Windows Vista Tips

Windows Vista Tips > Newsgroups > Windows Vista General Discussion > How Vista development should have been...

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

How Vista development should have been...

 
 
fered carleck
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-31-2008
I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the state
of the art machines
with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.

There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
Vista.

Its slow
its bloated
its ugly on CRT screens,
with bad colors and darn right bad taste!

They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
vista can run on...

a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
screens!!!!

THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!

The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER FASTER
LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!

This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Danie Vink
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-31-2008
Use something else then..... Windows 95 should do for you, or, would you
like 3.1 instead?


"fered carleck" <> wrote in message
news:47a17b0b$...
>I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the
>state of the art machines
> with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
>
> There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
> Vista.
>
> Its slow
> its bloated
> its ugly on CRT screens,
> with bad colors and darn right bad taste!
>
> They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
> vista can run on...
>
> a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
> screens!!!!
>
> THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!
>
> The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER FASTER
> LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!
>
> This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
> ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-31-2008
the most advanced design in anything you can imagine, is one that is
streamlined sleek fast and lean

the exact opposite of vista!

"Danie Vink" <> wrote in message
news:O%23S%23Jg%.. .
> Use something else then..... Windows 95 should do for you, or, would you
> like 3.1 instead?
>
>
> "fered carleck" <> wrote in message
> news:47a17b0b$...
>>I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the
>>state of the art machines
>> with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
>>
>> There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
>> Vista.
>>
>> Its slow
>> its bloated
>> its ugly on CRT screens,
>> with bad colors and darn right bad taste!
>>
>> They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
>> vista can run on...
>>
>> a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
>> screens!!!!
>>
>> THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!
>>
>> The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER
>> FASTER LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!
>>
>> This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
>> ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ranger2306
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-31-2008

"fered carleck" <> wrote in message
news:47a17b0b$...
>I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the
>state of the art machines
> with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
>
> There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
> Vista.
>
> Its slow
> its bloated
> its ugly on CRT screens,
> with bad colors and darn right bad taste!
>
> They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
> vista can run on...
>
> a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
> screens!!!!
>
> THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!
>
> The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER FASTER
> LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!
>
> This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
> ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !


Am I correct in assuming that you really expected Microsoft to provide you
with a viable system on their first attempt?
Do you mean to say that this is the first time you have bought a
commercially available Beta system from Microsoft and then helped them to
develope it into something that works reasonably well by discovering it's
bugs for them? My goodness!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Danie Vink
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-31-2008
Then get Linux . . . But stop whinging.

"Ron" <> wrote in message
news:47a19505$...
> the most advanced design in anything you can imagine, is one that is
> streamlined sleek fast and lean
>
> the exact opposite of vista!
>
> "Danie Vink" <> wrote in message
> news:O%23S%23Jg%.. .
>> Use something else then..... Windows 95 should do for you, or, would you
>> like 3.1 instead?
>>
>>
>> "fered carleck" <> wrote in message
>> news:47a17b0b$...
>>>I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the
>>>state of the art machines
>>> with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
>>>
>>> There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
>>> Vista.
>>>
>>> Its slow
>>> its bloated
>>> its ugly on CRT screens,
>>> with bad colors and darn right bad taste!
>>>
>>> They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
>>> vista can run on...
>>>
>>> a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch
>>> CRT screens!!!!
>>>
>>> THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!
>>>
>>> The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER
>>> FASTER LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!
>>>
>>> This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
>>> ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Not Me
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-31-2008
That isn't realistic, but they could have done much better than to hire all
the laid off AOL programmers with the 'protect me from myself' mindset.
A 'pretty' interface doesn't mean diddly squat to me; I just want my machine
to run whatever I am using and FAST.
The OS should be an end to that means, not an impediment!
I don't want (or need) the eye candy, indexing, UAC or many of the other
supposed 'improvements' in Vista.

"fered carleck" <> wrote in message
news:47a17b0b$...
>I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the
>state of the art machines
> with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
>
> There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
> Vista.
>
> Its slow
> its bloated
> its ugly on CRT screens,
> with bad colors and darn right bad taste!
>
> They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
> vista can run on...
>
> a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
> screens!!!!
>
> THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!
>
> The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER FASTER
> LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!
>
> This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
> ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
GeraldF
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-01-2008
In article <47a17b0b$>,
says...

> They should have >gave< the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
> vista can run on...


Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ross
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-03-2008

"fered carleck" <> wrote in message
news:47a17b0b$...
>I suspect that the idiot developers working on vista must have had the
>state of the art machines
> with huge high resolution screens and infinite disks pace etc.
>
> There is no other explanation for the SLOPPY and IRRESPONSIBLE status of
> Vista.
>
> Its slow
> its bloated
> its ugly on CRT screens,
> with bad colors and darn right bad taste!
>
> They should have gave the moron developers the kind of machines they SAY
> vista can run on...
>
> a 800 Mhz CPU with 20 gb hard disk space and 256 Mb of ram on 15 inch CRT
> screens!!!!
>
> THAT WOULD TEACH THEM to not BLOAT!
>
> The result of this would that they would be forced to make a BETTER FASTER
> LEANER MORE STREAMLINED PRODUCT!
>
> This also means that when you would put it on a dual core with 2 gigs of
> ram, the OS would FLY not simply RUN (vista now crawls) !
>
>>>>>>

I love Vista! It is fast! the glass effect is great and I have never had any
problems since I started using it last year. I have a Compaq laptop with
Intel Core 2 Duo, 2gb of ram and 160gb hard drive and it runs as smooth as
honey. A few tweaks should solve your problem if it is running slow.

Ross

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vista Development using VS 2003.NET Deb54 Windows Vista General Discussion 6 02-03-2008 04:03 AM
Vista Home Premium and Development abcd Windows Vista General Discussion 1 07-05-2007 01:11 AM
Whats with HP Vista driver development ? steveb Windows Vista General Discussion 49 02-07-2007 05:34 AM
6 billion spent in development of Vista. Mario Rosario \(info\) Windows Vista General Discussion 15 01-24-2007 02:49 AM
Development for Windows Vista Kumar Lomash Windows Vista General Discussion 1 06-06-2006 01:23 PM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59