We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
Now we have "artificial mendacity".

VISTA IS A LIAR.

How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.

Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
and errors.

The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++

RETURN 0

This will normally return a zero in the accumulator. It is a standard
trick to say "all is well". The zero means zero errors. Other numbers
have to be looked up from a list of errors and exceptions.

SOMETHING - I will not say it is the interrupts - is corrupting the
registers. As a result, after return from a successful subroutine, it
announces an error. Or, on other occasions, on return from an error it
reports that all is well.

In violation of SET THEORY, Microsoft dream that their "SERVICE PACK
1" will solve all their problems, or that the "UPDATES" will put
things right. They will not.

A car is a set of parts. If you break down, a call to the manufacturer
may result in your being advised to "try to drive to a gas station to
fill your tank", or "try to drive to a gas station to charge the
battery". However, if the car will not move, this is impossible. A
manufacturer that expects you to "try" silly things is incompetent.

Vista makes regular "updates", but it is a lie. It SIMULATES being on
the Internet, and "patches" its own operating system with byte salad.
So the only safe thing to do is CANCEL the "updates". However, on my
machine, it continued to LIE, and deliver "updates" whilst the machine
was offline, and did so for five days before it suddenly stopped doing
so.

Now it says "You have cancelled the updates, but you can install them
manually over the Internet". A LIE. The machine is never connected. It
even offers wireless internet, without the requisite hardware being
there.

I had a machine with Vista on it, and took it back to the shop. A
dimwit repair-man simply put the thing on the Internet to download
Service Pack One. It hung. For ten hours, he was unaware that the
machine was doing nothing. I have no doubt he demanded overtime pay.
Next day, he had it on the Internet for a further six hours, and
pronounced it to have been repaired.

Before I took it home, I insisted that I demonstrate some of the
faults to the head of the sales department. If it failed to reveal
those faults, I would take it home. It did exactly what it had done
before. It crashed many programs. It lied, for example to say that a
directory was "temporarily not available". When the window was closed,
it would indeed access the directory.

The head of sales had seen the faults, and even the PALE SCREEN OF
DEATH. He accepted my complaint, particularly as a diagnostic tool had
revealed 43 faults - ON A NEW MACHINE. He exchanged it for another
machine from a DIFFERENT manufacturer.

When I took that other machine home, it did exactly the same thing as
the other. It is the Vista operating system at fault, not the myriad
of hardware and software manufacturers who depend on Microsoft to
deliver a stable product.

Lord Russell's paradox speaks of the "Set of all sets that does not
include itself". This set of subroutines CANNOT repair itself, as
Microsoft delude themselves. Going on the internet uses the modem
driver, the TCP/IP system, all the Windows systems used by Internet
Explorer, and a host of other subroutines.

If any one subroutine is broken, the whole "update" scheme falls flat.

The solution must come from OUTSIDE.

I went to an Internet café that uses XP. Not that XP is particularly
bug-free, but it is at least OUTSIDE of the Vista system to some
extent. I could not use Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product),
because it crashes (of course). I used Firefox.

However, the "environment variables" on the Internet include the "user
agent". Microsoft expect to see their own name there. If it is a
competitor's browser, they reject it. Here it is for IE7:

HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)

So Microsoft will not let you go OUTSIDE of the problem. You cannot
use an Apple Mac, for example, to fetch the updates or service pack to
repair Vista.

With difficulty, and using an IE browser that just about worked, I
downloaded the 455 MEGABYTES of "Service Pack One". That is ABSURD.
One can contain SEVERAL COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEMS in 455 megabytes.

I then used virus-checkers on the SD card to ensure that the Service
Pack was uncorrupted.

I took it home, to install on the new machine.

Vista said "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED".

It LIED.

