Jane's F/A-18 on Windows XP
Limech
with it and the game won't run.
However, I remember seeing a post about someone saying they saw weird
graphics in FA-18 on XP.
That means they were able to run it.
So what gives, do I have to kiss FA-18 goodbye?? :(
Thanks
DeadCat
"Limech" <limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UIxD7.386031$j65.99...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Vamp
limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com says...
I saw whis too. You just need to install the F18 update. There was only
one.
Vamp
Richard Whitcombe
"Limech" <limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UIxD7.386031$j65.99...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> with it and the game won't run.
> However, I remember seeing a post about someone saying they saw weird
> graphics in FA-18 on XP.
> That means they were able to run it.
>
Install the game and patch it before running.
Then it will run but you have to make sure its run from a user wit
Administrator group membership.
je...@io.com
Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
Limech
I did install the patch. That didn't help. I installed the no-cd patch.
Then it worked.
Never had to install the no-cd patch before. So basically Windows XP
doesn't like the copy protection scheme of some games. Great!
Thank everyone!
Cheers
Limech
Richard Whitcombe
"Limech" <limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > You just need to install the F18 update. There was only one.
>
> I did install the patch. That didn't help. I installed the no-cd patch.
> Then it worked.
> Never had to install the no-cd patch before. So basically Windows XP
> doesn't like the copy protection scheme of some games. Great!
>
>
administrator vs normal user problem
Richard Whitcombe
> Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
Why?
Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
Gonzo
news:9rnp1d$v8ird$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
improvements. Only real improvement is that it makes Bill richer and gives
him more control over you.
And, there is nothing wrong with Win98SE or WinME IMO. Some people simply
do not know how to configure their machines properly etc. If a bad app
crashes in Win9x and Win2K, WinXP sure as hell isn't going to magically make
that app or game better.
If MS want's to impress me then let's see them get EAW to work in WinXP in
Glide mode using a V2 or V3 with a MS Prec Pro joystick and let them change
the code to allow each user to install on at least three home PCs instead of
one. Until then, no sale Bill.
HockeyTownUSA
Hey man, why'd you sell your domain name?
Now it just links to a porn site. Or is that your doing too <G>...
HockeyTownUSA
"Limech" <limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9rJD7.393879$j65.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Jan-Albert van Ree
Gonzo wrote:
Hehe, right on!
Same here, I don't see ANYTHING that would make me move from Win2k to XP...
Win2k works fine, no "Activation" crap, not too many annoying wizards.
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://artsen.vanree.net
VanReeDotNet IT Solutions | http://www.vanree.net
Thrustmaster Resource Center | http://thrustmaster.vanree.net
nobr...@unleesrjed.clampet
wrote:
Amen to that brother. I had a copy of XP, "donated", to me, I threw
it in the trash.
Joe
Limech
>
> Hey man, why'd you sell your domain name?
>
> Now it just links to a porn site. Or is that your doing too <G>...
My domain name expired. I wasn't in charge of it so I didn't notice.
Someone grabbed it and made it point to a naughty web cam service.
Oh well. Maybe for the best? Porn is much more interesting than the 1
update a month I was doing near the end. :)
Cheers
Limech
Limech
> it in the trash.
Could you throw it in MY trash so that I can pick it up and install it on my
2nd PC? :)
Richard Whitcombe
"Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M8LD7.7715$Wv.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9rnp1d$v8ird$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
> >
> > Why?
> > Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
> > buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
>
> Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
> improvements. Only real improvement is that it makes Bill richer and
gives
> him more control over you.
Its faster, has much better support for legacy options, is slightly more
stable. Much better integration and other things in the user interface
itself such as automatic recognising of MP3,picture and other multimedia
folders. Remote desktop support out of the box (pro version). Other handy
features are shell integrated such as CD writing support. The ability for
multiple users to have applications running at once and switching users
possible without forcing the other one to log out (something 2k badly
lacked) and many other things.
Are you just on the "Microsoft is evil" paranoia band wagon ? Gives him more
control ?! What are you on about ?
> And, there is nothing wrong with Win98SE or WinME IMO.
If you like an OS thats unstable and crashes a lot
Some people simply
> do not know how to configure their machines properly etc.
Even a properly configured PC resource leaks like mad and needs reboots to
sort out. Try playing a game on 9x after its been running 3 weeks or so
without a reboot
If a bad app
> crashes in Win9x and Win2K, WinXP sure as hell isn't going to magically
make
> that app or game better.
