Printable View
Woman sues Microsoft over XP downgrade charge.
What a stupid woman.This is going to get thrown out of court so fast....
- Lenovo, NOT Microsoft, charge the downgrade fee.
- You paid for a machine with Vista on it.
- You are paying a licensing fee for a different operating system, not a downgrade fee. Seriously, buying Vista does not entitle you to have all previous versions of Windows for free.
This lawsuit may be stupid, but I will forgive her since she wants to have an OS that you know...works....properly.....and doesn't hold her system resources hostage.
You couldn't figure out how to work Vista? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
I can understand why she would want that. So why didn't she stay with Vista? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Who's Vista? Is she not staying with her husband anymore? :confused:Quote:
I can understand why she would want that. So why didn't she stay with Vista?
Vista is to OS's what Visual Studio is to any other compiler, an ineffecient resource hog.
In fact, I'm fairly confident that, until XP is no longer supported worldwide, I will not be upgrading my OS. It took me forever to upgrade from 98 SP2 to XP.
The fact that anyone would need to "figure out how to work Vista" speaks volumes about the OS itself. Microsoft has too much Apple-Envy. *wags finger at Office 2007*Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Visual Studio is an IDE. And I have never heard anyone else referring to it as a resource hog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Are you now trying to say that Vista is hard to learn? Before it was just a resource hog. Perhaps it is both? Or perhaps it is just normal Vista bashing where the basher tries to come up with as many negative things as possible, even though they may not all be completely true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
It's all lies. I have never had any problems with Vista. Except that it doesn't want to upgrade to SP1, but as an OS it's totally fine. I actually prefer it to XP.
I have never encountered a problem with Vista; nor have I ever used it. :)
Visual Studio is, and always has been, a resource hog. I can't even count the times I've had to wait MINUTES for it to open up or shut down. Could I maybe use a new PC? Eh, the one I have is only about 3 years old and it performs quite nicely, except for Microsoft products of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
I will say though, Visual Studio is probably my favorite M$ product to date, so my hats off to the VS team. I just wish it wasn't so friggin' huge.
Who said Vista was hard to learn? I've used Vista several times (in retail shops) and saw nothing about the OS that made me want to upgrade. The fact that it was "sluggish", even on top of the line computers, let me know right then and there it wasn't going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
If you like Vista, fine. You have your reasons for liking it. I, however, do not like it as I've not had one positive experience with it. You know it's bad when you have to call your OS something completely different (and who came up with Mojave anyway?) to get people to even look at it.
But like I said before, I agree with the woman who wanted the downgrade (upgrade) to XP.
So now it goes for all Microsoft products? Not just Visual Studio?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
That explains it all then.
Nice try.
While I am flattered that you find my opinions so important, they are not the subject of this thread.
kthxbai
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77.../mamaluigi.jpg
That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!
Don't generalize it, Visual Studio 6.0 is lightning fast, it was fast even while in a Pentium I machine. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Visual Studio is not a compiler; it's an IDE. Neither are very bloated (in fact, many components from previous versions in VS and Vista were re-written to be more efficient).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Are you kidding me? Microsoft put in thousands of hours of user testing and while it takes some adaptation for existing Office users, the UI is more efficient. The same goes for Vista but it's not as large of a change as Office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
There is something seriously wrong with your installation. The only time I've ever seen Visual Studio open slow is on a development server where there were about 10 some plugins installed that needed to launch at start-up. This server also had about 15-30 users on it at any given time also using Visual Studio along with other development applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Obviously my quad-core machine opens it instantly but my older machines (even my Athlon XP 1900+) opened it in just a few seconds and I've never seen it take up much resources.
Are you sure we're talking about the same software here? Office may be bloated but Visual Studio has always seemed pretty lean to me (at least lean in terms of Microsoft software).
100% agree; it's an awesome product but it's also very large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
My fiancee has a slow, piece of crap Gateway tablet and I've never seen Vista sluggish. Are you sure it was Vista and not some piece of crap application (such as HP's wonderfully slow touch GUI)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
I've run Vista on so many machines and the only time it's ever felt sluggish was when I had the wrong drivers installed on an older machine. Once the correct drivers were installed it was right as rain; I find it very hard to believe an off the self machine would act sluggish unless there was something really wrong with it.
Vista is fast and in many benchmarks it's just as fast as XP so it's just a bunch of FUD.
I don't think that's Microsoft's fault; I think that's the FUD spreading around about Vista. Mojave proved that Vista is actually a great product but most people don't like it based on what they've heard or what others think. The Mojave experiment proved that people cannot think for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
If you don't like Vista that's fine but calling it a resource hog or saying it's sluggish is just dumb; it manages resources better than XP (XP just leaves your ram sitting, unused; why not use it to cache applications? The cost of deallocating cached applications is smaller than anything a human could notice so it works really well for most folks).
