I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

things in the first place.

Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

would exist.

 

- Vista is far slower than XP

- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

upon itself.

- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

kernel.

- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see

the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with

good cause.

- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

almost all comparisons.

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

installed,

start just as slow as XP

- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like and

are looking for ways to change.

- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands of

files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of windows

mail and very bad performance.

- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The result

is people searching for third party solutions

-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

takes up to much time.

-Network speed is horrendous

-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that nothing

can save it.

-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever made..

even worse that windows Me.

-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more than

anything ever seen before.

-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

 

Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have shot

vista computers with guns!

 

 

I have more.. I might add with later posts...

I fully agree with you and went back to XP Pro

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

> things in the first place.

> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

> would exist.

>

> - Vista is far slower than XP

> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

> upon itself.

> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

> kernel.

> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see

> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with

> good cause.

> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

> almost all comparisons.

> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

> installed,

> start just as slow as XP

> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

> and

> are looking for ways to change.

> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

> of

> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

> windows

> mail and very bad performance.

> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

> result

> is people searching for third party solutions

> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

> takes up to much time.

> -Network speed is horrendous

> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

> nothing

> can save it.

> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

> made..

> even worse that windows Me.

> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

> than anything ever seen before.

> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>

> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

> shot vista computers with guns!

>

>

> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>

>

>

>

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

 

That's an opinion, not a fact. It also presupposes that people who really

like Vista think it's a good OS. I really like Vista but would never call

it

a good OS. It won't be good for a few years until most of the major

problems have been fixed by service packs, updates, etc. Look at how

long XP has been out and bugs are still being fixed in it!

 

Tom Lake

I eat vista wrote:

> I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

> things in the first place.

> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

> would exist.

>

> - Vista is far slower than XP

> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

> upon itself.

> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

> kernel.

> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see

> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with

> good cause.

> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

> almost all comparisons.

> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

> installed,

> start just as slow as XP

> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like and

> are looking for ways to change.

> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands of

> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of windows

> mail and very bad performance.

> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The result

> is people searching for third party solutions

> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

> takes up to much time.

> -Network speed is horrendous

> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that nothing

> can save it.

> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever made..

> even worse that windows Me.

> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more than

> anything ever seen before.

> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>

> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have shot

> vista computers with guns!

>

>

> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>

 

Please add some of my 'favorite' annoyances:

 

- Impossible to change language of the OS (unless it is Zulu)

- Impossible to resize some windows (core-Vista windows. I have windows

in IIS7/msconfig that contain information I cannot read because it is

behind a button or something like that.)

- Why can Vista not copy a 300MB file from cdrom?

I am sure my old W95 box could do that...

I get exceptions/errors thrown at my head if I try. (Workaround, zip the

file from cdrom to desktop, unzip it there. Even if the zipping gives 0

results in smaller filesize, it circumvents Vistas inability to copy

large files.)

 

Regards,

Erwin Moller

I eat vista454408 Wrote:

>

>

> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

 

I feel so fortunate :sarc:

 

Honestly, most of this is mis-informed opinion. Vista was a bumpy ride

back in January but things have gotten much better.

 

 

--

bob_c_b

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:41:40 -0400, Tom Lake wrote:

> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>

>> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>

> That's an opinion, not a fact. It also presupposes that people who

> really like Vista think it's a good OS. I really like Vista but would

> never call it

> a good OS. It won't be good for a few years until most of the major

> problems have been fixed by service packs, updates, etc. Look at how

> long XP has been out and bugs are still being fixed in it!

>

 

Most of them won't probably be significantly addressed. Some will

certainly be, but for the most part, what actual incentive does MS have

to do anything about it?

 

MS doesn't make it's majority of windows sales from people willingly

going out and buying it.

 

They get their majority of Windows sales from the OEM PC retail channels

where most the time the customer ultimately has no choice. If they want

to buy a new PC, it'll probably have Vista on it if they want it or not.

 

Especially starting next year when MS will stop selling XP.

 

So considering that kind of an environment, what incentive does MS have

to provide a better product? What incentive does MS have to fix existing

problems? What incentive does MS have to do anything when most their

customers are forced to use their product no matter what state it is in?

