On 7 Feb., 04:38, Malke wrote:
Charles Douglas Wehnerwrote:
The Vista SOFTWARE errors are defined as "intermittent". You never
know what to expect, but cannot blame all the hardware on Earth.
(snip rant)
Are you the original poster? If not and you have actual issues about which
you would like focused help then please make a new post with all pertinent
information.
Otherwise, your rant shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
While I don't particularly care for Vista as an operating system, it is
stable on good hardware. I have no problems with any of my Vista systems
nor do my clients. If you are having a lot of difficulties, you're doing
something wrong. If you just want to rant, you're in the wrong venue. Try a
different newsgroup or create a blog.
Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
Eric Schmidt of Google said that the Internet is a cesspool, a
festering sea of false information:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/google...sspool_brands/
High on the list of those who spread this false information are the
"Anoraks", the Internet graffittists, who are only showing off.
Malke is one of these.
Flame wars are not appropriate on such a thread as this. To describe
my accurate report as a "rant" shows that it is all way above his
head.
I am accused of "doing something wrong". He does not say what. After
FORTY-SIX YEARS in the computer industry, I have learnt to be
circumspect. I quote chapter and verse. I quote others who made the
same observations. Here is Chris Crum, on why the White House won't
use Vista:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...use-technology
Note the words: "If you haven't noticed, most people still prefer XP
over Microsoft's clunky, buggy, annoying new Vista. "
CLUNKY, BUGGY, ANNOYING.
I am not alone in being annoyed. NVIDIA must be annoyed at the
slander. So must Dell. A new Samsung laptop crashed so often that I
took it back to the shop. A new Asus was just as bad. A very large
number of Dell machines in Internet cafés crashed - but never the
NVIDIA card.
On the Asus, whenever I switched on, it would announce that it was
"configuring updates" although totally offline. It would then crash.
Sometimes, it switched itself off. Sometimes it rebooted. It was much
as Eibert reported.
The Anorak is a complete numbskull if he imagines that he can accuse
me of doing something wrong. It was a NEW machine. Nothing had been
installed. I SWITCHED ON. I did no more than that. I never got any
further. His malicious inuendo is part of that "cesspool of false
information".
I got the Asus running by disabling "updates".
After five days, it stopped corrupting itself.
I started work on my project, using my own machine-code programs that
worked perfectly on Windows 98, 2000 and XP. Mostly, they worked.
However, this "ANNOYING" (Chris Crum) operating system would almost
always crash after they had run. I had to open up a window and work my
way back to the directory after each run. However, suddenly even my
own program malfunctioned.
I was not doing anything wrong. Indeed, I had the source code of my
programs. So when commercial software that I had not written reported
"MINUS one BILLION, 285 MILLION, 230 THOUSAND and 262 BYTES" for a
file-size, I was able to trace this fault right into the Vista Bios at
function 66, subfunction 2.
I have a collection of screen-shots showing about thirty variants on
the Vista crashes, including the "PALE SCREEN OF DEATH". Sometimes,
the image becomes more and more feint. However, before it has faded to
white it hangs. Fading to white is a very CPU-intensive process. I
presume the "PALE SCREEN" crash is due to buffer over-run.
Vista Victims should not blame themselves, no matter what malicious
Anoraks say. Nor should they blame the hardware manufacturers. My
experience is both in hardware and software design. I give top marks
to all those manufacturers involved - to NVIDIA, to Dell, to Samsung,
to Asus. I give top marks to the various software makers OTHER THAN
Microsoft. Pity about the operating system. It louses up the work of
engineers and software authors throughout the world.
CHECK WHETHER YOUR MACHINE "CONFIGURES" UPDATES WHEN COMPLETELY
OFFLINE. If so, it is a BUG.
DISABLE THOSE UPDATES.
Try again. It will halfway work.
Incidentally, in order to write CGI scripts, one needs to create a
"COMMON GATEWAY INTERFACE". This is done by installing a SERVER. After
that, one can use
http://www.localhost to get through to your CGI-BIN
directory.
Out of the box, Vista never enlarged the DOS window (now called Input
Prompt). You click on the "maximise" button, and the window springs to
the top left of the screen without changing size. The "ground glass"
border turns black.
I did not intend to install, but simply to RUN the Xitami server on
the Asus with Vista. It hung up. However, when I went to "maximise",
the window sprang to the left of the screen and expanded to about 64
rows of text instead of 25. The Xitami server had "repaired" a bug in
Vista! I now knew what it was meant to do.
However, when running Edit, or similar software, the window springs to
a smaller size - about 48 rows.
After the Xitami adventure, I find that I can now minimise and
maximise at will. It is crazy. Xitami is a server, not a repair tool.
The only snag is that if one starts Edit, the window will not change
size. One has to have a BLACK DOS screen if one wants to maximise.
After that one can start Edit and get a blue, 48-row screen.
So in conclusion, I can report that you must DISABLE THE UPDATES.
I can also report that there are the most bizarre of happening with
this buggy, clunky, annoying system. Sometimes, as with Xitami, even a
minor self-repair.
I can also report that the KB "updates" DON'T WORK.
Microsoft have to get busy sorting out a worldwide problem they have
created.
Charles Douglas Wehner