Premature Piece of Garbage

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Marshalx, May 29, 2006.

  1. Marshalx

    Marshalx Guest

    ***got to go now children. how many idiots will have responded by
    tomorrow ? never mind youve all had a serious warning about those
    xtian shit-heads, so even if you chose to scorn, it will remain in
    your sub-consciouses. little-J was the devils most successful PAWN
    ever. so busy praying to aliens in the sky and teaching others to do
    the same, he didnt realise his bastard "father" was none other than the
    devil in disguise. dont EVER "pray", u will only inadvertently (look
    it up) summon impersonator aliens PRETENDING they want to help you,
    when in truth they want YOU to forgive THEM for having made a mess of
    "creation" via erroneous manipulations of human DNA. be good yes, but
    god no ! that conceptual difference is as wide as a light-year.
    the pope is the devils-assistant. if you want to find "god" (meaning
    love /confidence) then just be gOOd yourselves, but dont hanker to meet
    little-J so that he can pat your little bums and say "well done, now
    u can have eternal life". that arsehole is STILL as spaced-out as he
    ever was, and does not "own" the rights to Life that u already have !
    seek gnostic knowledge. find "yourself", abandon popes and other
    peoples gods in general, make love, not wars thru garbage spreading.
    bye bye my little ones :) oh and close this group down now, since
    no sensible people want win64, not until its very much BETTER anyway
    (2 years) !
     
    Marshalx, May 30, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Marshalx

    Larry Hodges Guest

    Thank you for that tremendously insightful rant. Don't let the door hit you
    in the ass on your way out. Please come again when you can't stay as long.
     
    Larry Hodges, May 30, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Marshalx

    Rick Guest

    There was no DOS in the early days of Unix!
     
    Rick, May 30, 2006
    #43
  4. Marshalx

    Rick Guest

    But Unix existed quite awhile before CP/M. And, if I remember correctly
    from my CompSci days, Kernigan and Ritchie did not implement any such
    restrictions on filenames. They may not have always been allowed to be
    256 characters long.
     
    Rick, May 30, 2006
    #44
  5. Marshalx

    Rick Guest

    I guess I am getting senile, it was Ritchie and Thompson on Unix.
    Kernigan and Ritchie did the C Programming Language.
     
    Rick, May 30, 2006
    #45
  6. Marshalx

    VWWall Guest

    Before DOS, there was CP/M, and it was 8.3.
    Obviously, one who has never been there! Probably waiting for more than
    940K of memory. :-(
     
    VWWall, May 30, 2006
    #46
  7. Marshalx

    Guest Guest

    There may be some people that need the power of a 64 bit os, graphics
    intensive etc, however I guess most people are just trying it out of
    curiosity and/or a desire to assist the development of the 64 bit os by
    reporting problems, finding work arounds etc.
    I am enjoying my "playtime" with xp 64, so far I have got it to do nearly
    everything I need a computer to do. My palm pilot is the only stumbling block.
    It may even get to the stage where I make xp 64 my main os.
    No, I don't "need" xp 64, I just enjoy trying out new stuff.
    It is disappointing to see your attitude and the way you treat others, I did
    not think I would come accross anything like that in this Newsgroup.
    Cheers from Peter.
     
    Guest, May 31, 2006
    #47
  8. Marshalx

    Guest Guest

    Your response is to the wrong poster (I'm not Dennis), however, I did build
    my own system, located drivers etc. No, I don't have an immediate need for
    64 bit, but I believed the next office release may have a 64 bit version,
    which I believe would be useful for work. Even if I'm mistaken about office
    going to 64 bit, I still have an OS that runs everything I need, again is the
    most stable OS I've ever worked on, and, thus far, is the best machine I've
    ever used.

    From what I've read, there's not much difference between a tuned XP32 system
    and 64 bit because there's very little (if any) 64 bit software that can take
    advantage of it (currently). There may be some advantages for gamers. I
    don't believe anyone is trying to prove XP64 superior. If I recall
    correctly, there are benchmarks available on the 'net if that's what you're
    looking for (but that would require some RESEARCH!!).

