How do I get "Administrator Privileges"?

"Tom Scales" writes:

Why would you recommend a 5 year old, virtually unsupported OS (2000) when
XP is vastly superior, particularly with device driver support.

I'm not sure why he recomened that over XP, but I have to say Win2k is
hardly "virtually unsupported." And it's very stable. It'll be
supported for longer than 98/ME.

XP is the better recommendation, I'll agree. Hardware requirements on
it aren't that steeper, though it is a little more memory hungry. The
whole Activation thing turned off a lot of folks though, but people
seem to be getting over that.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

The pc is a Compaq Deskpro EP/SB Series, 350Mhz Pentium 2.

I do have a copy of Windows98(SE), but it is an OEM from a Dell
machine. So that would make it even more difficult to put on the
Compaq.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

It had a very short life, and Microsoft employees
have admitted off the record that it is the worst version of Windows
released

uh huh....right

Me is/was for thinkers, XP is for brain dead "I just want to turn it
on' monkey people.


ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote in message
...
Windows ME is a platypus part way between the DOS-oriented Win 95/98
and the
NT-kernel operating systems. It had a very short life, and
Microsoft employees
have admitted off the record that it is the worst version of Windows
released.
The fact that it really messes up the DOS-based capabilities makes
it
unacceptable to me. If you really want to limit the DOS stuff, go
all the way
with 2000 or XP... Ben Myers

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:17:58 -0600, John wrote:

On 29 Jan 2005 14:34:00 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:

writes:

I actually installed KAZAA over a year ago, and attempted to
uninstall
it after it made my (WindowsME)system more unstable than usual.

And that's really saying something!

Right now I'm on the verge of just saving important folders and
wiping
the hard drive clean. But since it is a Compaq, it's going to be
hell
installing an OS on it.

It'll be well worth your while though. If it's fast enough with
more
than 256MB of memory, get Win2000 or XP on it.

2000 is definately best.

If not, consider
getting your hands on a copy of Win98 SE. Windows ME is a
horribly
unstable piece of poo, unfortunately.


True, fully as crappy as 98SE.

ME is no worse than 98SE (and no better either). People saying bad
things about ME usually have VERY limited experience (many did a
"upgrade" over an old OS, something best avoided). The others are
mindlessly repeating those people.

Best Regards,

wrote in message
oups.com...
The pc is a Compaq Deskpro EP/SB Series, 350Mhz Pentium 2.

I do have a copy of Windows98(SE), but it is an OEM from a Dell
machine. So that would make it even more difficult to put on the
Compaq.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Not only more difficult - but also illegal!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

every conjecture is wrong! been using it since the day it was
born....never had problems...used it for years in a commercial
environment, as I didn't need at the time, a NTFS file system. Things
have changed in that respect, so now I am one of the monkey people,
not by choice. Me is a decent OS, if you know what your doing. You
assume allot, in this case your making an ass out of.... just
yourself.

Been a xinux installer since 1989, then went on a 12 step program to
rid myself of that plague. Unix? no... never had the 'need'.


"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"JAD" writes:
Me is/was for thinkers, XP is for brain dead "I just want to turn
it
on' monkey people.

LMAO... that's a good one. Are you actually serious, of just trying
to get a rise here?

If by "thinkers" you mean people that are constantly challenged with
infuriating instability in a heinously cobbled together mix of a
16-bit DOS world with a 32-bit wannabe GUI on top of it, then yeah
Win
ME was for "thinkers." LOL.

To appreciate XP, you need to turn the clock back a few years and
find
out what Windows NT and Windows 2000 were all about. Based on
what's
spewing forth from your keyboard, I'm guessing you haven't any
experience with either of these 32-bit operating systems, much less
other OS's such as UNIX.

Just because something crashes a lot and is unstable doesn't mean
it's
got a mystical complex aura that makes it's users "thinkers." What
I'm usually thinking when I have to debug an ME computer is: "this
poor ******* should've been on NT or 2k."

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"JAD" writes:
Me is/was for thinkers, XP is for brain dead "I just want to turn it
on' monkey people.

LMAO... that's a good one. Are you actually serious, of just trying
to get a rise here?

If by "thinkers" you mean people that are constantly challenged with
infuriating instability in a heinously cobbled together mix of a
16-bit DOS world with a 32-bit wannabe GUI on top of it, then yeah Win
ME was for "thinkers." LOL.

To appreciate XP, you need to turn the clock back a few years and find
out what Windows NT and Windows 2000 were all about. Based on what's
spewing forth from your keyboard, I'm guessing you haven't any
experience with either of these 32-bit operating systems, much less
other OS's such as UNIX.

Just because something crashes a lot and is unstable doesn't mean it's
got a mystical complex aura that makes it's users "thinkers." What
I'm usually thinking when I have to debug an ME computer is: "this
poor ******* should've been on NT or 2k."

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Noel Paton wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The pc is a Compaq Deskpro EP/SB Series, 350Mhz Pentium 2.

I do have a copy of Windows98(SE), but it is an OEM from a Dell
machine. So that would make it even more difficult to put on the
Compaq.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Not only more difficult - but also illegal!

If the computer is mine, and the software(OS) is mine, then it is *not*
illegal.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

You seem to have an
aversion to real multi-user operating systems that have notions of
file permissions and full notions of user accounts, or disk formats

No not true. I "cannot" trust my 'family' to log in as one user,
so I massage my paranoia and my superior ego, by setting up all kinds
of desktop access restrictions. I get off on that....not . "Actually
seems"? Isn't it either I ACTUALLY prefer or I SEEM to prefer? I
would PREFER xinux to get off its chaotic development ass and give us
something to be proud of.


"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"JAD" writes:

every conjecture is wrong!

You are the first informed person I've ever encountered who actually
seems to prefer ME over 2000 or XP. This qualifies you as quite
unique.

I say ME is an unstable piece of crap, and I'd sooner see someone
with
98SE if they have to go "light" for hardware or memory reasons. But
really, 98 is a piece of dung too.

You say XP is a dumbed down OS that's too easy to use and you'd
prefer
ME to it and fancy its users as "thinkers?" You seem to have an
aversion to real multi-user operating systems that have notions of
file permissions and full notions of user accounts, or disk formats
that can actually support that, as well as OS's that can actually
stay
up without a reboot for a week or more.

I can cheerfully agree to disagree with ya.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"JAD" writes:

every conjecture is wrong!

You are the first informed person I've ever encountered who actually
seems to prefer ME over 2000 or XP. This qualifies you as quite
unique.

I say ME is an unstable piece of crap, and I'd sooner see someone with
98SE if they have to go "light" for hardware or memory reasons. But
really, 98 is a piece of dung too.

You say XP is a dumbed down OS that's too easy to use and you'd prefer
ME to it and fancy its users as "thinkers?" You seem to have an
aversion to real multi-user operating systems that have notions of
file permissions and full notions of user accounts, or disk formats
that can actually support that, as well as OS's that can actually stay
up without a reboot for a week or more.

I can cheerfully agree to disagree with ya.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

wrote in message
oups.com...

Noel Paton wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The pc is a Compaq Deskpro EP/SB Series, 350Mhz Pentium 2.

I do have a copy of Windows98(SE), but it is an OEM from a Dell
machine. So that would make it even more difficult to put on the
Compaq.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Not only more difficult - but also illegal!

If the computer is mine, and the software(OS) is mine, then it is *not*
illegal.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.


Uh, yes it is. Read your license agreement. The Dell OEM OS stays with the
Dell machine and is not transferable