On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:20:39 -0400, BDK wrote:

In article MCJYj.4003$KB3.2026@edtnps91, says...
On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:38:10 -0700, David wrote:

Save Windows XP! The clock is ticking



Microsoft will end OEM and shrink-wrapped sales of Windows XP on June
30, 2008,

So what!, you can use XP as long as you want to. You don't HAVE to get
Vista. It's a myth that we have to keep up with the latest hardware and
software. If your system is producing satsfactory results, why change???
You could be using 98SE and the same thing applies.
So your choice is simple, keep XP or get a real operating system !!

The whole point is that people who build PCs don't want XP to go away.


Bob

The manual said to install Windows Vista or better...
So I installed Debian.

To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Window$
box, you just need to work on it.


I have a few friends who went to Linux a while back when they built new
PC's. They all went back to XP after a while. Too many hassles to do
stuff they wanted to do. I've dealt with a few clients at work running
Linux, and sometimes the simplest thing is a pain in the ass to
accomplish. Finding a solution IS slightly easier than using Microsoft's
so called help, so that's a plus for it.

Yeah. I tried Linux a few years back. Very clunky to install (and the version I
had was sold as easy installation). In the end I had to ignore the installation
instructions completely and manually install it. Once going it showed potential,
but as you say, things that should have been simple to do were just too much of
a pain in the arse.

Using Vista now and after the initial "Why do I have to do it your way?" and
"How do I change this back to the way I like it?" it seems to be ok.

Shill #2
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they
start making vacuum cleaners.
Ernst Jan Plugge

The IT professionals I know still thrive on Windows 2000 and consider
XP to look "Fischer Price".

wrote in message
...
The IT professionals I know still thrive on Windows 2000 and consider
XP to look "Fischer Price".

2K is certainly a stable OS, but it, too, has it's limits. Not being able to
do remote desktop is one of those limitations. I need that particular option
to be able to log into my server while on the road to make changes in
programming, or to reboot the primary cable modem (I use a second IP to
tunnel in so I can make these changes).

harvey wrote:
On May 20, 8:00 pm, Bob Hya

To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Window$
box, you just need to work on it.

BS !

- why does Linux install with RECOVER MODE

?

save XP !

(
Good question. I've never needed it.

Radioguy wrote:
On May 20, 2:38 pm, David wrote:
Save Windows XP! The clock is ticking

Microsoft will end OEM and shrink-wrapped sales of Windows XP on June
30, 2008,

forcing users to shift to Vista.

Don't let that happen!

please go to the link below

and sigh the petition to Save Windows XP.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

After you've done all this, please consider sending this message to
all your

friends; everywhere

Thanks;

About 200,000 ( Two Hundred Thousand) other people who've already
signed the petition to Save Windows XP.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

PS:

Here's a little video for your enjoyment, entitled " Vista Sucks"

http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sucks.html

and some statistics on old, reliable Windows XP Being FASTER than
Vista.

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11...vista-w2gb-ram...

- so Please help save Windows XP

Thanks

I do not understand. If Microsoft ends OEM and shrinkwrapped sales of
Windows XP, how does that force users to switch to Vista. Users of XP
already have the software - why would they want another set.

There is no reason to get excited about OS phaseouts. They are
inevitable, but you do have the luxury of waiting - unless of course
you are one of those who waits in line at Best Buy each time software
makers release a new version.

If you want an OS that doesn't run as much software then go with Apple
or Linux. Otherwise just hang in there with your XP.

What a joke. Unless you still game on a computer, or use some
old-fashioned 3rd party connected device, there is absolutely no
advantage to using Windows. It is crap.

enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?



Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.

Except a PS3, or a Wii.

BDK wrote:
In article MCJYj.4003$KB3.2026@edtnps91, says...
On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:38:10 -0700, David wrote:

Save Windows XP! The clock is ticking



Microsoft will end OEM and shrink-wrapped sales of Windows XP on June
30, 2008,

So what!, you can use XP as long as you want to. You don't HAVE to get
Vista. It's a myth that we have to keep up with the latest hardware and
software. If your system is producing satsfactory results, why change???
You could be using 98SE and the same thing applies.
So your choice is simple, keep XP or get a real operating system !!

The whole point is that people who build PCs don't want XP to go away.

Bob

The manual said to install Windows Vista or better...
So I installed Debian.

To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Window$
box, you just need to work on it.


I have a few friends who went to Linux a while back when they built new
PC's. They all went back to XP after a while. Too many hassles to do
stuff they wanted to do. I've dealt with a few clients at work running
Linux, and sometimes the simplest thing is a pain in the ass to
accomplish. Finding a solution IS slightly easier than using Microsoft's
so called help, so that's a plus for it.

What flavor of Linux? Some distros are pure torture; others are more
intuitive than Macintosh.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?


Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.


Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.



I have nothing personally against Linux builds... but they're totally
useless to me. There is no software for my webstation that will run on it,
nor are there versions of much of the other software I have and use
constantly. Aside from that, as was brought up before, the simplest thing
to do in XP is a major PITA in Linux, unless you are practically a
command-level user: Installing new software. I have tried at least 8
different iterations of Linux, and each of them has been a major headache,
telling me things like "you need this file in order to install this other
file" or simple networking that refuses to see anything else on our LAN
(though it does pop right up onto the web... )



That's strange. A lot of people use Linux for streaming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icecast

You need a distro that supports Synaptic; it finds and loads all
dependencies needed to effortlessly install an application.

www.ubuntu.com

Opus- wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:23:32 GMT, D Peter Maus
spake thusly:

enigma wrote:
You DO know there are better alternatives, don't you?


Nothing beats Windows for GAMING.


Apparently. Appropriate for a play O/S.

(ack!!..my last post was screwed)

Your post is very dishonest and deceptive, since gaming is the most
demanding thing you can do to a computer.

That's not true. It's mostly demanding of the display card, not the
whole box. The reason Windows is better at most games is because they
are written for the DirectX graphics library. 4 out of 5 supercomputers
run Linux. None run Windows.

Follow-ups to rec.radio.shortwave only

Brenda Ann wrote:

wrote in message
...

The IT professionals I know still thrive on Windows 2000 and consider
XP to look "Fischer Price".


2K is certainly a stable OS, but it, too, has it's limits. Not being able to
do remote desktop is one of those limitations.

Win2K Server is now cheap enough to consider here; however terminal
services uses RDP 5.0 and is limited to 256 color display, but the
benefits gained from the stability of Win2K vs XP may prove decisive
to you.

Michael