If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
No.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...MP=ILC-FPM-NBK Barry Watzman wrote: | Only because they are OLD and/or (probably and) refurbished laptops. | | Joan F (MI) wrote: || Tiger Direct offers some laptops with XP. || |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote:
Kevin Childers wrote: Spoke to one of HPs Road Warriors today. Helped him get set-up for some sales event on the road and what not. He (an reportedly his coworkers) are really happy with their brand new HP laptops. No surprise there, given every sales guy loves a new toy, but the when I asked about the OS, it wasn't VISTA. He said all of their new laptops are using XP. Sort of makes you wonder. Is it a commentary on the learning curve for the sales staff, simplicity and compatibility for the IT staff, or a negative commentary on the current state of VISTA? It's a reflection of the fact that most corporate networks are very reluctant to migrate to Vista at this time. We just got 10 D520's and they have XP. You can see on the Dell web site that many/most of the business offerings have XP as well as Vista. Like it or not, new OS's will always have problems with legacy hardware and software. For consumers, this can be manageable In a corporate environment, it's no small thing to have to upgrade even one application. In many cases, it's just not possible. What is an acceptable cost to a consumer is not to a corporation. Try multiplying that $40 upgrade cost by 100 or 1,000 or even 10,000.... Add to that the manpower/hardware costs to do the upgrades and it becomes *VERY* expensive *VERY* fast... I support a small Hospice in upstate NY. We have two critical applications that the vendors will not support on Vista. Bottom line is that corporate acceptance of Vista is glacial compared to the consumer market.... Always the way - companies incur an enormous expense upgrading to a new OS. While on the topic, does anyone have any stats/SWAGs as to how many companies have not upgraded to XP? I'll bet it's not a small percentage. When I retired from a NYC money center bank in 2002, they had just upgraded workstations PCs from NT3.5 to NT 4.0, if that give you an idea. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
Barry Watzman wrote:
Only because they are OLD and/or (probably and) refurbished laptops. Lenovo still offers a choice of Vista xxx or XP Pro on their newest models, e.g., their R61 ThinkPad. The Vista Home (might be Premium) is included and Vista Business & XP Pro cost an additional $30. http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...8E19B36EC665A7 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cross posting
Yeah, but I was so excited to see 20 new posts!!! I read them all anyway.
This newsgroup is . . . quality not quantity -- * * Pebble in Boulder * * who would never underestimate the humble floppy |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
There is no doubt that resistance to Vista is far greater that the
resistance to XP was. With XP, you had the resistance because it was "new". But with Vista, you do have that, but there is more to it than that. First, the user interface is "more different". Second, I think that driver and older software compatibility is more of an issue. Third, Vista's enhanced (arguably "over enhanced") security and UAC are problematic and annoying. Fourth, if you liked PA and WGA, you will love SPP. Unfortunately, however, pretty much everyone hated PA & WGA, so SPP is pretty much the anti-piracy platform from hell. Put that all together and you have the reasons for the resistance to Vista. S.Lewis wrote: I don't remember the distaste for XP as being nearly this pronounced. Yes, there were issues. But in context, consumers were pretty accepting of XP as most were eager to leave WinMe. Very eager. Corporates were either living with NT4 or 5 (Win2K, and some still are) and were in no rush to migrate. I don't think many people would argue about the stability and improvement of WinXP Home over WinMe. The excitement for Vista has been underwhelming, imo. Stew |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
All of the major laptop makers that make machines for corporate markets
still offer XP (MS is allowing them to do that for the remainder of this calendar year). That includes Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo and Toshiba. But you will only find it on machines sold by direct or corporate channels ... you cannot go into a retail store and find a machine "off the shelf" with XP (with the possible exception of CompUSA, which is more corporate oriented). Tony Harding wrote: Barry Watzman wrote: Only because they are OLD and/or (probably and) refurbished laptops. Lenovo still offers a choice of Vista xxx or XP Pro on their newest models, e.g., their R61 ThinkPad. The Vista Home (might be Premium) is included and Vista Business & XP Pro cost an additional $30. http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...8E19B36EC665A7 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
