Guest Eugenia Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP At the risk of being 100% pedantic *ggg*, 243% is somewhat of a misnomer. So, for the record, that's 2.43 *times* larger. Define percent http://64.233.161.147/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+percent&btnG=Search However, inasmuch as 100% of these links have the same reference, we'll now need to completely (that's 100% worth) re-write all (another case of 100% worth) the mathematical expressions. :-D Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=Vista%27s+minimum+CPU+requirements+are+243+percent+larger+than+that+of+XP%2E :-D "Tiberius" wrote in message news:46fd38ee$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > 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 baynole Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, Carey Frisch [MVP] <cnfri...@nospamgmail.com> wrote: > Please read and reread the Rules of Conduct before posting in a > Microsoft newsgroup. If you cannot abide by the rules, please > refrain from posting.
Guest baynole Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, Carey Frisch [MVP] <cnfri...@nospamgmail.com> wrote: > Please read and reread the Rules of Conduct before posting in a > Microsoft newsgroup. If you cannot abide by the rules, please > refrain from posting. > > Rules of Conducthttp://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx > > -- > > > -- > > > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > > >http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Microsoft owns this newsgroup? I did not know that.
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "baynole" <baynole@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191028908.031919.151360@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > Microsoft owns this newsgroup? I did not know that.
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a inferiority complex. Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up the ass retards that don't know any better.
Guest Tiberius Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Linux installs can be large but thats only because they install a large number of free applications with it.. The OS itself is not that big.. and you can add or remove any element. with vista you get solitair and notepad "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:b12rf3tar9bp7elebhljldrtrgf87o2qfj@4ax.com... > 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 bp Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X "Tiberius" wrote: > > most people are avoiding vista anyway. That's an interesting (cough) fact. Perhaps you can back that up with a link or something? > > > "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 bp Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X "Tiberius" wrote: > Frank you have an advantage... > > you swing from your tail wrapped on a branch on the tree... > > and have 2 hands and 2 feet that can also function like hands to > type on the keyboard below all the usless crap you do... > > good show... :-) > I can see how having 2 hands and 2 feet that can also function like hands would upset a slug like yourself. poor thing. > > "Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message > news:eJWHe3gAIHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Tiberius wrote: > >> I suggest you do the same... > >> > >> Sorry to see you go... > >> > > > > We're not at all sorry to see you go...again! > > Frank > > >
Guest cvp Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Easy! World poulation 6.6 billion (over 14 years old 4.3 billion). Max copies of Vista sold/pre-installed 65 million. Apart from food and water, "most" people are avoiding almost anything! "bp" <bp@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:02C08D2C-E8EB-47BF-A9F4-9C271CFBF97F@microsoft.com... > > > "Tiberius" wrote: > > >> >> most people are avoiding vista anyway. > > That's an interesting (cough) fact. Perhaps you can back that up with a > link > or something? > > >> >> >> "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 Charlie Tame Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanX Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanX Hah, ya beat me to it, good one. cvp wrote: > Easy! > > World poulation 6.6 billion (over 14 years old 4.3 billion). > Max copies of Vista sold/pre-installed 65 million. > > Apart from food and water, "most" people are avoiding almost anything! > > "bp" <bp@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:02C08D2C-E8EB-47BF-A9F4-9C271CFBF97F@microsoft.com... >> >> >> "Tiberius" wrote: >> >> >>> >>> most people are avoiding vista anyway. >> >> That's an interesting (cough) fact. Perhaps you can back that up with >> a link >> or something? >> >> >>> >>> >>> "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 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X where does microsoft find these guys and make them mvps....? this is sad! "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: > >>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. > > More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a > inferiority complex. > > Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news > servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you > post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up > the ass retards that don't know any better. >
Guest Alias Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanX Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanX Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote: > Please read and reread the Rules of Conduct before posting in a > Microsoft newsgroup. If you cannot abide by the rules, please > refrain from posting. > > Rules of Conduct > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx > You mean like this bozo's posts?: You bandwidth sucking moron! You've wasted more energy posting this diatribe of a message than all the Vista computers in the world use in sleep mode. Get lost you stupid jackass. Frank You're a genuine moron...hahaha...linux loser. Hahahahahahahah...you just gotta love it!Take your pointy head out of your arse for a few seconds and...well go ahead and leave it there. That's where it's always been and that's where it belongs. Frank Idiot! Frank hehehe...they're getting to you aren't they alias...hahaha...loser. You're a genuine moron...hahaha...linux loser. Hahahahahahahah...you just gotta love it! Idiot! Frank Can't control your rage over me kick your dumb arse all over this ng can you, you stupid moron! Never said some things in Vista aren't broken, they're just aren't consistently broken and obviously you don't have the computer acumen to figure out how to fix them or do workarounds. You have one big stupid mouth and your pointy head shoved all the way up your arse. Give it up bozo as you'll never be smarter than most people. Frank So your now admitting to being a pimp? Have you no pride? I guess not