On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net>
wrote:

>I've removed UAC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
>disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
>the past and do not want more running than I need.
>
>I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
>change some stuff in Vista.
>
>//ceed

If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
features?

On Sep 1, 3:42 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:59:37 -0700, ceed wrote:
>
> > I have been on Windows (and other OS's) since the 80s. Finally I am in a
> > situation where I do not feel the need to dual-boot my laptop with
> > Linux, QNX, OS/2 etc. I simply do not need it at this point. That's a
> > first for me!
>
> This is an interesting comment that suggests a couple of questions...
> First, why did you feel a need to dual-boot when you were running other
> versions of Windows, and what specific Vista capabilities or features
> have changed the equation?
>
>
>
> > My only question is: Why are everyone having so much against something
> > that seems to be very good? Do they trust the press and all those who
> > just enjoys trashing things without even trying it?
>
> Well, I don't "trust the press" as a matter of principle, but when I read
> numerous reviews and articles that line up on key points, I tend to
> assume that not everyone is lying. The main complaints people have with
> Vista include incompatibity with software and hardware, slow file copying/
> moving on some systems, strange and unpredictable changes in software
> settings, and problems with the WGA license server.
>
> All of these are issues that Microsoft will undoubtedly fix at some
> point. The consensus is not so much that Vista is hopelessly bad, but
> that it presents a lot of annoyances without offering any substantial
> benefits that justify switching to a new OS.
>
> Obviously, you disagree with this, so what exactly are the benefits in
> your mind? You mention the interface and the fact that a web script
> actually worked for once by pointing you toward the proper driver.
> That's doesn't seem like much, frankly. And you say that Vista is "rock
> solid," but this statement is undermined by your comments in another
> thread, where you talk about how Vista blue-screened on a flaky driver.
> In my experience, a system that blue screens is locked up and can only be
> recovered with a hard power-off. If Vista is prone to doing that under
> any circumstances that could be considered ordinary, then it is not "rock
> solid."
>
> Charlie

Firstly, a flaky driver is a flaky driver and I refuse to dismiss the
OS based on that. Secondly. my post was my subjective opinion. I
simply think Vista has a rock solid feel to it. I like the way it
works, and I get my work done without major problems.

Finally, don't take the use of the word "love" in this context for
more than it is. For once I am pleased with and OS from Microsoft and
the hardware it runs on. Since I depend heavily on computers in my
work that's worth a little love, don't you think? :)

//ceed

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:02:34 -0700, ceed wrote:

> On Sep 1, 3:42 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:59:37 -0700, ceed wrote:
>>
>> > I have been on Windows (and other OS's) since the 80s. Finally I am
>> > in a situation where I do not feel the need to dual-boot my laptop
>> > with Linux, QNX, OS/2 etc. I simply do not need it at this point.
>> > That's a first for me!
>>
>> This is an interesting comment that suggests a couple of questions...
>> First, why did you feel a need to dual-boot when you were running other
>> versions of Windows, and what specific Vista capabilities or features
>> have changed the equation?
>>
>>
>>
>> > My only question is: Why are everyone having so much against
>> > something that seems to be very good? Do they trust the press and all
>> > those who just enjoys trashing things without even trying it?
>>
>> Well, I don't "trust the press" as a matter of principle, but when I
>> read numerous reviews and articles that line up on key points, I tend
>> to assume that not everyone is lying. The main complaints people have
>> with Vista include incompatibity with software and hardware, slow file
>> copying/ moving on some systems, strange and unpredictable changes in
>> software settings, and problems with the WGA license server.
>>
>> All of these are issues that Microsoft will undoubtedly fix at some
>> point. The consensus is not so much that Vista is hopelessly bad, but
>> that it presents a lot of annoyances without offering any substantial
>> benefits that justify switching to a new OS.
>>
>> Obviously, you disagree with this, so what exactly are the benefits in
>> your mind? You mention the interface and the fact that a web script
>> actually worked for once by pointing you toward the proper driver.
>> That's doesn't seem like much, frankly. And you say that Vista is
>> "rock solid," but this statement is undermined by your comments in
>> another thread, where you talk about how Vista blue-screened on a flaky
>> driver. In my experience, a system that blue screens is locked up and
>> can only be recovered with a hard power-off. If Vista is prone to
>> doing that under any circumstances that could be considered ordinary,
>> then it is not "rock solid."
>>
>> Charlie
>
> Firstly, a flaky driver is a flaky driver and I refuse to dismiss the OS
> based on that. Secondly. my post was my subjective opinion. I simply
> think Vista has a rock solid feel to it. I like the way it works, and I
> get my work done without major problems.

