I would add the Windows 7 beta to my torrent list but I'm kinda low on HDD space and don't really want to be spending time setting up another operating system just yet.
Actually, he's right about the wireless thing. I wanted to set up a dual boot on my laptop the last time I did a clean install of Ubuntu. My XP disc predates either SP, and on it's own there was absolutely no default wireless support. I tried the manual set up, but it totally sucked. With no way to get internet and update it, I rebooted and installed Ubuntu straight over the partitions. In terms of support of many features that are basic today, XP is horribly outdated.
Unless there was some reason barring you from doing so. You could have just connected the laptop to the wire then updated that way. You do make an interesting point though. Most users don't even have an XP disc. PC companies just supply bullshit restore discs if they are lucky. But that's another matter.
Actually, he's right about the wireless thing. I wanted to set up a dual boot on my laptop the last time I did a clean install of Ubuntu. My XP disc predates either SP, and on it's own there was absolutely no default wireless support. I tried the manual set up, but it totally sucked. With no way to get internet and update it, I rebooted and installed Ubuntu straight over the partitions. In terms of support of many features that are basic today, XP is horribly outdated.
That's perfectly possible. He was however talking about 'dodgy support', not 'default support'. Vista doesn't do much better on the default wireless card support, neither does Windows 7. I just happen to have bought my laptop from a company that supplies a nice Recover partition filled with all the latest drivers needed for XP and Vista for all the hardware that's in this thing. But why are we discussing Windows hardware support? Is it not a well-known fact that Windows does a horrible job at supporting hardware anyway? Their asses are saved because they had monopoly, and thus hardware vendors made drivers themselves.
I still have to restart when I change my workgroup? Why? What the fuck is so difficult about workgroups that requires a restart?
You're using a Microsoft 'service' in a Microsoft beta product. Remember ME? Remember Vista?
I would totally try that out if I had another PC. Sounds pretty cool, and also, I believe I read some where that you could change the size of the taskbar to not make it so thick. Any verification to this? I don't really like the thickness of the taskbar either, nor do I like how the windows look in it. I haven't used it yet, but they look too similar to the quick launch icons for me...
I would totally try that out if I had another PC. Sounds pretty cool, and also, I believe I read some where that you could change the size of the taskbar to not make it so thick. Any verification to this? I don't really like the thickness of the taskbar either, nor do I like how the windows look in it. I haven't used it yet, but they look too similar to the quick launch icons for me...
You can change it to be small, that's a pretty obvious feature if you ask me. Don't worry about the new taskbar looking weird. If you use your brain it's really easy to use.
EDIT:
Yep, Microsoft is giving out 2,5 million copies of the beta version.
I still have to restart when I change my workgroup? Why? What the fuck is so difficult about workgroups that requires a restart?
It might have something to do on how SMB network browsing historically works on Windows computers. If a new Windows computer is started in a network it does not "see" any other computers with the same workgroup name and starts to act a as a browse master. If the workgroup name is changed the network browsing services might require a restart to a) either start to work as new master browser or b) contact the existing master in the network. This is partly guessing but in any case I think it goes back to basics on how Windows workgroups work.
I still have to restart when I change my workgroup? Why? What the fuck is so difficult about workgroups that requires a restart?
I could not for the life of me get Windows 7 to talk to my normal MSHOME network. If you or anyone else figures this out, let me know.
Mine just worked, can't help ya.
That's perfectly possible. He was however talking about 'dodgy support', not 'default support'.
So you're allowed to make sweeping generalizations, but I'm not?
I still have to restart when I change my workgroup? Why? What the fuck is so difficult about workgroups that requires a restart?
It might have something to do on how SMB network browsing historically works on Windows computers. If a new Windows computer is started in a network it does not "see" any other computers with the same workgroup name and starts to act a as a browse master. If the workgroup name is changed the network browsing services might require a restart to a) either start to work as new master browser or b) contact the existing master in the network. This is partly guessing but in any case I think it goes back to basics on how Windows workgroups work.
So you're allowed to make sweeping generalizations, but I'm not?