after seeing all the lies and bs you've posted in this Vista ng. Loser. Frank You fukkin drunk again or what? Sober up as*hole. Frank Ever get tired of my booting your ignorant drunken arse all over this mg? I sure don't..hahaha...lol! Frank Get a fukkin life you moron loser! Frank You couldn't kick those empty beer cans our of your way you miserable drunk. The only thing you own is a beer belly and a bald head. You're a joke! Frank Well spoken for such an arrogant, self-centered linux troll. It mind numbing how you constantly present yourself without any class at all in this ng on a daily basis. You are really one dumb, numb and clueless human being. Frank Do you have point or are you just slobbering all over your keyboard (as usual!), huh? Frank -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest uvbogden Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X The increased CPU usage by Vista is minute in comparison to the increased availability of computing power over the last few years or the decreasing cost per unit of CPU over the same time. Model-T Fords didn't use much horsepower or burn much gasoline, but I'll take my 425 HP Twin Turbo Toyota Supra over the Model-T any day :). "Eugenia" wrote: > At the risk of being 100% pedantic *ggg*, 243% is somewhat of a misnomer. > So, for the record, that's 2.43 *times* larger. > > Define percent > http://64.233.161.147/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+percent&btnG=Search > > However, inasmuch as 100% of these links have the same reference, we'll now > need to completely (that's 100% worth) re-write all (another case of 100% > worth) the mathematical expressions. :-D > > Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. > http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=Vista%27s+minimum+CPU+requirements+are+243+percent+larger+than+that+of+XP%2E > > :-D > > "Tiberius" wrote in message news:46fd38ee$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > > 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 Unknown Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: > >>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. > > More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a > inferiority complex. > > Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news > servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you > post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up > the ass retards that don't know any better. >
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote: >Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. Well sorry, that's wrong. How can anybody trust "advice" when Jupiter the pompous windbag of a MVP said the same stupid thing? What is apparent to REAL experienced users is the phony wannabe be expert types which this newsgroup is infested are damn clueless. Not just on Windows or Vista, but it seems lots of things. >"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" >> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >> >>>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. >> >> More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a >> inferiority complex. >> >> Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news >> servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you >> post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up >> the ass retards that don't know any better. >> >
Guest Seven Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <AA@ABC.net> put his beer down long enough to quack in message news:5o7vf39fdo1mhg254bvle0kct8cdrpukbe@4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> > wrote: > >>Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. > > Well sorry, that's wrong. How can anybody trust "advice" when Jupiter > the pompous windbag of a MVP said the same stupid thing? > > What is apparent to REAL experienced users is the phony wannabe be > expert types which this newsgroup is infested are damn clueless. Not > just on Windows or Vista, but it seems lots of things. > > >>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >>news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" >>> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. >>> >>> More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a >>> inferiority complex. >>> >>> Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news >>> servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you >>> post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up >>> the ass retards that don't know any better. >>> >> > Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin. What's a "wannabe be" ? If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically.
Guest Adam NotSoBright Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X "Seven" <Seven@linux.sux> wrote in message news:OEXexX2AIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <AA@ABC.net> put his beer down > long enough to quack in message > news:5o7vf39fdo1mhg254bvle0kct8cdrpukbe@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >> wrote: >> >>>Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. >> >> Well sorry, that's wrong. How can anybody trust "advice" when Jupiter >> the pompous windbag of a MVP said the same stupid thing? >> >> What is apparent to REAL experienced users is the phony wannabe be >> expert types which this newsgroup is infested are damn clueless. Not >> just on Windows or Vista, but it seems lots of things. >> >> >>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >>>news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" >>>> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. >>>> >>>> More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a >>>> inferiority complex. >>>> >>>> Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news >>>> servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you >>>> post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up >>>> the ass retards that don't know any better. >>>> >>> >> > > Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin. > > What's a "wannabe be" ? > If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically. > How ddddare you talk to m,m,me that way! I'm a drunken genius. I've been m-m-misusing computers since the s s s '60's. The wawawannabe be error was because I sstuttterrr when I ttyype! Nimrod! If Frank wo wo would be nice to me, I wwwould be nice too. G-G-Gotta go, Bar opens up soon
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:29:34 -0400, "Seven" <Seven@linux.sux> wrote: >Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin. > >What's a "wannabe be" ? >If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically. That's called a typo. Where's Jupiter admitting he was wrong? That you won't see. As before when some pompous windbag gets caught with egg on their face they tend to disappear for a few days until they think it's safe to crawl out from under their rock again and spew some more bullshit.
