So called Vista Upgrade Advisor Lies to Sell OEM Vista (no recovery mechanism when you buy)

Vista RC1 what Beta 2 or I'd say Beta 1 should have been (in other words
Vista RTM is really what Beta 1 should have been in my book)

Josh's blog
http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/jo...9/06/3672.aspx

Inside RC1
http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/jo...9/06/3672.aspx

Vista RC1 So Near and Yet so Far

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2010632,00.asp

This is a real turkey based on the premise that is the infrastructure of
sales at Redmond MSFT--the premise you're stupid. Don't let MSFT get away
with it.

Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor RC
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...r/default.mspx

Don't use it; don't listen to it. It's false. Simply test the limits of
what will work on Vista. Like a lot of ideas at MSFT it's a good one; but
it doesn't work. It's inaccurate. It's like a car that doesn't start. Good
idea; cars get you places but not the ones that don't work. MSFT's
suggestions in the Upgrade Advisor are patently false on several peoples'
boxes I tested including mine. I took pics on all the boxes to memorizlize
that evrey time the upgade advisor says something won't work--that's Redmond
code for hell yes it does but we think you're consumately stupid and will
buy hardware based on our recommendation because everytime we sell OEM
pre-loaded Windows, OEM VP Scott di Valerio notches his gun. He screwed you
into not being able to recover Vista because the recovery CD does nothing
from OEM nor does its partition. This is MSFT fulfilling it's obligation
for "reliable Windows." MSFT is so concerned that your computer is secure
they have UAC, they have safety sites, they have security blogs, but when
the rubber hits the road, they don't give a damn whether you can recover
Windows.

Win RE from Desmond Lee (PM's team) doesn't work much of the time. And
there OEM sales increased 20% last quarter. Every time an OEM box is sold
by the 300 OEM named partners, MSFT doesn't give a rats ass whether you get
recovery media that's competent (clear confident and connected your ass when
it comes to an OEM venue)--do you build your box? Does a system builder--a
small hard working one build it or do you buy from one of those large
companies who teams with MSFT to hose you?

That's right. You get hosed. Are you going to be one of those who is crying
you can't recover your material.

1) Learn to backup. I know you read this so you backup but MSFT says 70% of
your friends, neighbors, and family do not. I've caught Sys Ads and CTO's
not backing up at home. Go figure.

2) Get a retail DVD if it's Vista or XP (it's not going away just yet
anymore than 64 bit quad core will be on every box by Halloween) . That's
right not duo core--that's old school; its quad core baby now.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1826663,00.asp

And who knows how high the old core will go? You live in a society where
the Battle of the Mannings is taking place tonite and both of them plan to
win. You can't have a Battle of the Hasselbecks 'cause Elizabeth's husband
Tim don't get no playin' time. Eli do. So you got da Battle of the
Mannings for NBC's opener Sunday nite just like you got da battle of da
cores.

"It's a prime time opener. It's Eli Manning vs. Peyton Manning in the first
game in history in which brothers are the starting quarterbacks. opener."

http://www.giants.com/gameday/ThisWeeksGame.html

http://www.colts.com/gameday.cfm

Uh Oh:

"Colts defensive tackle Corey Simon on Saturday was ruled out of Sunday's
regular-season opener. Three other players - Freddie Keiaho, Ben Hartsock
and Ryan Lilja - were downgraded from questionable to doubtful."


In the spirit of competition who knows how high the ole core can go? 256
Core, Giga core, maybe. Quad is just a baby. The battle of the cores
begins along with the battle of the Mannings.
_________

MSFT asserts that hardware devices won't work that can work perfectly.

MSFT has set this up as intimidating propaganda because Eric Rudder, Kevin
Johnson, Steve Sinofsky, Mich Mathews, and Jeff Raikes and others partly
responsible for marketing think you're consumately stupid and will believe
it has any scintilla of accuracy. They think people are so dumb they
wouldn't simply test what will work on their existing hardware, and
unfortunately in a lot of cases they're right. They took their cue from the
US government who has poles to show that 38% of the morons in their country
think 911 was a government run conspiracy; when in fact it was Bush
administration incompetency that is vibrant and thriving now.

You have a box or boxes. You have unfettered access to the latest public or
TBT Vista now--RC1 short of the internal builds that are not going to be
significantly differen than the incomplete and partially broken puppy that's
going to be shipped. \

Test it. Don't trust MSFT's upgrade advisor. It's simply an inaccurate
sales tool.

This is from the company who has a utility called Device Manager. Take a
look at it. Type devmgmt.msc in your run box. Up it pops. Now View>Show
hidden so you get to see everything. Once in a while not all printers will
show unless you do. Right click the device>left click properties and notice
it says "device is working." Guess what. It will say that if the driver
driver is totally corrupt.

Have you heard the term warp speed? Well MSFT has another term that defines
the opposite pole of warp speed. It's "the device team and driver associated
teams for Vista are sitting on their asses."

Why? Because Device Manager released prior to Windows 95 which RTM'd August
25, 1995. Click your little Windows Calendar. It's more than two weeks
since then. In Fact it's eleven years plus since then and there have been
five Windows OS's since then and one was called ME and it was beyond stupid.
It's the subject of ridicule at some MSFT conferences now. Guess who
they're ridiculing. Jobs didn't release Windows ME. Neither did Torvalds.
MSFT did. It was an unstable alchemy of memory hemorrhaging 16 bit and 32
bit code.

The device team had a comment when asked if they were going to fix Device
Manager in Vista. Let's look at the hardworking Vista team in action:

"Q: Device Manager has never been reliable for driver health and integrity.
Yet it states that a driver is working. Do you have any plans to fix this
in Vista?
A: This will not be fixed in Vista. Perhaps it will be fixed in the next
operating system."

That would be 17 years after Device Manager was introduced into Windows 95.
It's important not to put to much pressure on a Vista team to work fast. 17
years sounds like a great time frame for improvement but why not 27 or 57?

CH


What Longhorn was meant to be but isn't:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/95457049@N00/page1/

Chad Harris wrote:

> In the spirit of competition who knows how high the ole core can go?
> 256 Core, Giga core, maybe. Quad is just a baby. The battle of the
> cores begins along with the battle of the Mannings.
>

Law of diminishing returns. Dual core is not 2* the speed of single
core.. quad core is nowhere near 4* the speed of single core... Even
business rarely bothers with Quad CPU for example because the gains
aren't worth it except for certain specialised tasks (and the costs are
substantially higher).

As CPU count goes up contention goes up & you lose speed. 256 core?
It'd be as slow as molasses with all those processors trying to access
memory at the same time.

I'm sure the marketing people will make a big thing out of how many
cores they have.. after finally admitting that clock speed wasn't the
only measure of CPU performance. Give 'em a couple of years before they
come up with some other buzzword to sell to the drooling masses.
Benchmarks aside, for real world task any general purpose CPU is more
than up to the task of running anything that you can throw at it...
there really is no need to upgrade any more.

Tony