    By "was for you", I did not say it was "better". Even before buying a
    system with an established OS, I believe one should consider how he/she plans
    to use it. In other words, I consider a computer a planned purchase that
    requires some forethought and a little research. Defrag works just as fast
    on my machine as any other I've ever worked on (I've not performed a
    comparison benchmark - but it does not require hours as yours does). I
    selected every component and put it together. Luck had nothing to do with
    it. At any rate, I decided I wanted to go with XP64 for my own reasons and
    don't need to justify it to anyone.

    BTW, if you read your second post

    you did say your research consisted of "buy and try." And no, no one is
    grateful. I guess you are the only person to ever purchase a product he's
    unhappy with and, obviously, it is everyone else's fault.
     
    Guest, May 31, 2006
    #48
  9. Marshalx

    John Barnes Guest

    Also most of the posters here either were part of the beta or took advantage
    of the trial to see if it was for them. Haven't seen many complaints since
    the trial has been available. Most of the early complaints were because of
    the swap program and posters had no way to know what they were getting into
    when they exchanged the 32bit for the 64bit and there was no way back except
    to buy another 32bit.
     
    John Barnes, May 31, 2006
    #49
  10. Marshalx

    Marshalx Guest

    ***well done Peter !! the first sensible response in 49 !!
    if there were more people like u, there would be less people like
    me :)
    i guess 85% on this group dont "need" win64, and like me and you,
    were only trying it out of technical curiosity;

    BUT one point u failed to admit, is that we ALL were (originally)
    expecting
    MUCH better performance and support (drivers /software etc), since
    after all
    64bit was AMD much hyped launch into the new era, and people
    were even
    thinking it might run twice as fast and twice as "better" all
    round.
    but it is NOT any better, and on my Acer at least is noticably
    WORSE than XP.

    ***so generally speaking i am quite right in all ive said about it :
    Premature Piece of Garbage.
    the whole "leap" into 64bit seems to have Failed over the last 3
    YEARS,
    and even MS themselves dont seem to be concerned about it !!
    what does that mean ? they are too busy with 32bit Vista ?

    ive got /built about 7 machines all based on AMD 64 chips
    including this
    Pavillion 8173 Turion64 (running 32bit XP) and NONE of them
    ever showed
    the slightest "betterness" for running 64bit OS (win or linux).

    i was expecting other "experts" to agree, and also wonder WHY ?

    ***but instead all i noticed on this group, was a bunch of "superior"
    half-wits who
    take the "attitude" that anyone who asks such questions must be
    idiots who
    "just dont understand", or "did not do their research", or "only
    amateur fiddlers".
    Anyone who talks to me like that normally gets a punch in the ear,
    but
    since ive only got a keyboard to throw at you, then thats what u
    got for your
    "distinguished superiorities" and "most valuable prick" statuses
    :)

    Finally peter you may note that NOBODY has yet asserted nor
    demonstrated
    that their systems run any "better /faster /more"powerfully" than
    they did on xp32.
    all they have done is squawk "my system is wonderful" IMPLYING
    "if your one
    isnt, then its your own fault for not understanding" !!

    ***well i still dont understand : WHY has 64bit in 3 YEARS still
    not yet Matured
    into being "better" "faster" and "more powerful", with
    manufacturers falling over
    themselves to jump on the express with drivers and software ?
    what do you think ? have a nice day everyone :)
     
    Marshalx, May 31, 2006
    #50
  11. Marshalx

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    Give up now Marshalx. You really can't talk yourself out of the fact that
    you didn't inform yourself well enough to make proper decision. All the
    info is there which warns you. You thought you were smart enough to combat
    x64, but obviously you are not ;-)

    jud

    Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
     
    Jud Hendrix, May 31, 2006
    #51
  12. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1


    Smeg it all, I've had enough.

    Do NOT put words into other people's mouths. You come from a
    total end-user perspective, and EXPECT everything to be clean and
    pristine for you prior to a major release? Either you are the most naive
    computer user to come out of the woodworks in the past 30 years, or the
    most assassinine.

