Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista28

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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!

"Shenan Stanley" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Sorry...not few months.. it was more like several months..

Moore's law says 18 months...

but it still was climbing in speed...

while for a long time we were stuck under 3. something gigs due to heat
limiatations.

"Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:46fd4270$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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!
>
>
> "Shenan Stanley" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> 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
>>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP OH MY! And where did you come up with that?!?!?!?

This is the primary destination of the self-help link in Microsoft
Support pages. Please don't delude yourself that your pasting of
irrelevant links and articles is the least bit helpful.

Tiberius wrote:

> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup,

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP And the problem is exactly what? BFD!

Tiberius wrote:

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Moore never said every 18 months, he said "about every 2 years".

John

Tiberius wrote:
> Sorry...not few months.. it was more like several months..
>
> Moore's law says 18 months...
>
> but it still was climbing in speed...
>
> while for a long time we were stuck under 3. something gigs due to heat
> limiatations.
>
> "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:46fd4270$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
>>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!
>>
>>
>>"Shenan Stanley" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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:
> 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.

You are welcomed to your opinion. I do not personally recommend Vista to
anyone at this time and I do not install it in a business environment at
this time either. That is my choice and those with whom I work tend to
agree. This does not mean I actively voice my opinion against it, as it
seemingly works well for some - and each person/groupo has their own needs
and experiences.

Your point is taken, this is an online threaded discussion group in which
people converse asynchronously to exchange ideas and information - so, I
concede, your posting that here is not disruptive and could be considered a
discussion topic. However - it being a discussion group and you having
presented a discussion topic - I did try to continue the conversation you
began by your posting.

In your response to me you seemingly ignored the two questions completely.
Those questions are ones that would have continued the thread in a
productive manner - the comment I made about the relevance of the posting
was just that - a comment that required no response.

In case you just missed the questions that would continue this discussion in
this newsgroup, I will repeat them for you...

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 requirements 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?

The answers to those questions from you (or anyone wishing to participate in
this discussion) could be quite telling in the development of computers as a
whole, software and hardware-wise.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:46fd38ee$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

What insight!
Higher CPU requirements!
Guess that's why Intel and AMD have been making faster CPU's.

Take a Chicken survey.
I bet more chickens get eaten today then 20 years ago.

More HD TV's get sold today than 10 years ago.

More toilet flushing occurs today than any other time in human history.

More birth's, more death's.

It's like some king of Mathematical thingy

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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!

Shouldn't you be applying time to the equation. How long after 2000 was
released did XP come out? How long after XP did Vista come out? This
speaks somewhat to the point Shenan brought up. What is the relation to
the increase in requirements to the increase in available CPU
performance. That helps make a better comparison.
--
Tom Porterfield

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

"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.
>
>
> "Shenan Stanley" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> > 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
> >
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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!
>

There is truly something wrong with you isn't there?
What in the world do you think (if thinking is possible for you) that
you are accomplishing by posting all of your Vista hatred diatribes in
this ng?
Please tells us and get it over with cause all you're doing is sucking
up bandwidth with your useless ignorant personal opinion Vista diatribes.
IOW, you're now looking like a mentally deranged FOOL!
Frank

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "...I am helping people."
We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours.
You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help an
OP.

"most people are avoiding vista anyway"
Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous operating
system.
But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants.
Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most
people are avoiding" we will know your facts.
But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post of
yours.

Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those
who disagree with you.
Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them is
clear.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

"Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:46fd40ad$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:48:28 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote:

>"...I am helping people."
>We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours.

That's the first time you admitted you like to sit in judgment of
others. How precious.

>Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those
>who disagree with you.
>Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them is
>clear.

LOL! The flip side is Bozos like you, most obvious is some MVPs where
you have some misplaced loyalty where you feel you must defend
Microsoft even when you know some of their policies are harmful and in
general their software sucks. I guess you're not familiar with the
word creditability. Because doing that you have done.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for
years...

and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my
posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of
distorted truth.

In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear
to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to problems,
because the problem is vista itself.

That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of
course I am correct.

You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really helps..
I have seen how you post..

you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much
about comptuers or they did something wrong..

and its never vistas fault.

You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of value.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> "...I am helping people."
> We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours.
> You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help
> an OP.
>
> "most people are avoiding vista anyway"
> Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous
> operating system.
> But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants.
> Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most
> people are avoiding" we will know your facts.
> But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post
> of yours.
>
> Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those
> who disagree with you.
> Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them
> is clear.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>
>
> "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:46fd40ad$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> 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.
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP I suggest you do the same...

Sorry to see you go...

