My 'Guess" Is Nothing - put out by ATI (or nVIDIA) - will Support the next DX10

* kmiller:

> It is not an un-common thing for Microsoft to 're-write' their code
> (for a new OS) just prior to product release.

What a nonsense. MS sometimes rewrites parts of their codes during the
beta phase but definitely not the complete code base. And the Vista Beta
phase was very consistent.

> Just ask the Corel Corporation.
> [Microsoft deliberately re-wrote the 'original' Windows 95 code (just
> prior to product release) - to make Corel's WordPerfect Office for
> Windows 95 - a "Lame Duck".]

Yeah, sure. If you really believe MS rewrote the complete Win95 code set
just to slow down Corel WordPerfect then you're very naive and show that
you have no single clue about software development.

But I assume you have some proof for this, haven't you?

> Don't try sell me (us) - on Microsoft's "Fair Play" consciousness.

I never said MS is using "fair play", but a lot of statements including
yours are just plain stupid and show a severe lack of understanding of
even some very basic things. I know for the simple minded blaming
everything including their own insufficiencies is the common way but
reality is quite different from that.

In case of Vista, it's just a fact that for the gfx problems it's
AMD/ATI and Nvidia which are to blame. The Beta phase was long enough,
no vendor can say that he didn't had a chance to be prepared for prime
time. Bad luck for AMD/ATI and Nvidia that they had to prepare for Vista
around the same time they were pushing out a completely new GPU
architecture which obviously was stressing their ressources.

> . - most of us here, already know how easily Microsoft can 're-write'
> their code (just prior to product release), to make competing products
> - "Irrelevant" !!!

The truth is, most of you here simply know **** about this regard. All
you do is following rumors, hearsay and imagination.

Benjamin

* kmiller:

> Ohh. And I left out the FACT that any Windows release, that Microsoft
> has put out since Windows 98 (maybe even Windows 95) has just been a
> BETA 4.0 Release product - for YOU (the customer) to troubleshoot.

Bull****, but what should I expect from someone who obviously even
doesn't understand what a public Beta phase is for.

> And until Windows 2000 Professional - you (the customer) have had to
> PAY - for Microsoft's FIXES !!!.

Better get a clue before you try to sell your BS here. FYI: for the NT
line service packs and fixes always have been free, as have been fixes
for Win9x.

> Just A Thought.

You should probably leave that to others.

Benjamin

* kmiller:

> It is not an un-common thing for Microsoft to 're-write' their code
> (for a new OS) just prior to product release.

What a nonsense. MS sometimes rewrites parts of their codes during the
beta phase but definitely not the complete code base. And the Vista Beta
phase was very consistent.

> Just ask the Corel Corporation.
> [Microsoft deliberately re-wrote the 'original' Windows 95 code (just
> prior to product release) - to make Corel's WordPerfect Office for
> Windows 95 - a "Lame Duck".]

Yeah, sure. If you really believe MS rewrote the complete Win95 code set
just to slow down Corel WordPerfect then you're very naive and show that
you have no single clue about software development. FYI: just because
code gets rewritten doesn't mean other software doesn't run anymore. You
definitely want to learn something about software development, and what
APIs are for.

But I assume you have some proof for this (MS rewriting complete code
base just to slow down WordPerfect), haven't you?

> Don't try sell me (us) - on Microsoft's "Fair Play" consciousness.

I never said MS is using "fair play", but a lot of statements including
yours are just plain stupid and show a severe lack of understanding of
even some very basic things. I know for the simple minded blaming
everything including their own insufficiencies is the common way but
reality is quite different from that.

In case of Vista, it's just a fact that for the gfx problems it's
AMD/ATI and Nvidia which are to blame. The Beta phase was long enough,
no vendor can say that he didn't had a chance to be prepared for prime
time, and lots of other hardware manufacturers had their stuff ready for
Vista release. Bad luck for AMD/ATI and Nvidia that they had to prepare
for Vista around the same time they were pushing out a completely new
GPU architecture which obviously was overstressing their ressources.

> . - most of us here, already know how easily Microsoft can 're-write'
> their code (just prior to product release), to make competing products
> - "Irrelevant" !!!

The truth is, most of you here simply know **** about this regard. All
you do is following rumors, hearsay and imagination.

Benjamin

Augustus wrote:

> I've yet to see any reason tu use Vista for a single thing.

It comes with a free chess game.

On Oct 28, 6:28 am, Benjamin Gawert <bgaw...@gmx.de> wrote:
> * kmiller:
>
> > Ohh. And I left out the FACT that any Windows release, that Microsoft
> > has put out since Windows 98 (maybe even Windows 95) has just been a
> > BETA 4.0 Release product - for YOU (the customer) to troubleshoot.
>
> Bull****, but what should I expect from someone who obviously even
> doesn't understand what a public Beta phase is for.
>
> > And until Windows 2000 Professional - you (the customer) have had to
> > PAY - for Microsoft's FIXES !!!.
>
> Better get a clue before you try to sell your BS here. FYI: for the NT
> line service packs and fixes always have been free, as have been fixes
> for Win9x.
>
> > Just A Thought.
>
> You should probably leave that to others.
>
> Benjamin

Let me guess - you work for Microsoft !!!

Tell me why Microsoft 'release' Windows 98 (original) - knowing it was
a graphics card and Internet security disaster.
- And then release a Windows 98 S.E. version - eight months later.
[at a cost of $29.99 USD 'OR' $49.99 CDN - ???]

And then, release Microsoft Office 2000 (suppose to work with Windows
2000) - but was riddled with 'major' problems -that couldn't even be
FIXED with the 'Microsoft Office 2000 SP-1'. [We had to 'install'
Microsoft's Office 2000 SP-1a - to FIX these problems.]

[Not to mention the problems that Microsoft's Office 2000 created on a
Windows NT 4.0 'installation' !!!]

Don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about:

I have been working with MS Windows (since version 3.0), and I have
been a 'frontline' IT (and OS Trainer) since Windows 3.11 & Windows
95 / NT 4.0.

And I was a Trainer for Microsoft Office & Project - since the days of
Windows 3.11 & Microsoft Office & Project 4.0 (for Windows).

I have seen it all - trust me.

8- |

My guess is - that you a so GREEN - you don't even know what the "LIM"
Standard (or Agreement) was ???

Just A Thought.

8< (|