Thanks for your honesty. I think you have answered your own question as
far as why people are unhappy with Vista. A rock-solid feel is, as you
say, subjective, but a blue screen is an objective fact.
>
> Finally, don't take the use of the word "love" in this context for more
> than it is. For once I am pleased with and OS from Microsoft and the
> hardware it runs on. Since I depend heavily on computers in my work
> that's worth a little love, don't you think? :)

Of course. You're entitled to whatever preferences you wish.

Charlie

On Sep 2, 5:56 pm, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spamea...@dysthe.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I've removed UAC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
> >disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
> >the past and do not want more running than I need.
>
> >I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
> >change some stuff in Vista.
>
> >//ceed
>
> If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
> features?

Stuff like Defender and UAC are not key features of an OS. Microsoft
marketing may have you think it is, but that doesn't make it so.
Things like that are supplemental. Key features are memory management,
disk access and kernel related stuff. I'm quite happy with Vista in
those, for me, key areas.

Why do I have the feeling some people here almost feel its offensive
that I like Vista? Becuase they have alot of problems themselves and
want to have it confirmed that it's Microsoft's fault?

For me an OS is a utility, something that enables me to do my work and
store my data. As long as it works and I get the job done I'm happy
and "in love". The sad thing is that operating systems quite often
demands so much attention themselves that they make getting the job
done hard. That has not been the case with Vista in my case.

//ceed

On Sep 2, 7:12 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:02:34 -0700, ceed wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 3:42 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:59:37 -0700, ceed wrote:
>
> >> > I have been on Windows (and other OS's) since the 80s. Finally I am
> >> > in a situation where I do not feel the need to dual-boot my laptop
> >> > with Linux, QNX, OS/2 etc. I simply do not need it at this point.
> >> > That's a first for me!
>
> >> This is an interesting comment that suggests a couple of questions...
> >> First, why did you feel a need to dual-boot when you were running other
> >> versions of Windows, and what specific Vista capabilities or features
> >> have changed the equation?
>
> >> > My only question is: Why are everyone having so much against
> >> > something that seems to be very good? Do they trust the press and all
> >> > those who just enjoys trashing things without even trying it?
>
> >> Well, I don't "trust the press" as a matter of principle, but when I
> >> read numerous reviews and articles that line up on key points, I tend
> >> to assume that not everyone is lying. The main complaints people have
> >> with Vista include incompatibity with software and hardware, slow file
> >> copying/ moving on some systems, strange and unpredictable changes in
> >> software settings, and problems with the WGA license server.
>
> >> All of these are issues that Microsoft will undoubtedly fix at some
> >> point. The consensus is not so much that Vista is hopelessly bad, but
> >> that it presents a lot of annoyances without offering any substantial
> >> benefits that justify switching to a new OS.
>
> >> Obviously, you disagree with this, so what exactly are the benefits in
> >> your mind? You mention the interface and the fact that a web script
> >> actually worked for once by pointing you toward the proper driver.
> >> That's doesn't seem like much, frankly. And you say that Vista is
> >> "rock solid," but this statement is undermined by your comments in
> >> another thread, where you talk about how Vista blue-screened on a flaky
> >> driver. In my experience, a system that blue screens is locked up and
> >> can only be recovered with a hard power-off. If Vista is prone to
> >> doing that under any circumstances that could be considered ordinary,
> >> then it is not "rock solid."
>
> >> Charlie
>
> > Firstly, a flaky driver is a flaky driver and I refuse to dismiss the OS
> > based on that. Secondly. my post was my subjective opinion. I simply
> > think Vista has a rock solid feel to it. I like the way it works, and I
> > get my work done without major problems.
>
> Thanks for your honesty. I think you have answered your own question as
> far as why people are unhappy with Vista. A rock-solid feel is, as you
> say, subjective, but a blue screen is an objective fact.
>
>
>
> > Finally, don't take the use of the word "love" in this context for more
> > than it is. For once I am pleased with and OS from Microsoft and the
> > hardware it runs on. Since I depend heavily on computers in my work
> > that's worth a little love, don't you think? :)
>
> Of course. You're entitled to whatever preferences you wish.
>
> Charlie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A rock solid feel may be subjective, but real enough for the ones
experiencing it. Every time we've seen a new OS version from Microsoft
some of the core features of the OS like memory management, file
system and disk access have been improved. I do not think anyone with
argue that NTFS and 32 bit technologies were bad moves on Microsofts
part. We are now waiting for another important new core "feature"
coming in Microsoft products: WinFS. Many thought we would see it in
Vista, but it was not ready for prime time. These are the parts of the
OS that counts for me. The layers above like security, file management
and UI are things I can deal with myself if Microsoft (or some other
OS vendor) aren't doing it the way I want. However, the core OS I
can't change, making it what I really care about. And again, I think
Vista is a step in the right direction in these, in my opinion, key
areas.