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows - Shell/User
> Microsoft Community Newsgroups
> news://msnews.microsoft.com/
>
>
>
> "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.
>>
>>
>> "Shenan Stanley" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:46fd5ee4$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for
>years...
>
> and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my
> posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of
> distorted truth.
>
> In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear
> to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to
> problems, because the problem is vista itself.
>
> That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of
> course I am correct.
>
> You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really
> helps.. I have seen how you post..
>
> you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much
> about comptuers or they did something wrong..
>
> and its never vistas fault.
>
> You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of
> value.
>
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> "...I am helping people."
>> We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours.
>> You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help
>> an OP.
>>
>> "most people are avoiding vista anyway"
>> Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous
>> operating system.
>> But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants.
>> Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most
>> people are avoiding" we will know your facts.
>> But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post
>> of yours.
>>
>> Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those
>> who disagree with you.
>> Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them
>> is clear.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>>
>>
>> "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:46fd40ad$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>
>

Why don't you add Caesar to your nic and complete the fantasy.
Helped thousands...haha

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "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..."

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

"Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:46fd5ee4$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for
>years...
>
> and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my
> posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of
> distorted truth.
>
> In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear
> to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to
> problems, because the problem is vista itself.
>
> That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of
> course I am correct.
>
> You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really
> helps.. I have seen how you post..
>
> you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much
> about comptuers or they did something wrong..
>
> and its never vistas fault.
>
> You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of
> value.
>
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> "...I am helping people."
>> We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours.
>> You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help
>> an OP.
>>
>> "most people are avoiding vista anyway"
>> Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous
>> operating system.
>> But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants.
>> Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most
>> people are avoiding" we will know your facts.
>> But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post
>> of yours.
>>
>> Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those
>> who disagree with you.
>> Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them
>> is clear.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>>
>>
>> "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:46fd40ad$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "many in here claim that vista is FASTER than XP"
Some have claimed it and NO ONE has been able to prove those claims false.
No one ever suggested it applies in all or even most situations, but it
seems clear it is true in some.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

"Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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... :-)

"Frank" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:19:24 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:46fd40ad$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> 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
>>
>
>

Windows Vista >> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.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 ($200 Newegg) without problems.
> I had to update NERO and PAPERPORT. That's it. Vista has been operating
> perfectly since installation.
>
> Each generation of Operating System has required more resources. I
> started out with DOS. Windows 3.1 really sucked power. And it has never
> stopped. Anybody who is just going to upgrade the OS without looking into
> the additional resources required is putting their head in the sand.
>
> Your statement that Vista is a power hog is like telling people water is
> wet. Of course it takes more power. MS advised the public of that in day
> one.
>
> Well anyhow, that's my comment.
>
>
> "Tiberius" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:46fd40ad$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

Windows Vista >> 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...

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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> 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
>>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP You are brilliant

"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP
"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
>>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
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Adam Albright wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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?>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP
"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:33:36 -0700, Frank <EMail@HideDomain.com> 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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:59:46 -0700, "Vista User"
<EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:33:36 -0700, Frank <EMail@HideDomain.com> 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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 !

Windows Vista >> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:46:00 -0400, "Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> 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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:46:00 -0400, "Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> 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

Windows Vista >> 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.

Windows Vista >> 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.

Windows Vista >> 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$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, Carey Frisch [MVP] <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, Carey Frisch [MVP] <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> Microsoft owns this newsgroup? I did not know that.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:59:46 -0700, "Vista User"
> <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:04:33 GMT, "Mellowed" <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP

"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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> > 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
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP

"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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> > 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
> >
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP where does microsoft find these guys and make them mvps....?

this is sad!

"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP 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$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Ever hear of a URL? This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server.
"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Unknown wrote:
> Ever hear of a URL?

Not relevant.

> This newsgroup is controlled by a Microsoft server.

No, it is not.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>> <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>>
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <EMail@HideDomain.com> put his beer down long
enough to quack in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>>> <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <EMail@HideDomain.com> put his beer down
> long enough to quack in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
>> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>>>> <EMail@HideDomain.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

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:29:34 -0400, "Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> 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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Seven wrote:
> Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin.

Who's the Preacher Man that Albert shouldn't hate?

> What's a "wannabe be" ?
> If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically.
>

"you're spelling"? LOL! Without the contraction, it would be "you are
spelling will improve dramatically". Maybe if you drink less ...

