Post by thread:[EE]:: Dell to factory install XP after June 30th

On 4/29/08, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote: > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews > > > — Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall the > original software? > — A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end user. > > A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell was > within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold > with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license. > The main issue is that Vista Ultimate is way too expensive. Vista Business is cheaper but still more expensive than Home Premium. But it is still good for customers who really want XP and not Vista. By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the same. Xiaofan

computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews > — Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall > the > original software? > — A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end > user. > A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell > was > within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold > with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license. / > By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the > same. I would hope so. "Doing the same" is just doing what u$oft allows for free. Any good OEM PC supplier should offer the service as of right. Note that you are entitled to BOTH systems, any one at a time, not just one or other. Russell

computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews > By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the > same. On the above page it also says: The Round Rock, Tex.-based computer maker is not the only OEM that has said it will provide customers with the older operating system after Microsoft's deadline. Lenovo, the Chinese company known for the ThinkPad line of laptops, will sell XP media for downgrading through Jan. 31, 2009, according to its website. "Lenovo customers that have Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate 'qualified systems' may purchase a Windows XP Recovery CD until January 31, 2009," the notice read. // Note that buyers may legitimately copy an XPm Pro disk and time and install it. R

> Note that buyers may legitimately copy an XPm Pro disk and > time and install it. > Yes you can use existing media to excercise the downgrade rights but there are several advantages to having the OEM provide downgrade media (as MS allowed big brand OEMs to do after some initial complaints) and do the downgrade install. 1: If you use your own media and that media is whitebox or reail media or media from the wrong big brand OEM afaict you will have to telphone activate, not an issue for those with access to legit VLK media/key but potentially a majort PITA for some. 2: It saves you the hassle of actually doing the install 3: If the manufacturer is offering XP preinstalled then you will almost certainly be able to easilly download XP drivers 4: dell at least will provide telephone support for both XP and vista when you choose this option.

Recently inherited an Dell Presario with XP home from granddaughter. Was able to slipstream from the recovery disc and files on the HD an install disc, which after installing different newly formated HD's was able to successfully install XP, register it and use windows update. Then decided to move the XP to another computer with an Intel motherboard. Install went smooth, but when I tried to register it, I hit a brick wall. Intel registry said I would have to do it through Dell, and of course if I went to Dell and say the motherboard was changed, they are going to sell me a new one or a new computer.Without registering I couldn't keep updated, so I abandoned, XP is still working on the Dell, and the Intel motherboard (which just failed 3 days ago, but will be replaced) is running WINME dual boot with Kubuntu. Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been a struggle to get Linux up and running well. peter green wrote: {Quote hidden}>> Note that buyers may legitimately copy an XPm Pro disk and >> time and install it. >> >> > Yes you can use existing media to excercise the downgrade rights but > there are several advantages to having the OEM provide downgrade media > (as MS allowed big brand OEMs to do after some initial complaints) and > do the downgrade install. > > 1: If you use your own media and that media is whitebox or reail media > or media from the wrong big brand OEM afaict you will have to telphone > activate, not an issue for those with access to legit VLK media/key but > potentially a majort PITA for some. > 2: It saves you the hassle of actually doing the install > 3: If the manufacturer is offering XP preinstalled then you will almost > certainly be able to easilly download XP drivers > 4: dell at least will provide telephone support for both XP and vista > when you choose this option. >

Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On 4/29/08, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews >> >> — Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall the >> original software? >> — A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end user. >> >> A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell was >> within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold >> with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license. >> > > The main issue is that Vista Ultimate is way too expensive. > Vista Business is cheaper but still more expensive than > Home Premium. But it is still good for customers who > really want XP and not Vista. > > By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the same. I thought the "main" issue was that with identical hardware, and a fresh load of XP and then a fresh load of Vista, numerous test sites have indicated that performance on Vista is 30% lower for various benchmarks, with no reasonable explanation from MS as to why Vista is considered an "upgrade". Businesspeople aren't going to pay for an "upgrade" that requires 30% faster hardware to perform the same. Nate

Carl Denk wrote: > Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a > lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been > a struggle to get Linux up and running well. If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable option and available today for most applications. (I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it behave. Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to make...) There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"... Windows -- Consistently getting worse. Mac -- Consistently getting better. Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time, depending on what you're trying to do. (GRIN) Nate

