Re: Microsoft Taking Official Petitions to Keep XP Alive

Billy Smith wrote:
>
> "Adam Albright" <AA@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:5vj64499dobgrmvgq5t6ehn2j8uffmuun0@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 20:21:06 -0400, "Billy Smith"
>> <chungkingchungking@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> You are talking to Adam Not So Bright. Its amusing these guys keep
>>> complaining about crashes but Ive had XP for about 6 years and no
>>> crashes,
>>> Vista about a year and no crashes. Nice.
>>
>>
>> Did I miss some "logic" in that silly comment? No, just another patsy
>> that doesn't have a clue. Let me explain the facts of life to the
>> armatures here one more time in simple terms maybe they can
>> understand.
>>
>> How often one might expect to see Windows "crash" is proportional to
>> what you use your computer for. An analogy would be you wouldn't
>> expect your car to have a major mechanical breakdown if all you did
>> was drive it up and down your driveway once a week. However if you're
>> trying to tow a two ton boat and trailer up a steep hill for miles
>> every weekend then something breaking down is far more likely to
>> happen.
>>
>> It is obvious from reading many of the posts here that a lot of people
>> merely "play" with their computer. That's like driving that car back
>> and forth on your driveway. Of course just surfing the web, reading
>> email, maybe writing some short document or crunching some numbers in
>> a spread*** isn't stressful to your computer or Windows so expecting
>> it to see crashes under those circumstances would be silly and yes if
>> that's all I did I wouldn't expect Windows to crash for years either.
>>
>> On the other hand some of us actually WORK with our computers
>> stressing it to the limit like that car straining to pull that boat
>> and trailer up a steep hill for mile after mile. The chances of
>> Windows crashing when it is running under heavy load increases the
>> likelihood something will hang, stop working or the system just
>> getting sluggish.
>>
>
> Using the logic of running a severe strain on your computer resources,
> it might be prudent to actually invest in a system with the proper tools
> to complete the job. Instead of running a GB of Ram maybe its time to
> expand. Same goes for processors, hard drives and having a backup
> external hard drive in case something major fails.
>
> Consider that a good backup drive from Western Digital costs maybe
> 100-200 USD and that would protect you from system crashes should they
> occur. The average computer these days is very capable though. You're
> not running a Windows 3.1 system or Windows 95 with 128 mb of RAM. Those
> were quite different days at that time frame.
>
> What is quite interesting to me is that often I have Windows Media
> player working at the same time as doing QuickBooks, website
> development, and working on business projects at the same time. Not to
> mention a multitiude of other pop up things like Weatherbug, etc. I've
> never had the issue with doing anything with graphics and pictures on
> here and having any issues.
>
> For us so called amateurs as you call us, incorrectly spelled I must
> add, we tend to know what works and what doesn't work. Its not rocket
> science for the unwashed masses that you claim us to be.
>
> What I have noticed over the vast many years I have been working with
> computers is that out of the box systems tend to be clunky in ways.
> Either not enough of a processor to do the job or not enough RAM to keep
> up with the system. Hard Drives generally do what you need unless you
> need the external for backup and in business and personal record
> keeping, that is exactly what you must have just in case your drive fails.
>
> My personal experience is that a lot of new systems are made new without
> enough RAM which explains a lot of why your computer locks up. It has
> very little to do with your operating system. Add a 100 buck piece of
> RAM and you'll find that your computers operating efficiency will be
> better, your program load times improved, and you will have less in the
> way of your operating system hanging up.
>
> Also, it might be prudent to use some good quality software from a
> recognized vendor. The usual cheap way of doing things is not the best
> way no matter how much you may save. I'm not suggesting that throwing
> money at a problem is the end all. What I am suggesting for the people
> that bitch and moan about their systems, is that doing things the right
> way will keep your system operating smoothly. With that said, purchase a
> quality system with the proper components that you need for the system.
> Buy a good processor, good amount of RAM and good software. Add an
> external drive for backup and do the job right the first time. Theres
> nothing like doing a job right the first time and that saves you one a
> lot of headache and two a lot of time and money figuring out what goes
> wrong later. You say that you can't afford to do it right, then maybe
> you should examine what you have been doing and figure out a way to
> operate your system with a minimum of headaches.
>
> It isn't always the system that is at fault. In fact, with the new
> patches coming up over time the operating systems generally improve.
> This isn't precision parts manufacturing for the military jet fighter
> brigade. If you're looking for that in mass production of anything, you
> better keep looking and expect to pay out the cash to get something that
> performs flawlessly.

hehehe...you're talking to an idiot who also just happens to be a moron. mr drunken pig can't get his one little install of Vista Business to run properly so he blames MS for his very own stupidity and incompetence.
If this clown had even the smallest semblance of brain, he would be consider mentally impaired.
Best to pay no attention to this loser, as he can't even comprehend what he has posted, let along what you're talking about.
Frank
.