On 12 Aug, 01:26, "S.Lewis" wrote:
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message ... "2000 is still more reliable than XP, of course" I would take issue with that. So would lots of other people. XP is the best OS MS has ever released. snip I completely agree. I have had 3 of these Flaptops now, and on every one XP occasionally blue screens when opening word2003. W2000 does not. I also regularly get pairs of dialogues complaining that certain memory addressses could not be read. Windows explorer, or IE will trigger these. That never happens in W2K. ctrl-alt-del to access the task manager works every time in W2k. In XP it frequently has to be repeated. Changing from DHCP to a manual IP address does not require a reboot in W2K. In XP it often does. Some USB keys are not recognised in XP when plugged in, but this works perfectly in W2K. The wifi signal strength is displayed as either 2 bars (no signal) or 5 bars (some signal) in XP. It works as expected in the older OS. At home I find my XP machine has got slower as it downloads more and more microsoft "fixes". My private W2K machine has never done that. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
On Aug 12, 1:49 pm, wrote:
On 12 Aug, 01:26, "S.Lewis" wrote: "Barry Watzman" wrote in message .. . "2000 is still more reliable than XP, of course" I would take issue with that. So would lots of other people. XP is the best OS MS has ever released. snip I completely agree. I have had 3 of these Flaptops now, and on every one XP occasionally blue screens when opening word2003. W2000 does not. I also regularly get pairs of dialogues complaining that certain memory addressses could not be read. Windows explorer, or IE will trigger these. That never happens in W2K. ctrl-alt-del to access the task manager works every time in W2k. In XP it frequently has to be repeated. Changing from DHCP to a manual IP address does not require a reboot in W2K. In XP it often does. Some USB keys are not recognised in XP when plugged in, but this works perfectly in W2K. The wifi signal strength is displayed as either 2 bars (no signal) or 5 bars (some signal) in XP. It works as expected in the older OS. At home I find my XP machine has got slower as it downloads more and more microsoft "fixes". My private W2K machine has never done that. I saw this debate before. Windows 95 vs Windows 311 Windows 95 vs 98 Windows 98 vs Windows 2000 and XP Now XP vs Vista I am sure there was also a debate about clubs vs arrows. Arrows vs Guns Guns vs cannons I wonder what the outcome will be |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT Interesting Note
On Aug 12, 2:09 pm, Barry Watzman wrote:
I think you have other problems. I don't think I've had a blue screen on any of like a dozen systems running XP in like 6 months. What you are seeing is simply not typical. Other people are not, on a widespread basis, experiencing that. wrote: On 12 Aug, 01:26, "S.Lewis" wrote: "Barry Watzman" wrote in message . .. "2000 is still more reliable than XP, of course" I would take issue with that. So would lots of other people. XP is the best OS MS has ever released. snip I completely agree. I have had 3 of these Flaptops now, and on every one XP occasionally blue screens when opening word2003. W2000 does not. I also regularly get pairs of dialogues complaining that certain memory addressses could not be read. Windows explorer, or IE will trigger these. That never happens in W2K. ctrl-alt-del to access the task manager works every time in W2k. In XP it frequently has to be repeated. Changing from DHCP to a manual IP address does not require a reboot in W2K. In XP it often does. Some USB keys are not recognised in XP when plugged in, but this works perfectly in W2K. The wifi signal strength is displayed as either 2 bars (no signal) or 5 bars (some signal) in XP. It works as expected in the older OS. At home I find my XP machine has got slower as it downloads more and more microsoft "fixes". My private W2K machine has never done that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In 2 years this argument will be mute Bill will not support XP any more Progarmmers will not begin to just program in recent OS's Do I still use XP Yes Why Because some of my hardware is not Vista Compatible Actually jsut one part. Manufacturer has been saying for 6 months that new drivers are a coming. Have I tried Vista Got it and used it Likes a lot of memory Takes up a lot of HD I use multiple OS's Hell I still have a copy of Win 311 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT Interesting Note | Kevin Childers | Dell Computers | 37 | December 8th 07 06:41 PM |
OT Interesting Note | Kevin Childers | Compaq Servers | 12 | August 14th 07 09:43 PM |
OT Interesting Note | Kevin Childers | Acer Computers | 8 | August 10th 07 06:49 PM |
OT Interesting Note | Kevin Childers | Compaq Computers | 8 | August 10th 07 06:49 PM |
Note to Paul and Others | Bill Anderson | Asus Motherboards | 6 | December 3rd 04 06:27 AM |