SP2 Fixes a few things

Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what the doctor
ordered for my PC.

My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy and
network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were 30 times
faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow at moving big
files.

But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe even faster
on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load. Don't know what, took
them a long time but much welcomed fix!

Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.

 

"Mark Levitski" <SS@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u6$4mBv5JHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Microsoft rules!

Nope. Our home is not facist. We run Microsoft, but also run 2 version of
Linux (Ubuntu and Fedora) as well as Solaris and OpenBSD. And 90% of my
issues come from MS-Windows.

I only run MS-Windows because it came with the PC and I have to use it for
work. But I am not facist in my OS choices. Except for Macs, they are over
priced even though I like the OS. For my job, making them work together is
what I do.

Open source rules, it is only a mater of time before Microsoft screws
itself. Coming pretty close with Vista too.

 

Microsoft rules!

 

In article <g5CWl.6507$IP7.4067@newsfe23.iad>,
Canuck57 <fred@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Levitski" <SS@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:u6$4mBv5JHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>> Microsoft rules!
>
>Nope. Our home is not facist. We run Microsoft, but also run 2 version of
>Linux (Ubuntu and Fedora) as well as Solaris and OpenBSD. And 90% of my
>issues come from MS-Windows.
>
>I only run MS-Windows because it came with the PC and I have to use it for
>work. But I am not facist in my OS choices. Except for Macs, they are over
>priced even though I like the OS. For my job, making them work together is
>what I do.
>
>Open source rules, it is only a mater of time before Microsoft screws
>itself. Coming pretty close with Vista too.
>
>
>

You should MACOSX Server. FreeBSD engine!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. -Eric Hoffer

 

Canuck57 wrote:
> Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what the doctor
> ordered for my PC.
>
> My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy and
> network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were 30 times
> faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow at moving big
> files.
>
> But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe even faster
> on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load. Don't know what, took
> them a long time but much welcomed fix!
>
> Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.
>
>
>

Gee, you should stick with Linux where you belong.

 

Planters wrote:
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what the
>> doctor ordered for my PC.
>>
>> My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy and
>> network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were 30
>> times faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow at
>> moving big files.
>>
>> But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe even
>> faster on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load. Don't know
>> what, took them a long time but much welcomed fix!
>>
>> Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Gee, you should stick with Linux where you belong.
>

Oh? and why does he "belong" there? He is praising the MUCH needed and
now realized improvements in Vista, yet you feel a need to put him down?
Is there something wrong with liking to use something else together with
your beloved OS? Why is it unacceptable to use Microsoft's OS along with
an alternative OS? Something wrong with using the best of BOTH worlds?
Something wrong with using what works for you whether it be one OS or
the other, or both? I use Linux and Ms OS's for different reasons. Why
is it necessary to HAVE to use only one OS? (Exclusivity) It's not
necessary, and only one with a narrow mind thinks so. Whether it be a
Linux advocate, or Microsoft advocate, both have closed minds when it
comes to using both. Pretty silly I say. There are advantages with both
OS's, so why not take advantage? You people crack-me-up.

G'day

 

Muad'Dib wrote:
> Planters wrote:
>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>> Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what the
>>> doctor ordered for my PC.
>>>
>>> My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy and
>>> network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were 30
>>> times faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow at
>>> moving big files.
>>>
>>> But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe even
>>> faster on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load. Don't know
>>> what, took them a long time but much welcomed fix!
>>>
>>> Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gee, you should stick with Linux where you belong.
>>
>
> Oh? and why does he "belong" there? He is praising the MUCH needed and
> now realized improvements in Vista, yet you feel a need to put him down?
> Is there something wrong with liking to use something else together with
> your beloved OS? Why is it unacceptable to use Microsoft's OS along with
> an alternative OS? Something wrong with using the best of BOTH worlds?
> Something wrong with using what works for you whether it be one OS or
> the other, or both? I use Linux and Ms OS's for different reasons. Why
> is it necessary to HAVE to use only one OS? (Exclusivity) It's not
> necessary, and only one with a narrow mind thinks so. Whether it be a
> Linux advocate, or Microsoft advocate, both have closed minds when it
> comes to using both. Pretty silly I say. There are advantages with both
> OS's, so why not take advantage? You people crack-me-up.
>

That Clown57 posted to me a couple days back about him and his wife and
their take on Vista, which was a pile of crap according to him. He may
have you fooled but not me. I don't trust a two-face like him as far as
I can pick-up a building and toss it somewhere.

