It seems to me...

....that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to make an
operating system that requires more space and speed to make people "have to"
buy new computers. I haven't seen any improvement in the operation of my
computer... other than a few unnecessary bells and whistles.

And what major OS release hasn't done this before. My Win3.1 laptop could
barely handle Win95, I couldn't get decent printer or scanner drivers for my
old peripherals when XP came out. Hardware changes. Either it's something
so fundamental it can deal with newer OS, or you get something more up to
date.

HP, Canon, Epson don't make any money writing drivers for 3 year old
printers.

As to to needing more speed and space, remember Moore's Law - processor
power doubles every 18 months. 1st Corollary - the software guys will ****
it all away. And no matter how big a hard drive you have, it will be filled
within a year. Remember when a 20 MEGAbyte drive seemed huge?

Val
ps - I'm sometimes just as PO'd about this as you, but what can you do about
it? If Vista isn't your cup of tea, roll back to XP or 2K or 98.


"martha" <> wrote in message
news: ...
....that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to make an
operating system that requires more space and speed to make people "have to"
buy new computers. I haven't seen any improvement in the operation of my
computer... other than a few unnecessary bells and whistles.

No, more features and better use of hardware is OK.

For instance, thumbnails instead of icons for images and movies OK
Search function background indexing OK
Using memory to cache HD content OK

What BAD is deliberately and unessesary bloat to make OEMs like DELL happy.

Not using GPU to accellerate image thumbnail and filtering in file browser
BAD
this result in slow file browsing experience
Thousands of folders and files in a WinSXS DLL HELL workaround folder BAD
limit DWM update to 60hz instead of vertical sync BAD




In programmer circles, Microsoft is the very model of modern bloated
software.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7886275455.html

I just opened up MS Word and typed "Hello World!" and saved it to my
desktop. 24,064 bytes. Why? What in God's name is that bloated app bloating
in it's bloated files?
http://politics.slashdot.org/comment...3&cid=15638950

I refuse to glue $200 or $300 to a specific set of hardware forever
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=14956

From what I recall, it saves a memory dump to a file. That would include app
state, undo, and other information that didn't need to survive, and it
shoves it into semi-permanent storage. This explains a bunch of retarded,
mind-boggling things we've all heard (and disbelieved) about Word
http://politics.slashdot.org/comment...3&cid=15639429

The problem is that those that set the limits, are the most guilty of waste
(MS). Try using managed .NET and see RAM usage climb exorbitantly in
applications. Vista itself claims extensive amounts of RAM as applications
open up on the PC (w/ superfetch off). Also Vista uses more CPU cycles
compared to XP for a game (maybe only certain games, maybe not). I also
didn't ask MS to commit 20+- percent of a CPU core to sound as they think I
should do now in Vista w/ software.
http://www.anandtech.com/talkarticle...060&frmWhere=2

humungoid bitmaps never used
http://www.culte.org/listes/linux-31.../msg00010.html


Many things I love with Vista, but its amazing they can make file browsing
sluggish on a Core 2 @ 3GHz.


"Val" <> wrote in message
news:...
> And what major OS release hasn't done this before. My Win3.1 laptop could
> barely handle Win95, I couldn't get decent printer or scanner drivers for
> my
> old peripherals when XP came out. Hardware changes. Either it's
> something
> so fundamental it can deal with newer OS, or you get something more up to
> date.
>
> HP, Canon, Epson don't make any money writing drivers for 3 year old
> printers.
>
> As to to needing more speed and space, remember Moore's Law - processor
> power doubles every 18 months. 1st Corollary - the software guys will
> ****
> it all away. And no matter how big a hard drive you have, it will be
> filled
> within a year. Remember when a 20 MEGAbyte drive seemed huge?
>
> Val
> ps - I'm sometimes just as PO'd about this as you, but what can you do
> about
> it? If Vista isn't your cup of tea, roll back to XP or 2K or 98.
>
>
> "martha" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
> ...that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to make an
> operating system that requires more space and speed to make people "have
> to"
> buy new computers. I haven't seen any improvement in the operation of my
> computer... other than a few unnecessary bells and whistles.
>
>

