! Windows 7 Sucks

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb

On 11/29/2011 11:55 AM, Microsoft Rippoff wrote:
Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.


yawn

It's just another troll clown that seems to be hounding another NG too.

HTH

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message ...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP
installation back twice before finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone will look past your ranting and decide to help
:-)
--
SC Tom

"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message
...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with
ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP installation back twice before finally
sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on
them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows
has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone
will look past your ranting and decide to help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to keep
an XP machine for this
- the file-search capabilities of Vista and 7 are CRAP compared with those
on XP: they don't consistently find files with names that contain desired
text
- the Explorer shell has a habit of deciding for me how to display a list of
files (whether as a one-line-per-file list of filenames, as icons and with
various different columns depending on what sort of files it finds; I want
the standard filename, last modified date, file size headings for *all*
folders)
- Windows Live Mail has a crap user-interface compared with Outlook Express
and Windows Mail

I can live with these, mostly.

I use Firefox rather than IE, so I can't comment on IE9.

On 29/11/2011 17:42, Mortimer wrote:
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message
...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble
with ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP installation back twice
before finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have;
good on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since
Windows has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe
someone will look past your ranting and decide to help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to
keep an XP machine for this

I was doing the same with my scanner until I realized that a new one
costs less than I paid for the Epson 1200; and it's better quality and
also does printing and copying.

Ed

"Mortimer" wrote in message o.uk...
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message ...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP
installation back twice before finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone will look past your ranting and decide to
help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to keep an XP machine for this

Actually, that's Epson's fault, not Microsoft's.

- the file-search capabilities of Vista and 7 are CRAP compared with those on XP: they don't consistently find files
with names that contain desired text

Agreed. That's why I use Agent Ransack.

- the Explorer shell has a habit of deciding for me how to display a list of files (whether as a one-line-per-file
list of filenames, as icons and with various different columns depending on what sort of files it finds; I want the
standard filename, last modified date, file size headings for *all* folders)

Not a big deal for me. I kinda like my music folders sorted by track number, picture folders showing large icons, etc.
But that's just me; others have their own likes and dislikes, and that's fine.

- Windows Live Mail has a crap user-interface compared with Outlook Express and Windows Mail

Not a part of Windows 7. It came with no native mail program.


I can live with these, mostly.

Me, too, mostly :-)


I use Firefox rather than IE, so I can't comment on IE9.

I didn't care for Firefox (been quite some time since I tried it, to be honest), so I came back to IE8, then
updated/upgraded to IE9. I didn't like it so much at first, but after a little customization, it's almost the same as
IE8 visually, but is a bit faster than IE8 on my XP desktop (which has a much faster quad core CPU than my laptops dual
core).
--
SC Tom

"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Mortimer" wrote in message
o.uk...
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message
...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with
ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP installation back twice before
finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good
on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows
has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone
will look past your ranting and decide to help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to
keep an XP machine for this

Actually, that's Epson's fault, not Microsoft's.

True.

- the file-search capabilities of Vista and 7 are CRAP compared with
those on XP: they don't consistently find files with names that contain
desired text

Agreed. That's why I use Agent Ransack.

I'll give that a try. I presume it allows me to find all files whose name
contains a given word (dir | grep "text" in Unix-speak) or to search for a
word in the contents of (text) files (grep "text" *.*), as the XP file
search tool did, and can be set to search additionally for hidden/system
files and in hidden/system folders.

- the Explorer shell has a habit of deciding for me how to display a list
of files (whether as a one-line-per-file list of filenames, as icons and
with various different columns depending on what sort of files it finds;
I want the standard filename, last modified date, file size headings for
*all* folders)

Not a big deal for me. I kinda like my music folders sorted by track
number, picture folders showing large icons, etc. But that's just me;
others have their own likes and dislikes, and that's fine.

The problem is that the folder customisation (right-click on a folder,
Properties, Customise, Use this type of folder as a template) resets itself
every so often. I usually set all folders to type All Items, irrespective of
how I display the files (filnames, icons etc) so that if I do need to
display photos or videos as filenames temporarily for locating a file that
has too long a name to be displayed under the icon, I can then sort by date
of modification. Seeing date photo taken or image dimensions for a list of
video files or documents isn't a great deal of use.

- Windows Live Mail has a crap user-interface compared with Outlook
Express and Windows Mail

Not a part of Windows 7. It came with no native mail program.

My Windows 7 PC came with Windows Live Mail already installed. I'd assumed
it was part of Win 7, but it could have been preinstalled by Dell (since
people would want a working email client) as part of their build process.

