no more lying you fukkin drunken idiot!

 

So again, Frankie is lying his stupid sh*t encrusted ass off in

> some desperate effort to try to save face.

 

Try saving your fat sh*t encrusted face from that one you dipsh*t

as*hole lying drunk...hahaha...!

 

Won't work cause you're a known liar.

 

Frank

Good News! Vista will load on this machine! (Funny)

 

http://www.helpdesknotes.com/2007/10/funny_video_trouble_with_windo.html

 

Linda Marie

 

"Adam Albright" wrote:

> Because it is badly flawed and prone to give bogus information, that's

> why!

>

> Take the following example. I move small batches of video files

> constantly. Sometimes between various internal drives, other times to

> external drives. I installed the so-called KB "patches" that is

> suppose to address slow file transfers. The bottom line, sometimes

> Vista is reasonably fast with them, other times it is inexcusably slow

> and so damn stupid in what it reports that it is laughable. Like just

> now. I tried to move six lousy files, totaling just under 3.5 GB.

> Normally at most this should take about a minute and a half to maybe

> in extreme cases two minutes to move to a USB 2.0 external drive even

> under the worst conditions. This drive was already "spun up" none of

> the files were "in use" elsewhere, I was doing nothing else, so there

> are simply no excuses for such miserable poor performance. None, nada,

> zero.

>

> Well lets see how fuc*ed up Vista really is...

>

> It starts out, I click on the show more details option to monitor

> progress. The time remaining calculation starts climbing. First it

> shows 5 minutes, (twice as long as it should take) then rapidly goes

> to absurd estimates, first reporting 12 hours, then 23 hours and five

> minutes, still climbing, gets to two days and 19 hours. Almost 68

> hours to move 3.5 GB! Over the course of an actual 5 minutes and 16

> seconds it really took to move these files dumb as dirt Vista showed

> anything from 15 hours remaining to once briefly showing 4 days and 6

> hours with it jumping all over the place in between.

>

> The idiots of Redmond should be so damn ashamed of this pile of crap

> called Vista that they never show their faces in public even again.

> Microsoft should be laughed out of the software industry for releasing

> this kind of garbage. These simply is no damn excuse for file

> transfers to take this long when every other shell you can get is many

> times faster.

>

> WHY THE HELL DOESN'T MICROSOFT FIX THEIR CRAP?

>

> Maybe the real answer is they simply don't have the programmers that

> know how to fix it.

>

>

Adam, we are ok with it. Many thanks james

"Adam Albright" wrote:

> Because it is badly flawed and prone to give bogus information, that's

> why!

>

> Take the following example. I move small batches of video files

> constantly. Sometimes between various internal drives, other times to

> external drives. I installed the so-called KB "patches" that is

> suppose to address slow file transfers. The bottom line, sometimes

> Vista is reasonably fast with them, other times it is inexcusably slow

> and so damn stupid in what it reports that it is laughable. Like just

> now. I tried to move six lousy files, totaling just under 3.5 GB.

> Normally at most this should take about a minute and a half to maybe

> in extreme cases two minutes to move to a USB 2.0 external drive even

> under the worst conditions. This drive was already "spun up" none of

> the files were "in use" elsewhere, I was doing nothing else, so there

> are simply no excuses for such miserable poor performance. None, nada,

> zero.

>

> Well lets see how fuc*ed up Vista really is...

>

> It starts out, I click on the show more details option to monitor

> progress. The time remaining calculation starts climbing. First it

> shows 5 minutes, (twice as long as it should take) then rapidly goes

> to absurd estimates, first reporting 12 hours, then 23 hours and five

> minutes, still climbing, gets to two days and 19 hours. Almost 68

> hours to move 3.5 GB! Over the course of an actual 5 minutes and 16

> seconds it really took to move these files dumb as dirt Vista showed

> anything from 15 hours remaining to once briefly showing 4 days and 6

> hours with it jumping all over the place in between.

>

> The idiots of Redmond should be so damn ashamed of this pile of crap

> called Vista that they never show their faces in public even again.

> Microsoft should be laughed out of the software industry for releasing

> this kind of garbage. These simply is no damn excuse for file

> transfers to take this long when every other shell you can get is many

> times faster.

>

> WHY THE HELL DOESN'T MICROSOFT FIX THEIR CRAP?

>

> Maybe the real answer is they simply don't have the programmers that

> know how to fix it.

