Guest Adam Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:19:24 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >"you insult most posters" >Where? >You can NOT prove this statement of yours. >More fabricated fiction in a feeble effort to fed your agenda > >"and its never vistas fault" >I NEVER said that either. > >More fabricated fiction in a feeble effort to fed your agenda. >Take the fiction out of your posts and there is often little or nothing >left. > >However you seem to need to misrepresent what others say. >As demonstrated by your own need of projection: >"You are a sad person and you are incapable..." I guess Jupiter STILL doesn't get it. Well golly, I'm always willing and able to point out character flaws in those too blind to see them in themselves. ;-) To pontificate; to engage in pontification or be a pontificator has roots in Latin. Obviously the origins goes back at least to the head of the Catholic Church where the pope or pontiff, ie so-called holy father would lecture and proclaim things in a lordly or swaggering manner, and has the flowing robes, pointy hat and throne to sit on to prove he was some big shot... at least in the eyes of followers. When some rube like Jupiter tries it and acts like he too sits on some throne and his stupid MVP badge is like the Pope's pinky ring where us mere mortals are suppose to line up and kiss it every time Jupiter does his "I'm the expert routine, you better do as I say or else" bit it always comes off silly, boorish, pompous and arrogant. I keep telling the clown that's how he comes across, but damn, the mistaken authority he THINKS he has clearly has gone to his head and accordingly makes an ass of himself on a regular basis, discrediting himself and every other MVP that doesn't have the guts to tell this joker to shut the fu*k up already if not for his sake, their's.
Guest Mellowed Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Tiberius, From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without problems. I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly since installation. Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I started out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day one. Well anyhow, that's my comment. "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd40ad$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general > newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people > that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting > vista. > > Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct > the probles afterwards. > > I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you > should warn them too... > > most people are avoiding vista anyway. > > > "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Tiberius wrote: >>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >>> >>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >>> >>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm >> >> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask >> for help... however ... >> >> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year >> Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >> >> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, >> Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much >> processor/memory they require? >> >> -- >> Shenan Stanley >> MS-MVP >> -- >> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> > >
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP I agree.. but there is one small problem... MANY OF THE VISTA FANATICS in here claim that vista is as fast or even Faster than XP thats why I posted it... "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message news:B%dLi.155$0I5.30@trnddc08... > Tiberius, > From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will > require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public > was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old > PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without > problems. I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. > I had to update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating > perfectly since installation. > > Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I > started out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never > stopped. Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into > the additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. > > Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is > wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day > one. > > Well anyhow, that's my comment. > > > "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:46fd40ad$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general >> newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people >> that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting >> vista. >> >> Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct >> the probles afterwards. >> >> I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you >> should warn them too... >> >> most people are avoiding vista anyway. >> >> >> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Tiberius wrote: >>>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >>>> >>>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >>>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >>>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >>>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >>>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >>>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >>>> >>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm >>> >>> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask >>> for help... however ... >>> >>> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year >>> Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >>> >>> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes >>> (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in >>> how much processor/memory they require? >>> >>> -- >>> Shenan Stanley >>> MS-MVP >>> -- >>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way >>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>> >> >> >
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for > years... Uhhh...lol...I don't think so. A few yes but thousands...no way spaced cadet...no way. > > and from time to time I give advice even here You give advice...hummm...you mean like switch to XP? ... take a look at some of my > posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of > distorted truth. You need to look at your lying innately stupid diatribes. > > In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear > to everyone that vista is a flop. You're so in need of attention it isn't even funny any longer. We all know your personal opinion. Trouble is, you think your opinion is shared by everyone else. Hate to burst your ego balloon but it isn't the opinion of the majority of Vista users. Got it! I don't often offer solutions to problems, > because the problem is vista itself. No, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. > > That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of > course I am correct. You've proly never been more wrong about anything in your entire miserable life! > > You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really helps.. > I have seen how you post.. Really...and you slamming Vista and it's satisfied users is called "helping"? > > you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much > about comptuers or they did something wrong.. OMG! Have you bothered to read the trash you post? I mean really! > > and its never vistas fault. Obviously, you're a newbie computer user. Get more experience and report back in say...20 light yrs, ok? > > You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of value. You're incapable of receiving anyones advice. Let's do a test ok? My advice to you is to once again leave and never return. Now, let's see if you follow it. Frank
