Justin is really nothing more than another zealot

[Justin]

And the entire thing you seem to miss is that Microsoft Provided The
Drivers to ME via their product called Vista.

I did not miss that. That comment means nothing. You are LUCKY to AT LEAST
have a driver that allows the use of the hardware until a final driver is
released.

You think you're on to something and you are not.

I didn't see anything on the box that said "drivers may not be optional
for use with Vista, even though we won't mention it during the install,
during the use, or any other time".

Of course you didn’t. Because they are operational, just not 100%. Did you
see something on that box that claimed the drivers were 100% functional?
No, you did not.

No, ALL OF THE DRIVERS CAME ON MY VISTA CD, MS Provided the Vista CD in
the package I bought - I don't care if MS got drivers from vendors, I care
that MS didn't appear to check them for quality before INCLUDING THEM WITH
VISTA.

Like I said. You think you're on to something and you are not. Read above.

LOL - so you think that it's OK for Vista to provide less than optimal
drivers

Absolutely. It’s better then nothing.

and for MS to have Not Checked their quality

Let's say they did. Then what? Rewrite the driver for the vendor? Sure,
let Vista take another three years. Then another three years for all the
hardware that came out in those three years. Then guess what? Another
three years for all the hardware that.... Do you have a fraction of a clue
yet?

I expected Vista, after the long history of development and testing, to
ship as Optimal, as a better OS, as a solution that provide the best of
all things it provides - you say they didn't include Optimal and that I
should accept that, well you're wrong.

Then your expectations are BS. When XP was released it's driver supposed
lacked for a long time. After three months time it got better then after
one years time it was much better. One the largest reasons people think SP1
was so great was because it included more certified drivers. Not
necessarily because of bug fixes.

 

[Adam Albright]

I guess that example suits your old age. But still had nothing to do with
OE.

It proves you rather me a fool then admit you were wrong.

 

[Adam Albright]

Typical. I provide the proof wuttle adum wants and he completely dismisses
it. I just plugged "uGVq#[email protected]" that into Google and
got the wanted link. Either way I took the extra effort and pasted the text
for you. You lazy good for nothing cry baby waste of time old decrepit POS.

I guess your news agent isn't as great as you thought.

You freaking retard, you're the fool that was too lazy to make the
"extra effort" to provide anything close to a valid URL. You further
proved what a clueless moron you truly are by adding three periods to
the end of the link thereby ensuring it will be invalid.

Now the lying little shunk you proved to be you try to sneak in a
modification changing your original link to what you offer now then
have the nerve to tell me I'm too lazy. Proving once again what is
said about you is 100% true. You simply can't stand to be corrected
when you make a mistake. You prefer to try to lie and wiggle your way
out of your endless blunders.

As ususal you got caught lying your useless ass off Justin. You
originally gave this:


Which is garbage, invalid and NOT a link. Period.

You now try to edit it giving the following then demand it get pasted
into Goggle so it has a chance to work:

uGVq#[email protected]

The funny thing is you don't know the first thing about anything,
you're just a proven faker that wings it and when you get called on
yout stupid comments you explode into one of your typical childish
outburts.

Damn, I love to play with idiots like you! Never change pal. You're
way to much a bozo to make fun of.

 

[Adam Albright]

Then you are laughing at yourself. I provided the text. If you are too
stupid to use Google if you want ADDITIONAL PROOF then that's on you. In
FACT I specifically remember you posting text when I wanted a LINK and you
told me the same exact thing. To use Google and figure it out myself and
how stupid I must be in not knowing how to use Google. Hahahaha!!!!!
Classic!!!! But I already know you're a hypocrite so that doesn't surprise
me.

That a boy Justin, whine like the little baby we all know you are.
Need a rattle, diaper change, need to be burped? What's bugging you
kid?

One more time dummy. You gave a INVALID link. Then on the sneak you
changed it. Then you try to say look it up in Google. Isn't there no
depth you won't sink to in some vain effort to try to save your
worthless ass by endless lies? Guess not.

 

[Leythos]

Of course you didn’t. Because they are operational, just not 100%. Did
you see something on that box that claimed the drivers were 100%
functional? No, you did not.

And there is the entire problem you have with the world.

I expected the product I purchased to be 100%, not to be 85%, not to be
lacking right out of the box. I expected it to be optimal right out of the
box, only needing a few tweeks to change a few small things.