How can you agree with her? She even sued the wrong company! Not only that but if you want to go to a previous version the latest doesn't entitle you to that; she shouldn't have bought the machine with Vista if she wanted XP. Buy it with Linux instead or return Vista (it's difficult but you can just not agree to the Vista agreement and send just the OS back to Lenovo and get that price off of your system (so you essentially have no OS)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Pick your battles, man! No body likes VS6. Run while you can!Quote:
Originally Posted by dee-u
Oi! :mad: ... :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasracer
Seriously though: Everyone should just use what they have. I'm still using XP, because I'm too poor to buy Vista. If you know what you're doing and how to install a Microsoft OS with drivers*, then Vista will work perfectly.
*Because I STILL can't install my friggin' drivers on SUSE or SLES!!! :rolleyes:
... always blames his tools? (I jest, I jest)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
I think the problem may be with your machines rather than the OS or IDE itself. Vista boots up for me in 12 seconds. On an old laptop. The reason I mentioned "how to work" it is because most people that mention their hatred for Vista usually give things like 'UAC', among other features, which can all be turned off, as their main reason, therefore not really making it a reason but a reflection of their own shortcomings or incompetence. So while I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, I was wondering about it. Looks like you've just had hardware problems all along.
If you found it slow and sluggish on a top of the line computer in a retail shop then I can guarantee that those are not top of the line computers. Your computer is 3 years old, that's alright, but what are the specs? My laptop is 4 years old.
And there's nothing wrong with having to figure out how to work an OS. It's a new OS compared to its predecessor, so you have to learn a few new things and then get using it. I saw the same gnashing of teeth when XP came out, the same old arguments about its ease-of-use and what not.
I seem to recall:Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
:lol: Funny thing is... I DID stick with '98 up until SP1 was released for XP. Now I run '98 on VM only to test my site, and I find it appaling! :afrog:Quote:
I'm not going to XP. It's so user unfriendly! I'm sticking to '98. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I bought Vista and haven't had any major problems with it (I say major because it rebooted the computer when was in the middle of a game although I think that was only because it needed to install updates). XP on the other hand sh*t itself after 5 years. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Kasracer
Which your site or Win98! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BillGeek
Sounds like another:Quote:
The woman who sued Microsoft!
Quote:
The man that sued god!
I am still unconvinced about SQLServer. Their whole upgrade from 2003 to 2005 to 2005 64 bit seems to have been a backward process. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Both. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwalker83
What!??? That guy on the phone said... son of a...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasracer
dee-u, my apologies. The only problem I've had with VS6.0 is that it would crash every so often. I found out that the installation team packaged it wrong, so a fresh re-install prevented the problem from occurring again. I still prefer .NET though, sorry.
When I originally said I agree with the woman, I was stating that I agree with her decision to want XP over Vista. I know my statement was not that clear, so apologies for any confusion.
The Mojave "experiment" was fixed. I was disappointed to hear that people didn't actually "use" Vista, it was just showcased to them. I'm glad M$ can justify spending all that money on nothing more than an elaborate demo.
If I write a program, it's easy for me to "show" you it's awesome, even though it may actually be crap (not saying Vista is crap).
I also find it sad that M$ has to call the OS something else to get people to look at it, but they also have to fudge the numbers. They sell a Vista license, but the user downgrades to XP, so it still counts as a Vista sale. They take it a step further, for instance, if a computer manufacturer wants to sell a PC with XP instead of Vista, they still have to buy a Vista license. Therefore, each sale counts as a Vista sale, even if Vista isn't on the machine! Wow... This makes me wonder how many "legit" sales of Vista there have been.
It's quite strange how this thread about a woman trying to sue M$ turned into "He doesn't like Vista, GET HIM!". Sorry, but there's no way I'm "converting" right now, because Vista has not proven it's worth it, time or money-wise.
But hey, at least I like VS2008 (kinda).
It did? :confused: I wasn't invited. :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk Majik
Wossy was supposed to send you an invite. Therefore, it could be many different places by now.
Next time we'll be sure to use FedEx instead.
How Dreadful!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
They've come out with another Me?
:eek2:
I've had a lot of bad Vista experiences but I do have to admit, Vista can run normally and smoothly even for me, I've gotten to like it more since I installed it in virtual PC 2007 on my winXP comp, Vista actually works right in VPC.
However that's not the point of this thread. The woman in question is a noob if you ask me, suing MS for a Lenovo fee is uber retarded.
