Why I Love Vista

[myComputer]

I love Vista because:

While my PC is rebooting I can do all the things I might not normally
do while I am trying to work:

1. Wash my face and brush my teeth.
2. Do my reps with free weights.
3. Wash the dishes.
4. Read a chapter in my current book.
5. Go through the mail that I normally do on the weekeneds.

At times, you can do all of the above while your waiting and I have a
relatively new PC with 1.5gb RAM.

I love the fact that I get to reboot so often.
1. After you uninstall software.
2. After you install new software.
3. When your wireless connection just goes away; never did this even
once on XP.
4. PC simply stops responding. Can't recall if I ever saw this on XP.

Sure wish I could get my money back!

 

[Mickey Segal]

While my PC is rebooting I can do all the things I might not normally
do while I am trying to work:

This kind of stuff happens much more often after a plain upgrade than after
a clean install, both of which you can do from an upgrade copy. If you do a
plain upgrade first you can re-do it as a clean install. If you don't do a
clean install, at least create a new profile - it makes a huge difference.

 

[Shane Nokes]

Wow, even more trolling, how sweet.

It's interesting that you talk about it taking this long.

Mine reboots in an average of 15 seconds, that from the time I tell the
reboot to initiate until I'm back at my desktop. Half of those seconds are
spent waiting for my RAID array to fully initialize during the CMOS check.

in message
news:[email protected]...

 

[Innes]

in message

I love Vista because:

While my PC is rebooting I can do all the things I might not normally
do while I am trying to work:

1. Wash my face and brush my teeth.
2. Do my reps with free weights.
3. Wash the dishes.
4. Read a chapter in my current book.
5. Go through the mail that I normally do on the weekeneds.

At times, you can do all of the above while your waiting and I have a
relatively new PC with 1.5gb RAM.

I love the fact that I get to reboot so often.
1. After you uninstall software.
2. After you install new software.
3. When your wireless connection just goes away; never did this even
once on XP.
4. PC simply stops responding. Can't recall if I ever saw this on XP.

Sure wish I could get my money back!

Sure wish I could get my money back!...........well you can read treads that
address this issue.!!!!!!!

Innes

 

[Robert Firth]

Wow, that is pretty fast. Mine takes 1 minute 6 seconds to startup on
average. Of course, my laptop is pretty old and only has a 1.5ghz pentium m
processor.

That said, I believe you are supposed to brush your teeth and workout for
much longer than that. You must also use paper plates and consider "Windows
Vista is starting..." a chapter - and have no bills. By you, I mean
'myComputer', not you Shane

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

 

[Scott]

I love Vista because:

While my PC is rebooting I can do all the things I might not normally
do while I am trying to work.....

It sounds like you need a better box.

 

[Seven]

I love the fact that I get to reboot so often.
1. After you uninstall software.
2. After you install new software.
3. When your wireless connection just goes away; never did this even
once on XP.
4. PC simply stops responding. Can't recall if I ever saw this on XP.

Sure wish I could get my money back!

I hear this from Windows people all the time, as if all the problems
that Windows users suffer from are OK because of bad design decision
that puts the burden and the suffering not on the equipment side, but on
the consumer side.

Imagine the same situation in the consumer electronics space! TVs that
had to be constantly rebooted or weren't compatible with the remotes
they shipped with, blenders that had software errors and wouldn't start,
refrigerators that suddenly crashed and quit cooling. No one would put
up with it.

Windows sufferers are like frogs in a cooking pot that was slowly heated
up. If Macs and PCs were introduced today just as they are today, no one
(with any brains or self respect or who thought their time was worth
something) would buy a PC. PC users are where they are because early
Apples didn't have the business software that companies were needing to
use. Apple lost that fight, but so did all of us.

