Vista Circles of Life and Death

In article <ex7qbIT7JHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>I said "People who wanted to upgrade". I did not say anything about a new
>system with Windows 98 on it (the then current hardware).<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

People who "wanted to upgrade" 3.1 to 95 had 386's. People
who "wanted to upgrade" from 95 to 98 ran p120's. People who wanted to
upgrade from 98 to XP had AT LEAST p300's. You'd have been hard pressed
to find a 386 that would even power up in 2000, never mind one in service.

In fact, the very last 386 I ever saw actually in service was
in ummmm 96, serving as the console manager for a security system.

 

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:50:54 -0400, Vlad-the-Impaler
<vlad@headsonastick.ow> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>No...its not a dissatisfaction.
>Its just the train of thought here was that the unhappiness with Vista has
>been lived though before.
>An OS running on low-performing hardware.
>The systems Vista is available pre-installed on should not be.
>If you put it on good hardware (my 2 year old PC rates a 5.0, CPU being the
>low, all others are 5.9) its a winner.
>Best Buy, etc sell under-performing systems all day.
>A 1200 dollar PC with on-board graphics...dud...the rating on the GPU was
>3.2.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Right... so all those business and home users should be forced to buy
a high level system to compensate for the fact that Vista is a
performance pig. (FYI - if Vista wasn't such a pig, how come Win7 is
so much faster on the same hardware?).

Not every home and business user is like you - a home gamer who buys a
fast desktop PC because he has no other financial responsibilities and
he needs a high FPM to fill his lonely nights like you, Jr. High boy.

 

Alias wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Frank wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> TheBiG wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Frank wrote:
>>> wanting to butt-fukk you!
>>>> But [sic] then again, you'd proly like that!...LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>> gesh frank, can you keep your sexual perversions out of the newsgroup?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Then you and jewboy should get a room!
>> Two sickos!...LOL!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> You are the epitome of disgusting and unimaginative clichés.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

That would be you sheep-fukker.<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Just curious, what would you do if you came home and your wife had
> installed Ubuntu on her machine?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

My wife, as if its any of your business, is much smarter than to do
something like that.

Tell her to get "butt fukked"?

You're a disgusting, vile ignorant POS asshole loser and a COWARD!

Call her<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> a "commie", "atheist", "linturd", etc.?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Describing yourself, huh?

Would you divorce her?

Divorce is what you do...seeing as how you're on wifie #4...hahaha...!
You're a real piece of **** excuse for a human being. No wonder you're
on wifie #4, broke and living in a third world country, in a run down
apartment with her relatives.
You're a loser!

 

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:28:39 +0000 (UTC), the wharf rat wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Ad verecundiam...<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Of course, I had to look it up.

I was amused that I was appealing to the authority Wikipedia telling me
about the fallacy of appealing to authority.



--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

 

Live OneCare sometimes uses up to 1.2 GB of RAM when doing it's thing on my
Win XP machine. Typical bootup is just under 700 MB of RAM used. So that's
1.9 GB of RAM needed! I bought 4 GB. Normal use w/o Live OneCare doing
something very active in the background, I'd still need 1.5GB of RAM.

My mom's machine has 512 MB of RAM, 1.6Ghz CPU, Win XP & with Live OneCare,
it takes 10-45 minutes to bootup. The AV programs & OS updates have
outbloated the computer's capacity.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:dhmc35lsqrobju6pqvlu3e81lk90gsps25@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:50:54 -0400, Vlad-the-Impaler
> <vlad@headsonastick.ow> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>No...its not a dissatisfaction.
>>Its just the train of thought here was that the unhappiness with Vista has
>>been lived though before.
>>An OS running on low-performing hardware.
>>The systems Vista is available pre-installed on should not be.
>>If you put it on good hardware (my 2 year old PC rates a 5.0, CPU being
>>the
>>low, all others are 5.9) its a winner.
>>Best Buy, etc sell under-performing systems all day.
>>A 1200 dollar PC with on-board graphics...dud...the rating on the GPU was
>>3.2.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Right... so all those business and home users should be forced to buy
> a high level system to compensate for the fact that Vista is a
> performance pig. (FYI - if Vista wasn't such a pig, how come Win7 is
> so much faster on the same hardware?).
>
> Not every home and business user is like you - a home gamer who buys a
> fast desktop PC because he has no other financial responsibilities and
> he needs a high FPM to fill his lonely nights like you, Jr. High boy.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
You act like a high level system costs thousands of dollars... maybe if you
want a MAC.
I spent $699 on a Core Duo laptop with 4 GB RAM and that's only because I
sprung for the extra $100 to get the one with the wireless-N card.
Desktops are much cheaper.
You can buy a laptop under $300 but most likely not one that I'd recommend
running Vista on.
When XP first came out, a lot of people still had machines with 128 MB RAM
or less, which could run it but not well.

