I agree.. Steve, you seem on of the well informed posters..

 

Vista *does* support something that XP does not (I MUST BE CLEAR> NATIVELY,

meaning that perhaps with some extra driver XP too could, this is only

speculation)

and that is Hybrid hard drives, that is hard drives with flash memory on

them..

 

they are not out yet in the main stream but if one comes out it will be sata

 

 

"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:eeFMloCYIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> >

>> 3x faster transfers.

>

> Hate to nit-pick, but not really true. Three times the headroom on the

> data link, yes. But the bandwidth on the old ATA bus comfortably exceeds

> the sustained throughput a hard disk can develop.

>

> So a SATA hard drive on a SATA bus performs virtually identically to an

> equivalent ATA model on an ATA bus. The only difference is in the

> incredibly brief interval when the drive is being read from its internal

> buffer. A SATA bus can definitely pull from that buffer faster.

>

> The main benefit for SATA is its (relative) future-proofness, plus the

> more compact cabling and connectors.

>

> SteveT

"Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

news:479b5905@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> No... XP is far better and feauture rich compared to win2k that was ment

> for business...

>

> Vista is BLOAT and CRAP rich and has nothing to offer more than flashy

> trasparent theme and nice icons..

 

XP is BLOAT and CRAP rich! 128MB of RAM you're kidding me! Windows 2000

only needs 32MB of RAM! And what's with the stupid over-the-top Fisher

Price interface?

 

You've got a short memory Joe, these battles have ranged for decades, with

the exact same arguments over and over, and over again.

 

It's never been as good as its been now, I had to buy a new graphics card

for Windows XP, and even that, the GeForce 3 - had problems with the video

drivers for almost a year after launch, and not just little problems, the

good ol' infinite loop problem.

 

Windows XP was a huge change, everyone got moved over to the NT codebase and

the 9x line was chucked out. Too many people seem to be forgetting that.

Gamers avoided Windows XP for a couple of years often sticking with Windows

98SE and Windows 2000, because Windows XP was too slow!

 

--

Paul Smith,

Yeovil, UK.

Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/

http://www.windowsresource.net/

 

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:11:01 -0800, marpa

<marpa@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I am looking to get a new laptop...and evrything has Vista installed. I have

> been doing reading and know a few people who have it and don't think I really

> want it. I am very happy with my windows XP. Would it be difficult to have

> Vista removed from laptop and then have XP installed on it?

 

 

Several points:

 

1. Whatever piece of software you're talking about, whether an

application or an operating system, you can always find people who

don't like it. That's especially true when it's new.

 

2. Vista needs more powerful hardware than XP (in particular it needs

considerably more RAM--I recommend 2GB for most people). Most people

who have problems with Vista are running it on inadequate hardware. Or

they are using it with older peripherals or applications.

 

3. I've been running Vista since RTM in November of 2006. I've had no

problems with it and I'm very happy with it.

 

4. If you were asking whether to upgrade an existing computer to

Vista, my advice would be to make sure you needed to upgrade and to

consider staying where you are. But to me it makes no sense to get a

new computer with yesterday's operating system. As new applications

and new peripherals come out, they may not be supported on XP, and you

will probably find yourself upgrading to Vista later anyway.

 

5. But if you do decide to downgrade, make sure that XP drivers are

available for all the hardware on the computer, and for all the

peripherals you want to use with it. Particularly with a laptop, it's

often true that you won't be able to get the needed drivers.

 

6. Check with the laptop manufacturer. You may find that they will

consider that changing the operating system voids your warranty.

 

7. Finally, if you want a laptop with XP, the best way to get it is to

buy it that way. Dell stills sells XP laptops, and probably other

vendors do too.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>Windows Vista is a solid release

 

I must list this in my top hundred lies I have read for 2008

 

its probably going to be right in the top 10...

 

Do you want me to add your name as credits along with this lie?

 

Whats a lie without the liar, right?

 

 

 

"Paul Smith" . wrote in message

news:72162568-173E-40FD-B1B2-17C1D2A2D86B@microsoft.com...

> "marpa" <marpa@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:AF30C81C-B87D-408E-B988-FB232F0A7AC4@microsoft.com...

>> Thanks Mike...I downloaded and ran the advisor as you suggested and the

>> only

>> problems found were with things that I don't use...LOL So I guess I just

>> might give the Vista a chance after all. I did read here where somone

>> had a

>> problem with his USB ports not working....I DO hope that is not a normal

>> thing. I DO use those frequently!

>>

>> Thanks again for this advice! I feel more secure in the thought of Vista

>> now.

>

> Windows Vista is a solid release. I rolled it out on all my machines (5

> of them) without any issues when it was released, the only driver missing

> was for a Logitech webcam, which showed up in Windows Update after a month

> or two after release.

