Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Death to Nikon and Canon, alike, I say...Pentax is my puppy! :-D
    > Just as with the lack of respect afforded Kodak's P&S cameras,
    > within <news:rec.photo.digital>, I consider it my duty to defend
    > Pentax's honor, in the DSLR arena.
    >
    > It's a tough job, but, someone has to do it. <g>
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    Almost a "British" trait - standing up for the underdog!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 25, 2008
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:25:28 -0600, John Turco <>
    wrote in <>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:07:42 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    >> in <230220080107424573%>:
    >>
    >> >In article <>, John Turco
    >> ><> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
    >> >> obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.
    >> >
    >> >people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
    >> >nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.

    >>
    >> You're both right. It's a matter of _perceived_ value versus _real_
    >> value -- if consumers perceive sufficient value, then they don't feel
    >> overcharged even when there isn't enough real value to justify the price
    >> premium, as in the case of "premium" bottled water. ;)


    >Not to mention, "gourmet hot dogs." <g>


    An oxymoron. LOL

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:21:17 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <240220081221174248%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> <http://www.google.com/search?q=(canon-lens OR nikon-lens) (made-by-sigm
    >> a+OR+made-by-tokina+OR+made-by-tamron%29>

    >
    >that just produces a lot of anecdotal evidence and people speculating
    >because some lenses are similar. nikon does outsource some of the
    >budget lenses, but i have not seen any evidence that the exact same
    >lens is also marketed by someone else. it also contradicts what you
    >said a few months ago about not bothering with third party lenses.


    On the contrary -- I avoid those lenses.

    >to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
    >it.


    Again, "Google is your friend."

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
    > >it.

    >
    > Again, "Google is your friend."


    as i expected. it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. you
    stated you saw no difference but refuse to name which ones they were.
     
    nospam, Feb 26, 2008
  5. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > > Oh, so, I could then enjoy the best of both worlds, in terms of image
    > > stabilization?
    > >
    > > Thank you, kindly, for confirming Pentax's superiority in modern DSLR
    > > ergonomics. <g>
    > >
    > >
    > > Cordially,
    > > John Turco <>

    >
    > Unfortunately, as Pentax don't offer in-lens IS, you still loose out. <G>


    Hello, David:

    You should've written, "lose out," instead. :p

    > But do try the test I suggested (300mm lens, switch IS on and off) to see
    > just why I suggest in-lens IS is best.
    >
    > David


    No chance! I can't afford any new "glass" for my poor Pentax, at the moment --
    especially, as a larger priority involves the construction of a better, faster
    computer.

    In other words, my aged, home-built box is causing me more frustrations than
    any of my cameras are, now. Its mainboard (Tyan S1830S "Tsunami" AT) was
    installed, way back in May of 2000. I've since maxed out my basic hardware
    configuration, with a Pentium III 1GHz CPU and 1GB of RAM.

    Yes, you read that correctly, in the above paragraph! This is an AT system,
    running Windows XP Home Edition. The K100D's bundled software applications
    tend to crawl, therefore, and I couldn't even imagine attempting to do any
    RAW conversions, in "PENTAX PHOTO Laboratory."


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 26, 2008
  6. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > > Hello, David:
    > >
    > > Death to Nikon and Canon, alike, I say...Pentax is my puppy! :-D
    > > Just as with the lack of respect afforded Kodak's P&S cameras,
    > > within <news:rec.photo.digital>, I consider it my duty to defend
    > > Pentax's honor, in the DSLR arena.
    > >
    > > It's a tough job, but, someone has to do it. <g>
    > >
    > >
    > > Cordially,
    > > John Turco <>

    >
    > Almost a "British" trait - standing up for the underdog!
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Hello, David:

    Rather ironic of you, implying that Kodak - the 120+ year old colossus of
    the photography industry -- is an "underdog." <g>

    Now, if you'd meant Pentax, alone, I'd have to concur. It's a comparatively
    small outfit, largely confining itself to cameras, lenses and other optical
    equipment.

