What any business does is entirely up to that business.

It is the customers who decide if the price is correct or not with

their buying decision.

 

Some peoples opinion that certain software is just Beta is simply

their opinion and worth as much.

Similar comments by users are regularly made by users of a wide

variety of software from many manufacturers.

The fact is the manufacturer makes that determination.

From there the customers choose whether to purchase or not.

 

In Adams case, he decided the expense was worth it and chose to do so.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

http://www.dts-l.org

 

 

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:%23PrSkJnxHHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> 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

Charlie Tame wrote:

 

>

> Simply denying the problem exists is not good PR.

 

Let's again be very clear about this "problem".

 

We don't see this problem on any of our boxes.

Not everyone who has Vista installed sees this problem.

Nobody has yet to clearly identify why this problem exist on some boxes

and not on others.

Period!

Frank

In article <a2pi935bbkn78amb4pj5beik960nlehdgj@4ax.com>,

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

> 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.

 

There is no universal "file copying" problem. Some seem to have it,

most don't.

 

Mike

Adam Albright wrote:

> 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.

>

 

Keep reading you fool and maybe you just might learn something.

But I doubt it, so let me clue your ignorant (oh, sorry, genius) a*s in.

We don't see this problem on any of our (now 9) Vista boxes. These boxes

all have different hardware but all have a clean install of Vista Ultimate.

Since you have a genius iq of 170 (yet can't figure out how to install

and run Vista properly!) please tells us all why, in your infinite

wisdom, that not all Vista installs are having this problem?

Ok...?

And please, spare us all the google bullsh*t!

Frank

In article <qioi935ktceoke4qtlfqcdvc9t5ndme01l@4ax.com>,

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

> 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.

 

Ah I see. I couldn't recreate your "problem" so you change the rules.

OK, I'll try it - again.

> 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?

 

Who cares? As long as it doesn't take "hours" to copy files that some

other OS does in minutes.

> 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.

 

You couldn't educate a dog on how to lick his balls. Then again, maybe

you could.

 

Mike

MICHAEL wrote:

 

>

> 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

 

You might try taking a look at all of your LAN interfacing hardware.

Modems, routers, hubs, switches, etc.

Frank

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> What any business does is entirely up to that business.

 

Truism.

> It is the customers who decide if the price is correct or not with their

> buying decision.

 

Also true.

> Some peoples opinion that certain software is just Beta is simply their

> opinion and worth as much.

 

Veritably. My opinion is that every version of Windows has had a public

beta like Vista has now.

> Similar comments by users are regularly made by users of a wide variety

> of software from many manufacturers.

 

Absolutely

> The fact is the manufacturer makes that determination.

 

Yep.

> From there the customers choose whether to purchase or not.

 

You already said that.

> In Adams case, he decided the expense was worth it and chose to do so.

 

Sounds like he has regrets.

 

I still think 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

Adam Albright wrote:

> 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.

>

 

 

hehehe...that's really funny...seeing as how you're the one who can't

figure out how to run Vista mr genius.

 

Let me know when you're tired of me bit*h slapping your ignorant genius

arse all over this ng, ok?

It is fun though!

Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

> 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.

>

>

hehehe...now that's funny...cause you're the one with the problem.

Oh, I guess you're too drunk to realize that fact...lol!

Frank

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:08:24 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamer.cmn> wrote:

>We don't see this problem on any of our boxes.

 

The lamest comment and one that only foolish people make. Just because

you don't have a problem doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of others

can't have it. Are you next going to pretend all the tens of thousands

of people that said they DO have the same exact problem are liars?

That's Frankie's usual pattern. Me smart, you dumb. Proving once again

it is really Frankie that's the world class dummy.

>Not everyone who has Vista installed sees this problem.

 

Not everyone that smokes develops lung cancer. Your point?

>Nobody has yet to clearly identify why this problem exist on some boxes

>and not on others.

 

Note how Frankie now tries to wiggle out of his previous lie that this

only happens when you do an install in place and you must be a idiot

if you've done that BS. Given direct links where people have reported

they see the same problem on new computers with Vista preinstalled

little Frankie needed to change his tune.