> I thought the "main" issue was that with identical > hardware, and a fresh load of XP and then a fresh load of Vista, numerous test sites have indicated that performance on Vista is 30% lower for various benchmarks, with no reasonable explanation from MS as to why Vista is considered an "upgrade". Businesspeople aren't going to pay for an "upgrade" that requires 30% faster hardware to perform the same. /> I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what has happened since time immemorial. As features are added speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual problems. If you want really fast Word Processing performance with minimal memory requirements and small file sizes you should try Word 2 :-). Runs well on Windows 3.1. And so, alas, it goes. Russell

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Nate Duehr <nateKILLspamnatetech.com> wrote: > Carl Denk wrote: > > > Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a > > lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been > > a struggle to get Linux up and running well. > > If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable > option and available today for most applications. It seems to me that you have a point here. There are some software which is available for Mac OS X but not Linux (some Adobe, MS Offfice). For those who are satisfied with XP, you can always stick to XP. I still see shops selling OEM version of XP as long as you buy a relative complete system from them. Actually I still see Windows 98SE offered in some shops but not many people will buy it. > (I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply > aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already > over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money > up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it > behave. Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to make...) > > There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"... > > Windows -- Consistently getting worse. The general perception of Windows Vista is not so positive even though there are users who like it. Hopefully Windows 7 will change that. > Mac -- Consistently getting better. Seems to be true. And it seems to me Macs are getting cheaper as well, but still more expensive than PC loaded with Windows. > Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time, > depending on what you're trying to do. (GRIN) For desktop usage, I think it is getting better and better. But I do not like GUI junks like Compiz. My Ubuntu 8.04 installation hangs during startup if Compiz is enabled. Other than that Ubuntu 8.04 runs smoothly (but XP runs very smoothly as well). Xiaofan

Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I said was a large OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or deny that. ~) Note that I did not plan to have one license on more than 1 machine. Xiaofan Chen wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Nate Duehr <.....nateKILLspam.....natetech.com> wrote: > >> Carl Denk wrote: >> >> >>> Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a >>> lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been >>> a struggle to get Linux up and running well. >>> >> If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable >> option and available today for most applications. >> > > It seems to me that you have a point here. There are some software > which is available for Mac OS X but not Linux (some Adobe, MS Offfice). > > For those who are satisfied with XP, you can always stick to XP. > I still see shops selling OEM version of XP as long as you buy > a relative complete system from them. Actually I still see Windows > 98SE offered in some shops but not many people will buy it. > > >> (I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply >> aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already >> over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money >> up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it >> behave. Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to make...) >> >> There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"... >> >> Windows -- Consistently getting worse. >> > > The general perception of Windows Vista is not so positive > even though there are users who like it. Hopefully Windows 7 > will change that. > > >> Mac -- Consistently getting better. >> > > Seems to be true. And it seems to me Macs are getting > cheaper as well, but still more expensive than PC loaded > with Windows. > > >> Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time, >> depending on what you're trying to do. (GRIN) >> > > For desktop usage, I think it is getting better and better. > But I do not like GUI junks like Compiz. My Ubuntu > 8.04 installation hangs during startup if Compiz > is enabled. Other than that Ubuntu 8.04 runs smoothly > (but XP runs very smoothly as well). > > > Xiaofan >

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Carl Denk <EraseMEcdenkspam_OUTTakeThisOuTalltel.net> wrote: > Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I said was a > large OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and > similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and > I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they > could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or > deny that. ~) Note that I did not plan to have one license on more > than 1 machine. What I see here is that those OEM licenses (for small shops with officially Microsoft endorsement) are for DIY people who want to build their own machine. It is not that cheap but you can get it. There are also shops who sell retail version of Chinese and Japanese version of XP so that people who would use those versions can do it since most of the PCs here will be preloaded with English version of Windows XP/Vista. Xiaofan

Carl Denk wrote: > Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I said was a > large OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and > similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and > I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they > could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or > deny that. ~) Note that I did not plan to have one license on more > than 1 machine. > There are two types of OEM windows. Big brand OEM licenses (known by microsoft as "royalty OEM" are locked to the bios and do not normally need activation. If you change the motherboard then they will go into deactivated mode. Afaict MS usually won't activate them under theese circumstances though there may be ways to persude them. Whitebox OEM (known by ms as "system builder") licenses are activated in the same way as retail licenses. Afaict if you are prepared to lie on the phone to MS it should be possible to get theese reactivated on a different machine. Anyone can buy theese though you are suppposed to register as a system builder before using them (MS don't seem to enforce this requirement in any way though).