Vista would have been a slam-dunk product if it had just provided the
performance in what MICROSOFT INCLUDED IN THE BOX, and it IS Microsofts
Choice as to what is and is not included.

So, there you go, you just made my case, you said that the drivers are not
100% as included, that I would have to seek better drivers to get better
performance.

Funny thing is that I can get XP working with the default drivers and have
better performance than Vista with their default drivers, which is the
point.

Vista, as shipped, does not perform well on standard hardware, but, in
some cases it may perform well or better than XP.

 

[DanS]

Doesn't matter, that particle post means nothing. It was conveniently
snipped NOT to show what you were 'corrected' about.

What you 'stand corrected' about was that you didn't know there was a
status indicator in the control panel for disk indexing.

Therefore, you were NOT corrected, you were let know that there was this
reporting feature that you were unaware about.

 

[DanS]

True, in the past I said "full throttle". I had no idea how dummy
proof the GUI client was. I run F@H as a service. There are more
options to set in the console client and setting the CPU to 100% is
one of them. Full throttle.

More conditions.

 

[DanS]

I was bored and got sucked in, it happens - and who made you for forum
moderator

The same person that made Urban the moderator

 

[DanS]

True, in the past I said "full throttle". I had no idea how dummy
proof the GUI client was. I run F@H as a service. There are more
options to set in the console client and setting the CPU to 100% is
one of them. Full throttle.

Funny, 'try using the console client' was what was said in the forum IF you
do have problems.

OK, I'll redo the whole experiment again with your new conditions.

 

[DanS]

You want one? You got one:

Re-read my ealier post explaining how you weren't 'corrected' in that
thread.

 

[Adam Albright]

Like I said. You think you're on to something and you are not. Read above.


Absolutely. It’s better then nothing.

You're so lame Justin it's beyond funny. You're on record saying it is
ok for Microsoft to not include drivers, not their job, now you're on
record saying Microsoft does include drivers, but oh, by the way they
neither know or care if they work well or not at all.

Like always, you want it both ways, and in the thread where you're
trying to deny you're just another Microsoft shill, oops...zealot.
Damn funny stuff Justin. But coming from a fool, expected.

Let's say they did. Then what? Rewrite the driver for the vendor? Sure,
let Vista take another three years. Then another three years for all the
hardware that came out in those three years. Then guess what? Another
three years for all the hardware that.... Do you have a fraction of a clue
yet?

Which brings us full circle. You've claimed Vista is ready. Then a few
days laters, say oh, well not really ready, it shipped with 500 known
bugs. You say both it is ok, then say no, don't upgrade. You're all
over the map kid and like I said, DAMN FUNNY to read. Nobody knows
what crap is going to fall out of your mouth next. I guess it depends
on which way the wind is blowing.

Then your expectations are BS. When XP was released it's driver supposed
lacked for a long time. After three months time it got better then after
one years time it was much better. One the largest reasons people think SP1
was so great was because it included more certified drivers. Not
necessarily because of bug fixes.

Lets cut to the chase. You claim a lot of crap, but it boils down to
you saying Vista works, sort of, it has bugs, ah, so what. You may
need to find drivers, ain't Microsoft's fault, oh, maybe they gave you
some drivers on the Vista CD, if they work or not, so what. Damn,
you're one hell of a salesperson for Microsoft. Are you sure you're
not really a Linux troll trying to discredit Vista, because kid,
you're doing a really fine job at that.

 

[DanS]

The console client uses LESS resources than the GUI because it's NOT a GUI.
Also, both the GUI Client v5.03 & the Console Client v5.04 use no CPU
themselves. They both control FahCore_78.exe, just different ways of
running it. The console version does NOT have more options. But, if you
insist...

http://users.adelphia.net/~thisnthat/folding_console.html

 

[Justin]

It proves you rather me a fool then admit you were wrong.

Wrong about what? Using OE? I already proved you wrong by posting FACT of
which you asked for THINKING it didn't exist. As usual you thought wrong.

Once again I put you in your place. As everyone eventually does. Plus, yes
adam, everyone thinks you a fool.

 

[Justin]

You freaking retard, you're the fool that was too lazy to make the
"extra effort" to provide anything close to a valid URL. You further
proved what a clueless moron you truly are by adding three periods to
the end of the link thereby ensuring it will be invalid.