Blakk Majik, try Windows Server 2008 if you can - much lighter.
I sawed off my left foot and installed Vista on it. It runs faster now then it ever did before.
[**applause**]
Are you sure about that? Even while it is not abput VB6.0 vs .Net we should admit that the VB6.0 IDE is so much faster than the VS.Net IDE, that is if you have tried the VB6.0 IDE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasracer
That's like saying that a Caterham 7 is faster than a dialysis machine.
It wasn't a "GET HIM" it was a "Stop from spreading stupid FUD". I'm no PR person from Microsoft and they make many bad decisions in my opinion but Vista works really well especially compared to XP. It just feels like everyone hates it because everyone hates it and I rarely see any valid points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
Sure, there are some things that I think bring Vista down (network transfer sucked when it was first released) but I think it's much better than XP in many many ways; unfortunately many of those ways are under the hood so no one really sees the benefit.
I wasn't trying to convert anyone; if XP is working just fine for you then I see no reason to upgrade. Sure Vista should provide additional stability but if it's already stable then keep with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
I didn't like VS 6. C++ standard support was poor but if we want to focus only on the IDE I'd have to say that 6.0 provided a poor user experience compared to the newer ones. I also haven't noticed any performance differences except syntax highlighting seems to work better / faster with C++ in the newer versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by dee-u
I just didn't like VS 6; it was very clunky.
C++ in VS 6.0 IDE? Didn't try it and never installed it since I don't do C++ that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasracer
Perhaps you guys don't notice it since you are on faster machines but when on slower computers you can tell that navigating in VS 6.0 is a lot faster than in VS.Net IDE.
And you are not everybody so you can't say no body, I still like VS 6.0 IDE. :p
For me Vista works fairly well. I had a computer with an AMD Atlon XP3200+ processor in it and some of the stuff on the graphics application that I've been working on slowed way way down on Vista in comparison to XP. I started a thread on it if you're interested. http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=534624
I created a graphics test and I got results that proved there's something strange going on but it maybe a problem in Visual Studio not Vista. I reported the problem to Micosoft Connect and they duplicated the problem and said they'd fix it.
I got a new computer not too long ago and ran my graphics test program that's in that thread and there was an enormous difference in speed. Screen 1 of the test ran at 119 seconds on my AMD Athlon computer and it ran in something like 10 seconds on my Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB Ram. I asked for someone else to do the test again that had done it before and Andicioz who had previously had the quickest time of I think around 28 seconds for screen 1 still had the same time. I wanted to know if the big difference was in some update fixing the problem or in my hardware. It appears it's my hardware that's making the difference but I'm still wondering.
My Windows Experience Index is lower than Andicioz's computer by more than a full point but my computer is running Screen 1 of the test more than twice as fast. It's sort of weird. Another thing that's weird is that even though my new computer runs some things much faster than my old, I could swear that there are certain screens in the graphics app that I'm working on that ran faster on my old AMD Athlon computer. It appears that different hardware reacts to different software very differently.
*Crickets in the background*Quote:
Originally Posted by wossy
I've noticed that turning Aero off in Vista gave me a 9% increase in speed in some cases for some screens in my graphics application.
Another thing I was going to say is that if anyone else wants to try my Graphics Test that's in that thread I'd be interested to see the results since I'm not positive if the change in speed was from my hardware or from some update fixing some problem.
Last summer a handful of people tried the test and gave me their results and then I got my new computer in late December and tried it and saw the big difference. I posted in the thread and there was one person who did the test again that had done it before but he got the same result.
If I don't get any more results it's no big deal. But it is weird that some people with quad cores and a higher Windows Experience Index than I have on my new computer were running the test so much slower. That's what made me thing it was some software fix but I'm still not sure. Though come to think of it I remember seeing the problem that I wrote about in that thread where the graphics go much slower when the pen thickness is 1 in comparison to 2 and higher in other screens of my graphics application. Anyway, it's no big deal. Computers, software, the material universe, it's all just a dream.
I have XP on my laptop and Vista on my Dell Desktop PC. At first Vista used to piss me off with the constant questions with 'Are you sure?' every time you want to do something, plus you had to get used to looking in different places to do things compared to XP. But thats expected with learning any new OS i suppose.
Now, I've gotten used to Vista it is much better OS than XP, and its getting to the point that i might upgrade my laptop to Vista in the near future.
With regard the slow loading times with .NET, i've never really noticed it. But i have 4GB RAM which might help! ;)
ps. Just tested loading .NET 2003/2005 and VB6 IDE. VB6 does load a little faster (about 1 Sec), but not my much on my Work PC.
Same here! While I only have 2GB of RAM I haven't had any major problems with Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX