All is CONFIRMED

[Stephan Rose]

Le Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:21:10 -0700, Bill Yanaire ("Bill Yanaire"


Are you paid by Bill ? Your earnings will decrease for sure after
Microsof has paid European Community ! 500,000,000 € ....

Ehhh, while that's a nice amount...isn't that pretty much just spare
pocket change to MS?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

Stephan Rose wrote:



I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

Well I agree with ya on one thing, one OS per drive. Period. I personally
don't like throwing multiple OS' on a single drive either.

Though I suppose I may need to break that rule on my next system if I
actually do build myself a raid array. It'll be hard to dedicate Windows
and Ubuntu each to their own physical drive then.

Though there is this one new hard drive out that is really tempting,
maybe I'll just buy two of those instead. Up to 200 gigs capacity and it
has 1 gig worth of cache in the form of RAM with a 90 second battery
backup in case of power failure to commit said cache to media if
necessary.

Supposed to be extremely fast due to its huge cache.

No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

Vista is still the one that's having the problem with it. =)

If one knows there's going

I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible. But of course,
all we're doing is speculating. Frank

Personally I would not say that it would have been impossible. Most
software related things these days are generally not impossible,
though...they can be inconvenient to implement. But agreed, all either
one of us can do on the matter is speculate.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Guest]

ENOUGH WITH THE FYI CRAP.

I thought Windows 2008 server was your answer to Vista? Just FYI. Is there
problems in server land? Just FYI. Isn't Windows 2008 Server the BEST
choice for desktop? Just FYI.

Come on Mr. Answerman, give us the information. Just FYI

 

[I eat vista]

Distro called "XP Pro".

lol gee its the vista-virus getting to whats left of their brains!!!!

 

[I eat vista]

spanky you are impersonating an idiot called bill yanair now? Is he your new
role model?

Ok.. but just dont impersonate frank.. his stupidity might stick forever and
reduce yout IQ from one to zero

 

[Ezmerelda LaDouche]

Aren't you the one with that mentally disabled syndrome. Just FYI. I am so
sorry to hear about your condition. Just FYI. I hear there are facilities
throughout the country that can help someone like you. Just FYI.

Good luck.

Just FYI


"Erwin Moller"

 

[Ezmerelda LaDouche]

Why are you here?
You're not using Vista are you?
Frank

The reason he can't use Vista is because when he walks he drags his knuckles
on the ground and makes a chimping sound.

He then gets bananas and swings in trees.

 

[Charlie Tame]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:41:40 -0400, Tom Lake wrote:

Gaining and keeping customers is easy. Regaining lost customers on the
other hand, now that one is extremely difficult.

You have that exactly right Stephan

 

[Charlie Tame]

windows 2003 that is a server OS was used by many many many people as a
desktop OS!

They claimed better stabily and I can say that that must have been true
since
the kernel of win2003 was 5.2 while on XP it was 5.1

So if all these people were using win2003 as a desktop I see no reason why
people will not use server 2008 as a desktop.

The only problem really is the cost.. since you can make 2008 function as a
desktop OS>

Server 2003 was a good stable OS and apart from the lack of rounded
corners it could be made just as usable as a desktop as XP. No movie
maker, and the default IE was so restricted it had to be unlocked for
browsing normally (Which says a lot about IE really) but aside from that
and turning off unwanted services there were no real differences. Oh,
and the "Search" function worked...

 

[Ezmerelda LaDouche]

lol gee its the vista-virus getting to whats left of their brains!!!!

At least they have brains. You don't

 

[Ezmerelda LaDouche]

Another top posting Wintard who has reading comprehension problem. "Harry"
said he "went back to XP Pro". Last I checked, there is no Linux Distro
called "XP Pro".
You out of prison already -

 

[Charlie Tame]

INLINE:





Sure sure.




Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

It is here, what do you call a "Regular App", one that eats a lot of fiber?

'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

Well you better take others' word for it then, it sucks beyond all sense
and reason and can only be improved by a tortuous route through registry
changes and major settings changes. In it's default state it couldn't
find itself in it's own folder...

I like it.

There's always one.

Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would
only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I
use a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

Lucky you...