Xiaofan, Why do not you use Xubuntu instead? It uses Xfce, no Compiz, no Aqua or Aero style stuff, but everything works purely and surely. Tamas On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Nate Duehr <@spam@nateKILLspamnatetech.com> wrote: > > Carl Denk wrote: > > > > > Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a > > > lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has > been > > > a struggle to get Linux up and running well. > > > > If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable > > option and available today for most applications. > > It seems to me that you have a point here. There are some software > which is available for Mac OS X but not Linux (some Adobe, MS Offfice). > > For those who are satisfied with XP, you can always stick to XP. > I still see shops selling OEM version of XP as long as you buy > a relative complete system from them. Actually I still see Windows > 98SE offered in some shops but not many people will buy it. > > > (I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply > > aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already > > over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money > > up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it > > behave. Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to > make...) > > > > There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"... > > > > Windows -- Consistently getting worse. > > The general perception of Windows Vista is not so positive > even though there are users who like it. Hopefully Windows 7 > will change that. > > > Mac -- Consistently getting better. > > Seems to be true. And it seems to me Macs are getting > cheaper as well, but still more expensive than PC loaded > with Windows. > > > Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time, > > depending on what you're trying to do. (GRIN) > > For desktop usage, I think it is getting better and better. > But I do not like GUI junks like Compiz. My Ubuntu > 8.04 installation hangs during startup if Compiz > is enabled. Other than that Ubuntu 8.04 runs smoothly > (but XP runs very smoothly as well). > > > Xiaofan > -

compiz sits on top of your window manager of choice. I use compiz on my EEE running XFCE in eeeXubuntu. makes for the big wow factor ;-> Xiaofan probably has (still) a driver issue, I'd give the restricted drivers a go or possibly try the "official" drivers direct from ATI but thats likley going to suck ass. I find compiz improves performance, desktop changes, minimises/maximises etc are all pretty much instant (or cool looking), without it there is a noticeable redraw delay (especially on slower systems (like the eee)). Tamas Rudnai wrote: {Quote hidden}> Xiaofan, > > Why do not you use Xubuntu instead? It uses Xfce, no Compiz, no Aqua or Aero > style stuff, but everything works purely and surely. > > Tamas > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Nate Duehr <spamBeGonenatespamBeGonenatetech.com> wrote: >> >>> Carl Denk wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a >>>> lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has >>>> >> been >> >>>> a struggle to get Linux up and running well. >>>> >>> If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable >>> option and available today for most applications. >>> >> It seems to me that you have a point here. There are some software >> which is available for Mac OS X but not Linux (some Adobe, MS Offfice). >> >> For those who are satisfied with XP, you can always stick to XP. >> I still see shops selling OEM version of XP as long as you buy >> a relative complete system from them. Actually I still see Windows >> 98SE offered in some shops but not many people will buy it. >> >> >>> (I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply >>> aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already >>> over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money >>> up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it >>> behave. Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to >>> >> make...) >> >>> There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"... >>> >>> Windows -- Consistently getting worse. >>> >> The general perception of Windows Vista is not so positive >> even though there are users who like it. Hopefully Windows 7 >> will change that. >> >> >>> Mac -- Consistently getting better. >>> >> Seems to be true. And it seems to me Macs are getting >> cheaper as well, but still more expensive than PC loaded >> with Windows. >> >> >>> Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time, >>> depending on what you're trying to do. (GRIN) >>> >> For desktop usage, I think it is getting better and better. >> But I do not like GUI junks like Compiz. My Ubuntu >> 8.04 installation hangs during startup if Compiz >> is enabled. Other than that Ubuntu 8.04 runs smoothly >> (but XP runs very smoothly as well). >> >> >> Xiaofan >> --

