Re: A correct "mojave" experiment for Vista

First of all lets get this straight.
I am not a troll.

Just because I continuislly bash vista doesn't make me a troll. It makes me a person with a very valid opinon.
If you don't think its valid.. ok.. good for you, but that doesn't make me a troll.

Trolls made the same type of comments when XP first appeared. The claim was that Win 98 was the best ever, even though it had the ability to blue screen on its first boot after installing, and could blue screen without any input from the user.

Only a stupid person would say that 98 was better than XP. 98 was a piece of crap, it has so many problems.
In ever ever ever ever said that .. in fact for me winxp was a MIRACLE right from the start...

There was a guy that actually said that... and I stared at him thinking "this guy is crazy"!!!

Due to its better memory management I was able to increase my productivity around 200% with it, by creating far more complex graphics that I could before with stupid win98.
That paid off... I quadrupled my income in 6 months then, and since then XP has served me very very well.

Only later did I use win2000... and was hitting my head on the wall why didn't I go from 98 to win2k right away once it was available.
I lost 2 years with win98!!!

The thing is that win2k was not advertised as an OS for everyone... but XP was.

You change your name constantly to beat the kill files.

WRONG! I change my nick because I get bored with the same nick, I use many computers and trolls like spanky de monkey changes their names to yours to make fun of you
and generally give you a hard time.

Everything you mention is an assortment of issues that were around at the beginning of the Vista life cycle.

All these problem still exist... they have not gone away and they will never go away from vista.

And I didn't even mention the problems vista has in the GUI design! lol I could write a book about the stupidity that's built into vista!

stupid changes for the sake of change that make everything crappier!




"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e8uVbhKHJHA.3640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"gerooky" <g@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:48d708b4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Non Sequitur. Your Facts are Uncoordinated.
All that I stated are correct NOW with vista sp1.
I think I know vista far better than you do.

Here is a summary of the new version of windows

At last we listened and here are the features of the NEW and IMPROVED
version of windows

1) 30% Faster than its predecessor (vista)
2) Compact installation, the installer even fits on a CD
3) Needs half the ram and one fifth the hard disk space to install
4) Now features GDI acceleration for lightning fast window drawing
5) With add on applications, so that you can install features as add ons.
Windows Media Player 11, windows live gallery, IE8, windows live mail,
parenting applications, and messenger are all featured as add ons,
keeping your initial install small if you don't want them
6) We removed shadow copy because it was filling up the hard disks too fast,
and we made a better system restore that can now be controlled via a lever
to define the space it uses.
7) Updated disk defragmenter tool with visual feedback so you will know what
is going on.
8) We removed UAC, after much user complaints, and deciding that it was more
a nuisance than doing any good
9) we added the FAX back to ALL versions of WINDOWS!!!! (vista had it only
in business and premium)
10) We listened to you and made the toolbars of windows explorer
configurable, now you can add that up button and the delete button
12) We removed the breadcrumbs that most people didn't understand and was
confusing.
13) We made all important menus viewable in windows explore and internet
explorer
14) Faster boot times
15) Far more compatible. Now you can use ALL your older hardware with no
problem at all!
16) All applications now work with no problem
17) We limited the versions to less editions to not confuse the consumers
18) A better search that search all your disk without having services
slowing down your computer with no reason.
If indexing is preferred an addon is downloadable via windows update.

We call this version of windows>> WINDOWS XP!!!!!!


"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:u$WnV1FHJHA.4296@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"gerooky" <g@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:48d6ff2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
let me reply to every single one of those stupid things you list ok?

> Built in search,
Give me a break the vista search indexing is a buggy problematic horrid defective piece of crap that I disable at once after I install vista!

better firewall
The better features are hidden someone where no normal user will look. Usless for the masses.

service hardening
The amount of services has increased too much, it's a bloat paradise! MS is trying to REDUCE the amount of services in windows7

much better default user interface
You can install a theme for XP, big deal!

64 bit version has much better driver support,
32 bit version has much worse driver support than XP.. lol

can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active desktop

Big deal! One click was not that hard to save as bmp. The ram needed to display the wallpaper is the same either in jpg or bmp.

active desktop no longer exists

Many people are really mad about this since they used it for tasks!

S3 sleep support,
XP could go in standby too.

Windows sidebar,
Crap eyecandy, but if you insist google sidebar with google desktop and yahoo gadgets all free.

snipping tool
Winsnap free version, better than the stupid snipping tool

photo gallery
Live photo gallery installs on XP and is also crap, XNVIEW is free and much better.

much better performance measuring
Yeah you need it to try to figure out what the heck is making vista so SLOW!!!!!!!!1

DVD maker
I never needed such an app but im sure there are alternative free ones out there.

bitlocker
Not on all versions of vista!!!! most people have home premium

image based deployment

Boat deployment, XP installs faster and better and is more versatile than vista

directx 10
That's a marketing SCAM! there was no reason for it not to be given to XP users.
In fact I have seen a version hacked that installs on XP and works great! lol

Mobility Center
Not many use it.. if you are going to point every small utility that comes with crapista to try to make it look good
then I think I must point to UBUNTU that has THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of free applications !!!!!

Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts,

see live messenger, live mail desktop wave 3

scalable icons

Insignificant improvement, just eyecandy


breadcrumbs
GOD forbid this STUPID MORON IDEA!!!! available on XP with an explorer addon though if you insist
NO UP BUTTON!!!! GoD VISTA IS STUPID!

usable parental controls
See live wave 3 pls

ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

Yeah yeah things that consumers don't give a heck about...

Look vista is just a pile of crap because it offers no significant improvement..

all that stuff is mostly BLOAT, and not improvement on the OS itself.

The worse thing about this bloat is that it slows the OS itself down, unlike linux
where it doesn't slow down, no matter how many apps you install!

I would like to see increase in performance and the ability for it to be MORE compatible with applications and
hardware... then give me icons that can be scaled.

by the way the scalability of icons is MUCH worse than what was promised in longhorn.
I know the story, I know the promises.. Vista is a stupid degraded crap OS that was pushed onto people
by force.


Vista has BAD PERFORMANCE and COMPATIBILITY that's what people care about most...
add on small programs and eye candy are the last things they care about.




better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode,
better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons, breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...




"Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in message news:#bL7zTFHJHA.1156@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"+Bob+" <uctraing@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0pmdd4li1n2pue28rm718d88llkgsn6046@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:44:27 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote:

Try comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges (pun intended).
Here's the minimum and suggested minimum recommendations for XP.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

What is the user experience like with that setup? It's about as good as
Vista with the suggested minimum recommendations. Microsoft has never been
very good with either minimum or suggested minimum requirements. Here's some
more that are way off.

The point is that Vista requires twice the hardware and still runs
slower.

I invite you (too) to tell me what improvements Vista has that merit
the increase in hardware.




Built in search, better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode, better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons, breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

There's a few I can think of. I'm sure I missed more than I could come up with off the top of my head. And before you say this can be added to XP - Yes some of it can, but at what cost in both money and performance?

Another point is that the minimum recommended system for Vista is considerably less expensive than the minimum recommended XP system was when both OS's were released. More importantly a decent Vista system is about 3/4 the price of decent XP system at a similar point in the timeline of XP development. If you take inflation into account it's actually less than 1/2 the cost.

I also take issue with your assertion that Vista runs slower than XP. If you compare like with like i.e. a decent Vista system from today with a decent XP system from 1 1/2 years after XP was released I think you'll find the Vista system a better performer. Saying XP outperforms Vista on the same hardware is like saying Windows 98 outperforms XP on the same hardware. Yes, in both cases this is true. What is also true is that a typical XP system would outperform a typical Windows 98 system and be much nicer to use. The same holds true with Vista vs. XP. The point is the typical system changes over time as hardware comes down in price and has better performance. Should we ignore hardware improvements and only program for old, outdated hardware. I don't know any OS that does that. Do you? I've been running Fedora since it was Redhat 5.2. My first Redhat system was a PII with 32 MB. Do you think Fedora 9 would run on it? Would Redhat 5.2 outperform Fedora 9 on a new system? How about OS X on my old PowerCenter Pro?

Things change. Life and OS's move on. It's too bad some people can't deal with this.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/






Almost all of your arguments against Vista are either personal subjective view or are based on the first two months of Vista release..

You are a troll..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx






Gerooky

XP is not 30% faster than XP, and definitely not on my system.

XP, running 512mb, had its best performance if the Classic look was set. The Fisher-Price color scheme really dragged it down.

XP would blue screen if it didn't like drivers, and could not get back up if it fell over.

XP repair installs were more common than Vista system restores.

XP needed 40 minutes or so to install. Vista does the same job in 25 minutes.

XP hardware and software compatibility at the beginning of its tour sucked big time.

XP would not run on Win98 or ME spec machines. The processors were too slow, the hard drives too small, and there was never enough RAM. What price an upgrade back then? The only users who suffer are upgraders.

The standard spec of machines has always risen commensurate with the incumbent OS. We pay no more for a the standard spec than we did six years ago.

Users became paranoiac about hard drive space when trying to run XP on a drive which previously had Win 98 installed. Old habits die hard, it would appear.

XP really came of age at SP2, which was a major rewrite of 5 million lines of code. But it still suffered BSODs throughout its lifespan.

If you were as competent as you say you are, you would have gotten over many of the 'problems' you mention continually. But you don't have these problems, do you. Everything you mention is an assortment of issues that were around at the beginning of the Vista life cycle.

I love the way that you trolls shrug off all of the features of Vista, claiming that most people will or would not use them. Talk about tailoring your arguments to fit the case...............!!!

Trolls made the same type of comments when XP first appeared. The claim was that Win 98 was the best ever, even though it had the ability to blue screen on its first boot after installing, and could blue screen without any input from the user.

You change your name constantly to beat the kill files.

You are a troll, and a fairly incompetent troll too if the problems which you claim to have can't be fixed.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




.

Loading