How Vista development should have been...

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) !

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) !
>
>
>
>

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) !
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"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!

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) !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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) !
>
>
>
>

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?

"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