    (Traditionally, Kodak's hallmarks have been the manufacturing and processing
    of film, which are far more lucrative operations.)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 26, 2008
  7. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >> John Turco wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Oh, so, I could then enjoy the best of both worlds, in terms of
    >>> image stabilization?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you, kindly, for confirming Pentax's superiority in modern
    >>> DSLR ergonomics. <g>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Cordially,
    >>> John Turco <>

    >>
    >> Unfortunately, as Pentax don't offer in-lens IS, you still loose
    >> out. <G>

    >
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > You should've written, "lose out," instead. :p


    I often get that one wrong, and this wretched spelling checker never
    complains! <G> It's the long and short "o".....

    >> But do try the test I suggested (300mm lens, switch IS on and off)
    >> to see just why I suggest in-lens IS is best.
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > No chance! I can't afford any new "glass" for my poor Pentax, at the
    > moment -- especially, as a larger priority involves the construction
    > of a better, faster computer.


    John, you can try this in any decent camera shop. I'm not suggesting you
    need to buy a lens for your own camera.

    > In other words, my aged, home-built box is causing me more
    > frustrations than any of my cameras are, now. Its mainboard (Tyan
    > S1830S "Tsunami" AT) was installed, way back in May of 2000. I've
    > since maxed out my basic hardware configuration, with a Pentium III
    > 1GHz CPU and 1GB of RAM.
    >
    > Yes, you read that correctly, in the above paragraph! This is an AT
    > system, running Windows XP Home Edition. The K100D's bundled software
    > applications tend to crawl, therefore, and I couldn't even imagine
    > attempting to do any RAW conversions, in "PENTAX PHOTO Laboratory."
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    Well, the good news is that computers are now very cheap - cheaper than
    many DSLR cameras. A system with 2GB of memory, and almost /any/
    dual-core processor, should be a noticeable improvement. I recommend
    Intel over AMD, from personal experience and performance measurements from
    others (things like USB performance). Build versus buy - buy may actually
    be cheaper! You might want to consider a portable, as those are very
    cheap now as well.

    Perhaps the biggest single performance enhancement I made was to configure
    a second monitor - it only needed the cable. For what I do, the extra
    screen area makes a big difference.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2008
  8. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >> John Turco wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Hello, David:
    >>>
    >>> Death to Nikon and Canon, alike, I say...Pentax is my puppy! :-D
    >>> Just as with the lack of respect afforded Kodak's P&S cameras,
    >>> within <news:rec.photo.digital>, I consider it my duty to defend
    >>> Pentax's honor, in the DSLR arena.
    >>>
    >>> It's a tough job, but, someone has to do it. <g>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Cordially,
    >>> John Turco <>

    >>
    >> Almost a "British" trait - standing up for the underdog!
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David

    >
    >
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Rather ironic of you, implying that Kodak - the 120+ year old
    > colossus of the photography industry -- is an "underdog." <g>
    >
    > Now, if you'd meant Pentax, alone, I'd have to concur. It's a
    > comparatively small outfit, largely confining itself to cameras,
    > lenses and other optical equipment.
    >
    > (Traditionally, Kodak's hallmarks have been the manufacturing and
    > processing of film, which are far more lucrative operations.)
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    Yes, it was Pentax's honour you said you were defending, John!

    Kodak has a name, certainly, but it must be 40 years since I bought any
    equipment branded Kodak, and over 10 years since I bought any Ektachrome
    or Kodachrome. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised to see Kodak go the way
    of Polaroid - a well-known name that goes bust, gets bought up, and then
    disappears, and I would be a little sad to see that.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2008
  9. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:01:59 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <250220082001598904%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
    >> >it.

    >>
    >> Again, "Google is your friend."

    >
    >as i expected. it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. you
    >stated you saw no difference but refuse to name which ones they were.


    I'm just not going to waste time on someone that's just going to dismiss
    it out of hand with childish remarks like this.

    "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> >to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
    > >> >it.
    > >>
    > >> Again, "Google is your friend."

