Vista cannot and will not replace XP. Case Closed

Danny wrote:

Everyone is missing the point here...

No one is missing any point you moron. If you don't like Vista then
don't use it ok?
Frank

"Danny" wrote in message
...
Everyone is missing the point here...

Do I like Vista... well I have my old laptop with XP and I have my new top
of the range laptop with Vista.... I have to use my old laptop becuase my
new
one crahses all the time, is painfully slow and will not stay connected to
the net.

I'd be having a very serious talk with the new laptop manufacturer.

What makes it worse is as soon as Vista is working (please make it soon)

Like I said... have a man to man chat with the laptop manufacturer. Vista
is fine.

they will release yet another faulty OS and we're all back to square 1...

you are being silly now.

"Danny" wrote in message
...

Do I like Vista... well I have my old laptop with XP and I have my new top
of the range laptop with Vista.... I have to use my old laptop becuase my
new
one crahses all the time, is painfully slow and will not stay connected to
the net. Apparently Vista SP1 will solve all of these problems.... OK
then!

And have you returned it to your vendor as being not fit for purpose?

Man, I remember the complaints of Dos programs not working
under windows 95. Do you miss DOS?


"Danny" wrote in message
...
Everyone is missing the point here...

Why should Microsoft be allowed to release faulty product? The stress that
it causes alone is unacceptable. If it were any other organisation they
would
fold but of course Microsoft have the monopoly so its OK.

Do I like Vista... well I have my old laptop with XP and I have my new top
of the range laptop with Vista.... I have to use my old laptop becuase my
new
one crahses all the time, is painfully slow and will not stay connected to
the net. Apparently Vista SP1 will solve all of these problems.... OK
then!

What makes it worse is as soon as Vista is working (please make it soon)
they will release yet another faulty OS and we're all back to square 1...

Its wrong!!!!

"DarkSentinel" wrote:

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:50:33 -0500, "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]"
wrote:

People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE, 2000
and
ME.

I guess its good luck. The point remains though, no one is forcing
anyone
to
upgrade.


Yeah but in those cases the new M$ OS had something that made it worth
upgrading to.

And because YOU say it's not worth it makes it so. Righhhht.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

Yes, sometimes.

Curt wrote:
Man, I remember the complaints of Dos programs not working
under windows 95. Do you miss DOS?


"Danny" wrote in message
...
Everyone is missing the point here...

Why should Microsoft be allowed to release faulty product? The stress
that
it causes alone is unacceptable. If it were any other organisation they
would
fold but of course Microsoft have the monopoly so its OK.

Do I like Vista... well I have my old laptop with XP and I have my new
top
of the range laptop with Vista.... I have to use my old laptop becuase my
new
one crahses all the time, is painfully slow and will not stay connected
to
the net. Apparently Vista SP1 will solve all of these problems.... OK
then!

What makes it worse is as soon as Vista is working (please make it soon)
they will release yet another faulty OS and we're all back to square 1...

Its wrong!!!!

"DarkSentinel" wrote:

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:50:33 -0500, "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]"
wrote:

People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE,
2000
and
ME.

I guess its good luck. The point remains though, no one is forcing
anyone
to
upgrade.


Yeah but in those cases the new M$ OS had something that made it worth
upgrading to.

And because YOU say it's not worth it makes it so. Righhhht.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

http://www.activewin.com/awin/commen...ineIndex=42308

As you can read in the above article, my words exactly.. Im
getting bored of being right all the time.

As I have said before, microsoft will be forced to extend support
of XP for a very long time...

Only if they make the next version of windows (called windows 7)
better than the monstrosity called vista, will XP be retired
You read the article. You forgot to read the reader comments. It
must be a terrible burden being right all the time, huh?

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE,
2000 and ME.

I guess its good luck. The point remains though, no one is forcing
anyone to upgrade.

People said the same thing about Windows ME?
Those poor deluded individuals.
I feel they *must* have had some otrher serious issues in order to say
anything against replacing Windows ME.
*vbg*

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Oh no, not Wintendo too!

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
http://www.activewin.com/awin/commen...ineIndex=42308

As you can read in the above article, my words exactly.. Im
getting bored of being right all the time.

As I have said before, microsoft will be forced to extend support
of XP for a very long time...

Only if they make the next version of windows (called windows 7)
better than the monstrosity called vista, will XP be retired
You read the article. You forgot to read the reader comments. It
must be a terrible burden being right all the time, huh?

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE,
2000 and ME.

I guess its good luck. The point remains though, no one is forcing
anyone to upgrade.

People said the same thing about Windows ME?
Those poor deluded individuals.
I feel they *must* have had some otrher serious issues in order to say
anything against replacing Windows ME.
*vbg*

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Danny" wrote in message
...
Everyone is missing the point here...

Why should Microsoft be allowed to release faulty product? The stress that
it causes alone is unacceptable. If it were any other organisation they
would
fold but of course Microsoft have the monopoly so its OK.