The problem with installing any other email program than WLM is that I'd
have to install it on my Vista laptop as well in case I wanted to forward
any messages from the Sent Items mailbox on the laptop to the Sent Items on
the Win 7 desktop for consolidation and backup to external HDD, and I bet if
you attach an email in Windows Mail format and send it to Thunderbird or
whatever, Thunderbird won't be able to read it as a valid email. I'd prefer
it if all email clients (irrespective of their user interfaces) used an
industry-standard file format for messages and folders.

On 29 Nov 2011, "Mortimer" wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

The problem with installing any other email program than WLM is
that I'd have to install it on my Vista laptop as well in case I
wanted to forward any messages from the Sent Items mailbox on the
laptop to the Sent Items on the Win 7 desktop for consolidation
and backup to external HDD, and I bet if you attach an email in
Windows Mail format and send it to Thunderbird or whatever,
Thunderbird won't be able to read it as a valid email.

That's not an issue. You should try it yourself and see.

"Mortimer" wrote in message ...
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Mortimer" wrote in message o.uk...
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message ...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP
installation back twice before finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone will look past your ranting and decide to
help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to keep an XP machine for this

Actually, that's Epson's fault, not Microsoft's.

True.

- the file-search capabilities of Vista and 7 are CRAP compared with those on XP: they don't consistently find files
with names that contain desired text

Agreed. That's why I use Agent Ransack.

I'll give that a try. I presume it allows me to find all files whose name contains a given word (dir | grep "text" in
Unix-speak) or to search for a word in the contents of (text) files (grep "text" *.*), as the XP file search tool did,
and can be set to search additionally for hidden/system files and in hidden/system folders.

Yes, it will. It's very versatile and best of all, FREE! It has a number of features that I haven't even delved into
since I haven't had a need for them. . . yet.


- the Explorer shell has a habit of deciding for me how to display a list of files (whether as a one-line-per-file
list of filenames, as icons and with various different columns depending on what sort of files it finds; I want the
standard filename, last modified date, file size headings for *all* folders)

Not a big deal for me. I kinda like my music folders sorted by track number, picture folders showing large icons,
etc. But that's just me; others have their own likes and dislikes, and that's fine.

The problem is that the folder customisation (right-click on a folder, Properties, Customise, Use this type of folder
as a template) resets itself every so often. I usually set all folders to type All Items, irrespective of how I
display the files (filnames, icons etc) so that if I do need to display photos or videos as filenames temporarily for
locating a file that has too long a name to be displayed under the icon, I can then sort by date of modification.
Seeing date photo taken or image dimensions for a list of video files or documents isn't a great deal of use.

- Windows Live Mail has a crap user-interface compared with Outlook Express and Windows Mail

Not a part of Windows 7. It came with no native mail program.

My Windows 7 PC came with Windows Live Mail already installed. I'd assumed it was part of Win 7, but it could have
been preinstalled by Dell (since people would want a working email client) as part of their build process.

If it was there when you bought it, you're correct in assuming Dell installed it (along with plenty of unnecessary
garbage, if Dell is anything like HP/Compaq or Gateway).


The problem with installing any other email program than WLM is that I'd have to install it on my Vista laptop as well
in case I wanted to forward any messages from the Sent Items mailbox on the laptop to the Sent Items on the Win 7
desktop for consolidation and backup to external HDD, and I bet if you attach an email in Windows Mail format and send
it to Thunderbird or whatever, Thunderbird won't be able to read it as a valid email. I'd prefer it if all email
clients (irrespective of their user interfaces) used an industry-standard file format for messages and folders.

Now you're just being unreasonable (in the various companies' way of thinking, not mine). That sounds like a great idea,
but I'm willing to bet it will never come to fruition. But, hey, everyone loves a dreamer :-)
--
SC Tom

In message , Mortimer
writes:
[]
In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

(For the month or two I had a 7 machine to play with, I found I disliked
it a lot less than I was expecting to: I think it's a "good" Windows, on
the whole. I even understood what they were trying to do with libraries
[basically, make links work properly, like they did in Unix], though
some of the implementation needs tweaking.)

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need
to keep an XP machine for this

Actually, that's Epson's fault, not Microsoft's.

True.

No, I would say it _is_ Microsoft's, for making an OS (or OS variant)
which can't use older drivers. Why should hardware manufacturers have to
keep producing new drivers (especially for kit they no longer make -
don't know if that's the case in this case)?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We'd agreed to overlook each others' families and everything, and get married"
(The Trouble with Harry)

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:02:32 -0500, "SC Tom" wrote:


"Mortimer" wrote in message o.uk...
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message ...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP
installation back twice before finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone will look past your ranting and decide to
help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to keep an XP machine for this

Actually, that's Epson's fault, not Microsoft's.

- the file-search capabilities of Vista and 7 are CRAP compared with those on XP: they don't consistently find files
with names that contain desired text

Agreed. That's why I use Agent Ransack.

