Vista Circles of Life and Death

JEWboy wrote:
> The hardware requirements are designed to accomodate Bloated code which
> is bloated to suit children, home users, housewives, etc people with low
> IQ so that they would not get lost in straightforward simplistic menus.
> These people require multimedia and they believe that computers were
> invented to watch porn, play retarded hiphom music and otherwise kill
> none of which is of any use to a busienss user.
>
> Therefore as hardware requirements rise, so do revenues of hardware
> companies which in turn demands shinier, sleekier OS & Software which in
> turns feeds the cycle of hard-software dependency which just feeds
> endless cycle of SPENDING.
> Which is not bad. The alternative is a Communist system where
> government decides what industrial goods and needs people should have,
> rather than wild market. I was born/raised in Soviet Union, and it has
> shown tobe a killer of technological progress.
>
> So the ideal is in between.
> There;s should be limite dgovernment regulation of these gigantic
> monopolies as Microsoft, and yet market freedom for self-destruction o
> ffailing, inferior products.
>
> Vista is a disatser in comparative terms... it's a good OS< problem is
> MS shot themselves in the foot when they polished WindowsXP.
> WindowsXP is too good a benchmark to which all are compared, and when
> compared Vista is a hcildish toy, not a busieness OS unless oyu aply all
> these updates, patches and plugins.
>
> DO oyu know how much time I spent before file xfer over the Network &
> ALSO to USB external drive was a tolerable 15029MBps ratez?
> Do you know how much time it took to fix Office2007 selected text -
> backgroudn color invisible, so when you search for text strings in Word
> docs you don't know what/where it found?
>
> Vista Search... don't even mention it, I was forced to download
> FileLocator Pro instead. And I had to pay.
>
> WindowsExplorer - Vista style, I want to smack somebody in the head for
> making it forget folder views and insist in dumba** media style layout.
> backgrou nd colors - why do WinXp apps OBEY system-wide colors but
> WIndowsLive and many Vista crapwares insists on WHITE background?
> I happen to use Black sicne 1992... 17 years. I've been doing computers
> long before, in the age of Gopher, Finger, BBS and online services which
> were self-contained.
>
> By comparison Vista is not a busienss-optimized OS, it's a toy. It's
> shiny, cute and... USELESS.
>
> I SAID MANY TIMES WHAT BUSINESS USER CARES FOR AERO TIPS, AERO PEAKS,
> AERO TRICKS??
> Who cares? People who need productivity immediately switch to Classic
> appearance, Classic Start menu, Classic Explorer behavior... so?
> SO why spend 3 year sdeveliping this piece of a... toy lets say softly?

you are giving facts, examples and you are making logical conclusions..

the vista fanbois want NONE OF THAT!

some of them are super dumb like frank, and are not ashamed to say that
vista is the best OS ever...

See what you are dealing with? Total morons

 

TheBiG wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> the wharf rat wrote:
>>> In article <C74E7F37-395D-4CBA-B95F-57C2B97529F2@microsoft.com>,
>>> Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Xp became a half decent op system only after sp2
>>>
>>> I don't think that's true. XP was pretty good from the start
>>> although at the beginning 2000 was far more stable.
>>>
>> No, it wasn't that good. XP really only 'came alive" with SP2.
>
> Only for idiots like you it did...
>
> XP was a great OS from the start.... vista was a dead OS from the
> start,and win7 will seal its grave, while there is still GREAT DEMAND
> for XP...
>
> how do you explain that you bastard?
>
> No reply needed.. rhetorical question.. I will tell you why
>
> XP was good, vista was crap.
>
-----------------------------------------------

You're a delusional liar!

