Why Vista is great - and people need to stop looking for things...

[Justin]

That's your reply? It's obvious neither you nor adam knows anything about
the underlying Vista development code. Vista = XP with new skin? That's
ignorance on a whole new level.

But don't listen to me, my stating a fact makes me apologize for MS....or
something???

Yes, chris, I'm top posting. Don't lower yourself to moron status by
stating the obvious.

 

[Justin]

So, based on some limited testing,

VERY LIMITED! That's your test? Where's your control? You certainly don't
benchmark for a living!

the older (1-2 year old machines) machines, so, like it or not, there just
doesn't appear to be any valid business reason to invest in upgrades for
Vista at this time.

I'm sure that's 100% true for you. Certainly not true for countless others.

I remember people doing the same lame-ass testing with NT4. Try as they
might, they couldn't get the pipe screensaver to draw any faster.

 

[Leythos]

VERY LIMITED! That's your test? Where's your control? You certainly don't
benchmark for a living!

I'm sure that's 100% true for you. Certainly not true for countless others.

I remember people doing the same lame-ass testing with NT4. Try as they
might, they couldn't get the pipe screensaver to draw any faster.

Justin, you appear to just be a zealot and don't seem to believe that
Vista could present proplems that are Vista and not other OS problems.

Fact of the mater is that the machine in question installed without any
additional work, and I'm happy with the performance, but, with a Dual Xeon
2.6ghz 4gb ram who would not expect good performance.

Vista has a problem, it's designed for the newest hardware, but, most
people look at it as an upgrade to XP, and that's just not going to be
generally true. I've seen hundreds of posts where people have less than
512MB RAM or a 64MB Video card, or a Centrino or a slower Dual Core,
etc... where the machine is 1-2 years old and won't effeciently run Vista.
While the spec states 512MB for ram, that's as much BS as XP on 128MB RAM.

You can keep up the personal attack mode if you want, but, fact is that I
probably know hardware better then you and certainly know systems better
than you, and I still can't see a justification for Vista, certainly there
is no ROI for business.

 

[Gordon]

Yes, chris, I'm top posting. Don't lower yourself to moron status by
stating the obvious.

So you read a book from the bottom up?

 

[chrisv]

Your official I'm a Microsoft butt kisser badge is in the mail. Watch
your mail box.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Bitter? No. Objective.

Well, some people are so incredibly ignorant that they think that M$
got to where they are by virtue of the quality and performance of
their products.

 

[Max]

http://unbreakable-blog.blogspot.com/2006/04/top-posting-vs-bottom-posting-case.html

 

[Hadron Quark]

Well, some people are so incredibly ignorant that they think that M$
got to where they are by virtue of the quality and performance of
their products.

They did. They provided an affordable, reliable GUI desktop to the
masses. For all the COLA gang denying it, Win 3.1 did a good job for the
time and was a shed load faster on the same HW as OS/2 1.3+pm.

 

[Guest]

They did. They provided an affordable, reliable

Reliable? Thats some pretty potent stuff you're smoking there
Win3.x was barely "stable" enough to not fall over its own feet

GUI desktop to the masses.
For all the COLA gang denying it, Win 3.1 did a good job for the
time

Nope. It did an adequate job. If you wanted anything outside of the ordinary
(like TCP networking for example) it did a totally shitty job

and was a shed load faster on the same HW as OS/2 1.3+pm.

Again, nope. OS/2 apps ran with about the same speed as Win3.1 apps on the
same hardware. That there simply were not enough of them is a totally
different matter.
Later OS/2 Warp was way faster than any windows at that time. It was faster
than Win9.x and it ran rings around NT4

 

[Hadron Quark]

Hadron Quark wrote:

Reliable? Thats some pretty potent stuff you're smoking there
Win3.x was barely "stable" enough to not fall over its own feet

Rubbish. It had issues, but it worked for the GREAT MAJORITY.

Nope. It did an adequate job. If you wanted anything outside of the ordinary
(like TCP networking for example) it did a totally shitty j

We are not talking niche. We are talking why MS legitimately captured
the majority of the market. ie non niche.

Again, nope. OS/2 apps ran with about the same speed as Win3.1 apps on the
same hardware. That there simply were not enough of them is a totally
different matter.

No. The footprint for OS/2 was much higher. The same apps would not run
as fast unless there was significantly more ram.