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed > manner. > > My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim that > vista > is FASTER than XP. This is really your main beef with Vista...the speed...I'm really amazed that you're able to discern time differences in millie seconds. You must be exceptionally gifted sight wise! Of course, if your really want more speed form Vista, get the proper hardware. Frank
Guest Mick Murphy Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 RE: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP I am running Vista Home Premium sweetly on a 5yo Packard Bell with a P4 2.0 CPU. 128MB Graphics, 1 G RAM. Some of us know how to use a computer! "Tiberius" wrote: > Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison > > A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed that Vista > will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. The report claimed > that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the minimum CPU requirements were > 75 percent greater than those for the operating system it replaced, Windows > 2000. Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of > XP. > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm > > > > > >
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > I agree.. but there is one small problem... > > MANY OF THE VISTA FANATICS in here claim that vista is > as fast or even Faster than XP > > thats why I posted it... > hehehe...with the proper hardware it is...hahaha...you just don't get it do you. But then, who cares any longer. Frank
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Speed is one of the things.. but I would not say its my main "beef" Vista has bad design. Period. Speed is only one parameter. how slower is vista? 20-40% slower than XP, and yes I can tell... I can tell when even something very small is going wrong on a computer. And vista is terribly wrong. But not only I can tell that vista is slow.. so can millions others who don't like the performance of vista. I am amazed how you can put up with vista... you must do very limited work on your computers. To me even on dual cores with 2 gigs vista is too slow... "Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message news:uWrNsShAIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Tiberius wrote: > >> good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed >> manner. >> >> My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim >> that vista >> is FASTER than XP. > > This is really your main beef with Vista...the speed...I'm really amazed > that you're able to discern time differences in millie seconds. You must > be exceptionally gifted sight wise! > Of course, if your really want more speed form Vista, get the proper > hardware. > Frank
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: >Tiberius, >From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without problems. >I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >since installation. > >Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I started >out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. > >Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >one. > >Well anyhow, that's my comment. The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and needlessly so. What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing one or two well crafted lines would work better. That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much space you waste. Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all those millions of lines of code react to each other.
Guest Unknown Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Do you mean to tell me that it will cost me $.10 more per month to run Vista as opposed to my XP? Good grief; I'll never install Vista. I simply cannot afford 10 cents more. Could you please tell me why, since all my hardware is Vista compatible. "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd5d85@newsgate.x-privat.org... > good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed > manner. > > My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim > that vista > is FASTER than XP. > > This is totally incorrect. Vista cannot be faster on the SAME hardware > unless some new perhaps technology becomes mainstream that only vista can > use.. > > but that is not the case yet. > > > "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:eZapODgAIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Tiberius wrote: >>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >>> >>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >>> >>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm >> >> Shenan Stanley wrote: >>> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people >>> ask for help... however ... >>> >>> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the >>> year Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >>> >>> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the >>> OSes (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained >>> stagnant in how much processor/memory they require? >> >> Tiberius wrote: >>> you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP >>> came out there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. >>> >>> then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual >>> cores.. but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. >>> >>> in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is >>> actually even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... >>> >>> the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the >>> vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! >> >> At one point it was stated by someone (I am sure) that the processing >> power of the computer doubled every X number of months - and X was below >> a year I believe. That is usually a misquotation of Moore's Law, that >> the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an >> integrated circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately >> every two years. That was stated way back in 1965. >> >> No one in this discussion (other than your implication) said anything >> about a dual core being twice as fast as the equivalent single core >> processor either. It is perceptionally faster *if* the underlying OS and >> subsequent applications can take advantage of multiple cores - but does >> little to nothing if the operating system and applications cannot take >> advantage of that fact - just like multi-threading, etc. >> >> However - Windows XP was released in 2001 (we'll go with LATE 2001) and >> at that time, the processing power was just getting into the area between >> 1 and 2 GHz range for the P4s and if I rememeber. Processors are common >> now in the 3+GHz ranges and have been for well over a year (maybe two?) >> However - it is not only the speed of the processor that determines the >> speed of a computer. The bus speed, the memory speed, the hard disk >> drive speed, the video card memory/processor power, etc - all contribute >> to the full potential of a computer. >> >> However - these same arguments have been made time and time again with >> each release of a new Windows OS. It is a resource hog. It is usually a >> reaction by most people because they do not want to spend the money on a >> whole new computer - specifically hardware (since theirs is working >> fine) - but they somehow feel the operating itself is worth having and >> within reach. Yet it will likely perform horribly on their current system >> (one of my home systems - a 1.8GHz with 640MB memory - would choke on >> Vista with everything turned off...) It's the same reaction many gamers >> have when a new PC game is released that would require a more powerful >> video card or more memory over the years. Human nature really. It >> happened with people and their Pentium III 450s with 