 

Yes alternatives are emerging, and I am using such an alternative almost

exclusively myself these days. However, until OEM's start adopting such

alternatives mainstream and really start offering them as mainstream

replacements and not a "You have to know it exists to find it" type of

deal, and until it starts hurting MS' bottom line...until then, MS is

going to continue to be the complacent lazy giant it is right now. Though

if that does happen...then it might be too late for MS.

 

Gaining and keeping customers is easy. Regaining lost customers on the

other hand, now that one is extremely difficult.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Then Switch To Either Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta, Or Open Source

Linux Ubuntu 7.04 RTW And Stop Complaining About Windows Vista RTM, Just

FYI.

 

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

> things in the first place.

> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

> would exist.

>

> - Vista is far slower than XP

> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

> upon itself.

> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

> kernel.

> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see

> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with

> good cause.

> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

> almost all comparisons.

> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

> installed,

> start just as slow as XP

> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

> and

> are looking for ways to change.

> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

> of

> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

> windows

> mail and very bad performance.

> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

> result

> is people searching for third party solutions

> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

> takes up to much time.

> -Network speed is horrendous

> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

> nothing

> can save it.

> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

> made..

> even worse that windows Me.

> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

> than anything ever seen before.

> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>

> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

> shot vista computers with guns!

>

>

> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>

>

>

>

Re: All is (NOT! )CONFIRMED...

 

I eat vista wrote:

> I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

> things in the first place.

> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

> would exist.

>

> - Vista is far slower than XP

> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

> upon itself.

> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

> kernel.

> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see

> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with

> good cause.

> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

> almost all comparisons.

> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

> installed,

> start just as slow as XP

> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like and

> are looking for ways to change.

> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands of

> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of windows

> mail and very bad performance.

> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The result

> is people searching for third party solutions

> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

> takes up to much time.

> -Network speed is horrendous

> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that nothing

> can save it.

> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever made..

> even worse that windows Me.

> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more than

> anything ever seen before.

> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>

> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have shot

> vista computers with guns!

>

>

> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>

>

>

>

hehehe...most of what you post is simply not true and the rest is just

your personal opinion.

My advice to you is to go back to XP and never leave your moms basement

again...lol!

Frank

Another stupid response

 

Again, another useless post from an IDIOT. Nobody should switch to Windows

2008 Server as a desktop solution. Just FYI. Stupid response.

 

 

<kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:474E2359-1D57-4244-8C35-70EBD6BE5BD3@microsoft.com...

> Then Switch To Either Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta, Or Open

> Source Linux Ubuntu 7.04 RTW And Stop Complaining About Windows Vista RTM,

> Just FYI.

>

> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1

>> year

>> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

>> things in the first place.

>> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

>> would exist.

>>

>> - Vista is far slower than XP

>> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

>> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

>> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

>> upon itself.

>> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

>> kernel.

>> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

>> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

>> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

>> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

>> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

>> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

>> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

>> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to

>> see

>> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this

>> with

>> good cause.

>> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

>> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

>> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

>> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

>> almost all comparisons.

>> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>> installed,

>> start just as slow as XP

>> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

>> and

>> are looking for ways to change.

>> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

>> of

>> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>> windows

>> mail and very bad performance.

>> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

>> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

>> result

>> is people searching for third party solutions

>> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

>> takes up to much time.

>> -Network speed is horrendous

>> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

>> nothing

>> can save it.

>> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

>> made..

>> even worse that windows Me.

>> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

>> than anything ever seen before.

>> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>>

>> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

>> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

>> shot vista computers with guns!

>>

>>

>> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>>

>>

>>

>>

Re: Another stupid response

 

Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System

Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

 

"Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message

news:u#HqASU#HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Again, another useless post from an IDIOT. Nobody should switch to

> Windows 2008 Server as a desktop solution. Just FYI. Stupid response.

>

>

> <kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:474E2359-1D57-4244-8C35-70EBD6BE5BD3@microsoft.com...

>> Then Switch To Either Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta, Or Open

>> Source Linux Ubuntu 7.04 RTW And Stop Complaining About Windows Vista

>> RTM, Just FYI.

>>

>> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>> I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1

>>> year

>>> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

>>> things in the first place.

>>> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

>>> would exist.

>>>

>>> - Vista is far slower than XP

>>> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk.

