No - an opposing view on future of Windows

"JEWboy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> No as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the web,
> users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.
>
> I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows over
> the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU requirements
> for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4! (*imagine all the things
> that have been added to Vista could have been added directly to NT4 and
> no-one would have complained).
>
> The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a
> bloated mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting components.
> The problem is more due to a lack of control over the entire thing that
> has allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone thought it woudl be a
> good idea to put the winsxs directory in, but they didn't do it well
> enough - not if it continues to grow in size like it does. If the
> directory was simply a cache of files you've got to ask how could they get
> it so wrong? If they simply took the version number from the dll, created
> a directory of that name, and placed the dll in it, we wouldn't have this
> issue at all.
>
> Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too
> overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server
> Express. It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on
> from the day when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its
> because they try all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.
>
> I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I doubt
> it will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to remain,
> so it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but true.
>



Looks like at least you have worked out how to use the spell checker!

Camper

No as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the web,
users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.

I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows over
the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU requirements
for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4! (*imagine all the things
that have been added to Vista could have been added directly to NT4 and
no-one would have complained).

The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a bloated
mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting components. The
problem is more due to a lack of control over the entire thing that has
allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone thought it woudl be a good
idea to put the winsxs directory in, but they didn't do it well enough - not
if it continues to grow in size like it does. If the directory was simply a
cache of files you've got to ask how could they get it so wrong? If they
simply took the version number from the dll, created a directory of that
name, and placed the dll in it, we wouldn't have this issue at all.

Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too
overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server Express.
It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on from the day
when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its because they try
all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.

I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I doubt it
will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to remain, so
it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but true.

Thank you Camper.
May the Lord richly bless you, and continue blessing you until you're
thoroughly blessed.

I must invoke, however, the fact of me having a glorious fortnight thereby
granting sufficient time to avoid spelling typos which shall surely deliver
us all to Hades, had they not been corrected by your almighty hairy hand.

"JEWboy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> No as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the web,
> users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.

Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.
I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber the
ones with complaints.
Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled emotions.
No one ever forced you to purchase Vista. There are plenty of 'alternatives'
available and there is no need for you to cry in our beer.
Does that make sense to you?

Harry.

>
> I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows over
> the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU requirements
> for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4! (*imagine all the things
> that have been added to Vista could have been added directly to NT4 and
> no-one would have complained).
>
> The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a
> bloated mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting components.
> The problem is more due to a lack of control over the entire thing that
> has allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone thought it woudl be a
> good idea to put the winsxs directory in, but they didn't do it well
> enough - not if it continues to grow in size like it does. If the
> directory was simply a cache of files you've got to ask how could they get
> it so wrong? If they simply took the version number from the dll, created
> a directory of that name, and placed the dll in it, we wouldn't have this
> issue at all.
>
> Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too
> overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server
> Express. It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on
> from the day when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its
> because they try all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.
>
> I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I doubt
> it will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to remain,
> so it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but true.
>
>

webster72n wrote:

> No one ever forced you to purchase Vista.

Hmmm that's debatable. If there's no alternative on offer in stores does
that come under the heading of "forced"?
Yes OK if you are reasonably IT literate you can buy a bare-bones
machine and install the OS of your choice or replace the only OS on
offer with another from a different source, but the VAST majority of the
general public a) wouldn't know where to start and b) have no knowledge
about alternative OS's and migrating their data to them.
So yes in a sense you CAN say that people are "forced" to buy Vista...

Indeed. I was sort of forced to purchase Vista. It was either that or
convince my wife that we had to buy a PC online or somewhere else. She
wanted a package system from Best Buy. I believe Vista is all they had.

I'm relatively happy with Vista. It has crashed several times for no
apparent reason. I don't know if that's the OS or the machine. So far the
crashes aren't frequent enough to warrant significant concern like rushing
to replace the OS. If I hear good things about Windows 7 though I will be
looking to switch as soon as I can afford.

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> webster72n wrote:
>
>> No one ever forced you to purchase Vista.
>
> Hmmm that's debatable. If there's no alternative on offer in stores does
> that come under the heading of "forced"?
> Yes OK if you are reasonably IT literate you can buy a bare-bones machine
> and install the OS of your choice or replace the only OS on offer with
> another from a different source, but the VAST majority of the general
> public a) wouldn't know where to start and b) have no knowledge about
> alternative OS's and migrating their data to them.
> So yes in a sense you CAN say that people are "forced" to buy Vista...