I never said anything like that fool. Stop forcing your bloody misconceptions down people's throats. I said I never before heard of any wireless driver problems under Windows XP, it is however a known fact that when Vista just came out, a lot of stuff did not work because there were no drivers yet. I did not make a single sweeping generalization, and I did not say you were not allowed to make dumb generalizations.
If you meant XP having worse default hardware support than Vista, you should've said so, and you shouldn't have talked about dodgy support then. That's a completely different ballgame.
I think everything has been getting better and better since Vista came out.
Ahaha, oh wow, I agree with Omnusha's correction on this.
So do you not think Vista is inferior to XP? Did I get you and Omnutia wrong?
Stop forcing your bloody misconceptions down people's throats. I said I never before heard of any wireless driver problems under Windows XP, it is however a known fact that when Vista just came out, a lot of stuff did not work because there were no drivers yet. I did not make a single sweeping generalization, and I did not say you were not allowed to make dumb generalizations.
If you meant XP having worse default hardware support than Vista, you should've said so, and you shouldn't have talked about dodgy support then. That's a completely different ballgame.
I never said anything at all about drivers, you assumed it and have based your entire argument on it. XP's wireless support was tacked on when service pack 1 came out, though it wasn't really usable until service pack 2. This leads to some interesting wireless issues that I've seen many many times when my brothers friend's try to play games at our house. My favorite is the wireless "repair" button that disables and re-enables the wireless card. At least Vista will try and figure out the problem. And Vista's ability to change access to my computer depending on what network I'm connected to is far better than XP's one setting fits all.
And why is it Vista's fault that drivers aren't written for it at release?
So do you not think Vista is inferior to XP? Did I get you and Omnutia wrong?
I don't know about Omnusha, but you did get me wrong. You said everything was getting better and better. In my opinion that's utter bullshit since Vista is not better at all than XP. I agreed with Omnusha's correction, which is unrelated to the message behind said correction, that the level of improvement, of things getting better, returns to an acceptable level. Sure, Vista has some improvements here and there, but these all fall away against the setbacks, one being the resource requirements.
I never said anything at all about drivers, you assumed it and have based your entire argument on it.
1. Only now you bother making this correcting comment, why so slow? Why argue something when you appear to be misunderstood? Are you daft? Are you masochistic? It's not that hard to re-explain yourself in clearer terms. 2. there was little to assume, you talked about wireless support of XP. It's not that out of the realm to think that Microsoft was not forthcoming with information when it came out with their wireless center, causing drivers to badly interface with the program. Also, use <emp> and <strong>, doctype's xhtml.
XP's wireless support was tacked on when service pack 1 came out, though it wasn't really usable until service pack 2.
Need you be told that you are comparing the successor of the XP SP2 wireless system to the very first public incarnation of it? It would've been the same crap if Vista was released in 2002. Back then this was much less of a problem anyway, because there was barely anything wireless. When Vista got released there was a huge amount of things wireless. You can't compare the fuel economy of two similar cars where one is 20 years old, and the other 2 years old.
And why is it Vista's fault that drivers aren't written for it at release?
I don't blame Vista. If you think I'm blaming a collection of bits you are a moron. You can't blame a fucking thing. I blame Microsoft, I blame their work on Vista. Microsoft did not think their plans through, they could've been more open towards manufacturers so that these could update their drivers. This resulted in Vista being very ill-received. When information about Vista just came out I was excited about it, but when it came out it was a disappointment, it did not deliver what they said.
Why do you think Microsoft is trying to put out Windows 7 so quickly after releasing Windows Vista?
Jason, you know Scott, he won't even fix things if you ask him directly. Let alone he will bother when you're suggestively crying out. So will you please just stop trolling like that?
I don't know about Omnusha, but you did get me wrong. You said everything was getting better and better. In my opinion that's utter bullshit since Vista is not better at all than XP. I agreed with Omnusha's correction, which is unrelated to the message behind said correction, that the level of improvement, of things getting better, returns to an acceptable level. Sure, Vista has some improvements here and there, but these all fall away against the setbacks, one being the resource requirements.
You see, I disagree. One I find no issue with Vista's resource management. If you have the recommended 1GB is runs fine. I don't think 7 uses any less memory either, I just think it's lying to us and not telling us what it's caching like Vista.