>>> The

>>> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

>>> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

>>> upon itself.

>>> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

>>> kernel.

>>> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

>>> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of

>>> machines.

>>> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

>>> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

>>> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

>>> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a

>>> vista

>>> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

>>> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to

>>> see

>>> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this

>>> with

>>> good cause.

>>> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

>>> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

>>> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

>>> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

>>> almost all comparisons.

>>> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>>> installed,

>>> start just as slow as XP

>>> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

>>> and

>>> are looking for ways to change.

>>> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

>>> of

>>> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>>> windows

>>> mail and very bad performance.

>>> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

>>> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

>>> result

>>> is people searching for third party solutions

>>> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

>>> takes up to much time.

>>> -Network speed is horrendous

>>> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>>> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

>>> nothing

>>> can save it.

>>> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

>>> made..

>>> even worse that windows Me.

>>> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

>>> than anything ever seen before.

>>> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>>> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>>>

>>> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

>>> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

>>> shot vista computers with guns!

>>>

>>>

>>> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

>

Re: Another stupid response

 

<kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:CC9F2C81-5B3F-4088-9813-DA222E22AB41@microsoft.com...

> Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System

> Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

 

Not For Desktops. Just FYI. Windows 2008 Server was written not written

for the purpose of being on the desktop. For average users (people who

generally visit here) it is most likely beyind their scope. Just FYI. What

a waste of time. Just FYI.

>

> "Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message

> news:u#HqASU#HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Again, another useless post from an IDIOT. Nobody should switch to

>> Windows 2008 Server as a desktop solution. Just FYI. Stupid response.

>>

>>

>> <kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:474E2359-1D57-4244-8C35-70EBD6BE5BD3@microsoft.com...

>>> Then Switch To Either Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta, Or Open

>>> Source Linux Ubuntu 7.04 RTW And Stop Complaining About Windows Vista

>>> RTM, Just FYI.

>>>

>>> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>>> I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1

>>>> year

>>>> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all

>>>> these things in the first place.

>>>> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

>>>> would exist.

>>>>

>>>> - Vista is far slower than XP

>>>> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk.

>>>> The

>>>> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

>>>> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that

>>>> collapse

>>>> upon itself.

>>>> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is

>>>> NT

>>>> kernel.

>>>> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

>>>> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of

>>>> machines.

>>>> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

>>>> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

>>>> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

>>>> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a

>>>> vista

>>>> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

>>>> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to

>>>> see

>>>> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this

>>>> with

>>>> good cause.

>>>> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

>>>> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount

>>>> of

>>>> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

>>>> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down

>>>> on

>>>> almost all comparisons.

>>>> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>>>> installed,

>>>> start just as slow as XP

>>>> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't

>>>> like and

>>>> are looking for ways to change.

>>>> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon

>>>> thousands of

>>>> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>>>> windows

>>>> mail and very bad performance.

>>>> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower,

>>>> and

>>>> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

>>>> result

>>>> is people searching for third party solutions

>>>> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small

>>>> files

>>>> takes up to much time.

>>>> -Network speed is horrendous

>>>> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>>>> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

>>>> nothing

>>>> can save it.

>>>> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

>>>> made..

>>>> even worse that windows Me.

>>>> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

>>>> than anything ever seen before.

>>>> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>>>> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>>>>

>>>> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

>>>> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

>>>> shot vista computers with guns!

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>

>>

Re: Another stupid response

 

<kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:CC9F2C81-5B3F-4088-9813-DA222E22AB41@microsoft.com...

> Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System

> Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

>

OH mighty postal employee (and we know what the IQ requirements to be a

postman are) you do realize vista is built on the server kernel and in fact

sp1beta updates vista to the exact same kernel as server 2008. But hey,

keep licking those stamps and one day you might gravitate to envelopes.

INLINE:

 

 

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

> things in the first place.

> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

> would exist.

 

 

Sure sure.

 

> - Vista is far slower than XP

 

 

Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

 

> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

 

 

'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

 

> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

> upon itself.

 

 

I like it.

 

> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

> kernel.

 

 

Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would only

work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use a much

better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

 

> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

 

 

Wrong. It's very good that way.

 

> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

 

 

I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my machine

has over 1GB I don't really need it.

 

> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

 

 

Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course .. duh.

