By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,602 Members | 1,533 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,602 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

VS2005 NOT Compatiblke with Vista? Are you serious?!

P: n/a
I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and got
errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is a
joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms of
support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 28 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
56 Replies


P: n/a
There is a patch for 2005.

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and got
errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is a
joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms of
support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 28 '07 #2

P: n/a
Should we apply the patch before installing or just ignore installation
errors and apply the patch after?
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
There is a patch for 2005.

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is
a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms
of support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 28 '07 #3

P: n/a
They must have a lot of chemtrails around Redmond, those people have become
FUBAR.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=-...8&z=17&l=0&m=h

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:BD**********************************@microsof t.com...
Should we apply the patch before installing or just ignore installation
errors and apply the patch after?
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>There is a patch for 2005.

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is
a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003
will not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own
terms of support for these products.

Is this even legal?


Jan 28 '07 #4

P: n/a
And, when we patch, which patch do we use? The BETA Vista Service Pack 1
(at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en)
or the Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005 Team Suite Service Pack 1 (at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en)
or some other patch that I haven't seen?

Geez people.....REALbasic is looking better all the time.

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:BD**********************************@microsof t.com...
Should we apply the patch before installing or just ignore installation
errors and apply the patch after?
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>There is a patch for 2005.

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is
a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003
will not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own
terms of support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 28 '07 #5

P: n/a
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in news:#
4S*************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
There is a patch for 2005.
The list of unresolved issues is still huge!
Jan 28 '07 #6

P: n/a
beta? it's been out for a while now as RTM

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:5E**********************************@microsof t.com...
And, when we patch, which patch do we use? The BETA Vista Service Pack 1
(at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en)
or the Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005 Team Suite Service Pack 1 (at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en)
or some other patch that I haven't seen?

Geez people.....REALbasic is looking better all the time.

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:BD**********************************@microsof t.com...
>Should we apply the patch before installing or just ignore installation
errors and apply the patch after?
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>There is a patch for 2005.

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this
is a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003
will not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own
terms of support for these products.

Is this even legal?


Jan 28 '07 #7

P: n/a
It runs fine if you dont use UAC, if you are a full permission admin it
works perfectly.. the Vista patch fixes some of the UAC issues

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and got
errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is a
joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms of
support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 28 '07 #8

P: n/a

"Spam Catcher" <sp**********@rogers.comwrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in news:#
4S*************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>There is a patch for 2005.

The list of unresolved issues is still huge!
Is there a list of VS2005/Vista issues somewhere?

I assume it is best to avoid using VS2005 on Vista for any production stuff
at this time - correct?
Jan 29 '07 #9

P: n/a
To answer my own question....the postings at
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=274496 seem to indicate that
you should install VS2005, then SP1 then the Vista patch.

I still haven't found a complete listing of Vista/VS2005 problems though.
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:BD**********************************@microsof t.com...
Should we apply the patch before installing or just ignore installation
errors and apply the patch after?
"Hayden Kirk" <hayden dot kirk *@* mobilepc dot co do nzwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>There is a patch for 2005.

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is
a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003
will not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own
terms of support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 29 '07 #10

P: n/a
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in
news:99**********************************@microsof t.com:

Is there a list of VS2005/Vista issues somewhere?

I assume it is best to avoid using VS2005 on Vista for any production
stuff at this time - correct?

Here it is:

Visual Studio on Windows Vista

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa948853.aspx

I would avoid using VS.NET on Vista until VS.NET 2005 SP1 Update for
Windows Vista is final.
Jan 29 '07 #11

P: n/a
According to the information at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa948853.aspx, things do not look
as good for Visual Studio 2003 users.

Although I have used VS 2005 since it was available, I still have a number
of web sites where pages were created using VS 2003. I have only changed
two of the sites over to VS 2005, but it now looks like I am going to be
forced to port all of them to VS 2005 if I ever want to change my main
development computer to VISTA. This is not a trivial amount of work.
"Smokey Grindel" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
It runs fine if you dont use UAC, if you are a full permission admin it
works perfectly.. the Vista patch fixes some of the UAC issues

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is
a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms
of support for these products.

Is this even legal?


Jan 29 '07 #12

P: n/a
You can always run a VPC with Windows XP and VS2003. Though I'm fairly
sure you'd need two separate licenses for that (or an MSDN subscription
of course).

Jesse

* William LaMartin wrote, On 1/29/2007 5:34 PM:
According to the information at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa948853.aspx, things do not look
as good for Visual Studio 2003 users.

Although I have used VS 2005 since it was available, I still have a number
of web sites where pages were created using VS 2003. I have only changed
two of the sites over to VS 2005, but it now looks like I am going to be
forced to port all of them to VS 2005 if I ever want to change my main
development computer to VISTA. This is not a trivial amount of work.
"Smokey Grindel" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>It runs fine if you dont use UAC, if you are a full permission admin it
works perfectly.. the Vista patch fixes some of the UAC issues

"Squishy" <sq*****@shroom.netwrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I tried installing my VS2005 Pro on Vista Ultimate 32 bit RTM today and
got errors stating that VS2005 was not compatible with Vista.

Microsoft......please pull your finger out of my ass and tell me this is
a joke.

It must be a joke....because I also have read that VS2002 and VS2003 will
not be supported on Vista. This clearly violates Microsoft's own terms
of support for these products.

Is this even legal?

Jan 29 '07 #13

P: n/a
Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"unknown" wrote:
>
Jan 29 '07 #14

P: n/a
And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"unknown" wrote:
Jan 30 '07 #15

P: n/a
Well you just do that!
"Dennis" <De****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:E1**********************************@microsof t.com...
And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well
as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
>Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2
days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is
available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"unknown" wrote:
>
Jan 30 '07 #16

P: n/a


"Stephany Young" <noone@localhostwrote in message
news:u%****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| Well you just do that!

Agreed.
Jan 30 '07 #17

P: n/a
heh! Knock yourself out!
:-)
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"Dennis" wrote:
And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"unknown" wrote:
>
Jan 30 '07 #18

P: n/a
I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.

On Jan 29, 10:03 pm, Dennis <Den...@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2 days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net
"unknown" wrote:- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Jan 30 '07 #19

P: n/a
If you do choose that path, I strongly suggest looking into REALbasic.

REALbasic will allow you (in the $600 professional version) to compile apps
that run on Linux, Mac and Windows from the same source code.