>

> A lot of the troubles I feel are brought about by computer manufacturers

> installing lots of junk on the system. My sister just got a Dell laptop,

> and it needed some work to trim it up to my expectations. Which you can

> read about here...

> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2008/01/24/making-a-computer-usable

>

> Basic advice is always uninstall what you're sure you don't need (usually

> most of it). Uninstall heavy-weight security solution like Norton or

> McAfee and use the built in Windows tools like the Firewall and Defender,

> and install a light-weight anti-virus solution, NOD32, or AVG.

>

> --

> Paul Smith,

> Yeovil, UK.

> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/

> http://www.windowsresource.net/

>

> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

>

>

windows 2k workstation needed 64 m and so does XP to install...

 

you can hack XP to be as lite as win2k almost, but the overhead is justified

with so many nice features...

 

but with vista.. even if you hack it to smithereens removing all you can,

its still slow and BLOATED..

 

Vista simply cant be fixed.. that's why they are abandoning it basically

throwing in a SP1 just for the whiners and

working on windows 7 that will be what I say:> a LEAN fast version of

windows!

 

 

"Paul Smith" . wrote in message

news:1DC583E5-5E5F-42F8-91C3-F712A85A50FE@microsoft.com...

> "Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

> news:479b5905@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> No... XP is far better and feauture rich compared to win2k that was ment

>> for business...

>>

>> Vista is BLOAT and CRAP rich and has nothing to offer more than flashy

>> trasparent theme and nice icons..

>

> XP is BLOAT and CRAP rich! 128MB of RAM you're kidding me! Windows 2000

> only needs 32MB of RAM! And what's with the stupid over-the-top Fisher

> Price interface?

>

> You've got a short memory Joe, these battles have ranged for decades, with

> the exact same arguments over and over, and over again.

>

> It's never been as good as its been now, I had to buy a new graphics card

> for Windows XP, and even that, the GeForce 3 - had problems with the video

> drivers for almost a year after launch, and not just little problems, the

> good ol' infinite loop problem.

>

> Windows XP was a huge change, everyone got moved over to the NT codebase

> and the 9x line was chucked out. Too many people seem to be forgetting

> that. Gamers avoided Windows XP for a couple of years often sticking with

> Windows 98SE and Windows 2000, because Windows XP was too slow!

>

> --

> Paul Smith,

> Yeovil, UK.

> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/

> http://www.windowsresource.net/

>

> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

>

>

"Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

news:479b620c$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> windows 2k workstation needed 64 m and so does XP to install...

 

Wrong.

 

Windows 2000 requires 32MB minimum. Windows XP's minimum was 128MB, 64MB

would work but "may limit features".

 

--

Paul Smith,

Yeovil, UK.

Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/

http://www.windowsresource.net/

 

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

Joe cann586490 Wrote:

> Vista simply cant be fixed.. that's why they are abandoning it basically

> throwing in a SP1 just for the whiners and working on windows 7 that

> will be what I say:> a LEAN fast version of windows!

 

Microsoft is NOT "throwing out Vista" in favour of it successor,

Windows 7. You are basing your statements on second-hand hearsay, and

haven't even bothered to confirm whether it is true or not.

 

R&D for Blackcomb started about 5 or 6 years ago. When Vista went Gold

(RTM version), many of the key developers that worked on Vista where

moved over to the Blackcomb project, which was rechristened Vienna (or

Windows 7, as it's more commonly known).

 

Get your facts straight before you make your comments!

 

 

--

dzomlija

 

_____________________

Peter Alexander Dzomlija

-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as

you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

 

-Download MP3 Media Properties Explorer: --http://www.phx.co.za-

 

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe

- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+

- 4GB DDR400

- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600

- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Chassis

- 1207GB Formatted Storage

- Vista Ultimate x64

- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at: http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/Dzomlija/Venus/

"Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

news:479b620c$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> windows 2k workstation needed 64 m and so does XP to install...

>

 

The minimum supported for Windows 2000 is 32 MB. It would be slow but it was

supported.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297

 

> you can hack XP to be as lite as win2k almost, but the overhead is

> justified with so many nice features...

>

 

I don't understand why you'd want to. If you want the feature set of Windows

2000 then use Windows 2000. If you want the feature set of XP use XP.

> but with vista.. even if you hack it to smithereens removing all you can,

> its still slow and BLOATED..

>

 

Every version of every OS I've used has been larger (more bloated in your

terminolgy) than the previous version of the same OS. You can't add features

without adding more code. It doesn't make sense for operating systems not to

take advantage of advances in hardware capabilities.