> I just opened up MS Word and typed "Hello World!" and saved it to my
> desktop. 24,064 bytes. Why? What in God's name is that bloated app
> bloating in it's bloated files?
> http://politics.slashdot.org/comment...3&cid=15638950
>
> I refuse to glue $200 or $300 to a specific set of hardware forever
> http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=14956
Some of what you say is true....however.....I do your "Hello World" and it's
size is 9940 bytes, a lot less that 24,064. One assumes you're not using
Word 2007 in XML format. Also, any retail copy of Vista is NOT tied a a
specific set of harware forever. It can be sold, moved and components
swapped at will and reactivated without issues. All OEM versions of Windows
have been legally tied to the original box....it was just easier to
circumvent the licence in the past. And OEM versions can be reactivated
within reason (MS will reactivate for motherboard replacement due to
haredware failure, amongst other things. For example, do you really think
that is your Dell XPS mainboard dies on you, you need to purchase another
full OEM version of Vista Ultimate when Dell replaces the m/b?

> Some of what you say is true....however.....I do your "Hello World" and
> it's
> size is 9940 bytes, a lot less that 24,064. One assumes you're not using
> Word 2007 in XML format. Also, any retail copy of Vista is NOT tied a a
> specific set of harware forever. It can be sold, moved and components
> swapped at will and reactivated without issues. All OEM versions of
> Windows
> have been legally tied to the original box....it was just easier to
> circumvent the licence in the past. And OEM versions can be reactivated
> within reason (MS will reactivate for motherboard replacement due to
> haredware failure, amongst other things. For example, do you really think
> that is your Dell XPS mainboard dies on you, you need to purchase another
> full OEM version of Vista Ultimate when Dell replaces the m/b?

Yes, today they have shaped up on Word 2007 they use XML and zip it I
think.

Yes even if I can reactivate, I still have to "ask" Microsoft (big brother).
It would be better if I got warning when I tried to update the PC that this
serial is concurrently/recently used on more then 3 other PCs. It's a world
I don't wanto live in, but other follow suit like Adobe, Trillian, Lost
Planet each requier online activation before use.

"Arnfinn Haraldsen" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> Some of what you say is true....however.....I do your "Hello World" and
>> it's
>> size is 9940 bytes, a lot less that 24,064. One assumes you're not using
>> Word 2007 in XML format. Also, any retail copy of Vista is NOT tied a a
>> specific set of harware forever. It can be sold, moved and components
>> swapped at will and reactivated without issues. All OEM versions of
>> Windows
>> have been legally tied to the original box....it was just easier to
>> circumvent the licence in the past. And OEM versions can be reactivated
>> within reason (MS will reactivate for motherboard replacement due to
>> haredware failure, amongst other things. For example, do you really think
>> that is your Dell XPS mainboard dies on you, you need to purchase another
>> full OEM version of Vista Ultimate when Dell replaces the m/b?
>
> Yes, today they have shaped up on Word 2007 they use XML and zip it I
> think.
>
> Yes even if I can reactivate, I still have to "ask" Microsoft (big
> brother). It would be better if I got warning when I tried to update the
> PC that this serial is concurrently/recently used on more then 3 other
> PCs. It's a world I don't wanto live in, but other follow suit like Adobe,
> Trillian, Lost Planet each requier online activation before use.
>
Even if you buy a shirt more than 10 dollars there will be a security tag on
it!
Get real.

--
John the West Ham fan


<><

"martha" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> ...that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to make an
> operating system that requires more space and speed to make people "have
> to" buy new computers. I haven't seen any improvement in the operation of
> my computer... other than a few unnecessary bells and whistles.

OF COURSE Microsoft is there to make money. We Americans also like to doing
something valuable and useful to mankind while we make money.

If we followed your way, we would still be running PC-DOS or CPM. There
would be no graphics or choice of fonts. No pictures. No sound. I wrote a
state income tax module for a payroll program in something less than 100
instructions. It only took an itty-bitty space in memory, which there was
precious little of. I spent 90% of my time trying to make it small. What a
waste of time! Is this what you want to go back to?

Why not I spend my time where I do something you really, really can use,
rather than to do the barely essential? If you want the barely essential,
why did you buy a car? Why not just get a horse?

Granted, things like speech recognition and a miniature screen that displays
weather alerts could come under your description of "unnecessary bells and
whistles," but since millions will be buying that capability, my net cost
will be less than the tip I give the waitress the next time I go out to eat.
Take all these little things they give you and you may start to enjoy life,
rather than think people are always out to get you.

