Windows Vista is pure horror

Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
to develop the OS in the right direction.

Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
than three times more popular than Vista (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
).

I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
and animations that eat up your system resources.

Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.

Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?

Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.

Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
Vista is inferior to XP.

Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products. Your
best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will gladly
help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you about all the
nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores software which in
theory sounds good because the software is free but in the real world, it's
just junk.


"Pekka Numminen" <> wrote in message
news:19a60699-0fc8-4a7e-a8aa-...
> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>
> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
> than three times more popular than Vista (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
> ).
>
> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>
> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>
> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>
> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>
> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
> Vista is inferior to XP.

Sorry to her that you're having problems with Vista.

The way to approach Vista is to treat it as an entirely new OS. Vista is not
an enhanced version of XP. It is a powerful step up from XP and has powerful
features that are more suited for business applications. UAC, sharing
permissions and Search are confusing to the average user who first approaches
Vista, but once understood these features will give the user more control,
protection and increase productivity. To master Vista it takes time and
patience and experience. If I had the money I'd replace all of my XP's for
Vista machines.

FTR: I am not an employee of MS nor do I have any economic connection with
them. Vista is simply superior to XP.


--
oscar

....Right click is your very good friend...


"Pekka Numminen" wrote:

> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>
> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
> than three times more popular than Vista (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
> ).
>
> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>
> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>
> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>
> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>
> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
> Vista is inferior to XP.
>

Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
> Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products. Your
> best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will gladly
> help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you about all the
> nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores software which in
> theory sounds good because the software is free but in the real world, it's
> just junk.

Speaking of junk, you're posting with Outhouse Distress, one of, if the
the, worst email programs available. Ergo, your advice should be taken
with a grain of salt.

Alias
>
>
> "Pekka Numminen" <> wrote in message
> news:19a60699-0fc8-4a7e-a8aa-...
>> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
>> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
>> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>>
>> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
>> than three times more popular than Vista (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
>> ).
>>
>> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
>> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
>> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
>> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
>> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
>> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>>
>> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
>> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
>> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
>> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
>> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>>
>> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
>> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
>> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
>> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>>
>> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
>> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
>> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
>> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>>
>> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
>> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
>> Vista is inferior to XP.
>
>

"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:gaea26$mbd$...
> Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
>> Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products. Your
>> best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will
>> gladly help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you about
>> all the nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores software
>> which in theory sounds good because the software is free but in the real
>> world, it's just junk.
>
> Speaking of junk, you're posting with Outhouse Distress, one of, if the
> the, worst email programs available. Ergo, your advice should be taken
> with a grain of salt.
>
> Alias
>>
>>

Outlook Express works. I can see the posts in groups and reply to what I
want. No problem here. Some people just don't know how to use programs.
Especially Open Source software which is marginal at best.


>> "Pekka Numminen" <> wrote in message
>> news:19a60699-0fc8-4a7e-a8aa-...
>>> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
>>> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
>>> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>>>
>>> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
>>> than three times more popular than Vista (
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
>>> ).
>>>
>>> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
>>> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
>>> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
>>> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
>>> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
>>> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>>>
>>> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
>>> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
>>> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
>>> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
>>> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>>>
>>> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
>>> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
>>> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
>>> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>>>
>>> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
>>> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
>>> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
>>> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>>>
>>> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
>>> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
>>> Vista is inferior to XP.
>>

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:52:24 -0700, "Bill M. Yanaire"
<> wrote:

>
>"Alias" <> wrote in message
>news:gaea26$mbd$...
>> Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
>>> Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products. Your
>>> best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will
>>> gladly help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you about
>>> all the nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores software
>>> which in theory sounds good because the software is free but in the real
>>> world, it's just junk.
>>
>> Speaking of junk, you're posting with Outhouse Distress, one of, if the
>> the, worst email programs available. Ergo, your advice should be taken
>> with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>
>Outlook Express works.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. You keep trying to look
intelligent and always fail in the attempt. The only thing you do half
way well is make an ass of yourself.

"Ringmaster" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:52:24 -0700, "Bill M. Yanaire"
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alias" <> wrote in message
>>news:gaea26$mbd$...
>>> Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
>>>> Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products.
>>>> Your
>>>> best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will
>>>> gladly help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you about
>>>> all the nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores
>>>> software
>>>> which in theory sounds good because the software is free but in the
>>>> real
>>>> world, it's just junk.
>>>
>>> Speaking of junk, you're posting with Outhouse Distress, one of, if the
>>> the, worst email programs available. Ergo, your advice should be taken
>>> with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Outlook Express works.
>
> Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. You keep trying to look
> intelligent and always fail in the attempt. The only thing you do half
> way well is make an ass of yourself.
>

The only thing you do all the way is make a fool of yourself. Add another
"notch" to your insult count. Pretty soon when a search is done, there will
be 97,000+ insulting posts with Adam Albright and then Ringmaster. Keep up
the good work. You are getting as predicable as Old Faithful in
"Jellystone"

Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
> "Alias" <> wrote in message
> news:gaea26$mbd$...
>> Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
>>> Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products. Your
>>> best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will
>>> gladly help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you about
>>> all the nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores software
>>> which in theory sounds good because the software is free but in the real
>>> world, it's just junk.
>> Speaking of junk, you're posting with Outhouse Distress, one of, if the
>> the, worst email programs available. Ergo, your advice should be taken
>> with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Alias
>>>
>
> Outlook Express works. I can see the posts in groups and reply to what I
> want. No problem here. Some people just don't know how to use programs.
> Especially Open Source software which is marginal at best.

Let your Inbox grow to 1 gig and see how well it "works". Have a power
failure when you're compacting messages and see how well it "works". I
used OE for years and the back up is a pain and its size limitation is a
joke. Open source T-Bird is way better than OE, which even Microsoft
won't support anymore.

Alias
>
>
>>> "Pekka Numminen" <> wrote in message
>>> news:19a60699-0fc8-4a7e-a8aa-...
>>>> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
>>>> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
>>>> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>>>>
>>>> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
>>>> than three times more popular than Vista (
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
>>>> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
>>>> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
>>>> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
>>>> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
>>>> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>>>>
>>>> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
>>>> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
>>>> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
>>>> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
>>>> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>>>>
>>>> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
>>>> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
>>>> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
>>>> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>>>>
>>>> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
>>>> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
>>>> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
>>>> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>>>>
>>>> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
>>>> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
>>>> Vista is inferior to XP.
>

"Alias" <> wrote in message
news:gaeape$tin$...
> Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
>> "Alias" <> wrote in message
>> news:gaea26$mbd$...
>>> Bill M. Yanaire wrote:
>>>> Sounds like you are having lots of trouble with Microsoft products.
>>>> Your best bet is to hunt down our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he
>>>> will gladly help you install Ubuntu on your PC. He will then tell you
>>>> about all the nice programs that you can use for Free. Like OpenSores
>>>> software which in theory sounds good because the software is free but
>>>> in the real world, it's just junk.
>>> Speaking of junk, you're posting with Outhouse Distress, one of, if the
>>> the, worst email programs available. Ergo, your advice should be taken
>>> with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>>
>>
>> Outlook Express works. I can see the posts in groups and reply to what I
>> want. No problem here. Some people just don't know how to use programs.
>> Especially Open Source software which is marginal at best.
>
> Let your Inbox grow to 1 gig and see how well it "works". Have a power
> failure when you're compacting messages and see how well it "works". I
> used OE for years and the back up is a pain and its size limitation is a
> joke. Open source T-Bird is way better than OE, which even Microsoft won't
> support anymore.
>
> Alias
>>
>>
I only use Outlook Express for newsgroups. E-mail is covered by a different
application.

"Bill M. Yanaire" <> wrote in message
news:t%xyk.88$...
>
> Some people just don't know how to use programs.

Like you! DUHHHH!!

ss.