On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:50:29 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>It's obvious you've got a bad in place upgrade install fool!

>The one who really looks FOOLISH IS YOU, MR IQ GENIUS!!!

>Frank

 

So lets see. All the thousands of newsgroup posts from people all over

the world, way more in countless forums of every type and description,

a great number of highly respected computer experts, countless

articles on nearly every major technical web site, a hotfix from

Microsoft, and Google reporting over 900,000+ hits on "calculating

time remaining in Vista" are all wrong and our own little Frankie is

right. That what you're trying to claim pal?

 

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

 

ROTFLMAO!

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:38:44 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>In article <bs8i939h4srku7ihsd8sscbrdv9q63vk7k@4ax.com>,

> Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>

>> Then there is the multiple versions of Vista

>

>What a load of tripe. There are exactly the same number of versions of

>Vista as there are XP.

>

>XP Home, XP Pro, XP Tablet, XP Media Center.

>

>Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate.

>

>Yeah, that is just SO confusing. You would think that a guy with an

>"IQ of 170" could figure it out.

>

>Mike

 

Anybody with an IQ of 60 has figured YOU out. You're just another

angry hot-headed little whiner and Microsoft apologist.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:38:44 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>

>

>>In article <bs8i939h4srku7ihsd8sscbrdv9q63vk7k@4ax.com>,

>>Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Then there is the multiple versions of Vista

>>

>>What a load of tripe. There are exactly the same number of versions of

>>Vista as there are XP.

>>

>>XP Home, XP Pro, XP Tablet, XP Media Center.

>>

>>Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate.

>>

>>Yeah, that is just SO confusing. You would think that a guy with an

>>"IQ of 170" could figure it out.

>>

>>Mike

>

>

> Anybody with an IQ of 60 has figured YOU out. You're just another

> angry hot-headed little whiner and Microsoft apologist.

>

 

And you're just a POS drunken liar loser!

Moron!

Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:50:29 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>

>

>>It's obvious you've got a bad in place upgrade install fool!

>>The one who really looks FOOLISH IS YOU, MR IQ GENIUS!!!

>>Frank

>

>

> So lets see. All the thousands of newsgroup posts from people all over

> the world, way more in countless forums of every type and description,

> a great number of highly respected computer experts, countless

> articles on nearly every major technical web site, a hotfix from

> Microsoft, and Google reporting over 900,000+ hits on "calculating

> time remaining in Vista" are all wrong and our own little Frankie is

> right. That what you're trying to claim pal?

>

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

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

 

 

Read the article you drunken sod...it's not happening to all installs.

It is to your bad upgrade install but not to any of our clean installs.

You're really a pathetic excuse for humane being.

Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:54:25 -0500, "GO"

> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

>

>> But why would they have to fix it? Vista is so much prettier! )

>

> Starting with the packaging it comes in, Microsoft didn't do it's

> homework for Vista. They dumped UAC on the unsuspecting masses and

> offered no warning and their "help" that is suppose to explain it you

> have to drill down to find and it is written is such a way that only a

> UNIX purist would appreciate it.

>

> Then there is the multiple versions of Vista, an obvious move to try

> to push as many users as possible into the most costly version,

> Ultimate, cutting off features like built-in DVD burning in what they

> laughingly call their "business" version. Then we got for no reason

> purchasers of Home premium which oddly they suggest as the most often

> recommended version to upgrade to is surprise... crippled by design so

> you can't do an install in place. That means if you want to do that

> cough up another $40 to get the business version which again no

> surprise, removed features that were included in home premium, yet

> it's most expensive. Only Microsoft gets away with jacking up the

> price and taking away features.

>

> Yes, Windows is still Windows. Everybody expected a half-baked, lot of

> features don't work right release. After all, Microsoft has used and

> gotten away with a 'let our army of customers beta test for us free'

> business model for over twenty years.

