Why do people hate Vista?

ReverendSlappy said:
Fair enough. Although I'd point out that no amount of time will make numbers that don't exist appear out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

You know what, I realized that this fight is like the fight over global warming, and I feel the same way about them both.

WHO CARES whether a particular OS is "inherently" secure or not? Only people who argue.

What I, and most people, REALLY care about is whether the OS is what I'll call "practically secure." What I mean by that is, how is it actually affected, today?

Today, there is a ton of malware on Windows, and none on the Mac. That's why I have a Mac. Is it "inherently" secure or not? I don't care! What I care about is that I don't have to worry about the same kind of crap you do on Windows. Plain and simple.

I hear the "Well, if the Mac OS had >50% market share, there'd be crapware on it too!" thing but I really don't care. Mac OS X does NOT have 50% market share, and it won't for a long long time, so people hack Windows, and, guess what... I don't care if Windows is "inherently" secure or not, it is NOT practically secure. Period. And that's all that really matters.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You know what, I realized that this fight is like the fight over global warming, and I feel the same way about them both.

WHO CARES whether a particular OS is "inherently" secure or not? Only people who argue.

What I, and most people, REALLY care about is whether the OS is what I'll call "practically secure." What I mean by that is, how is it actually affected, today?

Today, there is a ton of malware on Windows, and none on the Mac. That's why I have a Mac. Is it "inherently" secure or not? I don't care! What I care about is that I don't have to worry about the same kind of crap you do on Windows. Plain and simple.

I hear the "Well, if the Mac OS had >50% market share, there'd be crapware on it too!" thing but I really don't care. Mac OS X does NOT have 50% market share, and it won't for a long long time, so people hack Windows, and, guess what... I don't care if Windows is "inherently" secure or not, it is NOT practically secure. Period. And that's all that really matters.
Click to expand...

Ah-ha. See, now you're starting make a good point. :)

Your "practical security" viewpoint is entirely true: If one examines the real threat potential of Windows vs. Mac vs. whatever, Windows absolutely comes out as the most threatened. No doubt about it, and from an operational perspective, the threat spectrum is a very important factor to consider. While I certainly don't disagree with your perspective, I would add two things:

  1. If we agree that practical security is what really matters (and I think we do), then just comparing OSes in their out-of-the-box state isn't really a meaningful or valid exercise. Of course one with more active threats is going to be more negatively impacted, using such an insufficient measure. What matters is the evaluation the rest of the picture, and that involves looking at the total number of vulnerabilities, the mean time to patch those vulnerabilities, patch effectiveness, patch delivery/implementation methodology, countermeasure effectiveness , availability and manageability... just to name just a few. When you lay all that out, the stark reality is that there isn't really one particular OS or developer that stands out. They're all about the same -- all of them. A properly maintained Windows box is practically secure. A properly maintained OS X box is practically secure. Properly maintained Linux variants are practically secure. From any legitimate perspective, there aren't really any that stand out.
  2. To answer the "who cares" question, I'd say people get fired up over it because a lot of unfair indictments fly around. For example, for the stuff I write, I know I'm not perfect and therefore assume there'll be bugs... Consequently, for my apps, I've implemented an easy way for users to seamlessly update them; a "Hey, an update is available" message and a one-click install keeps them up to date. I'd be mad as hell -- and legitimately so, I think -- if a bunch of self-proclaimed "experts" started criticizing me and my software and said, "Bah, well, hmph, I shouldn't have to update. Your stuff just sucks and by extension so do you," all the while having not used the tools I made available to them to deal with the issues I know -- and any reasonable person knows -- will arise. That's the argument a lot of people make about Windows and, frankly, it's BS. Apple users are particularly guilty of slinging that stupid crap around -- hell, Apple themselves turned the mentality into an ad campaign.
So at the end of the day, you're absolutely right: It's more than just inherent security. It's a lot of things, and I think the reasons these arguments tend to go on incessantly has to do with the fact that two different conversations are being had on two different levels.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Ah-ha. See, now you're starting make a good point. :)
Click to expand...

It happens occasionally. :D

If we agree that practical security is what really matters (and I think we do), then just comparing OSes in their out-of-the-box state isn't really a meaningful or valid exercise.
Click to expand...

