the real reason behind why vista was made like it is

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Jay Smith
  • Start date Start date
<rant start>
It is either a magic wand or....

1. We actually read tech notes and these newsgroups for other user
errors and solutions before we began.
2. Checked that our hardware is compatible and there were working drivers.
3. Did a _clean_ install instead of upgrading (which has caused more
problems than anything)
4. Instead of bitching and moaning, we gave it a chance and understand
it is a BETA product.
5. Haven't tried to use/install software that has been reported as
non-working.

It doesn't take a genius to run beta software. It only requires some
common sense, patience, and a little understanding about what is going on.

Vista is hardly a final product and there will be bugs/problems. If you
can not handle that, then stick with XP or whatever operating system you
were using and was stable in your mind.

If you end up with Vista, for the love of God please don't whine about
it being bloated, slow, buggy, or the devil... because it is bloated,
somewhat slow and definitely buggy. There is extra code for programming
interfaces and debug level code turned on which will be removed for the
final product. If you had done _any_ previous beta testing, you would
know and understand this.

Pete

</rant over>
 
The guy who said he is "running" vista on a 800 MHz computer should be
tarred and feathered for his lies....

John:

I run Vista RC1 on a new Dell Latitude D420 with a Intel Core Solo 1.06Ghz
CPU and it runs fine for Internet surfing and using MS Office 2003.
 
"...should be tarred and feathered for his lies...."
You made that statement, now prove it.
Or do you often say somebody "lies" when it suits your agenda?
 
Want proof?

Once I provide it, that would then be a requirement that you just plain and
simply stop spamming these newsgroups with your anit-Vista blathering.

Bill F.
 
The US Govenment certified XP with SP2 more secure than both MacOS X and
RedHat Linux Enterprise (not sure the version).

Vista is, out of the box more secure than XP ever was due to UAT and a few
other nifty features to prevent a good portion of malware from running.

As stated before if you think Vista is just XP with a new face, you really
don't understand or havent looked too deep into Vista at all.

I highly recommend reading up starting with the basics:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/default.mspx

Maybe after reviewing you can limit your FUD to non-Microsoft support
newsgroups, because with the knowledge of the persons that frequent this
newsgroup you could get your feelings hurt.

FUD are lies, plain and simple, and you are attempting to spread it.


Bill F.
 
Apparently they did, since following ME they released, XP, Windows Server
2003 and soon Vista (not incluidng stuff like Tablet PC, Media Center and
Mobile).

But, hey, keep spreading the FUD.


Bill F.
 
Now now Bill GATES, why did you change your last name into frisbee for this
newsgroup... ??
And you didnt think we would catch on to you when you say things like
windows is more secure
than linux and mac OSX?

While I have the chance, please make sure SP1 fixes up the problems.. can
you look into it pesonally?
I know you dont want to work full time anymore at MS, but it is your
creation and when you went away
look at what they are doing with vista!
 
I dunno... seems to work fine for me on the 4 PC's I have it installed on
here. Yeah, the UI is different, but that's just a learning curve, not a,
hmm, catastrophe, at least not in my opinion.

Lang
 
Lemme know where I said Windows Vista was more secure than anything other
than XP.

What I did say was the US Government gave Windows XP a higher security
rating than any other OS at this time, which includes both Red Hat
Enterprise Linux and MacOS X.

Bill F.
 
Is there the smallest possibility that the U.S. Gov rated XP higher than Red
Hat or Mac in terms of security? Possibly an investment of (guessing of
course) $1 Bil in Windows and the CYA mentality of all buarecrats has
something to do with it??

Marty Felker
 
So the alternatives are a slow evolution or a fast one?

I prefer fast.

It's not just OS related.

Look at the evolutionary pace in, for example, digital cameras.

Given the choice of helping the clock to move forwards or to stay still,
my own preference is for movement rather than stasis.
 
Back
Top