The Linux version (compiles apps for Linux only) is free.

www.realbasic.com
"Dennis" <De****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:E1**********************************@microsof t.com...
And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well
as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
>Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2
days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is
available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net


"unknown" wrote:
>
Jan 30 '07 #20

P: n/a

"gregarican" <gr*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.
I agree. The main criticism I had of previous breaks in compatibility were
like the ones with VB6 to VB.net - where there really was no tool to upgrade
business level applications.

When compatibility must be broken (and sometimes it must), every effort to
assist in a smooth transistion to the new tool should be made. This
includes announcing the incompatibility as soon as Microsoft's development
team knows it will be an issue - not at the time of the public release. It
also includes actually making a real effort to include or upgrade the last
generation apps with the new tool, which Microsoft failed to do in the
VB6VB.Net changeover.
Jan 30 '07 #21

P: n/a
Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.
----------------------------
"gregarican" <gr*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.

On Jan 29, 10:03 pm, Dennis <Den...@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well
as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior
versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista
and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2
days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is
available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net
"unknown" wrote:- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Jan 31 '07 #22

P: n/a
Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.
----------------------------"gregarican" <greg.kuj...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
I think it's funny how some critics slammed Microsoft for holding up
certain things with crutches such as Windows 9x, Visual Basic 6, etc.
backwards compatibility. But then when Microsoft finally takes a stand
and tries to clean up its act by not letting backwards compatibility
drag itself down they are slammed too. Having a product out for 3
years and then introducing new technology that (perhaps even by
design) might not be 100% backwards compatible isn't necessarily A Bad
Thing. After all we are talking about innovation, security, etc.
On Jan 29, 10:03 pm, Dennis <Den...@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
And it probably will be rehashed again and again for VB.Net 2003 as well
as
future crap when Microsoft disregards developers by making prior
versions
incompatible...let me see, VB.Net 2003 has been out 3 years and now it's
incompatible with their new operating system. I think I'll skip Vista
and
wait for further Linux development!
--
Dennis in Houston
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
Why do we need to keep going around in circles on this for the last 2
days?
We already established that 2005 installs on Vista and a patch is
available,
and that 2003 "can be" installed but may have issues.
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net
"unknown" wrote:- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jan 31 '07 #23

P: n/a
Hi,

"Jesse Houwing" <je***********@nospam-sogeti.nlwrote in message
news:eE****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| You can always run a VPC with Windows XP and VS2003. Though I'm fairly
| sure you'd need two separate licenses for that (or an MSDN subscription
| of course).

Read the thread with subject "No Vista support?" Apparentely it does run ok
in Vista.

The poster says nothing about web apps though. So I think it would be a good
idea to install a VPC and try it.
--
Ignacio Machin
machin AT laceupsolutions com
Jan 31 '07 #24

P: n/a
listen, buster

I don't care if it _RUNS_FINE_IN_VISTA_

IS IT SUPPORTED?

CAN WE CALL UP FOR FREE AND GET SUPPORT WHEN THE BRAND SPANKING NEW
SOFTWARE WILL NOT PLAY NICE?

Is it _OUR_ fault that MIcrosoft doesn't have the forethought to test
these products BEFORE SHIPPING?

I'm pissed off that SQL 2005 won't work with Access 2003; and this is
just yet another example of Microsoft demonstrating that they JUST
DONT GIVE A CRAP

IS IT SUPPORTED, IS IT OUT OF THE BOX SUPPORTED?

I DONT NEED EXTRA SOFTWARE, MORE SOFTWARE

WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS INFORMATION THREE MONTHS AGO AND THERE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A VS PATCH THREE MONTHS AGO

-Aaron

Jan 31 '07 #25

P: n/a
I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They told
her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it (or it may
even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use that, she will
have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium M
chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only have
two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run Vista.
Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican" <gr*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
>Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating
system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you
coming
*and* going.

Robin S.

Feb 1 '07 #26

P: n/a
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).

I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the company
standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and within
reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003 on Vista
when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the customer or
the company.

Let's face it... When you're the only game in town, you have a tendency to
do pretty much what you damn well please. It's the same with hot actors,
world champion boxers and rock stars. Just look at the stupid decisions
they make (Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson.....etc.) when they have no
boundaries.

Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat their
lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also human nature
btw) to get away with as much as you can.

What would have been great for Microsoft's image and customer confidence
would have been to scrap Vista when they started eliminating things like
Win/FS (the supposed core of Vista), admit that they have run into issues
and that they were going to build a new OS, from the gound up, (which would
not be backwards compatible) instead of putting out a warmed over UI change
like Vista.

With a completely rewritten OS, it would be less bloated, faster, and could
have the old problematic code removed and they would be giving people ample
warning that a major OS shift was coming that would require new applications
(or at least a virtual PC app to run XP and thier old apps).

Microsoft is much like a spoiled child. They pretty much do anything they
want because there are no real consequences. They are not here to serve the
customers or to even gain new customers. According to Chris Pratley (who
claims to have been the Group Program Manager for the program managment
teams that designed Word 2007, Publisher 2007 and OneNote 2007) "Our goal is
not to "be used by a lot of people". Our goal is actually to maximize
revenue."
(http://blogs.msdn.com/chris_pratley/...n-the-box.aspx)

So, there it is from the horses orafice (so to speak). Microsoft has the
global audience locked up and is not concerned with how many people use its
products, because they know that you MUST use them. Rather, they are
concerned with "maximizing revenue". This helps me to understand why they
keep breaking compatibility to make users buy more software. Microsoft is
just about the almighty dollar.

But...on to something that may actually be useful......

I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It has
a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

Jim Hubbard

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:2L******************************@comcast.com. ..
I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They told
her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it (or it
may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use that, she
will have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium M
chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only have
two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and
viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run Vista.
Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican" <gr*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
>Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
>>Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating
system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you
coming
*and* going.

Robin S.

Feb 2 '07 #27

P: n/a

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microsof t.com...
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).
Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because there
are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just economics to me.
I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and
within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003
on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the
customer or the company.
I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They ported
VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

<snip>
MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.
I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
Scrap Vista and start from scratch
There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP that
worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how doing
that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from scratch, and
in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great book, by the
way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book, although he used to
work for MS.)
instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.
I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed, but
that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would sell
as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50 you can
have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
to run XP and thier old apps).
They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored to
be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes. Some
people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work with
XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and now
their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's QuickBooks). It
took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working with customers
on compatability for a couple of years now. How much frickin' notice do
people need?
Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.
Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get over
the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).
I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee puts
up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot, or
standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them to
be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
Feb 3 '07 #28

P: n/a
I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.
I'm writing this on a 7 year old iBook running OS 10.3 (aka Panther). I
got it w/ OS 8.6 went to OS 9.x then OS X. So I don't see the problem
w/ a less-than-3 yr old mac running OS X - P.S. I don't see how a 3 yr
old Mac doesn't have OS X. OS X is has been out more than 3 years.
Someone, as usual, didn't know what he's talking about regarding
Macintosh.