2. there was little to assume, you talked about wireless support of XP. It's not that out of the realm to think that Microsoft was not forthcoming with information when it came out with their wireless center, causing drivers to badly interface with the program.
Can you prove that?
Need you be told that you are comparing the successor of the XP SP2 wireless system to the very first public incarnation of it? It would've been the same crap if Vista was released in 2002. Back then this was much less of a problem anyway, because there was barely anything wireless. When Vista got released there was a huge amount of things wireless. You can't compare the fuel economy of two similar cars where one is 20 years old, and the other 2 years old.
Hence why Vista is better and XP is old and outdated? I don't see how this proves your point and disproves mine?
I don't blame Vista. If you think I'm blaming a collection of bits you are a moron. You can't blame a fucking thing. I blame Microsoft, I blame their work on Vista. Microsoft did not think their plans through, they could've been more open towards manufacturers so that these could update their drivers. This resulted in Vista being very ill-received. When information about Vista just came out I was excited about it, but when it came out it was a disappointment, it did not deliver what they said.
Blaming Microsoft instead of Vista is arguing fucking semantics and you know it. How do you know they weren't open about their platform?
Why do you think Microsoft is trying to put out Windows 7 so quickly after releasing Windows Vista?
Because they got way behind their usual release schedule with Vista, they're just getting back on their usual, every 2-3 years.
1. Only now you bother making this correcting comment, why so slow? Why argue something when you appear to be misunderstood? Are you daft? Are you masochistic? It's not that hard to re-explain yourself in clearer terms.
I came to this thread to talk about Windows 7, not Vista, and certainly not old XP. I've also got better things to do than prowl these forums all day.
[...] It's not that out of the realm to think that Microsoft was [...]
Have a thumb up for your stupidity.
Hence why Vista is better and XP is old and outdated? I don't see how this proves your point and disproves mine?
Okay, can you please stop trying to think? You keep drawing conclusions and touching upon things I did not talk about and are wholly irrelevant to the point I did talk about. The initial public version of the Widows wireless center is indeed outdated. It is also no longer used by anyone who updated past SP1. Another thumb up for your stupidity.
Blaming Microsoft instead of Vista is arguing fucking semantics and you know it.
No it's not. Vista is what it is and we have Microsoft to blame for the work they've done on it. Thumbed.
How do you know they weren't open about their platform?
It would be the safest explanation for them. If they did provide manufacturers with all the required data, then they must've screwed up somewhere else as to make Vista's launch a disaster. In the former case they can at least claim that they did a sufficient job at producing Vista, but that manufacturers will be a bit behind because of protecting trade secrets. This point being the same as the to the previous one where you did not comprehend the usage of the word 'think'. Have at ya, a thumb!
I don't think 7 uses any less memory either, I just think it's lying to us and not telling us what it's caching like Vista.
Resources are not solely memory usage mate. Please learn of this fact that I correct you in the post after your error. It might quicken further talk with you. To further talk about the point you tried to make, Windows 7 is faster, does use less memory and has an exhaustive resource monitor system on top of its memory management improvements. So, it's not lying, it's just not being less stupid. Please find an upgrade to your Vista-similar brain, I'm running out of plastic thumbs.
Because they got way behind their usual release schedule with Vista, they're just getting back on their usual, every 2-3 years.
[E]verything has been getting better and better returning to an acceptable level since Vista came out.
Awww, you caught the feign, thumb down for your stupidity.
Jason, you know Scott, he won't even fix things if you ask him directly. Let alone he will bother when you're suggestively crying out. So will you please just stop trolling like that?
The comment is not intended for Scott. The comment is intended for you. Think about it.
[...] It's not that out of the realm tothinkthat Microsoft was [...]
So..."No, I'm speculating."
Okay, can you please stop trying to think? You keep drawing conclusions and touching upon things I did not talk about and are wholly irrelevant to the point I did talk about. The initial public version of the Widows wireless center is indeed outdated.
So it's not relevant that Vista has better wireless utilities than XP? Even though that's the point I made? It's called progress.
No it's not. Vista is what it is and we have Microsoft to blame for the work they've done on it.