However, I hope Apple NEVER opens the OS to clone-makers unless Jobs
gets a draconian hardware agreement that forces the cloners to make
their hardware to the same strict standards that Macs are made to so
that the hardware and the software works together as it should. Because
I want my Mac to continue to work as efficiently and as effortlessly as
it does. Today there isn't anything a PC user can do with his machine
that a Mac user cannot do with his and probably a lot easier. Systems,
programming, you name it, OS X has the tools. Anyone who says otherwise
simply does not know what he is talking about.

It's not a "plus" folks if your software "mostly" works with a vast
array of hardware if the result is the clusterf**k of Windows. A bad
design for a computing system doesn't get points for being compatible if
that compatibility comes at the cost of usability.

Yes, I use both platforms regularly and know both intimately from DOS
and 3.1 to XP (don't have Vista yet), from a 286 TI200 laptop to my
current homebuilt Pentium). But my knowledge of Macs started with a
Power Computing clone in 1996 so I only know from OS 7 on the Mac side
up through Tiger and a G4.I'm looking forward to my first Intel model.

The MS model is just a house of cards that was inevitably going to fall
and it's tottering right now . . . MS won the $$ war, but Apple makes a
great product that really works today... and far into the future.

 

[Lang Murphy]

Hmm... I've installed Vista on a number of PC's here and have -never-
experienced long boot times. Sounds to me like you have a driver issue. But
I don't expect you'll invest any time into figuring out which hw device
might be causing the issue. You'll be too busy washing your face, brushing
your teeth, doing reps, reading, and going through snail mail.

Lang

in message
news:[email protected]...

 

[Mr. I.M. Puss]

Wow, that is pretty fast. Mine takes 1 minute 6 seconds to startup on
average. Of course, my laptop is pretty old and only has a 1.5ghz
pentium m processor.

That said, I believe you are supposed to brush your teeth and workout
for much longer than that. You must also use paper plates and consider
"Windows Vista is starting..." a chapter - and have no bills. By you, I
mean 'myComputer', not you Shane

I boot my servers in less than 20 seconds - Linux is the best Windows
upgrade ever! It doesn't give me time to turn food into poo. =

 

[Rich]

One of the things you should do while you're loving Vista and waiting for
your PC to boot is ...

go get and education.


You'll thank Vista afterwards

 

[Darrell]

Agreed, make sure drivers are current (sometimes rolling back to an older
driver is necessary) and for Heaven sake turn off all indexing and that darn
sidebar. I have relatively old hardware and my bootup times are twice that
of XP.

 

[Shane Nokes]

Yeah it's a Core2Duo machine running at 2.4GHz, 3GB of memory and a 500GB
RAID array.

So it loads things up pretty speedy.

Like I said the biggest wait I have is for the RAID array to kick in fully
and take over

BTW Robert your name seems really familiar from somewhere.

 

[Guest]

I boot my servers in less than 20 seconds - Linux is the best Windows
upgrade ever! It doesn't give me time to turn food into poo. =

Wow, 20 seconds. And Linux is completely user freindly, right?? You can do
what ever you want whenever without having to configure anything? Right!? I
think your Linus OS want a little bit more of your time. Do you ever get to
brush your teeth?

But we can give you the letters "S", "T", "A" and "R". Oh, and they're
gold! Do you feel like somebody now? Goog boy, you've done well for
yourself...

 

[bp]

I love Vista because:

While my PC is rebooting I can do all the things I might not normally
do while I am trying to work:

1. Wash my face and brush my teeth.
2. Do my reps with free weights.
3. Wash the dishes.
4. Read a chapter in my current book.
5. Go through the mail that I normally do on the weekeneds.

At times, you can do all of the above while your waiting and I have a
relatively new PC with 1.5gb RAM.

You must be a dirty person if you can do all that in 20 seconds

I love the fact that I get to reboot so often.
1. After you uninstall software.

Not new and not every time (just like XP)

2. After you install new software.

Not new and not every time (just like XP)

3. When your wireless connection just goes away; never did this even
once on XP.

So fix it. If you don't have the know how don't blame MS

4. PC simply stops responding. Can't recall if I ever saw this on XP.

Now this is true for me also but I have found that programs that claim
to be Vista ready are just lying.