Despite the fact that OS X IS UNIX I can still run my OS 9 apps (but
sorry, not older apps that were not "carbonized" - like you said at
some point there has to be incompatability (i.e. where would you put
the propeller on a jet?)). Yet I have an app that was written for OS 7
and still will run in OS 9 and/or "Classic mode" in OS X. That would
be like a DOS 3.0 app running in Windoze XP.

The next release, OS 10.5 (Tiger) supports the G3 (that's about 10
years of backward compatability) but as a practical matter I think
upgrading a G3 Mac is pointless. Many newer features require newer CPU
guts that the G3 simply does not have.

Macintosh has changed CPUs twice now and OS fundamental overhauls twice
(OS 7 & OS X), w/ nary a hiccup; I don't expect it was a perfect
transition across the board, but you could hear crickets chirp over the
complaints.

The most painful transistion was to OS 7.0 (about 1988). About 20%ish
of apps would not work, and about 50% required modification to work;
but Apple said so up front.

On 2007-02-01 03:35:37 -0600, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonesaid:
I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium
M chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it.
I'm fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's
an Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only
have two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest
version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run
Vista. Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican" <gr*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
>Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
>>Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you coming
*and* going.

Robin S.

Feb 3 '07 #29

P: n/a
If anyone doesn't know what they're talking about, it's the guy at the
Genius bar at the Apple store who told my friend she would not be able to
upgrade her laptop with the next version of the Mac OS that comes out.

I will point out that I wasn't *complaining* about it. I was just saying
that Microsoft gets a lot of crap for this and Apple doesn't. More complex
software requires better hardware enables more complex software requires
better hardware enables more complex software requires better hardware and
so on and so on.

Frankly, I *like* the Macs, and if I could afford 2 computers and had the
space for them, I'd buy one. I don't feel confident enough to install Vista
and Visual Studio and .Net 3.0 and SQLServer on a Mac, but would love to
hear if anybody has gotten that to work!

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
-------------------------------------------------
"Bob Jones" <ro****@joneshouse.comwrote in message
news:45**********************@roadrunner.com...
>I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

I'm writing this on a 7 year old iBook running OS 10.3 (aka Panther). I
got it w/ OS 8.6 went to OS 9.x then OS X. So I don't see the problem w/
a less-than-3 yr old mac running OS X - P.S. I don't see how a 3 yr old
Mac doesn't have OS X. OS X is has been out more than 3 years. Someone,
as usual, didn't know what he's talking about regarding Macintosh.

Despite the fact that OS X IS UNIX I can still run my OS 9 apps (but
sorry, not older apps that were not "carbonized" - like you said at some
point there has to be incompatability (i.e. where would you put the
propeller on a jet?)). Yet I have an app that was written for OS 7 and
still will run in OS 9 and/or "Classic mode" in OS X. That would be like
a DOS 3.0 app running in Windoze XP.

The next release, OS 10.5 (Tiger) supports the G3 (that's about 10 years
of backward compatability) but as a practical matter I think upgrading a
G3 Mac is pointless. Many newer features require newer CPU guts that the
G3 simply does not have.

Macintosh has changed CPUs twice now and OS fundamental overhauls twice
(OS 7 & OS X), w/ nary a hiccup; I don't expect it was a perfect
transition across the board, but you could hear crickets chirp over the
complaints.

The most painful transistion was to OS 7.0 (about 1988). About 20%ish of
apps would not work, and about 50% required modification to work; but
Apple said so up front.

On 2007-02-01 03:35:37 -0600, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonesaid:
>I'm standing by my assertion. At least for the moment.

I have a friend with a Mac laptop that is not even 3 years old. They
told her she can't run the next version of the operating system on it
(or it may even be OS X, I can't remember), and if she wants to use
that, she will have to buy new hardware.

Another one of my friends could not upgrade her mac to whatever the OS
before X is (9?), even though her mac was less than 5 years old.

My laptop is barely 2-1/2 years old. It has 2GB of memory and a Pentium
M chip, and I don't think I can run all the features of Vista on it. I'm
fairly certain the video driver won't support the Aero stuff. (It's an
Intel GME5255 or something like that; I have to look it up.)

At any rate, it's really dogging when I run Visual Studio, and I only
have two ideas on how to fix it.

(1) Remove McAfee (I've turned active scanning off, but I'm feeling
suspicious about the whole thing since I upgraded to the latest
version),

(2) Buy a new computer. (I've already scanned it for spyware and
viruses.)

(I'm not mentioning (3) Don't use Visual Studio ;-)

And yet, I'm not bitter about having to upgrade my hardware to run
Vista. Guess I just figure it goes with the job.

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
----------------------------------------------
"gregarican" <gr*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m58g2000cwm.googleg roups.com...
>>Not sure that you're 100% on target with this assertion. You can
upgrade older Mac hardware to OS X. The cutoff is upgrading an old
first generation iMac I think. That's too old to run the new system
software, but then again it is 8 years old IIRC.

On Jan 31, 2:54 am, "RobinS" <Rob...@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
Have you ever noticed that nobody ever slams Apple for the same thing?
About every 3 years, if you want the new version of the operating
system,
you have to
buy a new Mac. And *THEY* make their own hardware, so they get you
coming
*and* going.

Robin S.


Feb 3 '07 #30

P: n/a
Just a test - I have replied twice to this thread (via Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers and Windows Mail on a Vista Ultimate PC running Windows
2007) and have not seen the replies posted - nor have I seen any rejections
or errors when posting.

I wonder if there is a thread limit or something that I am not aware
of...... I'd hate to think I'm being censored by Microsoft. Come on....I'm
not *that* important.

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com. ..
>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microsof t.com...
>The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).

Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because there
are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just economics to
me.
>I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users (and
within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support VS2003
on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good for the
customer or the company.

I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They ported
VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

<snip>
>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
>Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how
doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from
scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great
book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book,
although he used to work for MS.)
>instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would
sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50
you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
>they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes.
Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work
with XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and
now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's
QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working
with customers on compatability for a couple of years now. How much
frickin' notice do people need?
>Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get
over the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used
before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
>I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee
puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot,
or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them
to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.

