On 2008-10-09, Kelsey Bjarnason claimed:
> Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
> core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
>
> First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
> 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
> minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.
>
> Mind you, that may not be quite so unrealistic. I've been opening apps
> on the machine. Explorer. Control panel. Nothing particularly heavy.
> Average time to load: 20 seconds, give or take a hair.
>
> 'Course, that's just to _load_. Explorer loaded, then promptly went into
> "not responding" mode for another 30 seconds or so while it tried to get
> the directory contents. Which might be understandable with 30,000
> documents, but there weren't 30,000 documents.
>
> So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV. Another
> explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told, and all taking
> their sweet time about it.
>
> Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well, the
> _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not responding" bit
> again.
>
> 'Course, at some point, it wakes up and realizes it needs to do
> something, at which point I get app windows flashing up and down and
> going merrily psychotic, as it's trying to do the right thing by handling
> all those queued requests, but the net result is that whatever I was
> doing at the time is now blasted off the screen.
>
> All in all, the responsiveness is *so* amazingly bad as to be virtually
> unusable. Which, oddly enough, is the reason I was asked to fix the damn
> thing in the first place.
>
> Grr. AV window minimized for no apparent reason, but that's okay, just
> double-click the systray icon, it'll come up. Hmm... whirling blue
> wheel... 15 seconds. Timed. To show a window for an app that's already
> running. In fact, one of _two_ apps (the other being a security app)
> running. Hardly a heavy load for the machine.
>
> Wasn't Vista supposed to be speedy and robust and ultra-usable?

Want to make it look like you're a genius? Take out half the RAM and
play with it in front of them. When they aren't looking put the RAM
back. They'll think you're a savior.

Those are the sorts of slight-of-hand tricks MS pulls in front of
audiences, when they demo things that they claim they're going to
release. Only they do it in reverse. After the trade shills are
mesmerized with greatness and go forth into the world to spread the
Good© News©, MS goes to work making a mess of it all.

And that, my friends, is how ME and Vista were born.

--
VISTA: Volatile and Ineffective Solution That's an Abomination

"Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
news:1t12s5-ihf.ln1@spanky.work.net...
> Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
> core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
>
> First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
> 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
> minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.
>
> Mind you, that may not be quite so unrealistic. I've been opening apps
> on the machine. Explorer. Control panel. Nothing particularly heavy.
> Average time to load: 20 seconds, give or take a hair.
>
> 'Course, that's just to _load_. Explorer loaded, then promptly went into
> "not responding" mode for another 30 seconds or so while it tried to get
> the directory contents. Which might be understandable with 30,000
> documents, but there weren't 30,000 documents.
>
> So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV. Another
> explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told, and all taking
> their sweet time about it.
>
> Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well, the
> _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not responding" bit
> again.
>
> 'Course, at some point, it wakes up and realizes it needs to do
> something, at which point I get app windows flashing up and down and
> going merrily psychotic, as it's trying to do the right thing by handling
> all those queued requests, but the net result is that whatever I was
> doing at the time is now blasted off the screen.
>
> All in all, the responsiveness is *so* amazingly bad as to be virtually
> unusable. Which, oddly enough, is the reason I was asked to fix the damn
> thing in the first place.
>
> Grr. AV window minimized for no apparent reason, but that's okay, just
> double-click the systray icon, it'll come up. Hmm... whirling blue
> wheel... 15 seconds. Timed. To show a window for an app that's already
> running. In fact, one of _two_ apps (the other being a security app)
> running. Hardly a heavy load for the machine.
>
> Wasn't Vista supposed to be speedy and robust and ultra-usable?
>
You are one of a very few who seem to have such problems. Perhaps you could
find a course to take at a local community college. There are a lot of
them, I know.

After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> Want to make it look like you're a genius? Take out half the RAM and
> play with it in front of them. When they aren't looking put the RAM
> back. They'll think you're a savior.
>
> Those are the sorts of slight-of-hand tricks MS pulls in front of
> audiences, when they demo things that they claim they're going to
> release. Only they do it in reverse.

The ol' "proof-by-demo" trick. As old as trade.

At least you don't get an hourglass now. You get a spinning circle or
somesuch.

--
Where's th' DAFFY DUCK EXHIBIT??

Hadron wrote:

> Richard Rasker writes:

[snip hard facts about Windows Vista]

> No one listens to you anymore.

Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
Which in a way I guess it does.

> You can not be trusted.

Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.

Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl

After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Richard Rasker writes:
>
> [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]
>
>> No one listens to you anymore.
>
> Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
> Which in a way I guess it does.
>
>> You can not be trusted.
>
> Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.

Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to say.

Simple as that.

--
There is an order of things in this universe.
-- Apollo, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:32:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:


> The whole world manages. Why do you tell so many lies?
>
> No one listens to you anymore. You can not be trusted.

Some people should not be allowed near computers.
Kelsey is one.
Rasker, to a lesser degree, is another.

Kelsey could screw up an iron cannon ball.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to
> say.
>
> Simple as that.

Quack is a low-life, amoral person. I think, deep-down, he knows this,
and this is what compels him to harass those who he perceives are his
moral and intellectual superiors.