 

"Planters" <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote in message
news:%23pkB%23c25JHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Muad'Dib wrote:
>> Planters wrote:
>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>> Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what the
>>>> doctor ordered for my PC.
>>>>
>>>> My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy and
>>>> network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were 30
>>>> times faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow at
>>>> moving big files.
>>>>
>>>> But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe even
>>>> faster on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load. Don't know
>>>> what, took them a long time but much welcomed fix!
>>>>
>>>> Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, you should stick with Linux where you belong.
>>>
>>
>> Oh? and why does he "belong" there? He is praising the MUCH needed and
>> now realized improvements in Vista, yet you feel a need to put him down?
>> Is there something wrong with liking to use something else together with
>> your beloved OS? Why is it unacceptable to use Microsoft's OS along with
>> an alternative OS? Something wrong with using the best of BOTH worlds?
>> Something wrong with using what works for you whether it be one OS or the
>> other, or both? I use Linux and Ms OS's for different reasons. Why is it
>> necessary to HAVE to use only one OS? (Exclusivity) It's not necessary,
>> and only one with a narrow mind thinks so. Whether it be a Linux
>> advocate, or Microsoft advocate, both have closed minds when it comes to
>> using both. Pretty silly I say. There are advantages with both OS's, so
>> why not take advantage? You people crack-me-up.
>>
>
> That Clown57 posted to me a couple days back about him and his wife and
> their take on Vista, which was a pile of crap according to him. He may
> have you fooled but not me. I don't trust a two-face like him as far as I
> can pick-up a building and toss it somewhere.

Hey, my wife really does like Linux. Neither of are facist about an OS.
Even though I can get MS Office for $12.50 she likes Open Office too as it
is the same on Linux. In fact, my wife my be less facist than I on the OS,
all she wants is it to work reliably and quick and forget the useless
complexities. My favorite client too.

Neither with the chips, the last one was Intel, the next is AMD. I hear the
AMDs run Solaris better in 64 bit. Have had some trouble with that on the
Intel ICHR9 chipset. And with the advent of Win 7 coming, the older Vista
stock will be a real deal being discounted.

Two faced because I don't say Heil Microsoft? So be it.

 

Canuck57 wrote:

<snipped>

The above there I could care less about it, not read
>
> Two faced because I don't say Heil Microsoft? So be it.
>
>
>

I think your two-faceness goes beyond MS I bet, and it is hereditary. I
don't trust a word from a carpetbagger and a minstrel.

 

Planters wrote:
> Muad'Dib wrote:
>> Planters wrote:
>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>> Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what
>>>> the doctor ordered for my PC.
>>>>
>>>> My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy
>>>> and network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were
>>>> 30 times faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow
>>>> at moving big files.
>>>>
>>>> But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe
>>>> even faster on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load.
>>>> Don't know what, took them a long time but much welcomed fix!
>>>>
>>>> Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, you should stick with Linux where you belong.
>>>
>>
>> Oh? and why does he "belong" there? He is praising the MUCH needed and
>> now realized improvements in Vista, yet you feel a need to put him
>> down? Is there something wrong with liking to use something else
>> together with your beloved OS? Why is it unacceptable to use
>> Microsoft's OS along with an alternative OS? Something wrong with
>> using the best of BOTH worlds? Something wrong with using what works
>> for you whether it be one OS or the other, or both? I use Linux and Ms
>> OS's for different reasons. Why is it necessary to HAVE to use only
>> one OS? (Exclusivity) It's not necessary, and only one with a narrow
>> mind thinks so. Whether it be a Linux advocate, or Microsoft advocate,
>> both have closed minds when it comes to using both. Pretty silly I
>> say. There are advantages with both OS's, so why not take advantage?
>> You people crack-me-up.
>>
>
> That Clown57 posted to me a couple days back about him and his wife and
> their take on Vista, which was a pile of crap according to him. He may
> have you fooled but not me. I don't trust a two-face like him as far as
> I can pick-up a building and toss it somewhere.

