stop over complicating things

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:36:26 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:
>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>
>>> This is an OS designed for the next 5 - 10 years, so a budget 2007 PC
>>> is, in that context, the lamest PC Vista is likely to see.
>
>> So you are telling me that an OS that runs quite a bit slower than XP on
>> several incarnations of the most recent hardware available to the public
>> is suddenly going to run faster as faster hardware becomes available...
>> isn't that rather a safe bet on your part?
>
> You got it, and that is exactly the reality we expect.
>
>> On a 32 bit machine it is slower than XP. On a 64 bit machine
>> Vista 32 is slower than XP 32, Vista 64 is slower than XP 64.
>
> Yup.
>
>> Now, W2000 was slower than 98 but we both know there are many good
>> reasons for that, and there are reasons why Vista is slower than XP but
>> I question the "Good" part.
>
> Yup - you got it. That's the doubts that we both have, that the
> future years will either confirm or dispell.
>
>
>
>> ------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
> The bulls were running wild
> because they're big and mean and sacred (Jack J)
>> ------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -


I much appreciate your answer, the problem I foresee is that "If" todays
hardware is going to leave Vista slower, disappointingly slower in some
cases, was it released too soon? The majority of people will go for the
fastest they can afford, only the purists will buy that extra bit of CPU
power that doubles the price for not much more speed. My company has
just "Upgraded" machines to slower machines than my personal ones, and
they are not going to upgrade again since the speed limit is now the
network and server communications, besides which it goes faster than the
staff can type so more speed and better GFX is really rather pointless.

I guess what I am saying is that for much business use we have reached
the limit not of technology but of the human interaction so there's
little to gain. For enthusiast use / gaming of course there's more to
come, but is that really a foundation for a major software provider like
MS? Even worse when the latest OS does not do as well in those
applications as the previous one did have we hit a brick wall?

I have become quite good at getting the best out of old hardware, as
many have pointed out a clean install without the OEM junk and limiting
what is running can make old hardware useful. I have written software
using VS2005 on some real old dinosaurs, and the benefits of the latest
greatest hardware aren't that much.

What is needed is a better understanding of what you might call the TV
principle, you turn the damned thing on and it works

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:05:33 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <5ieiqrF3nj950U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>"Wayne M. Poe" <louisREMOVE@REMOVEh4h.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I understand perfectly, since I am typing this on a Mac.
>>>>
>>>>My point is that the computer is called Mac, not MAC. It's not an
>>>>abbreviation for something like, say, Media Access Control.
>>>>
>>>>It's a common mistake by people who don't know squat about Macs, and I
>>>>point it out every time I see it.
>>>
>>>True, but theres no need to be so technical about it. It was in general
>>>speech and you knew what he was talking about and that's what matters
>>
>>But if he's thinking about them, he should at least learn how to spell
>>it. He won't be treated so kindly if he goes into a Mac newsgroup and
>>starts asking questions about MAC.
>>
>>Mike
>
>
> Why not? Maybe because a Bozo like you would try to pick a fight with
> him on something as trivial as that? Of course that is typical of
> your conduct here isn't it.
>
>
>
hahaha...no a fukkin Putz like you would pick a fight with him.
That's what drunks always do.
Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:34:18 -0400, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <5iehaqF3j1hssU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>"Wayne M. Poe" <louisREMOVE@REMOVEh4h.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <8A17697A-2919-40D9-ACE3-3EDB8E4924A4@microsoft.com>,
>>>>Rick <Rick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For what it is worth, MAC is really looking pretty good.
>>>>
>>>>You think Media Access Control "is really looking pretty good"?
>>>
>>>I think it was pretty obvious he was referring to Macintosh (Max OS-X
>>>these days.) Mac and Linux are becoming very appealing to many people,
>>>for exactly many of the reasons Rick stated. But I don't expect you to
>>>understand.
>>
>>I understand perfectly, since I am typing this on a Mac.
>>
>>My point is that the computer is called Mac, not MAC. It's not an
>>abbreviation for something like, say, Media Access Control.
>>
>>It's a common mistake by people who don't know squat about Macs, and I
>>point it out every time I see it.
>>
>>Mike
>
>
> A common mistake of fanboys is making fools of themselves as you just
> demonstrated again.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>


A typical response from a drunken Putz like you.
You'll never learn!
Frank