Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

file size nearly a re-install. Those rewrites have benefited

from an infinity of combinations of hardware, software, user

settings/errors, and from an army of professional malware

defenders fighting guerrillas who attack vulnerabilities just

for the fun of it.

 

Considering past SPs, I wonder what Vista SP1 will include.

 

My guess is that SP1 will not add much in the way of security,

but will push it further into the background and less intrusive.

Perhaps massive usage data will enable security functions to be

safely trimmed and made faster for most.

 

Will SP1 add stability? Vista overall seems to be very stable

for most, though - again - perhaps massive usage data will

support further stability enhancements.

 

What about functionality? I've seen interest in capabilities not

available from the present Vista - perhaps some will be added

once usage data suggests it's safe to do so.

 

And speed? Well, my Vista installation is as fast as XP Pro, but

everyone wants more speed. I think this is a primary goal for

Microsoft, who knows that consumers want faster operation -

particularly boot and shutdown times. The only thing worse than

"slow" is "STOP!", so there are pauses throughout Vista to

permit checks and cross-checks. Experience will permit

streamlining of such precautions and I therefore expect Vista

SP1 to "take off".

 

Microsoft collects massive data because most computers call

home, and MS information collectors watch discussions, monitor

corporate usage, are intimate with major software companies, and

collect information from professional repair services. With all

that since Vista was released, I'd guess that plans for SP1 are

pretty firm by now.

 

What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

 

And, of course, when do you think SP1 will be released to

non-Betaphiles like me?

 

Henry

 

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

PS

Though Microsoft bashing is an international sport, it's one of

the world's most successful companies and a monument to American

entrepreneurism and brainpower (credit goes to the Israeli

Microsoft groups for much of the latter). Such companies as

Microsoft, Boeing, Walmart, Dell, Exxon, Verizon, and GE take a

lot of heat, but I admire and respect such achievement.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>

>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

 

The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

advertised.

 

What we'll get is:

 

1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

 

The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

 

Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

later.

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

news:6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>

>>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>

>>

>>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

> advertised.

>

> What we'll get is:

>

> 1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

> 2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

> 3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

>

> The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

> nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

> what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

>

> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

> later.

>

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

news:6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>

>>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>

>>

>>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

> advertised.

>

> What we'll get is:

>

> 1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

> 2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

> 3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

>

> The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

> nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

> what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

>

> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

> later.

>

lets be grateful Microsoft dont make cars or planes !!!!

In article <6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com>,

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

> later.

 

You mean like the auto industry? "Never buy a new car model in it's

first year of release. Always wait until the 2nd or 3rd year. "

There are many examples of models being "recalled" to fix something or

other that "should have been found in the QA process".

 

Mike

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

news:6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>

>>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>

>>

>>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

> advertised.

>

> What we'll get is:

>

> 1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

> 2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

> 3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

>

> The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

> nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

> what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

>

> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

> later.

>

"500" bugs. What is your information source?

MSFT Service Packs Never Make Significant Functionality Changes

 

Never have never will. If by now you don't realize that Sinofsky cut off

developers from making a couple hundred major components of Vista work and

shoved it's unfished ass out the door, you are beyond help.

 

Sinofsky can make the trains run on time, but he's too dumb to care that he

runs them off the tracks immediately.

 

CH

 

Don't be an indifferent American stop the explosions that slaughter the

children and families of your poorer members in Iraq. Those would be the

explosions you make sure your family doesn't get near.

 

Welcome to apathetic America (home of Redmond, Washington) where the

indifferent people get the Democracy they deserve:

 

FRANK RICH: I Did Have Sexual Relations With That Woman

New York 7/22/07

 

IT'S not just the resurgence of Al Qaeda that is taking us back full circle

to the fateful first summer of the Bush presidency. It's the hot sweat

emanating from Washington. Once again the capital is titillated by a scandal

featuring a member of Congress, a woman who is not his wife and a rumor of

crime. Gary Condit, the former Democratic congressman from California, has

passed the torch of below-the-Beltway sleaziness to David Vitter, an

incumbent (as of Friday) Republican senator from Louisiana.

 

 

 

Mr. Vitter briefly faced the press to explain his "very serious sin,"

accompanied by a wife who might double for the former Mrs. Jim McGreevey. He

had no choice once snoops hired by the avenging pornographer Larry Flynt

unearthed his number in the voluminous phone records of the so-called D.C.

Madam, now the subject of a still-young criminal investigation. Newspapers

back home also linked the senator to a defunct New Orleans brothel, a charge

Mr. Vitter denies. That brothel's former madam, while insisting he had been

a client, was one of his few defenders last week. "Just because people visit

a whorehouse doesn't make them a bad person," she helpfully told the Baton

Rouge paper, The Advocate.

 

 

Mr. Vitter is not known for being so forgiving a soul when it comes to

others' transgressions. Even more than Mr. Condit, who once co-sponsored a

bill calling for the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings,

Mr. Vitter is a holier-than-thou family-values panderer. He recruited his

preteen children for speaking roles in his campaign ads and, terrorism

notwithstanding, declared that there is no "more important" issue facing

America than altering the Constitution to defend marriage.

 

 

 

But hypocrisy is a hardy bipartisan perennial on Capitol Hill, and hardly

news. This scandal may leave a more enduring imprint. It comes with a

momentous pedigree. Mr. Vitter first went to Washington as a young

congressman in 1999, to replace Robert Livingston, the Republican leader who

had been anointed to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House. Mr.

Livingston's seat had abruptly become vacant after none other than Mr. Flynt

outed him for committing adultery. Since we now know that Mr. Gingrich was

also practicing infidelity back then - while leading the Clinton impeachment

crusade, no less - the Vitter scandal can be seen as the culmination of an

inexorable sea change in his party.

 

 

And it is President Bush who will be left holding the bag in history. As the

new National Intelligence Estimate confirms the failure of the war against

Al Qaeda and each day of quagmire signals the failure of the war in Iraq, so

the case of the fallen senator from the Big Easy can stand as an epitaph for

a third lost war in our 43rd president's legacy: the war against sex.

