Why this should be the Win7 newsgroup

KristleBawl wrote:
> Alias expressed an opinion:
>> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista
>> is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to
>> Win 7 as fast as they can.
>
> Not all, by far. :-D

Even dumb **** Frank is running away from Vista even though he used to
call it the "best OS in the world". Anyone who is dumber than Frank and
stays with Vista will get what they deserve: no support.

Alias

Yes, this is the Vista newsgroup. All new postings for Widonws 7 should be on
the new moderated website, where there are no trolls. It is

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...egory/windows7

Good luck on this present site, I am moving on (to Win 7).

"igotsaurus" wrote:

> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize with
> those who label it Vista SP3.
> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware and
> uses the same drivers.
> It hiccoughs over many of the same obstacles.
> When a device manufacturer, for example Canon, markets a "new printer" but
> it uses the same inks as prior generation printers, Canon is doing nothing
> more than selling the the old print engine in a new box.
> The reason Win 7 came out so "fast" by Microsoft standards is that mostly
> they just grafted a tweaked UI onto Vista SP2.
> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>

I like it as it is : Vista + Win7.
So much easier to navigate.

"Tony UK" <> a écrit dans le message de
news:20CD14CC-3287-438F-93F4-...
> Yes, this is the Vista newsgroup. All new postings for Widonws 7 should be
> on
> the new moderated website, where there are no trolls. It is
>
> http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...egory/windows7
>
> Good luck on this present site, I am moving on (to Win 7).
>
> "igotsaurus" wrote:
>
>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize
>> with
>> those who label it Vista SP3.
>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware and
>> uses the same drivers.
>> It hiccoughs over many of the same obstacles.
>> When a device manufacturer, for example Canon, markets a "new printer"
>> but
>> it uses the same inks as prior generation printers, Canon is doing
>> nothing
>> more than selling the the old print engine in a new box.
>> The reason Win 7 came out so "fast" by Microsoft standards is that mostly
>> they just grafted a tweaked UI onto Vista SP2.
>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>>

Tony UK wrote:
> Yes, this is the Vista newsgroup. All new postings for Widonws 7 should be on
> the new moderated website, where there are no trolls. It is
>
> http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...egory/windows7
>
> Good luck on this present site, I am moving on (to Win 7).

What site are you talking about? This is a newsgroup, not a site. Not
everything is a damn website.

"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:hdr96p$ka2$...
> +Bob+ wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:56:04 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>>
>>> igotsaurus wrote:
>>>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely sympathize
>>>> with those who label it Vista SP3.
>>> Then try and purchase Vista SP3. You can't as of yet and when you can,
>>> you'll still have Vista, not Windows 7.
>>
>> But Windows 7 should have been SP3. That fact is irrefutable. Vista is
>> broken, and even MS admits it publicly in their commercials.
>>>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware
>>>> and uses the same drivers.
>>> Windows 7 is built on the Vista engine which was almost an entirely new
>>> OS as compared to XP.
>>
>> (This is where you prove the point above that Win7 is really SP3 for
>> Vista). <snip>
>>> "...so fast?..." Sorry but Windows 7 came out "on time", which was 3 yrs
>>> after Vista. This is the "normal" new OS cycle for MS. Vista was 5 yrs.
>>
>> An here you contradict yourself again. See if you can figure it out.
>>
>>>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>>> Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology introduced
>>> for use in Vista and offers many new features not found in Vista.
>>> Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
>>> compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to run
>>> those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows 7 builds.
>>> So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old apps
>>> without any compatibility problems.
>>> You can't do that with Vista.
>>
>> In other words, they FIXED aspects of Vista that were broken (SP3).
>
> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista is
> pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to Win 7 as
> fast as they can.
>
> Alias

One thing is certain. Vista users are NOT running to Ubuntu. That is a
FACT.