 

Thanks for playing Frankie. Your status as number one newsgroup clown

and village idiot remains unchallenged.

 

If fools like Frankie actually read what I've said they would have

learned a partial fix. But no, Frankie is all about being a smart ass

and in that role he exceeds expectations.

 

.............................................................................

 

As I've said previously in other threads several times already there

are two things you can do that helps with this problem. It also

confirms there is clearly something wrong with Vista.

 

Edited repost I made 4/7 follows. After the solid line there is a

third refinement.

 

In summary:

 

Usual cautions apply. This may not resolve the problem for everybody.

If one fix doesn't work, try the second one or try both. Just set

Restore points first it case they mess up your system. I did try the

first, and it worked so well I decided to share it here. Your mileage

may vary. Everybody's system is different, another fact the fan boy

crowd never seems to learn, so nobody can guarantee results, but worth

a try, the process is simple and fast.

 

First a bit of history. From time to time Microsoft releases what have

come to be called hotfixes. While they write a Knowledgebase article

on it, they may require you "prove" you need the fix and may not let

you simply download it directly, often you have to call them like for

this one. This of course can be highly annoying to have a possible

fix, and then get told what it is, then they don't make it available

and worse in some cases make you call and beg while pleading your

case. Typical Microsoft arrogance.

 

Lucky, others think like I do and think that policy is stupid. So

somebody posted this hotfix on their site where you can download it

from.

 

Nice list of kinds of goodies below. The hotfix you want if you have

the Explorer copying/moving files way slow problem is titled KB931770.

I tired the 32 bit version, not the 64 bit version.

 

Get both here:

 

http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/

 

You may also want to read the full Microsoft KB article prior to

proceeding with install it. That is linked below:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931770

 

You can try to get the hot fix from Microsoft over the phone if you

prefer. The link up further in my post is much faster, tested and the

same files. Even that was discussed to death in that other forum. LOL!

Some worried if it was a "genuine" Microsoft hotfix or a phony. It

does have the official Microsoft Digital signature, you can't see that

until you download the file, but you can see it before you install if

you tend to be a little paranoid on these kinds of things. -)

 

Ok, enough of my preaching. Download the file (the hotfix) it is a

small file that auto runs similar to other Microsoft patches once you

download it, (recommend you save to your desktop so you can find it.

The icon looks like a DVD in a box. Cute!

 

........................................................................

 

Testing...

 

Prior to running I tried copying a medium size video file from one

hard drive to another. Happens I have a file that is just a few

hundred bytes over 1 GB, so I keep it around just for tests like this.

 

Prior to installing the hotfix it took me 44 seconds to move this file

from one hard drive to another. After the hotfix it took 20 seconds

plus the progress bar while still off, it acted more like it did under

XP. I did the test 10 times and the results I give are the averages of

those tests.

 

If it works, stop. If not try this:

 

.......................................................................

 

Possible Fix #2 (assorted comments from the other forum I mentioned

earlier) I did NOT try this, no need for me.

 

I had the same problem for deleting, moving, or copying a file. I

installed the patch (the one above) but without results, and finally

the problem was due to the Windows Search service (SearchIndexer.exe)

or Wsearch service. One day, it seems this service stopped abnormally,

after a software has been installed, after a setting has been changed,

I don't know why, but the fact is it was impossible to restart it

(error 5). So I simply deactivate this service, because indexation is

not required for me. And now I don't have any problem, I can delete,

move or copy a file instantly, and the calculating time remaining

doesn't appear more.

 

You da man, Fabian !!!!!!!!

That did the trick. I get INSTANT deletes now. I even copied an 8GB

file ( a cooked dbspace ) from an internal drive to a external usb

drive and them deleted it from the usb drive.(The usb box just has an

ultra ata drive inside). The copy took about 5 minutes. Vista said

25.5MB/sec. The delete took less than 1 second. Emptying the recycle

bin took less than 1 second.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

While the above worked for me, it would come and go meaning sometimes

file transfers were fast, other times they reverted to being very

sluggish.