> Vista simply cant be fixed.. that's why they are abandoning it basically

> throwing in a SP1 just for the whiners and

> working on windows 7 that will be what I say:> a LEAN fast version of

> windows!

 

When Vista went RTM Microsoft announced they would be going back to their

regular schedule of a new Windows version every two to three years. This has

nothing to do with abandoning Vista. Look at the timeline of previous

Windows releases. Vista was the exception at five years. XP came out two

years after Windows 2000 but Windows 2000 support continued for many years

after that. XP support will continue for many years after the release of

Vista and even Windows 7. What makes you think they will abandon Vista

support? It's fine of you don't like Vista. That's an opinion. It's not fine

when you pass off your opinion as fact. That's FUD pure and simple.

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

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

I've just been going through the exercise. There are Dell Vostro computers

still available with XP that are relatively cheap. Don't get the version

with the AMD chipset though, get the Intel.

 

Also I talked with HP about selected low end machines from them. While they

won't sell them with XP, some of them will still run XP (i.e. have all the

necessary drivers available). You can't just buy any Vista machine and

expect to run XP on it without first verifying driver availability. Sony

and Toshiba for example told me they will not support XP on their hardware.

 

In the end I bought an HP/Compaq C751NR (Compaq C700 series will run XP says

HP). My plan was to buy it, try it for awhile, then load XP on it if Vista

was insufferable. I must say however that thus far I've found Vista usable.

I spent the first 6 hours with the machine figuring out how to turn off all

the Vista graphics and stuff I didn't want anyhow, and figuring out how to

configure it to give me the old "classic" windows interface so it looks like

my old XP machines. Having done all that I'm happy enough that I'll

probably live with the Vista.

 

The only thing I've stumbled across thus far which is an egregious poke in

the eye to an XP user is that they "improved" the OE email program so it no

longer supports multiple identities. Microsoft would say you should be

using multiple Vista login accounts anyhow, but darn it all I want is a

plain old single user setup with no logon. Vista lets you do that, but then

you're stuck with no multiple email identities. Grumble, grumble... I'll

just move to someone else's email software I guess.

 

To the good however, Vista seems to have improved file sharing network

security over XP.

 

Good luck with your search...

 

Bill

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

 

"marpa" <marpa@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:684166AE-859D-45CB-9A1D-C4D0FE2A2E3A@microsoft.com...

>I am looking to get a new laptop...and evrything has Vista installed. I

>have

> been doing reading and know a few people who have it and don't think I

> really

> want it. I am very happy with my windows XP. Would it be difficult to

> have

> Vista removed from laptop and then have XP installed on it?

>

> Thanks,

>

>

>You can't add features

without adding more code

 

CRAP!

 

Lets, compare azureus with utorrent

 

they do the same thing

 

one is 7.43 MB (azureus) not including the Java VM machine needed thats

twice that much (at least)

the other (utorrent) is less than 200Kb

 

lets see that show that azureus is 37 times bigger (!!!!) that utorrent, 2

programs that do the same thing!

 

One is bloated, the other is made with GREAT care, streamlined to have as

small footprint as possible, fast and ... well I just love it!

 

Don't tell me more features = more bloat.. that is incorrect, that's what

they have trained your MVP brain to believe and its wrong...

 

More features AND small size though needs very good design and care, and

planning....and darn good programmers that are not sloppy.

 

Microsoft doesn't care about bloat nor ram nor speed, because they say,

whats in it for us? We will work harder to make something leaner, and that's

means more cost for development...

while at the same time hardware is getting faster... so what will we do?

 

We have the opportunity to be LAZY and INEFFICIENT and transfer the COST of

this to the USER!

 

 

Kerry you are such a newbie.. so naive... even if you have been using

computers for long.. you are still a newbie.. ya don't understand the

basics, the politics, the business side and the human side of technology.

 

 

 

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

news:7761210D-3C6B-4720-83C2-E7CC17AF500A@microsoft.com...

> "Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

> news:479b620c$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> windows 2k workstation needed 64 m and so does XP to install...

>>

>

> The minimum supported for Windows 2000 is 32 MB. It would be slow but it

> was supported.

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297

>

>

>> you can hack XP to be as lite as win2k almost, but the overhead is

>> justified with so many nice features...

>>

>

> I don't understand why you'd want to. If you want the feature set of

> Windows 2000 then use Windows 2000. If you want the feature set of XP use

> XP.

>

>> but with vista.. even if you hack it to smithereens removing all you can,

>> its still slow and BLOATED..

>>

>

> Every version of every OS I've used has been larger (more bloated in your

> terminolgy) than the previous version of the same OS. You can't add

> features without adding more code. It doesn't make sense for operating

> systems not to take advantage of advances in hardware capabilities.