Sure wish I could get my money back!

You can, MS will give you your money back for 45 days after purchase.

Do you want the link or can you at least figure out how to use google?

 

[Saucy Lemon]

1. Here Vista boots in about the same time as XP, perhaps a tad more quickly
even.
2. 3rd party software sometimes is programmed to trigger a post-installation
reboot when it actually is not really necessary on Vista
3. Sure, sometimes a reboot is necessary after installing some updates or
software, but that's computing - heck, at times that could be any OS.
4. Vista *beta* crashed a couple times here due to driver issues, but as yet
I've not had a Vista RTM crash save when we once had a power spike and all
the computers in the house rebooted [we get that here, the house wiring is
fifty years old and I really should have a UPS but am too cheap and lazy to
to get and set up one]
5. Archtiecturally and in the long run, Vista will prove a more stable OS
than XP which is already a relatively stable OS, especially considering the
huge and wide variety of demands placed on it.

--

Saucy Lemon
(For email, remove the caps in address)



in message
news:[email protected]...

 

[Saucy Lemon]

That's must be on a computer that boots Windows in 10 seconds .. and you
must be using a real stripped-down distro of Linux .. as Linux has always
taken *way* longer than Windows to boot.

And Linux, otherwise known as a quagmire of widely scattered and terribly
inconsistent config files, is decidely neither user nor hardware friendly.

 

[Al]

One of the things you should do while you're loving Vista and waiting for
your PC to boot is ...

go get and education.

*PMSL*

Bwahahahahahahaha, you stupid panty stain, tell him again about "and
education"!

 

[Mr. I.M. Puss]

That's must be on a computer that boots Windows in 10 seconds .. and you
must be using a real stripped-down distro of Linux .. as Linux has
always taken *way* longer than Windows to boot.

Stripped? Hehe...you wish. It's a default install box with X and Gnome.

And Linux, otherwise known as a quagmire of widely scattered and
terribly inconsistent config files, is decidely neither user nor
hardware friendly.

I seem to recall my laptop crashing (Windows XP) one fine day while I
was working on a document - because the registry got corrupt. Couldn't
recover except to reinstall the system - even from a System Restore
point - then I had to remove a bunch of stuff I didn't need AFTER the
refresh.

The config files in Linux are separate for one reason: The system
itself won't crash unless you do something stupid to the kernel - it's
separate - and it doesn't need to be bothered by the likes of Symantec
or McAfee. Come to think of it, Linux doesn't need anti-virus, but
that's yet another thread...

X is separate. KDE is separate. Gnome is separate. Other utilities
like SSH are separate. If any of those crash, it's simply a matter of
fixing the problem for the component, which often does not take forever
nor would it require a 'reinstallation' of the OS. IE, on the other
hand, is dubbed the Siamese Twin of software - it's so tightly
integrated into the OS that even a simple toolbar takes it down and
botches the rest of the system (read: ad popups).

You Windows guys seem to think having all of your eggs in one basket is
the coolest thing since sliced bread - until the basket drops. Then
you're crying and whining like babies about losing documents and other
important files as a result.

Compare that to the convenience of booting up with a Linux LiveCD (which
I've used to recover files from Windows systems) because Microsoft
doesn't offer it - and building one based on Windows is against the
licensing terms, if I'm not mistaken.

Given the choice between using Windows and Linux, I'll choose Linux any
day unless I'm forced to use Windows. The only reason I use Windows on
my laptop is because Broadcom won't make the WiFi spec available for
their chipsets - let alone a binary-only driver which would be a decent
step.

As for my Windows workstations, I run them off of VMWare to avoid
downtime - if one crashes, I copy a 'vanilla' version to work with while
I recover the other (if possible) - and it takes all but a few minutes
to do.