Yes it is, because everyone knows you can't blame bits for the lack of drivers at launch and that if you're blaming Vista you're actually blaming Microsoft. You take what I say too literally.
It would be the safest explanation for them.
Again, more speculation.
To further talk about the point you tried to make, Windows 7 is faster, does use less memory and has an exhaustive resource monitor system on top of its memory management improvements. So, it's not lying, it's just not being less stupid.
Really? How do you know?
Awww, you caught the feign, thumb down for your stupidity.
Whatever. You're the one who seems to be getting a kick out of this.
Stop being a dick. Stop being an abrasive, caustic fucktard who attempts to elevate his own self-esteem by bullying others with insignificant fucking shit. If I could block you from the forum, I would. If I could blot out your name from the entire Internet, I would. If I could send humanoid robots back in time to take out your mother and prevent your birth, I would. Your arrogance is unwarranted and your demeanor is a pathetic mask of self-righteousness that is utterly intolerable. You are nothing. You are no one. And you are annoying. You continue with every post to elevate my blood pressure, which is not an easy accomplishment. I despise your attitude and I can only assume you are attempting to compensate for having the world's smallest prick.
Stop being a dick. Stop being an abrasive, caustic fucktard who attempts to elevate his own self-esteem by bullying others with insignificant fucking shit. If I could block you from the forum, I would. If I could blot out your name from the entire Internet, I would. If I could send humanoid robots back in time to take out your mother and prevent your birth, I would. Your arrogance is unwarranted and your demeanor is a pathetic mask of self-righteousness that is utterly intolerable. You are nothing. You are no one. And you are annoying. You continue with every post to elevate my blood pressure, which is not an easy accomplishment. I despise your attitude and I can only assume you are attempting to compensate for having the world's smallest prick.
Now change your tampon and shut the fuck up.
Just so you know, I am very much in agreement with Jason.
The infamous Jen at least provided humor and content, it just so happened that her opinion was one that smart people disagreed with. It also so happened that some people get angry when they encounter someone else who holds such different, and idiotic, opinions.
You on the other hand, aren't doing even that. Most of your posts consist almost entire of insults and curses. While curses and insults are just fine, they should not constitute the vast majority of the content of your post. It also doesn't help your case that you are wrong. I don't know if you're having trouble in your life, or what. You've been here a long time, and you've always been a dick, but not more than anyone else. Lately you are a super dick. I won't hesitate to ban you if you don't cut it the fuck out. Maybe not spending a bunch of time in the forums will help you with your issues.
You continue with every post to elevate my blood pressure, which is not an easy accomplishment.
I cannot force you, and will not bother forcing you, to read any letter I type and make visible to the internet. Sadly, in the same vein I cannot force you, nor will I bother forcing you (free will and all), to not read any letter I type and make visible to the internet. You can only blame yourself for reading text that you know is likely to cause your blood pressure to increase. All I can do is put this at the top of this post so that you might reconsider continuing your reading of this post.
If you will continue to read this post I shall give you the following idea so that you might never need to consider this again. You can spend your extra free time writing a Greasemonkey script that will be able to delete any and all posts made by me. Perhaps you could even make it so that it also deletes all quotes people made from parts of my posts, that way you won't ever have to see any of my posts ever again. The technology is out there...
You on the other hand, aren't doing even that. Most of your posts consist almost entire of insults and curses.
Your opinion and exaggeration are blatantly obvious from your reference to Jen. Most of my posts consist almost entirely out of content with insults and curses only added on the side.
So..."No, I'm speculating."
I put forth a possibility, yes. One based on things that have happened. There is nothing wrong with that until the arrival of factual information or agreement that wraps up the point.
So it's not relevant that Vista has better wireless utilities than XP? Even though that's the point I made?
That is not the point you made. The point you made were set extremes to try and counter my explanations that were completely irrelevant to the point I made. Since you appear to not understand that sentence here is it in layman's terms: It ain't got shit to do with what I said, captain moron. What I said is that you were comparing an old, now-unused version of the program to the newest version of said program. Yes of course the first version is utter crap to the latest, but you won't find it anywhere anymore! Any XP system updated to the same time as the Vista you are comparing it to will have a version of the Microsoft wireless control center that is barely different from it's Vista counterpart.