>

> Yes, you still have the moronic fanboy crowd that are unpaid

> apologists for Microsoft. They're as funny as ever saying such stupid

> things as if your don't like it, nobody forced you to buy Vista, just

> reinstall XP or my personal favorite just about every fanboy and MVP

> admitting file copying/moving/deleting with Windows Explorer sucks,

> further admitting they use something else themselves, yet never ever

> being critical of Microsoft for not fixing this obviously broken core

> feature that has long plagued Windows.

>

> But you're right, for sure Vista is pretty. I'm sure glad I paid $200

> to get a prettier Window desktop, a moronic revolving double circle

> icon to watch while Explorer inches along trying to copy files and it

> is always fun to watch my sidebar gadgets reshuffle their order for no

> reason. -)

 

 

The multitude of different versions of Vista is really annoying. I used to

think the same about XP but Vista's versioning is just beyond. At least

with XP the different versions acutally made some sense.

In article <OAgxnphxHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

> I can't give you figures but moving stuff over a wired network using

> plain old drag and drop to copy a few GB of data goes like this...

>

> 64 bit Vista well over an hour

> 32 bit Vista over an hour

> XP to XP (32) around an hour

> Debian to Debian 12 minutes

 

I just copied 3.75GB of files (22 files) from one Vista machine to

another. 100 M wired network using Explorer. Took 8 minutes 45

seconds. The "calculating remaining time" took about 7 seconds and was

accurate.

 

Then I rebooted both machines into OS X and copied the same files using

Finder. Took 8 minutes 10 seconds. The "remaining time" display was

instant and accurate.

 

So OS X was marginally faster, but not absurdly faster as above.

 

Again, I do not see these file copy problems that so many seem to have.

 

Mike

Frank wrote:

> Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:50:29 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>>

>>

>>> It's obvious you've got a bad in place upgrade install fool!

>>> The one who really looks FOOLISH IS YOU, MR IQ GENIUS!!!

>>> Frank

>>

>> So lets see. All the thousands of newsgroup posts from people all over

>> the world, way more in countless forums of every type and description,

>> a great number of highly respected computer experts, countless

>> articles on nearly every major technical web site, a hotfix from

>> Microsoft, and Google reporting over 900,000+ hits on "calculating

>> time remaining in Vista" are all wrong and our own little Frankie is

>> right. That what you're trying to claim pal?

>>

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

>>

>> ROTFLMAO!

>>

>

>

> Read the article you drunken sod...it's not happening to all installs.

> It is to your bad upgrade install but not to any of our clean installs.

> You're really a pathetic excuse for humane being.

> Frank

 

Absolutely false, Frank.

 

I have experienced Windows Explorer pitifulness on clean and upgrade

installs.... don't even go there. I've been using Vista for over a year.

 

 

-Michael

In article <uefi93lu5q5rgsilmpj35825nq2qpd26g7@4ax.com>,

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

> >What a load of tripe. There are exactly the same number of versions of

> >Vista as there are XP.

> >

> >XP Home, XP Pro, XP Tablet, XP Media Center.

> >

> >Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate.

> >

> >Yeah, that is just SO confusing. You would think that a guy with an

> >"IQ of 170" could figure it out.

> >

> >Mike

>

> Anybody with an IQ of 60 has figured YOU out.

 

Talking about yourself?

> You're just another angry hot-headed little whiner and Microsoft apologist.

 

Ah yes. No answer for facts, so attack the messenger! The sure sign

of a lost argument.

 

But thanks for playing!

 

Mike

MICHAEL wrote:

>

> Absolutely false, Frank.

>

> I have experienced Windows Explorer pitifulness on clean and upgrade

> installs.... don't even go there. I've been using Vista for over a year.

>

>

> -Michael

 

 

Lets be very clear about this issue Michael.

 

We too have been using Vista (Ultimate) for over a year now and this

problem is not happening with our clean installs.

Are you using Ultimate?

Are you saying that it is happening to everyone who has installed Vista?

We've only done clean installs. Never, in place upgrade installs and we

don't see this problem.

The op is using business and did an in place install. It's only logical

that that's the very first item to be scrutinized.

Sorry if you disagree.

Frank

In article <tgci931hard9nillj9di4lo84k4vl8lokb@4ax.com>,

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

> You read magazines with words in them? Wow, I'm impressed!