No but if the bad app crashes it doesnt take down the entire OS like it does
on the 9x kernel
> If MS want's to impress me then let's see them get EAW to work in WinXP
It does
in
> Glide mode using a V2 or V3 with a MS Prec Pro joystick
Again, it does
je...@io.com
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
>
> "Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:M8LD7.7715$Wv.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9rnp1d$v8ird$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > > Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
> > > buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
> >
> > Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
> > improvements. Only real improvement is that it makes Bill richer and
> gives
> > him more control over you.
>
> Its faster, has much better support for legacy options, is slightly more
> stable. Much better integration and other things in the user interface
Better support for legacy "options"??? Why, then, must FA/18 be kissed
goodbye?
> itself such as automatic recognising of MP3,picture and other multimedia
> folders. Remote desktop support out of the box (pro version). Other handy
> features are shell integrated such as CD writing support. The ability for
> multiple users to have applications running at once and switching users
> possible without forcing the other one to log out (something 2k badly
> lacked) and many other things.
Give linux a try :)
> If you like an OS thats unstable and crashes a lot
Wasn't 98 suppose to be more stable? why, now that XE is out, is 98 all
of the sudden "buggy"...but when it was time to buy 98 two years ago
(was it three), it was sooo much more stable.
Actually, 98SE is fairly well behaved. I seldom have crashes...like
once a month. FYI, my linux box crashed once...just once in 10 years.
Bad stick of RAM.
Bill
"Limech" <limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9rJD7.393879$j65.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Also there is a compability feature in XP that lets you configure older
software to run under XP. I tried it and it works!
Bill
>
Bill
"Jan-Albert van Ree" <java...@vanree.net> wrote in message
news:JpRD7.330039$2n1.12567253@Flipper...
>
> Gonzo wrote:
>
> > "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9rnp1d$v8ird$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
> >> > Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >> Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
> >> buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
> >
> > Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
> > improvements. Only real improvement is that it makes Bill richer and
> > gives him more control over you.
Paranoia is raging on the Linux newsgroups, sounds like you should consider
joining them.
> > And, there is nothing wrong with Win98SE or WinME IMO. Some people
simply
> > do not know how to configure their machines properly etc. If a bad app
> > crashes in Win9x and Win2K, WinXP sure as hell isn't going to magically
> > make that app or game better.
> >
> > If MS want's to impress me then let's see them get EAW to work in WinXP
in
Heh, no one needs or wants to impress you, poor slug. <VBG>
> > Glide mode using a V2 or V3 with a MS Prec Pro joystick and let them
> > change the code to allow each user to install on at least three home PCs
> > instead of
> > one. Until then, no sale Bill.
What's the matter, don't know how to hack? <VBG>
Bill
Richard Whitcombe
>
> Better support for legacy "options"??? Why, then, must FA/18 be kissed
> goodbye?
I have no idea. Myself and others i know have been happily playing F18 on a
default XP install with no problems what so ever.
> Give linux a try :)
I use linux daily as a server OS. Linux does what i want as a cheap LAN
server (windows servers dont do all i want) whereas Windows is my desktop as
Linux isnt suited for it. I get to experience both worlds.
> Wasn't 98 suppose to be more stable? why, now that XE is out, is 98 all
> of the sudden "buggy"...but when it was time to buy 98 two years ago
> (was it three), it was sooo much more stable.
98 was a lot more stable than 95 which is to be expected as it was in effect
a service pack. Compared to the NT kernels the 9x kernel is always in
second place in terms of resource handling and overall stability. I leave
my PC on 24/7 and a 9x operating sysem requires reboots and occasionally
crashses. I have 1 Win2k BSOD in 2 years of using it (dodgy sound card) and
had 1 in XP when i dropped a heavy object onto my PC case loosening the
badly fitting DDR RAM.. Both these physical faults, 9x could keel over from
software faults
Bad stick of RAM.
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
> 98 was a lot more stable than 95 which is to be expected as it was in
> effect
> a service pack.
It wasn't... Win98 featured a new memory management system, integrated IE
4.0 with the rest of the OS (whether that was good is open for discussion
:-) It was by any standard a new OS.
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
> "Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote
>> "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote
>> > Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
>> > buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
>> Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
>> improvements.
> Its faster, has much better support for legacy options, is slightly more
> stable.
Faster? Depends on what you want to do, how you have the OS set up vs Win2k
etc etc. Too many factors to make such a statement without providing
details.