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Alias" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:fdod79$apq$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> Seven wrote:
>> Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin.
>
> Who's the Preacher Man that Albert shouldn't hate?
>
>> What's a "wannabe be" ?
>> If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically.
>>
>
> "you're spelling"? LOL! Without the contraction, it would be "you are
> spelling will improve dramatically". Maybe if you drink less ...
>
> --
> Alias
> To email me, remove shoes

To be exact, it wasn't a spelling error, but a grammatical usage error.
I stand corrected.
The shame, the shame.

So, now that I have you're <--Oops attention,
How's ol' Gaseous Gibbon ?
Getting all excited about Heathen Humpback?

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP seven wrote:
> "Alias" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:fdod79$apq$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> Seven wrote:
>>> Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin.
>>
>> Who's the Preacher Man that Albert shouldn't hate?

Well?

>>
>>> What's a "wannabe be" ?
>>> If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically.
>>>
>>
>> "you're spelling"? LOL! Without the contraction, it would be "you are
>> spelling will improve dramatically". Maybe if you drink less ...
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>> To email me, remove shoes
>
>
> To be exact, it wasn't a spelling error, but a grammatical usage error.

I never said it was a spelling mistake. Where did you get that?

> I stand corrected.
> The shame, the shame.

Especially after correcting Adam and accusing him of drinking ...

> So, now that I have you're <--Oops attention,
> How's ol' Gaseous Gibbon ?
> Getting all excited about Heathen Humpback?

I wouldn't know anything about things that only exist in your
imagination, sorry.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP
"Alias" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:fdof23$flc$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> seven wrote:
>> "Alias" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:fdod79$apq$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> Seven wrote:
>>>> Don't hate Preacher Man, it's a sin.
>>>
>>> Who's the Preacher Man that Albert shouldn't hate?
>
> Well?
>
>>>
>>>> What's a "wannabe be" ?
>>>> If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "you're spelling"? LOL! Without the contraction, it would be "you are
>>> spelling will improve dramatically". Maybe if you drink less ...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>
>>
>> To be exact, it wasn't a spelling error, but a grammatical usage error.
>
> I never said it was a spelling mistake. Where did you get that?
>
>> I stand corrected.
>> The shame, the shame.
>
> Especially after correcting Adam and accusing him of drinking ...
>
>> So, now that I have you're <--Oops attention,
>> How's ol' Gaseous Gibbon ?
>> Getting all excited about Heathen Humpback?
>
> I wouldn't know anything about things that only exist in your imagination,
> sorry.
>
> --
> Alias
> To email me, remove shoes

Why do you call him Albert?
He is the Preacher Man, as he is here to pontificate what opinion users
"should" have on Vista.
Nice of you to stand up for him.
Brings tears to one's eyes.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Care to explain that?
"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>>> <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>>>
>>
>

Windows Vista >> 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...

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP > If you drink less, you're spelling will improve dramatically.

...and exactly how much did *you* have this morning?

Windows Vista >> 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?

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP
"Homer J. Simpson" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> 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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:47:31 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
wrote:

>Care to explain that?

Explain what? How newsgroups and news servers work? There's all kinds
of articles that go into great detail, why repeat it here. You do know
how to use Google or another search engine don't you? My point is a
lot of the crap people claim as factual, often MVPs, is pure bullshit
or factually in error. So something really dumb like a MVP claiming
this newsgroup is "controlled by a Microsoft server", utter bullshit,
needs to be set straight. The stupidity level is high enough already
without some dummy like Jupiter adding to it.

Just to give you a taste, the original claim was 'ever hear of a URL?'

Well duh, a URL (uniform resource locator) is a means to point to a
SINGLE static address of a resource on a WEB SERVER on the Internet,
ie the World Wide Web and begins with the protocol http://

A post to a newsgroup gets uploaded to whatever news server the poster
happens to subscribe to, one of thousands all over the world. When YOU
or anyone else reads somebody else's post unless you happen to also
subscribe to the same news server the poster uploaded it to you are
actually accessing a COPY of his post that was handed off through a
network of news servers part of what's called Usenet, which really has
nothing to do with the Internet at all. Two completely different
animals.

So in effect the idea is if your ISP accepts traffic from newsgroup X
in effect that ISP has obtained a "copy" of all posts regardless where
they originally generated from and in turn he offers to exchange
whatever posts he gets that were posted to his news server with other
networked or peered news servers all over the planet so in theory
anyway as long as your ISP or some third party source carries the
newsgroup you are interested in, you'll see any post made to the
newsgroup, but it is just one of hundreds if not thousands of copies
made of that post unlike a web page which typically has a single
static non changing address pointed to be some URL. THEN obviously
whoever controls that web site could control what's posted to those
web pages.