K, w-e-e-el, I may have "gone off on you," but I see so-o-o-o much
narrow mindedness, not only here but everywhere, and it ticks me off.
There is no good reason for it other than an agenda for many. ..That is
all sides of the OS wars and their zealots push all-or-nothing. One
can't even mention they have strayed from the ALMIGHTY OS accepted at
all. There is NO tolerance. How pathetic is that. Anyway, I agree with
you when it comes to two-faced crap. One should make a decision and
stand fast, not wavering. ..LOL like someone else I read here. "Vista is
crap," SP1 installed and maybe vista isn't so much crap. Oh no, then it
goes back to Vista is crap, then SP2, and, well, maybe it isn't so much
crap. Nope, back to Vista is crap, XP is better. Blah, blah, blah.

I liked XP plenty compared to Win98 and it's predecessors, but grew
weary of it, and was glad for change. I liked Vista from the first boot
to now. Haven't had much trouble with it at all. (Lucky I guess)Some
people just can't deal with change. I like change, and is one reason I
like the Linux I use, as it is Sooooo configurable. One doesn't have to
look at the same-ol'-same-ol' at all. In a matter of minuets one can
completely change the looks with no hacks or reboots. ..Of course there
are other reasons to use the OS, but that is one of the great selling
points, for ME anyway. K, get it? What works for ME. ..As it should be.

I beta tested Win7 and now Win7RC, and I am Liking Win7 much better than
my Vista Ultimate for various reasons, (Performance for one.), but
already I read about how people aren't dealing with change once again
and have complaints. I had to just ROFLALOL when people complained that
they couldn't figure out "where the start button went." (Vista) I just
never thought there were soooo many CLUELESS people "out there!" Where
in the Sam-hell has LOGIC gone?? If the start button in 95, 98, and XP
was in the same place, then wouldn't you think that the orb looking
thing in the same place as the ol' start button might do the same thing?
Wouldn't SIMPLE logic DEMAND one to just click it? At LEAST mouse-over
it? Oh man, I just can't get over that one, and now other things similar
to that with Win7. My GOD people get a clue, use your friggin heads
for-crying-out-loud!

K, book/rant is done..

G'day

 

Another thing about Vista's "problem" is its product differentiation for
which Business version doesn't include media center.

It has always been that the higher versions will include all features of the
lower versions and that business versions will include those of home
versions plus more.

Now that they corrected for Windows 7 (or why they corrected it if it's NOT
a problem?).

If one really examined the overall offering of Vista, one will know that
it's a sloppy/rush work from product design to development to offering.



"Muad'Dib" <idaspud52@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4A2CF55B.6010303@nospamhotmail.com...
> Planters wrote:
>> Muad'Dib wrote:
>>> Planters wrote:
>>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>> Well I must admit, SP1 was a huge disappointment but SP2 was what the
>>>>> doctor ordered for my PC.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 5+ year old XP system was 20 times faster at disk to disk copy and
>>>>> network to disk copy than was my Vista. Solaris and Linux were 30
>>>>> times faster. Applied SP1, no change. Vista was still pig slow at
>>>>> moving big files.
>>>>>
>>>>> But SP2 changed that, now have the same performance as XP, maybe even
>>>>> faster on disk to disk. M$ fixed something in this load. Don't know
>>>>> what, took them a long time but much welcomed fix!
>>>>>
>>>>> Q6600, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD x 2, Vista Premium 64 bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gee, you should stick with Linux where you belong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh? and why does he "belong" there? He is praising the MUCH needed and
>>> now realized improvements in Vista, yet you feel a need to put him down?
>>> Is there something wrong with liking to use something else together with
>>> your beloved OS? Why is it unacceptable to use Microsoft's OS along with
>>> an alternative OS? Something wrong with using the best of BOTH worlds?
>>> Something wrong with using what works for you whether it be one OS or
>>> the other, or both? I use Linux and Ms OS's for different reasons. Why
>>> is it necessary to HAVE to use only one OS? (Exclusivity) It's not
>>> necessary, and only one with a narrow mind thinks so. Whether it be a
>>> Linux advocate, or Microsoft advocate, both have closed minds when it
>>> comes to using both. Pretty silly I say. There are advantages with both
>>> OS's, so why not take advantage? You people crack-me-up.
>>>
>>
>> That Clown57 posted to me a couple days back about him and his wife and
>> their take on Vista, which was a pile of crap according to him. He may
>> have you fooled but not me. I don't trust a two-face like him as far as I
>> can pick-up a building and toss it somewhere.
>
> K, w-e-e-el, I may have "gone off on you," but I see so-o-o-o much narrow
> mindedness, not only here but everywhere, and it ticks me off. There is no
> good reason for it other than an agenda for many. ..That is all sides of
> the OS wars and their zealots push all-or-nothing. One can't even mention
> they have strayed from the ALMIGHTY OS accepted at all. There is NO
> tolerance. How pathetic is that. Anyway, I agree with you when it comes to
> two-faced crap. One should make a decision and stand fast, not wavering.
> ..LOL like someone else I read here. "Vista is crap," SP1 installed and
> maybe vista isn't so much crap. Oh no, then it goes back to Vista is crap,
> then SP2, and, well, maybe it isn't so much crap. Nope, back to Vista is
> crap, XP is better. Blah, blah, blah.
>
> I liked XP plenty compared to Win98 and it's predecessors, but grew weary
> of it, and was glad for change. I liked Vista from the first boot to now.
> Haven't had much trouble with it at all. (Lucky I guess)Some people just
> can't deal with change. I like change, and is one reason I like the Linux
> I use, as it is Sooooo configurable. One doesn't have to look at the
> same-ol'-same-ol' at all. In a matter of minuets one can completely change
> the looks with no hacks or reboots. ..Of course there are other reasons to
> use the OS, but that is one of the great selling points, for ME anyway. K,
> get it? What works for ME. ..As it should be.
>
> I beta tested Win7 and now Win7RC, and I am Liking Win7 much better than
> my Vista Ultimate for various reasons, (Performance for one.), but already
> I read about how people aren't dealing with change once again and have
> complaints. I had to just ROFLALOL when people complained that they
> couldn't figure out "where the start button went." (Vista) I just never
> thought there were soooo many CLUELESS people "out there!" Where in the
> Sam-hell has LOGIC gone?? If the start button in 95, 98, and XP was in the
> same place, then wouldn't you think that the orb looking thing in the same
> place as the ol' start button might do the same thing? Wouldn't SIMPLE
> logic DEMAND one to just click it? At LEAST mouse-over it? Oh man, I just
> can't get over that one, and now other things similar to that with Win7.
> My GOD people get a clue, use your friggin heads for-crying-out-loud!
>
> K, book/rant is done..
>
> G'day
>