On 4/30/08, Jake Anderson <TakeThisOuTjakeEraseMEspam_OUTvapourforge.com> wrote: > compiz sits on top of your window manager of choice. > I use compiz on my EEE running XFCE in eeeXubuntu. > makes for the big wow factor ;-> > > Xiaofan probably has (still) a driver issue, I'd give the restricted > drivers a go or possibly try the "official" drivers direct from ATI but > thats likley going to suck ass. I agree with you that there is a driver issue with my old ATI9800SE. Last time I have tried the restricted driver and it sucks -- stability issues. Anyway I really do not need compiz for the things I do. Without compiz my life is easier under Linux. It forze my pass installation of OpenSuse 10.3 and I remmeber Fedora 7 as well. Fedora 8 is a different story thanks to the fact that it conflicted with FreeBSD partitions. So I removed it and keep FreeBSD. > I find compiz improves performance, desktop changes, minimises/maximises > etc are all pretty much instant (or cool looking), without it there is a > noticeable redraw delay (especially on slower systems (like the eee)). > I will wait for my next PC to use compiz. No more ATI graphics for me (driver related issues), no more NVdia chipset for me (USB related problems with NForce 3). Xiaofan

What are the pros and cons of SP3 for XP, di I hear somewhere where Ms was tightening the noose? Xiaofan Chen wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Carl Denk <RemoveMEcdenkTakeThisOuTalltel.net> wrote: > >> Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I said was a >> large OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and >> similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and >> I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they >> could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or >> deny that. ~) Note that I did not plan to have one license on more >> than 1 machine. >> > > What I see here is that those OEM licenses (for small shops with officially > Microsoft endorsement) are for DIY people who want to build their own > machine. It is not that cheap but you can get it. There are also shops > who sell retail version of Chinese and Japanese version of XP so that > people who would use those versions can do it since most of the > PCs here will be preloaded with English version of Windows XP/Vista. > > Xiaofan >

"Apptech" <apptechEraseME.....paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:010101c8aa42$1fa83560$e701a8c0@y2k... > I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what > has happened since time immemorial. As features are added > speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is > bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally > saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be > somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual > problems. While true, what's new in Vista that is really needed? I've personally found XP SP2 to be more stable than Win98 SE, so I'm glad that my newer PC's have XP. Also, I find driver support in XP, especially USB support, to be a lot better. There is a lot of hardware I've bought that works well with XP without the need to install a device specific driver. > If you want really fast Word Processing performance with > minimal memory requirements and small file sizes you should > try Word 2 :-). Runs well on Windows 3.1. And so, alas, it > goes. While true, there was a lot you could not do with Windows 3.1 that Win95 and Win98 could do. Windows 3.1 was still stuck with short 8.3 character filenames, which was a fundamental restriction of the older DOS/Windows architecture that was very "in your face" to users. So the question to Microsoft is *why* is Vista better than XP? I don't think that this question has truly been answered. We're still running 32 bit XP here at work. XP 64 and Vista are both noticably slower when run on the same hardware. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Jeff Findley <EraseMEjeff.findleyugs.com> wrote: > > "Apptech" <RemoveMEapptechEraseMEEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote in message > news:010101c8aa42$1fa83560$e701a8c0@y2k... > > I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what > > has happened since time immemorial. As features are added > > speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is > > bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally > > saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be > > somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual > > problems. > > While true, what's new in Vista that is really needed? > > I've personally found XP SP2 to be more stable than Win98 SE, so I'm glad > that my newer PC's have XP. Also, I find driver support in XP, especially > USB support, to be a lot better. There is a lot of hardware I've bought > that works well with XP without the need to install a device specific > driver. > When it comes to USB, newer version of Windows generally have better support than the old versions. XP SP2 will of course be much better than Windows 98SE in terms of USB. Even the ill-fated Windows Me has better USB support than Windows 98SE. www.microsoft.com/whdc/connect/USB/USBFAQ_intro.mspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms794253.aspx Windows XP SP3 will fix some bugs for USB with XP SP2. But Vista SP1 should be better in this aspect. Example: http://www.cygnal.org/ubb/Forum9/HTML/001572.html Wikipedia does list a lot of Vista features. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista But I've heard enough of Vista problem. Even my wife now starts to complain about her new Vista notebook. Initially she has very few problems. Now it seems she has more and more problems... But stillshe does not want to use my XP desktop and let me use her Vista notebook. ;-) Xiaofan

Don't say I didn't warn ya! ;) Humans are adaptable, and you get used to the Vista problems (like scheduling large copies at over night) if you have no choice or for a new large screen or such. Isn't it great we get to PAY for the privilege of exercising our adaptability? ;) Xiaofan Chen wrote: > But I've heard enough of Vista problem. Even my wife now > starts to complain about her new Vista notebook. Initially > she has very few problems. Now it seems she has more > and more problems... But stillshe does not want to use > my XP desktop and let me use her Vista notebook. ;-) > > Xiaofan