"Support for legacy options" ? Care to explain in detail what you mean?
More stable? To be proven... I doubt it. Only more stuff was added, and
with DirectX able to "bypass" the HAL to improve gaming performance I'd
expect it to be the other way.
> Much better integration and other things in the user interface
> itself such as automatic recognising of MP3,picture and other multimedia
> folders. Remote desktop support out of the box (pro version). Other
> handy
> features are shell integrated such as CD writing support. The ability for
> multiple users to have applications running at once and switching users
> possible without forcing the other one to log out (something 2k badly
> lacked) and many other things.
Do we NEED all this? To me it's just more bloatware... Win98 already had
tons of crap added, Win2k was worse but this... specially for gamers, it's
way too much. Besides, Win2k already had the option to display thumbnails
when you were browsing a folder with images / movies etc etc.
> Are you just on the "Microsoft is evil" paranoia band wagon ? Gives him
> more control ?! What are you on about ?
They are monopolists and abuse that fact any way they can... sounds like
evil to me!
Gonzo
news:PEXD7.89$Tb.1...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Jan-Albert van Ree" <java...@vanree.net> wrote in message
> news:JpRD7.330039$2n1.12567253@Flipper...
> >
> > Gonzo wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:9rnp1d$v8ird$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
> > >>
> > >> > Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
> > >>
> > >> Why?
> > >> Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
> > >> buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
> > >
> > > Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
> > > improvements. Only real improvement is that it makes Bill richer and
> > > gives him more control over you.
>
> Paranoia is raging on the Linux newsgroups, sounds like you should
consider
Why don't you try answering my question instead of throwing around little
smart-ass remarks Mr. Bill??
Gonzo
Not on everything it doesn't. Fact is, that XP barely does more than Win2K
in that area. See http://www.ntcompatible.com as the WinXP compatiblity
issues are just starting to roll in for posting.
Anybody that buys XP now needs to have their head examined IMO.
Gonzo
>
> "Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:M8LD7.7715$Wv.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9rnp1d$v8ird$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > > Better yet, kiss XP goodbye.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > Its fast,stable and plays everything. VAST improvment over the
> > > buggy,unstable 9x kernels and a big improvment over 2k as well
> >
> > Big improvement over 2K? Like what? Show me your extensive list of
> > improvements. Only real improvement is that it makes Bill richer and
> gives
> > him more control over you.
>
> Its faster,
BS!
>has much better support for legacy options,
BS! See www.ntcompatible.com to see how much better XP is than W2K in that
reagard. Fact is that Win2K's SP2 and the latest Game Compatiblity Updates
make W2K almost the same as WinXP in that area so if you buy WinXP for that
reason then you are buying it for the wrong reason.
>is slightly more
> stable.
BS! It uses the same core as W2K only that it has much more immature driver
support which makes it LESS stable than Win2K. Where are you getting your
info from? MS PR campaing must be working on you.
>Much better integration and other things in the user interface
> itself such as automatic recognising of MP3,picture and other multimedia
> folders. Remote desktop support out of the box (pro version). Other
handy
> features are shell integrated such as CD writing support. The ability for
> multiple users to have applications running at once and switching users
> possible without forcing the other one to log out (something 2k badly
> lacked) and many other things.
> Are you just on the "Microsoft is evil" paranoia band wagon ? Gives him
more
> control ?! What are you on about ?
The new integration is not so much an impovement but rather a way for MS to
gain more control over media content/format so your argument doesn't hold
water.
> > And, there is nothing wrong with Win98SE or WinME IMO.
>
> If you like an OS thats unstable and crashes a lot
>
> Some people simply
> > do not know how to configure their machines properly etc.
>
> Even a properly configured PC resource leaks like mad and needs reboots to
> sort out. Try playing a game on 9x after its been running 3 weeks or so
> without a reboot
I have!
> If a bad app
> > crashes in Win9x and Win2K, WinXP sure as hell isn't going to magically
> make
> > that app or game better.
>
> No but if the bad app crashes it doesnt take down the entire OS like it
does
> on the 9x kernel
That's why I run Win2K, which IMO is a better and more stable OS than WinXP.
And Win2K doesn't have "Big Brother Inside"!
> > If MS want's to impress me then let's see them get EAW to work in WinXP
>
> It does
>
> in
> > Glide mode using a V2 or V3 with a MS Prec Pro joystick
>
> Again, it does
BS! Show me!
Limech
> software to run under XP. I tried it and it works!
