Thats it...I've had it...I've never allowing MS to install that SP ever 
again.
The only thing that seems to happen when I allow its installation, is that 
IE starts using upwards of 300mb of ram just for thinking about opening a 
page (Opera to the rescue), my displays go all funky and I'm forced to have 
640x480 and 4bit color, with both mirroring the same content, povray editor 
goes all batshit and won't redraw properly, plus other crap that results in 
my needing to reformat or uninstall the SP...

Whats the real purpose of this SP I wonder? To suck so bad vista (or even 
marburg virus) looks good by comparison? To force me to use Gentoo?

I really am starting to think its retribution for those who don't want to 
use vista, to force them to downgrade to vista under the guise of fixing 
bugs and patching security flaws, with just enough of that actually in there 
to make it not completely a lie to claim so..

I suppose if I were a malevolent, souless devil-spawned black void of a 
company, I might just do the same thing.

And I still think ol' billy shouldn't have named his company with the 
description of his twig'n'berries.. ;-D

Maybe it is time for me to check out Mono again...perhaps its more stable 
this time..

ian

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:

> 
> Whats the real purpose of this SP I wonder? To suck so bad vista (or even 
> marburg virus) looks good by comparison? To force me to use Gentoo?
> 

I've wondered that ever since I found the service pack dropped the 
address bar from the taskbar.

Vista has it. XP Used to have it, but now it doesn't.

As for the problems you're having, I haven't had any such problems with 
SP3...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:49d3a2c8$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
>>
>> Whats the real purpose of this SP I wonder? To suck so bad vista (or even 
>> marburg virus) looks good by comparison? To force me to use Gentoo?
>>
>
> I've wondered that ever since I found the service pack dropped the address 
> bar from the taskbar.
>
> Vista has it. XP Used to have it, but now it doesn't.
>
> As for the problems you're having, I haven't had any such problems with 
> SP3...
>
> -- 
> ~Mike
>

Hmm...thats odd...

SP3 has been doin' me wrong ever since it came out...my system instantly 
goes from "rockin fast and fully cooperative" to "slower, more buggy and 
stubborn than a legless mule at a maggot farm".

I am seriously considering just ridding myself of the windows scourge 
permanantly in favor of either OpenSolaris, Gentoo, Mono or Ubuntu, after 
imaging my windows HDD after a reformat and reinstall of all requisite apps, 
and then running that from within linux whenever I wanted to use something 
none of the nix variants support.

It is really just getting to the point where I can no longer justify the 
annoyance of running 'doze.
I'd be happy to stay with xp pro...but MS seems hellbent on forcing the 
issue with pissta, and that I do not like..they seem more concerned with 
flashy doodads and humdinger thingamabobs than stable functionality...which 
is stupid. I'd rather my OS freakin work and do so quickly than have some 
asinine glass interface crap, and a kernel that requires half of my system 
resources.

This is what happens when natural selection has been so stifled that the 
population can be distracted for weeks at a time by small shiny objects. We 
get crappy a OS catering to subhuman feces hurling key-eaters.

*fumes*

ian

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] <gds-entropy    AT    hotmail   DOT  com> wrote:
> I'd be happy to stay with xp pro...but MS seems hellbent on forcing the 
> issue with pissta, and that I do not like..

  That's one of the problems with Windows: You are more or less forced to
submit to whatever whims Microsoft may have today. (The only other
alternative is not never upgrade your system, leaving you wide open to
any discovered security holes.)

  If Microsoft decides to stop support for XP today, in order to force
people to "upgrade" to Vista or Windows 7, who is going to stop them?
I don't think this would even fall under any fair competition or monopoly
law (such as for example certain DRM measures do, at least in the EU, as
Apple has found out), so there's no way any country can force MS to keep
supporting their own old OS by law.

  So basically your only option, if you want to keep using Windows, is to
feed money to Microsoft each couple of years. And you have not much choice.
Don't like a feature in a new Windows? Tough luck.

  It's not like Linux, BSD variants and OpenSolaris would be the perfect
OSes, but at least you are not force-fed anything, you have tons of choices,
and you are completely free (as in liberties and monetary cost) to try
whatever you want.

  As I commented in another thread, I firmly state that Windows and Linux
are *not* equivalent choices, as if it was a matter of taste which one you
use.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"[GDS|Entropy]" wrote:
> Thats it...I've had it...I've never allowing MS to install that SP ever
> again.

