Fun toy to have

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:AFjrk.307998$yE1.76961@attbi_s21:

You are in the minority. I saw a report on slash dot that 2/3s of
computers that had Vista on them now have reverse migrated back to
XP.

Perhaps, but given the thousands of Vista machines that are sold
daily, my minority status won't last long. As is always the case with
OS upgrades, there is now a growing group of young computer owners who
have known nothing but Vista, who will regard XP the way we regard
Windows 3.1 or DOS.

I have found nothing about Vista to complain about, other than the
aforementioned networking-with-XP-machines difficulty. It's stable,
easy to use, fast, and offers some enhancements and eye-candy that XP
didn't have.

More importantly, I found the migration from XP to Vista to be
completely intuitive, with no instruction or help screens required. I
just got to work, and the OS simply disappeared, as every good OS
should.

You're a spamming fjukkwit.


Bertie

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-08-21, John Smith wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
I've switched over almost entirely to Vista [...] and like it.
Just as you like to drive a Cessna spam can, too, because you haven't
flown a real airplane yet. (Such as a Yak 52, Extra 300, Cap 232, Pitts
or the like.)

Actually, he's got two airplanes, a Piper Pathfinder and an Ercoupe.

I wouldn't mind flying the "real airplanes" you list, but I've got no
interest at all in aerobatics: I get motion sickness with any significant
positive or negative G.

There's more to real aviation than aerobatics.


Many things.


And flying a Cherokeee is not amongst them.



Bertie

On 2008-08-22, Neil Gould wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
I mis-remembered the story I quoted. The actual story was the 35% of
new Windows computers are downgraded either at the factory or by
the user shortly after purchase from Vista to XP.
That sounds like an old story. Checked lately?

Posted to Slashdot on August 18, 2008:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../08/18/2016228

MS pretty much knows it built a dog. That's why they have kept pushing
back the drop dead date on XP.
What drop dead date on XP are you referring to?

Probably the one where you can't get it any more.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:44:53 -0700, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

I mis-remembered the story I quoted. The actual story was the 35% of
new Windows computers are downgraded either at the factory or by
the user shortly after purchase from Vista to XP.

That sounds like an old story. Checked lately?

I don't think it's still too outdated, MS has had a real problem
cutting off new XP sales. Didn't they just have to extend it again
because manufacturers complained?

Course, I've had Vista since it was in betas (MSDN). It got a
boatload better since SP1. Course, so did XP. Nothing like the
problems people had with Windows ME though.

What drop dead date on XP are you referring to? The drop dead date for
Windows 2000 isn't even here yet, and the drop dead date for Win98 was less
than a year ago. XP has a long way to go before it's deprecated.

The new license (buy a new copy) avaialability as published at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
which keeps getting pushed out and shows Windows 2000 cannot be
purchased any more. Or see the service pack/support roadmap at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx
which indicates that they're only publishing security patches for
anything below XP and have EOS/EOL'd NT4 and I would expect Windows
2000 to follow, probably 2 years after NT4's cutoff. I'm not sure
when that was right now, but it must be coming soon.

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-08-22, Neil Gould wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
I mis-remembered the story I quoted. The actual story was the 35% of
new Windows computers are downgraded either at the factory or by
the user shortly after purchase from Vista to XP.
That sounds like an old story. Checked lately?

Posted to Slashdot on August 18, 2008:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../08/18/2016228

Thanks fo rthe pointer... that's recent enough! ;-)

However, its references, I think the methodology used to determine this is
rather questionable because it presumes that the machines included in the
sample were originally set up with Vista just because they could have been.
Even the originator of the "data" states that it is pretty much a guess.
And, a sample size of 3,000 units is not significant given the millions of
computers sold during the same period. But, it is indicative of the shoddy
"research data" that people are willing to believe when it fits their
preconceptions.

MS pretty much knows it built a dog. That's why they have kept
pushing back the drop dead date on XP.
What drop dead date on XP are you referring to?

Probably the one where you can't get it any more.

Considering that I purchased a new copy of Windows 2000 a couple weeks ago,
I think that your notion that you can't get XP anymore -- or even that one
won't be able to get XP for years to come -- is not based in reality.