I had already tried that with no success.
Richard Whitcombe
>
> Richard Whitcombe wrote:
>
> > 98 was a lot more stable than 95 which is to be expected as it was in
> > effect
> > a service pack.
>
> It wasn't... Win98 featured a new memory management system, integrated IE
> 4.0 with the rest of the OS (whether that was good is open for discussion
> :-) It was by any standard a new OS.
> --
Still based on the old 9x kernel on the whole though with most of its
associated limitations (and yes layered on DOS). I wouldnt bring up the IE
integration thing again :) Personally i think more integration is good but
lots dont:)
Richard Whitcombe
> Faster? Depends on what you want to do, how you have the OS set up vs
Win2k
> etc etc. Too many factors to make such a statement without providing
> details.
I did reply to a post further down stating this and what i did so searching
down will probably find the article (posted within the last 2 days).
Basically ive run a dual boot setup with identical driver versions and as
near to an identical setup on both of them. It wasnt scientific but worked
for my purposes
> "Support for legacy options" ? Care to explain in detail what you mean?
It will run old applications which 2k refused to run (game example being
EAW), old DOS stuff if anyone still uses it
> More stable? To be proven... I doubt it.
So far apart from a physical related crash i havent managed to kill XP at
all although ive only been running the final since August. Ive been running
2k since august 99 so will take a little catching up but so far no
difference. My "more stable" comment was related to it over a 9x kernel OS
not 2000
> Do we NEED all this?
Personally i think integreation is a good thing. It simplifies and speeds
up common tasks. The idea of 1 click CD burning without loading 3rd party
software and setting up is nice and all in all makes the thing nicer to use
. Besides, Win2k already had the option to display thumbnails
> when you were browsing a folder with images / movies etc etc.
There is more to it than that, it was just a quick example, i know the HTML
folders can be done on 2k but its been taken to a newer level with XP
> > Are you just on the "Microsoft is evil" paranoia band wagon ? Gives him
> > more control ?! What are you on about ?
>
> They are monopolists and abuse that fact any way they can... sounds like
> evil to me!
> --
People may not like their buisness ideas but microsoft CAN make good
software and hardware. As for the other comment, ive been running XP for a
while and 2000 for years before that and i can assure you Bill Gates has no
control over my life what so ever.
--
---
Regards, Richard Whitcombe
Glyn Ebwy, Cymru (Ebbw Vale, Wales)
ICQ: 1556459
Richard Whitcombe
> > Its faster,
>
> BS!
>
> >has much better support for legacy options,
>
> BS! See www.ntcompatible.com to see how much better XP is than W2K in
that
> reagard. Fact is that Win2K's SP2 and the latest Game Compatiblity
Updates
> make W2K almost the same as WinXP in that area so if you buy WinXP for
that
> reason then you are buying it for the wrong reason.
Try some real world tests - ive run the 2 side by side and read my post
further down, its a very small but measurable improvment in performance.
This could be DirectX8.1 related or maybe not. One thing for sure for my
normal OS use its certainly no slower
> >is slightly more
> > stable.
>
> BS! It uses the same core as W2K only that it has much more immature
driver
> support which makes it LESS stable than Win2K. Where are you getting your
> info from? MS PR campaing must be working on you.
Think you'll find all the Win2k drivers tend to work on XP and the new WDM
ones. Nothing has changed there what so ever.
> The new integration is not so much an impovement but rather a way for MS
to
> gain more control over media content/format so your argument doesn't hold
> water.
Argument holds water perfectly. It makes it easier for me to do common
tasks without messing around. If i want to burn MP3s to CD Audio i can do
it with one click without installing software, registering it, configuring
it and other problems. It makes the OS quicker and easier to use. MS has
no more say over media types than it did before - if i want something that
isnt supported i install the software.
> > Some people simply
> > > do not know how to configure their machines properly etc.
Show me a working 9x operating system thats been used for gaming on a daily
basis with an uptime measured in weeks or months and i'll show you a flying
pig. Even its creators admit it leaks resources, cant renew them and
eventually bogs itself down. Many published articles about this freely
available online. When the creators admit its sacrificed stability for
gaming you really should believe them.
> That's why I run Win2K, which IMO is a better and more stable OS than
WinXP.
> And Win2K doesn't have "Big Brother Inside"!
