Vista is windows3.11

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Jay Smith
  • Start date Start date
Hello!

John Jay Smith said:
Proof? see screenshot
http://bink.nu/photos/news_article_images/images/13552/original.aspx

seems the MS developers brain cant understand that more than 10 years later they must AT LAST CHANGE THE FONT add interface! this
is ridicules !!!

at least win3.1 was fast!
Click to expand...

"Add fonts" dialog! :)
I hoped that it would be replaced in Windows XP.
It seems that we will have to wait for final Vista:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=199278
It's going to be fixed in the final version. I had a e-mail conversation with one of the guys from the Shell team. He told me that
they are going to fix it.
Click to expand...

And I hope they will fix it in XP.SP3, too ...


Roman
 
by fix it you mean add 100 mb of bloat, a-la-vista ??

that's what they are doing to everything else... its ridicules... ms is
gonna be the laughing stock of it pros when the role out this monstrosity!



roman modic said:
Hello!

John Jay Smith said:
Proof? see screenshot
http://bink.nu/photos/news_article_images/images/13552/original.aspx

seems the MS developers brain cant understand that more than 10 years
later they must AT LAST CHANGE THE FONT add interface! this is ridicules
!!!

at least win3.1 was fast!
Click to expand...

"Add fonts" dialog! :)
I hoped that it would be replaced in Windows XP.
It seems that we will have to wait for final Vista:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=199278
It's going to be fixed in the final version. I had a e-mail conversation
with one of the guys from the Shell team. He told me that they are going
to fix it.
Click to expand...

And I hope they will fix it in XP.SP3, too ...


Roman
Click to expand...
 
seems the MS developers brain cant understand that more than 10 years
later they must AT LAST CHANGE THE FONT add interface! this is ridicules
!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've always found that amusing that the Font Add dialog hasn't been
updated in forever. Still has the old 16-bit Windows look to it...
 
Ditto for Paint. Hasn't changed a bit. But I think the real issue is, nobody
cares about that.
 
why would microsoft be the laughing stock..why would they care, they will
make money from it.. if it really is as bad as you think, wouldnt the it
pros be the laughing stock for using it on their systems..

John Jay Smith said:
by fix it you mean add 100 mb of bloat, a-la-vista ??

that's what they are doing to everything else... its ridicules... ms is
gonna be the laughing stock of it pros when the role out this monstrosity!



roman modic said:
Hello!

John Jay Smith said:
Proof? see screenshot
http://bink.nu/photos/news_article_images/images/13552/original.aspx

seems the MS developers brain cant understand that more than 10 years
later they must AT LAST CHANGE THE FONT add interface! this is ridicules
!!!

at least win3.1 was fast!
Click to expand...

"Add fonts" dialog! :)
I hoped that it would be replaced in Windows XP.
It seems that we will have to wait for final Vista:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=199278
It's going to be fixed in the final version. I had a e-mail conversation
with one of the guys from the Shell team. He told me that they are going
to fix it.
Click to expand...

And I hope they will fix it in XP.SP3, too ...


Roman
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You'd think that the fonts folder would also give you a preview of the font
when you click on the file. Maybe it will in final.
 
That is the only big deal for me BigK. I have wanted that little feature to
appear like foreverrrrrrrr!
dotcom
 
It does give you a preview of the font when you open the file. But of
course, it most matters when you're actually applying fonts. And most
programs show what the font looks like in the Fonts drop-down list when
you're deciding which font to apply.
 
I know that Clueless, but it would be nice to see the font faces in the font
folder as well.
dotcom
 
Hello

You did get it from the letter that Staven Bink sent out Yesterday. This is not Vista but rather .... Well read on. Your interpretation and understanding is a bit off

Bye

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,


I just want to let you know, that I just put up 33 screenshots of the just released Microsoft Windows XP Fundamentals for Legacy PC's.

Be sure to check out the screenshots:


http://bink.nu/Article7745.bink


Microsoft Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP) is a Windows-based operating system designed for enterprise customers with legacy PCs who are not in a position to purchase new hardware. WinFLP provides the same security and manageability as Microsoft Windows XP SP2 while providing a smooth migration path to the latest hardware and operating system.



Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP) requires:

* A minimum of 611 MB of free hard drive space. Actual requirements will vary based on your system configuration and the applications and features you choose to install. Installing all optional components requires 1151 MB of disk space. These requirements are reported on the screen as you select options in the Setup wizard. Additional hard disk space may be required if you are installing over a network. Also, you should reserve additional space for future updates and service packs.


* A computer with 233 megahertz or higher processor clock speed (300 MHz is recommended); Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor is recommended.