    > >
    > >as i expected. it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. you
    > >stated you saw no difference but refuse to name which ones they were.

    >
    > I'm just not going to waste time on someone that's just going to dismiss
    > it out of hand with childish remarks like this.


    it would have taken you less time to simply list which lenses they were
    when i originally asked, rather than to respond four times and evade
    the question.
     
    nospam, Feb 26, 2008
  11. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:29:52 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <260220081029523237%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
    >> >> >it.
    >> >>
    >> >> Again, "Google is your friend."
    >> >
    >> >as i expected. it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. you
    >> >stated you saw no difference but refuse to name which ones they were.

    >>
    >> I'm just not going to waste time on someone that's just going to dismiss
    >> it out of hand with childish remarks like this.

    >
    >it would have taken you less time to simply list which lenses they were
    >when i originally asked, rather than to respond four times


    [shrug]

    >and evade
    >the question.


    Equally childish.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > > David J Taylor wrote:
    > >>
    > >> John Turco wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > >> But do try the test I suggested (300mm lens, switch IS on and off)
    > >> to see just why I suggest in-lens IS is best.
    > >>
    > >> David

    > >
    > > No chance! I can't afford any new "glass" for my poor Pentax, at the
    > > moment -- especially, as a larger priority involves the construction
    > > of a better, faster computer.

    >
    > John, you can try this in any decent camera shop. I'm not suggesting you
    > need to buy a lens for your own camera.


    Hello, David:

    Okay, I'd suspected that may have been what you'd meant, before. I don't know
    of a "decent camera shop" in my area, however, and wouldn't bother traveling
    very far, simply to experiment.

    > > In other words, my aged, home-built box is causing me more
    > > frustrations than any of my cameras are, now. Its mainboard (Tyan
    > > S1830S "Tsunami" AT) was installed, way back in May of 2000. I've
    > > since maxed out my basic hardware configuration, with a Pentium III
    > > 1GHz CPU and 1GB of RAM.
    > >
    > > Yes, you read that correctly, in the above paragraph! This is an AT
    > > system, running Windows XP Home Edition. The K100D's bundled software
    > > applications tend to crawl, therefore, and I couldn't even imagine
    > > attempting to do any RAW conversions, in "PENTAX PHOTO Laboratory."
    > >

    >
    > Well, the good news is that computers are now very cheap - cheaper than
    > many DSLR cameras. A system with 2GB of memory, and almost /any/
    > dual-core processor, should be a noticeable improvement. I recommend
    > Intel over AMD, from personal experience and performance measurements from
    > others (things like USB performance). Build versus buy - buy may actually
    > be cheaper! You might want to consider a portable, as those are very
    > cheap now as well.


    My "dream machine" should, indeed, be rather less expensive than an equivalent
    off-the-shelf computer. I obtained the first piece of my new PC puzzle, via
    eBay, recently. It's an MSI P6N SLI-FI (ATX mainboard), and I've been planning
    to mount a Pentium 3GHz dual-core processor and 4GB of RAM, on it.

    > Perhaps the biggest single performance enhancement I made was to configure
    > a second monitor - it only needed the cable. For what I do, the extra
    > screen area makes a big difference.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Monitor was my first huge upgrade, last month. After nearly seven years
    of faithful service, my CTX PL9 (19" CRT) died, suddenly.

    Hence, I replaced it with a Sceptre X24WG (24" LCD widescreen monitor).
    It's as bright and sharp as the old PL9 was, and better yet, the X24WG's
    extra "real estate" is quite a revelation!

    Unfortunately, due to certain issues with my ATI "All-In-Wonder Radeon
    8500DV" (AGP video card), I decided to switch to using the VGA input,
    instead of DVI. The latter seemed even more dazzling, during the brief
    time it was connected.