Wrong. It's very good that way.

At causing frustration it leads the field...

I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my
machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

You must be running "Hello World"

Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..
duh.

I suspect it is something that was requested by hardware vendors, they
shell out for less real RAM and YOU shell out to buy a bloody Ram stick.

- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active
partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

Well it is a completely unnecessary encumbrance when the system could
have been designed not to do that, but wait they don't want you running
side by side comparisons because guess what, you'd think "I just bought
this new OS and the old one is actually better". You would be able to
make a real comparison, same hardware same everything, but then you
would miss the fact that the only reason you perceive Vista as being
faster is because you just bought faster hardware

Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right
there in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

No the themes are basically crap, the colors were poorly chosen
especially for highlighting. To hell with functionality when we can be
"Fashionable"

'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

In real world tests speech to text is truly crap. Although it works in
more things than XP that just means more things it gets wrong. It takes
20 minutes to type an email, using TTS it takes 20 minutes to dictate it
15 times until you get it close and then another 20 to scroll back,
proof read it twice and correct the errors that aren't so noticeable
such as "Two" instead of "to" and the like. Certainly needs more work.

- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.

[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling
the processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the
Server 2003 fork. So please ..

Never had a problem with XP, define "Better".

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to
stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's
including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

You really have only "Hello World" installed haven't you?

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

Hardly mission critical, though I suppose for some it could be...

Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and
hundreds of bodies in those files.

You haven't used Thunderbird have you. ALL the Vista mail clients they
had released (Until I simply gave up and installed Thunderbird) ran like
a three legged rhinoceros with gout. Killing OE was a serious error of
judgment, especially when the replacement was written by people who'd
obviously never actually used a newsreader and probably have yahoo.com
or AOL email addresses.

The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing
well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular
need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs
are good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might want.

Ah, you mean like actually "Working".

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works
very well.

Fast compared to what? Are you sure you are using Vista and weren't sold
a pirate copy of XP? Is the CD Label handwritten by any chance?

No. It's as fast or faster.

If it is faster then there was something wrong with what you had before,
not uncommon for a clean install to appear much faster.

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

No it isn't. Adding "Yahoo" and AOL shortcuts isn't "Configurable"

Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such
as Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

Oh but the successful and money making parts of that statement depend on
the customers impressions, not on what you or MS "Think" customers want...

Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean
install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this
fact was usually overlooked by its critics.

Define "The right hardware"

Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB
RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a
RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

What's the point when after all that you end up with a system that can
do less than XP on the same hardware?

You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

Vista was released unfinished, prime example the mail client, which
updated version are they on now?

Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a
handgun doing outside of lock and key?

A handgun that's locked away is no use if you are attacked, was that
description of Vista one you chose not to comment on by any chance?

It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

Saucy

I don't know why I bothered really either, but YOUR statements here have
been exactly what you accused the other poster of saying, ie "My
personal anecdotal opinion is...

We're all very delighted I'm sure that you have no issues, which seems
in part to due to the fact that you "Conveniently" do not use those
functions which exhibit the major issues that impact most users.

In order to fulfill the "Promises" made during early development (Or
weren't you watching back then) and to fulfill the promises made in
advertising and dare I say "Hype" there are some serious issues that MS
need to address promptly, very promptly.

Vista is at best a very small improvement over XP, IF you have the right
hardware, something you said yourself above. As an upgrade OS for MOST
people it is a retrograde step, which is a pity because the
compatibility of XP is by contrast legendary. I have installed XP for
test purposes on machines I can't even get any sort of Linux GUI to run
on. At the same time I have stuff that won't run on Vista or runs very
poorly yet is fine on XP.

XP had problems when it first arrived, SP2 appeared to me to be almost a
complete rewrite, are we waiting for MS to rewrite Vista when they have
spent 5 years hyping it up? All that time Linux has been improving. I'm
a bit surprised that Sun are not doing more too, although I think they
place too much emphasis on Java (and probably drink too much of it too),
when instead some real innovation is necessary.

A word you will find often used is disappointing...
http://www.google.com/search?q=vist...ls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The competition may appear to be far behind but appearances can be
deceptive, so instead of crowing about what IS perhaps a little thought
should be given to what "May" be in the future. eh?