Yes it is, because everyone knows you can't blame bits for the lack of drivers at launch and that if you're blaming Vista you're actually blaming Microsoft. You take what I say too literally.
I'm dealing with you. I am also not stupid in regard to blaming a product, I blame the company that made the product.
Again, more speculation.
There's nothing wrong with speculation. It can further a discussion (if people weren't morons by thinking that speculation is bad) so that parties might resolve an argument or topic by agreement upon a possible explanation where no party brings forth any factual information. You sprouting "More speculation!" as if it's a bad thing doesn't budge the point in any way. Bring forth your own possible explanation, factual information, or just ignore those points.
Really? How do you know?
I used both Vista and Windows 7, on the same laptop. Vista was sluggish, and I've poked around the resource monitor in Windows 7. It has a ton of data. Also, Microsoft has stated themselves, proving with the beta, that they want to reduce the requirements for Windows 7 compared to Vista. As to how I know this, I paid attention when preparing for and using Windows 7 beta.
I'm dealing with you. I am also not stupid in regard to blaming a product, I blame the company that made the product.
Once again you fail to understand the subtlety of what I said and took it very literally. For example, You took the "you're" in that sentence to mean you singular, when I meant the plural you. This entire conversation is a result of you not understanding a joke.
I used both Vista and Windows 7, on the same laptop. Vista was sluggish, and I've poked around the resource monitor in Windows 7. It has a ton of data. Also, Microsoft has stated themselves, proving with the beta, that they want to reduce the requirements for Windows 7 compared to Vista. As to how I know this, I paid attention when preparing for and using Windows 7 beta.
Please tell me more. How much faster and when doing what tasks? I'm interested.
Once again you fail to understand the subtlety of what I said and took it very literally. For example, You took the "you're" in that sentence to mean you singular, when I meant the plural you. This entire conversation is a result of you not understanding a joke.
Le sigh. I didn't respond to either of the 'you are' statements. I responded to the point you were making about me 'taking it too seriously', by again telling that I blame the company instead of the products they produce, unlike most other people apparently.
Please tell me more? How much faster and when doing what tasks? I'm interested.
Normal tasks, browsing the internet and playing games. Vista locked up my browser a few times whereas 7B has yet to do so. Vista felt slower to respond but I didn't bother checking any numbers for my system on that. Dwarf Fortress runs a bit faster under 7B for me, but partial_print makes that say less. 7B averages only 800-ish MB RAM (3GB total) whereas Vista used a gigabyte on average. Battery live according to the battery charge meter is also 10 to 20 minutes longer, but I haven't run either version of the OS dry so I don't know how accurate that reading is.
I already have an email address. I have no need for a crappy hotmail one. Heck, I dropped that horrible service the moment I got my gmail invite, never want to go back to that high school nightmare.
You can simply make a live account that uses your gmail. Big deal.
Le sigh. I didn't respond to either of the 'you are' statements. I responded to the point you were making about me 'taking it too seriously', by again telling that I blame the company instead of the products they produce, unlike most other people apparently.
*facepalm* I give up, you're just not getting it.
Normal tasks, browsing the internet and playing games. Vista locked up my browser a few times whereas 7B has yet to do so. Vista felt slower to respond but I didn't bother checking any numbers for my system on that. Dwarf Fortress runs a bit faster under 7B for me, but partial_print makes that say less. 7B averages only 800-ish MB RAM (3GB total) whereas Vista used a gigabyte on average. Battery live according to the battery charge meter is also 10 to 20 minutes longer, but I haven't run either version of the OS dry so I don't know how accurate that reading is.
Hmmmmm, maybe I'll clean my laptop off and give this a go. After figuring out it works, there's only so much you can learn from running an OS in a VM.
You can spend your extra free time writing a Greasemonkey script that will be able to delete any and all posts made by me. Perhaps you could even make it so that it also deletes all quotes people made from parts of my posts, that way you won't ever have to see any of my posts ever again. The technology is out there...
If someone does write a script to block "nickname change", can I have a copy?
