Vista - Roll back to XP

It didnt crash on my computer or my customer's computers, and that is all
that matters. Even if it did, I have the freedom to choose something
else. I didnt mention anything about MAC OS, so you must be dialing for
dollars.


>
> If you are referring to the one-disc Linux...it crashes on ten of 12
> computers I run.
>
> As for your other comments, they are plain stupid. OSX is fundamentally
> not compatible with Mac Classic Os's

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
newsan.2007.03.29.22.02.58@slapsoap.com...
> I do not understand why Vista is huge. My OS fits on a cd and includes a
> host of useful programs.

Why Windows is huge to begin with is a whole other topic. Point being, if
Vista were to be 100% XP compatible then it would be even larger.

> The os should support
> the hardware and the apps, not the other way around.

Nope. Wrong. MS is not responsible for writing drivers for all hardware.
As for apps, see above.

> You admit that you
> can not use Vista to the fullest, because you are missing driver support
> and patches for your applications

Right, where I work I have over 300+ PCs and not all of them are Vista
ready. Your point? At home I have a machine that is Vista ready and runs
just fine.

> if they will ever be patched, and you

Yes they will. Thanks.

> wont be forced to buy upgraded versions of the same apps. Now,

Nope, I wont. Thanks.

On 3/29/2007 3:09 PM On a whim, Telstar pounded out on the keyboard

> "Terry" <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:OiFGYqkcHHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> On 3/29/2007 2:11 PM On a whim, Justin pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> "Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
>>> newsan.2007.03.29.20.05.33@slapsoap.com...
>>>> I really dont think that it is too much to ask that the majority of
>>>> progams that worked in XP should also work in Vista. When I upgraded
>>>> from
>>>> 2000 to XP, the only programs that didnt work in both were the Microsoft
>>>> toys that were designed specifically for XP. An operating system should
>>>> be written to accommodate the customers needs. Otherwise it is a
>>>> useless
>>>> toy, and in the case of Vista, a broken toy.
>>> I completely disagree. If people think Vista is HUGE now then just
>>> imagine it being fully XP compatible.
>>>
>>> If MS were to kill XP with the release of Vista then your train of
>>> thought would have a fighting chance. The simple fact remains, if Vista
>>> can't get you what you need as an OS then you need to use XP (if in fact
>>> you need Windows of course).
>>>
>>> Vista gives me everything I need as a consumer thus I run Vista 100% of
>>> the time.
>>>
>>> Vista gives my business more then I have with XP however our apps and
>>> drivers are not ready for Vista, thus we'll wait until everything is
>>> supported. You'll notice it's up to the third parties to support Vista,
>>> not the other way around.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting. You run Vista 100% of the time but your "apps and drivers
>> are not ready for Vista"? So you'll wait until everything is supported? I
>> don't know what business you run, but most can't sit around waiting until
>> everyone plays catch-up with Vista. A pretty new UI doesn't get my work
>> done. Does it yours?
>>
>> The bottom line is dollars. If Vista ran everything without a hitch, all
>> the software (and hardware) companies wouldn't be able to charge for their
>> upgrades and would go broke. Same with MS.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Terry
>>
>> ***Reply Note***
>> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
>> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
>
> This is convoluted, indeed idiot, logic. Is OSX compatible with Mac
> Classic?
>
>

Aside from getting a newsreader that knows how to strip sigs (try
Quotefix), we're not talking about other OS's here, nor does that small
percentage even matter. And BTW, is that why Classic is included with
OSX? Maybe MS could learn something here.

I'll take it your remarks are for Justin, not me.

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:e8iZv8kcHHA.4172@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2007.03.29.22.02.58@slapsoap.com...
>>
>>> I completely disagree. If people think Vista is HUGE now then just
>>> imagine it being fully XP compatible.
>>>
>>> If MS were to kill XP with the release of Vista then your train of
>>> thought would have a fighting chance. The simple fact remains, if Vista
>>> can't get you what you need as an OS then you need to use XP (if in fact
>>> you need Windows of course).
>>>
>>> Vista gives me everything I need as a consumer thus I run Vista 100% of
>>> the time.
>>>
>>> Vista gives my business more then I have with XP however our apps and
>>> drivers are not ready for Vista, thus we'll wait until everything is
>>> supported. You'll notice it's up to the third parties to support Vista,
>>> not the other way around.
>>
>> I do not understand why Vista is huge. My OS fits on a cd and includes a
>> host of useful programs. No one would dare to put out a kernel that
>> didnt include support for more hardware and yet was not compatible with
>> all the apps.
>
> If you are referring to the one-disc Linux...it crashes on ten of 12
> computers I run.
>
> As for your other comments, they are plain stupid. OSX is fundamentally
> not compatible with Mac Classic Os's

Very true!

