My Test Results

"Your PC does not meet minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP. You must either upgrade your components or buy a new PC. Moreover, some of your software may not run properly under Windows XP"

Naturally, you have to use Internet Exploder to take the test...

MikeD, currently running Netscape 4.71

the question ought to be "are you sufficient idiot to want windows xp?"

sample question:

do you want microsoft corporation to have access to every part of your daily life and finances and control over it all, up to and possibly including your immortal soul, and are you willing to pay them to assume this control, even though there has been neither honest word nor ethical action out of microsoft corporation ever?

dep

Yea, sorry bout that. Guess I should have said "Is Your Windows running Computer, running a Windows Browser, Ready for Windows"

Shall I put you down as "undecided, leaning towards XP"?

The biggest question... WHY UPGRADE. With all that I've read and heard, I ain't gonna touch it. I'll stick with Win 98 or maybe go to W2K if anything at all, only because I couldn't convince my wife to let me load Linux. *sigh*

128MB and 300Mhz as a minimum? Folks, you REALLY need 256MB and AT LEAST 700Mhz to run many apps under XP. XP itself is a hog, although it does run much faster than Windows 2000. The .NET applications soon to be seen will need the 256MB/700Mhz, not necessarily XP.

...even though there has been neither honest word nor ethical action out of microsoft corporation ever?

No hyperbole here, I see.

A lot of us make our livings producing or maintaining programs that run under Microsoft operating systems. They're not perfect, but then neither are Linux or MacIntosh. Is Linux technically superior? Yes, in many ways, and it's an operating system that I enjoy using. However, Microsoft operating systems are the de facto standard, like it or not. Sony's BetaMax video format is superior to the standard VCR tape, but I would have a hard time renting movies if I insisted upon using it.

In order to run the test, I have to download an ActiveX executable from these bozos, and let it rummage around my machine, and rely on their promises that it will not do anything bad.

Right.

Pass....

I can tell that you think XP is a step up from Win98, huh?

No coincidence that XP and the Anti-terrorism bill both premiered around the same time.

OK, so you're saying that the US Government planned the attacks on the World Trade Center in order to (a) pass an Anti-Terrorist Bill and (b) persuade people to buy Windows XP?

Tell the nurse your meds need to be upped.

Why upgrade? One really good reason would be the serious support for older and current cameras, scanners, and other goodies. XP does a great job at using and manipulating (bad word here?) such devices. I love the changes, but, again, while XP is a excellent OS, is MS an excellent company? After 23 years using MS products and a big MS supporter, I am dissappointed at their licensing schemes and upgrade requirements lately.

Without going into the litany of potential abuses avaliable to MS if you utilize XP to gain a more stable MS platform I simply warn you to think long and carefully about your decision.

If you must have MS and must have a more stable platform pay the extra bucks and upgrade to W2K Pro. Has all the stability and few of the drawbacks of XP.

"No coincidence that XP and the Anti-terrorism bill both premiered around the same time."

That's COLD, man! LOL!!!

Everyone.
Amen! to why upgrade? 98 is running very well here, with the handy reboot, and pcpitstop DOES have some good diagnostics and tips for improving performance. But XP, I don't think so.

come on, it was only humor. funny, too.

My "test run" came with a virus. My fault. I disobeyed my own cardinal rule.

I have a better operating system. goes by the name Macintosh......

No XP gunk for me,had to remove a bunch of junk from ME just so I could tolerate using it.