 

You really should do some research on what you are saying before spewing
this load about xp!! Ask anybody who remembers because obviously you don't.
Xp was just as much of a problem it's 1st year and well into it's 2nd year
for that fact.. consult any xp newsgroup of old.. You rant and rave about
its gui in later responses and judging by your post and your spelling must
be a little on the liquored up side.but what does that have to do with this
discussion? Any person not just a business person will turn off all the
bells and whistles to save resources if he needs to.. Obviously YOU must
because YOUR computer is having problems . well not at this end

"TheBiG" <kah@com.com> wrote in message
news:4a33f6e9@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> Frank wrote:
>> the wharf rat wrote:
>>> In article <C74E7F37-395D-4CBA-B95F-57C2B97529F2@microsoft.com>,
>>> Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Xp became a half decent op system only after sp2
>>>
>>> I don't think that's true. XP was pretty good from the start
>>> although at the beginning 2000 was far more stable.
>>>
>> No, it wasn't that good. XP really only 'came alive" with SP2.
>
> Only for idiots like you it did...
>
> XP was a great OS from the start.... vista was a dead OS from the
> start,and win7 will seal its grave, while there is still GREAT DEMAND for
> XP...
>
> how do you explain that you bastard?
>
> No reply needed.. rhetorical question.. I will tell you why
>
> XP was good, vista was crap.
>

 

"Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>You really should do some research on what you are saying before spewing
>this load about xp!!

The person you replied to is a troll... as are most folks in this or
other similar threads.

You are wasting your time trying to talk sense into any of them, and
are just "feeding the trolls".

 

I know but sometimes one types and sends before thinking about it.. I still
have to perfect the reaching out and taking it back program!

"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
news:sia835p5elbaipoqdp3ge5eq55kjdgrva9@4ax.com...
> "Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>You really should do some research on what you are saying before spewing
>>this load about xp!!
>
> The person you replied to is a troll... as are most folks in this or
> other similar threads.
>
> You are wasting your time trying to talk sense into any of them, and
> are just "feeding the trolls".

 

XP, at the beginning, was plagued with problems. People were trying to run
it with the same 32 meg of RAM that they used for Windows 98. Their hardware
wouldn't work and they had to get new printers and scanners. Much more.

My, it is strange and wonderful that human beings are blessed with selective
memory. It is one of our survival mechanisms.

It was only after SP2 that Windows XP became stable and totally usable.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h10kvp$gpl$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <C74E7F37-395D-4CBA-B95F-57C2B97529F2@microsoft.com>,
> Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>Xp became a half decent op system only after sp2
>
> I don't think that's true. XP was pretty good from the start
> although at the beginning 2000 was far more stable.
>

 

In article <2585FCD9-C422-4EC2-BA75-4DF191051867@microsoft.com>,
Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>I remember the posts and everyone screaming "Give me back 98!"

I don't.

>It ran quite well on my machine at
>that time (1 gig processor and 1 gig of ram and pretty good dedicated
>graphics card)

That was a beast for the time. But XP ran perfectly well on
a P300 with 256MB.

 

In article <OgIpyTL7JHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>XP, at the beginning, was plagued with problems. People were trying to run
>it with the same 32 meg of RAM that they used for Windows 98. Their hardware
>wouldn't work and they had to get new printers and scanners. Much more.

I dont' remember that at all. Outside of corporate America
not many people ran out and upgraded their old 98's. I'd still see them
even into 2001.

 

In my environment, I have never seen, experienced nor expressed resentment
to MS OS though cautious upgrade has always been advised for business users.

One thing that I did notice over the past 10+ years, and that is many of us
have grown up, so what used not to be a problem (e.g. tweaking,
troubleshooting for this and that don't work, and so on) now has become a
major problem. Many of us now have a much higher standard on technologies
so that we can focus more on the real issues of our life and work, instead
of playing with low-level OS.

Microsoft is absolutely correct when they said that they would carefully
choose beta testers for Windows 7. If they continue to use people who are
living in the '80s with ancient standards for evaluating OS, how can they
serve people and business that are looking to the future not the past?

All the discrepancies are coming from different standards, and that's as
simple as that.


"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OgIpyTL7JHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> XP, at the beginning, was plagued with problems. People were trying to run
> it with the same 32 meg of RAM that they used for Windows 98. Their
> hardware wouldn't work and they had to get new printers and scanners. Much
> more.
>
> My, it is strange and wonderful that human beings are blessed with
> selective memory. It is one of our survival mechanisms.
>
> It was only after SP2 that Windows XP became stable and totally usable.
>
> --
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Desktop Experience
>
>
> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:h10kvp$gpl$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <C74E7F37-395D-4CBA-B95F-57C2B97529F2@microsoft.com>,
>> Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Xp became a half decent op system only after sp2
>>
>> I don't think that's true. XP was pretty good from the start
>> although at the beginning 2000 was far more stable.
>>
>

 

Those of us who have been assisting in these news groups since the Windows
95 days remember well the frustration, anger and discontent that was evident
among the users who found their way to the Microsoft news groups.