 

Yes, but I actually understand the words.

 

Mike

Mike wrote:

> In article <OAgxnphxHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

> Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>

>> I can't give you figures but moving stuff over a wired network using

>> plain old drag and drop to copy a few GB of data goes like this...

>>

>> 64 bit Vista well over an hour

>> 32 bit Vista over an hour

>> XP to XP (32) around an hour

>> Debian to Debian 12 minutes

>

> I just copied 3.75GB of files (22 files) from one Vista machine to

> another. 100 M wired network using Explorer. Took 8 minutes 45

> seconds. The "calculating remaining time" took about 7 seconds and was

> accurate.

>

> Then I rebooted both machines into OS X and copied the same files using

> Finder. Took 8 minutes 10 seconds. The "remaining time" display was

> instant and accurate.

>

> So OS X was marginally faster, but not absurdly faster as above.

>

> Again, I do not see these file copy problems that so many seem to have.

>

> Mike

 

 

Well as I stated I did not set out to time these events, but by

comparison Vista was really slow. Neither drive was fragmented and I saw

no real reason for the dramatic difference. I have not had driver

problems but I have noticed that sometimes the problem seems worse than

others and for no visible reason.

"I'm sure glad I paid $200"

100% your choice.

Anyone I know that feels about a product the way you say would simply

not have purchased it.

 

"Then there is the multiple versions of Vista"

Just 4, the same as Windows XP.

No problem willing to do the short necessary research.

The same type of research most do before spending $100 or more on

other products.

However this time they are more clear partially since they all are

released at the same time.

 

"an obvious move to try"

If you say so, but that does not make it so.

Personally I like options.

Whether the specific features could have been better realigned is

irrelevant at this point.

The fact is a little research and most everyone can get the feature

set they need without having always having to pay a higher.

 

"Only Microsoft gets away with jacking up the price and taking away

features."

Are you able to prove that statement?

If yes, then do so.

There are many manufacturers and products so I doubt that is a factual

statement.

More likely another exaggeration.

From what I see, comparing prices of products side by side on the

shelves, Windows Vista has comparable pricing to Windows XP so there

is little raising of prices.

 

AFAIK, there is no law, regulation etc that requires a product

manufacturer maintain a specific feature set especially when the

product has undergone a major change.

Most businesses are free to "jacking up the price and taking away

features." any and all they want to.

For the most part, there is no law or regulation of a products price

or features.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

http://www.dts-l.org

 

 

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

news:bs8i939h4srku7ihsd8sscbrdv9q63vk7k@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:54:25 -0500, "GO"

> <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

>

>>But why would they have to fix it? Vista is so much prettier! )

>

> Starting with the packaging it comes in, Microsoft didn't do it's

> homework for Vista. They dumped UAC on the unsuspecting masses and

> offered no warning and their "help" that is suppose to explain it

> you

> have to drill down to find and it is written is such a way that only

> a

> UNIX purist would appreciate it.

>

> Then there is the multiple versions of Vista, an obvious move to try

> to push as many users as possible into the most costly version,

> Ultimate, cutting off features like built-in DVD burning in what

> they

> laughingly call their "business" version. Then we got for no reason

> purchasers of Home premium which oddly they suggest as the most

> often

> recommended version to upgrade to is surprise... crippled by design

> so

> you can't do an install in place. That means if you want to do that

> cough up another $40 to get the business version which again no

> surprise, removed features that were included in home premium, yet

> it's most expensive. Only Microsoft gets away with jacking up the

> price and taking away features.

>

> Yes, Windows is still Windows. Everybody expected a half-baked, lot

> of

> features don't work right release. After all, Microsoft has used and

> gotten away with a 'let our army of customers beta test for us free'

> business model for over twenty years.

>

> Yes, you still have the moronic fanboy crowd that are unpaid

> apologists for Microsoft. They're as funny as ever saying such

> stupid

> things as if your don't like it, nobody forced you to buy Vista,

> just

> reinstall XP or my personal favorite just about every fanboy and MVP

> admitting file copying/moving/deleting with Windows Explorer sucks,

> further admitting they use something else themselves, yet never ever

> being critical of Microsoft for not fixing this obviously broken

> core

> feature that has long plagued Windows.