Why not? I want an OS that *IS* "practically secure" right out of the box... Just like you want your software to be good right out of the box. We both know that issues will arise, but the one-click update is a reasonable solution in both cases. I just don't think that you should have to spend a couple of hours working on things out of the box to make it work.

A properly maintained Windows box is practically secure. A properly maintained OS X box is practically secure.
Click to expand...

It's just the cost in both time and money to get to that point that differs, and that's where Windows still stumbles.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Why not? I want an OS that *IS* "practically secure" right out of the box... Just like you want your software to be good right out of the box. We both know that issues will arise, but the one-click update is a reasonable solution in both cases. I just don't think that you should have to spend a couple of hours working on things out of the box to make it work.
Click to expand...

Why not? Because in a practical sense, that's not a measure based on a realistic scenario. It's irrelevant... Like you said, it's all about practicality: It's like saying, "Version 1.12 of your software SUCKS!" when version 1.80 has been available for weeks. It's senseless whining about something that has no practical relevance whatsoever.

Also, as we've already noted, that out-of-the-box vulnerability level is due to the number of exploits out there, not some kind of deficiency on Microsoft's part -- in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, anyway. Let's remember that the next time somebody needlessly throws them under the bus.

And "a couple of hours" is, of course, a gross exaggeration. Windows install --> firewall on --> Windows Update --> install AVG --> install Windows Defender --> Done. That's all you have to do -- ever. And if it works for my mom, it'll work for anybody. My suspicion is that many of the people who have problems don't do that and the progression is more like Windows install --> porn/gambling/bittorrent sites --> weeks of use with out patching (despite dozens of warnings and prompts to do so) --> "Windows SUCKS!!! Microsoft SUCKS!!!"

The point is, it's like getting paid, leaving the cash on the sidewalk outside the bank, and then complaining about the bank's security when it's all stolen. And then saying, "Well, this other cash I left buried under some brush in the middle of a forest where nobody ever goes didn't get stolen. What's the bank's problem?!?!?" It doesn't make sense.

flyingcheesehead said:
It's just the cost in both time and money to get to that point that differs, and that's where Windows still stumbles.
Click to expand...
Again, that cost is minimal, and in the many cases in which Windows provides advantages over another OS, that cost is outweighed by those advantages.
 
Last edited:
The online edition of Computerworld today had an article... "12 unnecessary Vista features you can disable right now" starting with Sidebar that reportedly makes a "big speed boost, especially at boot time".

XP ain't much better - after SP3, I've needed to boost the RAM in 2 machines by 50% to regain the performance I used to have, and I'm looking at having to do a third.
 
wsuffa said:
XP ain't much better - after SP3, I've needed to boost the RAM in 2 machines by 50% to regain the performance I used to have, and I'm looking at having to do a third.
Click to expand...
In any system with a virtual memory OS, you can never have too much RAM. (Unless it's Windows 95.) More is always better. It's a shame that people have long since forgotten how to write tight, fast, efficient code, but that's a disease that's not limited to Microsoft.
 
jmaynard said:
In any system with a virtual memory OS, you can never have too much RAM. (Unless it's Windows 95.)
Click to expand...

Quite true, and OS X is no different. Any swapping is a bad swapping -- whether it goes by "caching" or "paging" or any other name.

jmaynard said:
More is always better. It's a shame that people have long since forgotten how to write tight, fast, efficient code, but that's a disease that's not limited to Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Feature bloat -- which Vista and XP are absolutely guilty of -- is a lot different than code bloat. I'm all for criticizing Microsoft and others for mistakes, but the latter isn't something they're really guilty of much anymore. Certainly the 95 codebase was a mess, but it's been my experience that as an organization Microsoft writes decent code; not much better nor worse than anything else I've seen. Though for the record, I've never really seen any Windows code (outside of MFC which doesn't really count, I guess)... It's primarily other things (SQL Server among others) that I've been privvy to and nothing ever really stuck out as so inefficient or bloated to indicate an organizational issue that hurt efficiency.

Anywho, most of the issues I've dealt with post-SP3 are things most users never see (DIMS changes broke some stuff of mine, some other security stuff got wonky) but the big way they screwed the pooch was with RDP 6.1. That caused a bunch of problems. But a performance hit post-SP3 because of SP3? That doesn't match with my experience nor the numbers I've seen. Dunno.
 