 

[Frank]

You out of prison already -

hehehe...he's on the early release program cause of overcrowding1
Frank

 

[NT Canuck]

Vista was released unfinished, prime example the mail client, which
updated version are they on now?

I actually like Vista but practically had to build it from
scratch and some 10gb of source files, still a bit rough.

I agree that Vista is unfinished...LongHorn beta's from
almost 4 years ago were much more polished and except for
one single memory leak they would have made better rtm's.

WinXP 'sp2' actually was almost a rewrite and did contain
a lot of Vista items/security. MS really tried that time.

I left the door open.
for Vista Updates.
Now my cat is gone.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[I eat vista]

Charlie..

good responses...
I would actually take the time to answer too if he didn't BORE me to death!
lol
Talking to people that are flexible as granite is not so fun ya know...

INLINE:





Sure sure.




Huh? not here. About the same for regular apps.

It is here, what do you call a "Regular App", one that eats a lot of
fiber?

'Can't comment. I know where to find my stuff so ..

Well you better take others' word for it then, it sucks beyond all sense
and reason and can only be improved by a tortuous route through registry
changes and major settings changes. In it's default state it couldn't find
itself in it's own folder...

I like it.

There's always one.

Stable and compatible here. To be honest my cheap Logitech Webcam would
only work with Beta drivers and *Logitech* decided to drop support. I use
a much better camera now so it doesn't matter. All else works A1.

Lucky you...

Wrong. It's very good that way.

At causing frustration it leads the field...

I've read that it has less of an impact the more RAM one has. As my
machine has over 1GB I don't really need it.

You must be running "Hello World"

Poor quality stick. One needs to use a stick that's quick, of course ..
duh.

I suspect it is something that was requested by hardware vendors, they
shell out for less real RAM and YOU shell out to buy a bloody Ram stick.

- Vista is not compatible with XP when in dual boot, since its restore
format conflicts with XP and XP detects it and erases it. Clearly a
vista
problem since the vista designers should have taken this into account.

Install XP .. switch active partitions .. install Vista .. switch active
partion back .. bootpart [free]. Voila! No problems what so ever.

Well it is a completely unnecessary encumbrance when the system could have
been designed not to do that, but wait they don't want you running side by
side comparisons because guess what, you'd think "I just bought this new
OS and the old one is actually better". You would be able to make a real
comparison, same hardware same everything, but then you would miss the
fact that the only reason you perceive Vista as being faster is because
you just bought faster hardware

Adjust it. Some people perfer 120dpi than the default 96. It's right
there in 'Personalization" if you cared to look before mouthing off.

No the themes are basically crap, the colors were poorly chosen especially
for highlighting. To hell with functionality when we can be "Fashionable"

'Can't comment yet .. I still use a mouse.

In real world tests speech to text is truly crap. Although it works in
more things than XP that just means more things it gets wrong. It takes 20
minutes to type an email, using TTS it takes 20 minutes to dictate it 15
times until you get it close and then another 20 to scroll back, proof
read it twice and correct the errors that aren't so noticeable such as
"Two" instead of "to" and the like. Certainly needs more work.

- Vistas "better memory management" is a myth. By loading vast amount of
data on to the ram and therefore "using it all" there is no significant
improvement in performance compared to XP. In fact XP wins hands down on
almost all comparisons.

[clearing my throat] Sure sure. Vista does a better job at scheduling the
processor, memory management etc. etc. and the code is from the Server
2003 fork. So please ..

Never had a problem with XP, define "Better".

- The fast vista boot is also a myth. Systems with lots of programs
installed,
start just as slow as XP

ZZZzzzzz Boots just fine here, particularly my laptop. 50-53 seconds to
stable desktop [no hour glasses] on an ordinary laptop and that's
including the selecting of an account and entering a password.

You really have only "Hello World" installed haven't you?

Oh, please. If the user wants to use other sounds it's right there.

Hardly mission critical, though I suppose for some it could be...

Works quite well with newsgroups and there's thousands of headers and
hundreds of bodies in those files.