IOW, he's a fscking asshole.

Chris Ahlstrom writes:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Rasker writes:
>>
>> [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]
>>
>>> No one listens to you anymore.
>>
>> Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
>> Which in a way I guess it does.
>>
>>> You can not be trusted.
>>
>> Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.
>
> Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to say.
>
> Simple as that.

Fact : both times he posted numbers he was wrong.
Fact : both times I was right.

This is not harassment. It is correcting false information which I
believe Rasker purposely concocted. A bit like you in denial over Linux
desktop penetration. And you being a Windows user at that.

So what is sensible about him posting FALSE INFORMATION.

You're a sycophantic lap dog and should grow a spine.

Stick with the facts and not the dream la-la-la land facts spouted in
here by the likes of Rasker.

--
"I do believe I have stated that he should be given the benefit of the
doubt, as is his right. If he did this crime, as it would seem, then he
should be punished as the law requires."
-- alt in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

chrisv writes:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to
>> say.
>>
>> Simple as that.
>
> Quack is a low-life, amoral person. I think, deep-down, he knows this,
> and this is what compels him to harass those who he perceives are his
> moral and intellectual superiors.
>
> IOW, he's a fscking asshole.
>

Another wonderful advocacy post which sticks to the points in contention
by the "real" chrisv.

--
"Don't like Linux.. don't use it. Simple."
-- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp

some idiot forging chrisv wrote:

>Ignore the forger!

Done!

--
"Half say its easier than Windows and the other (more truthful) half
maintain that they are GLAD Linux is buggy and error prone because it
puts off the great unwashed that would otherwise pollute the Linux
gene pool." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:53:18 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
>>>
>>> [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]
>>>
>>>> No one listens to you anymore.
>>>
>>> Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
>>> Which in a way I guess it does.
>>>
>>>> You can not be trusted.
>>>
>>> Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.
>>
>> Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to say.
>>
>> Simple as that.
>
> Fact : both times he posted numbers he was wrong.
> Fact : both times I was right.
>
> This is not harassment. It is correcting false information which I
> believe Rasker purposely concocted. A bit like you in denial over Linux
> desktop penetration. And you being a Windows user at that.
>
> So what is sensible about him posting FALSE INFORMATION.
>
> You're a sycophantic lap dog and should grow a spine.
>
> Stick with the facts and not the dream la-la-la land facts spouted in
> here by the likes of Rasker.

LiarMutt is trying to rewrite history again.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:



> You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
> shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.

Drinking again Paul?


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
> core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
>
> First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
> 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
> minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.

All this other crap happened while the file copy was in progress?
There's your problem. Vista is notorious for bogging down on large file
copies. Something to do with built in DRM, I've been told.

You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust the computer industry to shorten the term "Year 2000" to Y2K.
It was this kind of thinking that got us in trouble in the first place.
-- Adrian Tyvand

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.

wrote
on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:03:38 -0400
<1tidckjrnbf3z$.xxmr963ksjba.dlg@40tude.net>:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
>
>
>> You users [can't] be [trusted] to copy anything
>> without Bill [looking] over your shoulder.
>> You might be [stealing] something. Or downloading Ubuntu.
>
> Drinking again Paul?
>

Well, the below is pretty heady stuff. Bottoms up...

(begin excerpt from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm )

17 U.S.C. 1201.

Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems

Section 1201. Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems

(a) Violations regarding circumvention of technological measures.--

(1)

(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure
that effectively controls access to a work protected
under this title. The prohibition contained in the
preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the
2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this chapter [17 U.S.C.A. S 1201 et seq.].

(B-E elided for brevity; these appear to be technical
exceptions relating to the Library of Congress, and
a Librarian managing same)

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof, that--

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or
use other than to circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this
title [17 U.S.C.A. S 1 et seq.]; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in
concert with that person with that person's knowledge
for use in circumventing a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title.

(end excerpt)

There's a fair amount of specifics in the exceptions (e.g.,
1201(k)(1)(A)(i) refers specifically to VHS format tapes
and an "automatic gain control copy control technology");
I won't list them here.

As for downloading Ubuntu -- that's not covered here,
really, though presumably were Canonical to bother they
might take advantage of some of the strictures in this Act.
(Why that would be in their interest, I for one don't know.)

It would be interesting, in a rather sad sort of way, to
see Microsoft attempt to bring Canonical to trial under
this Section. (I doubt Ubuntu would meet the qualifications
of 1201(2)(A); such is not its purpose. Specific tools
thereof, however, might be; certainly the RealDVD fiasco
is illustrative of someone's displeasure.)

Other sections in Title 17, Chapter 12,
which might be of some interest:

1202. Integrity of copyright management information
1203. Civil remedies
1204. Criminal offenses and penalties
1205. Savings clause

There are also references to the WIPO treaty. A little
digging from the obvious place coughed up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO
http://www.wipo.int/

http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
in particular has the interesting declaration:

Disclaimer: The attention of the Secretariat of WIPO
has been drawn to the fact that certain organizations
issue certificates purporting to grant copyright
protection. It should be noted that these certificates
do not create any right. The Secretariat recalls that,
by virtue of the Berne Convention for the Protection
of Literary and Artistic Works, works are protected
without any formality in all the countries party
to that Convention. This means that international
copyright protection is automatic, it exists as soon
as a work is created, and this principle applies in
all the countries party to the Berne Convention.