 

The reason Vista can take way longer to move a few thousand files

equally a couple GBs compared to how long it takes to move a couple or

three files equally the same size has to do with file permissions.

This likely is also the reason some people have this problem, others

don't. It like most things DEPENDS on how your use your system. Duh!

 

To help Vista ensure ALL your hard drivers have full permissions for

whatever user will access them. If you only have a single user, that

means whatever name you log on as needs to be seen as having

permission to both access the file you are going to copy/move/delete

put that you also "own" the folder you're going to put them in.

 

If not, then Vista bogs down looking at each file. That is why in part

you see the annoying "calculating time" message. What it is really

doing is checking to be sure you have permission to do the copy, move

or delete. How to work with permissions has been covered repeatedly so

I'm not going to repeat it again here.

 

Once I did both things, apply the Microsoft hotfix and made sure all

my non root drives have me as user with full permissions file transfer

is typically as good as under XP. Not always. Still every once in

awhile it bogs down, no doubt for some other reason. At least it is

better.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:15:52 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamer.cmn> wrote:

 

>> 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.

>>

>

>Keep reading you fool and maybe you just might learn something.

>But I doubt it, so let me clue your ignorant (oh, sorry, genius) a*s in.

>We don't see this problem on any of our (now 9) Vista boxes. These boxes

>all have different hardware but all have a clean install of Vista Ultimate.

>Since you have a genius iq of 170 (yet can't figure out how to install

>and run Vista properly!) please tells us all why, in your infinite

>wisdom, that not all Vista installs are having this problem?

>Ok...?

>And please, spare us all the google bullsh*t!

>Frank

 

Only Frankie would claim 900,000 people proving him wrong is BS.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:21:56 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamer.cmn> wrote:

>MICHAEL wrote:

>

>

>>

>> 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

>

>You might try taking a look at all of your LAN interfacing hardware.

>Modems, routers, hubs, switches, etc.

>Frank

 

The problem happens off network as well just moving files between

internal drives in the same box. Any more wild guesses Frankie?

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> From there the customers choose whether to purchase or not.

 

That's not necessarily true, especially in the case of Vista. If you go to

buy a computer today, what's preinstalled? Vista. Want XP? Too bad, not

an option. Yeah, you can go buy a copy (if you can find one) but then you

end up paying MS twice.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:26:50 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamer.cmn> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>hehehe...now that's funny...cause you're the one with the problem.

>Oh, I guess you're too drunk to realize that fact...lol!

>Frank

 

You clueless freak I HAD the problem. I commented several times on a

partial fix other people way back in April commented on saying it

worked for them you clueless dumb ass.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:49:05 -0600, "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.

 

I'm guessing there are already millions working at some company where

somebody made the choice for them to install Vista. You still have yet

to answer why you're always such a kiss up to Microsoft. Afraid to

tell us what you're getting out of being an apologist?

>

>"Then there is the multiple versions of Vista"

>Just 4, the same as Windows XP.

>No problem willing to do the short necessary research.

 

Evasion of the issue. People are forced into purchasing high cost

versions of Vista which ironically they can end up having less

features for example the business version which lacks both direct DVD

burning ability and no media center yet it costs $40 more than Home

Premium which has both those things.

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

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

 

To get the features I wanted ability to do an install in place, burn

DVD's and have Media Center I would have had to give Microsoft even

more money to get Ultimate.

>

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

>features."

>Are you able to prove that statement?

 

Just did, learn to improve your reading comprehension.

>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.

 

You don't "see" at all. That's the point. You never take over your

blinders. Everybody sees you has nothing but a Microsoft apologist.

Here's another chance for you to explain why you are. How about coming

clean?

>

>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.

 

Major change? ROTFLMAO!

 

We should have an informal pole to see if you or Richard Urban is the

biggest Microsoft butt kisser.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:16 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>What any business does is entirely up to that business.

>It is the customers who decide if the price is correct or not with

>their buying decision.

>

>Some peoples opinion that certain software is just Beta is simply

>their opinion and worth as much.