Feb 3 '07 #31

P: n/a
Jim,

I can see two other responses to this thread, and this message, too. Maybe
you should try a different news server. Or maybe you're censoring yourself.
;-)

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.com...
Just a test - I have replied twice to this thread (via Microsoft
Communities newsgroup servers and Windows Mail on a Vista Ultimate PC
running Windows 2007) and have not seen the replies posted - nor have I
seen any rejections or errors when posting.

I wonder if there is a thread limit or something that I am not aware
of...... I'd hate to think I'm being censored by Microsoft. Come
on....I'm not *that* important.

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com. ..
>>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microso ft.com...
>>The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
users (<3% of all computer users).

Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because
there are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just
economics to me.
>>I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users
(and within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support
VS2003 on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good
for the customer or the company.

I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They
ported VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

<snip>
>>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
>>Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's
always better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start
over. Joel Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his
book, how doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start
from scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market.
(Great book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS
book, although he used to work for MS.)
>>instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple
would sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for
another $50 you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
>>they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC
app to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major
changes. Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their
apps to work with XP if they could get their software to work within the
confines, and now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A:
Intuit's QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've
been working with customers on compatability for a couple of years now.
How much frickin' notice do people need?
>>Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually
serving the customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista
and Office 2007 will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and
after people get over the shock, they will like it better than any
version they have used before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.
>>I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com).
It has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any
other protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro)
in independent testing by Virus Bulletin
(http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I
want to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every
single document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and
McAfee puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I
reboot, or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when
I open a solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need
all of them to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.


Feb 4 '07 #32

P: n/a
Its still not happening - I'll try and reply directly to you....

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:O9******************************@comcast.com. ..
Jim,

I can see two other responses to this thread, and this message, too. Maybe
you should try a different news server. Or maybe you're censoring
yourself. ;-)

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microsof t.com...
>Just a test - I have replied twice to this thread (via Microsoft
Communities newsgroup servers and Windows Mail on a Vista Ultimate PC
running Windows 2007) and have not seen the replies posted - nor have I
seen any rejections or errors when posting.

I wonder if there is a thread limit or something that I am not aware
of...... I'd hate to think I'm being censored by Microsoft. Come
on....I'm not *that* important.

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com ...
>>>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@micros oft.com...
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
users (<3% of all computer users).

Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because
there are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just
economics to me.

I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users
(and within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support
VS2003 on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether good
for the customer or the company.

I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They
ported VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

<snip>
MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's
always better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start
over. Joel Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his
book, how doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start
from scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market.
(Great book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS
book, although he used to work for MS.)

instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple
would sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for
another $50 you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?

they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC
app to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major
changes. Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their
apps to work with XP if they could get their software to work within the
confines, and now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A:
Intuit's QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've
been working with customers on compatability for a couple of years now.
How much frickin' notice do people need?

Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually
serving the customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista
and Office 2007 will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and
after people get over the shock, they will like it better than any
version they have used before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.

I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I
want to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every
single document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and
McAfee puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I
reboot, or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when
I open a solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need
all of them to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.


Feb 4 '07 #33

P: n/a
Scratch that - here is the reply that I can't post via Microsoft Community
newsgroup servers -
http://justwhydontpeoplegetit.blogsp...u-tell-me.html.
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:7B**********************************@microsof t.com...
Its still not happening - I'll try and reply directly to you....

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:O9******************************@comcast.com. ..
>Jim,

I can see two other responses to this thread, and this message, too.
Maybe you should try a different news server. Or maybe you're censoring
yourself. ;-)

Robin S.
-----------------------------
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CE**********************************@microso ft.com...
>>Just a test - I have replied twice to this thread (via Microsoft
Communities newsgroup servers and Windows Mail on a Vista Ultimate PC
running Windows 2007) and have not seen the replies posted - nor have I
seen any rejections or errors when posting.

I wonder if there is a thread limit or something that I am not aware
of...... I'd hate to think I'm being censored by Microsoft. Come
on....I'm not *that* important.

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.co m...

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@micro soft.com...
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
users (<3% of all computer users).

Well, I think Macs are kind of cool, but I wouldn't buy one because
there are so few jobs writing software for them. :-) That's just
economics to me.

I guess I look at things from the user's standpoint rather than the
company standpoint because I figure that what is good for the users
(and within reason) is also good for the company. Refusing to support
VS2003 on Vista when you had agreed to do so previously is niether
good for the customer or the company.

I agree with that. I'm surprised by their decision to do that. They
ported VS6 and VS8, how much more work could it be to port VS7?

<snip>
MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's
always better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start
over. Joel Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his
book, how doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start
from scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser
market. (Great book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a
pro-MS book, although he used to work for MS.)

instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple
would sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for
another $50 you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?

they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC
app to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was
refactored to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any
major changes. Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade
their apps to work with XP if they could get their software to work
within the confines, and now their software won't work with Vista.
(Example A: Intuit's QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista,
and they've been working with customers on compatability for a couple
of years now. How much frickin' notice do people need?

Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually
serving the customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista
and Office 2007 will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and
after people get over the shock, they will like it better than any
version they have used before.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.

I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com).
It has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any
other protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend
Micro) in independent testing by Virus Bulletin
(http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I
want to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every
single document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and
McAfee puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time
I reboot, or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But
when I open a solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't
need all of them to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.

Thanks,
Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.

Feb 4 '07 #34

P: n/a
Well, friends, I am attempting this post from Bellsouth's newsgroup servers
on my old XP machine. Let's see if it works from here (as Bellsouth servers
currently reject ALL newsgroup posts from Windows Mail on Vista).

(5th try at posting)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com. ..
>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microsof t.com...
>The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).
<snip>
>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
>
>Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how
doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from
scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great
book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book,
although he used to work for MS.)
I love Joel's work....got the book on my shelf and have actually read it (a
real feat with my schedule).

The problem with Netscape's rewrite is that they didn't have a competing
browser in the market while they did the rewrite, they tried to SELL thiers
(while Microsoft gave IE away) and they had real competition. Microsoft
would still have XP (which many people in businesses will run for the next
2-3 years at least) and they have no competition.
>
>instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would
sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50
you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.

For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't broke
don't fix it.

(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel like
Vista - I've heard this is good -
http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried it
myself. You can also look at the tweaks on
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-p...ary-182597.php
or
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/..._longhorn_free.)
>
>they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes.
Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work
with XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and
now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's
QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working
with customers on compatability for a couple of years now. How much
frickin' notice do people need?
That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...
>
>Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get
over the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used
before.
People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other benefit
(sometimes even if there is less).