Charles Douglas Wehner

vista is a liar only if it
knows how to rationalize.

perhaps, you should do
some self error checking
to ensure your own
rationalizations are not
irrational.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces



"Charles Douglas Wehner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6106e873-5b63-4c8b-98c7-(E-Mail Removed)...
> We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
> Now we have "artificial mendacity".
>
> VISTA IS A LIAR.
>
> How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
> expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.
>
> Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
> Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
> and errors.
>
> The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++
>
> RETURN 0
>
> This will normally return a zero in the accumulator. It is a standard
> trick to say "all is well". The zero means zero errors. Other numbers
> have to be looked up from a list of errors and exceptions.
>
> SOMETHING - I will not say it is the interrupts - is corrupting the
> registers. As a result, after return from a successful subroutine, it
> announces an error. Or, on other occasions, on return from an error it
> reports that all is well.
>
> In violation of SET THEORY, Microsoft dream that their "SERVICE PACK
> 1" will solve all their problems, or that the "UPDATES" will put
> things right. They will not.
>
> A car is a set of parts. If you break down, a call to the manufacturer
> may result in your being advised to "try to drive to a gas station to
> fill your tank", or "try to drive to a gas station to charge the
> battery". However, if the car will not move, this is impossible. A
> manufacturer that expects you to "try" silly things is incompetent.
>
> Vista makes regular "updates", but it is a lie. It SIMULATES being on
> the Internet, and "patches" its own operating system with byte salad.
> So the only safe thing to do is CANCEL the "updates". However, on my
> machine, it continued to LIE, and deliver "updates" whilst the machine
> was offline, and did so for five days before it suddenly stopped doing
> so.
>
> Now it says "You have cancelled the updates, but you can install them
> manually over the Internet". A LIE. The machine is never connected. It
> even offers wireless internet, without the requisite hardware being
> there.
>
> I had a machine with Vista on it, and took it back to the shop. A
> dimwit repair-man simply put the thing on the Internet to download
> Service Pack One. It hung. For ten hours, he was unaware that the
> machine was doing nothing. I have no doubt he demanded overtime pay.
> Next day, he had it on the Internet for a further six hours, and
> pronounced it to have been repaired.
>
> Before I took it home, I insisted that I demonstrate some of the
> faults to the head of the sales department. If it failed to reveal
> those faults, I would take it home. It did exactly what it had done
> before. It crashed many programs. It lied, for example to say that a
> directory was "temporarily not available". When the window was closed,
> it would indeed access the directory.
>
> The head of sales had seen the faults, and even the PALE SCREEN OF
> DEATH. He accepted my complaint, particularly as a diagnostic tool had
> revealed 43 faults - ON A NEW MACHINE. He exchanged it for another
> machine from a DIFFERENT manufacturer.
>
> When I took that other machine home, it did exactly the same thing as
> the other. It is the Vista operating system at fault, not the myriad
> of hardware and software manufacturers who depend on Microsoft to
> deliver a stable product.
>
> Lord Russell's paradox speaks of the "Set of all sets that does not
> include itself". This set of subroutines CANNOT repair itself, as
> Microsoft delude themselves. Going on the internet uses the modem
> driver, the TCP/IP system, all the Windows systems used by Internet
> Explorer, and a host of other subroutines.
>
> If any one subroutine is broken, the whole "update" scheme falls flat.
>
> The solution must come from OUTSIDE.
>
> I went to an Internet café that uses XP. Not that XP is particularly
> bug-free, but it is at least OUTSIDE of the Vista system to some
> extent. I could not use Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product),
> because it crashes (of course). I used Firefox.
>
> However, the "environment variables" on the Internet include the "user
> agent". Microsoft expect to see their own name there. If it is a
> competitor's browser, they reject it. Here it is for IE7:
>
> HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)
>
> So Microsoft will not let you go OUTSIDE of the problem. You cannot
> use an Apple Mac, for example, to fetch the updates or service pack to
> repair Vista.
>
> With difficulty, and using an IE browser that just about worked, I
> downloaded the 455 MEGABYTES of "Service Pack One". That is ABSURD.
> One can contain SEVERAL COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEMS in 455 megabytes.
>
> I then used virus-checkers on the SD card to ensure that the Service
> Pack was uncorrupted.
>
> I took it home, to install on the new machine.
>
> Vista said "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED".
>
> It LIED.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner
>
>

I'm not suprised at your attitude, nor your comments, usually people who
don't seem to notice they are posting material that doesn't relate to the
topic ie xp General, either don't care or are doing it on purpose.
anyway this is the wrong area for this subject matter, try a Vista Group.