Neil

Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:44:53 -0700, "Neil Gould" wrote:

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

I mis-remembered the story I quoted. The actual story was the 35% of
new Windows computers are downgraded either at the factory or by
the user shortly after purchase from Vista to XP.

That sounds like an old story. Checked lately?

I don't think it's still too outdated, MS has had a real problem
cutting off new XP sales. Didn't they just have to extend it again
because manufacturers complained?

What keeps most OSs going is compatibililty with existing hardware and
applications. People don't do their primary work using only the OS, no
matter what MS or Apple want users to think.

Course, I've had Vista since it was in betas (MSDN). It got a
boatload better since SP1. Course, so did XP. Nothing like the
problems people had with Windows ME though.

Well, WinME was a horrendous product that breathed new life into Win98. Some
folks are trying to present Vista as analogous to ME, but I don't see that
as even remotely true. Even if the figures quoted above were correct, that
still means that 65% of all new Windows-based computers are running Vista.
That's many millions of machines.

There are good reasons to stay with XP if one currently has an XP-based
network or if they're running older hardware. Vista is bulky and originally
didn't play well in a mixed networking environment, and some aspects of the
newer IIS are incompatible with older versions, which can place a
significant financial burden on companies with large systems. But that's
quite a different matter than implying that Vista is somehow deficient.

What drop dead date on XP are you referring to? The drop dead date
for Windows 2000 isn't even here yet, and the drop dead date for
Win98 was less than a year ago. XP has a long way to go before it's
deprecated.

The new license (buy a new copy) avaialability as published at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx
which keeps getting pushed out and shows Windows 2000 cannot be
purchased any more.

Not from Microsoft... but, Win2k is still being sold in the marketplace. At
any rate, the _drop dead_ date is when support is no longer available, which
was why I questioned the statement.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:

MS pretty much knows it built a dog. That's why they have kept
pushing back the drop dead date on XP.
What drop dead date on XP are you referring to?
Probably the one where you can't get it any more.

Considering that I purchased a new copy of Windows 2000 a couple weeks ago,
I think that your notion that you can't get XP anymore -- or even that one
won't be able to get XP for years to come -- is not based in reality.

Neil


That's the point. MS has set at least 3 dates that will be the day that
XP can no longer be purchased and 2 of them have already passed.
Comparing Win2000 with XP is not really apples to apples. One is server
software. They are likely to be selling that when we are both dead.


Jumping back to the driver issue and machine issue that has been brought
up. The machine in question was an Alienware 3.3 P4ht that while not a
duo was a pretty fast machine and has 2GB of ram. The driver problems we
had with it were nVidia graphics drivers.

In article ,
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Jumping back to the driver issue and machine issue that has been brought
up. The machine in question was an Alienware 3.3 P4ht that while not a
duo was a pretty fast machine and has 2GB of ram. The driver problems we
had with it were nVidia graphics drivers.

Does it have one of the defective nVidia cards?

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

You're a spamming fjukkwit.


Bertie

and you are a ****ing spamwit.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:

MS pretty much knows it built a dog. That's why they have kept
pushing back the drop dead date on XP.
What drop dead date on XP are you referring to?
Probably the one where you can't get it any more.

Considering that I purchased a new copy of Windows 2000 a couple
weeks ago, I think that your notion that you can't get XP anymore --
or even that one won't be able to get XP for years to come -- is not
based in reality.

Neil


That's the point. MS has set at least 3 dates that will be the day
that XP can no longer be purchased and 2 of them have already passed.
Comparing Win2000 with XP is not really apples to apples. One is
server software. They are likely to be selling that when we are both
dead.

Win2000 came in a few varieties, as does XP and Vista. The version that I
purchased recently is Win2k Pro, intended for workstations, not servers. The
version you are referring to was called Server 2000, and it's been updated
to 2003 & 2007. One point that I was making is that the marketplace
determines the longevity of operating systems and application software.

Jumping back to the driver issue and machine issue that has been
brought up. The machine in question was an Alienware 3.3 P4ht that
while not a duo was a pretty fast machine and has 2GB of ram. The
driver problems we had with it were nVidia graphics drivers.

Drivers can be an issue, even with older application software. It isn't at
all surprising that you might have difficulty with an OS that nVidia didn't
support, and points the finger directly at them, not at Vista.

Neil