 

> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

 

 

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

 

> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to see

> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this with

> good cause.

 

 

Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right there

in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

 

> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

 

 

'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

 

> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

> almost all comparisons.

 

 

[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the

processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server 2003

fork. So please ..

 

> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

> installed,

> start just as slow as XP

 

 

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to

stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's including

the selecting of an account and entering a password.

 

> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

> and

> are looking for ways to change.

 

 

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

 

> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

> of

> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

> windows

> mail and very bad performance.

 

 

Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and

hundreds of bodies in those files.

 

> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

> result

> is people searching for third party solutions

 

 

The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing

well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular

need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs are

good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

 

> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

> takes up to much time.

 

 

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works very

well.

 

> -Network speed is horrendous

 

 

No. It's as fast or faster.

 

> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

 

 

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

 

> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

> nothing

> can save it.

 

 

Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such as

Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

 

> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

> made..

> even worse that windows Me.

 

 

Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean install

on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this fact was

usually overlooked by its critics.

 

> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

> than anything ever seen before.

 

 

Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB RAM).

For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a RAM

upgrade? I've done so many ..

 

> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

 

 

You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

 

> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

> shot vista computers with guns!

 

 

Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a

handgun doing outside of lock and key?

 

>

> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>

 

 

It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

 

Saucy

>Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

 

can you explain this in detail?

 

You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how

this helps the restore points not getting erased..

 

thanx

 

 

"Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message

news:e6T3NOV%23HHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> INLINE:

>

>

> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

>> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

>> things in the first place.

>> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

>> would exist.

>

>

> Sure sure.

>

>

>> - Vista is far slower than XP

>

>

> Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

>

>

>> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

>> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

>

>

> 'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

>

>

>> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

>> upon itself.

>

>

> I like it.

>

>

>> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

>> kernel.

>

>

> Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would

> only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use

> a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

>

>

>> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

>

>

> Wrong. It's very good that way.

>

>

>> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

>

>

> I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my

> machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

>

>

>> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

>> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

>

>

> Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..

> duh.

>

>

>> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

>> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

>> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

>

>

> Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

> partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

>

>

>> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to

>> see

>> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this

>> with

>> good cause.

>

>

> Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right there

> in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

>

>

>> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

>

>

> 'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

>

>

>> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

>> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

>> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

>> almost all comparisons.

>

>

> [clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the

> processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server

> 2003 fork. So please ..

>

>

>> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>> installed,

>> start just as slow as XP

>

>

> ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to

> stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's

> including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

>

>

>> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

>> and

>> are looking for ways to change.

>

>

> Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

>

>

>> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

>> of

>> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>> windows

>> mail and very bad performance.

>

>

> Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and

> hundreds of bodies in those files.

>

>

>> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

>> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

>> result

>> is people searching for third party solutions

>

>

> The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing

> well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular

> need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs are

> good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

>

>

>> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

>> takes up to much time.

>

>

> Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works

> very well.

>

>

>> -Network speed is horrendous

>

>

> No. It's as fast or faster.

>

>

>> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>

>

> Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

>

>

>> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

>> nothing

>> can save it.

>

>

> Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such as

> Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

>

>

>> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

>> made..

>> even worse that windows Me.

>

>

> Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean

> install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this fact

> was usually overlooked by its critics.

>

>

>> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

>> than anything ever seen before.

>

>

> Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB

> RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a

> RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

>

>

>> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>

>

> You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

>

>

>> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

>> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

>> shot vista computers with guns!

>

>

> Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a

> handgun doing outside of lock and key?

>

>

>>

>> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>>

>

>

> It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

>

> Saucy

Re: Another stupid response

 

windows 2003 that is a server OS was used by many many many people as a

desktop OS!

 

They claimed better stabily and I can say that that must have been true

since

the kernel of win2003 was 5.2 while on XP it was 5.1

 

So if all these people were using win2003 as a desktop I see no reason why

people will not use server 2008 as a desktop.

 

The only problem really is the cost.. since you can make 2008 function as a

desktop OS>

 

 

 

 

"Peter M" . wrote in message

news:%23H1ZKDV%23HHA.5464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> <kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:CC9F2C81-5B3F-4088-9813-DA222E22AB41@microsoft.com...

>> Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System

>> Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

>>

> OH mighty postal employee (and we know what the IQ requirements to be a

> postman are) you do realize vista is built on the server kernel and in

> fact sp1beta updates vista to the exact same kernel as server 2008. But

> hey, keep licking those stamps and one day you might gravitate to

> envelopes.

I eat vista wrote:

>>Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

>

> partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

>

> can you explain this in detail?

>

> You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how

> this helps the restore points not getting erased..

>

> thanx

>

>

> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message

> news:e6T3NOV%23HHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

>>INLINE:

>>

>>

>>"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>

>>>I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1 year

>>>are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

>>>things in the first place.

>>>Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

>>>would exist.

>>

>>

>>Sure sure.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Vista is far slower than XP

>>

>>

>>Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk. The

>>>service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

>>

>>

>>'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

>>

>>

>>

>>>- The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

>>>upon itself.

>>

>>

>>I like it.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

>>>kernel.

>>

>>

>>Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would

>>only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use

>>a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

>>

>>

>>Wrong. It's very good that way.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of machines.

>>

>>

>>I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my

>>machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

>>

>>

>>

>>>Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

>>>reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

>>

>>

>>Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..

>>duh.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

>>>format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista

>>>problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

>>

>>

>>Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

>>partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

>>

>>

>>

>>>-The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to

>>>see

>>>the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this

>>>with

>>>good cause.

>>

>>

>>Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right there

>>in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

>>

>>

>>'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

>>>data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

>>>improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

>>>almost all comparisons.

>>

>>

>>[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the

>>processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server

>>2003 fork. So please ..

>>

>>

>>

>>>- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>>>installed,

>>>start just as slow as XP

>>

>>

>>ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to

>>stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's

>>including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

>>>and

>>>are looking for ways to change.

>>

>>

>>Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

>>>of

>>>files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>>>windows

>>>mail and very bad performance.

>>

>>

>>Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and

>>hundreds of bodies in those files.

>>

>>

>>

>>>- The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

>>>most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

>>>result

>>>is people searching for third party solutions

>>

>>

>>The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing

>>well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular

>>need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs are

>>good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

>>

>>

>>

>>>-Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

>>>takes up to much time.

>>

>>

>>Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works

>>very well.

>>

>>

>>

>>>-Network speed is horrendous

>>

>>

>>No. It's as fast or faster.

>>

>>

>>

>>>-People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>>

>>

>>Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

>>

>>

>>

>>>-SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

>>>nothing

>>>can save it.

>>

>>

>>Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such as

>>Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

>>

>>

>>

>>>-Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

>>>made..

>>>even worse that windows Me.

>>

>>

>>Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean

>>install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this fact

>>was usually overlooked by its critics.

>>

>>

>>

>>>-The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

>>>than anything ever seen before.

>>

>>

>>Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB

>>RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a

>>RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

>>

>>

>>

>>>-People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>>>intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>>

>>

>>You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

>>

>>

>>

>>>Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

>>>feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

>>>shot vista computers with guns!

>>

>>

>>Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a

>>handgun doing outside of lock and key?

>>

>>

>>

>>>I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>>>

>>

>>

>>It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

>>

>>Saucy

>

>

>

First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete

problem is an XP problem.

Not a Vista problem.

Frank

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:42:52 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

>>

>>

> First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete

> problem is an XP problem.

> Not a Vista problem.

 

Actually it is a Vista problem. XP already existed, so why doesn't Vista

create it's restore points in such a way that XP doesn't get confused by

them and delete them?

 

XP can't look in the future and know Vista exists so it can't take

changes in Vista into account.

 

Vista however was created after XP so it shouldn't be creating restore

points in such a way that it causes XP to delete them. It isn't causing

problems with XP..it's ultimately causing problems with Vista, making it

a Vista problem.

 

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:53:04 -0400, Saucy wrote:

 

 

<snip>

>

>> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>> installed,

>> start just as slow as XP

>

>

> ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to

> stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's

> including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

 

50-53 seconds? Personally I'd find that somewhere between pathetically

slow to sloth like. But that's just me...

>

>

>> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't

>> like and

>> are looking for ways to change.

>

>

> Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

>

>

>> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon

>> thousands of

>> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>> windows

>> mail and very bad performance.

>

>

> Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and

> hundreds of bodies in those files.