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.

For instance, all it would really take to shake Microsoft is a Linux distro
willing to take a fresh look at how they are blowing things and make a
couple of key corrections. Heck, I'd help 'em do it. Not because I hate
Microsoft, but because competition is good for consumers - it even makes
companies stronger and spurs innovation.
>
I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS, wouldn't
you?
>
>I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee
puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot,
or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them
to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.
It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).

The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.

Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Jim Hubbard

"The democracy will cease to exist when
you take away from those who are willing
to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson

Feb 4 '07 #35

P: n/a
Well, I can see it now. Can you?

Comments below...

Robin S.

"smerf" <sm***@shroom.comwrote in message
news:FT******************@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
Well, friends, I am attempting this post from Bellsouth's newsgroup
servers on my old XP machine. Let's see if it works from here (as
Bellsouth servers currently reject ALL newsgroup posts from Windows Mail
on Vista).

(5th try at posting)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com. ..
>>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microso ft.com...
>>The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
users (<3% of all computer users).

<snip>
>>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
Well, yeah, you're right about that. Although it's more like "Here, we did
this, it's going to make your life better. Really. <wolfish grinTrust us.
</wolfish grin>

<snip Vista/Netscape stuff and iPod stuff>
Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And
home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a
new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.
Businesses may not buy "cute", but they do buy when the marketing is good,
and it convinces them that something will help them do X. Even if they
never needed to do X before, they will suddenly feel like they need to do
X.

Most people probably won't care about Vista on a personal machine, but some
will want the latest and greatest. I don't think it's enough to push the
hardware market, but apparently everyone else thinks so, because they were
worried about the impact that Vista's delay would have on people buying new
computers -- apparently they thought people would wait and buy computer
*after* Christmas to get Vista installed on them.

What cracked me up was Dell, etc., giving away upgrade coupons for Vista
with computers purchased before Vista was available to Dell. How many
general users do you know who are going to upgrade to Vista themselves?
For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and
say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't
broke
don't fix it.
I don't think it will take off until there are more apps written to work
for Vista, although I do think it will succeed in the business area because
of the extra security precautions.

<snip>
That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...
Yeah, that *is* sort of hard to take. I think SQLServer2005 has some issues
as well. I could envision some kind of turf war, with the VS guys going,
"Hey, our stuff works, fix *yours*!" and the Vista guys responding in the
same way. You'd think some upper-level manager would step in if that was
the case.

But from what I've heard, VisualStudio2005 *does* work with Vista. You have
to install SP-1 for VS2005, and I think there's a specific Vista patch as
well. People have reported that they have it working fine.
>>
>>Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. <snip>

People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other
benefit
(sometimes even if there is less).

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like
friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer
than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.
Well, yeah, you're not responding to shareholders.
>I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.

You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS,
wouldn't
you?
Responded to this above.

<snip / NOD32 http://www.eset.com >
It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which
can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but
it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).
I'll try it out. I deinstalled McAfee, and am happy to report that my
Visual Studio projects are opening up much quicker. That's really annoying,
because I had disabled active scanning in McAfee, and it shouldn't have had
any impact on my opening of documents.
The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and
screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.
Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if
they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?
Because companies pay us to,and it's fun. :-)

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
Feb 4 '07 #36

P: n/a
Yes, I can - but only via the Bellsouth newsgroups where I posted it. I do
not see it or your reply above posted via Windows Mail (on Vista Ultimate 32
bit edition) in the Microsoft Communities newsgroup servers (that are
installed in Windows Mail by default on Vista Ultimate).

I have diligently looked through the settings in Windows Mail and have found
nothing that should be restricting these posts.

As of now, it seems to be a Microsoft Communities server issue. Whether it
is intentional or not, I cannot tell.

Why would it be intentional? Well, if people start talking about how to
make XP look and behave like Vista, that may have a negative effect on Vista
sales. It also may be a legal thing - protecting the "look and feel" of
Vista.

Nothing in this thread after the post (and including that post) mentioning
the links to the XP -Vista transformation packs shows up in the Microsoft
Communities newsgroups (whether posted from the Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers or the Bellsouth newsgroup servers) - but it all shows up
in the Bellsouth newsgroups when posted from Bellsouth newsgroup servers.

Definitely strange.....

--
Jim Hubbard

"The democracy will cease to exist when
you take away from those who are willing
to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Hf******************************@comcast.com. ..
Well, I can see it now. Can you?

Comments below...

Robin S.

"smerf" <sm***@shroom.comwrote in message
news:FT******************@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>Well, friends, I am attempting this post from Bellsouth's newsgroup
servers on my old XP machine. Let's see if it works from here (as
Bellsouth servers currently reject ALL newsgroup posts from Windows Mail
on Vista).

(5th try at posting)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com ...
>>>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@micros oft.com...
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
users (<3% of all computer users).

<snip>
>>>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."

Well, yeah, you're right about that. Although it's more like "Here, we did
this, it's going to make your life better. Really. <wolfish grinTrust
us. </wolfish grin>

<snip Vista/Netscape stuff and iPod stuff>
>Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And
home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a
new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.

Businesses may not buy "cute", but they do buy when the marketing is good,
and it convinces them that something will help them do X. Even if they
never needed to do X before, they will suddenly feel like they need to do
X.

Most people probably won't care about Vista on a personal machine, but
some will want the latest and greatest. I don't think it's enough to push
the hardware market, but apparently everyone else thinks so, because they
were worried about the impact that Vista's delay would have on people
buying new computers -- apparently they thought people would wait and buy
computer *after* Christmas to get Vista installed on them.

What cracked me up was Dell, etc., giving away upgrade coupons for Vista
with computers purchased before Vista was available to Dell. How many
general users do you know who are going to upgrade to Vista themselves?
>For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and
say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't
broke
don't fix it.

I don't think it will take off until there are more apps written to work
for Vista, although I do think it will succeed in the business area
because of the extra security precautions.

<snip>
>That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...

Yeah, that *is* sort of hard to take. I think SQLServer2005 has some
issues as well. I could envision some kind of turf war, with the VS guys
going, "Hey, our stuff works, fix *yours*!" and the Vista guys responding
in the same way. You'd think some upper-level manager would step in if
that was the case.

But from what I've heard, VisualStudio2005 *does* work with Vista. You
have to install SP-1 for VS2005, and I think there's a specific Vista
patch as well. People have reported that they have it working fine.
>>>
Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. <snip>

People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other
benefit
(sometimes even if there is less).