64MB memory when XP >> came out, it will happen again when the next mass marketed OS (from >> whomever) comes out. >> >> I am not saying that Windows Vista isn't a bit bloated. I said (still >> do) that Windows XP is a bit bloated. OS X is a bit bloated too. Many >> of the Desktop Envirnments for *nix are bloated. It's because people >> want pretty pictures and easy to click on icons and self-updating crap so >> that they don't have to learn anything to utilize the basic (and >> sometimes more advanced) features. >> >> As far as 'accepting' anything - I believe that is up to the individual. >> When people come to me and ask - I still recommend they find a vendor >> that will sell them Windows XP with the OS and get a 4-5 year warranty on >> it as well. They can take my advice or they can skip by it and go out on >> their own. I cannot control that. I just believe they should have the >> knowledge they need to make the decision wisely. If they choose to not >> do what *I* consider the wise choice - so be it. >> >> As far as your logic that 'vista is worse because the advances in >> hardware have not stayed the course'... That seems a bit broken to me. >> Vista is bloated, no doubt. On a brand new, $2000 computer (put together >> by someone who knows their components) - Vista does run fine - as fast as >> Windows XP for the most part. Some applications may not work - but that >> would fall to the creators of said application - not the OS. After all, >> their application may not work on OS X or *nix at all. In 2001, if you >> purchased a brand new $2000 computer with your Windows XP, windows XP not >> only ran fine then - but is likely STILL running fine now. >> >> Should everyone *have* to purchase new hardware to use their computers? >> No. But *who* is making them? Only themselves. Some desire they have to >> do something that their current system cannot. A game, a way to record >> video or music, some application that the producer only decided to make >> for a certain OS, etc... I know people who are still happy with Pegasus >> running on their Windows 95 machine connected via dialup for email... I >> know others who buy a new component or two everytime a new game comes out >> just so they can play it. >> >> Vista may be bloated. Many people may not recommend it. It's still >> spreading because of human nature and the desire to have the 'next thing' >> and be able to 'keep up with the neighbor'... So it has been, so it >> remains. >> >> -- >> Shenan Stanley >> MS-MVP >> -- >> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> > >
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP You are brilliant "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:8nrqf31o60jgulrejrtkpqret7d03n0mvk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: > >>Tiberius, >>From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >>require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >>was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >>PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without >>problems. >>I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >>update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >>since installation. >> >>Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I >>started >>out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >>Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >>additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. >> >>Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >>wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >>one. >> >>Well anyhow, that's my comment. > > The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 > million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no > idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and > needlessly so. > > What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, > circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors > slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the > golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing > one or two well crafted lines would work better. > > That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble > excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much > space you waste. > > Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 > lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how > many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and > write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! > > Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be > called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive > word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has > more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got > men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a > tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are > lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking > is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all > is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with > the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and > only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all > those millions of lines of code react to each other. >
Guest Vista User Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:8nrqf31o60jgulrejrtkpqret7d03n0mvk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: > >>Tiberius, >>From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >>require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >>was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >>PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without >>problems. >>I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >>update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >>since installation. >> >>Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I >>started >>out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >>Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >>additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. >> >>Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >>wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >>one. >> >>Well anyhow, that's my comment. > > The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 > million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no > idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and > needlessly so. > > What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, > circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors > slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the > golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing > one or two well crafted lines would work better. > > That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble > excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much > space you waste. > > Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 > lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how > many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and > write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! > > Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be > called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive > word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has > more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got > men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a > tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are > lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking > is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all > is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with > the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and > only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all > those millions of lines of code react to each other. > So tell us what modern OS isn't thousands and thousands of lines of code. Its the same problem with every OS. So deal with it.
