OT Interesting Note

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Hi Met !


"metronid" wrote in message

Hell I still have a copy of Win 311


Hell, I still use my old Etch-A-Sketch laptop ! Even has the original
"operating system" on it.

I almost never have any trouble with it, and when it locks up, I just give
it a shake, and it's good to go some more !

I sure like the old fashioned computers.

bob

"Bambam" wrote in message
...
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




I was laughing at the cross posts as well. It was just someone not knowing
how to post and then everyone just hits Reply to Group without trimming out
the other groups.

People have to live and learn :-)

Elector

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.

The bigger the business, the slower they are to upgrade the OSes on
their workstations, e.g., when I retired in 2002 my employer (a NYC
bank) was still running NT 4.0 on their workstations, and that was a
recent upgrade from NT 3.51 (IIRC).

S.Lewis wrote:
"Notan" notan@ddressthatcanbespammed wrote in message
...
Joan F (MI) wrote:
When I retired from the government in January 1998 they were just moving
from DOS to Windows.
snip

The US Government living in the dark?

Please, say it isn't so!

--
Notan


"It ain't so."

Why do you hate freedom?

The terrorists have won.