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like
friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer
than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.

Well, yeah, you're not responding to shareholders.
>>I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.

You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS,
wouldn't
you?

Responded to this above.

<snip / NOD32 http://www.eset.com >
>It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which
can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but
it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).

I'll try it out. I deinstalled McAfee, and am happy to report that my
Visual Studio projects are opening up much quicker. That's really
annoying, because I had disabled active scanning in McAfee, and it
shouldn't have had any impact on my opening of documents.
>The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and
screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.
Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if
they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?

Because companies pay us to,and it's fun. :-)

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.


Feb 6 '07 #37

P: n/a
I must admit, it's surreal. When you refer to the "Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers", I assume you're talking about configuring your
newsreader to get the posts from news.microsoft.com?

Frankly, I'd feel a little paranoid if I were you. :-O

So I added news.microsoft.com to my newsreader (OE), and I see this in the
thread where most of our posts are:

(lots of other posts, then)
2/1/2007 1:35 a.m. Robin S. (both)
2/1/2007 6:57 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
2/2/2007 4:51 p.m. Robin S. (both)
2/3/2007 10:45 a.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
2/3/2007 6:54 p.m. Robin S. (both)
2/3/2007 9:41 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
(this is the one that says "its still not happening - i'll try and
reply directly to you)
2/3/2007 9:55 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
3/4/2007 11:25 p.m. smerf (future posted!) (not on microsoft)
(this is the one you couldn't post under your own name)
2/4/2007 9;21 a.m. Robin S (not on microsoft)
3/6/2007 10:53 p.m. Jim Hubbard (future posted!) (not on microsoft)

(insert Twilight Zone music here)

What's with the future posting? Can you give me tomorrow's lottery numbers?

Robin S.
--------------------------------------------
"Jim Hubbard" <Ji*@bellsouth.netwrote in message
news:vB******************@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
Yes, I can - but only via the Bellsouth newsgroups where I posted it. I
do not see it or your reply above posted via Windows Mail (on Vista
Ultimate 32 bit edition) in the Microsoft Communities newsgroup servers
(that are installed in Windows Mail by default on Vista Ultimate).

I have diligently looked through the settings in Windows Mail and have
found nothing that should be restricting these posts.

As of now, it seems to be a Microsoft Communities server issue. Whether
it is intentional or not, I cannot tell.

Why would it be intentional? Well, if people start talking about how to
make XP look and behave like Vista, that may have a negative effect on
Vista sales. It also may be a legal thing - protecting the "look and
feel" of Vista.

Nothing in this thread after the post (and including that post)
mentioning the links to the XP -Vista transformation packs shows up in
the Microsoft Communities newsgroups (whether posted from the Microsoft
Communities newsgroup servers or the Bellsouth newsgroup servers) - but
it all shows up in the Bellsouth newsgroups when posted from Bellsouth
newsgroup servers.

Definitely strange.....

--
Jim Hubbard

"The democracy will cease to exist when
you take away from those who are willing
to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Hf******************************@comcast.com. ..
>Well, I can see it now. Can you?

Comments below...

Robin S.

"smerf" <sm***@shroom.comwrote in message
news:FT******************@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
>>Well, friends, I am attempting this post from Bellsouth's newsgroup
servers on my old XP machine. Let's see if it works from here (as
Bellsouth servers currently reject ALL newsgroup posts from Windows
Mail on Vista).

(5th try at posting)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.co m...

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@micro soft.com...
The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
users (<3% of all computer users).

<snip>

MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's
more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."

Well, yeah, you're right about that. Although it's more like "Here, we
did this, it's going to make your life better. Really. <wolfish grin>
Trust us. </wolfish grin>

<snip Vista/Netscape stuff and iPod stuff>
>>Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And
home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the
week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a
new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.

Businesses may not buy "cute", but they do buy when the marketing is
good, and it convinces them that something will help them do X. Even if
they never needed to do X before, they will suddenly feel like they need
to do X.

Most people probably won't care about Vista on a personal machine, but
some will want the latest and greatest. I don't think it's enough to
push the hardware market, but apparently everyone else thinks so,
because they were worried about the impact that Vista's delay would have
on people buying new computers -- apparently they thought people would
wait and buy computer *after* Christmas to get Vista installed on them.

What cracked me up was Dell, etc., giving away upgrade coupons for Vista
with computers purchased before Vista was available to Dell. How many
general users do you know who are going to upgrade to Vista themselves?
>>For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and
say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't
broke
don't fix it.

I don't think it will take off until there are more apps written to work
for Vista, although I do think it will succeed in the business area
because of the extra security precautions.

<snip>
>>That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft
knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the
heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...

Yeah, that *is* sort of hard to take. I think SQLServer2005 has some
issues as well. I could envision some kind of turf war, with the VS guys
going, "Hey, our stuff works, fix *yours*!" and the Vista guys
responding in the same way. You'd think some upper-level manager would
step in if that was the case.

But from what I've heard, VisualStudio2005 *does* work with Vista. You
have to install SP-1 for VS2005, and I think there's a specific Vista
patch as well. People have reported that they have it working fine.
>>>>
Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.

Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. <snip>

People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other
benefit
(sometimes even if there is less).

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like
friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer
than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.

Well, yeah, you're not responding to shareholders.
>>>I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the
large corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.

You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd
think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS,
wouldn't
you?

Responded to this above.

<snip / NOD32 http://www.eset.com >
>>It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning
(which can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision),
but it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds
a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).

I'll try it out. I deinstalled McAfee, and am happy to report that my
Visual Studio projects are opening up much quicker. That's really
annoying, because I had disabled active scanning in McAfee, and it
shouldn't have had any impact on my opening of documents.
>>The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and
screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.
Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if
they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?

Because companies pay us to,and it's fun. :-)

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.



Feb 6 '07 #38

P: n/a
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:he******************************@comcast.com. ..
>I must admit, it's surreal. When you refer to the "Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers", I assume you're talking about configuring your
newsreader to get the posts from news.microsoft.com?
No. Windows Mail (in Vista, click Start Menu and look for "Windows Mail")
has msnews.microsoft.com as the newsgroup servers. You have to use a
Microsoft Live (the old MS "Passport") account to sign in to the servers.
>
Frankly, I'd feel a little paranoid if I were you. :-O
Me? Paranoid?

Look, just because I think Microsoft is censoring my posts, that doesn't
mean they're not.