Now, let's talk real: If you follow Bill Gates' idea of what he wants to do
verses what the computer manufacturers are doing, you will recall he said,
"There are many useful things a computer could do. We could build the
software for a lot of things today, but we need to get the computer
manufacturers to provide the hardware we need for this software." I don't
know what I would call that, but I would not use the word, "collusion." In
the end, you will get the benefit of that software for pennies.

When Bill Gates started out, he provided software for IBM PC's. He came up
with the idea of graphics on computers. They called it "OS2." IBM, the
manufacturer, had some different ideas on how to do it, so Bill jumped ship
and developed Windows. It was a crude beginning because of the chintzy
hardware of that day. Eventually, the hardware people got the message.

My Win/95 computer used a 17" monitor that took up my whole desk, weighed 47
pounds, and cost $750. The machine needed 16MB (I think that was what it
was) of memory. That cost me another $775. Hard drive? I really went nuts
and got the max, I think it was 2GB. That was $1-2,000. My first computer
cost about $8,000 and all it would run was Win/95. Oh, yes, Win/95 was only
$89! Gates saw a market for reasonably-priced software. The hardware
people learned the same lesson and now you can get a 22" wide-screen flat
monitor for less than $300 that is much better than my old $750 17". And I
laughed the other day when I bought a 320GB hard drive for not much over
$100. In 1995 that much hard disk would cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Do you call that collusion? It sounds like you are getting a lot
of those "bells and whistles" for free. I'm sorry, I'm not with you on the
"collusion" idea.

John

"John" <> wrote in message
news: et...
> "martha" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>> ...that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to make an
>> operating system that requires more space and speed to make people "have
>> to" buy new computers. I haven't seen any improvement in the operation
>> of my computer... other than a few unnecessary bells and whistles.
>
> OF COURSE Microsoft is there to make money. We Americans also like to
> doing something valuable and useful to mankind while we make money.
>
> If we followed your way, we would still be running PC-DOS or CPM. There
> would be no graphics or choice of fonts. No pictures. No sound. I wrote
> a state income tax module for a payroll program in something less than 100
> instructions. It only took an itty-bitty space in memory, which there was
> precious little of. I spent 90% of my time trying to make it small. What
> a waste of time! Is this what you want to go back to?
>
> Why not I spend my time where I do something you really, really can use,
> rather than to do the barely essential? If you want the barely essential,
> why did you buy a car? Why not just get a horse?
>
> Granted, things like speech recognition and a miniature screen that
> displays weather alerts could come under your description of "unnecessary
> bells and whistles," but since millions will be buying that capability, my
> net cost will be less than the tip I give the waitress the next time I go
> out to eat. Take all these little things they give you and you may start
> to enjoy life, rather than think people are always out to get you.
>
> Now, let's talk real: If you follow Bill Gates' idea of what he wants to
> do verses what the computer manufacturers are doing, you will recall he
> said, "There are many useful things a computer could do. We could build
> the software for a lot of things today, but we need to get the computer
> manufacturers to provide the hardware we need for this software." I don't
> know what I would call that, but I would not use the word, "collusion."
> In the end, you will get the benefit of that software for pennies.
>
> When Bill Gates started out, he provided software for IBM PC's. He came
> up with the idea of graphics on computers. They called it "OS2." IBM,
> the manufacturer, had some different ideas on how to do it, so Bill jumped
> ship and developed Windows. It was a crude beginning because of the
> chintzy hardware of that day. Eventually, the hardware people got the
> message.
>
> My Win/95 computer used a 17" monitor that took up my whole desk, weighed
> 47 pounds, and cost $750. The machine needed 16MB (I think that was what
> it was) of memory. That cost me another $775. Hard drive? I really went
> nuts and got the max, I think it was 2GB. That was $1-2,000. My first
> computer cost about $8,000 and all it would run was Win/95. Oh, yes,
> Win/95 was only $89! Gates saw a market for reasonably-priced software.
> The hardware people learned the same lesson and now you can get a 22"
> wide-screen flat monitor for less than $300 that is much better than my
> old $750 17". And I laughed the other day when I bought a 320GB hard
> drive for not much over $100. In 1995 that much hard disk would cost
> hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you call that collusion? It sounds
> like you are getting a lot of those "bells and whistles" for free. I'm
> sorry, I'm not with you on the "collusion" idea.
>
> John

"We Americans also like to doing something valuable
and useful to mankind while we make money."