 

 

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush and his running mate made a point of

promising to "set an example for our children" and to "uphold the honor and

the dignity of the office." They didn't just mean that there would be no

more extramarital sex in the White House. As a matter of public policy,

abstinence was in abortion rights, family planning and homosexuality were

out. Mr. Bush's Federal Communications Commission stood ready to punish the

networks for four-letter words and wardrobe malfunctions. The surgeon

general was forbidden to mention condoms or the morning-after pill.

 

 

 

To say that this ambitious program has fared no better than the creation of

an Iraqi unity government is an understatement. The sole lasting benchmark

to be met in the Bush White House's antisex agenda was the elevation of

anti-Roe judges to the federal bench. Otherwise, Sodom and Gomorrah are

thrashing the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition

day and night.

 

 

The one federal official caught on the D.C. Madam's phone logs ahead of Mr.

Vitter, Randall Tobias, was a Bush State Department official whose tasks had

included enforcing a prostitution ban on countries receiving AIDS aid. Last

month Rupert Murdoch's Fox network succeeded in getting a federal court to

throw out the F.C.C.'s "indecency" fines. Polls show unchanging majority

support for abortion rights and growing support for legal recognition of

same-sex unions exemplified by Mary Cheney's.

 

 

Most amazing is the cultural makeover of Mr. Bush's own party. The G.O.P.

that began the century in the thrall of Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and George

Allen has become the brand of Mark Foley and Mr. Vitter. Not a single

Republican heavyweight showed up at Jerry Falwell's funeral. Younger

evangelical Christians, who may care more about protecting the environment

than policing gay people, are up for political grabs.

 

 

Nowhere is this cultural revolution more visible - or more fun to watch -

than in the G.O.P. campaign for the White House. Forty years late, the party

establishment is finally having its own middle-aged version of the summer of

love, and it's a trip. The co-chairman of John McCain's campaign in Florida

has been charged with trying to solicit gay sex from a plainclothes police

officer. Over at YouTube, viewers are flocking to a popular new mock-music

video in which "Obama Girl" taunts her rival: "Giuliani Girl, you stop your

fussin'/ At least Obama didn't marry his cousin."

 

 

 

As Margery Eagan, a columnist at The Boston Herald, has observed, even the

front-runners' wives are getting into the act, trying to one-up one another

with displays of what she described as their "ample and aging" cleavage. The

décolletage primary was kicked off early this year by the irrepressible

Judith Giuliani, who posed for Harper's Bazaar giving her husband a

passionate kiss. "I've always liked strong, macho men," she said. This was

before we learned she had married two such men, not one, before catching the

eye of America's Mayor at Club Macanudo, an Upper East Side cigar bar, while

he was still married to someone else.

 

 

Whatever the ultimate fate of Rudy Giuliani's campaign, it is the straw that

stirs the bubbling brew that is the post-Bush Republican Party. The idea

that a thrice-married, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights candidate is

holding on as front-runner is understandably driving the G.O.P.'s

increasingly marginalized cultural warriors insane. Not without reason do

they fear that he is in the vanguard of a new Republican age of

Addams-family values and moral relativism. Once a truculent law-and-order

absolutist, Mr. Giuliani has even shrugged off the cocaine charges leveled

against his departed South Carolina campaign chairman, the state treasurer

Thomas Ravenel, as a "highly personal" matter.

 

 

The religious right's own favorite sons, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee,

are no more likely to get the nomination than Ron Paul or, for that matter,

RuPaul. The party's faith-based oligarchs are getting frantic. Disregarding

a warning from James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said in March that

he didn't consider Fred Thompson a Christian, they desperately started

fixating on the former Tennessee senator as their savior. When it was

reported this month that Mr. Thompson had worked as a lobbyist for an

abortion rights organization in the 1990s, they credulously bought his

denials and his spokesman's reassurance that "there's no documents to prove

it, no billing records." Last week The New York Times found the billing

records.

 

 

 

No one is stepping more boldly into this values vacuum than Mitt Romney. In

contrast to Mr. Giuliani, the former Massachusetts governor has not only

disowned his past as a social liberal but is also running as a paragon of

moral rectitude. He is even embracing one of the more costly failed Bush sex

initiatives, abstinence education, just as states are abandoning it for

being ineffective. He never stops reminding voters that he is the only

top-tier candidate still married to his first wife.

 

 

In a Web video strikingly reminiscent of the Vitter campaign ads, the entire

multigenerational Romney brood gathers round to enact their wholesome

Christmas festivities. Last week Mr. Romney unveiled a new commercial

decrying American culture as "a cesspool of violence, and sex, and drugs,

and indolence, and perversions." Unlike Mr. Giuliani, you see, he gets along

with his children, and unlike Mr. Thompson, he has never been in bed with

the perverted Hollywood responsible for the likes of "Law & Order."

 

 

There are those who argue Mr. Romney's campaign is doomed because he is a

Mormon, a religion some voters regard almost as suspiciously as Scientology,

but two other problems may prove more threatening to his candidacy. The

first is that in American public life piety always goeth before a fall.

There had better not be any skeletons in his closet. Already Senator

Brownback has accused Mr. Romney of pushing hard-core pornography because of

his close association with (and large campaign contributions from) the

Marriott family, whose hotel chain has prospered mightily from its X-rated

video menu.

 

 

 

The other problem is more profound: Mr. Romney is swimming against a swift

tide of history in both culture and politics. Just as the neocons had their

moment in power in the Bush era and squandered it in Iraq, so the values

crowd was handed its moment of ascendancy and imploded in debacles ranging

from Terri Schiavo to Ted Haggard to David Vitter. By this point it's safe

to say that even some Republican primary voters are sick enough of their

party's preacher politicians that they'd consider hitting a cigar bar or two

with Judith Giuliani.

___________________________________

 

MAUREEN DOWD: A Woman Who's Man Enough

WASHINGTON 7/22/07

 

Things are getting confusing out there in Genderville.