You really are paranoid. There is no Bill Gates evil monster lurking inside
the operating system. XP is a natural progression of some of the good ideas
in 2k (which was in itself a good operating system). youve failed to
provide any proof at all over stability related issues
> > > If MS want's to impress me then let's see them get EAW to work in
WinXP
> >
> > It does
> >
> > in
> > > Glide mode using a V2 or V3 with a MS Prec Pro joystick
> >
> > Again, it does
>
Why dont YOU try and install and using it rather than just moaning about it.
Im sure others are running it on here. Put a post out. That is a very lame
argument.
Gonzo
>
> > > Its faster,
> >
> > BS!
> >
> > >has much better support for legacy options,
> >
> > BS! See www.ntcompatible.com to see how much better XP is than W2K in
> that
> > reagard. Fact is that Win2K's SP2 and the latest Game Compatiblity
> Updates
> > make W2K almost the same as WinXP in that area so if you buy WinXP for
> that
> > reason then you are buying it for the wrong reason.
>
>
> Try some real world tests - ive run the 2 side by side and read my post
> further down, its a very small but measurable improvment in performance.
> This could be DirectX8.1 related or maybe not. One thing for sure for my
> normal OS use its certainly no slower
Would having a copy of WinXP suffice? All WinXP consists of is Win2K with a
gaudy GUI change and a way for MS to control what you can install it on and
keep track of your hardware with no regard for your privacy. All the
bloatware that has been added to WinXP is already out there for W2K and
Win9X so big deal. Why pay $100 for MS's spyware to get a few new features
that can be added to your current OS? That's stupid IMO.
> > >is slightly more
> > > stable.
> >
> > BS! It uses the same core as W2K only that it has much more immature
> driver
> > support which makes it LESS stable than Win2K. Where are you getting
your
> > info from? MS PR campaing must be working on you.
>
> Think you'll find all the Win2k drivers tend to work on XP and the new WDM
> ones. Nothing has changed there what so ever.
Exactly! "Nothing has changed" over Win2K so why pay to add spyware to your
system? Even if I were running Win9x and wanted to upgrade I would choose
W2K over WinXP any day.
> > The new integration is not so much an impovement but rather a way for MS
> to
> > gain more control over media content/format so your argument doesn't
hold
> > water.
>
> Argument holds water perfectly. It makes it easier for me to do common
> tasks without messing around.
It also may make current CD burning software not work correctly and in no
way will XP have all the custom settings that a stand alone burning software
package has so what's the point?
> If i want to burn MP3s to CD Audio i can do
> it with one click without installing software, registering it, configuring
> it and other problems.
What's your point? I can burn MP3s with two or three clicks in W2K and
Win9x. You going to tell me that paying $100 for a new OS to eliminate one
click was worth it? LOL! Damn, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
BTW, WinXP has new code that limits the quality of MP3 recordings made, more
or less to try and force users over to Windows Media files. MS wants to
push their patent-encumbered WMP because it can be encrypted. I can just
see it now, MS will be selling "WMP only" player add ons for the Xbox etc.
Fact is that MS and the Music Industry would like to kill off MP3 as soon as
possible so that they can control the flow of music files to their benefit.
Am I paranoid? Why don't we wait a few more years and see what happens
before you judge me. Again, WinXP is all about Control, not a better OS,
but Control for MS over your installation and your media choice.
> It makes the OS quicker and easier to use. MS has
> no more say over media types than it did before - if i want something that
> isnt supported i install the software.
Read what I posed above again to make things clear for you.
> > > Some people simply
> > > > do not know how to configure their machines properly etc.
>
> Show me a working 9x operating system thats been used for gaming on a
daily
> basis with an uptime measured in weeks or months and i'll show you a
flying
> pig.
Come over to my house and bring that flying pig with you.
>Even its creators admit it leaks resources, cant renew them and
> eventually bogs itself down. Many published articles about this freely
> available online. When the creators admit its sacrificed stability for
> gaming you really should believe them.
Ill believe what I see, not what some PR bruchure tells me.
> > That's why I run Win2K, which IMO is a better and more stable OS than
> WinXP.
> > And Win2K doesn't have "Big Brother Inside"!
>
> You really are paranoid. There is no Bill Gates evil monster lurking
inside
> the operating system.
Maybe not to that extreme, but unlike you I can read between the lines. I
you feel confy and safe with WinXP then more power too you.
>XP is a natural progression of some of the good ideas
> in 2k
It's a natural prgression of MS's bank account and media control.
>(which was in itself a good operating system). youve failed to
> provide any proof at all over stability related issues
Where's your proof?