Electro Lytes wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <> wrote in message
> news:hdr96p$ka2$...
>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:56:04 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> igotsaurus wrote:
>>>>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely
>>>>> sympathize with those who label it Vista SP3.
>>>> Then try and purchase Vista SP3. You can't as of yet and when you
>>>> can, you'll still have Vista, not Windows 7.
>>>
>>> But Windows 7 should have been SP3. That fact is irrefutable. Vista is
>>> broken, and even MS admits it publicly in their commercials.
>>>>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same
>>>>> hardware and uses the same drivers.
>>>> Windows 7 is built on the Vista engine which was almost an entirely
>>>> new OS as compared to XP.
>>>
>>> (This is where you prove the point above that Win7 is really SP3 for
>>> Vista). <snip>
>>>> "...so fast?..." Sorry but Windows 7 came out "on time", which was 3
>>>> yrs after Vista. This is the "normal" new OS cycle for MS. Vista was
>>>> 5 yrs.
>>>
>>> An here you contradict yourself again. See if you can figure it out.
>>>
>>>>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>>>> Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology
>>>> introduced for use in Vista and offers many new features not found
>>>> in Vista.
>>>> Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
>>>> compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to
>>>> run those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows 7
>>>> builds.
>>>> So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old
>>>> apps without any compatibility problems.
>>>> You can't do that with Vista.
>>>
>>> In other words, they FIXED aspects of Vista that were broken (SP3).
>>
>> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista
>> is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to
>> Win 7 as fast as they can.
>>
>> Alias
>
> One thing is certain. Vista users are NOT running to Ubuntu. That is
> a FACT.
>
>
>

Um, not it isn't a fact. I have nuked Vista so many times and replaced
it with Ubuntu that I've lost track. You really are in fantasy land,
aren't you?

Alias

"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:hds387$g4n$...
> Electro Lytes wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <> wrote in message
>> news:hdr96p$ka2$...
>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:56:04 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> igotsaurus wrote:
>>>>>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely
>>>>>> sympathize with those who label it Vista SP3.
>>>>> Then try and purchase Vista SP3. You can't as of yet and when you can,
>>>>> you'll still have Vista, not Windows 7.
>>>>
>>>> But Windows 7 should have been SP3. That fact is irrefutable. Vista is
>>>> broken, and even MS admits it publicly in their commercials.
>>>>>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same hardware
>>>>>> and uses the same drivers.
>>>>> Windows 7 is built on the Vista engine which was almost an entirely
>>>>> new OS as compared to XP.
>>>>
>>>> (This is where you prove the point above that Win7 is really SP3 for
>>>> Vista). <snip>
>>>>> "...so fast?..." Sorry but Windows 7 came out "on time", which was 3
>>>>> yrs after Vista. This is the "normal" new OS cycle for MS. Vista was 5
>>>>> yrs.
>>>>
>>>> An here you contradict yourself again. See if you can figure it out.
>>>>
>>>>>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>>>>> Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology introduced
>>>>> for use in Vista and offers many new features not found in Vista.
>>>>> Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
>>>>> compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to run
>>>>> those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows 7
>>>>> builds.
>>>>> So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old apps
>>>>> without any compatibility problems.
>>>>> You can't do that with Vista.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, they FIXED aspects of Vista that were broken (SP3).
>>>
>>> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support Vista
>>> is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are running to Win
>>> 7 as fast as they can.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> One thing is certain. Vista users are NOT running to Ubuntu. That is a
>> FACT.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Um, not it isn't a fact. I have nuked Vista so many times and replaced it
> with Ubuntu that I've lost track. You really are in fantasy land, aren't
> you?
>
> Alias

So what happens? Vista just keeps getting installed on your computer? What
does it do? Install itself? HA HA HA HA.

The reason you keep installing Vista is because Ubuntu is so ****ed up, you
can't use it for anything useful. That is the reason you needed to keep
installing Vista.

Now you can install Windows 7 once. Get rid of that SHITTY Ubuntu. Ubuntu
isn't good for anything other than wasting time and effort. Oops. Wasting
time is all you do. Never mind.