 

So get rid of Live OneCare.
MS just released a new free AV program.

"Cymbal Man Freq." <disasterpastor45@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:edT9XPK8JHA.4176@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Live OneCare sometimes uses up to 1.2 GB of RAM when doing it's thing on
> my Win XP machine. Typical bootup is just under 700 MB of RAM used. So
> that's 1.9 GB of RAM needed! I bought 4 GB. Normal use w/o Live OneCare
> doing something very active in the background, I'd still need 1.5GB of
> RAM.
>
> My mom's machine has 512 MB of RAM, 1.6Ghz CPU, Win XP & with Live
> OneCare, it takes 10-45 minutes to bootup. The AV programs & OS updates
> have outbloated the computer's capacity.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>MS just released a new free AV program.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
available that will not be such resource hogs.

 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:43:07 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>You act like a high level system costs thousands of dollars... maybe if you
>want a MAC.
>I spent $699 on a Core Duo laptop with 4 GB RAM and that's only because I
>sprung for the extra $100 to get the one with the wireless-N card.
>Desktops are much cheaper.
>You can buy a laptop under $300 but most likely not one that I'd recommend
>running Vista on.
>When XP first came out, a lot of people still had machines with 128 MB RAM
>or less, which could run it but not well.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

$700 in a laptop doesn't get you high performance in a business
quality machine.

Besides, you're another home user with no concept of running a
business.

 

MS new AV program reportedly is free.
I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program or if
it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download they've had out.
OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one either
because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't gotten any sort
of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any conflicts. The biggest free
AV program is AVG and all I've heard is it's a hog and it conflicts with
other software.


"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>MS just released a new free AV program.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
> available that will not be such resource hogs. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

The spinning circle is not exclusive to Vista. I see the same cursor on
WinXP Pro with IE7.

"nomore" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47A2B9BD-A376-4A42-88F6-A3B0C643629F@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Is anyone as tired as I am of staring at the Vista Spinning Circle of
> Microsoft Incompetence?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

You are kidding right?? Mcafee is and has always been one of if not the
biggest resource hog there is! Avg is small and is a good program. One that
is even smaller would be Avast, both are free where as Mcafee the bloated is
not

"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:#F4S0#R8JHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> MS new AV program reportedly is free.
> I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program or
> if it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download they've had
> out.
> OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one
> either because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't gotten
> any sort of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any conflicts. The
> biggest free AV program is AVG and all I've heard is it's a hog and it
> conflicts with other software.
>
>
> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
> news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>>MS just released a new free AV program.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
>> available that will not be such resource hogs.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Get rid of Mcafee and watch it fly!

"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:#j#qQ$R8JHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> The spinning circle is not exclusive to Vista. I see the same cursor on
> WinXP Pro with IE7.
>
> "nomore" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47A2B9BD-A376-4A42-88F6-A3B0C643629F@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Is anyone as tired as I am of staring at the Vista Spinning Circle of
>> Microsoft Incompetence?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:51:16 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>MS new AV program reportedly is free.
>I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program or if
>it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download they've had out.
>OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one either
>because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't gotten any sort
>of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any conflicts. The biggest free
>AV program is AVG and all I've heard is it's a hog and it conflicts with
>other software.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

McCrappy sucks. It's a hog. AVG was a hog when it came out. I think
they fixed it but I already moved on to Avast and I'm not going back.
It's much bette.

 

I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't seen it
cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1 GHz Athlon with
512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable resource issues. We run
McAfee software at work on everything down to a Pentium III 800 MHz with 256
MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with no noticeable resource issues.

Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very little
about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up in a Google
search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has issues. I've seen it
cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While you may be an ignorant kid
who says "don't use AOL" as your solution, you would apparently have no
experience working with users. The typical user doesn't care to switch to
gmail just because it's the latest fad. Older users especially prefer to
avoid change.