Once again adam you are 100% wrong. You always are. That text is exactly
how WLMd generated it.

You are such a whiny little c@nt of a b!itch. I did for you exact as you've
done for me.

You made such a stink up one side and down the other when I wanted a link
and you are now wanting the link yourself.

Damn you're a f@cking idiot.

Now the lying little shunk you proved to be you try to sneak in a
modification changing your original link to what you offer now then
have the nerve to tell me I'm too lazy.

Yup, because I didn't change anything and you are lazy you old POS. Like I
said, I pasted that into gg and it came right up. Learn Google you retard!

Proving once again what is
said about you is 100% true. You simply can't stand to be corrected
when you make a mistake. You prefer to try to lie and wiggle your way
out of your endless blunders.

Oh, I get it. You are so pissed off that slammed you're a$$ in to the
ground that this is how you retaliate? Maybe next time you wont act like an
a-hole.

As ususal you got caught lying your useless ass off Justin. You
originally gave this:


Which is garbage, invalid and NOT a link. Period.

Go b!itch as MS. Not me. You can plug that into gg if weren't so damn
stupid and knew how.

You now try to edit it giving the following then demand it get pasted
into Goggle so it has a chance to work:

uGVq#[email protected]

That's note edited you moron. Maybe if you had a quarter of a brain you
would know that:

uGVq#[email protected]

Have you figured it out yet? Are you even capable of learning. Here since
you are so damn stupid I'll do it for you:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=uGVq#[email protected]

The funny thing is you don't know the first thing about anything,
you're just a proven faker that wings it and when you get called on
yout stupid comments you explode into one of your typical childish
outburts.

Damn, I love to play with idiots like you! Never change pal. You're
way to much a bozo to make fun of.

HAHAHAHA! Whatever you say wuttle adum. You asked and I provided. Text
and all. You are a moron, bottom line!

 

[Justin]

Doesn't matter, that particle post means nothing. It was conveniently
snipped NOT to show what you were 'corrected' about.

What you 'stand corrected' about was that you didn't know there was a
status indicator in the control panel for disk indexing.

Therefore, you were NOT corrected, you were let know that there was this
reporting feature that you were unaware about.

Wow! You as well cried like a BABY because I didn't search for something
myself. Damn, you and adam are the most blind piece of crap I have ever
come across.

Here little baby. Everything done for you:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=uGVq#[email protected]

That is only ONE. There are more. Search for them your damn self.

 

[Adam Albright]

Once again adam you are 100% wrong. You always are. That text is exactly
how WLMd generated it.

You are such a whiny little c@nt of a b!itch. I did for you exact as you've
done for me.

You made such a stink up one side and down the other when I wanted a link
and you are now wanting the link yourself.

Damn you're a f@cking idiot.


Yup, because I didn't change anything and you are lazy you old POS. Like I
said, I pasted that into gg and it came right up. Learn Google you retard!

Hey, calm down you little punk before you impode.

ROTFLAMO!

 

[Adam Albright]

Wow! You as well cried like a BABY because I didn't search for something
myself. Damn, you and adam are the most blind piece of crap I have ever
come across.

Here little baby. Everything done for you:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=uGVq#[email protected]

That is only ONE. There are more. Search for them your damn self.

Congradulations punk, you FINALLY leared how to post a proper UAL.
Only took you three tries. That's par for dummies like you.

 

[Justin]

More conditions.

WRONG! I said full throttle in the past. You ASSumed the wrong client.
Your bad.

 

[Justin]

Funny, 'try using the console client' was what was said in the forum IF
you
do have problems.

OK, I'll redo the whole experiment again with your new conditions.

Good don't ASSume the wrong settings.

 

[Justin]

The console client uses LESS resources than the GUI because it's NOT a
GUI.
Also, both the GUI Client v5.03 & the Console Client v5.04 use no CPU
themselves. They both control FahCore_78.exe, just different ways of
running it. The console version does NOT have more options. But, if you
insist...

http://users.adelphia.net/~thisnthat/folding_console.html

Yes it does you idiot. You have to say YES for advanced settings. You
obviously do not have a clue and NO the console version is not only if have
trouble with the GUI. You are obviously talking to idiots.

Plus, can't you create a clear concise thought and post once? What's with
all these posts? Oh! That's right, you are too stupid to know how to use a
news reader. You should try OE and maybe you wouldn't have all these BS
problems.