>

>> Vista simply cant be fixed.. that's why they are abandoning it basically

>> throwing in a SP1 just for the whiners and

>> working on windows 7 that will be what I say:> a LEAN fast version of

>> windows!

>

> When Vista went RTM Microsoft announced they would be going back to their

> regular schedule of a new Windows version every two to three years. This

> has nothing to do with abandoning Vista. Look at the timeline of previous

> Windows releases. Vista was the exception at five years. XP came out two

> years after Windows 2000 but Windows 2000 support continued for many years

> after that. XP support will continue for many years after the release of

> Vista and even Windows 7. What makes you think they will abandon Vista

> support? It's fine of you don't like Vista. That's an opinion. It's not

> fine when you pass off your opinion as fact. That's FUD pure and simple.

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

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

>

>

>

Joe cann wrote:

>>You can't add features

>

> without adding more code

>

> CRAP!

>

> Lets, compare azureus with utorrent

>

> they do the same thing

>

> one is 7.43 MB (azureus) not including the Java VM machine needed thats

> twice that much (at least)

> the other (utorrent) is less than 200Kb

>

> lets see that show that azureus is 37 times bigger (!!!!) that utorrent, 2

> programs that do the same thing!

>

> One is bloated, the other is made with GREAT care, streamlined to have as

> small footprint as possible, fast and ... well I just love it!

>

> Don't tell me more features = more bloat.. that is incorrect, that's what

> they have trained your MVP brain to believe and its wrong...

>

> More features AND small size though needs very good design and care, and

> planning....and darn good programmers that are not sloppy.

>

> Microsoft doesn't care about bloat nor ram nor speed, because they say,

> whats in it for us? We will work harder to make something leaner, and that's

> means more cost for development...

> while at the same time hardware is getting faster... so what will we do?

>

> We have the opportunity to be LAZY and INEFFICIENT and transfer the COST of

> this to the USER!

>

>

> Kerry you are such a newbie.. so naive... even if you have been using

> computers for long.. you are still a newbie.. ya don't understand the

> basics, the politics, the business side and the human side of technology.

>

 

You're a real stupid idiot! You're comparing apples to oranges. Am MS OS

needs to have backwards compatibility. I guess you forgot about that you

newbie moron.

You need to get lost and just STFU! You've already made a huge ass out

of yourself here so many times now it's not even funny any longer.

Loser!

Frank

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:11:01 -0800, marpa wrote:

> I am looking to get a new laptop...and evrything has Vista installed. I

> have been doing reading and know a few people who have it and don't

> think I really want it. I am very happy with my windows XP. Would it

> be difficult to have Vista removed from laptop and then have XP

> installed on it?

>

> Thanks,

 

You are misinformed. DELL, for one sells laptops and desktops which do

not have vista installed. You'll find ones with xp installed as well as

several models with Ubuntu Linux installed.

Joe cann586724 Wrote:

> >You can't add features

> without adding more code

>

> CRAP!

>

> Lets, compare azureus with utorrent

>

> they do the same thing

>

> one is 7.43 MB (azureus) not including the Java VM machine needed thats

> twice that much (at least)

> the other (utorrent) is less than 200Kb

>

> lets see that show that azureus is 37 times bigger (!!!!) that

> utorrent, 2

> programs that do the same thing!

>

> One is bloated, the other is made with GREAT care, streamlined to have

> as

> small footprint as possible, fast and ... well I just love it!

>

> Don't tell me more features = more bloat.. that is incorrect, that's

> what

> they have trained your MVP brain to believe and its wrong...

>

> More features AND small size though needs very good design and care,

> and

> planning....and darn good programmers that are not sloppy.

>

> Microsoft doesn't care about bloat nor ram nor speed, because they say,

> whats in it for us? We will work harder to make something leaner, and

> that's

> means more cost for development...

> while at the same time hardware is getting faster... so what will we

> do?

>

> We have the opportunity to be LAZY and INEFFICIENT and transfer the

> COST of

> this to the USER!

>

>

> Kerry you are such a newbie.. so naive... even if you have been using

> computers for long.. you are still a newbie.. ya don't understand the

> basics, the politics, the business side and the human side of

> technology.

 

Very bad example Joe. Azureus and uTorrent are niche utilities,

designed to a single purpose only - and that is to download torrents. In

such cases, it's easy to refine and optimize the code to leave a small

footprint.

 

Windows (and any other OS for that matter) are multi-purpose systems

that have been designed to perform a vast number of different task, from

productivity to research to entertainment, amongst others.

 

Without fully knowing how developer will utilize the APIs of the OS, or

in what combination, it becomes increasingly difficult to minimize the

code base. A vast majority of the "bloat" that you see is not because

the codeing has become inneficient, but because additional API functions

and interfaces have been added that did not exist in previous versions.

 

Case in point (although you may only really understand this is you are

a developer yourself):

 

Take the very simple Windows API functions "MessageBox" and

"MessageBeep". These two have beep around since the earliest versions of

Windows. Genrally, when a program needs to pass a message on to the

user, it will use the MessageBox call, as follows:

 

 

Code:

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

 

MessageBox(hWnd, 'Hello World', 'Information', MB_OK)

 

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

 

 

In order to remain compliant with genral UI and usability guidlines,

the call to MessageBox should be preceded with a call to MessageBeep so

that an audible alert is sounded, like this:

 

 

Code:

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

 

MessageBeep(MB_ICONINFORMATION)

 

MessageBox(hWnd, 'Joe Cann is a moron!', 'Information', MB_ICONINFORMATION)

 

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

 

 

 

 

Whether the call to MessageBeep was made or not, was entirely up to the

developer. Microsoft realized this, and slightly changed the way the

MessageBox function worked. Now, in modern versions of Windows, if

MessageBox is called on its own, it will both display the message AND

play an audible alert sound, unless a call to MessageBeep has already

been made, in which case it will function as it has since the early

days. Chances such as this to a function, regardless of how tightly it

is optimized, will increase it's effective code size.

 

While the above is an extremly simple example for a function that is

taken for-granted, it serves to illustrate one thing - The OS isn't

becoming "bloated" or "innificient" because Microsoft has sloppy coders.

It's because more advanced functions are being added, or older ones are

being enhanced so that developers can more easily concentrate on the

core components of their projects.

 

And when you factor in the sheer number of API calls and interfaces

exposed to developer by Windows, the changes can be misconstrued as

"bloat", because all the little chances add up to huge amounts of bytes

being added across the board.

 

The printed documentation for the entire Windows 3.x API was something

like 5 volumes of about 800 pages or so each! I shudder to think what

the modern Win32 and Win64 API documentation will look like in printed

form. Thank [insert deity name here] for the Internet where it's easy to

find what you want!

 

So do us all a favour Joe, and quit your bellyaching.

 

 

--

dzomlija

 

_____________________

Peter Alexander Dzomlija

-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as

you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

 

-Download MP3 Media Properties Explorer: --http://www.phx.co.za-

 

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe

- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+

- 4GB DDR400

- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600

- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Chassis

- 1207GB Formatted Storage

- Vista Ultimate x64

- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at: http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/Dzomlija/Venus/

Franky poo... barebones UBUNTU is far smaller than WINDOWS,

 

when I say barebones, I mean have all the stuff CRAPISTA has without all the

extra programs that comes with ubuntu like open office or gimp (windows

doesnt come with office2007 or photoshop does it?)..

 

less than 2 gigs installed, the installation is done from a CD! ha!

 

Barebones Vista? There is no such thing Vista is so fat you could be digging

for millenia and never find bones! HA!

 

 

 

"Frank" <fb@samm.zrr> wrote in message

news:uE4jvEGYIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Joe cann wrote:

>>>You can't add features

>>

>> without adding more code

>>

>> CRAP!

>>

>> Lets, compare azureus with utorrent

>>

>> they do the same thing

>>

>> one is 7.43 MB (azureus) not including the Java VM machine needed thats

>> twice that much (at least)

>> the other (utorrent) is less than 200Kb

>>

>> lets see that show that azureus is 37 times bigger (!!!!) that utorrent,

>> 2 programs that do the same thing!

>>

>> One is bloated, the other is made with GREAT care, streamlined to have as

>> small footprint as possible, fast and ... well I just love it!

>>

>> Don't tell me more features = more bloat.. that is incorrect, that's what

>> they have trained your MVP brain to believe and its wrong...

>>

>> More features AND small size though needs very good design and care, and

>> planning....and darn good programmers that are not sloppy.

>>

>> Microsoft doesn't care about bloat nor ram nor speed, because they say,

>> whats in it for us? We will work harder to make something leaner, and

>> that's means more cost for development...

>> while at the same time hardware is getting faster... so what will we do?

>>

>> We have the opportunity to be LAZY and INEFFICIENT and transfer the COST

>> of this to the USER!

>>

>>

>> Kerry you are such a newbie.. so naive... even if you have been using

>> computers for long.. you are still a newbie.. ya don't understand the

>> basics, the politics, the business side and the human side of technology.

>>

>

> You're a real stupid idiot! You're comparing apples to oranges. Am MS OS

> needs to have backwards compatibility. I guess you forgot about that you

> newbie moron.

> You need to get lost and just STFU! You've already made a huge ass out of

> yourself here so many times now it's not even funny any longer.