"Charles Douglas Wehner" wrote:

> We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
> Now we have "artificial mendacity".
>
> VISTA IS A LIAR.
>
> How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
> expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.
>
> Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
> Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
> and errors.
>
> The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++
>
> RETURN 0
>
> This will normally return a zero in the accumulator. It is a standard
> trick to say "all is well". The zero means zero errors. Other numbers
> have to be looked up from a list of errors and exceptions.
>
> SOMETHING - I will not say it is the interrupts - is corrupting the
> registers. As a result, after return from a successful subroutine, it
> announces an error. Or, on other occasions, on return from an error it
> reports that all is well.
>
> In violation of SET THEORY, Microsoft dream that their "SERVICE PACK
> 1" will solve all their problems, or that the "UPDATES" will put
> things right. They will not.
>
> A car is a set of parts. If you break down, a call to the manufacturer
> may result in your being advised to "try to drive to a gas station to
> fill your tank", or "try to drive to a gas station to charge the
> battery". However, if the car will not move, this is impossible. A
> manufacturer that expects you to "try" silly things is incompetent.
>
> Vista makes regular "updates", but it is a lie. It SIMULATES being on
> the Internet, and "patches" its own operating system with byte salad.
> So the only safe thing to do is CANCEL the "updates". However, on my
> machine, it continued to LIE, and deliver "updates" whilst the machine
> was offline, and did so for five days before it suddenly stopped doing
> so.
>
> Now it says "You have cancelled the updates, but you can install them
> manually over the Internet". A LIE. The machine is never connected. It
> even offers wireless internet, without the requisite hardware being
> there.
>
> I had a machine with Vista on it, and took it back to the shop. A
> dimwit repair-man simply put the thing on the Internet to download
> Service Pack One. It hung. For ten hours, he was unaware that the
> machine was doing nothing. I have no doubt he demanded overtime pay.
> Next day, he had it on the Internet for a further six hours, and
> pronounced it to have been repaired.
>
> Before I took it home, I insisted that I demonstrate some of the
> faults to the head of the sales department. If it failed to reveal
> those faults, I would take it home. It did exactly what it had done
> before. It crashed many programs. It lied, for example to say that a
> directory was "temporarily not available". When the window was closed,
> it would indeed access the directory.
>
> The head of sales had seen the faults, and even the PALE SCREEN OF
> DEATH. He accepted my complaint, particularly as a diagnostic tool had
> revealed 43 faults - ON A NEW MACHINE. He exchanged it for another
> machine from a DIFFERENT manufacturer.
>
> When I took that other machine home, it did exactly the same thing as
> the other. It is the Vista operating system at fault, not the myriad
> of hardware and software manufacturers who depend on Microsoft to
> deliver a stable product.
>
> Lord Russell's paradox speaks of the "Set of all sets that does not
> include itself". This set of subroutines CANNOT repair itself, as
> Microsoft delude themselves. Going on the internet uses the modem
> driver, the TCP/IP system, all the Windows systems used by Internet
> Explorer, and a host of other subroutines.
>
> If any one subroutine is broken, the whole "update" scheme falls flat.
>
> The solution must come from OUTSIDE.
>
> I went to an Internet café that uses XP. Not that XP is particularly
> bug-free, but it is at least OUTSIDE of the Vista system to some
> extent. I could not use Internet Explorer (a Microsoft product),
> because it crashes (of course). I used Firefox.
>
> However, the "environment variables" on the Internet include the "user
> agent". Microsoft expect to see their own name there. If it is a
> competitor's browser, they reject it. Here it is for IE7:
>
> HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)
>
> So Microsoft will not let you go OUTSIDE of the problem. You cannot
> use an Apple Mac, for example, to fetch the updates or service pack to
> repair Vista.
>
> With difficulty, and using an IE browser that just about worked, I
> downloaded the 455 MEGABYTES of "Service Pack One". That is ABSURD.
> One can contain SEVERAL COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEMS in 455 megabytes.
>
> I then used virus-checkers on the SD card to ensure that the Service
> Pack was uncorrupted.
>
> I took it home, to install on the new machine.
>
> Vista said "SERVICE PACK 1 IS ALREADY INSTALLED".
>
> It LIED.
>
> Charles Douglas Wehner
>
>
>

