Posted on 04/20/2007 9:52:09 AM PDT by upchuck
The strange thing is, I’ve never met a Microsoft employee I didn’t like, and I’ve met a lot of them. The problem must be at higher management.
How do you do this without disabling a major security feature?
Don't bother. Install XP and turn off all the bells and whistles and you might not even know you're not running Windows 2000.
Its because there is the perception no choice, the reason there was so little complaining when 98, ME, 2000, and XP came out is that there was other things to go to. You did not have to get off of 95, when 2000 came out you did not have to get off of 98, .....
MS has basically trued to pressure people to get off of XP before the successor is proven because they (MS) failed to release anew operating system in a timely fashion.
To be honest, I’ve had no problem finding work in IT without posessing vast knowledge of any Linux.
Everyone seems to want knowledge ox Windows OS, Server 2K or 2K3, Exchange, IIS, ISA, IP, DNS, essentialy Microsoft and Networking.
I apply what little Linux skill I have in firewall configurations as that is what most of the good ones run on.
I actually prefer databases, Oracle, OpenEdge, etc.
Well yeah. I’m ancient enough to remember being bowled over by — what was it, 512 * 384 pixel? — b/w graphics in MacPaint, with the Mac system software loading from a 400K diskette.
Wordperfect and Lotus were/are junk. Had they been superior to Word and Excel, it’s likely MS would be the equivalent of IBM or possibly DEC today.
The answer is not yes but HECK YES.
my old computer got a lightning strike and I had to get a new one it has vista on it cannot find a printer that is vista ready in box they all need a download. Being on dialup still that is a 8-10 hour download. Will not play a lot of games including the one I play a bunch DiabloII
when I went to XP it took about an hour setting it up and getting it running vista took me about three days.
My work involves maintaining about 250 computers in a relatively simple networked environment. Most of the workstations are macs. I usually build my own unix/linux servers for specific purposes because I find them reliable.
I mention that because I want to make the point that I am not an MS bot.
I am accustomed to using windows when I do remote work on the networks from home. My main work desktop has been a Windows 2000 pro machine. My main work laptops are XP pro.
I just built a new machine to replace the 2K pro machine and I put Vista on it.
I find that Vista is more efficient with regard to user input. I also find it to be extremely fast. It is easier for me to get work done with it
To be sure, I did drop 4 GB in my new machine because I run a lot of VMs. I had actually tested Vista in VMWare on my 2K machine, which has 2GB natively, and had 800mb of it given to the VM. Vista in the VM was so fast I decided to build my new workstation with it. I played around with some of the LInux workstation distros, but wasn't satisfied enough to give up the tools I am used to in windows.
For power users, there are a few easy tweaks to eliminate the annoying aspects of the user restrictions, and to make it easier network with XP /2K /98 and Samba boxes. Once those are in place Vista networks very nicely, IMHO, better than XP.
The end users I am seeing who are getting new Vista machines don't have problems with it.
My 2cents
I was quite happy with Win 3.11, WfW 2.0, Excel 3.0, Packrat 4.2 and Netscape - did everything I now do with XP Pro, Office Pro 2003, Excel 2003, Outlook 2003 and Firefox. Well, Firefox is worth having....
Of course not! My point is that software engineers used to treat every bit of memory like it was precious. If more still had that attitude, we’d see even greater efficiency.
But there is a choice, nobody is forcing anybody to get Vista. If they don’t want to upgrade they don’t have to upgrade, there’s nothing anywhere forcing anybody off XP.
All this same stuff happened with the other versions, shortly after the new OS came out if you bought a new computer with a Windows version pre-installed it was the new version not the old version. If you didn’t want the new OS your choices were slim, you could not get a computer at all, find one that didn’t pre-install anything, or find one of the final hold out vendors who were still pre-installing the old stuff. It’s that way every single time, and it’s been that way every single time with MS OSes since DOS. There’s nothing new or forced about any of it, it’s just silly griping, especially now with more vendors selling computers without an OS.
“Maybe that’s why car manufacturers do new models every year, keeping the gap small shuts up the gripers.”
Carmaker model updates do not affect people’s ability to use the older model they already have. Not the case here.
“Maybe that’s why car manufacturers do new models every year, keeping the gap small shuts up the gripers.”
Carmaker model updates do not affect people’s ability to use the older model they already have. Not the case here.
Re-read this statement.
Then log on to BADVISTA.COM
Pioneers get all the arrows.
I did not say they are, I said there is a perception rooted in MS pressuring Dell and other OEMs to stop shipping it. If your computer dies they want to make it harder to replace XP.
Re read Message #42.
Digest it. Remember it.
Then do what you need to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.