SP1 better not be vaporware

Vista has been out for almost a year.
I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
Among the many Vista problems:
Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just makes
Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in a
heartbeat but refuses to.
The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your wristwatch
slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations. Explanations
involving increased background software operations are just a euphemism for
code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot configurations where
Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one XP is installed on or a
hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and half to XP. Every computer
has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia 6800 or better video card. In
every instance simple things like program opening, program installation and
file copying are time by your stop watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on
Vista than on XP.
Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?

Service Packs are common maintenance updates that Microsoft has released for
past versions of Windows everytime. So Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista
nothing new, don't know why you would even put SP1 and Vaporware in the same
sentence.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"iacy" <> wrote in message
news:E6BA435B-54BE-48CC-83D5-...
> Vista has been out for almost a year.
> I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
> bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
> I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
> Among the many Vista problems:
> Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
> files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
> was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just
> makes Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in
> a heartbeat but refuses to.
> The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
> Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
> wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.
> Explanations involving increased background software operations are just a
> euphemism for code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot
> configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one
> XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and
> half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia
> 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things like program
> opening, program installation and file copying are time by your stop
> watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.
> Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
> which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?

My machine with vista is faster than with xp

--
the highlander

you lie

unless you install was messed up with crap


"the highlander" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> My machine with vista is faster than with xp.
>
>
> --
> the highlander

O have been saying the same things fore more than a year even before vista
was officiallyt released,

Vista is a horrible monster that should not have been set loose!

dont hold you breath... you wont see any noticible improvment in vista with
SP1
the problem with vista is the way its designed.. and no service pack can
redo all the crap programming that has gotten in.

You might see better copy - move and network speeds, but everything will
still be slower than XP...


VIsta stinks big time.. those who say vista is faster than XP are totally
super MORONS!




"iacy" <> wrote in message
news:E6BA435B-54BE-48CC-83D5-...
> Vista has been out for almost a year.
> I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
> bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
> I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
> Among the many Vista problems:
> Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
> files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
> was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just
> makes Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in
> a heartbeat but refuses to.
> The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
> Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
> wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.
> Explanations involving increased background software operations are just a
> euphemism for code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot
> configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one
> XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and
> half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia
> 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things like program
> opening, program installation and file copying are time by your stop
> watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.
> Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
> which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?

"you lie"
Can you prove that statement?
Or is it just a FALSE accusation with no merit?
Many have reported better performance on a computer comparing a Clean
Installation of Windows XP vs. a Clean Install of Windows Vista on the
same hardware.
That is not to say that is typical.
But your statement "you lie" is baseless.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"vista user 43" <> wrote in message
news:...
> you lie
>
> unless you install was messed up with crap

iacy wrote:
> Vista has been out for almost a year.
> I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of
> the bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.

Such as...?

> I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.

Apologizing for what and spinning what?

> Among the many Vista problems:
> Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
> files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to
> XP was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it
> just makes Vista look even more lame than it is.

Really? Who told you that ridiculous, incorrect statement?

Microsoft could change
> this in a heartbeat but refuses to.

Where did they state they refuse to change it?

> The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
> Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
> wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.

It is? Do you even have Vista?

> Explanations involving increased background software operations are just
> a euphemism for code bloat.

Really? So you've looked at the code and decided it's "code bloat" right?

I have tried Vista in several dual boot
> configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the
> one XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for
> Vista and half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and
> an NVIdia 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things
> like program opening, program installation and file copying are time by
> your stop watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.

If you can get a cup of coffee while waiting for Vista to open then
you've got some really, really old hardware and Vista should not be
installed on it.

> Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
> which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?

Vista? That the results I get on 15 installs of X32 & X64 of Vista
Ultimate using CS3.
Frank

oh, btw...are you by any chance related to capin' crunch?

Your subject line is that sp1 "better not be vaporware."
Seems like you forgot something. Usually when someone tells somebody they'd
better not do something, it's followed by an "or else."
What's your "or else"? If it IS vaporware by your definition, what will you
do? Stop using it? Seems like you've already decided to do that.


"iacy" <> wrote in message
news:E6BA435B-54BE-48CC-83D5-...
> Vista has been out for almost a year.
> I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
> bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
> I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
> Among the many Vista problems:
> Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
> files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
> was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just
> makes Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in
> a heartbeat but refuses to.
> The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
> Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
> wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.
> Explanations involving increased background software operations are just a
> euphemism for code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot
> configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one
> XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and
> half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia
> 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things like program
> opening, program installation and file copying are time by your stop
> watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.
> Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
> which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?

Good answer :>

--
All the best,
SG
How to Write a Newsgroup Post:
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Usenet
Need your OEM Restore Disk?
http://restoredisks.com/


"DP" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Your subject line is that sp1 "better not be vaporware."
> Seems like you forgot something. Usually when someone tells somebody
> they'd better not do something, it's followed by an "or else."
> What's your "or else"? If it IS vaporware by your definition, what will
> you do? Stop using it? Seems like you've already decided to do that.
>
>
> "iacy" <> wrote in message
> news:E6BA435B-54BE-48CC-83D5-...
>> Vista has been out for almost a year.
>> I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
>> bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
>> I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
>> Among the many Vista problems:
>> Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
>> files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to
>> XP was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just
>> makes Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this
>> in a heartbeat but refuses to.
>> The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
>> Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
>> wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.
>> Explanations involving increased background software operations are just
>> a euphemism for code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot
>> configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one
>> XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and
>> half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia
>> 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things like program
>> opening, program installation and file copying are time by your stop
>> watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.
>> Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
>> which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?
>

it's not vaporware, but it doesn't fix the poor design & functionality
either.

"iacy" <> wrote in message
news:E6BA435B-54BE-48CC-83D5-...
> Vista has been out for almost a year.
> I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
> bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
> I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
> Among the many Vista problems:
> Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
> files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
> was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just
> makes Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in
> a heartbeat but refuses to.
> The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
> Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
> wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.
> Explanations involving increased background software operations are just a
> euphemism for code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot
> configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one
> XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and
> half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia
> 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things like program
> opening, program installation and file copying are time by your stop
> watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.
> Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
> which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?