Adam Albright wrote:

<snipped>

<Albright is nothing but 50 year old Dennis Le Menace with a corn cob up
his rear-end. Your best bet is to just leave him alone to stop his
harassment, otherwise, his full lunacy will be laid out before you.>

On Sep 3, 12:14 pm, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:06:16 -0700, ceed <ceed.spamea...@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.

Okay, I was wrong and you are right. I promise I'll try to be as smart
as you in the future. But what can you expect from someone like me who
has only had 67,356 hours on Windows compared to your 70,000 (How do
you count that btw?)

You have made me realize how narrow minded and without compassion I
was. I am so so sorry. It won't happen again. I also want EVERYBODY
that bought Vista to enjoy it! :)

This is actually kinda funny. But enough is enough. There's people
here who do not like this kind of thing to go on forever, so I'll back
out now, or you will not only be my hero, but I'll end up being like
you. This newsgroup couldn't take two shining stars like that at once.

//ceed

How much practice was required by you to become such a total cockoff ?


"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4keod3loq99f7vuhkf0ur3jfs8rkvrkv9e@4ax.com...
> 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.
>

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:30:09 -0700, ceed wrote:
>
> I'm with you and franky mildfly surprised that Vista works for me as
> well as it does. I've been using Linux for years and think it's quite
> good if you spend some time making it work. For instance the Fluxbox
> window manager is probably the best dekstop UI I have ever used. The

It runs on very lean hardware resources, too.

> whole concpt of grouping windows is so simple and efficient that I can't
> beleive it hasn't been picked up by the big ones. There's a couple of
> Blackbox clones available for Windows, but they do not have the window
> grouping functionality of Fluxbox. Texstar, the guy behind PcLinuxOs is
> working on a disto based on Fluxbox. When that's out of beta I'm going
> to be all over it. In another post I've been called a Microsoft fanboy.
> That's not true at all. I like it when things work so I can get my work
> done. This time it's Vista working for me, and I'm happy about that
> regardless of what's politically correct these days.. :)

Well, that's what matters most. I have explained my resistance, i.e.,
unwanted cost/complexity without any obvious payoff... and you have
explained that you find the feel and layout of the OS to be an adequate
payoff. So we each have our own preference. But what about being
tethered to a license server and allowing Microsoft to have ultimate
control over software updates? Doesn't that bother you?

Charlie

Adam Albright wrote:

-drunken delusional lying diatribe deleted as a public service-

Frank

On Sep 3, 7:47 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
>
> Well, that's what matters most. I have explained my resistance, i.e.,
> unwanted cost/complexity without any obvious payoff... and you have
> explained that you find the feel and layout of the OS to be an adequate
> payoff. So we each have our own preference. But what about being
> tethered to a license server and allowing Microsoft to have ultimate
> control over software updates? Doesn't that bother you?
>
> Charlie

Having MS looking over my shoulder bothers me a lot. Don't even get me
started on that! :) I will use Linux as much as I can, but my work
forces me to have some sort of relationship with Windows. And I have
to admit that I am quite pleased with Vista as an OS in spite of the
offensive nature of MS's licensing methods.

//ceed

ceed wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:47 pm, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
> wrote:
>> Well, that's what matters most. I have explained my resistance, i.e.,
>> unwanted cost/complexity without any obvious payoff... and you have
>> explained that you find the feel and layout of the OS to be an adequate
>> payoff. So we each have our own preference. But what about being
>> tethered to a license server and allowing Microsoft to have ultimate
>> control over software updates? Doesn't that bother you?
>>
>> Charlie
>
> Having MS looking over my shoulder bothers me a lot. Don't even get me
> started on that! :) I will use Linux as much as I can, but my work
> forces me to have some sort of relationship with Windows. And I have
> to admit that I am quite pleased with Vista as an OS in spite of the
> offensive nature of MS's licensing methods.
>
> //ceed
>
>

I hear ya. I support Windows for a living and after a week of fighting
with Vista, I bought a Mac.

>
> I hear ya. I support Windows for a living and after a week of fighting
> with Vista, I bought a Mac.

Thats funny. After years with the Mac, I bought a ThinkPad with Vista
Business and I'm loving it. I have had zero problems with Vista. Its a great
operating system. The Mac fanboys (and I used to be one) love to sneer at
Vista, but the truth is, its just as good as the Mac at some things. Better
at some, not as good at some. But the world didn't end when I said goodbye
to control freak Steve Jobs and his attempts to control every aspect of what
someone does with their computer or phone. I wasn't excited about Leopard
because it just looked like Tiger with more useless eye candy, but Apple
lost me as a customer because of its arrogance and bullying. They are
everything they accuse Microsoft of being. Good riddance to them.

Titus Pullo wrote:
>>
>> I hear ya. I support Windows for a living and after a week of
>> fighting with Vista, I bought a Mac.
>
> Thats funny. After years with the Mac, I bought a ThinkPad with Vista
> Business and I'm loving it. I have had zero problems with Vista.
I hear ya. In the end after I spend all day fighting with Vista and UAC,
and Activation, it just nice to be able to turn my comptuer on and
just browse the web and not message with Updates, Antivirus,
Anti-malware, Personal Firewalls, etc.