Vista - Shame shame.

Frank,

You may be right so.....

1. Buy a Mac
2. Download a version of Linux
3. Drop back to XP (remember, the similar things were said about WinXP- and
worse - when it first came out)
4. Take up drinking

No matter, Vista isn't going away and your musings are falling on deaf ears
as far as MS is concerned and they will eventually fix what most *big* (read
Enterprise customers) want fixed. So you can educate yourself about Vista
or find a different solution that best fits your needs. Nope, I didn't
drink the MS Kool-Aid but this is the wrong place to complain. We already
purchased the product like you and those that want to return it for a
refund - can. Info is on the Vista site I believe or better yet, you could
donate it a charity organization of your choice and they'll find a home for
it.

Bob S.





"Frank M" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OLB5gIcZHHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Having watched Microsoft evolve and improve it's OS over the years, XP was
> the best and most stable. I thought that Vista would be at least an equal
> or better. It is not. The so called security features impede productivity
> and the ability to arrange ones Start folders the way they want. The Vista
> advisor was wrong on at least 50% of my software as it bases it's findings
> on installed software in the XP environment. The surprise comes when you
> go to install that software in a full install Home Premium. Most will
> start and just disappear or install and have problems when you start them.
> I am talking about some expensive software too.
> The indexer function has to go as it will surely run the hell out of and
> shorten the life of any HDD. If you stop it, it will eventually start
> again and the HDD activity is continuous even at what is supposed to be
> Idle. It also uses a lot of the CPU Power and memory functions when it is
> running.
> This is just a small sample of the problems I have experienced. Microsoft
> should never have put this product on the market. They should recall them
> and give me my money back. The compatibility issues that they state are
> those of their arrogance. I have decided to boycott all future purchases
> of Microsoft software after this blunder. It's not Vista it's Pista!

Having watched Microsoft evolve and improve it's OS over the years, XP was
the best and most stable. I thought that Vista would be at least an equal or
better. It is not. The so called security features impede productivity and
the ability to arrange ones Start folders the way they want. The Vista
advisor was wrong on at least 50% of my software as it bases it's findings
on installed software in the XP environment. The surprise comes when you go
to install that software in a full install Home Premium. Most will start and
just disappear or install and have problems when you start them. I am
talking about some expensive software too.
The indexer function has to go as it will surely run the hell out of and
shorten the life of any HDD. If you stop it, it will eventually start again
and the HDD activity is continuous even at what is supposed to be Idle. It
also uses a lot of the CPU Power and memory functions when it is running.
This is just a small sample of the problems I have experienced. Microsoft
should never have put this product on the market. They should recall them
and give me my money back. The compatibility issues that they state are
those of their arrogance. I have decided to boycott all future purchases of
Microsoft software after this blunder. It's not Vista it's Pista!

"Frank M" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OLB5gIcZHHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Having watched Microsoft evolve and improve it's OS over the years, XP was
> the best and most stable.

Many would argue that W2K was the most stable.

> The so called security features impede productivity

No way. Clicking a button does not impede. Plus you can turn it off.

> The indexer function has to go as it will surely run the hell out of and
> shorten the life of any HDD.

Ridiculous!

> If you stop it, it will eventually start again

Not if you STOP it properly.

> and the HDD activity is continuous even at what is supposed to be Idle. It

Then it's not supposed to be idle.

> Microsoft should never have put this product on the market.

I'm glad they did.

> They should recall them and give me my money back.

No! Not mine!!!

> I have decided to boycott all future purchases of Microsoft software after
> this blunder.

Bye-bye!

XP is far superior to Vista in all aspects.

I think people should ignore vista, and send a message to MS that
if they dont shape up and deliver what users want and need, they can ship
out.

MAC and LINUX are gaining speed... and others will pop out of nowhere fast.

Users have the internet now, and the ability to chose, things can change
rapidly..
and if they dont want to make good OS anymore, let them make room for the
ones
who do.