    First, you come into everything with all these ASSUMPTIONS, then
    buy something from a proprietary vendor when the market hasn't totally
    stabilised for 64bit equipment to even be sold by a proprietary vendor,
    then slag that when you claim it doesn't work right. As many other
    people here have said, you failed in doing your research, and are now
    whinging about it. The only solace the rest of us really have, is to say
    that at least it wasn't OUR money you spent! ;)

    Seriously, if you are that upset about your Acer, why didn't you
    take the time out and BUILD YOUR OWN MACHINE? The bulk of us using 64bit
    processors, motherboards, and the like, probably built ours from
    scratch. We bought our own motherboards, cards, drives, CPUs, and cases,
    and put them together. Same thing with our own installation of the
    operating systems, whether XP x64 edition, the Vista builds, Linux,
    Solaris, *BSD, or otherwise. We all come into this with the one single
    assumption that NOT EVERYTHING WILL WORK AS WE PLAN. No expectations, as
    you have failed to realise. That is not our fault, but yours. You want
    to be on the bleeding edge, expect things to not work right.
    No. you are wrong. plain and simply wrong. Go back and do more
    research.
    My own machines (AMD Athlon64 3200+ and Opteron 142) have worked
    wonderfully over the past 3 YEARS. If yours have failed, PEBKAC.
    If they are proceeding ahead with 64bit Vista and a 64bit
    edition of Windows Server 2003, they aren't concerned at all. It's
    worked more than wonderfully for a lot of people. For those that it
    hasn't, they are either working out their problems, or haven't made the
    jump to 64bit processors and are waiting. To me, it seems like you made
    the jump, but the other side was too much distance for your legs to
    handle, and now you are plummetting deep itno the canyon.
    You *built* a Compaq/Hewlett Packard machine? Unless you work
    for them and put the parts in yourself, you have not built a single
    thing.
    This coming from someone insulting everyone, racially charged at
    that. Pot, Kettle, Black. Check yourself.
    http://www.3dmark.com. You want proof, go there. Also,
    http://www.planetamd64.com, http://www.anandtech.com. You will see
    PLENTY of performance reviews there about AMD64 processors. Your
    implication is false.
    the first truthful thing you have said. You still don't
    understand. Which is why everyone here has been telling you. Do the
    research, and you will understand totally.
    Let's see. Nvidia has been all over 64bit computing, with
    onboard chipsets, drives, and support for multiple operating systems.
    ATI, the same. But if you really must know, in the 3 years that 64bit
    processors have been out, there only had been less than a handful of
    operating systems that supported them; none of them Microsoft. (If you
    really want to know, Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, and other variants of
    Unix). If there is no operating system for manufacturers to code for,
    how can they code the drivers? The platform they would use it on didn't
    exist!! Chicken/Egg question. Now that one is coming out for the Windows
    platform, those manufacturers can code drivers and software for them.
    Drivers already existed for 64bit Linux. why? because the OS was
    available. Now that Vista is coming out, and the OS is available for
    those manufacturers, drivers will come out.

    You're just naive abotu a lot of things with this, and your
    ignorance and immaturity showed that throughout this thread. Before you
    make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have (which I
    don't think will be a hard feat for you), go back, do some research, and
    come back to us when you have some real facts to support your claim.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email:
    Unix Systems Administrator, |
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (SunOS)

    iD8DBQFEfbl2yBkZmuMZ8L8RAi6jAJwJJNSpRbjAJRf4UsKAhWpAGxLL+wCg6HRr
    dTkz0mb2Asze5fre4lJgyjo=
    =yfS3
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    A Guy Called Tyketto, May 31, 2006
    #52
  13. Marshalx

    VWWall Guest

    In K&R (1978) p170: "The precise specification comes by including the
    file sys/dir.h which contains

    #define DIRSIZE 14 /* max length of a file name */ "

    I don't know where the "14" comes from, but it seems to be in use at the
    time. At least K&R didn't advise using spaces in file names! :-(
    The max length was probably machine dependent.