There's a lot to love if you can get passed the exterior and
incompatibilites early adopters of Vista are experiencing..

//ceed

ceed wrote:

>>features?
>
>
> Stuff like Defender and UAC are not key features of an OS. Microsoft
> marketing may have you think it is, but that doesn't make it so.

Oh, adam has no idea what he's talking about. Pay no attention to that
idiot.

> Things like that are supplemental. Key features are memory management,
> disk access and kernel related stuff. I'm quite happy with Vista in
> those, for me, key areas.

Yep!

>
> Why do I have the feeling some people here almost feel its offensive
> that I like Vista?

Well, because in adam's case, he can't get his one tiny little upgraded
install of Vista business to run correctly. He hate MS and blames his
miserable life on them. But who cares, we all he's just a fukkin loser.

Becuase they have alot of problems themselves and
> want to have it confirmed that it's Microsoft's fault?

Yeah, that's what the real losers always do. They're to stupid to fix
the problems themselves so they whine and cry like little as*holes and
blame MS.
>
> For me an OS is a utility, something that enables me to do my work and
> store my data. As long as it works and I get the job done I'm happy
> and "in love". The sad thing is that operating systems quite often
> demands so much attention themselves that they make getting the job
> done hard. That has not been the case with Vista in my case.

Nor in mine and most others Vista users.
Frank
>
> //ceed
>
>

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:srfmd3p02o062tv3tqtbgpc2vdvublfr7l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I've removed UAC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
>>disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
>>the past and do not want more running than I need.
>>
>>I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
>>change some stuff in Vista.
>>
>>//ceed
>
> If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
> features?
>
>

Its his OS and he is allowed to configure it how he likes.. if he knows
what he is doing.
Are you suggesting that if someone downloads linux they shouldn't change
anything?

I'm the opposite I have turned on all the security features including DEP
and it doesn't nag very often or fall over.

That may be the difference between having a Samsung notebook designed to run
Vista and a piece of old crap built from odds and sods found in the back
room.. who knows? I do know that some suppliers are better at it than others
and if one supplier can do it well others can too and it may not be M$ to
blame for many of the problems. It may not even be M$ fault even if they
issue a fix for it.. I have fixed hardware problems in software before now
and I know it wasn't a fault in the software.