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Carl Denk <RemoveMEcdenkTakeThisOuTspamalltel.net> wrote: > What are the pros and cons of SP3 for XP, di I hear somewhere where Ms > was tightening the noose? http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=68c48dad-bc34-40be-8d85-6bb4f56f5110&displaylang=en Normally as all the service packs, a small minority of user will have problems. SP2 breaks a lot of things but SP3 should have less impact than SP2. One good thing about SP3 is that it include SP1/SP2. So you do not need even to have SP1 in order to install SP3. But I guess most of the people should have SP2 installed, or at least SP1. Xiaofan

Thanks :) With a little luck, I should be able to slipstream SP3 making reinstall quick and simple. :) But I think I'll wait a while on that until experience shows it's kind of stable. :) Xiaofan Chen wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Carl Denk <EraseMEcdenkspamspamBeGonealltel.net> wrote: > >> What are the pros and cons of SP3 for XP, di I hear somewhere where Ms >> was tightening the noose? >> > > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=68c48dad-bc34-40be-8d85-6bb4f56f5110&displaylang=en > > Normally as all the service packs, a small minority of user will have > problems. SP2 breaks a lot of things but SP3 should have less > impact than SP2. > > One good thing about SP3 is that it include SP1/SP2. So > you do not need even to have SP1 in order to install SP3. > But I guess most of the people should have SP2 installed, > or at least SP1. > > Xiaofan >

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 11:00 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: > So the question to Microsoft is *why* is Vista better than XP? I don't > think that this question has truly been answered. We're still running 32 > bit XP here at work. XP 64 and Vista are both noticably slower when run on > the same hardware. I think you are hitting the nail on the head. Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've experienced has produced a TANGIBLE benefit. Yes, the new OSs often ran slower on the same hardware, but you lived with it because the new OS gave you something you didn't get in the old one. win3.1->win95 gave real 32bit app support, long file names, and an actually useful GUI win95->win98 gave real FAT32 support (technically win95b was first with FAT, but there were many issues that weren't resolved until 98), MUCH better stability, and actually useful USB support (win95c had USB, but it sucked beyond belief) win98->win2k gave the incredible stability of WinNT, but fused most of the usability of 98, alone with pretty decent USB support, a better file system, and much better networking suport win2k->winXP basically bettered the "fusing", taking out some of the "crankiness" of win2k, pretty much perfected USB support, actually bettered performance in a few ways, and to some people improved the GUI (I prefer the win2k style, but that's me) What has winXP->Vista given us? Aside from the eye candy (which isn't even AVAILABLE in every version of VISTA) everything else is seen by most of the public as worse. Yes, security is tighter in Vista, but it annoys the user to much they want to throw the machine out the window. See, VISTA was initially GOING to provide numerous benefits over XP. They had plans for a truly useful enhancement to the file system, along with many other features that would have blown XP out of the water. Unfortunately for MS, they ran so far behind they were basically forced to release VISTA without these features, leaving a shell of an OS that doesn't seem to offer any reason for existing, other then lining MS's wallet. In the mean time MacOS has catapulted itself up the feature ladder, many people consider MacOS a more modern and feature filled OS then Vista. Linux on the desktop has also improved by many magnitudes, some would say it's reached the feature set of Vista, others would say it hasn't, but it is getting there. These next few years will be interesting for MS, they don't have something to save they're butt like Win2K was for the massive failure that was WinME. It'll be fun to watch, no matter which way things go. TTYL

> Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've > experienced has produced > a TANGIBLE benefit. DOS 4 ? :-) And, while I hated ME at the time, in retrospect it does some useful things better than its predecessor. I have XP & W2000 on all machines here (mix of desktops and laptops) except one laptop with Vista Home+ or whatever they call it. So far I have been unable to access the laptop from the LAN, but can use it freely to access LAN and internet via LAN. No amount of trying to turn off the things which seem to be blocking me has so far managed to turn off the things that are blocking me. Russell

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote: > > Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've > > experienced has produced > > a TANGIBLE benefit. > > DOS 4 ? :-) DOS 4 provided some improvement over DOS 3.3 along with some bugs. For example, DOSSHELL "GUI". But DOS 4.01 fixed those bugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_x86_DOS_operating_systems But I admit I only used DOS 3.3 extensively last time. And then I used Windows 95, skipping Windows 3.x. > And, while I hated ME at the time, in retrospect it does > some useful things better than its predecessor. For example, USB mass storage support. Xiaofan