So tell me - why is it you think Microsoft decided to make the registry
so vulnerable to corruption? I'm quite sure it's not a design
fla...ermmm...feature...or is it?

Honestly, I used to be a very hardcore Windows zealot. It has its
perks. But reliability and security isn't Microsoft's specialty. Not
to mention that it costs too much just to put up a webpage in an IDE
(Frontpage) that doesn't seem to work very well for some of the most
simplest of tasks.

 

[Saucy Lemon]

INLINE:

Stripped? Hehe...you wish. It's a default install box with X and Gnome.

Yeah, as if I believe everything you say.

I seem to recall my laptop crashing (Windows XP) one fine day while I was
working on a document - because the registry got corrupt. Couldn't
recover except to reinstall the system - even from a System Restore
point - then I had to remove a bunch of stuff I didn't need AFTER the
refresh.

Well, I'm not surprised the likes of you would crash your system - you are
not supposed to use the 220 volt switch in the USA - that's for Europe.

The config files in Linux are separate for one reason: The system itself
won't crash unless you do something stupid to the kernel - it's separate -
and it doesn't need to be bothered by the likes of Symantec or McAfee.
Come to think of it, Linux doesn't need anti-virus, but that's yet another
thread...

"separate" !?? Understatment of the year. How about "All over the place" and
"God only knows where" and "No two are the same"?

X is separate. KDE is separate. Gnome is separate. Other utilities like
SSH are separate. If any of those crash, it's simply a matter of fixing
the problem for the component,

I beg to differ. An X crash can effectively take the whole thing down.

which often does not take forever nor would it require a 'reinstallation'
of the OS. IE, on the other hand, is dubbed the Siamese Twin of
software - it's so tightly integrated into the OS that even a simple
toolbar takes it down and botches the rest of the system (read: ad
popups).

If you knew anything about Vista, you'd know that IE7's been componentized.

You Windows guys seem to think having all of your eggs in one basket is
the coolest thing since sliced bread - until the basket drops. Then
you're crying and whining like babies about losing documents and other
important files as a result.

Um, a back-up is recommend for everyone - Apple, Linux, Windows - you think
harddrives don't crash?

Compare that to the convenience of booting up with a Linux LiveCD (which
I've used to recover files from Windows systems) because Microsoft doesn't
offer it - and building one based on Windows is against the licensing
terms, if I'm not mistaken.

So you suggest stealing Windows?

Given the choice between using Windows and Linux, I'll choose Linux any
day unless I'm forced to use Windows. The only reason I use Windows on my
laptop is because Broadcom won't make the WiFi spec available for their
chipsets - let alone a binary-only driver which would be a decent step.

Free country, no one is forced to use Windows.

As for my Windows workstations, I run them off of VMWare to avoid
downtime - if one crashes, I copy a 'vanilla' version to work with while I
recover the other (if possible) - and it takes all but a few minutes to
do.

Goody for you.

So tell me - why is it you think Microsoft decided to make the registry so
vulnerable to corruption? I'm quite sure it's not a design
fla...ermmm...feature...or is it?

It's not so vulnerable to corruption. I've been running Windows on many
computers since Windows 95 and never once did I have a "registry
corruption".

Honestly, I used to be a very hardcore Windows zealot.

No doubt you are always some kind of zealot. How about giving up all this
zealotry and just sticking to the facts?

It has its perks. But reliability and security isn't Microsoft's
specialty.

It is now.

Not to mention that it costs too much just to put up a webpage in an IDE

Huh? You can do it with Notepad and FTP it with IE.

(Frontpage) that doesn't seem to work very well for some of the most
simplest of tasks.

They stopped updating Frontpage four years ago.



Sure you are. Like I said, I don't believe everything the likes of you say.

 

[Meanon]

Today there isn't anything a PC user can do with his machine
that a Mac user cannot do with his and probably a lot easier.

Let's see you click the right-hand button on you McMouse! ;-)