So any fool claiming Microsoft can control thousands of news servers
when news servers that carry this newsgroup number in the thousands
and are run but all kinds of different companies none that have
anything to do with Microsoft such a person is a obvious DOOFUS and
doesn't understand squat how the process works.

To further confuse newbies some people access this and other
newsgroups through some web site protocol. That's just a front end and
doesn't mean anything. All newsgroups once part of the public domain
and this one is, are part of Usenet and anyone is free to post to them
and say what they want no matter how much that may annoy some ignorant
fanboy or other idiot that doesn't know any better.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP You're???? You are, or your?
"Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <EMail@HideDomain.com> put his beer down
> long enough to quack in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
>> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>>>> <EMail@HideDomain.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.
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP You say it's utter bullshit. You are completely wrong. That is why I ask you
to explain.
You unfortunately are the one who is wrong here.
"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:47:31 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Care to explain that?
>
> Explain what? How newsgroups and news servers work? There's all kinds
> of articles that go into great detail, why repeat it here. You do know
> how to use Google or another search engine don't you? My point is a
> lot of the crap people claim as factual, often MVPs, is pure bullshit
> or factually in error. So something really dumb like a MVP claiming
> this newsgroup is "controlled by a Microsoft server", utter bullshit,
> needs to be set straight. The stupidity level is high enough already
> without some dummy like Jupiter adding to it.
>
> Just to give you a taste, the original claim was 'ever hear of a URL?'
>
> Well duh, a URL (uniform resource locator) is a means to point to a
> SINGLE static address of a resource on a WEB SERVER on the Internet,
> ie the World Wide Web and begins with the protocol http://
>
> A post to a newsgroup gets uploaded to whatever news server the poster
> happens to subscribe to, one of thousands all over the world. When YOU
> or anyone else reads somebody else's post unless you happen to also
> subscribe to the same news server the poster uploaded it to you are
> actually accessing a COPY of his post that was handed off through a
> network of news servers part of what's called Usenet, which really has
> nothing to do with the Internet at all. Two completely different
> animals.
>
> So in effect the idea is if your ISP accepts traffic from newsgroup X
> in effect that ISP has obtained a "copy" of all posts regardless where
> they originally generated from and in turn he offers to exchange
> whatever posts he gets that were posted to his news server with other
> networked or peered news servers all over the planet so in theory
> anyway as long as your ISP or some third party source carries the
> newsgroup you are interested in, you'll see any post made to the
> newsgroup, but it is just one of hundreds if not thousands of copies
> made of that post unlike a web page which typically has a single
> static non changing address pointed to be some URL. THEN obviously
> whoever controls that web site could control what's posted to those
> web pages.
>
> So any fool claiming Microsoft can control thousands of news servers
> when news servers that carry this newsgroup number in the thousands
> and are run but all kinds of different companies none that have
> anything to do with Microsoft such a person is a obvious DOOFUS and
> doesn't understand squat how the process works.
>
> To further confuse newbies some people access this and other
> newsgroups through some web site protocol. That's just a front end and
> doesn't mean anything. All newsgroups once part of the public domain
> and this one is, are part of Usenet and anyone is free to post to them
> and say what they want no matter how much that may annoy some ignorant
> fanboy or other idiot that doesn't know any better.
>

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:iZQLi.1242$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> You're???? You are, or your?
> "Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <EMail@HideDomain.com> put his beer down
>> long enough to quack in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
>>> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>>>>> <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP
"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
> 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.
>

Hi Adam.. still trying to become an expert by telling everyone else they
know nothing I see.
You are crazy.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP I don't want to look for annoder.
"seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:iZQLi.1242$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> You're???? You are, or your?
>> "Seven" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> "Adam Albright",son of Jacob NotSoBright <EMail@HideDomain.com> put his beer down
>>> long enough to quack in message
>>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
>>>> 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" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:07 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>>>>>> <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:01:29 +0100, "dennis@home"
<EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:39:06 GMT, "Unknown" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Hi Adam.. still trying to become an expert by telling everyone else they
>know nothing I see.
>You are crazy.

You're a riot. You first need to carefully snip all the factual
comments I made that proves I'm right. That makes you a dickhead at
best and probably a coward.

I would ask how it feels to be a wise-ass like you, but I'm sure you
have had your share of fat lips if you mouth off in person like you do
here.

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP >>> 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.

Couldn't spot the typo, huh?

Windows Vista >> Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Sep 28, 8:20 pm, baynole <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2:34 pm, Carey Frisch [MVP] <EMail@HideDomain.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.

Up yours, asshole.