You haven't used Thunderbird have you. ALL the Vista mail clients they had
released (Until I simply gave up and installed Thunderbird) ran like a
three legged rhinoceros with gout. Killing OE was a serious error of
judgment, especially when the replacement was written by people who'd
obviously never actually used a newsreader and probably have yahoo.com or
AOL email addresses.

The general purpose defragger will keep the disks healthy and performing
well .. it's designed as a behinds the scenes utility i.e. no particular
need for visual feedback .. set it and forget it. Third party programs
are good too as they provide real enhancements that some users might
want.

Ah, you mean like actually "Working".

Bull. It's fast. I'm copying gigabytes worth all the time and it works
very well.

Fast compared to what? Are you sure you are using Vista and weren't sold a
pirate copy of XP? Is the CD Label handwritten by any chance?

No. It's as fast or faster.

If it is faster then there was something wrong with what you had before,
not uncommon for a clean install to appear much faster.

Absolutely wrong. The tool bar is configurable.

No it isn't. Adding "Yahoo" and AOL shortcuts isn't "Configurable"

Sinners need salvation. Successful money making operating systems such
as Windows Vista don't need to be "saved".

Oh but the successful and money making parts of that statement depend on
the customers impressions, not on what you or MS "Think" customers want...

Bull. Windows Me had its with upgrades. Funnily enough, with a clean
install on the right hardware it was almost as stable as NT. But this
fact was usually overlooked by its critics.

Define "The right hardware"

Windows Basic can upgrade the older hardware (one does need 512-1024MB
RAM). For all the eye-candy, yes one will need WDDM video. But what's a
RAM upgrade? I've done so many ..

What's the point when after all that you end up with a system that can do
less than XP on the same hardware?

You should be sorry, it's a strange statement.

Vista was released unfinished, prime example the mail client, which
updated version are they on now?

Cute, but the guy who did that probably had issues. First off, what's a
handgun doing outside of lock and key?

A handgun that's locked away is no use if you are attacked, was that
description of Vista one you chose not to comment on by any chance?

It's OK if you don't bother .. really.

Saucy

I don't know why I bothered really either, but YOUR statements here have
been exactly what you accused the other poster of saying, ie "My personal
anecdotal opinion is...

We're all very delighted I'm sure that you have no issues, which seems in
part to due to the fact that you "Conveniently" do not use those functions
which exhibit the major issues that impact most users.

In order to fulfill the "Promises" made during early development (Or
weren't you watching back then) and to fulfill the promises made in
advertising and dare I say "Hype" there are some serious issues that MS
need to address promptly, very promptly.

Vista is at best a very small improvement over XP, IF you have the right
hardware, something you said yourself above. As an upgrade OS for MOST
people it is a retrograde step, which is a pity because the compatibility
of XP is by contrast legendary. I have installed XP for test purposes on
machines I can't even get any sort of Linux GUI to run on. At the same
time I have stuff that won't run on Vista or runs very poorly yet is fine
on XP.

XP had problems when it first arrived, SP2 appeared to me to be almost a
complete rewrite, are we waiting for MS to rewrite Vista when they have
spent 5 years hyping it up? All that time Linux has been improving. I'm a
bit surprised that Sun are not doing more too, although I think they place
too much emphasis on Java (and probably drink too much of it too), when
instead some real innovation is necessary.

A word you will find often used is disappointing...
http://www.google.com/search?q=vist...ls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The competition may appear to be far behind but appearances can be
deceptive, so instead of crowing about what IS perhaps a little thought
should be given to what "May" be in the future. eh?

 

[I eat vista]

stop insulting people who are smarter and better than you and smarter than
you...

wait. I said said smarter than you twice..

perhaps its because you are incredibly stupid!

 

[Robert Firth]

Don't tell the EU that. They are wild enough to double it.

 

[Alias]

You out of prison already -

How desperate can you get, making up lies instead of addressing content.
Trying to be like Frank, are ya?

 

[Alias]

hehehe...he's on the early release program cause of overcrowding1
Frank

Good old Frank, never addresses content and lamely tries to "win" the
debate by resorting to lies and insults.

 

[Alias]

Why are you here?
You're not using Vista are you?
Frank

Can you prove you are by using Windows Mail instead of T-Bird?