"Frank M" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OLB5gIcZHHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Having watched Microsoft evolve and improve it's OS over the years, XP was
> the best and most stable. I thought that Vista would be at least an equal
> or better. It is not. The so called security features impede productivity
> and the ability to arrange ones Start folders the way they want. The Vista
> advisor was wrong on at least 50% of my software as it bases it's findings
> on installed software in the XP environment. The surprise comes when you
> go to install that software in a full install Home Premium. Most will
> start and just disappear or install and have problems when you start them.
> I am talking about some expensive software too.
> The indexer function has to go as it will surely run the hell out of and
> shorten the life of any HDD. If you stop it, it will eventually start
> again and the HDD activity is continuous even at what is supposed to be
> Idle. It also uses a lot of the CPU Power and memory functions when it is
> running.
> This is just a small sample of the problems I have experienced. Microsoft
> should never have put this product on the market. They should recall them
> and give me my money back. The compatibility issues that they state are
> those of their arrogance. I have decided to boycott all future purchases
> of Microsoft software after this blunder. It's not Vista it's Pista!

> No way. Clicking a button does not impede. Plus you can turn it off.
Vista should then ask with a pop up balloon if you want UAC or not
and give a very easy way to turn the firkin thing off, because I can
guarantee
you that most people will not know how to turn it off, but they will
patiently keep pressing
the firkin thing until their hands fall off. (and of course they will be
pressing without reading,
because this is what humans do if they see a message 1000 times a day!) Can
you say cry wolf?

>> The indexer function has to go as it will surely run the hell out of and
>> shorten the life of any HDD.
>
> Ridiculous!

Ok let me send you a program then that will continuously read and write on
your disk 24/7.. lets
see how much less it will last! Can you say temperature, can you say energy?
You cant cant you?

> Not if you STOP it properly.
Again MS has hidden the interfaced for indexing.. on XP there was a small
link on the search,
and by default it was off. Now default its on and they have no button.
This is a very very very very bad idea, that only a fanboy would like.

> I'm glad they did.
No comment, because im trying to be polite today....

"Justin" <None@None.com> wrote in message
news:uECh4QcZHHA.3824@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Frank M" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OLB5gIcZHHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Having watched Microsoft evolve and improve it's OS over the years, XP
>> was the best and most stable.
>
> Many would argue that W2K was the most stable.
>
>> The so called security features impede productivity
>
> No way. Clicking a button does not impede. Plus you can turn it off.
>
>> The indexer function has to go as it will surely run the hell out of and
>> shorten the life of any HDD.
>
> Ridiculous!
>
>> If you stop it, it will eventually start again
>
> Not if you STOP it properly.
>
>> and the HDD activity is continuous even at what is supposed to be Idle.
>> It
>
> Then it's not supposed to be idle.
>
>> Microsoft should never have put this product on the market.
>
> I'm glad they did.
>
>> They should recall them and give me my money back.
>
> No! Not mine!!!
>
>> I have decided to boycott all future purchases of Microsoft software
>> after this blunder.
>
> Bye-bye!

"kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message
news:uf5DoXcZHHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> No way. Clicking a button does not impede. Plus you can turn it off.
> Vista should then ask with a pop up balloon if you want UAC or not
> and give a very easy way to turn the firkin thing off, because I can
> guarantee
> you that most people will not know how to turn it off, but they will
> patiently keep pressing
> the firkin thing until their hands fall off. (and of course they will be
> pressing without reading,
> because this is what humans do if they see a message 1000 times a day!)
> Can you say cry wolf?

1000? You are either completely ignorant of UAC or a drama queen by choice.
Your comment here is absurd at best.

> Ok let me send you a program then that will continuously read and write on
> your disk 24/7.. lets
> see how much less it will last! Can you say temperature, can you say
> energy? You cant cant you?

Wow, the absurdities continue. Who told you the indexing service actively
creates an index 24/7? Your comment here is absurd at best.

>> Not if you STOP it properly.
> Again MS has hidden the interfaced for indexing.. on XP there was a small
> link on the search,
> and by default it was off. Now default its on and they have no button.
> This is a very very very very bad idea, that only a fanboy would like.

Actually it's much easier to find those features in Vista then it is in XP.
You can go straight to services if you want to.