> > > > If MS want's to impress me then let's see them get EAW to work in
> WinXP
> > >
> > > It does
> > >
> > > in
> > > > Glide mode using a V2 or V3 with a MS Prec Pro joystick
> > >
> > > Again, it does
> >
>
> Why dont YOU try and install and using it rather than just moaning about
it.
> Im sure others are running it on here. Put a post out. That is a very
lame
> argument.
Been there, done that. It simply doesn't work. I have even posted my
findings at www.ntcompatible.com which is more than I can say for you as Im
sure you haven't tried it yourself even though you like to act like you did
to make yourself look good. I suggest that if you haven't tried it
yourself then do not lie about doing so just to try and make a moot point.
Roderick Pommier
So bill only has minor control over you? seeing as you're staunchly supporting
Win9x.
why would MS want to concentrate on making EAW run in Glide mode? thats the
job of the developers. at least MS supports their apps with new versions,
have you seen LB2 2002 or F-15 XP out of EA? whether you like it or not MS
is it for now, so stop the conspiracy stuff.
maybe you'd like it Sun's way. a netpliance and all your data sitting on server
someplace.
Rod...
-snip-
Gonzo
have Win2K and if you still run Win9x, Win2K would be money better spent.
The main selling point of WinXP is compatibility with older games that Win9x
could run but guess what? It's not there, where is the benefit?
You could have purchased some Cuban Cigars with that $100 you spent on XP
and been better off.
What does WinXP do for you that Win2K doesn't? Was it worth spending $100
or was it just a fashion (gotta have the latest) type purchase?
BTW, in case you missed the other point, Win9x and Win2K do NOT have
built-in spyware that call home to MS when you install it. Only XP has
that. I thought you knew that. Learn something new every day huh Rod?
"Roderick Pommier " <rpom...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7l2E7.11423$6f.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Roderick Pommier
flight-simmin' was good. remember Cowboy's sight, Sandberg's 6DOF
Rod
"Limech" <limech@NOSPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XNSD7.396585$j65.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Andre
even NT4 with a comment like the one you made below? Or do you only ever
run one program at a time?
Just curious.
"Jan-Albert van Ree" <java...@vanree.net> wrote in message
news:BK_D7.342588$2n1.13131623@Flipper...
Vamp
rmur...@hot.rr.com says...
> Anybody that buys XP now needs to have their head examined IMO.
>
I find that people that think like this are also the same people that
blame anything that they don't understand on their computer on a virus.
XP is excellent. Definitely just as good as 2k.
Vamp
Gonzo
news:MPG.164b1e032...@news.prtc.net...
Except that Win2K does not have spyware in it. Thank you so much for
helping me make that point.
Vamp
rmur...@hot.rr.com says...
> Except that Win2K does not have spyware in it. Thank you so much for
> helping me make that point.
>
Oh that ridiculous. Xp does not have spyware. It has a scheme for
verifying the validity of you licence. Spyware is a totally diferent
thing. Get your definitions straight.
Vamp
Scorch
xp does phones home.
System Properties > Advanced Tab > Error reporting
Vamp
> xp does phones home.
>
> System Properties > Advanced Tab > Error reporting
>
It only does that if you let it. On top of that it's purpose is to solve
bugs, not give MS marketing information.
Vamp
Scorch
Vamp wrote:
>
> It only does that if you let it. On top of that it's purpose is to solve
> bugs, not give MS marketing information.
>
> Vamp
Error reporting defaulted on here. My info is my info. Didn't someone here
recently state that MS was not interested in home users bug info?
Jon
let me first introduce myself, I work for a local council, and we are an
official MS winXP Pilot.
We are deploying it to 3000+ workstations, with win2k servers.
We have been using winXP for several months now, and my roll is to design
the anti virus environment (using ePO), and running the test lab, where we
test application compatibility.
Now for your points:
> Would having a copy of WinXP suffice? All WinXP consists of is Win2K with
a
> gaudy GUI change and a way for MS to control what you can install it on
and
> keep track of your hardware with no regard for your privacy. All the
> bloatware that has been added to WinXP is already out there for W2K and
> Win9X so big deal. Why pay $100 for MS's spyware to get a few new
features
> that can be added to your current OS? That's stupid IMO.
You have clearly missed the point of winXP completely.
It is effectively a home user version of windows 2000. windows 2000 was
designed for enterprise/business/corporate environments, and nothing else.
