Hands Up If You Hate Vista!

russ_gillespie

Based on that logic, the search I hate Robin T Cox returns 595,000 results on google, which means you're more hated that Vista & Macs put together!

You can't have many friends...


Don't believe all the crap you read.

Robin_T_Cox

russ_gillespie wrote

Based on that logic, the search I hate Robin T Cox returns 595,000 results on google, which means you're more hated that Vista & Macs put together!

You can't have many friends...

Don't believe all the crap you read.

Russ -

Ad hominem crap, and the number of my friends, is quite irrelevant, and does not dislodge the fair comment that was published in the Motley Fool's article - painful though its contents must have been for you.

Perhaps you would like to address the points put, rather than slagging me off personally?

I thought not.

robt_2

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

russ_gillespie wrote



Russ -

Ad hominem crap, and the number of my friends, is quite irrelevant, and does not dislodge the fair comment that was published in the Motley Fool's article - painful though its contents must have been for you.

Perhaps you would like to address the points put, rather than slagging me off personally?

I thought not.

He wasn't attacking you personally, he was just using your forum username as an example, as that article does.

There are no arguments in that link that need addressing - it is just a load of tabloidesque rubbish.

Millionaire

I just tried my name and it matched no results!

haha, everyone loves me!:j

Ice_2

looking through these posts it would seem to me that some people just don't want to get to know vista...
I started out many years ago with my first pc which had a 20gb HD 128mbs of ram and it worked with windows ME it was great as a test machine and showed me how to use it I did alsorts on it...then I got another crappy pc with 1gb of ram and a 120gb HD both had proceesors below 2600 AMD now I have an intel pentium 4 with 2 gb's of ram and 500gb HD wow works great with vista...the first didn't have a graphics card the second had a 5200 nvidia graphics card this one has a 7300 nvidia graphics card wow everything works with vista...
were are your learning skills an OS is suppose to be about learning more about thing's there not use for getting on the net...sorting out photos or downloading music...
they are about learning how it ticks...
if you got a new car you'd get it serviced once a year fill it with petrol once aweek that sort of thing but people seem to think that if they get a laptop or pc with vista it just has to work...if your system is running slow...
try seeing what's loading up and using all your resouces in windows defender turn off things that don't need to be running at start up
if it's still running slow see if your firewall is blocking something or your anti-virus and allow them to run with these programs...
if you don't know how to use something ask or do a search online to see if you can get an answer ...
don't just say you hate vista...I beta tested vista and I couldn't wait for it to come out but I did wait and mine is working fine bit if I do get a problem vista usually sorts it out for me...if not I will try to sort it myself if your not sure about somethngs get a book and learn about vista or go online to windows vista official magazine which has loads of answers...
when I bought xp the first was with SP1a the second was with SP2 now you can get vista or vista with SP1 I don't see the difference really....
I love vista...
and OP I am running AVG free the latest from the wedsite and yes it sometimes says in yellow that it is out of date but if you click on the icon and do the up-date then do a scan it will rectify this...hths
what's xp it's vista now and vienna windows 7 for the future...
you should be having ago at AVG not vista...

russ_gillespie

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

russ_gillespie wrote



Russ -

Ad hominem crap, and the number of my friends, is quite irrelevant, and does not dislodge the fair comment that was published in the Motley Fool's article - painful though its contents must have been for you.

Perhaps you would like to address the points put, rather than slagging me off personally?

I thought not.

If you want to take that personally that's your decision, but you've obiously missed the winking smiley that followed my comment.

I was making light of your post because the page you linked to is full of absolute rubbish, manipulated stats and no actual information, hence my reply to prove that a google search means nothing at all.

Robin_T_Cox

Russ -

I never take posts like that personally. And your aspersions with regard to my eyesight are as misdirected as your clumsy attempts at humour.

I do suggest, however, that when posting to a money saving forum such as this, you pay a little more respect to articles from the Motley Fool, since the writers on that organ have, I suspect, a little more experience than you do.

And, if you disagree with what they say, at least be gracious enough to favour readers with more cogent reasons for your disagreement than the bald statement that the article is <quote> full of absolute rubbish, manipulated stats and no actual information </quote> when you know very well that it just ain't so.

robt_2

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

Russ -

I never take posts like that personally. And your aspersions with regard to my eyesight are as misdirected as your clumsy attempts at humour.

I do suggest, however, that when posting to a money saving forum such as this, you pay a little more respect to articles from the Motley Fool, since the writers on that organ have, I suspect, a little more experience than you do.

And, if you disagree with what they say, at least be gracious enough to favour readers with more cogent reasons for your disagreement than the bald statement that the article is <quote> full of absolute rubbish, manipulated stats and no actual information </quote> when you know very well that it just ain't so.

I think it is perfectly clear it was a light hearted remark - you did decide to take it personally, as shown by the fact that you are still going on about it

Maybe you could tell us what in that artical is factual, seeing as they are "writers that have more experience than us"?

I would place a large bet that many of us on here know far more, and have more experience, than their 'experts'.

Robin_T_Cox

Robt -

It's you, I think, who have decided to 'go on about it' by joining this thread.

I still have not heard any facts or arguments from you or from Russ, however, that dislodge the facts and arguments in the Motley Fool article.

And I'm afraid that the onus is on Russ and yourself, not on me to demonstrate your superior expertise by providing some facts or arguments to counter the Motley Fool's article.

You have said that you are prepared to place a large bet that you know better.

So let's see your evidence. Go ahead.

russ_gillespie

Are you for for real?

Are you asking us to argue with someone that isn't here? If you had posted some facts and arguments of your own, we'd probably be more willing to respond. But since all you did was post a link to an article with a wopping 18 recommendations on a website that uses google search to create it's stats, we don't feel the need to argue with you.

If you took offence from my post, I apologise. I did not mean to "slag" you off, as you so elegantly put it, I was simply informing you that the article contained stats that meant nothing.