 

How would it do with a giganews account that doesn't have thousands of

headers, but can easily go into millions of headers?

 

<snip>

>

>

>> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small

>> files takes up to much time.

>

>

> Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works

> very well.

 

You also think 50+ seconds boot-up time is fast...

>

>

>> -Network speed is horrendous

>

>

> No. It's as fast or faster.

>

 

If it is as fast or faster, why is MS addressing network speed problems

then in SP 1? Care to elaborate? Do you know something that MS doesn't?

>

>> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>

>

> Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

 

The IE7 toolbar has got to be the most unconfigurable atrocity I've ever

seen. What's configurable about it?

 

 

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Frank is mixed up.. he thinks XP should have looked into the future.. lol

 

Monkeys dont have a very good grasp of the arrow of time.

 

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

news:9NCdnd9QjMIvU3PbRVnyuQA@giganews.com...

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:42:52 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>

>>>

>>>

>> First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete

>> problem is an XP problem.

>> Not a Vista problem.

>

> Actually it is a Vista problem. XP already existed, so why doesn't Vista

> create it's restore points in such a way that XP doesn't get confused by

> them and delete them?

>

> XP can't look in the future and know Vista exists so it can't take

> changes in Vista into account.

>

> Vista however was created after XP so it shouldn't be creating restore

> points in such a way that it causes XP to delete them. It isn't causing

> problems with XP..it's ultimately causing problems with Vista, making it

> a Vista problem.

>

>

> --

> Stephan

> 2003 Yamaha R6

>

> ????????????????

> ??????????????

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46eec4ac@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> >Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

> partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

>

> can you explain this in detail?

>

> You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how

> this helps the restore points not getting erased..

>

> thanx

 

If you bothered to stop and think you would understand the OS looks for

restore points in a directory on the primary active partition.

 

DUH!

you sure have a thing for monkeys! must be a family thing? Just FYI.

 

 

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46eed77f@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> Frank is mixed up.. he thinks XP should have looked into the future.. lol

>

> Monkeys dont have a very good grasp of the arrow of time.

>

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

> news:9NCdnd9QjMIvU3PbRVnyuQA@giganews.com...

>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:42:52 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>

>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>> First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete

>>> problem is an XP problem.

>>> Not a Vista problem.

>>

>> Actually it is a Vista problem. XP already existed, so why doesn't Vista

>> create it's restore points in such a way that XP doesn't get confused by

>> them and delete them?

>>

>> XP can't look in the future and know Vista exists so it can't take

>> changes in Vista into account.

>>

>> Vista however was created after XP so it shouldn't be creating restore

>> points in such a way that it causes XP to delete them. It isn't causing

>> problems with XP..it's ultimately causing problems with Vista, making it

>> a Vista problem.

>>

>>

>> --

>> Stephan

>> 2003 Yamaha R6

>>

>> ????????????????

>> ??????????????

>

>

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46eec4ac@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> >Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

> partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

>

> can you explain this in detail?

>

> You can switch active partions with 3rd party programs.. but explain how

> this helps the restore points not getting erased..

>

> thanx

>

>

> "Saucy" <saucy538347334873772.sjhdf@net.net.net> wrote in message

> news:e6T3NOV%23HHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> INLINE:

>>

>>

>> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:46ee8cb9@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>>>I am very happy to say that things I have been saying over the past 1

>>>year

>>> are all confirmed. Of course I am sad to see that I had to say all these

>>> things in the first place.

>>> Vista should have been better, then no need for criticism and rejection

>>> would exist.

>>

>>

>> Sure sure.

>>

>>

>>> - Vista is far slower than XP

>>

>>

>> Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

>>

>>

>>> - Vista search is horrid, slow, gets corrupted and thrashes the disk.

>>> The

>>> service should be turned off. It doesnt work.

>>

>>

>> 'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

>>

>>

>>> - The vista start menu design is extremely bad, with menus that collapse

>>> upon itself.

>>

>>

>> I like it.

>>

>>

>>> - Vista is unstable and incompatible with no great reason since it is NT

>>> kernel.

>>

>>

>> Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would

>> only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use

>> a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

>>

>>

>>> - Vista is not user friendly, creating frustration to the simple user

>>

>>

>> Wrong. It's very good that way.

>>

>>

>>> - Readyboost is a gimmick that helps only a small percentage of

>>> machines.