* 64 MB of RAM. 256 MB of RAM is recommended.

I installed it in a Vmware Workstation Virtual Machine with 128 MB of RAM.

I also tested a scenario with a 128 MB machine with no disks, booting into XP fundamentals then connecting usig RDP to a terminal server. The same scenario using 64MB resuted in a too low virtual memory error/crash. So 64 MB RAM is supported but it needs a disk for virtual memory.



Thanks!

Steven Bink

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Win 3.11 was definitely NOT fast on average machine from these days. Vista
is relatively (today hardware is much CHEAPER and relatively much faster)
much more speedy than 3.11.
 
perhaps you are being paid by microsoft to misinform the public?

I have vista beta 2 and its the same old 3.1 crap in the fonts


Hello

You did get it from the letter that Staven Bink sent out Yesterday. This is
not Vista but rather .... Well read on. Your interpretation and
understanding is a bit off

Bye

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,


I just want to let you know, that I just put up 33 screenshots of the just
released Microsoft Windows XP Fundamentals for Legacy PC's.

Be sure to check out the screenshots:


http://bink.nu/Article7745.bink


Microsoft Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP) is a Windows-based
operating system designed for enterprise customers with legacy PCs who are
not in a position to purchase new hardware. WinFLP provides the same
security and manageability as Microsoft Windows XP SP2 while providing a
smooth migration path to the latest hardware and operating system.



Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP) requires:

* A minimum of 611 MB of free hard drive space. Actual requirements will
vary based on your system configuration and the applications and features
you choose to install. Installing all optional components requires 1151 MB
of disk space. These requirements are reported on the screen as you select
options in the Setup wizard. Additional hard disk space may be required if
you are installing over a network. Also, you should reserve additional space
for future updates and service packs.


* A computer with 233 megahertz or higher processor clock speed (300 MHz is
recommended); Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family,
or compatible processor is recommended.


* 64 MB of RAM. 256 MB of RAM is recommended.

I installed it in a Vmware Workstation Virtual Machine with 128 MB of RAM.

I also tested a scenario with a 128 MB machine with no disks, booting into
XP fundamentals then connecting usig RDP to a terminal server. The same
scenario using 64MB resuted in a too low virtual memory error/crash. So 64
MB RAM is supported but it needs a disk for virtual memory.



Thanks!

Steven Bink

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
how about boot time smarty pants?

type win in dos on a 386 and 2 seconds later you have windows

now you press the power button a dual core and you wait for 2 mins!

and then the message: WELCOME TO BLOATLAND!
 
they wont be using it you oaf!
vista is already a joke!


NightOwl said:
why would microsoft be the laughing stock..why would they care, they will
make money from it.. if it really is as bad as you think, wouldnt the it
pros be the laughing stock for using it on their systems..

John Jay Smith said:
by fix it you mean add 100 mb of bloat, a-la-vista ??

that's what they are doing to everything else... its ridicules... ms is
gonna be the laughing stock of it pros when the role out this
monstrosity!



roman modic said:
Hello!

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
Proof? see screenshot
http://bink.nu/photos/news_article_images/images/13552/original.aspx

seems the MS developers brain cant understand that more than 10 years
later they must AT LAST CHANGE THE FONT add interface! this is
ridicules !!!

at least win3.1 was fast!

"Add fonts" dialog! :)
I hoped that it would be replaced in Windows XP.
It seems that we will have to wait for final Vista:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=199278
It's going to be fixed in the final version. I had a e-mail conversation
with one of the guys from the Shell team. He told me that they are going
to fix it.
Click to expand...

And I hope they will fix it in XP.SP3, too ...


Roman
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
John Jay:
I will agree that a lot of everyday functions can be performed on a 286,
386 or 486 processor. I could still drive a 1929 Model A, but much prefer a
2006 Corvette Z06. Both scenarios are the same, it just depends on your
preference.
 
dotcom said:
I know that Clueless, but it would be nice to see the font faces in the
font folder as well.
Click to expand...

There is room in the area below the folder to preview it -- in the are where
y ou see the file name etc.
 
how about boot time smarty pants?

type win in dos on a 386 and 2 seconds later you have windows

now you press the power button a dual core and you wait for 2 mins!
Click to expand...

You must have the world's most piss poor computer. Did you build it
yourself? Damn you suck!

Anyhow you should be comparing power-on to power-on, not starting windows
to power-on.
 
MORON ALERT!!!

AND a vista user... no wonder!


Michael Cecil said:
You must have the world's most piss poor computer. Did you build it
yourself? Damn you suck!

Anyhow you should be comparing power-on to power-on, not starting windows
to power-on.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top