Dead TCP/IP Stack = DEAD VISTA !!

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Skybuck Flying, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. 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 fucked-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 fucking 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 ;)
     
    Skybuck Flying, Sep 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Skybuck Flying

    Frank McCoy Guest

    In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <>
    wrote:

    >VISTA SUX


    This is supposed to be some kind of surprise?

    --
    _____
    / ' / â„¢
    ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
    (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
     
    Frank McCoy, Sep 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Frank McCoy" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <>
    > 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.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Sep 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Skybuck Flying

    Frank McCoy Guest

    In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Frank McCoy" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Skybuck Flying" <>
    >> 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 shit
    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.

    --
    _____
    / ' / â„¢
    ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
    (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
     
    Frank McCoy, Sep 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Skybuck Flying

    class_a Guest

    Frank McCoy wrote:

    > I've thought Vista sucked and stank like a putrid swamp full of shit
    > 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 :D

    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)
     
    class_a, Sep 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Skybuck Flying

    Frank McCoy Guest

    In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt class_a <> wrote:

    >Frank McCoy wrote:
    >
    >> I've thought Vista sucked and stank like a putrid swamp full of shit
    >> 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 :D
    >
    >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)


    --
    _____
    / ' / â„¢
    ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
    (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
     
    Frank McCoy, Sep 18, 2007
    #6
  7. 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 ;)
    >
    >
     
    Ryan Hatfield, Sep 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Skybuck Flying

    Ken Hagan Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:11:21 +0100, Skybuck Flying <>
    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.
     
    Ken Hagan, Sep 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Phone doesn't work as well me thinks.

    One still needs an internet connection ?! WOW ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Sep 18, 2007
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Sep 18, 2007
    #10
  11. "Ryan Hatfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?


    Exactly that's another thing which absolutely sux:

    Windows XP 64 bit and Vista have absolutely no backwards compatibility for
    old software.

    SUCH A SHAME !

    They least they could do is provide an MS-DOS Emulator.

    Shamefull how I have to use something like a third party developed DOSBOX
    software program to do that !

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Sep 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Skybuck Flying

    Conor Guest

    In article <fcm1tb$3o0$1.ov.home.nl>, Skybuck Flying
    says...
    > 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
    >

    More Skyfuck bullshit....

    --
    Conor

    I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
     
    Conor, Sep 19, 2007
    #12
  13. "Conor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <fcm1tb$3o0$1.ov.home.nl>, Skybuck Flying
    > says...
    >> 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
    >>

    > More Skyfuck bullshit....


    No more Vista Bullshit.

    Reality 1.0 BABY !

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Sep 19, 2007
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    class_a <> wrote:
    >Frank McCoy wrote:
    >
    >> I've thought Vista sucked and stank like a putrid swamp full of shit
    >> 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 :D
    >
    >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)


    top - 12:04:03 up 219 days, 17:22, 1 user, load average: 0.70, 0.93, 0.99

    Hush. Don't let the great, unwashed masses discover our big competitive
    advantage, an IT platform that works.

    -- mrr
     
    Morten Reistad, Sep 23, 2007
    #14
  15. Skybuck Flying

    class_a Guest

    Morten Reistad wrote:

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

    >
    > top - 12:04:03 up 219 days, 17:22, 1 user, load average: 0.70, 0.93, 0.99
    >
    > Hush. Don't let the great, unwashed masses discover our big competitive
    > advantage, an IT platform that works.


    :)))

    Mine was only up 52 days at that time because I deliberately shut it
    down to install a UPS...... well, 52 days prior. It wasn't a reboot
    required by the OS. Only for that it would have been up _well_ over 100
    days by now. Oh yeah, ALL security patches and program upgrades have
    been applied _and_ without a single reboot being needed!

    Now at
    top - 07:58:21 up 57 days, 13:02
    and counting :)

    Eventually people will realise that their $gameOS is not a $realOS :)
     
    class_a, Sep 23, 2007
    #15
  16. Skybuck Flying

    Folk Guest

    On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:07:51 -0400, class_a <>
    wrote:

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

    >>
    >> top - 12:04:03 up 219 days, 17:22, 1 user, load average: 0.70, 0.93, 0.99
    >>
    >> Hush. Don't let the great, unwashed masses discover our big competitive
    >> advantage, an IT platform that works.

    >
    >:)))
    >
    >Mine was only up 52 days at that time because I deliberately shut it
    >down to install a UPS...... well, 52 days prior. It wasn't a reboot
    >required by the OS. Only for that it would have been up _well_ over 100
    >days by now. Oh yeah, ALL security patches and program upgrades have
    >been applied _and_ without a single reboot being needed!
    >
    >Now at
    >top - 07:58:21 up 57 days, 13:02
    >and counting :)
    >
    >Eventually people will realise that their $gameOS is not a $realOS :)


    LOL. Linux fanboi-ism lives.

    How many days to reboot doesn't mean much in the face of sub-20%
    corporate acceptance.
     
    Folk, Sep 23, 2007
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    808
    Walter Roberson
    Nov 10, 2004
  2. DJ Chiro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,324
    Rowdy Yates
    Nov 7, 2003
  3. john

    tcp/ip vs microsoft tcp/ip ver 6

    john, Aug 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,438
  4. Pavel Aronovich
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    550
    Pavel Aronovich
    Feb 22, 2004
  5. rainie
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,843
    rainie
    Oct 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page