>

> But you're right, for sure Vista is pretty. I'm sure glad I paid

> $200

> to get a prettier Window desktop, a moronic revolving double circle

> icon to watch while Explorer inches along trying to copy files and

> it

> is always fun to watch my sidebar gadgets reshuffle their order for

> no

> reason. -)

Frank wrote:

> MICHAEL wrote:

>

>>

>> Absolutely false, Frank.

>>

>> I have experienced Windows Explorer pitifulness on clean and upgrade

>> installs.... don't even go there. I've been using Vista for over a year.

>>

>>

>> -Michael

>

>

> Lets be very clear about this issue Michael.

>

> We too have been using Vista (Ultimate) for over a year now and this

> problem is not happening with our clean installs.

> Are you using Ultimate?

> Are you saying that it is happening to everyone who has installed Vista?

> We've only done clean installs. Never, in place upgrade installs and we

> don't see this problem.

> The op is using business and did an in place install. It's only logical

> that that's the very first item to be scrutinized.

> Sorry if you disagree.

> Frank

 

 

Well mine are ALL clean installs and newish hardware and correct drivers

and I see the same thing, so you are either lucky or maybe it's somehow

hardware related.

 

A few weeks ago my reasonably new truck developed a leak. When I took it

back to the dealers they didn't insult me, call me an idiot, try to

claim it must be the way I drive it or tell me that there are thousands

of identical trucks out there with no problems so somehow it was my

fault. Instead they inspected it, found the problem to be a couple of

hoses which were from a batch that Dodge had had trouble with and

replaced them. Next time I will go back there.

 

Simply denying the problem exists is not good PR.

In article <#bUgElmxHHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

> "I'm sure glad I paid $200"

> 100% your choice.

> Anyone I know that feels about a product the way you say would simply

> not have purchased it.

>

> "Then there is the multiple versions of Vista"

> Just 4, the same as Windows XP.

> No problem willing to do the short necessary research.

> The same type of research most do before spending $100 or more on

> other products.

> However this time they are more clear partially since they all are

> released at the same time.

>

> "an obvious move to try"

> If you say so, but that does not make it so.

> Personally I like options.

> Whether the specific features could have been better realigned is

> irrelevant at this point.

> The fact is a little research and most everyone can get the feature

> set they need without having always having to pay a higher.

>

> "Only Microsoft gets away with jacking up the price and taking away

> features."

> Are you able to prove that statement?

> If yes, then do so.

> There are many manufacturers and products so I doubt that is a factual

> statement.

> More likely another exaggeration.

> From what I see, comparing prices of products side by side on the

> shelves, Windows Vista has comparable pricing to Windows XP so there

> is little raising of prices.

>

> AFAIK, there is no law, regulation etc that requires a product

> manufacturer maintain a specific feature set especially when the

> product has undergone a major change.

> Most businesses are free to "jacking up the price and taking away

> features." any and all they want to.

> For the most part, there is no law or regulation of a products price

> or features.

 

Now now, don't go confusing Adam with facts! It will clash with his

pre-conceived notions!

 

Mike

In article <eF7I8fmxHHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,

Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

> Well as I stated I did not set out to time these events, but by

> comparison Vista was really slow. Neither drive was fragmented and I saw

> no real reason for the dramatic difference. I have not had driver

> problems but I have noticed that sometimes the problem seems worse than

> others and for no visible reason.

 

Well clearly this is hardware and/or driver related, since the only

constant is Vista.

 

If I had this problem I would scrounge up a couple of PCI (or PC Card if

laptops) network cards and try again.

 

Mike

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:26:05 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:38:44 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>In article <bs8i939h4srku7ihsd8sscbrdv9q63vk7k@4ax.com>,

>>>Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>Then there is the multiple versions of Vista

>>>

>>>What a load of tripe. There are exactly the same number of versions of

>>>Vista as there are XP.