On Sep 3, 3:08 am, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote:
> "Adam Albright" <A...@ABC.net> wrote in message
>
> news:srfmd3p02o062tv3tqtbgpc2vdvublfr7l@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spamea...@dysthe.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>I've removed AC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
> >>disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
> >>the past and do not want more running than I need.
>
> >>I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
> >>change some stuff in Vista.
>
> >>//ceed
>
> > If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
> > features?
>
> Its his OS and he is allowed to configure it how he likes.. if he knows
> what he is doing.
> Are you suggesting that if someone downloads linux they shouldn't change
> anything?
>
> I'm the opposite I have turned on all the security features including DEP
> and it doesn't nag very often or fall over.
>
> That may be the difference between having a Samsung notebook designed to run
> Vista and a piece of old crap built from odds and sods found in the back
> room.. who knows? I do know that some suppliers are better at it than others
> and if one supplier can do it well others can too and it may not be M$ to
> blame for many of the problems. It may not even be M$ fault even if they
> issue a fix for it.. I have fixed hardware problems in software before now
> and I know it wasn't a fault in the software.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are touching on something important: To what extent do people
expect Microsoft (or Linux distro vendors for that matter) to support
older hardware? With the prices we see on computers today where you
can get a decent one for less than the price of Windows Vista + Office
it's obvious to me that people can't expect to keep their $600
computer fully supported for 5 years or more. They have accept that OS
versions will be released that doesn't work 100% without whining about
it. I've seen people deeply hurt by the fact that Windows runs slower
than XP on their 512 MB RAM based notebook. Doh! Of course it does.
Vista is not designed for that kind of hardware. If you insist that
the OS vendor holds back so you can squeeze a couple of more years out
of your computer you are naive in my opinion. Microsoft and computer
makers are in this to make money, and tons of it fast! Of course if
you think that's wrong also, then we have a fundamental discussion
about politics on our hands, and that's not for this forum (I hope!).
And then there's alway Linux for those who thinks that the only way to
go is free :)

I work for a software company. I remember a few years back we were in
a meeting with a major silicone vendor. One of their bizdev guys asked
us: "So why aren't you guys open source and GPL'ed?" Our answer was:
"So why aren't you giving your products away?" Silence followed, and
we were off to discuss business terms.. :) We also had to invest in
becoming "Vista compatible", but it's part of the business we're in:
There's a major commercial OS vendor out there who keeps on releasing
products that we need to support. Is that so wrong?

And yes, there's a software incompatibility with older software issue
which I see people cry out about. I only had problems with two of the
programs I have used for years, and even for those two I just had to
change the compatibility settings to get them to run. I guess if you
depend on software that won't run on Vista time would be better spent
yelling at the software vendor rather than attacking Microsoft for
releasing something new and improved. Dismissing Vista based on some
software vendors disability to keep up doesn't make sense to me. In my
case the browser I have been using lately, Avant Browser, couldn't be
set as default program in the new Vista way. Did I bash Microsoft for
that? Nooooo, I went on the Avant Browser forums and discussed the
issue with other users and the developers. After a couple of weeks the
issue was resolved. Voilà! It's not so bad! :)

//ceed-be-gone

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:08:44 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:srfmd3p02o062tv3tqtbgpc2vdvublfr7l@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I've removed UAC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
>>>disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
>>>the past and do not want more running than I need.
>>>
>>>I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
>>>change some stuff in Vista.
>>>
>>>//ceed
>>
>> If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
>> features?

>Its his OS and he is allowed to configure it how he likes.. if he knows
>what he is doing.

Oh I see. So after all that high praise about how wonderful Vista is
you admit some need to disable some of it's main differences from XP.
Wow, that's sure a glowing endorsement. ****, some people sure seem
brainwashed. Lets see if I understand. Buy Vista, get it home,
install, then immediately disable UAC and Defender and whatever else
you don't like or don't work for your particular configuration, so in
effect all you have in XP with a prettier color scheme and slower file
transfers. Sure. Good idea. Thanks for sharing.

>Are you suggesting that if someone downloads linux they shouldn't change
>anything?

Will you get off Linux please... I don't use it and haven't
recommended it either. Geez, the fanboys sure are dense. You simply
don't want to learn, so your solution is this:

http://www.aspencountry.com/aspen/as...4999/34513.jpg

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:19:38 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:


>Yeah, that's what the real losers always do. They're to stupid to fix
>the problems themselves so they whine and cry like little as*holes and
>blame MS.
>>
>> For me an OS is a utility, something that enables me to do my work and
>> store my data. As long as it works and I get the job done I'm happy
>> and "in love". The sad thing is that operating systems quite often
>> demands so much attention themselves that they make getting the job
>> done hard. That has not been the case with Vista in my case.
>
>Nor in mine and most others Vista users.
>Frank

Remember Frank, no matter how much you blubber everybody knows you're
just a fu*king idiot and deliberate liar. You'll never shake the
reputation you earned for yourself.

ROTFLMAO!