 

We have the ordinarily poker-faced secretary of defense crying over young

Americans killed in Iraq.

 

We have The Washington Post reporting that Hillary Clinton came to the floor

of the Senate in a top that put "cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on

C-SPAN2."

 

We have Mitt Romney spending $300 for makeup appointments at Hidden Beauty,

a mobile men's grooming spa, before the California debate, even though NBC

would surely have powdered his nose for free.

 

We have Elizabeth Edwards on a tear of being more assertive than her

husband. She argued that John Edwards is a better advocate for women than

Hillary, explaining that her own experience as a lawyer taught her that

"sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's

issues."

 

We have Bill Clinton, who says he'd want to be known as First Laddie,

defending his woman by saying, "I don't think she's trying to be a man."

 

We have The Times reporting that Hillary's campaign is quizzical about why

so many women who are like Hillary - married, high income, professional

types - don't like her. A Times/CBS News poll shows that women view her more

favorably than men, but she has a problem with her own demographic and some

older women resistant to "a lady president" from the land of women's lib.

 

In a huge step forward for her, The Times said that "all of those polled -

both women and men - said they thought Mrs. Clinton would be an effective

commander in chief."

 

So gender isn't Hillary's biggest problem. Those who don't like her said it

was because they don't trust her, or don't like her values, or think she's

too politically expedient or phony.

 

There is a dread out there about 28 years of Bush-Clinton rule. But most

people are not worried about Hillary's ability to be strong. Anyone who can

cast herself as a feminist icon while leading the attack on her husband's

mistresses, anyone who thinks eight years of presidential pillow talk

qualifies her for the presidential pillow, is plenty tough enough to smack

around dictators, and other Democrats.

 

John Edwards and Barack Obama often seem more delicate and concerned with

looking pretty than Hillary does. Though the tallest candidate usually has

the advantage, Hillary has easily dominated the debates without even wearing

towering heels.

 

When she wrote to Bob Gates asking about the Pentagon's plans to get out of

Iraq, it took eight weeks for an under secretary, Eric Edelman, to send a

scalding reply, suggesting that she was abetting enemy propaganda. But Mrs.

Clinton hit back with a tart letter to Secretary Gates on Friday and scored

something of a victory, since he issued a statement that did not back up his

own creep.

 

Maybe Hillary has had her tear ducts removed. If she acted like a sob sister

on the war the way Mr. Gates did, her critics would have a field day.

 

Even in an era when male politicians can mist up with impunity, it was

startling to see the defense chief melt down at a Marine Corps dinner

Wednesday night as he talked about writing notes every evening to the

families of dead soldiers like Douglas Zembiec, a heroic Marine commander

known as "the Lion of Falluja," who died in Baghdad in May after giving up a

Pentagon job to go on a fourth tour of Iraq. "They are not names on a press

release or numbers updated on a Web page," he said. "They are our country's

sons and daughters."

 

The dramatic moment was disconcerting, because Mr. Gates, known as a decent

guy who was leery of the Bushies' black-and-white, bullying worldview, has

clearly been worn down by his effort to sort out the Iraq debacle. He and

Condi, who worked together under Bush I, have been trying to circumvent the

vice president to close Gitmo without much success, while the president

finds ingenious new ways to allow torture.

 

Mostly, though, it was moving - a relief to see a top official acknowledge

the awful cost of this war. The arrogant Rummy was dismissive. The obtuse W.

seems incapable of understanding how inappropriate his sunny spirits are.

And the callous Cheney's robo-aggression continues unabated. (What could be

more nerve-racking than the thought of President Cheney, slated to happen

for a couple of hours yesterday while Mr. Bush had a colonoscopy? Could it

be - a Medal of Freedom for Scooter?)

 

Mr. Gates captured the sadness we feel about American kids trapped in a

desert waiting to be blown up, sent there by men who once refused to go to a

warped war themselves.

 

 

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

 

 

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

news:6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>

>>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>

>>

>>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

> advertised.

>

> What we'll get is:

>

> 1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

> 2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

> 3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

>

> The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

> nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

> what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

>

> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

> later.

>

I expect SP1 to be as crap as vista...Vista is un-fixable!!!

 

You need a new version (windows 7) to fix all the horrible mistakes they

made in vista!

 

 

"Henry" <not@all.com> wrote in message

news:f802h7$td2$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in file size

> nearly a re-install. Those rewrites have benefited from an infinity of

> combinations of hardware, software, user settings/errors, and from an army

> of professional malware defenders fighting guerrillas who attack

> vulnerabilities just for the fun of it.

>

> Considering past SPs, I wonder what Vista SP1 will include.

>

> My guess is that SP1 will not add much in the way of security, but will

> push it further into the background and less intrusive. Perhaps massive

> usage data will enable security functions to be safely trimmed and made

> faster for most.

>

> Will SP1 add stability? Vista overall seems to be very stable for most,

> though - again - perhaps massive usage data will support further stability

> enhancements.

>

> What about functionality? I've seen interest in capabilities not available

> from the present Vista - perhaps some will be added once usage data

> suggests it's safe to do so.

>

> And speed? Well, my Vista installation is as fast as XP Pro, but everyone

> wants more speed. I think this is a primary goal for Microsoft, who knows

> that consumers want faster operation - particularly boot and shutdown

> times. The only thing worse than "slow" is "STOP!", so there are pauses

> throughout Vista to permit checks and cross-checks. Experience will permit

> streamlining of such precautions and I therefore expect Vista SP1 to "take

> off".

>

> Microsoft collects massive data because most computers call home, and MS

> information collectors watch discussions, monitor corporate usage, are

> intimate with major software companies, and collect information from

> professional repair services. With all that since Vista was released, I'd

> guess that plans for SP1 are pretty firm by now.

>

> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> And, of course, when do you think SP1 will be released to non-Betaphiles

> like me?