>>>

>>>XP Home, XP Pro, XP Tablet, XP Media Center.

>>>

>>>Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate.

>>>

>>>Yeah, that is just SO confusing. You would think that a guy with an

>>>"IQ of 170" could figure it out.

>>>

>>>Mike

>>

>>

>> Anybody with an IQ of 60 has figured YOU out. You're just another

>> angry hot-headed little whiner and Microsoft apologist.

>>

>

>And you're just a POS drunken liar loser!

>Moron!

>Frank

 

Ah Frankie, you're always so predictable. Why not have somebody make

better wisecracks for you since you obviously lack any creativity.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:29:46 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:50:29 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>It's obvious you've got a bad in place upgrade install fool!

>>>The one who really looks FOOLISH IS YOU, MR IQ GENIUS!!!

>>>Frank

>>

>>

>> So lets see. All the thousands of newsgroup posts from people all over

>> the world, way more in countless forums of every type and description,

>> a great number of highly respected computer experts, countless

>> articles on nearly every major technical web site, a hotfix from

>> Microsoft, and Google reporting over 900,000+ hits on "calculating

>> time remaining in Vista" are all wrong and our own little Frankie is

>> right. That what you're trying to claim pal?

>>

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

>>

>> ROTFLMAO!

>>

>

>

>Read the article you drunken sod...it's not happening to all installs.

>It is to your bad upgrade install but not to any of our clean installs.

>You're really a pathetic excuse for humane being.

>Frank

 

Temper, temper my little undisciplined no nothing troll. Actually read

a few of the 900,000 plus links and just maybe if you strain read hard

a fact or two may somehow yet penetrate that block of cement you call

a head.

 

For example knucklehead here's a link from that search. Notice it

takes you to the Microsoft TecNet site, where some pretty smart people

hang out, unlike the usual turkeys here. If it doesn't strain your pea

sized brain too much read some of the 300 plus posts in the linked

thread this in this one forum all concerning the same topic and you'll

discover people have the same problem regardless if they did a clean

install or did an install in place or bought a brand new Vista

equipped computer.

 

Now don't you feel more stupid than usual? You should.

 

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17

 

Since little Frankie is too lazy to do his own research, lets blow a

hole in his goofy theory that the problem is caused by doing an

install in place which clueless Frankie keeps harping about intermixed

with calling me stupid and a drunk.

 

Well doofus, I don't think other users will agree with you like this

poster over on Vistax64.com

 

" Fix the damn "Calculating Time Remaining" problem already! permalink

 

I bought this computer with Vista Business pre-installed back in

April, and I'm still wasting huge amounts of my time while I wait for

Vista to calculate the time remaining before even starting to transfer

files. I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that this hasn't been dealt

with in a patch or service pack release. I don't want to go out and

download/install some third party software to do something that the OS

should do."

 

http://www.vistax64.com/vista-general/77144-fix-damn-calculating-time-remaining-problem-already.html

 

See Frankie, here's a guy that has the same exact problem on a brand

new computer he hasn't touched that had Vista PREINSTALLED.

 

What's that Frankie, you're speechless?

 

Here's another:

 

http://help.wugnet.com/vista/Calculating-time-remaining-ftopict61899.html

 

Say Frankie, there's "only" 918,997 more links, you want me to post

some more or will you just admit you are just blowing smoke out your

butt like you always do and everybody knows you're just a ill tempered

no nothing crackpot.

Ah Frankie, you're always so predictable. Why not have somebody make

better wisecracks for you since you obviously lack any creativity.

 

 

You must be kidding... I laughed SO HARD over this thread it's not even

funny! I check back now and again so I can CONTINUE to laugh my ass

off...

 

 

--

The Sand

 

God is my "back up." :)

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:12:05 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>MICHAEL wrote:

>

>>

>> Absolutely false, Frank.

>>

>> I have experienced Windows Explorer pitifulness on clean and upgrade

>> installs.... don't even go there. I've been using Vista for over a year.