>>

>>

>> I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my

>> machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

>>

>>

>>> Its more of a crutch to help vista pull its own obese weight. Many have

>>> reported a NEGATIVE result when trying it on machines with much ram.

>>

>>

>> Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..

>> duh.

>>

>>

>>> - Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore

>>> format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a

>>> vista

>>> problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

>>

>>

>> Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active

>> partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

>>

>>

>>> -The colors and fonts and general design of the theme makes it hard to

>>> see

>>> the information presented. Numerous people have complained about this

>>> with

>>> good cause.

>>

>>

>> Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right

>> there in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

>>

>>

>>> - The SPEECH to Text function is a joke. It doesnt work!

>>

>>

>> 'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

>>

>>

>>> - Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of

>>> data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant

>>> improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on

>>> almost all comparisons.

>>

>>

>> [clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the

>> processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server

>> 2003 fork. So please ..

>>

>>

>>> - The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs

>>> installed,

>>> start just as slow as XP

>>

>>

>> ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to

>> stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's

>> including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

>>

>>

>>> - The "Branded sounds" in Vista was a stupid thing that users don't like

>>> and

>>> are looking for ways to change.

>>

>>

>> Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

>>

>>

>>> - Windows Mail uses EML format and that creates thousands upon thousands

>>> of

>>> files when you have lots of emails, the result is slower loading of

>>> windows

>>> mail and very bad performance.

>>

>>

>> Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and

>> hundreds of bodies in those files.

>>

>>

>>> - The simplified vista DEFRAGMENT with no visual feedback is slower, and

>>> most people absolutely hate it. A clear degrade from XP's defrag. The

>>> result

>>> is people searching for third party solutions

>>

>>

>> The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing

>> well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular

>> need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs

>> are good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might

>> want.

>>

>>

>>> -Copying and moving files in vista is a joke.. even deleting small files

>>> takes up to much time.

>>

>>

>> Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works

>> very well.

>>

>>

>>> -Network speed is horrendous

>>

>>

>> No. It's as fast or faster.

>>

>>

>>> -People hate the internet explorer 7 toolbar that cannot be configured.

>>

>>

>> Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

>>

>>

>>> -SP1 will not save vista, its bad design is so well integrated that

>>> nothing

>>> can save it.

>>

>>

>> Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such

>> as Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

>>

>>

>>> -Windows vista is over-all comparably the worse OS Microsoft has ever

>>> made..

>>> even worse that windows Me.

>>

>>

>> Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean

>> install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this

>> fact was usually overlooked by its critics.

>>

>>

>>> -The cost of use of vista (in time, labor and upgrade expenses) is more

>>> than anything ever seen before.

>>

>>

>> Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB

>> RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a

>> RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

>>

>>

>>> -People who really like vista are stupid. No one who has above average

>>> intelligence could actually think vista is a good OS. Sorry guys.

>>

>>

>> You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

>>

>>

>>> Over all vista has a "not finished" badly designed, amateur, and stupid

>>> feeling to it that frustrates the common user. So much that people have

>>> shot vista computers with guns!

>>

>>

>> Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a

>> handgun doing outside of lock and key?

>>

>>

>>>

>>> I have more.. I might add with later posts...

>>>

>>

>>

>> It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

>>

>> Saucy

>

>

 

 

It keeps the two separate. Each is installed on a true C: drive as the

active partition on the primary drive is always set to C:\. When you switch

the active partition to another primary partition on the same drive .. the

second OS thinks it is on the true C:\ drive. So all goes well.

 

The bootpart utility is a very handy little thing that lets you install each

on it's own C:\ drive and enables you to add each OS to the boot.ini list.

So the Vista BCDs and the like doesn't take over from XP's NTLDR or

what-have-you. They are kept separate. With bootpart, the boot.ini is

pointed to a tiny file that points to the other OS's bootloader. They are

kept separate - one doesn't replace the other as what would usually happen.

In so doing, the two OS can reside on the same harddrive .. each thinks it

is C: .. and you can arrange it so they completely avoid each other i.e.

avoid problems with the System Restore.

 

Saucy

 

When you go to do your system restore thingies, just have each do its own

C:\ drive and avoid the other's C:\ drive and voila.