>

> Henry

>

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

> PS

> Though Microsoft bashing is an international sport, it's one of the

> world's most successful companies and a monument to American

> entrepreneurism and brainpower (credit goes to the Israeli Microsoft

> groups for much of the latter). Such companies as Microsoft, Boeing,

> Walmart, Dell, Exxon, Verizon, and GE take a lot of heat, but I admire and

> respect such achievement.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:40:48 -0700, "Charles W Davis"

<Anthemwebs@lvcoxmail.com> wrote:

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

>news:6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>>

>>>

>>>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>>

>> The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

>> advertised.

>>

>> What we'll get is:

>>

>> 1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

>> 2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

>> 3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

>>

>> The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

>> nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

>> what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

>>

>> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

>> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

>> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

>> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

>> later.

>>

>"500" bugs. What is your information source?

 

Several in this newsgroup reported that's what they as beta testers

saw on some "list" I take them at the word, but considering, maybe not

that good an idea. Only reporting what was posted. <snicker>

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:18:30 GMT, "Dr. Hackenbush"

<bazwillrunREMOVE@yahooCRAP.co.uk> wrote:

>

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

>news:6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:01:10 -0700, Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>>

>>>

>>>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>>

>> The impossible dream... a version of Windows that actually works as

>> advertised.

>>

>> What we'll get is:

>>

>> 1. a major rewrite of the useless User Account Control nightmare.

>> 2. Microsoft sneaking in a fix for "calculating time remaining".

>> 3. Fixes for some of the over 500 bugs Vista was shipped with.

>>

>> The point of course why do users of Windows ALWAYS have to wait six to

>> nine month for SPI before Microsoft has a reasonably clean version of

>> what the initial release was SUPPOSE to be?

>>

>> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

>> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

>> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

>> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

>> later.

>>

>lets be grateful Microsoft dont make cars or planes !!!!

 

I'll second that!

Dear Henry and friends:

 

I expect that Microsoft delivers the possibility to all, to boot to an

equivalent to the old XP "Recovery Console", in order to survive to

some Registry related crashes. This is essential for all the poor guys

like me, that received some un-useful "Hard Disk Recovery CDs" from

their computer manufacturers, instead of a bootable Vista DVD.

 

Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>file size nearly a re-install. Those rewrites have benefited

>from an infinity of combinations of hardware, software, user

>settings/errors, and from an army of professional malware

>defenders fighting guerrillas who attack vulnerabilities just

>for the fun of it.

>

>Considering past SPs, I wonder what Vista SP1 will include.

>

>My guess is that SP1 will not add much in the way of security,

>but will push it further into the background and less intrusive.

>Perhaps massive usage data will enable security functions to be

>safely trimmed and made faster for most.

>

>Will SP1 add stability? Vista overall seems to be very stable

>for most, though - again - perhaps massive usage data will

>support further stability enhancements.

>

>What about functionality? I've seen interest in capabilities not

>available from the present Vista - perhaps some will be added

>once usage data suggests it's safe to do so.

>

>And speed? Well, my Vista installation is as fast as XP Pro, but

>everyone wants more speed. I think this is a primary goal for

>Microsoft, who knows that consumers want faster operation -

>particularly boot and shutdown times. The only thing worse than

>"slow" is "STOP!", so there are pauses throughout Vista to

>permit checks and cross-checks. Experience will permit

>streamlining of such precautions and I therefore expect Vista

>SP1 to "take off".

>

>Microsoft collects massive data because most computers call

>home, and MS information collectors watch discussions, monitor

>corporate usage, are intimate with major software companies, and

>collect information from professional repair services. With all

>that since Vista was released, I'd guess that plans for SP1 are

>pretty firm by now.

>

>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

>And, of course, when do you think SP1 will be released to

>non-Betaphiles like me?

>

>Henry

>

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

>PS

>Though Microsoft bashing is an international sport, it's one of

>the world's most successful companies and a monument to American

>entrepreneurism and brainpower (credit goes to the Israeli

>Microsoft groups for much of the latter). Such companies as

>Microsoft, Boeing, Walmart, Dell, Exxon, Verizon, and GE take a

>lot of heat, but I admire and respect such achievement.

Thanks

Juan I. Cahis

Santiago de Chile (South America)

Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it!

"Henry" <not@all.com> wrote in message

news:f802h7$td2$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

 

I expect a Service Pack. A roll up of all security fixes, and selected bug

fixes. Why does everyone think SP1 will bring about the second coming of

Christ? It's a Service Pack.

 

--

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 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:28:44 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>In article <6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com>,

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

>

>> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

>> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

>> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

>> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

>> later.

>

>You mean like the auto industry? "Never buy a new car model in it's

>first year of release. Always wait until the 2nd or 3rd year. "

>There are many examples of models being "recalled" to fix something or

>other that "should have been found in the QA process".

>

>Mike

 

The old others screw up, so Microsoft can too excuse. Typical fanboy

response or the tired and threadbare all software has bugs excuse

followed by the always popular nobody forced you to upgrade excuse go

back to XP. Simple question, what happened to quality control?

 

Does Microsoft REALLY test their software before dumping it on a

unsuspecting public half baked? Answer: hell no, they expect the

general public to serve as unpaid beta testers for them. Fanboys say

so what.

 

Lets just zero in on one problem many people have reported. The

calculating time remaining slow file transfer issue. In researching

this problem I've come upon many forums where people that have claimed

to be beta testers for Vista both experienced and reported this to

Microsoft, yet the boys of Redmond released Vista anyway. That boils

down to simple arrogance, what Microsoft in infamous for.

>> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

>> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

>> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

>> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

>> later.

 

 

There's a joke around that says the day Microsoft makes a product that

doesn't suck is the day they start selling vacuum cleaners!

 

Tom Lake

"Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

 

Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is the

first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't immediately

upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

 

--

Bob

http://www.kanyak.com

It's a better release than Windows XP.

 

--

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*

 

 

"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>

>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is the

> first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't immediately

> upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>

> --

> Bob

> http://www.kanyak.com

>

> It's a better release than Windows XP.