And what product would that be? While you are thinking about that one, name
ONE OS that runs perfect. You can't, because there isn't one. Vista runs
better than XP did for me, period, end of story. Why in the hell would I
want to downgrade?

Do I like Vista... well I have my old laptop with XP and I have my new top
of the range laptop with Vista.... I have to use my old laptop becuase my
new
one crahses all the time, is painfully slow and will not stay connected to
the net. Apparently Vista SP1 will solve all of these problems.... OK
then!

I had more crashes under XP than I ever have under Vista. Vista IS as fast
or faster, and I have ZERO problems staying connected whether direct to my
cable modem, OR my router. So THAT little theory is blown all to hell.

What makes it worse is as soon as Vista is working (please make it soon)
they will release yet another faulty OS and we're all back to square 1...

I have tried, used, and/or supported every desktop OS since DOS 1 and CP/M.
There is not ONE that runs perfectly. Not DOS, Windows, OS/2, Linux,
anything from Apple, BeOS, NOTHING.

Its wrong!!!!

And just because you say it is wrong makes it so? Wrong. Bottom line, if you
don't like it, then don't frigging use it. Use whatever the hell works best
for YOU. There is no need to post tripe because YOU just happen not to like
it. If you like XP, great, stay the hell in those newsgroups. You have no
need to keep posting your banal drivel in the Vista groups.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email


"DarkSentinel" wrote:

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:50:33 -0500, "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]"
wrote:

People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE, 2000
and
ME.

I guess its good luck. The point remains though, no one is forcing
anyone
to
upgrade.


Yeah but in those cases the new M$ OS had something that made it worth
upgrading to.

And because YOU say it's not worth it makes it so. Righhhht.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

In article ,
DarkSentinel wrote:

name ONE OS that runs perfect.

VMS.

I had more crashes under XP than I ever have under Vista.

I agree. The one thing I have not seen in over a year using Vista x64 is a
blue screen.

"DarkSentinel" wrote in message
...
"Danny" wrote in message
...
Everyone is missing the point here...

Why should Microsoft be allowed to release faulty product? The stress
that
it causes alone is unacceptable. If it were any other organisation they
would
fold but of course Microsoft have the monopoly so its OK.

And what product would that be? While you are thinking about that one,
name ONE OS that runs perfect. You can't, because there isn't one. Vista
runs better than XP did for me, period, end of story. Why in the hell
would I want to downgrade?

Do I like Vista... well I have my old laptop with XP and I have my new
top
of the range laptop with Vista.... I have to use my old laptop becuase my
new
one crahses all the time, is painfully slow and will not stay connected
to
the net. Apparently Vista SP1 will solve all of these problems.... OK
then!

I had more crashes under XP than I ever have under Vista. Vista IS as fast
or faster, and I have ZERO problems staying connected whether direct to my
cable modem, OR my router. So THAT little theory is blown all to hell.

What makes it worse is as soon as Vista is working (please make it soon)
they will release yet another faulty OS and we're all back to square 1...

I have tried, used, and/or supported every desktop OS since DOS 1 and
CP/M. There is not ONE that runs perfectly. Not DOS, Windows, OS/2, Linux,
anything from Apple, BeOS, NOTHING.

Its wrong!!!!

And just because you say it is wrong makes it so? Wrong. Bottom line, if
you don't like it, then don't frigging use it. Use whatever the hell works
best for YOU. There is no need to post tripe because YOU just happen not
to like it. If you like XP, great, stay the hell in those newsgroups. You
have no need to keep posting your banal drivel in the Vista groups.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email


"DarkSentinel" wrote:

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:50:33 -0500, "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]"
wrote:

People said the same thing about Windows 3.1, 95, NT 4, 98, 98 SE,
2000
and
ME.

I guess its good luck. The point remains though, no one is forcing
anyone
to
upgrade.


Yeah but in those cases the new M$ OS had something that made it worth
upgrading to.

And because YOU say it's not worth it makes it so. Righhhht.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

Since VAX/VMS is the conceptual ancestor of Windows, I agree.

"the wharf rat" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DarkSentinel wrote:

name ONE OS that runs perfect.

VMS.

"the wharf rat" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DarkSentinel wrote:

name ONE OS that runs perfect.

VMS.

I worked for DEC, and know that's not true.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

"the wharf rat" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DarkSentinel wrote:

name ONE OS that runs perfect.

VMS.

Addendum to previous reply. VMS is NOT a desktop OS either. It is a server
OS. We are talking about desktop operating systems, used by normal users. DO
try and keep up.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
news
Since VAX/VMS is the conceptual ancestor of Windows, I agree.

If you mean that the Star/Starlet project was started to address a 32bit
virtual address extension on the PDP-11, then yes. If you are talking
visually, it uses Motif which is based on CDE. However, again, it is NOT a
desktop operating system. And even then, it still has problems just like any
OS.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email

the wharf rat wrote:

In article ,
DarkSentinel wrote:

name ONE OS that runs perfect.


VMS.


Certainly not when it was released.