 

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:57:48 -0400, Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:

>>
>
>That Clown57 posted to me a couple days back about him and his wife and
>their take on Vista, which was a pile of crap according to him. He may
>have you fooled but not me. I don't trust a two-face like him as far as
>I can pick-up a building and toss it somewhere.

Vista is a pile of crap. Now what's your beef?

 

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:13:33 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>If one really examined the overall offering of Vista, one will know that
>it's a sloppy/rush work from product design to development to offering.

If you ever work with MS directly, you'll find that they are very
disconnected. Various departments barely talk to each other. It shows
throughout their products and product lines.

 

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:57:48 -0400, Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:
>
>> That Clown57 posted to me a couple days back about him and his wife and
>> their take on Vista, which was a pile of crap according to him. He may
>> have you fooled but not me. I don't trust a two-face like him as far as
>> I can pick-up a building and toss it somewhere.
>
> Vista is a pile of crap. Now what's your beef?
>

Although I liked Vista from the first boot, and believe me I did my
homework and installed a better video card and more memory for a better
experience, it was disappointing in some respects. Yeah, the Aero bit
seemed cool and all at first, but the more I used it, the more I found
shortcomings in other areas. I would NEVER consider it in a business
setting. For the most part when I boot to it, it's ok and does what I
need it to do, but I'm liking Win7 MUCH better. ..Leaner, meaner,
faster, is what I have found so far on the same machine as my Vista
installation. I've had NO problems adjusting to the differences compared
to XP. What's dissappointing for me about Win7 is that they didn't
really do much reworking of the GUI. It's pretty much Vista with some
different features. AND I'm not impressed at all that they still refuse
to implement Compiz-like features. Not the eye-candy part, but the
totally useful parts.

Maybe it was just FINALLY getting away from XP to something different
that drew me towards Vista, but I also found myself booting back to XP
for performance sake in some areas.. Well at least for a while. I rarely
boot to XP these days, but then lately I rarely boot to any flavor of
Windows at all. (Well, except for the testing of Win7) I find Linux
waaay more customizable, along with other reasons for using it. I like
BOTH worlds and use them for whatever reasons I deem necessary.

I still say that saying one or the other sucks is silly. I use the best
of BOTH worlds and that makes the world rock with computing for ME.


G'day

 

Geek fight!


--
deleon1

 

deleon1;1061979 Wrote:
> Geek fight!

I was going to comment but you said it all!!


--
dbknox