 

You have just certified your insanity...or stupidity or both,

AND your complete ignorance about computers!

 

"Paul Smith" wrote in message

news:1C61DA8C-6FB1-4694-8B14-D0E62617F7C7@microsoft.com...

> It's a better release than Windows XP.

>

> --

> 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*

>

>

> "Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

> news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

>> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>>

>>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>>

>> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is

>> the first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't

>> immediately upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>>

>> --

>> Bob

>> http://www.kanyak.com

>>

>

"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>

>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is the

> first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't immediately

> upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>

 

 

You should check out the XP newsgroups. They are actually busier than the

Vista newsgroups with even more horror stories. A quick Google search for

Vista problems has 53 million hits, XP problems has 71 million, Linux

problems has 154 million,and OS X problems 174 million. By your logic they

are all to be avoided. In reality they all work pretty good and have

millions of satisfied users. Satisfied users rarely post to news groups :-)

 

--

Kerry Brown

Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

http://www.vistahelp.ca

Dear Juan--

 

There ain't no recovery console for Vista. It's as dead as Voldermort is

now. Maybe you could load the Recovery console onto Vista using the XP CD,

but having spent a lot of time with it, the RC is one of the most

ineffective remedies in most peoples' hands, and even in the hands of

advanced users, except for allowing you to run a chkdsk /r command outside

windows. The other dos commands are not of much use in the context of

fixing Windows. I've posted about 10 ways to try to repair a significantly

broken or non-bootable(these aren't always the same) Vista about 200+ times

in this group and the setup group as have others.

 

Instead of the Recovery Console are the Win PE environments, and in my

perception for fixing Vista the Win RE environments and other modalities

I've covered.

 

 

CH

 

A big shout out to Scootie Libby--the world's most gutless probationer.

Scootie is a rich white American whose investment banker daddy left him

millions and Tucker Carlson's rich daddy Richard a former local news anchor,

paid for Scootie's fine and his legal expenses.

 

Don't be an indifferent American stop the explosions that slaughter the

children and families of your poorer members in Iraq. Those would be the

explosions you make sure your family doesn't get near.

 

Welcome to apathetic America (home of Redmond, Washington) where the

indifferent people get the Democracy they deserve:

 

FRANK RICH: I Did Have Sexual Relations With That Woman

New York 7/22/07

 

IT'S not just the resurgence of Al Qaeda that is taking us back full circle

to the fateful first summer of the Bush presidency. It's the hot sweat

emanating from Washington. Once again the capital is titillated by a scandal

featuring a member of Congress, a woman who is not his wife and a rumor of

crime. Gary Condit, the former Democratic congressman from California, has

passed the torch of below-the-Beltway sleaziness to David Vitter, an

incumbent (as of Friday) Republican senator from Louisiana.

 

 

 

Mr. Vitter briefly faced the press to explain his "very serious sin,"

accompanied by a wife who might double for the former Mrs. Jim McGreevey. He

had no choice once snoops hired by the avenging pornographer Larry Flynt

unearthed his number in the voluminous phone records of the so-called D.C.

Madam, now the subject of a still-young criminal investigation. Newspapers

back home also linked the senator to a defunct New Orleans brothel, a charge

Mr. Vitter denies. That brothel's former madam, while insisting he had been

a client, was one of his few defenders last week. "Just because people visit

a whorehouse doesn't make them a bad person," she helpfully told the Baton

Rouge paper, The Advocate.

 

 

Mr. Vitter is not known for being so forgiving a soul when it comes to

others' transgressions. Even more than Mr. Condit, who once co-sponsored a

bill calling for the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings,

Mr. Vitter is a holier-than-thou family-values panderer. He recruited his

preteen children for speaking roles in his campaign ads and, terrorism

notwithstanding, declared that there is no "more important" issue facing

America than altering the Constitution to defend marriage.

 

 

 

But hypocrisy is a hardy bipartisan perennial on Capitol Hill, and hardly

news. This scandal may leave a more enduring imprint. It comes with a

momentous pedigree. Mr. Vitter first went to Washington as a young

congressman in 1999, to replace Robert Livingston, the Republican leader who

had been anointed to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House. Mr.

Livingston's seat had abruptly become vacant after none other than Mr. Flynt

outed him for committing adultery. Since we now know that Mr. Gingrich was

also practicing infidelity back then - while leading the Clinton impeachment

crusade, no less - the Vitter scandal can be seen as the culmination of an

inexorable sea change in his party.

 

 

And it is President Bush who will be left holding the bag in history. As the

new National Intelligence Estimate confirms the failure of the war against

Al Qaeda and each day of quagmire signals the failure of the war in Iraq, so

the case of the fallen senator from the Big Easy can stand as an epitaph for

a third lost war in our 43rd president's legacy: the war against sex.

 

 

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush and his running mate made a point of

promising to "set an example for our children" and to "uphold the honor and

the dignity of the office." They didn't just mean that there would be no

more extramarital sex in the White House. As a matter of public policy,

abstinence was in abortion rights, family planning and homosexuality were

out. Mr. Bush's Federal Communications Commission stood ready to punish the

networks for four-letter words and wardrobe malfunctions. The surgeon

general was forbidden to mention condoms or the morning-after pill.

 

 

 

To say that this ambitious program has fared no better than the creation of

an Iraqi unity government is an understatement. The sole lasting benchmark

to be met in the Bush White House's antisex agenda was the elevation of

anti-Roe judges to the federal bench. Otherwise, Sodom and Gomorrah are

thrashing the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition

day and night.

 

 

The one federal official caught on the D.C. Madam's phone logs ahead of Mr.

Vitter, Randall Tobias, was a Bush State Department official whose tasks had

included enforcing a prostitution ban on countries receiving AIDS aid. Last

month Rupert Murdoch's Fox network succeeded in getting a federal court to

throw out the F.C.C.'s "indecency" fines. Polls show unchanging majority

support for abortion rights and growing support for legal recognition of

same-sex unions exemplified by Mary Cheney's.