 

Your opinion that Vista is "wonderful" also needs to be looked at

objectively.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:14:00 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>In article <a2pi935bbkn78amb4pj5beik960nlehdgj@4ax.com>,

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

>

>> 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.

>

>There is no universal "file copying" problem. Some seem to have it,

>most don't.

 

So you're trying to say those 900,000+ posts linked on Goggle are all

wrong? That WAS your and nitwit Frankie's original position. Must be

Adam, he's a idiot BS. I seem to detect you're both now pedaling

backwards as fast as you can.

 

Typical.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:40 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>In article <qioi935ktceoke4qtlfqcdvc9t5ndme01l@4ax.com>,

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

>

>> 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.

>

>Ah I see. I couldn't recreate your "problem" so you change the rules.

>OK, I'll try it - again.

 

Didn't change a damn thing. I've said the same thing over and over

since at least March. I guess we can add low attention span to your

talents.

>

>> 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?

>

>Who cares? As long as it doesn't take "hours" to copy files that some

>other OS does in minutes.

 

Another lame reply. It just shows Windows is basically junk. I'm not

talking the usual and expected variation you might expect like saying

it will take 45 seconds to complete, then it jumps to a minute and

back down again. I've seen all versions of Windows go nuts. It says it

will take 4 minutes, it jumps to ten, twenty, over an hour, back to 2

minutes, back up again.

>

>> 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.

>

>You couldn't educate a dog on how to lick his balls. Then again, maybe

>you could.

 

I don't seem to have any trouble painting you and Frankie as idiots

now do I. <snicker>

M$onopoly?

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:46:55 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>It just doesn't work. Not even for simple jobs. I just wasted fifteen

>minutes trying to delete a few thousand files. Using the next to

>useless Windows Explorer (I known, silly me) I selected the folder and

>said delete it. It started up, after a few seconds instead of showing

>it making progress it says moving 0 files with 0 bytes. OK, I think

>it's done or almost. After all, how long should it take to just delete

>files? Well it wasn't done, it hadn't even started yet. So I wait. And

>wait some more. What the heck, I got other things to do, I'll come

>back. Five minutes later, stuck on 0 bytes moved. So I click on

>Explorer. Bad idea, screen now fades to white, application not

>responding, Explorer needs to close message.

>

>I start over, well you dumb piece of crap if you're too dumb to delete

>a folder, I'll try to select all the files in the folder and delete

>them that way. Same thing happens. Starts to pretend it is deleting

>files, doesn't really, then again throws up moving 0 files, 0 bytes.

>Again Vista says Explorer needs to close.

>

>Well screw you Microsoft. just let me shut down Explorer. Can't.

>Application hanging, couple minutes later Explorer does close then

>proceeds to redrawn my desktop icons. LOL!

>

>So I fire up Directory Opus a way better shell. Takes 2 seconds flat

>to delete the folder. One simple click. No nagging, no stalling, no

>screwing up. It just works.

>

>Microsoft how can you stay in business when you can't even write a

>simple routine to delete files without half the time the process

>either taking anywhere from 20 to 50 times longer than competing

>products or hanging or crashing?

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:52:16 -0500, The Sand

<The.Sand.2tqjqk@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>

>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...

 

Just be sure to remove all spill able liquids away from keyboard

before reading posts in this newsgroup. I ain't responsible for

accidents.

Mike wrote:

> 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

 

 

Both machines have wireless and / or LAN and removable drives so the

comparison is between identical hardware except the video cards which

are very similar but not quite the same, so when I compare the Windows

versions it should be a fair comparison. All versions are MSDN original

CD / DVD and not very old.

 

Vista <> Vista very slow

XP <> XP slow

Vista <> XP very slow

Debian Linux <> Debian Linux MUCH faster

Linux <> Windows may be a bit faster than either Windows <> Windows

 

Does this clarify the situation a bit?

 

Understand please I was not complaining, just curious since I don't

appear to be the only one.

 

I've not had time to research this properly, not had much spare time at

all recently, but I have cussed out Linksys and "Wireless" in general

only to find the same applied on physical wire :)

Frank wrote:

> Charlie Tame wrote:

>

>

>>

>> Simply denying the problem exists is not good PR.