"Charles Douglas Wehner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6106e873-5b63-4c8b-98c7-(E-Mail Removed)...
We have had "artificial intelligence" and even "artificial stupidity".
Now we have "artificial mendacity".

VISTA IS A LIAR.

How does this come about? It is really quite simple, but I don't
expect the dimwits at Microsoft to understand it.

Firstly, the "global exception handler", or whatever they call it at
Microsoft, is broken. The "exception handler" deals with exceptions
and errors.

The way these things are built up can be seen from a command in C++

RETURN 0

This NG is for Windows XP NOT Vista.
Go away.

Some weeks ago, I was involved in a discussion with somebody who had
carried out an "upgrade" from XP to Vista.

Nothing worked anymore.

The symptoms he described were exactly like those I had experienced on
several native Vista machines. So Microsoft have installed the same
bug in the Vista operating system and in the upgrade.

This is an important warning to the XP community. If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.

I make no apology for posting a second copy of my report here.

Be happy with XP. I had XP Professional in its early days, and it was
buggy. I hope and trust that they have sorted out the bugs by now.

However, I say again that SERVICE PACK 1 is no help. Even when a virus-
free version has been downloaded on an XP machine (more XP info, in
other words - XP as an aid to debugging Vista), it aborts. One puts it
on an SD card. One uses virus-checkers. One puts the card in the Vista
machine, and the mendacious Vista says "already installed" and aborts.

Microsoft have obviously not tested their Service Pack.

So if you "upgrade" to Vista, or install a fresh Vista, you will have
a major problem. I say again, if it works, be happy with XP.

Charles Douglas Wehner

I repeat that if you are thinking of "upgrading" to Vista, think
again.

The White House prefers XP:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...use-technology

Note the words:

"If you haven't noticed, most people still prefer XP over Microsoft's
clunky, buggy, annoying new Vista".

Here is an example of how Vista lied to my own machine-code anti-
aliased line-drawing program.

My program put 42 Hex (66) into AH in order to call Vista function 66.
It had 2 in AL, to go to the end of the file. The size of the file
appears in DX:AX. I used this to determine whether it is a 256-colour
bitmap, or the correct 16,777,216-colour version.

Suddenly, after working correctly for days, my program kept saying
"WRONG TYPE OF BITMAP".

But it was the right type of bitmap.

I used old, reliable software similar to Photoshop to examine the size
of the file.

It reported "FILE SIZE -1,285,230,262 BYTES".

Minus? And over a billion and a quarter such negative bytes?

That is not just a lie, but a WHOPPER. That is an EXTREME example of
Artificial Mendacity. And it was not just MY program, but BOTH
programs that were being lied to.

I pressed "Print" to make a copy of the screen, and saved the evidence
as a GIF file.

After I rebooted, without changing either program, I found everything
worked correctly again.

Such things come out of the blue.

Stay with XP until the bugs are conquered on Vista.

Charles Douglas Wehner