Just like with Vista, if Win98 users bought a new computer with the
operating system their main problem was getting old hardware to work with
the operating system. But those who chose to upgrade their older computers
were so angry that their hardware was not up to par. Many had skipped
Windows 95 and were moving from Windows 3.1 to Windows 98. Windows 3.1 only
needed 2-4 meg of RAM and much lower CPU requirements. Many who used Windows
98 had 32 meg of RAM if their system was designed for Windows 98.

Then along came Windows XP. WHAT! 32 meg of RAM isn't enough? My 386
processor is not sufficient?? What the hell is Microsoft doing to us. What
am I supposed to do with all of my older (Windows 3.1 vintage) hardware?
Microsoft sucks!

I guess that you are just not old enough or were not interested in computers
when all this transpired. Or else YOU have very selective memory!

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h124fq$8v7$3@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <OgIpyTL7JHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>XP, at the beginning, was plagued with problems. People were trying to run
>>it with the same 32 meg of RAM that they used for Windows 98. Their
>>hardware
>>wouldn't work and they had to get new printers and scanners. Much more.
>
> I dont' remember that at all. Outside of corporate America
> not many people ran out and upgraded their old 98's. I'd still see them
> even into 2001.
>
>

 

That's right! Windows XP ran great on 256 meg of RAM.

To show how little you know - people who wanted to upgrade from Windows 98
likely had 32 meg of RAM and a 286-386 processor! And you don't think there
was a discontented mass of computer users out there? You can't ignore the
facts bud. Just admit that you are blowing wind and really don't know.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h123rk$8v7$2@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <2585FCD9-C422-4EC2-BA75-4DF191051867@microsoft.com>,
> Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>I remember the posts and everyone screaming "Give me back 98!"
>
> I don't.
>
>>It ran quite well on my machine at
>>that time (1 gig processor and 1 gig of ram and pretty good dedicated
>>graphics card)
>
> That was a beast for the time. But XP ran perfectly well on
> a P300 with 256MB.
>

 

Richard Urban wrote:

> That's right! Windows XP ran great on 256 meg of RAM.
>
> To show how little you know - people who wanted to upgrade from Windows 98
> likely had 32 meg of RAM and a 286-386 processor! And you don't think
> there
> was a discontented mass of computer users out there? You can't ignore the
> facts bud. Just admit that you are blowing wind and really don't know.
>

I still have a late '90's PC running XP.
It has a P3-600MHz,384Mb RAM,64Mb Geforce 2 AGP.
It came with Win98.

XP barely runs OK...try to run an AV scan while using IE8 ... bogs
down,becomes unresponsive.
Large delays occur when opening Windows.
Multi-tasking is not really an option on that PC.

I remember all the issues that occurred when first putting XP on that.
I added 2 RAM sticks to max out the memory, and added the Geforce2 card.
Every possible service that can be turned off is.

 

To view problems that were common between Jan 1, 2001 and Jan 1, 2003 go
here!

http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&safe=off

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%239OuI3O7JHA.2388@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> That's right! Windows XP ran great on 256 meg of RAM.
>
> To show how little you know - people who wanted to upgrade from Windows 98
> likely had 32 meg of RAM and a 286-386 processor! And you don't think
> there was a discontented mass of computer users out there? You can't
> ignore the facts bud. Just admit that you are blowing wind and really
> don't know.
>
> --
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Desktop Experience
>
>
> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:h123rk$8v7$2@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <2585FCD9-C422-4EC2-BA75-4DF191051867@microsoft.com>,
>> Drew <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I remember the posts and everyone screaming "Give me back 98!"
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>>>It ran quite well on my machine at
>>>that time (1 gig processor and 1 gig of ram and pretty good dedicated
>>>graphics card)
>>
>> That was a beast for the time. But XP ran perfectly well on
>> a P300 with 256MB.
>>
>