H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:27:05 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:
H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:
...it was painful, and I'm already feeling a sense of loss...
...but I managed to gather up 25 years of pieces and parts from
building and futzing around with PC's, going all the way back to my
Eagle 8086, pack 'em into a couple of boxes, and send them off to a
brother-in-law, who *is* still messing around with PCs.
We've got one Windows-running PC left in the house, my wife's
laptop, and my server, which runs on Windows Server 2003. I wouldn't
know how to "fix" the laptop, and about all I could do with the
server is pop in more drives.
Now, I'm down to my Macbook Pro...waiting on apple to resolve some
issues with the new iMacs.
If it wasn't for all of the problems with Vista, I would never have
gone to a Mac.
I avoided that by never running Vista. I stayed away from XP until SP2
when they got most of the bugs worked out but six of my nine running
machines are still on W/98 SE.
I learned many years ago in the mainframe business, the smart money is
always running two or three year old software. Pioneers catch all the
arrows.
Again, you are responding to a worthless p.o.s. who is using another's
ID here.
I never had any serious problems with VISTA. I recently installed
Windows 7 on my Macbook Pro, and I'd not having any troubles with *7*,
either.
I'm more than aware that many users had VISTA problems. I simply didn't.
The truth is Vista isn't that bad as long as you buy enough memory for
it, and are surfing and email.
But do things like VMs, video libraries, copy 800GB over the network...
Vista is pig slow. My Linux/UNIX systems have no trouble coping data 5
to 25 times faster than Vista.
Same with disk to disk copy. Put in a TB disk and copy part of the
video library to it and I will litterally get a nights sleep. On UNIX,
takes about 100 minutes.