>>

>>

>> -Michael

>

>

>Lets be very clear about this issue Michael.

>

>We too have been using Vista (Ultimate) for over a year now and this

>problem is not happening with our clean installs.

>Are you using Ultimate?

>Are you saying that it is happening to everyone who has installed Vista?

>We've only done clean installs. Never, in place upgrade installs and we

>don't see this problem.

>The op is using business and did an in place install. It's only logical

>that that's the very first item to be scrutinized.

>Sorry if you disagree.

>Frank

 

 

The thing that is obvious is you are a idiot that jumps to

conclusions, then screams, yells and lies his ass off.

 

Let me know when you're tired of me spanking you.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:26:05 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaer.cmn> wrote:

>

>

>>Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:38:44 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>In article <bs8i939h4srku7ihsd8sscbrdv9q63vk7k@4ax.com>,

>>>>Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Then there is the multiple versions of Vista

>>>>

>>>>What a load of tripe. There are exactly the same number of versions of

>>>>Vista as there are XP.

>>>>

>>>>XP Home, XP Pro, XP Tablet, XP Media Center.

>>>>

>>>>Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate.

>>>>

>>>>Yeah, that is just SO confusing. You would think that a guy with an

>>>>"IQ of 170" could figure it out.

>>>>

>>>>Mike

>>>

>>>

>>>Anybody with an IQ of 60 has figured YOU out. You're just another

>>>angry hot-headed little whiner and Microsoft apologist.

>>>

>>

>>And you're just a POS drunken liar loser!

>>Moron!

>>Frank

>

>

> Ah Frankie, you're always so predictable. Why not have somebody make

> better wisecracks for you since you obviously lack any creativity.

>

I'll leave the stupid remarks and stalking up to you cause you seem

soooo good at it!

Frank

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> "I'm sure glad I paid $200"

> 100% your choice.

> Anyone I know that feels about a product the way you say would simply

> not have purchased it.

>

> "Then there is the multiple versions of Vista"

> Just 4, the same as Windows XP.

> No problem willing to do the short necessary research.

> The same type of research most do before spending $100 or more on other

> products.

> However this time they are more clear partially since they all are

> released at the same time.

>

> "an obvious move to try"

> If you say so, but that does not make it so.

> Personally I like options.

> Whether the specific features could have been better realigned is

> irrelevant at this point.

> The fact is a little research and most everyone can get the feature set

> they need without having always having to pay a higher.

>

> "Only Microsoft gets away with jacking up the price and taking away

> features."

> Are you able to prove that statement?

> If yes, then do so.

> There are many manufacturers and products so I doubt that is a factual

> statement.

> More likely another exaggeration.

> From what I see, comparing prices of products side by side on the

> shelves, Windows Vista has comparable pricing to Windows XP so there is

> little raising of prices.

>

> AFAIK, there is no law, regulation etc that requires a product

> manufacturer maintain a specific feature set especially when the product

> has undergone a major change.

> Most businesses are free to "jacking up the price and taking away

> features." any and all they want to.

> For the most part, there is no law or regulation of a products price or

> features.

>

 

They should have just released Ultimate for 50 bucks with the caveat

that it is in public BETA. Yaknow, something like the warnings on

cigarette packs clearly displayed on the packaging.

 

Alias

Frank wrote:

> MICHAEL wrote:

>

>> Absolutely false, Frank.

>>

>> I have experienced Windows Explorer pitifulness on clean and upgrade

>> installs.... don't even go there. I've been using Vista for over a year.

>>

>>

>> -Michael

>

>

> Lets be very clear about this issue Michael.

 

I have been.... for myself and many others Windows Explorer

is absolutely positively pathetic. Especially, when copying,

moving and deleting files.

> We too have been using Vista (Ultimate) for over a year now and this

> problem is not happening with our clean installs.

 

Lucky you.

> Are you using Ultimate?

 

2 Ultimate installs and one Business.

All are clean installs now. My Business install was originally

an upgrade from RC2. Thinking a clean install may "cure" the

pitifulness, I did a clean install... still the same. The two

Ultimates are installed on desktops and the Business is installed

on a laptop.