- the Explorer shell has a habit of deciding for me how to display a list of files (whether as a one-line-per-file
list of filenames, as icons and with various different columns depending on what sort of files it finds; I want the
standard filename, last modified date, file size headings for *all* folders)

Not a big deal for me. I kinda like my music folders sorted by track number, picture folders showing large icons, etc.
But that's just me; others have their own likes and dislikes, and that's fine.

- Windows Live Mail has a crap user-interface compared with Outlook Express and Windows Mail

Not a part of Windows 7. It came with no native mail program.


I can live with these, mostly.

Me, too, mostly :-)


I use Firefox rather than IE, so I can't comment on IE9.

I didn't care for Firefox (been quite some time since I tried it, to be honest), so I came back to IE8, then
updated/upgraded to IE9. I didn't like it so much at first, but after a little customization, it's almost the same as
IE8 visually, but is a bit faster than IE8 on my XP desktop (which has a much faster quad core CPU than my laptops dual
core).

Firefox has one big advantage. It has a *selectable* default folder
for internet downloaded images.

On 11/29/2011, Peter Jason posted:
Firefox has one big advantage. It has a *selectable* default folder
for internet downloaded images.

It took me about two minutes to find out, using Help, how to set the
default download folder in Internet Explorer.

I had to look it up because I don't usually use IE, but as I said, two
minutes to learn how...

BTW, I then followed the instructions. They work.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

"Peter Jason" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:02:32 -0500, "SC Tom" wrote:


"Mortimer" wrote in message o.uk...
"SC Tom" wrote in message ...

"Microsoft Rippoff" wrote in message ...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP
installation back twice before finally sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone will look past your ranting and decide to
help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to keep an XP machine for this

Actually, that's Epson's fault, not Microsoft's.

- the file-search capabilities of Vista and 7 are CRAP compared with those on XP: they don't consistently find files
with names that contain desired text

Agreed. That's why I use Agent Ransack.

- the Explorer shell has a habit of deciding for me how to display a list of files (whether as a one-line-per-file
list of filenames, as icons and with various different columns depending on what sort of files it finds; I want the
standard filename, last modified date, file size headings for *all* folders)

Not a big deal for me. I kinda like my music folders sorted by track number, picture folders showing large icons, etc.
But that's just me; others have their own likes and dislikes, and that's fine.

- Windows Live Mail has a crap user-interface compared with Outlook Express and Windows Mail

Not a part of Windows 7. It came with no native mail program.


I can live with these, mostly.

Me, too, mostly :-)


I use Firefox rather than IE, so I can't comment on IE9.

I didn't care for Firefox (been quite some time since I tried it, to be honest), so I came back to IE8, then
updated/upgraded to IE9. I didn't like it so much at first, but after a little customization, it's almost the same as
IE8 visually, but is a bit faster than IE8 on my XP desktop (which has a much faster quad core CPU than my laptops
dual
core).

Firefox has one big advantage. It has a *selectable* default folder
for internet downloaded images.

So does IE9 and IE8. Not that hard to do; don't know how easy it is for Firefox.
--
SC Tom

On 29/11/2011 17:42, Mortimer wrote:
"SC wrote in message ...

"Microsoft wrote in message
...

Windows 7 is the new Windows ME.

IE9 sucks really bad too.

Windows 7 64-bit sucks even worse.

Don't buy it. Insist on XP or Mac!

Hope this helps.

--

http://tinyurl.com/66skkxb



Windows 7 works great for me, and so does IE9. And I had no trouble with
ME, either. In fact, I rolled my XP installation back twice before finally
sticking with XP.

Never used 64-bit anything; never found a use for it. Others have; good on
them!

Haven't used a Mac OS since IIse; haven't felt the need to since Windows
has always provided for me.

If you are having particular problems, post them here and maybe someone
will look past your ranting and decide to help :-)

In most respects, Windows 7 works perfectly for me.

The only downsides a

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to keep
an XP machine for this

I had the same problem with my Epson 2450 scanner, which still works
well on XPH. But after a bit of googling I found a fix which modifies
the Epson 4490 64-bit driver. The 2450 appears in the guise of a 4490
machine in Control Panel "Devices and Printers" on my Win7HPx64, but it
now works well with that OS.

--

Jeff

On 29/11/2011 17:42, Mortimer wrote:

- no 64-bit driver is available for my Epson 1200 scanner so I need to
keep an XP machine for this

I dual booted Ubuntu to run my Canon scanner but eventually bit the
bullet and bought an 'all in one' (Kodak ESP C110. Mainly as the ink
was, relatively, cheap)

I use Firefox rather than IE, so I can't comment on IE9.
+1