Last edited:
I know that this ia a bit off topic to our discussion, but why in the world would you want to buy an OS based on the following commercial....


It is kinda funny, but WTF?
 
vontresc said:
I know that this ia a bit off topic to our discussion, but why in the world would you want to buy an OS based on the following commercial....


It is kinda funny, but WTF?
Click to expand...
Mmmyeah... Uh... Um... I'm a big Seinfeld fan, and I guess that's kind of funny? I guess? But yeah, I don't know about Jerry hocking software.
 
wsuffa said:
...XP ain't much better - after SP3, I've needed to boost the RAM in 2 machines by 50% to regain the performance I used to have, and I'm looking at having to do a third.
Click to expand...

G-r-e-a-t...I just rebooted my VM on the Mac after I gave in to the harassment and let it install SP3.

The VM only has 512MB RAM.

The good news is made a copy of the whole "machine" so I can back down in a minute. :D

YEAH. It's a lot slower. :mad: I was gonna ask if SP3 had any good reasons to install it - like , say, it ran faster. :no:

UPDATE: The #$%^&*( Automatic Update has ANOTHER UPDATE! DOES IT EVER, EVER, EVER END? :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
UPDATE: The #$%^&*( Automatic Update has ANOTHER UPDATE! DOES IT EVER, EVER, EVER END? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...
It's better than the alternative.

But hey, if you can figure out a way to write 100% perfect software, let me know. :dunno:
 
vontresc said:
I know that this ia a bit off topic to our discussion, but why in the world would you want to buy an OS based on the following commercial....

It is kinda funny, but WTF?
Click to expand...

Saw it on TV. The subliminal message (lie) is that Microsoft ever has any innovation up its sleeve. The real joke would have been if he said, "Ask Steve Jobs."

Oh! "You think Trusted Computing" and Windows Genuine Advantage" were great? Just wait! Vista has a kill switch!"

The thinking had to go like this:

1) We can't fight on the product features.
2) Those funny Apple PC vs. Mac commercials are embarrassing us and making the point on #1.
3) Even Bill has given up.
Let's make a funny commercial with Bill!

BTW, Seinfeld is in the same league as rich as Bill Gates. (I was gonna say almost, but only Warren Buffet is almost.)
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
Saw it on TV. The subliminal message (lie) is that Microsoft ever has any innovation up its sleeve. The real joke would have been if he said, "Ask Steve Jobs."

Oh! "You think Trusted Computing" and Windows Genuine Advantage" were great? Just wait! Vista has a kill switch!"

The thinking had to go like this:

1) We can't fight on the product features.
2) Those funny Apple PC vs. Mac commercials are embarrassing us and making the point on #1.
3) Even Bill has given up.
Let's make a funny commercial with Bill!

BTW, Seinfeld is in the same league as rich as Bill Gates. (I was gonna say almost, but only Warren Buffet is almost.)
Click to expand...

You know, when I read stuff like this, I just can't shake the recollection of the feeling I get from White Sox fans. It's like, "Why do y'all have this giant chip on your shoulder that makes y'all so angry all the time?" I don't get it. :dunno:
 
ReverendSlappy said:
You know, when I read stuff like this, I just can't shake the recollection of the feeling I get from White Sox fans. It's like, "Why do y'all have this giant chip on your shoulder that makes y'all so angry all the time?" I don't get it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because Apple rejected the "Pull My Finger" iPhone app from the official store? :rofl:
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Mmmyeah... Uh... Um... I'm a big Seinfeld fan, and I guess that's kind of funny? I guess? But yeah, I don't know about Jerry hocking software.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Wow. I totally don't get that ad. At all. Are they trying to sell me something?

I did notice that the decor at the outside of the Shoe Circus Clown store looked suspiciously like an Apple store... But then they didn't go anywhere with that, either.

This one makes even less sense than that silly United Airlines ad with all the sea creatures during the olympics.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ummm... Wow. I totally don't get that ad. At all. Are they trying to sell me something?

I did notice that the decor at the outside of the Shoe Circus Clown store looked suspiciously like an Apple store... But then they didn't go anywhere with that, either.