I wish you hadn't posted that. It suggests that either the
rest of the world does not make money, like making money,
or like doing things useful to mankind. Another thought is
that you are saying Americans only do something for mankind
If it makes money.
What is more, it may be difficult for you to justify such a global
"we".
Those people who ran Enron for example.

Miles

"John" <> wrote in
news: et:

> "martha" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>> ...that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to
>> make an operating system that requires more space and speed to
>> make people "have to" buy new computers. I haven't seen any
>> improvement in the operation of my computer... other than a few
>> unnecessary bells and whistles.
>
> OF COURSE Microsoft is there to make money. We Americans also
> like to doing something valuable and useful to mankind while we
> make money.
>
> If we followed your way, we would still be running PC-DOS or CPM.
> There would be no graphics or choice of fonts. No pictures. No
> sound. I wrote a state income tax module for a payroll program in
> something less than 100 instructions. It only took an itty-bitty
> space in memory, which there was precious little of. I spent 90%
> of my time trying to make it small. What a waste of time! Is
> this what you want to go back to?
>
> Why not I spend my time where I do something you really, really
> can use, rather than to do the barely essential? If you want the
> barely essential, why did you buy a car? Why not just get a
> horse?
>
> Granted, things like speech recognition and a miniature screen
> that displays weather alerts could come under your description of
> "unnecessary bells and whistles," but since millions will be
> buying that capability, my net cost will be less than the tip I
> give the waitress the next time I go out to eat. Take all these
> little things they give you and you may start to enjoy life,
> rather than think people are always out to get you.
>
> Now, let's talk real: If you follow Bill Gates' idea of what he
> wants to do verses what the computer manufacturers are doing, you
> will recall he said, "There are many useful things a computer
> could do. We could build the software for a lot of things today,
> but we need to get the computer manufacturers to provide the
> hardware we need for this software." I don't know what I would
> call that, but I would not use the word, "collusion." In the end,
> you will get the benefit of that software for pennies.
>
> When Bill Gates started out, he provided software for IBM PC's.
> He came up with the idea of graphics on computers. They called it
> "OS2." IBM, the manufacturer, had some different ideas on how to
> do it, so Bill jumped ship and developed Windows. It was a crude
> beginning because of the chintzy hardware of that day.
> Eventually, the hardware people got the message.
>
> My Win/95 computer used a 17" monitor that took up my whole desk,
> weighed 47 pounds, and cost $750. The machine needed 16MB (I
> think that was what it was) of memory. That cost me another $775.
> Hard drive? I really went nuts and got the max, I think it was
> 2GB. That was $1-2,000. My first computer cost about $8,000 and
> all it would run was Win/95. Oh, yes, Win/95 was only $89! Gates
> saw a market for reasonably-priced software. The hardware people
> learned the same lesson and now you can get a 22" wide-screen flat
> monitor for less than $300 that is much better than my old $750
> 17". And I laughed the other day when I bought a 320GB hard drive
> for not much over $100. In 1995 that much hard disk would cost
> hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you call that collusion? It
> sounds like you are getting a lot of those "bells and whistles"
> for free. I'm sorry, I'm not with you on the "collusion" idea.
>
> John
>
>

Spot on John......your going to get flak from Bill Gates came up with
the GUI idea though, but just let it slide.

BTW my first 20Mb HD cost $300.00(US) lol and I swore then I'd
never fill it up.

--
The most reliable time to upgrade to a new Operating System is at the
end of its life cycle.

Dave

"martha" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> ...that microsoft is in colusion with Computer manufacturers to make an
> operating system that requires more space and speed to make people "have
to"
> buy new computers. I haven't seen any improvement in the operation of my
> computer... other than a few unnecessary bells and whistles.
>


I agree with you there. Vista really needs some very good hardware to work
right.
I gave it a good try...and now use either Win2k, XP

Windows 3x will run on any machine out there...even a 286.

I've got a 386 that actually runs win95 fairly well...
and I used to run win98 on a P1.

In the past...when upgrading operating systems...
hardware upgrades were pretty modest...maybe add some RAM.

With Vista you really do not want to use anything but the latest and
greatest HW.

OTOH...I think Vista may just be the perfect OS for the 21st
century...because people always seem to want to toss out everything old
and go with something new.

As I've always said: One of these days the land fills are going to become so
heavy that the Earth will fall out of orbit <G> !

(Yes my idea of a joke)

Anyway...as an authorized computer refurbisher I'm doing my part to keep
older machines out of the landfills and have recycled *many* of them!