 

 

Most amazing is the cultural makeover of Mr. Bush's own party. The G.O.P.

that began the century in the thrall of Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and George

Allen has become the brand of Mark Foley and Mr. Vitter. Not a single

Republican heavyweight showed up at Jerry Falwell's funeral. Younger

evangelical Christians, who may care more about protecting the environment

than policing gay people, are up for political grabs.

 

 

Nowhere is this cultural revolution more visible - or more fun to watch -

than in the G.O.P. campaign for the White House. Forty years late, the party

establishment is finally having its own middle-aged version of the summer of

love, and it's a trip. The co-chairman of John McCain's campaign in Florida

has been charged with trying to solicit gay sex from a plainclothes police

officer. Over at YouTube, viewers are flocking to a popular new mock-music

video in which "Obama Girl" taunts her rival: "Giuliani Girl, you stop your

fussin'/ At least Obama didn't marry his cousin."

 

 

 

As Margery Eagan, a columnist at The Boston Herald, has observed, even the

front-runners' wives are getting into the act, trying to one-up one another

with displays of what she described as their "ample and aging" cleavage. The

décolletage primary was kicked off early this year by the irrepressible

Judith Giuliani, who posed for Harper's Bazaar giving her husband a

passionate kiss. "I've always liked strong, macho men," she said. This was

before we learned she had married two such men, not one, before catching the

eye of America's Mayor at Club Macanudo, an Upper East Side cigar bar, while

he was still married to someone else.

 

 

Whatever the ultimate fate of Rudy Giuliani's campaign, it is the straw that

stirs the bubbling brew that is the post-Bush Republican Party. The idea

that a thrice-married, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights candidate is

holding on as front-runner is understandably driving the G.O.P.'s

increasingly marginalized cultural warriors insane. Not without reason do

they fear that he is in the vanguard of a new Republican age of

Addams-family values and moral relativism. Once a truculent law-and-order

absolutist, Mr. Giuliani has even shrugged off the cocaine charges leveled

against his departed South Carolina campaign chairman, the state treasurer

Thomas Ravenel, as a "highly personal" matter.

 

 

The religious right's own favorite sons, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee,

are no more likely to get the nomination than Ron Paul or, for that matter,

RuPaul. The party's faith-based oligarchs are getting frantic. Disregarding

a warning from James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said in March that

he didn't consider Fred Thompson a Christian, they desperately started

fixating on the former Tennessee senator as their savior. When it was

reported this month that Mr. Thompson had worked as a lobbyist for an

abortion rights organization in the 1990s, they credulously bought his

denials and his spokesman's reassurance that "there's no documents to prove

it, no billing records." Last week The New York Times found the billing

records.

 

 

 

No one is stepping more boldly into this values vacuum than Mitt Romney. In

contrast to Mr. Giuliani, the former Massachusetts governor has not only

disowned his past as a social liberal but is also running as a paragon of

moral rectitude. He is even embracing one of the more costly failed Bush sex

initiatives, abstinence education, just as states are abandoning it for

being ineffective. He never stops reminding voters that he is the only

top-tier candidate still married to his first wife.

 

 

In a Web video strikingly reminiscent of the Vitter campaign ads, the entire

multigenerational Romney brood gathers round to enact their wholesome

Christmas festivities. Last week Mr. Romney unveiled a new commercial

decrying American culture as "a cesspool of violence, and sex, and drugs,

and indolence, and perversions." Unlike Mr. Giuliani, you see, he gets along

with his children, and unlike Mr. Thompson, he has never been in bed with

the perverted Hollywood responsible for the likes of "Law & Order."

 

 

There are those who argue Mr. Romney's campaign is doomed because he is a

Mormon, a religion some voters regard almost as suspiciously as Scientology,

but two other problems may prove more threatening to his candidacy. The

first is that in American public life piety always goeth before a fall.

There had better not be any skeletons in his closet. Already Senator

Brownback has accused Mr. Romney of pushing hard-core pornography because of

his close association with (and large campaign contributions from) the

Marriott family, whose hotel chain has prospered mightily from its X-rated

video menu.

 

 

 

The other problem is more profound: Mr. Romney is swimming against a swift

tide of history in both culture and politics. Just as the neocons had their

moment in power in the Bush era and squandered it in Iraq, so the values

crowd was handed its moment of ascendancy and imploded in debacles ranging

from Terri Schiavo to Ted Haggard to David Vitter. By this point it's safe

to say that even some Republican primary voters are sick enough of their

party's preacher politicians that they'd consider hitting a cigar bar or two

with Judith Giuliani.

___________________________________

 

MAUREEN DOWD: A Woman Who's Man Enough

WASHINGTON 7/22/07

 

Things are getting confusing out there in Genderville.

 

We have the ordinarily poker-faced secretary of defense crying over young

Americans killed in Iraq.

 

We have The Washington Post reporting that Hillary Clinton came to the floor

of the Senate in a top that put "cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on

C-SPAN2."

 

We have Mitt Romney spending $300 for makeup appointments at Hidden Beauty,

a mobile men's grooming spa, before the California debate, even though NBC

would surely have powdered his nose for free.

 

We have Elizabeth Edwards on a tear of being more assertive than her

husband. She argued that John Edwards is a better advocate for women than

Hillary, explaining that her own experience as a lawyer taught her that

"sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's

issues."

 

We have Bill Clinton, who says he'd want to be known as First Laddie,

defending his woman by saying, "I don't think she's trying to be a man."

 

We have The Times reporting that Hillary's campaign is quizzical about why

so many women who are like Hillary - married, high income, professional

types - don't like her. A Times/CBS News poll shows that women view her more

favorably than men, but she has a problem with her own demographic and some

older women resistant to "a lady president" from the land of women's lib.

 

In a huge step forward for her, The Times said that "all of those polled -

both women and men - said they thought Mrs. Clinton would be an effective

commander in chief."

 

So gender isn't Hillary's biggest problem. Those who don't like her said it

was because they don't trust her, or don't like her values, or think she's

too politically expedient or phony.