>

> Let's again be very clear about this "problem".

>

> We don't see this problem on any of our boxes.

> Not everyone who has Vista installed sees this problem.

> Nobody has yet to clearly identify why this problem exist on some boxes

> and not on others.

> Period!

> Frank

 

 

Right, but at least we ARE discussing the problem which may lead to a

solution rather than insulting each other :)

Frank wrote:

> MICHAEL wrote:

>

>

>>

>> 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

>

> You might try taking a look at all of your LAN interfacing hardware.

> Modems, routers, hubs, switches, etc.

> Frank

 

 

I already blamed the router, the wireless cards etc, and actually that

hardware has been swapped around a bit from machine to machine and

nothing changed, but then I installed Linux and the difference was

immediately obvious. Where I usually set things going and then come back

an hour later to find out how much longer to wait I got back and it was

finished, done, probably 1000 files.

 

 

I do see a difference between Linux and XP too, and assume that the NTFS

system may have more overhead than whatever the hell it is Linux uses,

so I'm not too concerned, but it would be good if MS could improve this.

 

I mean from a business point of view I would now be looking at my server

farm to see if this time reduction would save me money - that could be

significant in many companies - and no need for graphics so my existing

machines would do it...

 

I assure you I am not being difficult at all but this does not appear to

be anything to do with hardware or anything like that, so why these

machines appear to have issues and yours don't is worth investigation.

"Want XP? Too bad, not an option."

Look again.

Some if not all the major OEMs sell computers with Windows XP.

You can also go to a local shop and have a computer built to your

specs including Windows XP.

This is not new for Window Vista.

After Windows XP was released nearly six years ago, you could the

previous operating system for quite a while.

 

"but then you end up paying MS twice."

Not necessary since windows XP is still available.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

http://www.dts-l.org

 

 

"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message

news:%23CZVYnnxHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> That's not necessarily true, especially in the case of Vista. If

> you go to

> buy a computer today, what's preinstalled? Vista. Want XP? Too

> bad, not

> an option. Yeah, you can go buy a copy (if you can find one) but

> then you

> end up paying MS twice.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:49:05 -0600, "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.

>

>

> I'm guessing there are already millions working at some company where

> somebody made the choice for them to install Vista. You still have yet

> to answer why you're always such a kiss up to Microsoft. Afraid to

> tell us what you're getting out of being an apologist?

>

 

Proly the same thing you get out of being an MS basher...yah think?

 

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

>>Just 4, the same as Windows XP.

>>No problem willing to do the short necessary research.

>

>

> Evasion of the issue. People are forced into purchasing high cost

> versions of Vista which ironically they can end up having less

> features for example the business version which lacks both direct DVD

> burning ability and no media center yet it costs $40 more than Home

> Premium which has both those things.

 

Oh, now you're complaining about cost. I thought you we're wealthy...no?

>

>

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

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

 

Uhhh...ok...big deal...?

>

>

> To get the features I wanted ability to do an install in place, burn

> DVD's and have Media Center I would have had to give Microsoft even

> more money to get Ultimate.

 

Hey, maybe you need to take out a second mortgage on the half mil

trailer you're living in, no?

>

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

>>features."

>>Are you able to prove that statement?

>

>

> Just did, learn to improve your reading comprehension.

 

Uhhh...more like didn't include features...no?

>

>>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.

>

>

> You don't "see" at all. That's the point. You never take over your

> blinders. Everybody sees you has nothing but a Microsoft apologist.

 

You mean like they see you as nothing more than a drunken MS basher? Is

that what you're saying?

> Here's another chance for you to explain why you are. How about coming

> clean?

 

You go first, ok?

>

>>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.

>

>

> Major change? ROTFLMAO!

 

Didn't/couldn't/don't yet understand those as of yet, right?

>

> We should have an informal pole to see if you or Richard Urban is the

> biggest Microsoft butt kisser.

 

 

Nah...I prefer the biggest a*shole in this ng.

You'll win hands down.

No contest!

Frank