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> KristleBawl wrote:
>>> Alias expressed an opinion:
>>>> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support
>>>> Vista is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are
>>>> running to Win 7 as fast as they can.
>>>
>>> Not all, by far. :-D
>>
>> Even dumb **** Frank is running away from Vista even though he used to
>> call it the "best OS in the world".
>
> You stupid lying sheep-****ing POS...I'm currently using Vista on three
> of my boxes and it runs perfectly.
> Vista was the best OS available until Windows 7 came out. It's called
> progress *sport*!

I never heard of anyone playing the "progress sport". You're losing it
again.

>
> Anyone who is dumber than Frank and
> stays with Vista will get what they deserve: no support.
>
> More of your lies? Point to the official announcement by MS that they no
> longer support Vista?

Did I say "official"? If you want to pay MS like a complete fool, yes,
they will instruct you on how to reinstall Vista. If you want support
from peers, you'll just have to ask yourself.

> Well...?

Well?

> Oops!!! Just another one of your cock sucker lies huh.
> Figures!

Please explain the difference between a normal lie and a cock sucker
lie. This might be worth a laugh or two.

Alias
>
>
>

Electro Lytes wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <> wrote in message
> news:hds387$g4n$...
>> Electro Lytes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hdr96p$ka2$...
>>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:56:04 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> igotsaurus wrote:
>>>>>>> Having steadily used Win 7 since the first public I entirely
>>>>>>> sympathize with those who label it Vista SP3.
>>>>>> Then try and purchase Vista SP3. You can't as of yet and when you
>>>>>> can, you'll still have Vista, not Windows 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Windows 7 should have been SP3. That fact is irrefutable. Vista is
>>>>> broken, and even MS admits it publicly in their commercials.
>>>>>>> It is not significantly faster than Vista 64 SP2 on the same
>>>>>>> hardware and uses the same drivers.
>>>>>> Windows 7 is built on the Vista engine which was almost an
>>>>>> entirely new OS as compared to XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> (This is where you prove the point above that Win7 is really SP3 for
>>>>> Vista). <snip>
>>>>>> "...so fast?..." Sorry but Windows 7 came out "on time", which was
>>>>>> 3 yrs after Vista. This is the "normal" new OS cycle for MS. Vista
>>>>>> was 5 yrs.
>>>>>
>>>>> An here you contradict yourself again. See if you can figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vista SP2 is the engine that runs Win 7: new or old/new?
>>>>>> Here is the deal. Windows 7 is built on the new technology
>>>>>> introduced for use in Vista and offers many new features not found
>>>>>> in Vista.
>>>>>> Win 7 has also taken a major step towards the old backwards
>>>>>> compatibility/excessive baggage problem by offering Virtual XP to
>>>>>> run those old apps, if you get one of the three qualifying Windows
>>>>>> 7 builds.
>>>>>> So this allows MS to slim down Windows 7 and users get to run old
>>>>>> apps without any compatibility problems.
>>>>>> You can't do that with Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, they FIXED aspects of Vista that were broken (SP3).
>>>>
>>>> More like Vista SE. Frank thinking they will continue to support
>>>> Vista is pretty stupid considering how all the Vista users are
>>>> running to Win 7 as fast as they can.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> One thing is certain. Vista users are NOT running to Ubuntu. That
>>> is a FACT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Um, not it isn't a fact. I have nuked Vista so many times and replaced
>> it with Ubuntu that I've lost track. You really are in fantasy land,
>> aren't you?
>>
>> Alias
>
> So what happens? Vista just keeps getting installed on your computer?
> What does it do? Install itself? HA HA HA HA.
>
> The reason you keep installing Vista is because Ubuntu is so ****ed up,
> you can't use it for anything useful. That is the reason you needed to
> keep installing Vista.
>
> Now you can install Windows 7 once. Get rid of that SHITTY Ubuntu.
> Ubuntu isn't good for anything other than wasting time and effort.
> Oops. Wasting time is all you do. Never mind.
>
>
>

Once again we are treated to the nymshifter's reading comprehension
impairment.

Yawn.

Alias