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:19:38 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah, that's what the real losers always do. They're to stupid to fix
>> the problems themselves so they whine and cry like little as*holes and
>> blame MS.
>>> For me an OS is a utility, something that enables me to do my work and
>>> store my data. As long as it works and I get the job done I'm happy
>>> and "in love". The sad thing is that operating systems quite often
>>> demands so much attention themselves that they make getting the job
>>> done hard. That has not been the case with Vista in my case.
>> Nor in mine and most others Vista users.
>> Frank
>
> Remember Frank, no matter how much you blubber everybody knows you're
> just a fu*king idiot and deliberate liar. You'll never shake the
> reputation you earned for yourself.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>

<You're on the floor old man and you're not funny. Maybe if you pull out
one of your worthless props, it might help. You want to venture a guess
old man about what people think about you.>

<I'll give everyone a little insight about a person like you. When you
were younger and in school that's pre-school, elementary, high and
college, you were a weak individual.>

<Everyone talked about you like a dog, made fun of you and some must
have kicked your tail to and from school. So, to show everyone you're a
wannabe man, you take it out on people in cyberspace looking for fights.
It's the smart thing for you to do is hide behind a computer looking for
fights. They can't get to you. <g>>

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:jm2od3lvaac3f5nfunum96pdfu21a4coqi@4ax.com...

>
> http://www.aspencountry.com/aspen/as...4999/34513.jpg
>

You have a problem.. you think anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:08:44 +0100, "dennis@home"
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:srfmd3p02o062tv3tqtbgpc2vdvublfr7l@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've removed UAC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
>>>>disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
>>>>the past and do not want more running than I need.
>>>>
>>>>I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
>>>>change some stuff in Vista.
>>>>
>>>>//ceed
>>>
>>>If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
>>>features?
>
>
>>Its his OS and he is allowed to configure it how he likes.. if he knows
>>what he is doing.
>
>
> Oh I see. So after all that high praise about how wonderful Vista is
> you admit some need to disable some of it's main differences from XP.
> Wow, that's sure a glowing endorsement. ****, some people sure seem
> brainwashed. Lets see if I understand. Buy Vista, get it home,
> install, then immediately disable UAC and Defender and whatever else
> you don't like or don't work for your particular configuration, so in
> effect all you have in XP with a prettier color scheme and slower file
> transfers. Sure. Good idea. Thanks for sharing.
>
>
>>Are you suggesting that if someone downloads linux they shouldn't change
>>anything?
>
>
> Will you get off Linux please... I don't use it and haven't
> recommended it either. Geez, the fanboys sure are dense. You simply
> don't want to learn, so your solution is this:
>
> http://www.aspencountry.com/aspen/as...4999/34513.jpg
>
Do you think it's possible for you to whine any more than you already do
over you're own stupidity?
STFU...or else just keep making a fukkin fool out of yourself.
Your choice you drunken idiot!
Frank

On Sep 3, 8:31 am, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:08:44 +0100, "dennis@home"
>
>
>
>
>
> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> >"Adam Albright" <A...@ABC.net> wrote in message
> >news:srfmd3p02o062tv3tqtbgpc2vdvublfr7l@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0700, ceed <ceed.spamea...@dysthe.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>I've removed UAC and disabled some services I do not need. I have alse
> >>>disable Defender since I have protection which has served me will in
> >>>the past and do not want more running than I need.
>
> >>>I have used XdN tweaker which gives easy access to disabeling and
> >>>change some stuff in Vista.
>
> >>>//ceed
>
> >> If you think Vista is so wonderful, why I you disabling it's key
> >> features?
> >Its his OS and he is allowed to configure it how he likes.. if he knows
> >what he is doing.
>
> Oh I see. So after all that high praise about how wonderful Vista is
> you admit some need to disable some of it's main differences from XP.
> Wow, that's sure a glowing endorsement. ****, some people sure seem
> brainwashed. Lets see if I understand. Buy Vista, get it home,
> install, then immediately disable UAC and Defender and whatever else
> you don't like or don't work for your particular configuration, so in
> effect all you have in XP with a prettier color scheme and slower file
> transfers. Sure. Good idea. Thanks for sharing.
>
> >Are you suggesting that if someone downloads linux they shouldn't change
> >anything?
>
> Will you get off Linux please... I don't use it and haven't
> recommended it either. Geez, the fanboys sure are dense. You simply
> don't want to learn, so your solution is this:
>
> http://www.aspencountry.com/aspen/as...duct_lib/3...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmmm, I really do not know how to respond to you because you obviously
aren't able or willing to follow along very well. But here's the gist
of what I have been saying. I

1. The important features of an OS, any OS, is memory management and
other kernel related features since these can't easily be improved
through software and/or hardware. UAC and security features are not
that important to me since I can deal with what these issues myself.
These important core features are in my opinion well taken care of in
Vista.