Later OS/2 Warp was way faster than any windows at that time. It was faster
than Win9.x and it ran rings around NT4

OS/2 Warp was NOT faster for many things. I know. PM & the GPI were
slow as hell. Font handling was horrendous. OpenGL support was
crap. Netware support was horrible.

Having said that, Warp kicked Window's ass in design and reliability -
no question about that. How IBM managed to **** that one up is another
matter.

 

[Guest]

Rubbish. It had issues, but it worked for the GREAT MAJORITY.

That it *worked* had nothing to do with its stability. It wasn't stable, not
for any significant amount of "stable"

We are not talking niche.

Since when was TCP networking "niche"?
Why do you think Trumpet Winsock was so often used?

We are talking why MS legitimately captured
the majority of the market. ie non niche.

When you claim that "Win 3.1 did a good job for the time" you should state
for what. OIt obviously did a totally shitty job for everyone wanting to
access the internet. A task which was just a breaze with OS/2 at the very
same time

No. The footprint for OS/2 was much higher. The same apps would not run
as fast unless there was significantly more ram.

The footprint of OS/2 1.x was *not* much higher than a similar configured
Win3.x system

OS/2 Warp was NOT faster for many things. I know.

Who made you judge on OS/2 things? I have run OS/2 for the most part of the
late 80th and the 90th. I know too, and quite probably better than you
I have run OS/2 since version 1.0 (yes, the one *without* GUI)

PM & the GPI were slow as hell.

Wrong. They were not snappy, but they still would outrun NT4s GUI

Font handling was horrendous.

Bullshit. Trying a "flatfish", are we, Hadron Quark, "true linux advocate"
and "kernel hacker"

OpenGL support was crap.

It was better than the windows one

Netware support was horrible.

Again, it was much better than the windows one

Having said that, Warp kicked Window's ass in design and reliability -
no question about that. How IBM managed to **** that one up is another
matter.

They failed to tell MS to get stuffed

 

[Hadron Quark]

The footprint of OS/2 1.x was *not* much higher than a similar configured
Win3.x system


Who made you judge on OS/2 things? I have run OS/2 for the most part of the
late 80th and the 90th. I know too, and quite probably better than you
I have run OS/2 since version 1.0 (yes, the one *without* GUI)


Wrong. They were not snappy, but they still would outrun NT4s GUI

NT4s? I would bet it didn't. I programmed a lot of GUI stuff on windows
and OS/2 and PM/GPI were slow as hell. The fact that OS/2 doubled the
number of window handles required for most windows (frame and client
area) probably contributed. Its text drawing output was abysmal where
windows was almost instantaneous.

Bullshit. Trying a "flatfish", are we, Hadron Quark, "true linux advocate"
and "kernel hacker"

OK smart ass, did you ever write anything with non proportional fonts. I
did and it was nigh on impossible. tabs/spaces and spacing white space?
Truly horrible.

It was better than the windows one

Bullshit. Total and utter. Oh, I mean usable too. Not a spec
sheet. Something that works with the HW acceleration of the day. OK, we
are entering 95/98 territory here but as we're discussing Warp.

Again, it was much better than the windows one

Again bullshit. Configuring OS/2 to use netware was a nightmare. Windows
"just worked".

They failed to tell MS to get stuffed

Yeah, that would have done it.

 

[Gordon]

No , I read a book by starting AT THE TOP just like everyone else! Then I
read downwards.

What dumbass reads a book by first going to the END? Then up again, then
down again then up then down then up....until they finally find the break
between what's old and what new.

Well THAT is what you do when you top-post you dork. The answer to the
question is written ABOVE the question. What a dumbass.

Most people like to read the question (or whatever you are replying to and
THEN read the answer or reply to it underneath, not the other way round.

Doh!

 

[Leythos]

Top and inline posting make the most sense. Just ask the 100 million plus
people that do both with emails on a daily basis.

To top post in a NG is to implement progress.

Top posting in Usenet is nothing like email - in email you are working
with a known person(s) and they already understand your thread.

In usenet many people don't get all the parts of a thread, don't start at
the first post as it could have expired on their server...

Snipping to quote only the necessary part and then putting the reply at
the bottom is what works best for non-direct communications, which is what
Usenet is still about.