> Loser!

> Frank

Joe cann wrote:

> Franky poo... barebones UBUNTU is far smaller than WINDOWS,

 

hehehe...well capin' crunch who cares? You can't run most any of the

most used and popular software in use today on any linux distro.

I guess you didn't know that right?

>

> when I say barebones, I mean have all the stuff CRAPISTA has without all the

> extra programs that comes with ubuntu like open office or gimp (windows

> doesnt come with office2007 or photoshop does it?)..

 

Well capin' crunch...open orifice is not Office 2007 by any stretch of

anyones imagination and gimp (who comes up with these stupid names huh?)

certainly isn't Adobe CS3 by a long shot.

>

> less than 2 gigs installed, the installation is done from a CD! ha!

 

Well I'm sure it easy to impress a smart dude like you!

>

> Barebones Vista? There is no such thing Vista is so fat you could be digging

> for millenia and never find bones! HA!

 

Barebones Vista? Who other than you thinks there needs to be a

"barebones Vista" huh?

Frank

so what you are saying is that windows 7 will be less flexible because it

will be leaner?

 

LOL

 

No they are redesigning it to be as far better than the monster called vista

 

 

 

 

"dzomlija" <dzomlija.33tcu0@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message

news:dzomlija.33tcu0@no-mx.forums.net...

>

> Joe cann586724 Wrote:

>> >You can't add features

>> without adding more code

>>

>> CRAP!

>>

>> Lets, compare azureus with utorrent

>>

>> they do the same thing

>>

>> one is 7.43 MB (azureus) not including the Java VM machine needed thats

>> twice that much (at least)

>> the other (utorrent) is less than 200Kb

>>

>> lets see that show that azureus is 37 times bigger (!!!!) that

>> utorrent, 2

>> programs that do the same thing!

>>

>> One is bloated, the other is made with GREAT care, streamlined to have

>> as

>> small footprint as possible, fast and ... well I just love it!

>>

>> Don't tell me more features = more bloat.. that is incorrect, that's

>> what

>> they have trained your MVP brain to believe and its wrong...

>>

>> More features AND small size though needs very good design and care,

>> and

>> planning....and darn good programmers that are not sloppy.

>>

>> Microsoft doesn't care about bloat nor ram nor speed, because they say,

>> whats in it for us? We will work harder to make something leaner, and

>> that's

>> means more cost for development...

>> while at the same time hardware is getting faster... so what will we

>> do?

>>

>> We have the opportunity to be LAZY and INEFFICIENT and transfer the

>> COST of

>> this to the USER!

>>

>>

>> Kerry you are such a newbie.. so naive... even if you have been using

>> computers for long.. you are still a newbie.. ya don't understand the

>> basics, the politics, the business side and the human side of

>> technology.

>

> Very bad example Joe. Azureus and uTorrent are niche utilities,

> designed to a single purpose only - and that is to download torrents. In

> such cases, it's easy to refine and optimize the code to leave a small

> footprint.

>

> Windows (and any other OS for that matter) are multi-purpose systems

> that have been designed to perform a vast number of different task, from

> productivity to research to entertainment, amongst others.

>

> Without fully knowing how developer will utilize the APIs of the OS, or

> in what combination, it becomes increasingly difficult to minimize the

> code base. A vast majority of the "bloat" that you see is not because

> the codeing has become inneficient, but because additional API functions

> and interfaces have been added that did not exist in previous versions.

>

> Case in point (although you may only really understand this is you are

> a developer yourself):

>

> Take the very simple Windows API functions "MessageBox" and

> "MessageBeep". These two have beep around since the earliest versions of

> Windows. Genrally, when a program needs to pass a message on to the

> user, it will use the MessageBox call, as follows:

>

>

> Code:

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

>

> MessageBox(hWnd, 'Hello World', 'Information', MB_OK)

>

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

>

>

> In order to remain compliant with genral UI and usability guidlines,

> the call to MessageBox should be preceded with a call to MessageBeep so

> that an audible alert is sounded, like this:

>

>

> Code:

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

>

> MessageBeep(MB_ICONINFORMATION)

>

> MessageBox(hWnd, 'Joe Cann is a moron!', 'Information',

> MB_ICONINFORMATION)

>

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

>

>

>

>

> Whether the call to MessageBeep was made or not, was entirely up to the

> developer. Microsoft realized this, and slightly changed the way the

> MessageBox function worked. Now, in modern versions of Windows, if

> MessageBox is called on its own, it will both display the message AND

> play an audible alert sound, unless a call to MessageBeep has already

> been made, in which case it will function as it has since the early

> days. Chances such as this to a function, regardless of how tightly it

> is optimized, will increase it's effective code size.