 

There is a dread out there about 28 years of Bush-Clinton rule. But most

people are not worried about Hillary's ability to be strong. Anyone who can

cast herself as a feminist icon while leading the attack on her husband's

mistresses, anyone who thinks eight years of presidential pillow talk

qualifies her for the presidential pillow, is plenty tough enough to smack

around dictators, and other Democrats.

 

John Edwards and Barack Obama often seem more delicate and concerned with

looking pretty than Hillary does. Though the tallest candidate usually has

the advantage, Hillary has easily dominated the debates without even wearing

towering heels.

 

When she wrote to Bob Gates asking about the Pentagon's plans to get out of

Iraq, it took eight weeks for an under secretary, Eric Edelman, to send a

scalding reply, suggesting that she was abetting enemy propaganda. But Mrs.

Clinton hit back with a tart letter to Secretary Gates on Friday and scored

something of a victory, since he issued a statement that did not back up his

own creep.

 

Maybe Hillary has had her tear ducts removed. If she acted like a sob sister

on the war the way Mr. Gates did, her critics would have a field day.

 

Even in an era when male politicians can mist up with impunity, it was

startling to see the defense chief melt down at a Marine Corps dinner

Wednesday night as he talked about writing notes every evening to the

families of dead soldiers like Douglas Zembiec, a heroic Marine commander

known as "the Lion of Falluja," who died in Baghdad in May after giving up a

Pentagon job to go on a fourth tour of Iraq. "They are not names on a press

release or numbers updated on a Web page," he said. "They are our country's

sons and daughters."

 

The dramatic moment was disconcerting, because Mr. Gates, known as a decent

guy who was leery of the Bushies' black-and-white, bullying worldview, has

clearly been worn down by his effort to sort out the Iraq debacle. He and

Condi, who worked together under Bush I, have been trying to circumvent the

vice president to close Gitmo without much success, while the president

finds ingenious new ways to allow torture.

 

Mostly, though, it was moving - a relief to see a top official acknowledge

the awful cost of this war. The arrogant Rummy was dismissive. The obtuse W.

seems incapable of understanding how inappropriate his sunny spirits are.

And the callous Cheney's robo-aggression continues unabated. (What could be

more nerve-racking than the thought of President Cheney, slated to happen

for a couple of hours yesterday while Mr. Bush had a colonoscopy? Could it

be - a Medal of Freedom for Scooter?)

 

Mr. Gates captured the sadness we feel about American kids trapped in a

desert waiting to be blown up, sent there by men who once refused to go to a

warped war themselves.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Juan I. Cahis" <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> wrote in message

news:j0a7a3pg00380c08fds9tpsdrb3nuempi3@4ax.com...

Dear Henry and friends:

 

I expect that Microsoft delivers the possibility to all, to boot to an

equivalent to the old XP "Recovery Console", in order to survive to

some Registry related crashes. This is essential for all the poor guys

like me, that received some un-useful "Hard Disk Recovery CDs" from

their computer manufacturers, instead of a bootable Vista DVD.

 

Henry <not@all.com> wrote:

>Previous "Service Packs" have often been software rewrites - in

>file size nearly a re-install. Those rewrites have benefited

>from an infinity of combinations of hardware, software, user

>settings/errors, and from an army of professional malware

>defenders fighting guerrillas who attack vulnerabilities just

>for the fun of it.

>

>Considering past SPs, I wonder what Vista SP1 will include.

>

>My guess is that SP1 will not add much in the way of security,

>but will push it further into the background and less intrusive.

>Perhaps massive usage data will enable security functions to be

>safely trimmed and made faster for most.

>

>Will SP1 add stability? Vista overall seems to be very stable

>for most, though - again - perhaps massive usage data will

>support further stability enhancements.

>

>What about functionality? I've seen interest in capabilities not

>available from the present Vista - perhaps some will be added

>once usage data suggests it's safe to do so.

>

>And speed? Well, my Vista installation is as fast as XP Pro, but

>everyone wants more speed. I think this is a primary goal for

>Microsoft, who knows that consumers want faster operation -

>particularly boot and shutdown times. The only thing worse than

>"slow" is "STOP!", so there are pauses throughout Vista to

>permit checks and cross-checks. Experience will permit

>streamlining of such precautions and I therefore expect Vista

>SP1 to "take off".

>

>Microsoft collects massive data because most computers call

>home, and MS information collectors watch discussions, monitor

>corporate usage, are intimate with major software companies, and

>collect information from professional repair services. With all

>that since Vista was released, I'd guess that plans for SP1 are

>pretty firm by now.

>

>What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

>And, of course, when do you think SP1 will be released to

>non-Betaphiles like me?

>

>Henry

>

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

>PS

>Though Microsoft bashing is an international sport, it's one of

>the world's most successful companies and a monument to American

>entrepreneurism and brainpower (credit goes to the Israeli

>Microsoft groups for much of the latter). Such companies as

>Microsoft, Boeing, Walmart, Dell, Exxon, Verizon, and GE take a

>lot of heat, but I admire and respect such achievement.

Thanks

Juan I. Cahis

Santiago de Chile (South America)

Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it!

Kerry brown... your propaganda only applies for the weak minded.

You are not fooling anyone here.. go fool yourself in front of the mirror

instead!

 

Lets play your stupid little game and compare XP with Vista-Crapista for a

moment...

 

Vista has roughly 5% of the market,

XP has roughly 85% of the market.

 

This means that your 53 million hits are from only 5% of the market.

XP dispite that is has 1700% more of the market it only has 30% more

posts....

 

That means VISTA IS A PEICE OF CRAP that should never have been released in

this state.

And that also means you are a blind fool that follows the drumbeat of

Microsoft without using your brain

to see that vista is c-r-a-p. MVPs are starting to get on my nerves!

 

 

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

news:029AEF82-7B4B-43F6-9701-CC298E71E80A@microsoft.com...