"xfile" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.
>
> Happy for you.
>
>> I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber
>> the ones with complaints.
>
> That is your guess, and there is no way for you or anyone (myself
> included) to know the real number of happy vs. unhappy users. The best
> possible data can get is the adoption rare within a given sample. But
> even that, it is just the adoption(or purchase) rate which is not
> necessarily true for people liking or disliking the product.
>
> Anyone with a real-life purchasing experience would have known that we
> sometime purchased products/services not because we liked it but because
> it was the most appropriate solution for the circumstance while we may not
> have purchased products/services that we really liked due to other
> considerations and constraints.
>
> What's more important is that if the product meets your requirements, why
> you care so much about if you were the only one in the world, unless you
> are not so confident about your own decision?
>
>> Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
>> solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled emotions.
>
> So as a happy user/customer entitles you to seal the mouth of those who
> think differently?

Who is sealing anyone's mouth?
And what did I say to contradict anyone's thinking?
What I did point out was the fact that this is a Vista group, designed to
'support' Vista users not vice versa.
It serves no purpose to address criticisms to this group, it should be
directed towards the creators of the situations.
Hopefully we can get back to business now.

>
>> Does that make sense to you?
>
> Not at all as Gordon also pointed out too.
>
>
>
>
> "webster72n" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>>
>>
>> "JEWboy" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> No as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the
>>> web, users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.
>>
>> Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.
>> I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber
>> the ones with complaints.
>> Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
>> solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled emotions.
>> No one ever forced you to purchase Vista. There are plenty of
>> 'alternatives' available and there is no need for you to cry in our beer.
>> Does that make sense to you?
>>
>> Harry.
>>
>>>
>>> I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows
>>> over the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU
>>> requirements for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4! (*imagine
>>> all the things that have been added to Vista could have been added
>>> directly to NT4 and no-one would have complained).
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a
>>> bloated mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting
>>> components. The problem is more due to a lack of control over the entire
>>> thing that has allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone thought it
>>> woudl be a good idea to put the winsxs directory in, but they didn't do
>>> it well enough - not if it continues to grow in size like it does. If
>>> the directory was simply a cache of files you've got to ask how could
>>> they get it so wrong? If they simply took the version number from the
>>> dll, created a directory of that name, and placed the dll in it, we
>>> wouldn't have this issue at all.
>>>
>>> Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too
>>> overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server
>>> Express. It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on
>>> from the day when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its
>>> because they try all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.
>>>
>>> I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I doubt
>>> it will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to remain,
>>> so it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but true.
>>>
>>>

"xfile" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> Who is sealing anyone's mouth?
>> And what did I say to contradict anyone's thinking?
>> What I did point out was the fact that this is a Vista group, designed to
>> 'support' Vista users not vice versa.
>> It serves no purpose to address criticisms to this group, it should be
>> directed towards the creators of the situations.
>> Hopefully we can get back to business now.
>
> The title reads vista.general, and the rest is your definition which I
> respect but it doesn't make it any rule, just like the OP's views, which I
> may disagree but he has the right to express.
>
> If you don't like some criticisms, try to apply your own logics ("No one
> ever forced you to purchase Vista.") - No one ever forced you to read and
> reply.

xfile!

>
>
>
> "webster72n" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>>
>> "xfile" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>> Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.
>>>
>>> Happy for you.
>>>
>>>> I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber
>>>> the ones with complaints.
>>>
>>> That is your guess, and there is no way for you or anyone (myself
>>> included) to know the real number of happy vs. unhappy users. The best
>>> possible data can get is the adoption rare within a given sample. But
>>> even that, it is just the adoption(or purchase) rate which is not
>>> necessarily true for people liking or disliking the product.
>>>
>>> Anyone with a real-life purchasing experience would have known that we
>>> sometime purchased products/services not because we liked it but because
>>> it was the most appropriate solution for the circumstance while we may
>>> not have purchased products/services that we really liked due to other
>>> considerations and constraints.
>>>
>>> What's more important is that if the product meets your requirements,
>>> why you care so much about if you were the only one in the world, unless
>>> you are not so confident about your own decision?
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
>>>> solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled
>>>> emotions.
>>>
>>> So as a happy user/customer entitles you to seal the mouth of those who
>>> think differently?
>>
>> Who is sealing anyone's mouth?
>> And what did I say to contradict anyone's thinking?
>> What I did point out was the fact that this is a Vista group, designed to
>> 'support' Vista users not vice versa.
>> It serves no purpose to address criticisms to this group, it should be
>> directed towards the creators of the situations.
>> Hopefully we can get back to business now.
>>
>>>
>>>> Does that make sense to you?
>>>
>>> Not at all as Gordon also pointed out too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "webster72n" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "JEWboy" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> No as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the
>>>>> web, users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.
>>>>
>>>> Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.
>>>> I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber
>>>> the ones with complaints.
>>>> Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
>>>> solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled
>>>> emotions.
>>>> No one ever forced you to purchase Vista. There are plenty of
>>>> 'alternatives' available and there is no need for you to cry in our
>>>> beer.
>>>> Does that make sense to you?
>>>>
>>>> Harry.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows
>>>>> over the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU
>>>>> requirements for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4!
>>>>> (*imagine all the things that have been added to Vista could have been
>>>>> added directly to NT4 and no-one would have complained).
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a
>>>>> bloated mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting
>>>>> components. The problem is more due to a lack of control over the
>>>>> entire thing that has allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone
>>>>> thought it woudl be a good idea to put the winsxs directory in, but
>>>>> they didn't do it well enough - not if it continues to grow in size
>>>>> like it does. If the directory was simply a cache of files you've got
>>>>> to ask how could they get it so wrong? If they simply took the version
>>>>> number from the dll, created a directory of that name, and placed the
>>>>> dll in it, we wouldn't have this issue at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too
>>>>> overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server
>>>>> Express. It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on
>>>>> from the day when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its
>>>>> because they try all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I
>>>>> doubt it will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to
>>>>> remain, so it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but
>>>>> true.
>>>>>
>>>>>

> Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.

Happy for you.

> I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber
> the ones with complaints.

That is your guess, and there is no way for you or anyone (myself included)
to know the real number of happy vs. unhappy users. The best possible data
can get is the adoption rare within a given sample. But even that, it is
just the adoption(or purchase) rate which is not necessarily true for people
liking or disliking the product.

Anyone with a real-life purchasing experience would have known that we
sometime purchased products/services not because we liked it but because it
was the most appropriate solution for the circumstance while we may not have
purchased products/services that we really liked due to other considerations
and constraints.

What's more important is that if the product meets your requirements, why
you care so much about if you were the only one in the world, unless you are
not so confident about your own decision?

> Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
> solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled emotions.

So as a happy user/customer entitles you to seal the mouth of those who
think differently?

> Does that make sense to you?

Not at all as Gordon also pointed out too.




"webster72n" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
>
> "JEWboy" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> No as you can see from these forum posts, and many others across the web,
>> users demand stabilty, performance and reliability.
>
> Where I am concerned, those requirements are met, JEWboy.
> I also think that those who are in tune with my statement far outnumber
> the ones with complaints.
> Furthermore, the purpose of this particular newsgroup is to provide
> solutions for encountered problems, not to display disgruntled emotions.
> No one ever forced you to purchase Vista. There are plenty of
> 'alternatives' available and there is no need for you to cry in our beer.
> Does that make sense to you?
>
> Harry.
>
>>
>> I doubt anyone cares for all the bits that have been put into Windows
>> over the years, all we see is ever increasing disk, memory and CPU
>> requirements for little benefit over what was shipped in NT4! (*imagine
>> all the things that have been added to Vista could have been added
>> directly to NT4 and no-one would have complained).
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that Windows has lost its way and become a
>> bloated mass of inconsistent, poorly engineered, badly fitting
>> components. The problem is more due to a lack of control over the entire
>> thing that has allowed it to spread and sag. I'm sure someone thought it
>> woudl be a good idea to put the winsxs directory in, but they didn't do
>> it well enough - not if it continues to grow in size like it does. If the
>> directory was simply a cache of files you've got to ask how could they
>> get it so wrong? If they simply took the version number from the dll,
>> created a directory of that name, and placed the dll in it, we wouldn't
>> have this issue at all.
>>
>> Surely the problem is that Windows has become too complicated, too
>> overengineered. For example, yesteray I tried to install Sql Server
>> Express. It failed when compiling a MOF file.. ?? Things have moved on
>> from the day when you just put a dll in a directory and it worked, its
>> because they try all this fancy *** that it fails all the time.
>>
>> I hope the next version of Windows addresses these problems, but I doubt
>> it will - backwards compatibility with the old crud will have to remain,
>> so it'll only get more fragile and broken over time. Sad but true.
>>
>>

Very well said and true and applied to almost all product categories.




"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> webster72n wrote:
>
>> No one ever forced you to purchase Vista.
>
> Hmmm that's debatable. If there's no alternative on offer in stores does
> that come under the heading of "forced"?
> Yes OK if you are reasonably IT literate you can buy a bare-bones machine
> and install the OS of your choice or replace the only OS on offer with
> another from a different source, but the VAST majority of the general
> public a) wouldn't know where to start and b) have no knowledge about
> alternative OS's and migrating their data to them.
> So yes in a sense you CAN say that people are "forced" to buy Vista...