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > Speed is one of the things.. but I would not say its my main "beef" > > Vista has bad design. Period. Ok. So you think you're some kind of a designer huh? What exactly have you designed? Post some pics so we can all judge what you think "good design" is ok? Fair enough? Speed is only one parameter. > > how slower is vista? 20-40% slower than XP, and yes I can tell... > > I can tell when even something very small is going wrong on a computer. > > And vista is terribly wrong. Maybe you can tell me why with 9 installs of Vista Ultimate 32 & 64bit we don't see nor experience this HORRIBLE Vista that you constantly spew forth your rants about, ok? Why is that? > > But not only I can tell that vista is slow.. so can millions others who > don't like the performance of vista. Million? Gee...let me count them...hummm...I can only get to about well...less than 20 that have really complained in this ng. Where oh where are the rest of the "millions' hiding huh? > > I am amazed how you can put up with vista... you must do very limited work > on your computers. Hummm...obviously, you've not been involved in any kind of production work in your entire life. Let me put it to you in this manner...we always meet our production schedules...always. > > To me even on dual cores with 2 gigs vista is too slow... Sorry to hear that. Maybe you don't know what you're doing and all the rest of the millions of Vista users do, huh? Ever consider that fact? Frank > > > > > "Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message > news:uWrNsShAIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >>Tiberius wrote: >> >> >>>good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed >>>manner. >>> >>>My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim >>>that vista >>>is FASTER than XP. >> >>This is really your main beef with Vista...the speed...I'm really amazed >>that you're able to discern time differences in millie seconds. You must >>be exceptionally gifted sight wise! >>Of course, if your really want more speed form Vista, get the proper >>hardware. >>Frank > > >
Guest Adam GARBAGE AT THE CURB Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Adam Albright wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: > >> Tiberius, >>From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >> require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >> was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >> PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without problems. >> I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >> update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >> since installation. >> >> Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I started >> out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >> Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >> additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. >> >> Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >> wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >> one. >> >> Well anyhow, that's my comment. > > The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 > million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no > idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and > needlessly so. > > What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, > circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors > slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the > golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing > one or two well crafted lines would work better. > > That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble > excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much > space you waste. > > Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 > lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how > many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and > write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! > > Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be > called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive > word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has > more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got > men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a > tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are > lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking > is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all > is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with > the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and > only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all > those millions of lines of code react to each other. > <I doubt that you have ever written one line of code in your stinking life, so don't play like you now have your finger on or about computer programming. You'll be lying through your teeth if you comeback and say you know anything about programming an O/S. Albright, you're so full of s*it it is unbelievable. You are an expert's expert on everything, according to you. Why don't you try being an expert on your worthless social life that you don't have, due to you being on the Internet too much?>
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > You are brilliant > You're calling a raging idiot who can't even get one little install of Vista business to run correctly "brilliant"! Ha! Now that's 'brilliant(ly) absurd"! You two deserve each other. Frank
Guest Mellowed Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:8nrqf31o60jgulrejrtkpqret7d03n0mvk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: > >>Tiberius, >>From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >>require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >>was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >>PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without >>problems. >>I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >>update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >>since installation. >> >>Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I >>started >>out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >>Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >>additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. >> >>Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >>wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >>one. >> >>Well anyhow, that's my comment. > > The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 > million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no > idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and > needlessly so. > > What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, > circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors > slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the > golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing > one or two well crafted lines would work better. > > That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble > excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much > space you waste. > > Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 > lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how > many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and > write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! > > Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be > called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive > word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has > more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got > men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a > tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are > lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking > is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all > is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with > the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and > only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all > those millions of lines of code react to each other. What you say might be true, but so what. When memory was tight we used 'machine code'. When we had some slack we used 'Assemble language'. Then Fortran, etc. Bloat is not critical with 700GB hard drives and 2GB+ RAM. Whatever, we're not going anywhere with this. I for one am very happy with Vista bloated or not. The bloat is transparent to me.
Guest Seven Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:8nrqf31o60jgulrejrtkpqret7d03n0mvk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: > >>Tiberius, >>From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >>require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >>was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >>PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without >>problems. >>I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >>update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >>since installation. >> >>Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I >>started >>out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >>Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >>additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. >> >>Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >>wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >>one. >> >>Well anyhow, that's my comment. > > The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 > million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no > idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and > needlessly so. > > What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, > circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors > slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the > golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing > one or two well crafted lines would work better. > > That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble > excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much > space you waste. > > Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 > lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how > many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and > write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! > > Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be > called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive > word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has > more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got > men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a > tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are > lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking > is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all > is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with > the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and > only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all > those millions of lines of code react to each other. > If your angry Social Security isn't the retirement you imagined, don't take it out here. Since February I haven't had a single BSOD...an amazing mathematical occurrence. I must of received only the good 50,000,000 lines of code. Man, am I lucky !
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:33:36 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote: >Tiberius wrote: >> You are brilliant >> > > >You're calling a raging idiot who can't even get one little install of >Vista business to run correctly "brilliant"! Stick a sock in it Frankie, you're always just a stupid fu*k-up running your mouth night and day never making any sense about anything. The very essence of a being a troll.
