I don't hate Vista

I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot conceive
why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to Vista.
For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an Orange
Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention the
seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing deficiencies
in peripheral drivers.
Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing perfectly
functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform the exact
same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a recession and
doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications. Why replace
boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of your business
software do not require the upgrade?
I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows users
to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and call it
Vista SP2.

Why are you ranting here if you are using something else?

--
..::[ Hz ]::.

Hz wrote:
> Why are you ranting here if you are using something else?

My bad, You are not using anything else, just ranting.

--
..::[ Hz ]::.

"Nogginsaked" <> wrote in message
news:43402C14-40A8-4B1B-8F85-...
>I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot conceive
>why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to Vista.
> For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
> arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
> but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an
> Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
> time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
> If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
> re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention
> the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing
> deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
> Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
> perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform
> the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a
> recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications.
> Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of
> your business software do not require the upgrade?
> I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
> interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows
> users to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and
> call it Vista SP2.


That would be OK id Vista was just XP with Aero, but it isn't..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Nogginsaked wrote:
> I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot
> conceive why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network
> to Vista. For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface
> and an
> arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or
> worse but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless
> as an Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware
> performance will be time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under
> Vista/VSP1. If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill
> then
> re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to
> mention the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and
> ongoing deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
> Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
> perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to
> perform the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less
> so in a recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based
> applications. Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the
> hardware demands of your business software do not require the upgrade?
> I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the
> aero interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops),
> allows users to retain any interface features they like about Vista
> (if any) and call it Vista SP2.

YOU may not notice an improvement, but WE will in that it's harder for your
machines to get infected with trojans and the like.

Likewise, we WE (the rest of the planet) move to Vista, YOU will reap the
benefits of a safer computing experience.

It's time to be a good steward of the earth's resources: Implement Vista and
encourage others to do the same and don't kill otters for no reason.

"Nogginsaked" <> wrote in message
news:43402C14-40A8-4B1B-8F85-...
> I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot
> conceive why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to
> Vista.
> For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
> arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
> but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an
> Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
> time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
> If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
> re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention
> the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing
> deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
> Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
> perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform
> the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a
> recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications.
> Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of
> your business software do not require the upgrade?
> I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
> interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows
> users to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and
> call it Vista SP2.


I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are, quite
frankly, none of your business.

C.B.


--
It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged
and unfortunate among us.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:44:32 -0400, "C.B."
<> wrote:

>
>
>"Nogginsaked" <> wrote in message
>news:43402C14-40A8-4B1B-8F85-...
>> I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot
>> conceive why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to
>> Vista.
>> For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
>> arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
>> but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an
>> Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
>> time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
>> If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
>> re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention
>> the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing
>> deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
>> Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
>> perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform
>> the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a
>> recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications.
>> Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of
>> your business software do not require the upgrade?
>> I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
>> interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows
>> users to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and
>> call it Vista SP2.
>
>
> I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
>mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are, quite
>frankly, none of your business.

Translation: You're just another sheep that has no reason and just
follows the herd.

You have opened a can of worms. Beware all who dislike/don't use Vista. I
got Vista with a new machine and it works ok. However, I have another
machine with XP and that is the most stable PC I have ever owned. NEVER (I
kid you not!) crashed yet. New one has a few times ....
Anyway, still like Vista.
Cheers
http://spookpaleis.myminicity.com/ind/

C.B. wrote:
>
>
> "Nogginsaked" <> wrote in message
> news:43402C14-40A8-4B1B-8F85-...
>> I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot
>> conceive why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network
>> to Vista.
>> For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
>> arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or
>> worse but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless
>> as an Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware
>> performance will be time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
>> If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
>> re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to
>> mention the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and
>> ongoing deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
>> Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
>> perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to
>> perform the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so
>> in a recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based
>> applications. Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the
>> hardware demands of your business software do not require the upgrade?
>> I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the
>> aero interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops),
>> allows users to retain any interface features they like about Vista
>> (if any) and call it Vista SP2.
>
>
> I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
> mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are,
> quite frankly, none of your business.
>
> C.B.
>
>

Well... that's kind of an odd response. You like Vista but you're
unwilling to disclose why? That's just... odd.

This coming from a guy happily running Vista on three Dells and one Mac.
So, no, I'm not a Vista fanti-boi. Not at all.

Lang

"Lang Murphy" <> wrote in message
news:%xeRj.23968$.. .
>>
>> I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
>> mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are,
>> quite frankly, none of your business.
>>
> Well... that's kind of an odd response. You like Vista but you're
> unwilling to disclose why? That's just... odd.


Maybe he's too embarrassed to tell people about his fascination with 3D
Flip!

ss.