Windows XPs aim was to merge the stability and reliability of win2k with the
homeuser features of win98/ME, such as its ease of use.
It has achieved this INCREDABLY well, and could be considered MS's finest
moment.
> Exactly! "Nothing has changed" over Win2K so why pay to add spyware to
your
> system? Even if I were running Win9x and wanted to upgrade I would choose
> W2K over WinXP any day.
If you actually took the time to check what MS was sending, you'd see its
nothing but error reports, web interfaces for WMP8, uP&P, .net
authentication.
This can all be turned off easily.
This is all fully documented on technet, and considering the trouble MS has
been in, they'd be commiting suicide by running any kind of spyware.
> It also may make current CD burning software not work correctly and in no
> way will XP have all the custom settings that a stand alone burning
software
> package has so what's the point?
The point is it offers your average run of the mill home user a simple and
easy way to burn files to a cd, without hunting the net blindly for new
software.
Microsoft have NEVER claimed any of their bundled features are complete and
fully functional.
If you take Remote Storage in win2k for an example, it clearly states in
help>about that the software was written by Veritas, and is a cut down
version.
> What's your point? I can burn MP3s with two or three clicks in W2K and
> Win9x. You going to tell me that paying $100 for a new OS to eliminate
one
> click was worth it? LOL! Damn, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
(That bridge joke doesnt work on english people btw.)
The point is - it is integrated into the operating system, meaning home
users dont need to fork out for nero or something similar, only to be
bombarded by options the dont understand.
You don't seem to appreciate the fact that only a small percentage of the
worlds pc users use them to pirate games, meaning they need greater control
over cdw drives.
>
> BTW, WinXP has new code that limits the quality of MP3 recordings made,
more
> or less to try and force users over to Windows Media files. MS wants to
> push their patent-encumbered WMP because it can be encrypted. I can just
> see it now, MS will be selling "WMP only" player add ons for the Xbox
etc.
> Fact is that MS and the Music Industry would like to kill off MP3 as soon
as
> possible so that they can control the flow of music files to their
benefit.
> Am I paranoid? Why don't we wait a few more years and see what happens
> before you judge me. Again, WinXP is all about Control, not a better OS,
> but Control for MS over your installation and your media choice.
If that is the case, then why are MS fully supporting, and backing the MP3
creater kit?
And no, it doesnt limit the quality of recordings made.
Test it. :)
> > It makes the OS quicker and easier to use. MS has
> > no more say over media types than it did before - if i want something
that
> > isnt supported i install the software.
>
> Read what I posed above again to make things clear for you.
You are wrong.
> Come over to my house and bring that flying pig with you.
Win98 does not manage memory well. Its inefficient, doesnt resuse memory
well. Unlike winxp/2k.
This means its not too great for gaming + stability combined. Common sense
should lead you to the same conclusion, memory isnt freed correctly,
avaliable memory slowely decreases.
After a few processes have been loaded/killed , theres too little memory
avaliable. Win9* crashes.
> >Even its creators admit it leaks resources, cant renew them and
> > eventually bogs itself down. Many published articles about this freely
> > available online. When the creators admit its sacrificed stability for
> > gaming you really should believe them.
>
> Ill believe what I see, not what some PR bruchure tells me.
Its a fact, and if you're as smart as you think you are, you'd know that.
> Maybe not to that extreme, but unlike you I can read between the lines. I
> you feel confy and safe with WinXP then more power too you.
Its a pretty simple process to actually monitor the data flowing from your
system. If you really are that paranoid, check it yourself.
MS would be commiting suicide if they installed spyware, as I've said
before.
> >XP is a natural progression of some of the good ideas
> > in 2k
>
> It's a natural prgression of MS's bank account and media control.
>
> >(which was in itself a good operating system). youve failed to
> > provide any proof at all over stability related issues
>
> Where's your proof?
Go read some technet articles about app.compat and notice issues relating to
memory management.
(brief version: memory is pushed to the top of the heap when its finished
with, instead of the bottom (old way). This means when more memory is
requested, its much more likely to be on the same page, meaning faster
operation).
This causes app.compat problems due to poor coding re:memory usage, but MS
fixed this back in the early win2k days with app.compat functionality.
> > Why dont YOU try and install and using it rather than just moaning about
> it.
> > Im sure others are running it on here. Put a post out. That is a very
> lame
> > argument.
Heh, I've installed it on one hell of a lot of machines, more than you
without question, running some wierd apps, and its all good.