> "Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

> news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

>> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>>

>>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>>

>> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is

>> the first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't

>> immediately upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>>

>

>

> You should check out the XP newsgroups. They are actually busier than the

> Vista newsgroups with even more horror stories. A quick Google search for

> Vista problems has 53 million hits, XP problems has 71 million, Linux

> problems has 154 million,and OS X problems 174 million. By your logic they

> are all to be avoided. In reality they all work pretty good and have

> millions of satisfied users. Satisfied users rarely post to news groups

> :-)

>

> --

> Kerry Brown

> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

> http://www.vistahelp.ca

>

>

Amen. Paul is right on target.

 

CH

 

"Paul Smith" wrote in message

news:60A51241-6FE0-4A19-9C0F-A6BCFFAC832D@microsoft.com...

> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote in message

> news:f802h7$td2$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>

>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> I expect a Service Pack. A roll up of all security fixes, and selected

> bug fixes. Why does everyone think SP1 will bring about the second coming

> of Christ? It's a Service Pack.

>

> --

> 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*

>

>

>

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

news:eda7a3t8fu4amg7e4m9m7vidfg30m5923m@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:28:44 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

>

>>In article <6h37a3hlv07sftpfl6isvjbou59sf4p76r@4ax.com>,

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

>>

>>> Only the software industry gets away with shoveling crap out the door

>>> in some poorly tested, unfinished version. If Microsoft made widgets

>>> they would have been laughed out of business years ago for never being

>>> able to release any product that didn't require a major rework months

>>> later.

>>

>>You mean like the auto industry? "Never buy a new car model in it's

>>first year of release. Always wait until the 2nd or 3rd year. "

>>There are many examples of models being "recalled" to fix something or

>>other that "should have been found in the QA process".

>>

>>Mike

>

> The old others screw up, so Microsoft can too excuse. Typical fanboy

> response or the tired and threadbare all software has bugs excuse

> followed by the always popular nobody forced you to upgrade excuse go

> back to XP. Simple question, what happened to quality control?

>

> Does Microsoft REALLY test their software before dumping it on a

> unsuspecting public half baked? Answer: hell no, they expect the

> general public to serve as unpaid beta testers for them. Fanboys say

> so what.

>

> Lets just zero in on one problem many people have reported. The

> calculating time remaining slow file transfer issue. In researching

> this problem I've come upon many forums where people that have claimed

> to be beta testers for Vista both experienced and reported this to

> Microsoft, yet the boys of Redmond released Vista anyway. That boils

> down to simple arrogance, what Microsoft in infamous for.

>

 

Maybe you can name one thing as complex as a OS that is released with no

bugs?

Cars - Umm no.

Ubuntu - Umm no.

Although I'm plenty critical of Vista Bob, when I think it warrants, let me

put it into some context for you. It has much beneath the surface that is

good, and it is an easy OS to learn your way around. MSFT has a robust

extensive help that can either be used for Vista or from its website:

 

Vista Online Help (also available from the Start Menu)

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/default.mspx

 

 

By now there are considerably more drivers for Vista 32 or 64 bit than there

were several months ago, so the going with devices is much easier.

 

I would encourage you to try it and not to be scared at all. The service

pack is not going to change functionality noticably for you. It will be a

rollup basically of hotfixes.

 

CH

 

"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>

>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>

> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is the

> first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't immediately

> upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>

> --

> Bob

> http://www.kanyak.com

>

> Although I'm plenty critical of Vista Bob

 

Vista Bob?

 

As in microsoft Bob? No vista will reach number one crappiest software of

all times.. leaving MS bob behind.

 

LOL

 

 

"Chad Harris" <vistaneedsmuchowork.net> wrote in message

news:e34Gc5JzHHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Although I'm plenty critical of Vista Bob, when I think it warrants, let

> me put it into some context for you. It has much beneath the surface that

> is good, and it is an easy OS to learn your way around. MSFT has a robust

> extensive help that can either be used for Vista or from its website:

>

> Vista Online Help (also available from the Start Menu)

> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/default.mspx

>

>

> By now there are considerably more drivers for Vista 32 or 64 bit than

> there were several months ago, so the going with devices is much easier.

>

> I would encourage you to try it and not to be scared at all. The service

> pack is not going to change functionality noticably for you. It will be a

> rollup basically of hotfixes.

>

> CH

>

> "Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

> news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

>> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>>

>>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>>

>> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is

>> the first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't

>> immediately upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>>

>> --

>> Bob

>> http://www.kanyak.com

>>

>

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:01:04 -0700, "Kerry Brown"

<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message

>news:13a7clu4j32kb70@news.supernews.com...

>> "Henry" <not@all.com> wrote

>>

>>> What do YOU expect from Vista SP1?

>>

>> Hopefully a Vista that I'll be willing to shell out money for. This is the

>> first version since I joined Windows with W95 that I haven't immediately

>> upgraded to. All the horror stories have got me scared.

>>

>

>

>You should check out the XP newsgroups. They are actually busier than the

>Vista newsgroups with even more horror stories. A quick Google search for

>Vista problems has 53 million hits, XP problems has 71 million, Linux

>problems has 154 million,and OS X problems 174 million. By your logic they

>are all to be avoided. In reality they all work pretty good and have

>millions of satisfied users. Satisfied users rarely post to news groups :-)

 

Maybe Microsoft should require MVPs to take lessons on how to argue a

point. Sad to say I give most MVPs a failing grade.

 

Of course there are more posts about XP issues, it's been out, what

five years? How long has Vista been out? About five months and already

53 million hits or more than half of what XP generated in more than

ten times that time span. That suggests way more people are having

trouble with Vista then they did with XP.

 

As far as your other "point" that too is self evident. Of course

people that are experiencing problems are more likely to post to

so-called support newsgroups like this than people not experiencing

problems.

 

You don't pick up a newspaper and see page have page of stories

something along the line of Mr. Smith got up this morning, showered,

dressed, ate breakfast, went to work, etc.. No, that would be silly.

Newspapers report NEWS, newsgroups report problems.