This one makes even less sense than that silly United Airlines ad with all the sea creatures during the olympics.
Click to expand...
Yeah... As much as it pains me to pan Seinfeld, it's just bad. :confused:
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Why not? Because in a practical sense, that's not a measure based on a realistic scenario.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that security out of the box isn't a realistic scenario??? :dunno:

And "a couple of hours" is, of course, a gross exaggeration. Windows install --> firewall on --> Windows Update --> install AVG --> install Windows Defender --> Done. That's all you have to do -- ever.
Click to expand...

How about "Mac OS X Install --> Done."

Firewall's on out of the box (what a concept). Updates are automatic (default to weekly, I set it to check daily on my own machines). No AVG. No Defender.

All of that extra stuff DOES take time, and if you don't do it yourself, it's gonna cost you in the range of $150 for the rent-a-geek to do it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And "a couple of hours" is, of course, a gross exaggeration. Windows install --> firewall on --> Windows Update --> install AVG --> install Windows Defender --> Done. That's all you have to do -- ever.
Click to expand...
How about "Mac OS X Install --> Done."
Click to expand...
Indeed. I can't recall: is the mean time to infect a fresh Windows install back over 10 minutes yet? In any event, it's far shorter than the time required to download the security fixes. That is why being secure out of the box is imperative.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ummm... Wow. I totally don't get that ad. At all. Are they trying to sell me something?

I did notice that the decor at the outside of the Shoe Circus Clown store looked suspiciously like an Apple store... But then they didn't go anywhere with that, either.

This one makes even less sense than that silly United Airlines ad with all the sea creatures during the olympics.
Click to expand...

I missed the hidden messages until I read some comments outside.

They're talking about Vista, you know.

1) Windows is the equivalence of "Shoe Carnival," (Think Pay Less Shoe Source). You know. Dollar Store. Five buck shoes.
2) It hurts to use it because it doesn't fit.
3) If you just spend some time with it doing unusual, uncomfortable and stupid things (wear your clothes in the shower) eventually it fits - mostly, but you're totally wet and your shoes squeek.

Pretty honest if you think about it. :p

I can't wait to see the onslaught of parody videos on YouTube.
 
mikea said:
G-r-e-a-t...I just rebooted my VM on the Mac after I gave in to the harassment and let it install SP3.

The VM only has 512MB RAM.

The good news is made a copy of the whole "machine" so I can back down in a minute. :D

YEAH. It's a lot slower. :mad: I was gonna ask if SP3 had any good reasons to install it - like , say, it ran faster. :no:

UPDATE: The #$%^&*( Automatic Update has ANOTHER UPDATE! DOES IT EVER, EVER, EVER END? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...


The tablet PC I use in the plane has only 512 of physical memory. It can't be expanded (ruggedized tablet that will operate up to 18,000 ft.). It's rarely uses on a network. I'm probably going to dispense with SP3 for that, and turn off the firewall nag as I need all the memory I can get to run WXWorx.
 
wsuffa said:
The tablet PC I use in the plane has only 512 of physical memory. It can't be expanded (ruggedized tablet that will operate up to 18,000 ft.). It's rarely uses on a network. I'm probably going to dispense with SP3 for that, and turn off the firewall nag as I need all the memory I can get to run WXWorx.
Click to expand...

The VM still ran good enough to use. I really didn't notice a marked slowdown, but I only run two apps: VPN and Remote Administrator over it.

I make sure I don't have any "helper" applications running, only McAfee.
 
I see that Pandora has an app for the iPhone now, so you can listen to music for free on it... I like Pandora and it's learning behavior. If I had an iPhone, I'd be trying that software!

www.pandora.com
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So you're saying that security out of the box isn't a realistic scenario??? :dunno:
Click to expand...

With the threat environment being what it is for Windows, yes it's unrealistic. Remember, as we already agreed, it's not software flaws that led to that situation; it's the exponentially higher threat level. Any OS is going to have security flaws when it ships. Windows has those flaws exploited more because it's a more worthwhile target, not because it has more or more serious bugs/vulnerabilities.



flyingcheesehead said:
How about "Mac OS X Install --> Done."

Firewall's on out of the box (what a concept). Updates are automatic (default to weekly, I set it to check daily on my own machines). No AVG. No Defender.

All of that extra stuff DOES take time, and if you don't do it yourself, it's gonna cost you in the range of $150 for the rent-a-geek to do it.
Click to expand...
First, $150 is well on the high side. WAY high.

