Announcing the Windows Search 4.0 Preview

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...0-preview.aspx

Notice that they acknowledge the bugs, that the vista fanboys claim didn't
exist? LOL idiots...

lets hope this one will be better than the extremely bad designed and
implemented CRAP search of vista

(this installs on non vista OS too, like XP)

"orange" <> wrote in message news:...
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...0-preview.aspx
>
> Notice that they acknowledge the bugs, that the vista fanboys claim didn't
> exist? LOL idiots...
>
> lets hope this one will be better than the extremely bad designed and
> implemented CRAP search of vista
>
> (this installs on non vista OS too, like XP)
>

Most people with the exception of YOU, know that Operating Systems have
bugs. This is not news to most people, but to someone like you who gets off
at posting negative stories about Vista, this must be a red letter day.

Now go search for another story to post. I'm sure using Google, it won't be
hard to find.

orange wrote:

> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...0-preview.aspx
>
> Notice that they acknowledge the bugs, that the vista fanboys claim didn't
> exist? LOL idiots...
>
> lets hope this one will be better than the extremely bad designed and
> implemented CRAP search of vista
>
> (this installs on non vista OS too, like XP)

hehehe...what's wrong capin' crunch...does it **** you off that MS
continues to improve Vista...oh and XP?...LOL!
Get life you fukkin loser!
Frank

I installed it on XP and to my terror, all the processes (4 of them!!!!)
together use up more than 70 of ram!!!.. lol

Row row row your bloat, dreadly down the stream.....

see screenshot
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/508...ssearchuh5.jpg

This is crap or this is crap?

Im insisting on force-trying it (as I do with vista), to see if it can do a
particular complex task I have in mind.. if it doesnt, bye bye
crapo-indexer....

By force-trying it I mean continuing to evaluate a product even though it is
very apparent that it is crap.

I will have to get some feedback to the windows search team after I get a
more rounded up picture of all the bad design this thing has..

You can bet on it that the feedback with contain good tips to the developers
(as always) but also the word CRAP will be repeated several times.




"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> orange wrote:
>
>> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...0-preview.aspx
>>
>> Notice that they acknowledge the bugs, that the vista fanboys claim
>> didn't exist? LOL idiots...
>>
>> lets hope this one will be better than the extremely bad designed and
>> implemented CRAP search of vista
>>
>> (this installs on non vista OS too, like XP)
>
> hehehe...what's wrong capin' crunch...does it **** you off that MS
> continues to improve Vista...oh and XP?...LOL!
> Get life you fukkin loser!
> Frank
>

orange wrote:


....FUKK!!! Get back on those meds you idiot moron loser!
Geeze!
Frank

"orange" <> wrote in message
news:47ed193e$...

> I installed it on XP and to my terror, all the processes (4 of them!!!!)
> together use up more than 70 of ram!!!.. lol

Your terror? 70MB of RAM? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, 70MB is nothing these
days. Firefox is typically over 200MB for me. 70MB out of 2,000MB is
hardly worth worrying about. Certainly not enough to terrorize anyone!

Frank wrote:

> orange wrote:
>
>
> ...FUKK!!! Get back on those meds you idiot moron loser!
> Geeze!
> Frank

Self-projecting again, I see, Francis. Maybe meds aren't working for you?
Try a sledge hammer between your beady little eyeballs. That might work.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Microsoft Is Watching YOU: http://tinyurl.com/2ptclh

"Chupacabra" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>
>
> "orange" <> wrote in message
> news:47ed193e$...
>
>> I installed it on XP and to my terror, all the processes (4 of them!!!!)
>> together use up more than 70 of ram!!!.. lol
>
> Your terror? 70MB of RAM? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, 70MB is nothing these
> days. Firefox is typically over 200MB for me. 70MB out of 2,000MB is
> hardly worth worrying about. Certainly not enough to terrorize anyone!

I didn't know that Tapdancing was Jesus middle name. I thought it was
FUKKING

Ram is not the real problem, its resources. There is a difference, believe
me. You can have lots of free ram but the performance of the computer may be
very low, and its not CPU either. Its a combination with handles & threads.

>Firefox is typically over 200MB for me

so you are seeing the known Firefox memory leak and you are so used to vista
bloat that you think this is normal??? LOL!!!

This is a known flaw of firefox 2.0!!! (that mozilla isnt too vocal about
.... hehe)

Try FF 3.0 beta 4 portable test edition from portableapps.com


"Chupacabra" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>
>
> "orange" <> wrote in message
> news:47ed193e$...
>
>> I installed it on XP and to my terror, all the processes (4 of them!!!!)
>> together use up more than 70 of ram!!!.. lol
>
> Your terror? 70MB of RAM? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, 70MB is nothing these
> days. Firefox is typically over 200MB for me. 70MB out of 2,000MB is
> hardly worth worrying about. Certainly not enough to terrorize anyone!

"" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Chupacabra" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>>
>>
>> "orange" <> wrote in message news:47ed193e$...

>> Your terror? 70MB of RAM? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, 70MB is nothing these days.
>> Firefox is typically over 200MB for me. 70MB out of 2,000MB is hardly worth
>> worrying about. Certainly not enough to terrorize anyone!
>
> I didn't know that Tapdancing was Jesus middle name. I thought it was FUKKING

Nah. I don't know exactly what it is but it starts with H.

Tom Lake