>

> While the above is an extremly simple example for a function that is

> taken for-granted, it serves to illustrate one thing - The OS isn't

> becoming "bloated" or "innificient" because Microsoft has sloppy coders.

> It's because more advanced functions are being added, or older ones are

> being enhanced so that developers can more easily concentrate on the

> core components of their projects.

>

> And when you factor in the sheer number of API calls and interfaces

> exposed to developer by Windows, the changes can be misconstrued as

> "bloat", because all the little chances add up to huge amounts of bytes

> being added across the board.

>

> The printed documentation for the entire Windows 3.x API was something

> like 5 volumes of about 800 pages or so each! I shudder to think what

> the modern Win32 and Win64 API documentation will look like in printed

> form. Thank [insert deity name here] for the Internet where it's easy to

> find what you want!

>

> So do us all a favour Joe, and quit your bellyaching.

>

>

> --

> dzomlija

>

> _____________________

> Peter Alexander Dzomlija

> -Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as

> you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

>

> -Download MP3 Media Properties Explorer: --http://www.phx.co.za-

>

> - ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe

> - AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+

> - 4GB DDR400

> - 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600

> - Thermaltake Tai-Chi Chassis

> - 1207GB Formatted Storage

> - Vista Ultimate x64

> - CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:

> http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/Dzomlija/Venus/

forget about the other apps frank..

im talking about the OS themsevles..

 

ubuntu is less bloat, faster and leaner...

 

As for office and adobe on Linux I will educate your ignorant litte ars for

once more..

see this site http://www.codeweavers.com/

 

yeah I know you are so stupid that you wont click on the above link... so

type it in to your open source browser since you are using KDE 1.0 linux...

HA!

 

 

"Frank" <fb@samm.zrr> wrote in message

news:%23ahVxkGYIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Joe cann wrote:

>> Franky poo... barebones UBUNTU is far smaller than WINDOWS,

>

> hehehe...well capin' crunch who cares? You can't run most any of the most

> used and popular software in use today on any linux distro.

> I guess you didn't know that right?

>>

>> when I say barebones, I mean have all the stuff CRAPISTA has without all

>> the extra programs that comes with ubuntu like open office or gimp

>> (windows doesnt come with office2007 or photoshop does it?)..

>

> Well capin' crunch...open orifice is not Office 2007 by any stretch of

> anyones imagination and gimp (who comes up with these stupid names huh?)

> certainly isn't Adobe CS3 by a long shot.

>>

>> less than 2 gigs installed, the installation is done from a CD! ha!

>

> Well I'm sure it easy to impress a smart dude like you!

>>

>> Barebones Vista? There is no such thing Vista is so fat you could be

>> digging for millenia and never find bones! HA!

>

> Barebones Vista? Who other than you thinks there needs to be a "barebones

> Vista" huh?

> Frank

Joe cann wrote:

> forget about the other apps frank..

> im talking about the OS themsevles..

>

> ubuntu is less bloat, faster and leaner...

 

....and not at all worth the trouble...it won't run anything worth

having...as we all know.

>

> As for office and adobe on Linux I will educate your ignorant litte ars for

> once more..

> see this site http://www.codeweavers.com/

>

You idiot! Everyone already knows about codeweavers...who cares? What a

fukkin waste of time it is and you are. You don't have any valid

point(s)...none!

> yeah I know you are so stupid that you wont click on the above link... so

> type it in to your open source browser since you are using KDE 1.0 linux...

> HA!

 

I don't surf the web with open sores you moron. I only use this very old

Mozilla for ng's because I have a large ng db.

Got it? Cause you're so fukkin stupid you may need to read that 10 or

more times before it sinks in.

You're not really all that bright are you?

Frank

Joe cann wrote:

> so what you are saying is that windows 7 will be less flexible because it

> will be leaner?

>

> LOL

>

> No they are redesigning it to be as far better than the monster called vista

>

 

I think you for one are going to be in for a very, very big surprise

when 7 is available.

Hahaha...what you don't know...LOL!

Frank

you have a very large TOLLING database...

 

you frikin troll... I can imagine that you are trolling in other newsgroups

as well...

 

 

"Frank" <fb@samm.zrr> wrote in message

news:e7nl6zHYIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Joe cann wrote:

>> forget about the other apps frank..

>> im talking about the OS themsevles..

>>

>> ubuntu is less bloat, faster and leaner...

>

> ...and not at all worth the trouble...it won't run anything worth

> having...as we all know.

>>

>> As for office and adobe on Linux I will educate your ignorant litte ars

>> for once more..

>> see this site http://www.codeweavers.com/

>>

> You idiot! Everyone already knows about codeweavers...who cares? What a

> fukkin waste of time it is and you are. You don't have any valid

> point(s)...none!