In all fairness, I can see a usefulness for these
certificates; presumably they can ensure that, if a dispute
arises as to timing of a copyrighted work, one can point
to the certificate to establish such. This is probably
not all that significant an issue.

WIPO includes a handy FAQ (English version):

http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/

A final link to a hopefully useful resource: the US Copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/

Among its selections: vessel hull designs. Why they'd
bother to put this on their frontpage is probably OT for
this newsgroup but I do find it a little odd. Apparently
it's a significant problem for somebody, or was (perhaps
a World War II holdover?).

And yes there's a FAQ. It encompasses the WIPO FAQ,
generally:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

and also mentions Elvis, star naming, and the details of
e-registration. The first is extremely odd considering the
star died in 1973, and the second is even odder considering
that any naming of stars is purely parochial on our
part pending contact with some sort of Galactic Council.
(Nevertheless, there's a commercial business whose tagline
is "Name a star after someone"; they advertise occasionally
on the radio.)

The last is expected, considering the US Copyright Office's
offered services.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Richard Rasker wrote:
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason claimed:
>>
>>> Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
>>> core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.



>>> So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV.
>>> Another explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told,
>>> and all taking their sweet time about it.
>
> Nah, just grab yourself another cuppa and enjoy it. I've got this PII
> 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM really taking the piss here, running
> Mandriva/KDE at a speed which doesn't allow for any break whatsoever,
> except during its more than two minutes boot time, perhaps.
>
>>> Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well,
>>> the _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not
>>> responding" bit again.
>
> Soon enough you'll notice that all those cuppas will make you want to
> take a break even more often. So don't fight nature's call -- and
> while you're at it, send my regards to Microsoft as well.

Heh, is this "Back to the Future[TM]"? 25 years ago, I remember letting
the 300 MB hard disk packs spin up on the minicomputer, allowing me a 20
minute break for coffee. Vista brings back memories (execpt
minicomputer apps were snappy.)

--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
>
>
>> You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
>> shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.
>
> Drinking again Paul?

Then let's hear your explanation why Vista's basic file system functions can
be a few orders in magnitude slower than on XP -- and of course Linux.
I've only heard two likely explanations so far: that it's just the normal
kludged-together buggy crapware we've come to expect from Redmond; and that
the host of DRM mechanisms in Vista is responsible for the sucky behaviour.
(And in a way, I can't escape the feeling that these two reasons are
actually intimately linked.)

Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:08:35 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
>>> shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.
>>
>> Drinking again Paul?
>
> Then let's hear your explanation why Vista's basic file system functions can
> be a few orders in magnitude slower than on XP -- and of course Linux.

I don't have to explain anything.
I never made any claims one way or the other.
For the record though, and for the 100th time or more, I'm not a fan of
Vista.

> I've only heard two likely explanations so far: that it's just the normal
> kludged-together buggy crapware we've come to expect from Redmond; and that
> the host of DRM mechanisms in Vista is responsible for the sucky behaviour.
> (And in a way, I can't escape the feeling that these two reasons are
> actually intimately linked.)

Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
My daughter's Gateway laptop runs Vista and I haven't seen any problems
other than the UAC being a pita, but that is easily fixed.
She does a lot of video editing and surely would be complaining if it had
problems because video editing/rendering is time/cycle intensive as it is.


BTW I was referring to Paul's spelling, not what he wrote.
Of course it went right over the Linux loons pointy heads.


> Richard Rasker


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
> Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
> My daughter's Gateway laptop runs Vista and I haven't seen any problems
> other than the UAC being a pita, but that is easily fixed.


Oh, so you turned UAC off and now she is running on the Internet as
user/admin wide open to attack, like she was before on XP?

Maybe, you need to understand what is happening with UAC, particularly
about those two access tokens on Vista for user/admin.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc709691.aspx


Do you know anything about Visualization on Vista?

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc138019.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc160882.aspx

There is an user account on Vista that can be used that already has its
privileges escalated, one can still leave UAC enabled and no UAC
prompts, and yes, it's that same account that's on XP.




The out of the box user-admin account Vista gives one is not an
user/admin account with full admin rights, even with UAC disabled.
That's because that user/admin account or any new user/admin account
doesn't inherit full admin rights from the built-in Administrator
account, like on XP.

You can test this by going to your daughter's machine as user/admin and
see if you can add, change permissions for an existing account or even
delete an account of off C:\Program Files or C:\Windows and some
sub-folders within those folders.

You'll find that you cannot do it. You cannot even do it with the
Administrator user account. The only thing you can to with the
Administrator account is use the Advanced button to take ownership and
point to an individual user account or group account that has the proper
permissions.






Vista is a closed by default O/S.

HTH :-P

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:



One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a Vista
certified computer and not on something that would turn the machine into
a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.