    One of the dumbest things in Windows is the use of "Folder" names like:
    "Program Files". Not only did MSFT have to kludge up the dir entry to
    allow for more than 8.3, but the space still causes problems. It looks
    pretty, though! :)

    I note that MSFT dll's still adhere to the 8.3 convention. :)
     
    VWWall, May 31, 2006
    #53
  14. Marshalx

    VWWall Guest

    That's OK! Unix was written in C. I learned(?) C from K&R. Not the
    easiest read in the world! :-(
     
    VWWall, May 31, 2006
    #54
  15. Marshalx

    Marshalx Guest

    Jud Hendrix wrote:
    ***well with initials like J. Hendrix i hardly want to insult u too
    remember the Voodoo Child had middle name Marshall :)
    (met him in Harlem once, many moons ago)
    ***didnt u read, i was running 64beta for a YEAR,
    and only bought the Acer since it had all its own drivers AND
    the opportunity to pester their Tech about noticed problems.
    ***NO !!! acer never said "this crap win64 runs much SLOWER"
    and nobody on THIS group will admit it is NO BETTER than win32
    how long does YOUR defrag64 take ?
    ***i have been disappointed that the WHOLE thrust into 64 has proved to

    be no "better" than sticking with XP over the last 3 YEARS, arent
    you ?

    one does not "combat" the OS, only the fanciful twats who STILL
    have not
    demonstrated that win64 is /can be any "faster" or "better" than
    XP
    so where are u all ?
    "obviously you mr. tripleX jud are not one of them"
    ***whats this, some porno site exclusively for MVP ?
     
    Marshalx, Jun 1, 2006
    #55
  16. For my self, I can say that nothing here runs one bit slower - in a
    scientific benchmark not much runs any faster either, but it feels a lot
    faster, that is satisfying. Don't underestimate the power of subjectivity.

    Everybody knows that win-defrag is a disaster, that it was allways a
    disaster. Win x64 defrag, though, is a faster disaster.

    And, honestly, most people who installed the 'wonder OS', probably expected
    more. After running it for a few days, the greater percentage of those
    probably realised that we would have to see the 64bit app's to see the real
    benefit. And that I can hereby confirm - I installed Suse Linux 10.1 x64
    where every single bit is compiled for this processor except a few helpfiles
    and fonts. I do not know if you have ever seen the GL modules of
    'xscreensaver' run on a non-accelerated display, well the short version is:
    it's horrible. In this version I had it running for two days without
    noticing. Afterwards, I could vaguely see that something wasn't quite right,
    but it took a really good look to reveal it.

    The same will happen when the software we are running is shipped in a
    version that is compiled for the environment, and Microsoft probably is not
    responsible for 90% of the software we are running so their responsibility
    has to be measured in relation to this percentage. And the reason for
    keeping on about the importance of the research bit, is that everybody
    cought on to this within the first few days of installation and taking part
    in this community.

    Your disappointment is natural - your attitude is quite neurotic - if you
    had any following at all, there would be no

    microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general

    community.


    Tony. . .(sigh!)
     
    Tony Sperling, Jun 1, 2006
    #56
  17. Marshalx

    DP Guest

    Marshal:
    Unless I missed it, I still have not seen your answer to my question early
    on in this thread.
    Namely, have you run 32-bit XP on this Acer (THIS very machine, not another
    one like it)? And if so, does 32-bit run better?
    If you haven't run 32-bit XP on this Acer, how do you know the problem is
    not with the machine?

    I'm not blindly defending x64 or MS, it's just that a lot of users here
    (including me) do not find x64 to be running slowly. So YOUR experience is
    not OUR experience. It could be your machine has a problem and needs to be
    returned.

    So, can you answer the question?
     
    DP, Jun 3, 2006
    #57
  18. Marshalx

    Guest Guest

    Jane, I am having trouble getting my xp 64 to recognize my broadband
    connection. How did you get yours connected in one half hour?
     
    Guest, Jun 5, 2006
    #58
  19. Marshalx

    Rick Guest

    How are you trying to connect to your ISP? I don't think there are very
    many USB modems supported in Win x64. I connect to my router via
    ethernet and my DSL modem is connected to the router via ethernet. I
    only had to configure my onboard LAN to connect to the router and I had
    broadband within in minutes. In fact, Win x64 had the necessary drivers
    to activate my installation as soon as setup was done.
     
    Rick, Jun 5, 2006
    #59
  20. correct. The key is to not use a USB (or <shudder> worse, an internal
    DSL/cable modem), but use a router/gateway between your network and the
    modem.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 5, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.