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:59:46 -0700, "Vista User" <VistaRules@NoSpam.net> wrote: > >"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >news:8nrqf31o60jgulrejrtkpqret7d03n0mvk@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote: >> >>>Tiberius, >>>From the beginning it has been well known and advertised that Vista will >>>require more resources than the previous versions of Windows. The public >>>was well advised of this last year. I avoided an upgrade from my old >>>PII-400 until I bought the components that would run Vista without >>>problems. >>>I installed Vista Ultimate OEM ($200 Newegg) without problems. I had to >>>update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating perfectly >>>since installation. >>> >>>Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I >>>started >>>out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never stopped. >>>Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into the >>>additional resources required is putting their head in the sand. >>> >>>Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is >>>wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day >>>one. >>> >>>Well anyhow, that's my comment. >> >> The point you miss is Vista is bloat ware. For any OS to consume 50 >> million lines of code, a popular figure often thrown around I have no >> idea how close to accurate it is, but regardless Vista is huge and >> needlessly so. >> >> What any old school programmer will tell you is in the good old days, >> circa the 60's or a little after when memory was tight and processors >> slow, and hard drives were tiny or just a gleam in somebody's eye the >> golden rule was don't waste a dozen or more lines of code when writing >> one or two well crafted lines would work better. >> >> That "rule" is often abused or totally ignored today with the feeble >> excuse memory and hard drives are cheap, so who gives a fu*k how much >> space you waste. >> >> Well Murphy's Law kicks in. If you can write a complete OS in 500,000 >> lines of code and you're lucky enough to get 99% bug free code how >> many more bugs can creep in if you start out with many more lines and >> write some bloated 25,000,000 or 50,000,000 line monster? Do the math! >> >> Another point is today's programmers, oh excuse me, they like to be >> called software engineers now aren't as creative, a better descriptive >> word would be lazy. Remember today's average pocket calculator has >> more computer power than the onboard trio of computers that safety got >> men to the moon and back! Meaning you can pack a lot of oomph in a >> tiny space IF you know what you're doing. Today software engineers are >> lazy and use the "bloat" method to program, little creative thinking >> is involved. That's why Vista is so bloated and the worse part of all >> is Vista is so bloated nobody knows how all the code interacts with >> the rest of it. THAT is one reason problems are getting more weird and >> only happen sometimes to some installs, nobody really knows how all >> those millions of lines of code react to each other. >> > >So tell us what modern OS isn't thousands and thousands of lines of code. >Its the same problem with every OS. So deal with it. You name another OS that's anywhere near 50 million lines like Vista is claimed to be. Maybe you're not smart enough to know the difference between thousands and millions.
Guest RalfG Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP It's just awful... My game software's minimum CPU requirements are 429% larger than XP... What an outrage!! <LOL> Plus it needs a DX9 graphics card just to enable all the high-res eye-candy. Why, I'd need a Vista ready computer just to run that piece of bloatware. Lucky I already have one. With a CPU 400% larger than the minimum requirements for Vista. <ROtFL>. "William" <dontknow@example.net> wrote in message news:uBi3a7gAIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >I have vista and its great! Not a days problem > > hows that Mugabe? > > go water your garden or your brain if you have one... > > you obviously have nothing better to do
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Adam Albright wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:33:36 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote: > > >>Tiberius wrote: >> >>>You are brilliant >>> >> >> >>You're calling a raging idiot who can't even get one little install of >>Vista business to run correctly "brilliant"! > > > Stick a sock in it Frankie, you're always just a stupid fu*k-up > running your mouth night and day never making any sense about > anything. The very essence of a being a troll. > Brilliant! Hahahah...lol! Frank
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:46:00 -0400, "Seven" <Seven@linux.sux> wrote: >Since February I haven't had a single BSOD...an amazing mathematical >occurrence. You need to turn your computer on before you see A BSOD.
Guest Seven Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:5p3rf31kiic3or0jfnfbt2biv4cp6p902l@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:46:00 -0400, "Seven" <Seven@linux.sux> wrote: > >>Since February I haven't had a single BSOD...an amazing mathematical >>occurrence. > > You need to turn your computer on before you see A BSOD. > lol good one hehehe
Guest HeyBub Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Tiberius wrote: > shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general > newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing > people that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid > getting vista. > Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to > correct the probles afterwards. > > I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, > you should warn them too... > > most people are avoiding vista anyway. > Have you seriously considered another, more productive, hobby? Or even a twelve-step program? I'm worried about you... I even prayed to baby Jesus.
Guest HeyBub Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Tiberius wrote: > I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups > for years... That is simply not so.
Recommended Posts