2. Like on any OS I run, or have run in the past, I tweak it to suit
my needs and liking. I have done what with Vista as well. I know that
a lot of Windows purist are afraid of touching what Microsoft pushes
into the OS, but I am not. And again, after having gotten rid of the
stuff I do not like/need in Vista I am left with a better core OS than
XP was.

That's all I have been saying, but you tweak the interpretation of my
posts more than I have tweaked any OS, and you still aren't getting it
right. No wonder you do not like Vista!

//ceed

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:06:16 -0700, ceed <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net>
wrote:


>Hmmm, I really do not know how to respond to you because you obviously
>aren't able or willing to follow along very well. But here's the gist
>of what I have been saying. I

I follow just fine, after using Windows in excess of 70,000 hours in
one version or another for the 20 odd years it has been available.

Your problem, like so many fanboys is you seem blind to reality. I
simply don't get why zealots don't want to know what's wrong with
Vista and how it acts up for so many users.

It is irrelevant that some don't have any problems, even a broken
clock is "right" twice a day, the point is MANY do have documented
problems with Vista. I would think people would have some compassion
for those having difficulties. Instead the typical response in this
wacko newsgroup is to attempt to discredit those that have issues even
when Microsoft at this very moment is getting ready to release SP1 to
public beta to address the very problems the loony fanboy crowd
pretend don't exist. Seems like Alice in Wonderland to me if people
are dumb enough to accept the wild rantings of jerks like Frank,
rather than accept there are things broken in Vista that Microsoft
admits and I and others document here. If Vista was peachy as-is as
you try to claim, then there would be no need for any service packs.
>
>1. The important features of an OS, any OS, is memory management and
>other kernel related features since these can't easily be improved
>through software and/or hardware. UAC and security features are not
>that important to me since I can deal with what these issues myself.
>These important core features are in my opinion well taken care of in
>Vista.

You opinion seems based on rumor more than fact. True that memory
management has changed in Vista, that it is better for every possible
hardware combination and application is hotly debated. Again, you deny
reality. What works for you doesn't always work for everyone. What I
find laughable is the zealots here pretend oh everything is fine based
on a handful of users that seem to enjoy waiting in line to kiss
Microsoft's ass, is they also find it easy to ignore the tens of
thousands of users that have reported all kinds of problems with Vista
which have been documented by legions of true experts, critics,
knowledgeable testers, respected blogs, trade magazines, columnists,
etc..

Again, Alice in Wonderland type of thinking to even laughingly suggest
this backwater newsgroup is the ultimate resource for all things
Vista. Clearly it is not. Rather it is a watering hole for Microsoft
zealots who enjoy slapping each other on the back and pretending what
experts that are. Reality can be found elsewhere all over the
Internet. That some here prefer to squeeze their eyes tightly shut and
block out the truth rather then open their eyes wide so they can see
more clearly is mind boggling to me.
>
>2. Like on any OS I run, or have run in the past, I tweak it to suit
>my needs and liking. I have done what with Vista as well. I know that
>a lot of Windows purist are afraid of touching what Microsoft pushes
>into the OS, but I am not. And again, after having gotten rid of the
>stuff I do not like/need in Vista I am left with a better core OS than
>XP was.
>
>That's all I have been saying, but you tweak the interpretation of my
>posts more than I have tweaked any OS, and you still aren't getting it
>right. No wonder you do not like Vista!

Pointing out Vista's flaws does not mean I don't like Vista. Again,
you deny reality. The most common trait of fanboys is they just block
out what doesn't fit into their narrow tunnel vision.

I want EVERYBODY that bought it to enjoy and get benefit out of Vista.
The only to do that is openly face what's been documented to be broke
in Vista. Fanboys rather follow Alice down the rabbit hole.