    In any case (pun intended), I fully intend to get DVI working properly,
    on my next system.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 29, 2008
  13. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > Kodak has a name, certainly, but it must be 40 years since I bought any
    > equipment branded Kodak, and over 10 years since I bought any Ektachrome
    > or Kodachrome. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised to see Kodak go the way
    > of Polaroid - a well-known name that goes bust, gets bought up, and then
    > disappears, and I would be a little sad to see that.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Hello, David:

    If mighty Kodak falls, is >any< camera company truly safe?

    A "shuttering" thought! <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 29, 2008
  14. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > If mighty Kodak falls, is >any< camera company truly safe?
    >
    > A "shuttering" thought! <g>
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    <G> indeed!

    But I would ask: "Is any company safe?". And the longer I am around
    seeing things happen the answer has to be "No". Even in the camera field:
    Minolta, Agfa, Ilford?, Rollei... Outside that: the UK General Electric
    Company, Digital (DEC), too many car makes to name.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 29, 2008
  15. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Okay, I'd suspected that may have been what you'd meant, before. I
    > don't know of a "decent camera shop" in my area, however, and
    > wouldn't bother traveling very far, simply to experiment.


    A pity, but I can understand.

    []
    > My "dream machine" should, indeed, be rather less expensive than an
    > equivalent off-the-shelf computer. I obtained the first piece of my
    > new PC puzzle, via eBay, recently. It's an MSI P6N SLI-FI (ATX
    > mainboard), and I've been planning to mount a Pentium 3GHz dual-core
    > processor and 4GB of RAM, on it.


    Pentium and dual-core sounds good! You may find that you can't address
    all the 4GB (depending on your OS), and that 3GB may be slightly cheaper
    (2 x 1GB, 2 x 512MB).

    []
    > Monitor was my first huge upgrade, last month. After nearly seven
    > years
    > of faithful service, my CTX PL9 (19" CRT) died, suddenly.
    >
    > Hence, I replaced it with a Sceptre X24WG (24" LCD widescreen
    > monitor).
    > It's as bright and sharp as the old PL9 was, and better yet, the
    > X24WG's extra "real estate" is quite a revelation!


    Suddenly everything seems squashed up in the top-left corner......

    > Unfortunately, due to certain issues with my ATI "All-In-Wonder Radeon
    > 8500DV" (AGP video card), I decided to switch to using the VGA input,
    > instead of DVI. The latter seemed even more dazzling, during the brief
    > time it was connected.
    >
    > In any case (pun intended), I fully intend to get DVI working
    > properly,
    > on my next system.
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    Some cards or monitors don't offer things like brightness and contrast
    controls with the DVI input, which is a pain. The 1920 x 1200 is the size
    I would go for next. The 1080 tall is much more coming, though. You are
    at least getting hints of what is to come.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 29, 2008
  16. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > []
    > > Hello, David:
    > >
    > > If mighty Kodak falls, is >any< camera company truly safe?
    > >
    > > A "shuttering" thought! <g>
    > >

    >
    > <G> indeed!
    >
    > But I would ask: "Is any company safe?". And the longer I am around
    > seeing things happen the answer has to be "No". Even in the camera field:
    > Minolta, Agfa, Ilford?, Rollei... Outside that: the UK General Electric
    > Company, Digital (DEC), too many car makes to name.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Hello, David:

    Yet, of all those aforementioned firms, none was ever a true industry giant,
    such as Kodak.

    [General Electric >is<, certainly, but it's a multinational conglomerate, of
    which its British branch is (was?) one of many, worldwide.]


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 2, 2008
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > > My "dream machine" should, indeed, be rather less expensive than an
    > > equivalent off-the-shelf computer. I obtained the first piece of my
    > > new PC puzzle, via eBay, recently. It's an MSI P6N SLI-FI (ATX
    > > mainboard), and I've been planning to mount a Pentium 3GHz dual-core
    > > processor and 4GB of RAM, on it.

    >
    > Pentium and dual-core sounds good! You may find that you can't address
    > all the 4GB (depending on your OS), and that 3GB may be slightly cheaper
    > (2 x 1GB, 2 x 512MB).


