Microsoft VISTA

[El_Phil]

Thermodyne said:
Again, hind sight would tell us that it was the correct way to go. None of the Mach 3 fighters were built, and as it turned out, they were not needed. At about the same time, the US canceled the F107 and F108 fighter programs. And results of later designs like the SR 71 suggest that the original Mach 3 designs would have never have been completely successful because of unforeseen engineering problems.

First off TSR-2 was aviation grade ally-copper alloy, not titanium. No problem there.

As for the costs, you've paid the development costs, so the choice for TSR-2 was, build it or go F-111. As it turned out F-111 had cost overruns, indeed massive cost overruns, so the UK pulled out and brought some F-4s. For the money spunked on F-111 and buying F-4s you could of built as many TSR-2s as you wanted.

The money was there for new planes. I know you can get a bit 'US is best' blinded Thermy, but are you seriously saying you'd take F-4s over TSR-2s?

[Thermodyne]

EDIT: Stupid post removed

[El_Phil]

Thermodyne said:
Blather here.

That was quite the most confused post I've ever seen, I wasn't entirely sure which aircraft you were talking about. Several in one confused mess I think. But frankly as it ranged across several topics I don't actually know.

Here's what I think your saying. Because the US had problems with high speed planes, everyone else would have. So the British govement should have spent the money defending US cities. I know you are US centric, but I hope that is a mistake.

Anyway TSR-2 wasn't an interceptor. Hence the name "Tactical Strike and Reconnisance". Notice the absence of any interceptor term. I agree calling it an interceptor makes it easier to trash, but it isn't one.

Given that nobody wanted TSR-2 interceptor and the F-4s weren't used as interceptors quite where you got that idea from I have no idea.

[Xrati]

Man, this thread is like going to a fight (Vista) and a hockey game (aircraft) breaks out! Everybody has their own opinions on just about everything, that's why we come here, TO SHARE THEM. In the end you will still form an opinion and probably logoff continuing to believe it! Life goes on.

Quote: ( Forest Gump " It Happens"

[El_Phil]

Well as our other topics go off on wild tangents with regular topic changes, why shouldn't this one?

You do learn something but, as you say, rarely change an opinion.

[Thermodyne]

Argg………Sorry, I transposed the TSR-2 with the CF-105, so the post makes no cense at all. My bad and I apologize.

[ToddT]

Vista Features, well its been about week or since i ran across this bit so momory is vague. Vista has a feature Called "Chimney" its ome kind of network performance ehancement Feature integrated into the OS and it does as advertised, Given that MS looking at a pending injuction of the sale of Vista for the stolen software. They ripped off a compnay they had been dealing with for 2 years claiming they where no longer interested in the product.MS settled pretty quick so the that new feature is still in there. I wish i remebered the name company in question, because that would make a search for that case easy.
Guess that one was also not signed off on by the lawyers, among others.

here are the links to the 2 articles:
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...13_201313.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...13_182601.html

oh theres another case that MS lost along similir lines.
MS's defense the copying was being done out side the US so now infringement was occuring AT&T was the victim.
Yes Vista may be better than XP but it still has its pit falls.

[Suicide Junkie]

What's with all the links to this tom's hardware lately?
The pages are nothing but 2 or 3 sentences, plus a link to the REAL article on a different site. And all surrounded by ads... Ugh.

[Xrati]

So what your saying is that if I install Vista on my computer and run an anti-virus program, it may just remove Vista?
I'm waiting for the follow up to Vista, "Gates 13.0" the first few versions weren't exactly right!