I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's free.
Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.

"Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:238CCC49-2D64-400A-86FF-5C3447CF46B6@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> You are kidding right?? Mcafee is and has always been one of if not the
> biggest resource hog there is! Avg is small and is a good program. One
> that is even smaller would be Avast, both are free where as Mcafee the
> bloated is not
>
> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
> news:#F4S0#R8JHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> MS new AV program reportedly is free.
>> I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program or
>> if it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download they've
>> had out.
>> OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one
>> either because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't gotten
>> any sort of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any conflicts. The
>> biggest free AV program is AVG and all I've heard is it's a hog and it
>> conflicts with other software.
>>
>>
>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>>>MS just released a new free AV program.
>>>
>>> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
>>> available that will not be such resource hogs.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Eric wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't seen it
> cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1 GHz Athlon with
> 512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable resource issues. We run
> McAfee software at work on everything down to a Pentium III 800 MHz with 256
> MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with no noticeable resource issues.
>
> Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very little
> about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up in a Google
> search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has issues. I've seen it
> cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While you may be an ignorant kid
> who says "don't use AOL" as your solution, you would apparently have no
> experience working with users. The typical user doesn't care to switch to
> gmail just because it's the latest fad. Older users especially prefer to
> avoid change.
>
> I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's free.
> Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

McAfee is one of the worst in detecting malware. I bet if you install
Avast on your McAfee computers, it will find viruses that McAfee let
slide. That said, if you use Linux, you needn't bother about what anti
virus program you should use.

Alias<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:238CCC49-2D64-400A-86FF-5C3447CF46B6@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> You are kidding right?? Mcafee is and has always been one of if not the
>> biggest resource hog there is! Avg is small and is a good program. One
>> that is even smaller would be Avast, both are free where as Mcafee the
>> bloated is not
>>
>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:#F4S0#R8JHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> MS new AV program reportedly is free.
>>> I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program or
>>> if it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download they've
>>> had out.
>>> OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one
>>> either because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't gotten
>>> any sort of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any conflicts. The
>>> biggest free AV program is AVG and all I've heard is it's a hog and it
>>> conflicts with other software.
>>>
>>>
>>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>>>> MS just released a new free AV program.
>>>> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
>>>> available that will not be such resource hogs.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:46:43 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't seen it
>cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1 GHz Athlon with
>512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable resource issues. We run
>McAfee software at work on everything down to a Pentium III 800 MHz with 256
>MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with no noticeable resource issues.
>
>Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very little
>about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up in a Google
>search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has issues. I've seen it
>cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While you may be an ignorant kid
>who says "don't use AOL" as your solution, you would apparently have no
>experience working with users. The typical user doesn't care to switch to
>gmail just because it's the latest fad. Older users especially prefer to
>avoid change.
>
>I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's free.
>Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Whatever. McCrappy is a resource hog. But, I don't care much how YOUR
computer runs, especially if you are going to parade around like a
know-it-all when you apparently know very little.

 

If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten us.
I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any impact.

McAfee is highly rated for virus protection.
You also bash MS OneCare which as I recall was the highest rated AV program,
as well as the new MS AV program, with only one useless suggestion.
"And skip the new one too. There are established free programs available
that will not be such resource hogs."
Which "established" free program(s) do you use/recommend?
What resource data do you have for comparison?

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:1u3755h8ihsu0n3fjd0rgmucsigr39guql@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Whatever. McCrappy is a resource hog. But, I don't care much how YOUR
> computer runs, especially if you are going to parade around like a
> know-it-all when you apparently know very little. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:55 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten us.
>I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
>If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any impact.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Ohh, gay jokes. You must be quite the enlightened soul.

Top poster too.

Bye.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
newsff7555umf0n8lmg0bg6n8nalqfbs1br30@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:55 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten us.
>>I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
>>If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any impact.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Ohh, gay jokes. You must be quite the enlightened soul.
>
> Top poster too.
>
> Bye.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I can bottom post too, so what? Top posting is easier to read, particularly
if you include a long quote. I see you only quoted one post and snipped the
rest of the thread. Some on these forums look down on that too. It's a
matter of preference. You're still a troll, coming on here to bash other
people's software choices while providing no facts to support your argument
much less any alternative suggestion with any facts to support that, so go
back under your bridge.