Pay careful attention to the Help/About splash screen in Windows Mail. It
says that Vista's UI is covered by its legal crap. Maybe that's why they
censored anything that gives the same look, feel and functionality - even if
its on their last OS.
>
So I added news.microsoft.com to my newsreader (OE), and I see this in the
thread where most of our posts are:

(lots of other posts, then)
2/1/2007 1:35 a.m. Robin S. (both)
2/1/2007 6:57 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
2/2/2007 4:51 p.m. Robin S. (both)
2/3/2007 10:45 a.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
2/3/2007 6:54 p.m. Robin S. (both)
2/3/2007 9:41 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
(this is the one that says "its still not happening - i'll try and
reply directly to you)
2/3/2007 9:55 p.m. Jim Hubbard (both)
3/4/2007 11:25 p.m. smerf (future posted!) (not on microsoft)
(this is the one you couldn't post under your own name)
2/4/2007 9;21 a.m. Robin S (not on microsoft)
3/6/2007 10:53 p.m. Jim Hubbard (future posted!) (not on microsoft)

(insert Twilight Zone music here)

What's with the future posting? Can you give me tomorrow's lottery
numbers?
The future posts were because I posted from my XP machine and had been
messing around with the calendar. I didn't make that stupid mistake on the
Vista PC and I've fixed it on my XP PC.

As far as tomorrows lottery numbers go - I can do even better. I can tell
you who wins - the lottery commission.

--
Jim Hubbard

"The democracy will cease to exist when
you take away from those who are willing
to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
>
Robin S.
--------------------------------------------
"Jim Hubbard" <Ji*@bellsouth.netwrote in message
news:vB******************@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
>Yes, I can - but only via the Bellsouth newsgroups where I posted it. I
do not see it or your reply above posted via Windows Mail (on Vista
Ultimate 32 bit edition) in the Microsoft Communities newsgroup servers
(that are installed in Windows Mail by default on Vista Ultimate).

I have diligently looked through the settings in Windows Mail and have
found nothing that should be restricting these posts.

As of now, it seems to be a Microsoft Communities server issue. Whether
it is intentional or not, I cannot tell.

Why would it be intentional? Well, if people start talking about how to
make XP look and behave like Vista, that may have a negative effect on
Vista sales. It also may be a legal thing - protecting the "look and
feel" of Vista.

Nothing in this thread after the post (and including that post)
mentioning the links to the XP -Vista transformation packs shows up in
the Microsoft Communities newsgroups (whether posted from the Microsoft
Communities newsgroup servers or the Bellsouth newsgroup servers) - but
it all shows up in the Bellsouth newsgroups when posted from Bellsouth
newsgroup servers.

Definitely strange.....

--
Jim Hubbard

"The democracy will cease to exist when
you take away from those who are willing
to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Hf******************************@comcast.com ...
>>Well, I can see it now. Can you?

Comments below...

Robin S.

"smerf" <sm***@shroom.comwrote in message
news:FT******************@bignews5.bellsouth.net ...
Well, friends, I am attempting this post from Bellsouth's newsgroup
servers on my old XP machine. Let's see if it works from here (as
Bellsouth servers currently reject ALL newsgroup posts from Windows
Mail on Vista).

(5th try at posting)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.c om...
>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@micr osoft.com...
>The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac
>users (<3% of all computer users).

<snip>

>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
>Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
>their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
>human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.
>
I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."

Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's
more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
Well, yeah, you're right about that. Although it's more like "Here, we
did this, it's going to make your life better. Really. <wolfish grin>
Trust us. </wolfish grin>

<snip Vista/Netscape stuff and iPod stuff>

Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And
home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the
week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a
new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.

Businesses may not buy "cute", but they do buy when the marketing is
good, and it convinces them that something will help them do X. Even if
they never needed to do X before, they will suddenly feel like they need
to do X.

Most people probably won't care about Vista on a personal machine, but
some will want the latest and greatest. I don't think it's enough to
push the hardware market, but apparently everyone else thinks so,
because they were worried about the impact that Vista's delay would have
on people buying new computers -- apparently they thought people would
wait and buy computer *after* Christmas to get Vista installed on them.

What cracked me up was Dell, etc., giving away upgrade coupons for Vista
with computers purchased before Vista was available to Dell. How many
general users do you know who are going to upgrade to Vista themselves?

For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and
say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't
broke
don't fix it.

I don't think it will take off until there are more apps written to work
for Vista, although I do think it will succeed in the business area
because of the extra security precautions.

<snip>
That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft
knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the
heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...

Yeah, that *is* sort of hard to take. I think SQLServer2005 has some
issues as well. I could envision some kind of turf war, with the VS guys
going, "Hey, our stuff works, fix *yours*!" and the Vista guys
responding in the same way. You'd think some upper-level manager would
step in if that was the case.

But from what I've heard, VisualStudio2005 *does* work with Vista. You
have to install SP-1 for VS2005, and I think there's a specific Vista
patch as well. People have reported that they have it working fine.

>
>Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.
>
Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public
corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Period. <snip>

People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other
benefit
(sometimes even if there is less).

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like
friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer
than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.

Well, yeah, you're not responding to shareholders.

I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the
large corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the
business.

You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd
think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS,
wouldn't
you?

Responded to this above.

<snip / NOD32 http://www.eset.com >
It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning
(which can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision),
but it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds
a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).

I'll try it out. I deinstalled McAfee, and am happy to report that my
Visual Studio projects are opening up much quicker. That's really
annoying, because I had disabled active scanning in McAfee, and it
shouldn't have had any impact on my opening of documents.

The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and
screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.
Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if
they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?

Because companies pay us to,and it's fun. :-)

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.




Feb 6 '07 #39

P: n/a
Comments below...

"Jim Hubbard" <Ji*@bellsouth.netwrote in message
news:6D***************@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:he******************************@comcast.com. ..
>>I must admit, it's surreal. When you refer to the "Microsoft Communities
newsgroup servers", I assume you're talking about configuring your
newsreader to get the posts from news.microsoft.com?

No. Windows Mail (in Vista, click Start Menu and look for "Windows
Mail") has msnews.microsoft.com as the newsgroup servers. You have to
use a Microsoft Live (the old MS "Passport") account to sign in to the
servers.
****Is Windows Mail any better than OE? Or is it the same thing,
Vista-ized?
>Frankly, I'd feel a little paranoid if I were you. :-O

Me? Paranoid?

Look, just because I think Microsoft is censoring my posts, that doesn't
mean they're not.
****Exactly my point!
Pay careful attention to the Help/About splash screen in Windows Mail.
It says that Vista's UI is covered by its legal crap. Maybe that's why
they censored anything that gives the same look, feel and functionality -
even if its on their last OS.

****I haven't installed Vista yet. I don't think it will run on my
2-year-old laptop. I'm going to buy a new laptop and then repurpose the old
one as a server. At least, that's my theory.

<snip>posthistory</snip>
>What's with the future posting? Can you give me tomorrow's lottery
numbers?

The future posts were because I posted from my XP machine and had been
messing around with the calendar. I didn't make that stupid mistake on
the Vista PC and I've fixed it on my XP PC.

As far as tomorrows lottery numbers go - I can do even better. I can
tell you who wins - the lottery commission.
Darn. That's not a lot of help!

Robin S.
Ts'i mahnu uterna ot twan ot geifur hingts uto.
Feb 6 '07 #40

P: n/a
<Snip>
****Is Windows Mail any better than OE? Or is it the same thing, Vista-iz
Pretty much the same old OE...just the windows have changed from what I have
seen - and the automatic adding of msnews.microsoft.com for thoe with a Live
ID.
>
>>Frankly, I'd feel a little paranoid if I were you. :-O

Me? Paranoid?

Look, just because I think Microsoft is censoring my posts, that doesn't
mean they're not.

****Exactly my point!
Let's try one more thing. Immediately after I post this, I will try the
post-that-won't again - this time without the paragraph about the XP
transformations.

Jim
(Posted from Windows Mail/Vista)
Feb 6 '07 #41

P: n/a
Maybe it isn't censorship. Maybe the post is too long.

I'm trying the paragraphs that I think MS may find objectionable to test for
the censorship thing.....

__________________________________

For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't broke
don't fix it.

(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel like
Vista - I've heard this is good -
http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried it
myself. You can also look at the tweaks on
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-p...ary-182597.php
or
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/..._longhorn_free.)
__________________________________

Let's see if this shorter post shows up........

Jim
Feb 6 '07 #42

P: n/a
OK - its not censoring for that content.....

Maybe its the length of the message......I'll post the first half here and
the second half in a post immediately following it..

Part I
______________________________

"RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:df******************************@comcast.com. ..
>
"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microsof t.com...
>The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users
(<3% of all computer users).
<snip>
>MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.

I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
permission."
Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's more
like "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
>
>Scrap Vista and start from scratch

There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how
doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from
scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great
book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book,
although he used to work for MS.)
I love Joel's work....got the book on my shelf and have actually read it (a
real feat with my schedule).

The problem with Netscape's rewrite is that they didn't have a competing
browser in the market while they did the rewrite, they tried to SELL thiers
(while Microsoft gave IE away) and they had real competition. Microsoft
would still have XP (which many people in businesses will run for the next
2-3 years at least) and they have no competition.
>
>instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.

I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would
sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50
you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And home
users usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)
that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a new
PC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.

For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and say
XP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't broke
don't fix it.

(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel like
Vista - I've heard this is good -
http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried it
myself. You can also look at the tweaks on
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-p...ary-182597.php
or
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/..._longhorn_free.)

______________________________
Feb 6 '07 #43

P: n/a

Second half did not show - lets try breaking it into 2 parts.......

Part IIb
______________________________

>
I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the
developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd think
their flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS, wouldn't
you?
>
>I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).

I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee
puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot,
or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them
to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)

So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
about had it with the big ones.
It does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which can
be disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but it
is so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds a
virus in the incoming email and alerts me).

The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and screwed
up their products. They are bloated and slow.

Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if they
did - it would probably be compatible with Vista). So, why do we?

Jim Hubbard

______________________________

(as you can probably tell by now.....I don't like NOT knowing how something
works. :) )
Feb 6 '07 #44

P: n/a
Part IIb showed up but not Part IIa.....hmmmmm

So there's something in part IIa that the servers are rejecting....

Let's keep splitting this up until we find whatever Microsoft Community
newsgroup servers are not happy with - shall we?

Part IIa-1

-------------------------------------------------------------
>they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was
coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
to run XP and thier old apps).

They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes.
Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work
with XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and
now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's
QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working
with customers on compatability for a couple of years now. How much
frickin' notice do people need?
That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knew
aout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heck
isn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 6 '07 #45

P: n/a
Part IIa-1 showed up but not Part IIa-2 even though Part IIa-2 was sent
first.....hmmmmm

Let's keep splitting this up until we find whatever Microsoft Community
newsgroup servers are not happy with - shall we?

Part IIa-2-B

-------------------------------------------------------------
For instance, all it would really take to shake Microsoft is a Linux distro
willing to take a fresh look at how they are blowing things and make a
couple of key corrections. Heck, I'd help 'em do it. Not because I hate
Microsoft, but because competition is good for consumers - it even makes
companies stronger and spurs innovation.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Feb 6 '07 #46

P: n/a
We're down to the last 2 paragraphs that are not being posted....

Paragraph 2
-------------------------------------------------------------

But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like friends
and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer than
Microsoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 7 '07 #47

P: n/a
This is the paragraph that has blocked my posts with spaces added to
hopefullt get through......

-------------------------------------------------
P e o p l e * a r e * s u c k e r s f o r " s h i n y " s t u f
- e v e n i f t h e r e i s n o o t h e r b e n e f i t ( s
o m e t i m e s e v e n i f t h e r e i s l e s s ) .
-------------------------------------------------

Now why would this little paragraph cause the Microsoft Community
newsgroups servers to block any post containing it?
Feb 7 '07 #48

P: n/a

"Jim Hubbard" <ji*@privateaddress.netwrote in message
news:2C**********************************@microsof t.com...
This is the paragraph that has blocked my posts with spaces added to
hopefullt get through......

-------------------------------------------------
P e o p l e * a r e * s u c k e r s f o r " s h i n y " s t u
f - e v e n i f t h e r e i s n o o t h e r b e n e f i t
( s o m e t i m e s e v e n i f t h e r e i s l e s s ) .
-------------------------------------------------

Now why would this little paragraph cause the Microsoft Community
newsgroups servers to block any post containing it?
ROFL. Okay, that was a hugely entertaining exercise. To me, anyway. Maybe
it's the word "suckers". Oh, wait, did this one come through?

Robin S.
Feb 7 '07 #49

P: n/a
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:06:10 -0800, "RobinS" <Ro****@NoSpam.yah.none>
wrote:
>ROFL. Okay, that was a hugely entertaining exercise. To me, anyway. Maybe
it's the word "suckers". Oh, wait, did this one come through?
People are suckers for shiny stuff? This is a test.
Feb 7 '07 #50

56 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.