MS might want to take their own advice

The following excerpt is from one of Microsoft's own web pages @


http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...c954e1033.mspx

"Delete programs you never use
Many PC manufacturers pack their new computers with programs you didn't
order and might not want. These often include trial editions and limited
edition versions of programs that software companies hope you will try, find
useful, and then pay to upgrade to full versions or newer versions. If you
decide you don't want them, keeping the software on your computer might slow
it down by using precious memory, disk space, and processing power.

It's a good idea to uninstall all the programs you don't plan to use. This
should include both manufacturer-installed software and software you
installed yourself but don't want anymore-especially utility programs
designed to help manage and tune your computer's hardware and software.
Utility programs such as virus scanners, disk cleaners, and backup tools
often run automatically at startup, quietly chugging along in the background
where you can't see them. Many people have no idea they are even running.

Even if your PC is older, it might contain manufacturer-installed programs
that you never noticed or have since forgotten about. It's never too late to
remove these and get rid of the clutter and wasted system resources. Maybe
you thought you might use the software someday, but never did. Uninstall it
and see if your PC runs faster."

At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't be
removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.

"Sinner" <> wrote in message
news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>
> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't be
> removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>

And what publisher might that be, and what "crap"?

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:g4htif$kph$...
> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
> news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>>
>> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't be
>> removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>>
>
> And what publisher might that be, and what "crap"?

Well, I believe there's only one publisher putting out an OS named Vista,
moron.

Ah, let me see how many things are in Vista that I don't want:

IE7, WMP11, Windows Mail, Side Bar W/Gadgets, Windows Defender, UAC, Media
Center, and on and on.

"Sinner" <> wrote in message
news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>

<snipped>

> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't be
> removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>

What are you talking about?

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. > wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
> news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>>
>
> <snipped>
>
>> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't be
>> removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>>
>
> What are you talking about?

If you had bothered to read the information you snipped, or visited the URL
I included, you'd know. Go back and figure it out for yourself.

"Sinner" <> wrote in message
news:dQ%ak.15964$.. .
>
> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. > wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
>> news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>>>
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't
>>> be removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>>>
>>
>> What are you talking about?

>
> If you had bothered to read the information you snipped, or visited the
> URL I included, you'd know. Go back and figure it out for yourself.

I read the first couple of lines of your whine on the soapbox and stopped
there. I don't have a problem in using any of it.

If you don't want to use them, then disable them or use other alternatives.
No one is twisting your arm to do anything. As a matter of fact, you can go
back to XP or mosey on over to Linux, which may be best for you. There is
nothing stopping you.

You know that they are going to toss your post in the trash can, right?

"Sinner" <> wrote in message
news:3F%ak.15959$.. .
>
> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
> news:g4htif$kph$...
>> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
>> news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>>>
>>> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't
>>> be removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>>>
>>
>> And what publisher might that be, and what "crap"?
>
> Well, I believe there's only one publisher putting out an OS named Vista,
> moron.
>
> Ah, let me see how many things are in Vista that I don't want:
>
> IE7, WMP11, Windows Mail, Side Bar W/Gadgets, Windows Defender, UAC, Media
> Center, and on and on.
>


So just don't use them. idiot.

At that point you pretty clearly want Windows Embedded.

There's a reason why that exists. Your particular "truncated install" is
probably not the mass appeal system that is perceived to be the general
demand. Your needs should already be generally be met by Windows Embedded
(or, heck, Windows Server 2008). This allows that team to focus on all
sorts of weird SKU formations and the general OS team to focus on core SKU
formations.

Each major SKU formation/iteration has large associated costs, so you need
to be really sure a given SKU is "essential" before putting it into stone.

--
Speaking for myself only.
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
"Sinner" <> wrote in message
news:3F%ak.15959$.. .
>
> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
> news:g4htif$kph$...
>> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
>> news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
>>>
>>> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't
>>> be removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
>>>
>>
>> And what publisher might that be, and what "crap"?
>
> Well, I believe there's only one publisher putting out an OS named Vista,
> Ah, let me see how many things are in Vista that I don't want:
>
> IE7, WMP11, Windows Mail, Side Bar W/Gadgets, Windows Defender, UAC, Media
> Center, and on and on.
>

zachd [MSFT] wrote:
>
> At that point you pretty clearly want Windows Embedded.
>
> There's a reason why that exists. Your particular "truncated install"
> is probably not the mass appeal system that is perceived to be the
> general demand. Your needs should already be generally be met by
> Windows Embedded (or, heck, Windows Server 2008). This allows that team
> to focus on all sorts of weird SKU formations and the general OS team to
> focus on core SKU formations.
>
> Each major SKU formation/iteration has large associated costs, so you
> need to be really sure a given SKU is "essential" before putting it into
> stone.
>


Actually I have found that the "Server" editions, which I have been
fortunate enough to test at somewhat less than the full prices are much
more stable than the general "Windows" versions available to retail
customers. Why is this? Well, two main reasons I think.

They are not "Cut down" versions of the retail, they are what it is
built around, so although you can install a lot of the "Glamorous" stuff
you start with something reasonably clean and streamlined to begin with.
I still think IE and media player should NOT be integrated as they
are but oh well.

But for servers, the target market wants it to work, just work, usually
anyway.

With retail versions the target market wants it to do EVERYTHING. Okay
not everyone wants everything, but someone somewhere wants everything so
that gets added, or at least as much as MS can manage, which of course
is not everything. So people install crap like toolbars and stuff that
MS have no control over, so when MS makes a change they cannot avoid
something breaks.

So for example if someone wanted XP but not Movie Maker and a few other
things the system to use, if they could afford it, would be Enterprise
Server 2003.

It's not so much the product but the fact that you tend to install what
you really think you need and there is less temptation to click on eye
candy crap that looks good and after 2 days you never use again, but it
has already broken something that will come back in 6 months and bite you.

I mean if someone downloads a media player alternative that pulls down
poor codecs and them media player fails to work sometimes, Voila, media
player is crap and the other thing works fine (Apparently).

Very simplistic, but I think at least somewhat valid.

"Mr. Arnold" wrote:

>
> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
> news:dQ%ak.15964$.. .
> >
> > "Mr. Arnold" <MR. > wrote in message
> > news:...
> >>
> >> "Sinner" <> wrote in message
> >> news:Fj_ak.26222$.. .
> >>>
> >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >>> At least one OS publisher packs their Vista OS full of crap that can't
> >>> be removed, whether the end user will ever use it or not.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What are you talking about?
>
> >
> > If you had bothered to read the information you snipped, or visited the
> > URL I included, you'd know. Go back and figure it out for yourself.
>
> I read the first couple of lines of your whine on the soapbox and stopped
> there. I don't have a problem in using any of it.
>
> If you don't want to use them, then disable them or use other alternatives.
> No one is twisting your arm to do anything. As a matter of fact, you can go
> back to XP or mosey on over to Linux, which may be best for you. There is
> nothing stopping you.
>
> You know that they are going to toss your post in the trash can, right?
>
>
Hi Guys
Accept the fact that vista is a crap OS and move on. Don't wate our time
because we haven't got time for you idiots.