 

[Gordon]

To top post in a NG is to implement progress. Get on board!

get BORED you mean......dork.

 

[Gordon]

Here's some inline for you:

that's perfectly acceptable.

No it's not you moron. I have to SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN (go to the end
of the book).

But chapter one comes BEFORE chapter 2.


I don't know what part of that your feeble mind can understand

but it's annoying as hell. To top post means you start at the TOP. The
TOP of the book. Bottom post means you start at the BOTTOM or BOTTOM/END
of the book.

Um no, READ THE PREVIOUS POST.

It goes
Question
Answer

NOT
Answer
Question

Which is what happens when you top post.
If you can't understand anything that simple then you must be VERY simple
yourself. As in moronic.

 

[Eric]

Top posting in Usenet is nothing like email - in email you are working
with a known person(s) and they already understand your thread.

In usenet many people don't get all the parts of a thread, don't start at
the first post as it could have expired on their server...

Snipping to quote only the necessary part and then putting the reply at
the bottom is what works best for non-direct communications, which is what
Usenet is still about.

Exactly. Replies often make no sense unless you see what they replied to.
You don't know what they replied to unless you have all the previous posts
in that thread and just read through them. If someone posts to a thread
after a day or two, you'll need to re-read anyway. It takes maybe a second
to grab the scrollbar and jump to the bottom if you already know what
they're responding to, and if you don't you can even skim it while you
scroll. Otherwise you have to read down through, then scroll back up and
re-read the new post when it makes sense.

 

[Adam Albright]

Well THAT is what you do when you top-post you dork. The answer to the
question is written ABOVE the question. What a dumbass.

Most people like to read the question (or whatever you are replying to and
THEN read the answer or reply to it underneath, not the other way round.

Doh!

The proable reason many MVP's top post is it is marginally faster,
(saves a second or two) often they aren't actually reading the post
below, not with any real intent to really help as witness the typical
brief response. Sometimes MVP's respond only to build up their score
of posts replied to which is a requirement of the MVP program. Ah...
the truth can be both refreshing and damning.

 

[Gordon]

The proable reason many MVP's top post is it is marginally faster,
(saves a second or two) often they aren't actually reading the post
below, not with any real intent to really help as witness the typical
brief response. Sometimes MVP's respond only to build up their score
of posts replied to which is a requirement of the MVP program. Ah...
the truth can be both refreshing and damning.

It's also the default behaviour of Outlook Express, which can't be changed
except by a Registry hack.........

 

[Adam Albright]

No , I read a book by starting AT THE TOP just like everyone else! Then I
read downwards.

What dumbass reads a book by first going to the END?

What dumbass rereads what he's already read?

The reason 99% of people all across Usenet bottom post is IF they are
following a thread they simply pick up where they left off. To make a
analogy where you're reading a 300 page book, you stop at some point,
then when you start reading again you CONTINUE where you left off, be
that on page 50 or page 200. Every book I've ever picked up has page
50 AHEAD of page 200. Not the other way around.

You're half-ass idea implies people return to page one (the top) or
start of a book or thread, which is looney if they've already read
earlier posts in a newsgroup thread as well. Only fools try to justify
such nonsense.

Aside from the obvious reason, (answers follow questions) when you
bottom post, some bozo like you posting at the top to somebody that's
new to the thread starts reading the useless crap you added to the
thread, then scrolls lower and reads what you were responding to. It
may be quicker for dummies like you, it is stupid and insulting to
most everyone else. Of course I don't except a cluless punk like you
to "get it".

 

[Adam Albright]

Here's some inline for you:



No it's not you moron. I have to SCROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN (go to the end of
the book). I don't know what part of that your feeble mind can understand
but it's annoying as hell. To top post means you start at the TOP. The TOP
of the book. Bottom post means you start at the BOTTOM or BOTTOM/END of the
book.

You clueless idiot how can anybody with even just two active brain
cells pretend what you ADDED to the top of the thread should be read
before what was there earlier?

That is in effect what you force, when morons like you top post. If
you're too damn fu..ing lazy or stupid to know how to use your scroll
bar to get to the bottom of a thread which takes at most a second or
two and then pick up reading WHERE THE THREAD LEFT OFF, there's no
point in discussing anything of a technical nature with you since you
keep proving you're clueless and don't even understand how the English
language in written form has been designed to be written and read down
through the centuries.