You can spend your extra free time writing a Greasemonkey script that will be able to delete any and all posts made by me. Perhaps you could even make it so that it also deletes all quotes people made from parts of my posts, that way you won't ever have to see any of my posts ever again. The technology is out there...
If someone does write a script to block "nickname change", can I have a copy?
But you need to be able to change the parameters that block him, because goodness knows how often "nickname change" has changed his name. I guess from now on he'll be referred to as Nineless, because that's how he refers to himself when he speaks in 3rd person.
Comments
EDIT:Make that unlimited copies until January 24th.
If you meant XP having worse default hardware support than Vista, you should've said so, and you shouldn't have talked about dodgy support then. That's a completely different ballgame.
And why is it Vista's fault that drivers aren't written for it at release?
Why do you think Microsoft is trying to put out Windows 7 so quickly after releasing Windows Vista?
Jason, you know Scott, he won't even fix things if you ask him directly. Let alone he will bother when you're suggestively crying out. So will you please just stop trolling like that?
Stop being a dick. Stop being an abrasive, caustic fucktard who attempts to elevate his own self-esteem by bullying others with insignificant fucking shit. If I could block you from the forum, I would. If I could blot out your name from the entire Internet, I would. If I could send humanoid robots back in time to take out your mother and prevent your birth, I would. Your arrogance is unwarranted and your demeanor is a pathetic mask of self-righteousness that is utterly intolerable. You are nothing. You are no one. And you are annoying. You continue with every post to elevate my blood pressure, which is not an easy accomplishment. I despise your attitude and I can only assume you are attempting to compensate for having the world's smallest prick.
Now change your tampon and shut the fuck up.
The infamous Jen at least provided humor and content, it just so happened that her opinion was one that smart people disagreed with. It also so happened that some people get angry when they encounter someone else who holds such different, and idiotic, opinions.
You on the other hand, aren't doing even that. Most of your posts consist almost entire of insults and curses. While curses and insults are just fine, they should not constitute the vast majority of the content of your post. It also doesn't help your case that you are wrong. I don't know if you're having trouble in your life, or what. You've been here a long time, and you've always been a dick, but not more than anyone else. Lately you are a super dick. I won't hesitate to ban you if you don't cut it the fuck out. Maybe not spending a bunch of time in the forums will help you with your issues.
If you will continue to read this post I shall give you the following idea so that you might never need to consider this again. You can spend your extra free time writing a Greasemonkey script that will be able to delete any and all posts made by me. Perhaps you could even make it so that it also deletes all quotes people made from parts of my posts, that way you won't ever have to see any of my posts ever again. The technology is out there... Your opinion and exaggeration are blatantly obvious from your reference to Jen. Most of my posts consist almost entirely out of content with insults and curses only added on the side. I put forth a possibility, yes. One based on things that have happened. There is nothing wrong with that until the arrival of factual information or agreement that wraps up the point. That is not the point you made. The point you made were set extremes to try and counter my explanations that were completely irrelevant to the point I made. Since you appear to not understand that sentence here is it in layman's terms: It ain't got shit to do with what I said, captain moron. What I said is that you were comparing an old, now-unused version of the program to the newest version of said program. Yes of course the first version is utter crap to the latest, but you won't find it anywhere anymore! Any XP system updated to the same time as the Vista you are comparing it to will have a version of the Microsoft wireless control center that is barely different from it's Vista counterpart. I'm dealing with you. I am also not stupid in regard to blaming a product, I blame the company that made the product. There's nothing wrong with speculation. It can further a discussion (if people weren't morons by thinking that speculation is bad) so that parties might resolve an argument or topic by agreement upon a possible explanation where no party brings forth any factual information. You sprouting "More speculation!" as if it's a bad thing doesn't budge the point in any way. Bring forth your own possible explanation, factual information, or just ignore those points. I used both Vista and Windows 7, on the same laptop. Vista was sluggish, and I've poked around the resource monitor in Windows 7. It has a ton of data. Also, Microsoft has stated themselves, proving with the beta, that they want to reduce the requirements for Windows 7 compared to Vista. As to how I know this, I paid attention when preparing for and using Windows 7 beta.