I installed it on my machine. Worked fine. But then I installed Linux and
I've been on it for months :)

I installed it at work, no problems.

I installed it on my sister's machine. Got literally a dozen blue screens in
the same day. I tried uninstalling it, and got a blue screen in the middle
of uninstall. Managed to get rid of it on a second attempt.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> so there's no way any country can force MS to keep
> supporting their own old OS by law.

Especially since MS tells you they'll stop supporting the OS at a certain 
date when they release it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:17:28 -0400, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:

> Mono

Mono's not a Linux distro, perhaps you meant openSUSE? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:07:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> so there's no way any country can force MS to keep supporting their own
>> old OS by law.
> 
> Especially since MS tells you they'll stop supporting the OS at a
> certain date when they release it. :-)

Yeah, there's no need - if they change their minds, it's possible they 
could get sued for changing the support EOL of the product.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> I am seriously considering just ridding myself of the windows scourge 
> permanantly in favor of either OpenSolaris, Gentoo, Mono or Ubuntu, after 
> imaging my windows HDD after a reformat and reinstall of all requisite 
> apps, and then running that from within linux whenever I wanted to use 
> something none of the nix variants support.

If you don't need any Windows specific software, and you're happy to learn 
about a new OS then I see no reason at all to stick with Windows, you're 
just wasting money.

> It is really just getting to the point where I can no longer justify the 
> annoyance of running 'doze.
> I'd be happy to stay with xp pro...but MS seems hellbent on forcing the 
> issue with pissta, and that I do not like..they seem more concerned with 
> flashy doodads and humdinger thingamabobs than stable 
> functionality...which is stupid.

Of course some people have different experiences, but I've been running 
Vista for a while now as my main work machine (and at home) and have never 
had any stability issues.  So far I've only found benefits, my big chunky 
CAD application loads 5-10x faster than on XP (identical hardware) which is 
a real plus for me.

Anyway, can you blame MS for wanting people to switch to their current OS? 
The longer people keep using XP the longer MS have to support it, and that 
costs money.  With Windows 7 around the corner I would imagine MS really 
want to get rid of XP before having to support 3 OSs.

> I'd rather my OS freakin work and do so quickly than have some asinine 
> glass interface crap,

Actually the new GUI uses your 3D card to draw the graphics, under XP your 
3D card sat idle while the CPU did all the graphics...  BTW you can always 
turn it off if you don't like it.

> and a kernel that requires half of my system resources.

I wish the kernel would use ALL of my system resources ALL the time.  What's 
the point of 4GB or the fastest RAM sitting unused while the kernel 
continues to load and save things from a slow HD?  I'm sitting here now on 
Vista, nothing open apart from Live Mail and 4663 MB out of 8GB is "used". 
I'm pretty sure the entirety of my CAD software is in that "used" figure, 
along with every other app I have recently used.  This is a GOOD thing!

> This is what happens when natural selection has been so stifled that the 
> population can be distracted for weeks at a time by small shiny objects. 
> We get crappy a OS catering to subhuman feces hurling key-eaters.

Hehe, your SP3 experience is definitely not the norm, we had SP3 rolled out 
at work a while back.  Maybe it's installing some driver update that is not 
compatible with a certain piece of your hardware?  I think with some 
googling and investigation work you could find out what the problem really 
is.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Actually the new GUI uses your 3D card to draw the graphics, under XP your 
> 3D card sat idle while the CPU did all the graphics...

  Certainly not true. Go to the proper system setting configuration dialog
and turn off display hardware acceleration and then try eg. dragging a window
around. See if you can notice any difference between the CPU doing all the
work vs. the display hardware doing it.

> > and a kernel that requires half of my system resources.

> I wish the kernel would use ALL of my system resources ALL the time.

  Oh, you would want your CPU usage to be 100% all the time (with the
increased power consumption) and all the RAM consumed by the kernel so
that it would be impossible to run any actual applications? That doesn't
make any sense.

>  What's 
> the point of 4GB or the fastest RAM sitting unused while the kernel 
> continues to load and save things from a slow HD?

  So you would want a 4GB RAM disk? And exactly how do you expect to run
any application after that? (And what if an application would want to use
4 GB of memory?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message