"Frank" wrote in message
...
Rene Brehmer wrote:




Yes, but Vista takes the cake as the worst piece of crap...

Sorry, but that is simply not true.

to come out of Richmond yet.

Richmond? You must mean Redmond right?


I'm surprised noone's taken them to court yet for selling a
clearly unfinished product as anything but a beta.

So you're saying you can't get your install of Vista to run properly?
Which version of Vista do you have, and exactly what problem do you have?
Frank

I have three different Vista based computers. All of which run quite well
and very few hiccups. See what it seems to be to me is that a lot of people
expect their computer to run perfectly and flawlessly every day, every time,
every second even though they won't defragment their hard drives, keep their
computers, clean, and have a decent level of knowledge about how to install
their programs and their computer.

They don't bother to learn the ins and outs of a computer and its hardware
much less try to do anything with software. I am not a programmer and its
really not my interest or desire to do that for a career or fun. However, I
do know what works and what doesn't and I know how to make what doesn't
work, work and keep what does work running efficiently.

I've been working with computers probably 20 plus years at this point.
Sometimes spending 8 to 10 hours a day working at one. Depends on what I
like to do. Sometimes its listening to podcasts, music, or watching DVD
video on online fare. Other times its word processing, ham software, design
software, and things of that type. Sometimes its just web browsing, online
audio and streaming audio ran through the computer all night long with no
problems.

I've had computers back in the Windows 95 and 98 DAYS that crashed. In fact,
I can't count how many times I had a 95 based system crash and then have to
reinstall everything. 98 was a much more stable system largely because it
was more developed. Millenium Edition was pretty marginal at best.

XP was probably the best version to come out versus all of the prior
systems. Least problems with crashing which meant you could keep your data
and not be constantly reinstalling the software and all your programs.

Vista hasn't given me a bare minimum of trouble. Its all about knowing how
to use it and how to utilize what you have in front of you. For rookies, you
might learn how the Ctrl-Alt-Delete function works that way if a program
becomes unstable due to not loading correctly or operating effectively, that
you can back out of the program and start again. Also, learn in your Task
Manager how to pull out of programs without hitting the programs and instead
find the Processes menu and learn which programs you are running and how you
can shut those programs down just in case Applications locks up. That does
happen on all versions of Microsoft software.

For the Linux supporters out there, it would be a great concept for the vast
majority of system users except that often the software is in no way
interchangeable between a Windows environment and a Linux environment. Not
to mention that Linux leaves a little bit to be desired as far as operator
functions go. There are some speed benefits to Linux especially in program
loading, booting up, and overall operation. Its a faster system. The only
problem is that you have to figure out what version can actually work well
with your system. All versions of Linux are not the same. Ive used Mandrake
before and it was useless for the most part. So I scrapped that plan and
went back to Microsoft based applications.

Its really all about what your level of comfort and experience are in using
a PC. If you don't know, then perhaps you should take a class in basic
computer operations and hardware that way you know what is needed to
actually run it. No matter how easy Microsoft makes the system, there will
always be someone there to screw things up. No matter how good the
programmer is, there is always going to be glitches in the system. Every
occupation I've ever worked in always had its share of problems either with
equipment or those running the equipment. Running a personal computer is no
different

"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:m2j0k.309335$pM4.146740@pd7urf1no...

"Billy Smith" wrote in message
m...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
Billy Smith wrote:

B I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web
browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like
what older models did. XP included.

You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less
risk and hassle.

Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of my
machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing software
than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like that other
computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a Mac for
toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do 1/3 of
what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a lot of
personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and early part
of this decade.

It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it
Crap versus Mac.

Linux and Apple have their place, and with your comments I doubt you have
ever owned an Apple.

The HUGE benefit of Linux over say Vista is Linux is not DRM invasive.

I never owned an apple but I used to have a lot of experience running the
Apple/Mac system. I wasn't impressed with anything that it could allegedly
do. Personally it was like an overhyped Ipod phone or Touch. A lot of glitz
but little real performance. Not user friendly, not even for the novice. I
probably spent at least a year on that sort of a system and I was none too
impressed. Thats why Mac will never catch up to Microsoft in anything. The
only people I personally knew that used Macs were kids wanting to use it for
graphics. For business operations, office work, etc, it was never worth
anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the time of day for even audio
listening or multimedia video and audio.

If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't everyone
in the world switch to Macs. Since there is a free market in computers and a
great deal of industriousness and ingenuity in the computer industry, then
Macs should be right up there. Not to mention the facts are that a Microsoft
based system can be had for 300 to 1000 dolllars and a good one at that.

What does a Crap cost? I was in the local Apple store recently here in
Louisville KY. It was laughable that they wanted twice as much as any
Microsoft PC and with less performance capabilities, less general respect.
You'll see who buried who in the computer systems operating business
environment. It sure wasn't Mac. Probably more people use Linux than Mac and
thats sad.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Billy Smith wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
Billy Smith wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
Or the owner not being able to afford a 900 terahertz 16-core
processor
with 100 terabytes of memory.

What makes this interesting to me is that I paid 200 dollars for the
desktop
computer brand new out of the box at Circuit City.

Details, please. At that price point I could justify having a laptop
myself.

The first computer I ever booted Vista on was a friend's laptop, a
quad-core
Intel something near 3 GHz. It took over ten minutes to boot this
almost-
brand-new-with-nothing-added computer.

Its never taken me ten minutes to boot any of my computers.

It's never taken me ten minutes to boot anything, including mainframes
or minicomputers, until that Vista boot. The only thing that ever took
longer was loading BASIC onto minis from paper tape in the seventies.
That took about 45 minutes at about four characters per second.

What I will
recommend is not to have a lot of stuff in your start menu

This was a brand-new laptop given to me by the owner's boyfriend for a
once-over and recommendations on virus/spyware/etc protection. The only
things that had been added to it were Kodak software and about 50
pictures.
I did describe it as "almost-brand-new-with-nothing-added".

--
Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

I just turned on the desktop Vista machine and it took about two minutes at
most to boot up. After I added the password for my system protection. So
thats about enough time to walk to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee. I was
on the internet in the third minute. Computer running flawlessly from the
get go. So you can be the Linux advocate all you would like, but facts are
that Linux isnt all its cracked up to be.

Regarding this computer, I paid 200 for the computer itself and added a 200
buck 20 inch monitor.

Its funny that you mention that your laptop runs so slowly. Yet I have a
laptop with 120 GB full of information, music, videos and it doesn't take
me 10 minutes or even 5 to start up. Not to mention it has about 10 things
in the start menu at the very start. Maybe takes 3 or 4 minutes to access
the net through my wireless card and the router across the house

For it to take 10 minutes would be cumbersome and boring at best. I would
seriously have to wonder what you really are claiming to have on your
computer because I have had 3 different computer on today and none took more
than 3 minutes to boot up.

On May 31, 4:49 pm, Dave wrote:
Billy Smith wrote:

Its never taken me ten minutes to boot any of my computers. What I will
recommend is not to have a lot of stuff in your start menu Some people
go crazy with that and thats a big problem whether you were running
95,98, XP, or Vista. It takes mine maybe 2 to 3 minutes max which is
good time to get some coffee, use the can, or make a quick phone call.
Then with Insight 10.0 and wireless router and the built in wireless
card, we are ready to go.

My eeepc (screaming 630 Megahertz Celeron) goes from cold start to
Xubuntu in ca. 50 seconds. My full-on Ubuntu desktop takes 90 seconds,
with a 1.5 gHz Via C7.



Dell, 2.2 Gig Pentium 4,
One gig memory
7200 RPM Disk
35 Meg bus:

0 - XP Desktop == 33 seconds

0 - Ubuntu Login screen 28 seconds.

I haven't had any experience with Vista, but XP Professional has been
running for several years, with no problems. I have some processes such as
prefetch, Messenger, and autorun disabled. The only update I have installed
is Service Pack 2. I ordered the CD from Microsoft several years ago. IE6,
with its multiple security holes runs much better than IE7. I purged that
browser. I use Firefox as my internet browser........it seems to have
tighter security.
Linux is still my favorite operating platform, but unfortunately, it is
incompatible with the electrical engineering programs that I use. When it
eventually grows up, I thing Linux will be the way to go. Microsoft has a
tendency to write quite a bit of "bloatware", but they do a better job of
coding their operating system than I would ever be able to do.
I have heard quite a few bad things about Vista, but I have heard quite a
few bad things about some radio equipment, such as the Eton E1.
When I spoke to the person over at R.L. Drake who does the repair on these
radios, he stated that very few of the E1s come in for repair. Maybe people
just throw them in the dumpster out of frustration!
The point is........sometimes sour grapes tend to exaggerate problems that
might turn up. I don't have the answer on that one.

Pete

"Billy Smith" wrote in message
m...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
Billy Smith wrote:

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Billy Smith wrote:
"Rene Brehmer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:25:56 -0700, dave wrote:

David wrote:


Windows XP is fast, RELIABLE, and meets the needs of the vast
majority
of PC users

Huh!? XP is klunky and wastes resources. Puppy Linux works better
for
most routine tasks.

Yes, but Vista takes the cake as the worst piece of crap to come out
of
Richmond yet. I'm surprised noone's taken them to court yet for
selling a
clearly unfinished product as anything but a beta.

I work with Windows all day. That's why we have a Mac at home.
--
Rene Brehmer
IT Technician

North Hill Inn
http://www.northhillinn.com

That's funny. I have three computers running on Vista utilizing them
playing
music, movies, word processing, document saving, and about every
application
you can use. No problems here just as long as you really know what you
are
doing. Maybe its not the software causing the problem but the user not
knowing how to properly operate the computer.

Or the owner not being able to afford a 900 terahertz 16-core processor
with 100 terabytes of memory.


What makes this interesting to me is that I paid 200 dollars for the
desktop computer brand new out of the box at Circuit City. Computer was
originally 409 dollars and discounted to 200. Worked great right out of
the box. I didn't have a bit of problem with that computer and its about
a year old. Next pieces I bought were two laptops one from last August
and the other this February. HP for both of them and spent 1500 for both
of them in total. Both with 1 GB of ram apiece. 160 GB drive on one and
250 GB on the other. AMD processor on both 2.0 Ghz plus speed. So
basically 700 bucks for one laptop and 800 for another. I've been seeing
desktops for maybe 500-700 which is pretty reasonable.

And these miracle babies all run Vista flawlessly?

I don't have a bit of a problem with Vista. Its called keeping your
computer system clear of garbage, file clutter, and everything else that
someone who has the money to afford a computer should know. I don't have
system crash problems such as certain programs crashing. Its called
keeping your file structures clean and having good equipment to work with.
I've got 85 percent of one computer filled with audio files, documents,
etc. Not a bit of a problem keeping it running. Not to mention watching
Netflix videos and everything else on there. This computer I have had
since August 2007. Maybe had to reboot once due to a program getting all
locked up and not responding. Otherwise, learn your stuff. I've been
working on computers since well into the 1980s in fact having a Commodore
and all of that sort of thing. I've used Windows 95, 98, Millenium
Edition, XP and now Vista. I've had the least problems out of Vista than
any of the older models. I think people forget when 95 would crash quite
often. 98 was quite a bit better. Millenium was nothing to write home
about.

In fact, I also have three working XP machines. All of which suit my
purposes but personally I've found that XP and its supporting programs you
run on XP tend to be slow and choppy in performance. It tends to lock up
more frequently than I have ever seen Vista do. When it doesn't lock up
the computer on XP, it tends to slow applications. One fix for that might
be adding some RAM to supercharge the computer. That always helps. Might
cost you 100 bucks these days to do that but if you're picky its well
worth it.

I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web browsing.
I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like what older
models did. XP included.

Billy Smith wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
Billy Smith wrote:

B I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web
browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like
what older models did. XP included.

You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less
risk and hassle.

Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of my
machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing software
than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like that other
computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a Mac for
toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do 1/3 of
what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a lot of
personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and early part
of this decade.

It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it
Crap versus Mac.

I defer to your obvious expertise.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Billy Smith wrote:

How do you explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the case
of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that Microsoft
makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does have its use
and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for an operating
system. However, if you consider speed anything you should use Linux. Yet
when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will find that they
aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your drive to use both
Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with what you know.
For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no need
for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux based
systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the computer field
very well might get some usage out of it. For most people, they are content
in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and play applications.

Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run a
program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable uses
that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that advantage
because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of which I have
at least one in each operating system. You can put in any program that is
made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for converting your
system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its not really worth
the time for most people

If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that works
for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer user that
exists in the general public, then most people go for Microsoft. They're not
going to use Linux and I would venture than Microsoft is much more
recognizable than what Linux has been or probably will ever be.

Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going to
catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.

Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're still
stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I would
have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have to use
ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and it was a
joke for phone service but also their customer service section was
incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and know
what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.

Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics users,
game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for servers,
internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store here in
Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000 dollars when a
basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts. When Apple learns
to market their computers and systems correctly and produce something worth
really having, then they will take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer
competition wise.

On May 31, 9:07 pm, Dave wrote:
Billy Smith wrote:

How do you explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png


- and how will Microsoft ad Intel respond to This :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

or this:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37677/113/


Nvidia is on the Horizon for Supercomputing, guys..

"Billy Smith" wrote in message
m...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:m2j0k.309335$pM4.146740@pd7urf1no...

"Billy Smith" wrote in message
m...

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
Billy Smith wrote:

B I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web
browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like
what older models did. XP included.

You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less
risk and hassle.

Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of my
machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing software
than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like that other
computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a Mac for
toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do 1/3 of
what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a lot of
personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and early part
of this decade.

It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it
Crap versus Mac.

Linux and Apple have their place, and with your comments I doubt you have
ever owned an Apple.

The HUGE benefit of Linux over say Vista is Linux is not DRM invasive.

I never owned an apple but I used to have a lot of experience running the
Apple/Mac system. I wasn't impressed with anything that it could allegedly
do. Personally it was like an overhyped Ipod phone or Touch. A lot of
glitz but little real performance. Not user friendly, not even for the
novice. I probably spent at least a year on that sort of a system and I
was none too impressed. Thats why Mac will never catch up to Microsoft in
anything. The only people I personally knew that used Macs were kids
wanting to use it for graphics. For business operations, office work, etc,
it was never worth anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the time of
day for even audio listening or multimedia video and audio.

If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't
everyone in the world switch to Macs. Since there is a free market in
computers and a great deal of industriousness and ingenuity in the
computer industry, then Macs should be right up there. Not to mention the
facts are that a Microsoft based system can be had for 300 to 1000
dolllars and a good one at that.

What does a Crap cost? I was in the local Apple store recently here in
Louisville KY. It was laughable that they wanted twice as much as any
Microsoft PC and with less performance capabilities, less general respect.
You'll see who buried who in the computer systems operating business
environment. It sure wasn't Mac. Probably more people use Linux than Mac
and thats sad.

Apples market share is growing. Which stock would you rather own?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=A...urce=undefined

Wall Street sees the numbers.

"RHF" wrote in message
...

MAC/Apples has three problems to Real Growth and
becoming a the Premier World Wide Standard :
propioritory, Proprietary. PROPRIETARY ! -aka-
single-source, Single-Source. SINGLE SOURCE !

I agree with your statement, the proprietary locking comes at a cost.
Usually in a form of lack of competition. PCs have gone from IBM 8088
4.7MHz @ $8,000 to less than $600.

Software, namely Microsoft has done the opposite, abet not to the same
extreme.

That being said, Apples move to Intel chips makes this less so. Apple could
in theory from this point forward slowly start adding first class driver
support and shift modes out of hardware+software to just software.
Leaveraging the cost advantages of commodity PCs. In essense, todays Apple
is a PC, a modified and much more standaradized version, but a PC none the
less.

The future could get interesting fast.