Guest Unknown Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Care to explain that? "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message news:5o7vf39fdo1mhg254bvle0kct8cdrpukbe@4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> > wrote: > >>Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. > > Well sorry, that's wrong. How can anybody trust "advice" when Jupiter > the pompous windbag of a MVP said the same stupid thing? > > What is apparent to REAL experienced users is the phony wannabe be > expert types which this newsgroup is infested are damn clueless. Not > just on Windows or Vista, but it seems lots of things. > > >>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >>news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" >>> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. >>> >>> More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a >>> inferiority complex. >>> >>> Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news >>> servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you >>> post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up >>> the ass retards that don't know any better. >>> >> >
Guest Homer J. Simpson Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X > If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically. ....and exactly how much did *you* have this morning?
Guest Homer J. Simpson Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP > [...] you are incapable of giving ME any advice of value. Would "go jump off a bridge" qualify? I don't know, this comes to mind as I'm reading through this thread...
Guest seven Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X "Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:OM6jqn3AIHA.4160@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically. > > ...and exactly how much did *you* have this morning? > Pardon? Could you speak up? Nice name...your parents let you watch the Simpsons? You should stick to your studies.
Guest Homer J. Simpson Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Okay. So exactly how much longer would you have liked to wait for MS developers to hand-code and optimize the whole OS in assembler?
Guest Unknown Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X You're???? You are, or your? "Seven" <Seven@linux.sux> wrote in message news:OEXexX2AIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <AA@ABC.net> put his beer down > long enough to quack in message > news:5o7vf39fdo1mhg254bvle0kct8cdrpukbe@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >> wrote: >> >>>Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. >> >> Well sorry, that's wrong. How can anybody trust "advice" when Jupiter >> the pompous windbag of a MVP said the same stupid thing? >> >> What is apparent to REAL experienced users is the phony wannabe be >> expert types which this newsgroup is infested are damn clueless. Not >> just on Windows or Vista, but it seems lots of things. >> >> >>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >>>news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" >>>> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. >>>> >>>> More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a >>>> inferiority complex. >>>> >>>> Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news >>>> servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you >>>> post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up >>>> the ass retards that don't know any better. >>>> >>> >> > > Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin. > > What's a "wannabe be" ? > If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically. >
Guest seven Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message news:iZQLi.1242$sw6.515@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... > You're???? You are, or your? > "Seven" <Seven@linux.sux> wrote in message > news:OEXexX2AIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <AA@ABC.net> put his beer down >> long enough to quack in message >> news:5o7vf39fdo1mhg254bvle0kct8cdrpukbe@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server. >>> >>> Well sorry, that's wrong. How can anybody trust "advice" when Jupiter >>> the pompous windbag of a MVP said the same stupid thing? >>> >>> What is apparent to REAL experienced users is the phony wannabe be >>> expert types which this newsgroup is infested are damn clueless. Not >>> just on Windows or Vista, but it seems lots of things. >>> >>> >>>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message >>>>news:4jerf39tucvagc9c6o410ur0p8flqus04n@4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" >>>>> <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The server where this newsgroup originates is a Microsoft server. >>>>> >>>>> More proof you're really nothing but a clueless idiot with a >>>>> inferiority complex. >>>>> >>>>> Posts originate from HUNDREDS if not thousands of different news >>>>> servers. They do not originate on any Microsoft servers UNLESS you >>>>> post from a Microsoft server which seems to be mostly moronic head up >>>>> the ass retards that don't know any better. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin. >> >> What's a "wannabe be" ? >> If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically. >> > > Clever observation. If you could follow a thread, you might have noticed it's been addressed. Let's see if in two more hours you can find anodder error.
Recommended Posts