>> I'm glad they did.
> No comment, because im trying to be polite today....

Oh good.

"Frank M" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OLB5gIcZHHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Having watched Microsoft evolve and improve it's OS over the years, XP was
> the best and most stable. I thought that Vista would be at least an equal
or
> better. It is not. The so called security features impede productivity and
> the ability to arrange ones Start folders the way they want. The Vista
> advisor was wrong on at least 50% of my software as it bases it's findings
> on installed software in the XP environment. The surprise comes when you
go
> to install that software in a full install Home Premium. Most will start
and
> just disappear or install and have problems when you start them. I am
> talking about some expensive software too.
>

<snip>

Wow sorry to hear the bad news...
though I did a test install of Vista I'm still using XP and Win2K

Anyway if your DVD burner works you might as well back up all your data...
and test the DVD to be sure all your data is good...
then perform a fresh install of XP

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:02:10 -0700, "Justin" <None@None.com> wrote:


>> The so called security features impede productivity
>
>No way. Clicking a button does not impede. Plus you can turn it off.

Pushing the same button over and over to do routine tasks DOES impede
your workflow. Of course Justin never does any work, so he wouldn't
understand. It also defeats the purpose in case you're too dumb to
figure that out on your own. If a security "feature" can be bypassed
by simply clicking a button and users learn quickly that's all they
need to do, then soon they won't even bother to read a warning and
just force of habit click through or just turn UAC off. The bottom
line while UAC is a long overdue attempt to improve security it was
poorly implemented. For Pete's sake, this isn't rocket science.
Windows being SOFTWARE should be smart enough to know the different
between deleting a shortcut from the desktop or moving a file from one
drive to another without raising the same alarm it is suppose to for
any malware.

people end up pressing it without reading the message....

if you give a warning too many times you adapt to ignore it, so you can
complete
the task in hand faster... If you actually sit there and read the UAC
message each time
then you will be losing hours of work over a weeks time for example...

So this is no protection at all... and its a stupid, silly, annoying idea.

AND not everyone will find out how to turn it off...


"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:f6eev257gln3dnupc4k6teoq4sqpf4t7hq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:02:10 -0700, "Justin" <None@None.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> The so called security features impede productivity
>>
>>No way. Clicking a button does not impede. Plus you can turn it off.
>
> Pushing the same button over and over to do routine tasks DOES impede
> your workflow. Of course Justin never does any work, so he wouldn't
> understand. It also defeats the purpose in case you're too dumb to
> figure that out on your own. If a security "feature" can be bypassed
> by simply clicking a button and users learn quickly that's all they
> need to do, then soon they won't even bother to read a warning and
> just force of habit click through or just turn UAC off. The bottom
> line while UAC is a long overdue attempt to improve security it was
> poorly implemented. For Pete's sake, this isn't rocket science.
> Windows being SOFTWARE should be smart enough to know the different
> between deleting a shortcut from the desktop or moving a file from one
> drive to another without raising the same alarm it is suppose to for
> any malware.
>
>

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:f6eev257gln3dnupc4k6teoq4sqpf4t7hq@4ax.com...

> Pushing the same button over and over to do routine tasks DOES impede
> your workflow.

It's a good thing the UAC doesn't pop up on routine tasks. It's a good
thing you can turn it off!


> Of course Justin never does any work, so he wouldn't
> understand.

Read above.

> It also defeats the purpose in case you're too dumb to
> figure that out on your own.

Read above.

> If a security "feature" can be bypassed
> by simply clicking a button and users learn quickly that's all they
> need to do, then soon they won't even bother to read a warning and
> just force of habit click through or just turn UAC off.

Read above.

> The bottom
> line while UAC is a long overdue attempt to improve security it was
> poorly implemented.

Read above.

> For Pete's sake, this isn't rocket science.

No crap, read above.

> Windows being SOFTWARE should be smart enough to know the different
> between deleting a shortcut from the desktop or moving a file from one
> drive to another without raising the same alarm it is suppose to for
> any malware.

One drive to another? That doesn't happen to me. Read above.