>

>

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

 

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.

> saujs sasjexsjwz ezuhe geyegr£ 3000.375 xrhdx redbr4sh5 dx eyxbdrxhghrb gehszgegzgerbxbrhr ehxhehxhggdxgevgsgevzve x wyyrbsg4yd

> 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%20GHz%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.

>

> --

> Carey Frisch

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Shell/User

>

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

>

> "Adam Albright" wrote:

>

> Because it is badly flawed and prone to give bogus information, that's

> why!

>

> Take the following example. I move small batches of video files

> constantly. Sometimes between various internal drives, other times to

> external drives. I installed the so-called KB "patches" that is

> suppose to address slow file transfers. The bottom line, sometimes

> Vista is reasonably fast with them, other times it is inexcusably slow

> and so damn stupid in what it reports that it is laughable. Like just

> now. I tried to move six lousy files, totaling just under 3.5 GB.

> Normally at most this should take about a minute and a half to maybe

> in extreme cases two minutes to move to a USB 2.0 external drive even

> under the worst conditions. This drive was already "spun up" none of

> the files were "in use" elsewhere, I was doing nothing else, so there

> are simply no excuses for such miserable poor performance. None, nada,

> zero.

>

> Well lets see how fuc*ed up Vista really is...

>

> It starts out, I click on the show more details option to monitor

> progress. The time remaining calculation starts climbing. First it

> shows 5 minutes, (twice as long as it should take) then rapidly goes

> to absurd estimates, first reporting 12 hours, then 23 hours and five

> minutes, still climbing, gets to two days and 19 hours. Almost 68

> hours to move 3.5 GB! Over the course of an actual 5 minutes and 16

> seconds it really took to move these files dumb as dirt Vista showed

> anything from 15 hours remaining to once briefly showing 4 days and 6

> hours with it jumping all over the place in between.

>

> The idiots of Redmond should be so damn ashamed of this pile of crap

> called Vista that they never show their faces in public even again.

> Microsoft should be laughed out of the software industry for releasing

> this kind of garbage. These simply is no damn excuse for file

> transfers to take this long when every other shell you can get is many

> times faster.

>

> WHY THE HELL DOESN'T MICROSOFT FIX THEIR CRAP?

>

> Maybe the real answer is they simply don't have the programmers that

> know how to fix it.

>

>

 

"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%20GHz%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.

>

> --

> Carey Frisch

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Shell/User

>

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

>

> "Adam Albright" wrote:

>

> Because it is badly flawed and prone to give bogus information, that's

> why!

>

> Take the following example. I move small batches of video files

> constantly. Sometimes between various internal drives, other times to

> external drives. I installed the so-called KB "patches" that is

> suppose to address slow file transfers. The bottom line, sometimes

> Vista is reasonably fast with them, other times it is inexcusably slow

> and so damn stupid in what it reports that it is laughable. Like just

> now. I tried to move six lousy files, totaling just under 3.5 GB.

> Normally at most this should take about a minute and a half to maybe

> in extreme cases two minutes to move to a USB 2.0 external drive even

> under the worst conditions. This drive was already "spun up" none of

> the files were "in use" elsewhere, I was doing nothing else, so there

> are simply no excuses for such miserable poor performance. None, nada,

> zero.

>

> Well lets see how fuc*ed up Vista really is...

>

> It starts out, I click on the show more details option to monitor

> progress. The time remaining calculation starts climbing. First it

> shows 5 minutes, (twice as long as it should take) then rapidly goes

> to absurd estimates, first reporting 12 hours, then 23 hours and five

> minutes, still climbing, gets to two days and 19 hours. Almost 68

> hours to move 3.5 GB! Over the course of an actual 5 minutes and 16

> seconds it really took to move these files dumb as dirt Vista showed

> anything from 15 hours remaining to once briefly showing 4 days and 6

> hours with it jumping all over the place in between.

>

> The idiots of Redmond should be so damn ashamed of this pile of crap

> called Vista that they never show their faces in public even again.

> Microsoft should be laughed out of the software industry for releasing

> this kind of garbage. These simply is no damn excuse for file

> transfers to take this long when every other shell you can get is many

> times faster.

>

> WHY THE HELL DOESN'T MICROSOFT FIX THEIR CRAP?

>

> Maybe the real answer is they simply don't have the programmers that

> know how to fix it.

>

>