Re: Another stupid response

 

Indeed, The Only Problem That I Have Found So Far With The Windows Server

2008 June CTP, Is That Microsoft Money 2008 Does Not Work On It, After It's

Successfully Installed On It, Just FYI. Otherwise, I Have Had No Major

Problems To Report With It, And Most Windows Vista 32 Bit Driver's Work Just

Fine On 32 Bit Windows Server 2008 June CTP, Just FYI.

 

"I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:46eec643@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> windows 2003 that is a server OS was used by many many many people as a

> desktop OS!

>

> They claimed better stabily and I can say that that must have been true

> since

> the kernel of win2003 was 5.2 while on XP it was 5.1

>

> So if all these people were using win2003 as a desktop I see no reason why

> people will not use server 2008 as a desktop.

>

> The only problem really is the cost.. since you can make 2008 function as

> a desktop OS>

>

>

>

>

> "Peter M" . wrote in message

> news:%23H1ZKDV%23HHA.5464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>> <kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:CC9F2C81-5B3F-4088-9813-DA222E22AB41@microsoft.com...

>>> Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating System

>>> Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

>>>

>> OH mighty postal employee (and we know what the IQ requirements to be a

>> postman are) you do realize vista is built on the server kernel and in

>> fact sp1beta updates vista to the exact same kernel as server 2008. But

>> hey, keep licking those stamps and one day you might gravitate to

>> envelopes.

>

>

Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:42:52 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>

>

>>>

>>First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete

>>problem is an XP problem.

>>Not a Vista problem.

>

>

> Actually it is a Vista problem. XP already existed, so why doesn't Vista

> create it's restore points in such a way that XP doesn't get confused by

> them and delete them?

>

> XP can't look in the future and know Vista exists so it can't take

> changes in Vista into account.

>

> Vista however was created after XP so it shouldn't be creating restore

> points in such a way that it causes XP to delete them. It isn't causing

> problems with XP..it's ultimately causing problems with Vista, making it

> a Vista problem.

>

>

 

It's an XP problem:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926185

 

...."This problem occurs because the volume snapshot driver that is

included with Windows Vista and with Windows Server "Longhorn" uses disk

structures that are incompatible with earlier versions of Windows.

Therefore, the earlier operating system deletes Windows Vista shadow

copies or Windows Server "Longhorn" shadow copies together with the

associated restore points. This behavior occurs because the earlier

Windows operating systems do not recognize the new disk structures."

 

Proly be fixed by XP SP3.

Frank

Re: Another stupid response

 

P.S. I Was Also Successful At Installing And Using Zone Alarm 7.1 Free

Edition On 32 Bit Windows Server 2008 June CTP As Well, Just FYI.

 

<kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:u$1FhtW#HHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Indeed, The Only Problem That I Have Found So Far With The Windows Server

> 2008 June CTP, Is That Microsoft Money 2008 Does Not Work On It, After

> It's Successfully Installed On It, Just FYI. Otherwise, I Have Had No

> Major Problems To Report With It, And Most Windows Vista 32 Bit Driver's

> Work Just Fine On 32 Bit Windows Server 2008 June CTP, Just FYI.

>

> "I eat vista" <Ieatvista@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:46eec643@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> windows 2003 that is a server OS was used by many many many people as a

>> desktop OS!

>>

>> They claimed better stabily and I can say that that must have been true

>> since

>> the kernel of win2003 was 5.2 while on XP it was 5.1

>>

>> So if all these people were using win2003 as a desktop I see no reason

>> why people will not use server 2008 as a desktop.

>>

>> The only problem really is the cost.. since you can make 2008 function as

>> a desktop OS>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> "Peter M" . wrote in message

>> news:%23H1ZKDV%23HHA.5464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> <kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:CC9F2C81-5B3F-4088-9813-DA222E22AB41@microsoft.com...

>>>> Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 Public Beta Is A Much Better Operating

>>>> System Then Windows Vista RTM, Just FYI.

>>>>

>>> OH mighty postal employee (and we know what the IQ requirements to be a

>>> postman are) you do realize vista is built on the server kernel and in

>>> fact sp1beta updates vista to the exact same kernel as server 2008. But

>>> hey, keep licking those stamps and one day you might gravitate to

>>> envelopes.

>>

>>