>

>> yeah I know you are so stupid that you wont click on the above link... so

>> type it in to your open source browser since you are using KDE 1.0

>> linux...

>> HA!

>

> I don't surf the web with open sores you moron. I only use this very old

> Mozilla for ng's because I have a large ng db.

> Got it? Cause you're so fukkin stupid you may need to read that 10 or more

> times before it sinks in.

> You're not really all that bright are you?

> Frank

you have a very large *TROLLING* database...

 

you frikin troll... I can imagine that you are trolling in other newsgroups

as well...

 

 

"Frank" <fb@samm.zrr> wrote in message

news:e7nl6zHYIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Joe cann wrote:

>> forget about the other apps frank..

>> im talking about the OS themsevles..

>>

>> ubuntu is less bloat, faster and leaner...

>

> ...and not at all worth the trouble...it won't run anything worth

> having...as we all know.

>>

>> As for office and adobe on Linux I will educate your ignorant litte ars

>> for once more..

>> see this site http://www.codeweavers.com/

>>

> You idiot! Everyone already knows about codeweavers...who cares? What a

> fukkin waste of time it is and you are. You don't have any valid

> point(s)...none!

>

>> yeah I know you are so stupid that you wont click on the above link... so

>> type it in to your open source browser since you are using KDE 1.0

>> linux...

>> HA!

>

> I don't surf the web with open sores you moron. I only use this very old

> Mozilla for ng's because I have a large ng db.

> Got it? Cause you're so fukkin stupid you may need to read that 10 or more

> times before it sinks in.

> You're not really all that bright are you?

> Frank

"Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

news:479bcea5$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> so what you are saying is that windows 7 will be less flexible because it

> will be leaner?

>

> LOL

>

> No they are redesigning it to be as far better than the monster called

> vista

 

 

From everything I've read Windows 7 will be based on the Vista/Server 2008

code. I don't expect it to be any "leaner" than Vista or Server 2008.

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

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

then you have missed up on all the MINWIN story huh??

 

Educating the vistaboys again.. ahh.... as always

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=minwin

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

 

MinWin

A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being

developed for use in Windows 7. The MinWin development efforts are aimed

towards componentizing the Windows kernel and reducing the dependencies with

a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a

self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory

usage.[14] MinWin takes up about 25 MB on disk and has a working set (memory

usage) of 40 MB.[15]

 

 

 

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

news:CF64BC9D-A25C-4BB4-9BBA-EB023BDAD876@microsoft.com...

> "Joe cann" <joe@beerget.com> wrote in message

> news:479bcea5$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> so what you are saying is that windows 7 will be less flexible because it

>> will be leaner?

>>

>> LOL

>>

>> No they are redesigning it to be as far better than the monster called

>> vista

>

>

> From everything I've read Windows 7 will be based on the Vista/Server 2008

> code. I don't expect it to be any "leaner" than Vista or Server 2008.

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

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

>

>

>

ray wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:11:01 -0800, marpa wrote:

>

>> I am looking to get a new laptop...and evrything has Vista installed. I

>> have been doing reading and know a few people who have it and don't

>> think I really want it. I am very happy with my windows XP. Would it

>> be difficult to have Vista removed from laptop and then have XP

>> installed on it?

>>

>> Thanks,

>

> You are misinformed. DELL, for one sells laptops and desktops which do

> not have vista installed. You'll find ones with xp installed as well as

> several models with Ubuntu Linux installed.

 

Toshiba also sells plenty of laptops with XP Pro installed. They've also

learned that selling a Vista laptop is a hard sell to the business

community. Those Toshiba laptops that come with Vista include a warning

that not all the "features" of Vista may be available.

 

Cheers.

 

--

Frank's Brain Activity Plotted (watch the red line):

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i4/Astronomy2/PreformanceMonitor.jpg

 

Frank's Corporate Headquarters: Business Sign on his Bedroom Door ...

http://www.gneil.com/images/products/1slN1455.jpg

 

Frank - seek help immediately! Visit ...

http://www.binsa.org/

Joe cann wrote:

> then you have missed up on all the MINWIN story huh??

>

> Educating the vistaboys again.. ahh.... as always

>

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=minwin

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

>

> MinWin

> A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being

> developed for use in Windows 7. The MinWin development efforts are aimed

> towards componentizing the Windows kernel and reducing the dependencies with

> a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a

> self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory

> usage.[14] MinWin takes up about 25 MB on disk and has a working set (memory

> usage) of 40 MB.[15]

>

hehehe...and I guess you missed the follow up I posted from

neowin...hahaha...!

You need to pay attention capin' crunch cause you are about to crash

your space ship...LOL!

Frank