> Are you saying that it is happening to everyone who has installed Vista?

 

No. But you and others imply it isn't happening at all. Since June 2006

I have been preaching about Windows Explorer's short-comings in this group.

> We've only done clean installs. Never, in place upgrade installs and we

> don't see this problem.

 

I've seen on clean and upgrade installs on different machines.

> The op is using business and did an in place install. It's only logical

> that that's the very first item to be scrutinized.

 

It shouldn't matter one way or the other whether it's Business or Ultimate,

and since Vista uses a totally new image based install, it should not matter

whether it's and upgrade or clean install.

> Sorry if you disagree.

 

That's fine. But, just because things are working on your machines

does not mean all is fine in Vista land, or are the users idiots who

are reporting how bad Windows Explorer blows. Even Richard Urban admits

Explorer blows.

 

 

-Michael

Charlie Tame wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>> MICHAEL wrote:

>>

>>> Absolutely false, Frank.

>>>

>>> I have experienced Windows Explorer pitifulness on clean and upgrade

>>> installs.... don't even go there. I've been using Vista for over a year.

>>>

>>>

>>> -Michael

>>

>> Lets be very clear about this issue Michael.

>>

>> We too have been using Vista (Ultimate) for over a year now and this

>> problem is not happening with our clean installs.

>> Are you using Ultimate?

>> Are you saying that it is happening to everyone who has installed Vista?

>> We've only done clean installs. Never, in place upgrade installs and we

>> don't see this problem.

>> The op is using business and did an in place install. It's only logical

>> that that's the very first item to be scrutinized.

>> Sorry if you disagree.

>> Frank

>

>

> Well mine are ALL clean installs and newish hardware and correct drivers

> and I see the same thing, so you are either lucky or maybe it's somehow

> hardware related.

>

> A few weeks ago my reasonably new truck developed a leak. When I took it

> back to the dealers they didn't insult me, call me an idiot, try to

> claim it must be the way I drive it or tell me that there are thousands

> of identical trucks out there with no problems so somehow it was my

> fault. Instead they inspected it, found the problem to be a couple of

> hoses which were from a batch that Dodge had had trouble with and

> replaced them. Next time I will go back there.

>

> Simply denying the problem exists is not good PR.

 

 

Amen!

 

 

-Michael

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:50:29 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>In article <OAgxnphxHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

> Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>

>> I can't give you figures but moving stuff over a wired network using

>> plain old drag and drop to copy a few GB of data goes like this...

>>

>> 64 bit Vista well over an hour

>> 32 bit Vista over an hour

>> XP to XP (32) around an hour

>> Debian to Debian 12 minutes

>

>I just copied 3.75GB of files (22 files) from one Vista machine to

>another. 100 M wired network using Explorer. Took 8 minutes 45

>seconds. The "calculating remaining time" took about 7 seconds and was

>accurate.

>

>Then I rebooted both machines into OS X and copied the same files using

>Finder. Took 8 minutes 10 seconds. The "remaining time" display was

>instant and accurate.

>

>So OS X was marginally faster, but not absurdly faster as above.

>

>Again, I do not see these file copy problems that so many seem to have.

>

>Mike

 

You only copied 22 files. Try again copying 3200 files or 30,000 files

that amount to roughly the same volume. You seem to have "tested" the

same dumb way the boys of Redmond Washington probably did.

 

Anybody that has copied large volumes of files on a regular basis

KNOWS that neither XP or Vista EVER comes close to showing an accurate

time remaining calculation. It is all over the map, first it says x

minutes, they it goes up, then down, the up again and so on. Accurate?

Not if you're smart enough to actually time it with a stopwatch. I

have. Need any more help with your Windows education, just let me

know.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:13:29 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>In article <tgci931hard9nillj9di4lo84k4vl8lokb@4ax.com>,

> Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>

>> You read magazines with words in them? Wow, I'm impressed!

>

>Yes, but I actually understand the words.

 

Could have fooled me. You can't even follow along with a simple

problem like Vista messing up file copying.