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 14:35 +1200, Apptech wrote: > > Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've > > experienced has produced > > a TANGIBLE benefit. > > DOS 4 ? :-) Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history. First MS OS I ever used use DOS 6.22. > And, while I hated ME at the time, in retrospect it does > some useful things better than its predecessor. No doubt. ME DID have some useful features, the problem was the useful features were FAR outweighed by the instability relative to 98. Vista sits in a similar spot. It HAS some enhancements, but they are FAR outweighed by all the hindrances it has, compared to it's predecessor. TTYL

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Dr Skip <drskipSTOPspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: > Don't say I didn't warn ya! ;) I think if she would allow me to use the Vista notebook, I would have solved most issues... And it is still usable and faster/better than the last XP notebook for her. > Humans are adaptable, and you get used to the Vista problems (like scheduling > large copies at over night) if you have no choice or for a new large screen or > such. Isn't it great we get to PAY for the privilege of exercising our > adaptability? ;) > That is true. Major upgrade like XP and Vista can take some time to get used to. But I agree that MS does have problems with Vista. For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature. Personally I think it is good to have for average users and long overdue. But they omit the fine tuning features in the home premium version (most common version for consumers) which is a mistake. Xiaofan

> For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature. > Personally > I think it is good to have for average users and long > overdue. But > they omit the fine tuning features in the home premium > version (most > common version for consumers) which is a mistake. How to disable UAC prompts while leaving Vista security largely intact. A good thing, he says. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/06/dont_shut_off_v.html Russell Lots of user comment on that page. Including: This article is inaccurate, when this setting is changed it automatically turns off UAC. If you don’t believe me check security centre. Oh and another way to get to the setting is as follows: Select START | RUN and type gpedit.msc and hit enter. Accept prompts. Select local computer policy Then windows settings Then security settings Then local policies Then security options Scroll to bottom and you will find UAC related policies. But as I said this turns off UAC anyway. Tested on vista ultimate with all updated applied.

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Apptech <spamBeGoneapptechSTOPspamEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote: > > For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature. > > Personally I think it is good to have for average users and long > > overdue. But they omit the fine tuning features in the home > > premium version (most common version for consumers) which > > is a mistake. > > Select START | RUN and type gpedit.msc and hit enter. Accept > prompts. > > Tested on vista ultimate with all updated applied. > Group policy editor does not exist in Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium. It does not exist in XP Home either but XP does not have UAC. It is said similar things can be done with registry but I have not tried it. I just leave UAC on with my wife's PC and this will save my support time. ;-) Xiaofan

On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 12:59 +0200, Dario Greggio wrote: > Herbert Graf wrote: > > >>DOS 4 ? :-) > > > > Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history. First MS OS I > > ever used use DOS 6.22. > > are you so young Herbert? :-)) Hehe, perhaps, although chances are it's more to do with simply what my school had. First computer I ever touched was a Commodore 64. After that my school used Unisys Icon machines (anybody ever use those machines?). I basically became the comp admin for those machines (my teacher noticed how much I seemed interested in those machines, didn't want to deal with them, so one day she plonked the manual for them and the root password down on my desk). It was really great because whenever I wanted a break all I'd have to do was muck up the server in a benign way, and wait for the emissary from another classroom to fetch me to fix the problem... :) I did briefly use some x86 based machines in elementary, not quite sure what they ran actually (suppose they ran DOS 5?). Also used an original Macintosh for a while in one of my classes. First DOS machines I actually USED were running 6.22 in high school. First machine I actually owned came with IBM DOS 6.3. Ahh, the memories... TTYL

> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 14:35 +1200, Apptech wrote: > > > Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've experienced has > > > produced a TANGIBLE benefit. > > > > DOS 4 ? :-) > > Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history. > First MS OS I ever used use DOS 6.22. DOS 6.22 was the one everybody upgraded to, even from 6.2. There were only 2 differences IIRC, one was to change the compression software after Stacker complained (no-one cared about that), but the real one was commas. Yes, commas. It added commas to file sizes, so while DIR used to report '1656954 bytes', it now said '1,656,954 bytes'. Now there's a compelling reason for an upgrade. It was ~$10 to upgrade from 6.x, $ well spent. (Slight possibility it was 6.2, memory is fuzzy; the memristors must be de-fluxing, or whatever they do) Tony