Second, "Mac OS X Install --> Done." is only the case -- again -- because of the hugely smaller threat spectrum. It'd have the same issues in the same threat environment.

And again, I have no beef with folks who point out that Windows has many more practical security concerns. It's extending that into some kind of indictment of MS's development or architecture acumen that is ignorant BS with no basis in fact.
 
jmaynard said:
Indeed. I can't recall: is the mean time to infect a fresh Windows install back over 10 minutes yet? In any event, it's far shorter than the time required to download the security fixes. That is why being secure out of the box is imperative.
Click to expand...

You find me a developer that claims their OS ships with no vulnerabilities and I'll show you a liar.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
You find me a developer that claims their OS ships with no vulnerabilities and I'll show you a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any that (realistically) make a claim of "no vulnerabilities", but OpenBSD claims to have had "Only two remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years," which isn't too bad.
 
pgengler said:
I don't know of any that (realistically) make a claim of "no vulnerabilities", but OpenBSD claims to have had "Only two remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years," which isn't too bad.
Click to expand...
This is despite several folks who've tried hard to prove the OpenBSD project leader, Theo de Raadt, wrong. (He's a bit of an ***hole.)

Nobody's claiming zero vulnerabilities. What those of us who don't view the world through Windows-colored glasses are saying is that Windows, by design, is significantly more vulnerable to remote exploitation than OSes that were designed from the ground up to incorporate true multiuser security and process isolation, such as the various Unixes out there.
 
Ain't that the truth! Not to brag, but I don't have virus, malware or other similar troubles. It's just a matter of being careful - and suspicious of anything unsolicited.

As for the topic of this thread, I have Vista on the laptop I'm using now, and don't have much to complain about. I have installed a few legacy programs without issues.
There was a learning curve concerning how common functions are performed, but I'm mostly over that now. Is it an improvement? Dunno.

David Johnson
 
Exclusive Interview: Microsoft Admits What Went Wrong with Vista, and How They Fixed It

We were surprised when Microsoft reps agreed to discuss Vista’s launch problems and what the company has done to fix them.

...

The answers we got during this mid-June background conversation were brutally honest: Our source, a high-ranking Windows product manager, conceded that Microsoft botched the Vista launch. He added that the company’s biggest concern wasn’t the OS but rather the eroded faith in Microsoft’s flagship product among users of all types and experience levels.

Our conversation was refreshingly frank, and no topic appeared off limits. To wit:

* Our Microsoft source blamed bad drivers from GPU companies and printer companies for the majority of Vista’s early stability problems.|
* He described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform.
* He admitted that spending the money to port DirectX 10 to Windows XP would have been worth the expense.
* He assailed OEM system builders for including bad, buggy, or just plain useless apps on their machines in exchange for a few bucks on the back end.
* He described the Games for Windows initiative as a disaster, with nothing more than 64-bit compatibility for games to show for years of effort.
* He conceded that Apple appeals to more and more consumers because the hardware is slick, the price is OK, and Apple doesn’t annoy its customers (or allow third parties to).

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fe...roken_promises_vistas_failure_launch?page=0,2
Click to expand...
:rofl: Somebody put phenobarbital in the water in Redmond.
 
Now get this.

Microsoft is abandoning the Jerry Seinfeld TV ads after only two of the three very strange ones were released.

As quickly as it began, Microsoft's fling with comedian Jerry Seinfeld has come to an end. In a development first reported by Valleywag, Microsoft announced today that the Bill & Jerry "teaser ads" that launched two weeks ago were always meant to be short-lived, and that they would give way to a new series of ads starting tonight.
...
In addition to the Life Without Walls campaign, Microsoft also plans to roll out an ad series called "Real PC" in response to Apple's "Get a Mac" ads. Microsoft's ads, some of which will feature a John Hodgman-like figure acting as the PC, will also include "a diverse group of faces representing the one billion people who use Windows PCs worldwide, all celebrating the sense of power and community Windows enables by declaring: 'I'm a PC,'" the company says. (We get it; all the new ads are very diverse.)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...einfeld-to-target-get-a-mac-with-new-ads.html
Click to expand...

Anybody actually see one on TV or was the campaign another YouTube freebie?

Get THIS!

