Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Dead TCP/IP Stack = DEAD VISTA !!

Reply
Thread Tools

Dead TCP/IP Stack = DEAD VISTA !!

 
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2007
Hello,

I managed to wreck Windows Vista accidently in record breaking time, only a
few minutes needed:

1. Remove all protocols from "connections".

2. Remove network device.

3. Wait until Vista detects it's a non genuine copy or it's trail has
expired.

4. Reboot

End result:

DEAD VISTA

Reason:

1. An internet connection is needed to re-activate Vista !

2. Trying to restore the TCP/IP Stack via last known good configuration did
not work (Black screen only).

3. Trying to restore the TCP/IP Stack via safe mode is not possible because
safe mode not allowed in reduced mode.

4. Windows Vista was unable to restore the TCP/IP Stack by itself.

Background story:

I installed Vista in Virtual PC to test it out. I tried to get the virtual
network working via a loopback adapter, I did the same with Windows 95 in a
virtual pc.

The funny thing is: Windows 95 worked perfectly and detected the virtual
network hardware. Windows Vista totally ****ed-up, me only partially to
blame... I did not give Windows Vista a chance to boot-up, it was already
running from a previous virtual session, maybe if I did a reboot it might
have all worked flawlessly... however it still should have worked after I
removed everything because that's EXACTLY what I did in Windows 95 and it
worked there, and probably in XP it would have work as well. Many times
rebooting Vista did not fix the problem !

Conclusion:

Windows 95 and Windows XP OWN Windows Vista BIG TIME.

Pretty ****ing unbelievable.

Also fortunately for me I do have a backup of the virtual machine
somewhere... I am not sure if it's infected though... cause I used it to
test something out

VISTA SUX

Bye,
Skybuck


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank McCoy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2007
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>VISTA SUX


This is supposed to be some kind of surprise?

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2007

"Frank McCoy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>VISTA SUX

>
> This is supposed to be some kind of surprise?


Ok, how about:

VISTA SUX EVEN HARDER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank McCoy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"Frank McCoy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>VISTA SUX

>>
>> This is supposed to be some kind of surprise?

>
>Ok, how about:
>
>VISTA SUX EVEN HARDER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT LOL.
>

Your imagination obviously ain't very good.
I've thought Vista sucked and stank like a putrid swamp full of ****
with week-old bodies left to rot since day-one of its release.

Every "feature" they declaim for the vomit is something any other OS
would consider a horrid bug to be fixed before release.

The only "advantage" it has is for Micr$hit to turn over and sell new
product, along with forcing people to seriously upgrade their computers
or the stinking thing won't run at all (Which, to my mind, is a good
thing ... the not-running, that is).

That's what you get when a company becomes so entrenched that their main
business becomes forcing the sale of new products, no matter how horrid
they are, instead of producing products that people want or need.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
 
Reply With Quote
 
class_a
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
Frank McCoy wrote:

> I've thought Vista sucked and stank like a putrid swamp full of ****
> with week-old bodies left to rot since day-one of its release.
>
> Every "feature" they declaim for the vomit is something any other OS
> would consider a horrid bug to be fixed before release.
>
> The only "advantage" it has is for Micr$hit to turn over and sell new
> product, along with forcing people to seriously upgrade their computers
> or the stinking thing won't run at all (Which, to my mind, is a good
> thing ... the not-running, that is).
>
> That's what you get when a company becomes so entrenched that their main
> business becomes forcing the sale of new products, no matter how horrid
> they are, instead of producing products that people want or need.



Now tell us what you really think

I must admit that I agree with you though!


top - 20:58:22 up 52 days, 2:02 (let's see Vista do that - it can't
if you do security updates)

(Happy linux user)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank McCoy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt class_a <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>> I've thought Vista sucked and stank like a putrid swamp full of ****
>> with week-old bodies left to rot since day-one of its release.
>>
>> Every "feature" they declaim for the vomit is something any other OS
>> would consider a horrid bug to be fixed before release.
>>
>> The only "advantage" it has is for Micr$hit to turn over and sell new
>> product, along with forcing people to seriously upgrade their computers
>> or the stinking thing won't run at all (Which, to my mind, is a good
>> thing ... the not-running, that is).
>>
>> That's what you get when a company becomes so entrenched that their main
>> business becomes forcing the sale of new products, no matter how horrid
>> they are, instead of producing products that people want or need.

>
>
>Now tell us what you really think
>
>I must admit that I agree with you though!
>
>
>top - 20:58:22 up 52 days, 2:02 (let's see Vista do that - it can't
>if you do security updates)
>

Nor XP, for that matter.
They do security updates about every 12 hours, it seems sometimes.
;-{

>(Happy linux user)


--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan Hatfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
Skybuck Flying wrote:
> Hello,


> have all worked flawlessly... however it still should have worked after I
> removed everything because that's EXACTLY what I did in Windows 95 and it
> worked there, and probably in XP it would have work as well. Many times
> rebooting Vista did not fix the problem !
>


A lot of my old games and disk utilities work in Windows 95 but not in
Vista. Are you saying they should work?

> Bye,
> Skybuck
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Hagan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:11:21 +0100, Skybuck Flying <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Reason:
>
> 1. An internet connection is needed to re-activate Vista !


Or you could do it by phone. OK, that's unplikely to be a pleasant
experience, but as far as MS are concerned, you haven't really finished
installing Vista until you've activated it, so you complaint is much the
same as saying "I pulled the plug during SETUP and now the OS doesn't
work!".

On the bright side, since this all happened before activation, not only
will you not have lost any important data (this all happened, like, two
minutes after installation completed, right?) but you also haven't wasted
an activation on a VM that you are now going to discard.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
Phone doesn't work as well me thinks.

One still needs an internet connection ?! WOW

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-18-2007
I mean my phone is working, that's not the problem.

I checked all possibilities and all possibilities need an internet
connection ?!

I am not 100% sure, but I am not gonna check now, would be a waste of time
anyway.

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why does std::stack::pop() not throw an exception if the stack is empty? Debajit Adhikary C++ 36 02-10-2011 08:54 PM
C/C++ compilers have one stack for local variables and return addresses and then another stack for array allocations on the stack. Casey Hawthorne C Programming 3 11-01-2009 08:23 PM
stack frame size on linux/solaris of a running application stack Surinder Singh C Programming 1 12-20-2007 01:16 PM
Why stack overflow with such a small stack? Kenneth McDonald Ruby 7 09-01-2007 04:21 AM
"stack level too deep"... because Threads keep their "starting" stack Sam Roberts Ruby 1 02-11-2005 04:25 AM



Advertisments