At the time of OSX's released we had ~10 Macs. We had to run Mac Classic
for the longest time because MANY of our apps and DRIVERS would not work
with OSX. So now you have MS and Apple performing the exact same moves.
Who's in the wrong? No one.

Who insulted you? Are you referring to this:

> I never think about my operating system.
It shows.

If you are then tuff. Because it does show. However do not skip the part
where I DID agree with you.



"Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
newsan.2007.03.29.22.16.58@slapsoap.com...
>I notice that MOM's Kids can not respond to a post, without insulting the
> person that they disagree with. They love MOM so much that they cant
> stand anyone saying anything negative about their beloved MOM. I would
> switch my OS tomorrow, if I found something better, but MOM's Kids will
> hold onto the end. Vista is not something better for me and I have the
> freedom to decide.
>
>
>
>>> I never think about my operating system.
>>
>> It shows.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

"Terry" <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:OPwsLElcHHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Aside from getting a newsreader that knows how to strip sigs (try
> Quotefix), we're not talking about other OS's here, nor does that small
> percentage even matter. And BTW, is that why Classic is included with OSX?
> Maybe MS could learn something here.

You mean Virtual PC?

I just had to post again. I missed your stupid comment. I guess that
makes me stupid, if my comments are stupid. I hereby award you the MOM
Kids award. Congratulations.


>> If you are referring to the one-disc Linux...it crashes on ten of 12
>> computers I run.
>>
>> As for your other comments, they are plain stupid. OSX is
>> fundamentally not compatible with Mac Classic Os's
>
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
newsan.2007.03.29.22.21.15@slapsoap.com...
> It didnt crash on my computer or my customer's computers
It never got it to crash but it sure didn't work for squat on the many
machines I tried. It works on some but some isn't good enough.

> and that is all that matters.
So your conclusions are based on a narrow perspective?

> I didnt mention anything about MAC OS, so you must be dialing for
> dollars.

You didn't have to. You are trying to tell us how MS should build their
software when Telstar very clearly showed you that Apple follows the same
path. So you are left to answer WHY MS should do anything outside of what
is clearly an industry standard model?

Maybe I should state this very simply. You do not need a huge OS to
remain compatible with your applications. You do not need a huge OS to
be compatible with most hardware. How do I know? I am using one.




On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:22:56 -0700, Justin wrote:

> "Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2007.03.29.22.02.58@slapsoap.com...
>> I do not understand why Vista is huge. My OS fits on a cd and includes
>> a host of useful programs.
>
> Why Windows is huge to begin with is a whole other topic. Point being,
> if Vista were to be 100% XP compatible then it would be even larger.
>
>> The os should support
>> the hardware and the apps, not the other way around.
>
> Nope. Wrong. MS is not responsible for writing drivers for all
> hardware. As for apps, see above.
>
>> You admit that you
>> can not use Vista to the fullest, because you are missing driver
>> support and patches for your applications
>
> Right, where I work I have over 300+ PCs and not all of them are Vista
> ready. Your point? At home I have a machine that is Vista ready and
> runs just fine.
>
>> if they will ever be patched, and you
>
> Yes they will. Thanks.
>
>> wont be forced to buy upgraded versions of the same apps. Now,
>
> Nope, I wont. Thanks.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Billy" <bigbill52a@slapsoap.com> wrote in message
newsan.2007.03.29.22.36.47@slapsoap.com...
> Maybe I should state this very simply. You do not need a huge OS to
> remain compatible with your applications. You do not need a huge OS to
> be compatible with most hardware. How do I know? I am using one.

No one said you did.

It sounds like you are very happy with Linux. Good.