THE MICROSOFT ADS WERE MADE ON A MAC!
After dumping its $10 million contract with Jerry Seinfeld after just three ads (only two of which even aired) Microsoft has created new ad copy where regular people and a few celebrities say, “I’m a PC!” One problem with the campaign’s credibility: the ad work was created using Macs.

attachment.php


Flickr user LuisDS found that metadata on the creative copy of the “stereotyped PC user” and other photos appearing on Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” website revealed that they were produced using Macs running Adobe Creative Suite 3. One might expect that Microsoft would use Windows PCs running its own Microsoft Expression Studio software, which as the company advertises, “takes your creative possibilities to a new level.”

Apparently, neither Windows PCs nor Expression Studio are up to the task of taking on Apple and destroying its globe enshrouding “Get a Mac” campaign. The image of John Hodgman as a troubled PC struggling with Vista-related problems has pushed Microsoft to defend itself with a $300 million campaign to take control of the “conversation about Windows,” using Macs as needed to get the message produced.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/
Click to expand...

Wonder if Jerry gets to keep the $10 mil.

No wonder Bill left.
 

Attachments

  • pasted-graphic-1-10.jpg
    pasted-graphic-1-10.jpg
    134.7 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
mikea said:
G-r-e-a-t...I just rebooted my VM on the Mac after I gave in to the harassment and let it install SP3.

The VM only has 512MB RAM.

The good news is made a copy of the whole "machine" so I can back down in a minute. :D

YEAH. It's a lot slower. :mad: I was gonna ask if SP3 had any good reasons to install it - like , say, it ran faster. :no:

UPDATE: The #$%^&*( Automatic Update has ANOTHER UPDATE! DOES IT EVER, EVER, EVER END? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...

You too? I'm still dealing with the consequences of SP3. Wish I'd never downloaded the damn thing.
 
alaskaflyer said:
You too? I'm still dealing with the consequences of SP3. Wish I'd never downloaded the damn thing.
Click to expand...

The word is there's a procedure from Microsoft to keep SP3 away, but only for a year.
http://windowssecrets.com/2008/09/11/02-Dont-let-XP-Service-Pack-3-hose-your-system

I'm thinking I'll block it on my Windows PC and roll back my VM on the Mac. It's pretty slow at times, but I haven't been able to blame Windows so much as my office PC. It does seem to use more CPU.

BTW, I removed APPLE from my Windows PC. Every timesat down at it and teh screen turned on, there was another iTunes EULA screen waiting for me to OK. I never told it download or update a thing and it never asked. I couldn't even get to STOP checking for updates, even though I tried to stomp out the Apple updater! Each update wanted to sneak Safari, too, of course.

So I decided iTunes had to go. I don't use it on the PC and I don't need any more crap resident.

I went deauthorize the computer in iTunes. Hadta get my Apple password reset so I could login to the iTunes MS. So in the meantime I removed Quicktime. Then I went to remove iTunes. It wouldn't let me deauthorize because the Quicktime install was "corrupt." So I went to reinstall Quicktime. The Quicktime download on the Apple web would only give me iTunes 8, which is exactly what I was sick of hearing about! No selection for just Quicktime. :mad::mad::mad: So OK! I installed iTunes 8. Clicked on eleventy-seven screens and let it check back and organize my my no albums and no music,- NO! Don't download album covers!

I go to deauthorize, which is in a diffenent place on the menu now, and find it the PC has never BEEN authorized. :mad:

UNINSTALL! Go away. You will need to reboot.

Windows has 17 updates to install. (Not, I think, Service Pack 3. Yet. It'll take 4 more reboots before it discovers that gem.) ARGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Install them SHUT DOWN STAY DOWN. Pull the power cord.

It's been down cold ever since. I've had it.
 
Last edited:
vontresc said:
I know that this ia a bit off topic to our discussion, but why in the world would you want to buy an OS based on the following commercial....


It is kinda funny, but WTF?
Click to expand...
BTW I heard they are pulling the ad campaign. Seems that no one else thought they were funny either
 
smigaldi said:
BTW I heard they are pulling the ad campaign. Seems that no one else thought they were funny either
Click to expand...

Hmm... So when they said that ad was just setting up the joke for future ads, they really meant "We haven't gotten permission to announce it's getting killed yet."

Seems this one really was the joke. It really was worse than United's ad during the Olympics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top