    Hello, David:

    Oh, rest assured, I've been doing my fair share of relevant research. I'm
    still somewhat undecided on my choice of Windows operating systems, however.
    XP seems to be the safest bet, at the moment, but Vista is the wave of the
    future, obviously.

    I'll likely pick XP and then "upgrade" to Vista, within the next few years.

    > > Monitor was my first huge upgrade, last month. After nearly seven
    > > years of faithful service, my CTX PL9 (19" CRT) died, suddenly.
    > >
    > > Hence, I replaced it with a Sceptre X24WG (24" LCD widescreen
    > > monitor). It's as bright and sharp as the old PL9 was, and better
    > > yet, the X24WG's extra "real estate" is quite a revelation!

    >
    > Suddenly everything seems squashed up in the top-left corner......


    Huh?

    > > Unfortunately, due to certain issues with my ATI "All-In-Wonder Radeon
    > > 8500DV" (AGP video card), I decided to switch to using the VGA input,
    > > instead of DVI. The latter seemed even more dazzling, during the brief
    > > time it was connected.
    > >
    > > In any case (pun intended), I fully intend to get DVI working
    > > properly, on my next system.
    > >

    >
    > Some cards or monitors don't offer things like brightness and contrast
    > controls with the DVI input, which is a pain. The 1920 x 1200 is the size
    > I would go for next. The 1080 tall is much more coming, though. You are
    > at least getting hints of what is to come.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    1920x1200 happens to be the X24WG's native resolution, which I'm using, now.
    (Alas, text is a bit tiny, yet I can live with it.)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 2, 2008
  18. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Yet, of all those aforementioned firms, none was ever a true industry
    > giant, such as Kodak.
    >
    > [General Electric >is<, certainly, but it's a multinational
    > conglomerate, of which its British branch is (was?) one of many,
    > worldwide.]
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    John,

    The General Electric Company (GEC) had no connection to other companies of
    similar names. It was possibly even bigger than Kodak, at it's height.
    Digital not an industry giant? IIRC it was number two to IBM at one time.
    Do we shed tears for these companies any more? Are we happy with what
    Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and the rest provide today?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 2, 2008
  19. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    []
    > Hello, David:
    >
    > Oh, rest assured, I've been doing my fair share of relevant research.
    > I'm still somewhat undecided on my choice of Windows operating
    > systems, however. XP seems to be the safest bet, at the moment, but
    > Vista is the wave of the future, obviously.
    >
    > I'll likely pick XP and then "upgrade" to Vista, within the next few
    > years.


    A year ago I would have agreed. Today, I see few problems with Vista, and
    would no longer recommend people to start with XP. I'm not saying you
    shouldn't - simply that it wouldn't be my default recommendation.

    >> Suddenly everything seems squashed up in the top-left corner......

    >
    > Huh?


    When you run a program designed for 1024 x 768 or even 800 x 600 on your
    1920 x 1200 display, it can look awfully small, and not fill the screen as
    it used to. That's all I meant.

    []
    > 1920x1200 happens to be the X24WG's native resolution, which I'm
    > using, now. (Alas, text is a bit tiny, yet I can live with it.)
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    My 1200 pixels vertically is occupying 12 inches, and I'm using the
    default text size from Windows XP. I got my optician to optimise my
    "reading" glasses for computer screen, rather than book reading, use. No
    problems, and having all those spreadsheet rows visible at one is rather
    nice.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 2, 2008
  20. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <NXyyj.16607$>, David J
    Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote:

    > A year ago I would have agreed. Today, I see few problems with Vista, and
    > would no longer recommend people to start with XP. I'm not saying you
    > shouldn't - simply that it wouldn't be my default recommendation.


    Oh, you're the one who's having no problems with Vista. The marketplace
    is rejecting it. It's an ugly, bloated piece of shit.

    Windows has detected that you're looking at the screen...do you wish to
    cancel or allow?
     
    Mr. Strat, Mar 2, 2008
    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. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,025
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,440
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    632
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
  4. LOL!
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    745
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 30, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    510
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page