> Been there, done that. It simply doesn't work. I have even posted my
> findings at www.ntcompatible.com which is more than I can say for you as
Im
> sure you haven't tried it yourself even though you like to act like you
did
> to make yourself look good. I suggest that if you haven't tried it
> yourself then do not lie about doing so just to try and make a moot point.
If one foot soldier says the war is lost, does the general listen to him and
turn back?
So how can you, one incredably un-knowledgable person, write off a OS as
crap and expect the IT community to follow?
Regards,
Jon
(You made me laugh a lot, your arguements are pathetic and unsubstantiated)
{All opions are my own, and dont reflect those of my employers. Better to be
safe than sorry}
Richard Whitcombe
> Would having a copy of WinXP suffice? All WinXP consists of is Win2K with
a
> gaudy GUI change and a way for MS to control what you can install it on
and
> keep track of your hardware with no regard for your privacy. All the
> bloatware that has been added to WinXP is already out there for W2K and
> Win9X so big deal. Why pay $100 for MS's spyware to get a few new
features
> that can be added to your current OS? That's stupid IMO.
Christ you are paranoid. Maybe they are all out to get you i dont know....
Gaudy GUI can be turned off. MS has no more control on what hardware or
software i install or use on my PC than anyone else does. It sends no
information back anywhere.
There arent the integration things or the compatibility options in 2k.
There is no spyware in XP
>
> Exactly! "Nothing has changed" over Win2K so why pay to add spyware to
your
> system? Even if I were running Win9x and wanted to upgrade I would choose
> W2K over WinXP any day.
There is NO spyware in XP
>
> It also may make current CD burning software not work correctly and in no
> way will XP have all the custom settings that a stand alone burning
software
> package has so what's the point?
My current software still works fine and for 90% of my tasks the default
stuff suffices. If i want something complex i use Nero or other software.
It saves me time and effort using the default
> What's your point? I can burn MP3s with two or three clicks in W2K and
> Win9x. You going to tell me that paying $100 for a new OS to eliminate
one
> click was worth it? LOL! Damn, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
I really suggest you go and do some reading about what it contains as its
obvious reading this you havent got a clue really and just resorting in the
ever popular microsoft bashing.
Integration makes simple tasks easier and quicker and XP does it well
> BTW, WinXP has new code that limits the quality of MP3 recordings made,
more
> or less to try and force users over to Windows Media files.
Yes so i do what ive done on every other MS os - installed a 3rd party codec
MS wants to
> push their patent-encumbered WMP because it can be encrypted. I can just
> see it now, MS will be selling "WMP only" player add ons for the Xbox
etc.
> Fact is that MS and the Music Industry would like to kill off MP3 as soon
as
> possible so that they can control the flow of music files to their
benefit.
Yes MP3 is the scourge of the music industry and its no secret it would like
to see it killed off. This has nothing to do with MS though
> Am I paranoid? Why don't we wait a few more years and see what happens
> before you judge me. Again, WinXP is all about Control, not a better OS,
> but Control for MS over your installation and your media choice.
Like i said, go and do some reading. MS has no more control over me than
father christmas or a garden plant.
Richard Whitcombe
> My point is that there is no reason to pay $100 for WinXP if you already
> have Win2K and if you still run Win9x, Win2K would be money better spent.
Youd be far better off buying XP than 2K. i cant quite believe anyone still
wants to run a 9x kernel anyway
> The main selling point of WinXP is compatibility with older games that
Win9x
> could run but guess what? It's not there, where is the benefit?
It is there and it does work
> You could have purchased some Cuban Cigars with that $100 you spent on XP
> and been better off.
Yeah, increased risk of cancer and something that wont be there in a few
months
> What does WinXP do for you that Win2K doesn't? Was it worth spending $100
> or was it just a fashion (gotta have the latest) type purchase?
Read up. It offers more for home users, more integration of common tasks,
more backward compatibility.
> BTW, in case you missed the other point, Win9x and Win2K do NOT have
> built-in spyware that call home to MS when you install it. Only XP has
> that. I thought you knew that. Learn something new every day huh Rod?
XP DOES NOT HAVE SPYWARE. Stop believing the propaganda
Jan-Albert van Ree
Andre wrote:
> Jan-Albert, it sounds like you have never even seen or tried Win2k or XP
> or
> even NT4 with a comment like the one you made below? Or do you only ever
> run one program at a time?
Let's see...
Part-time NT4 sysadmin
At home two Win2k machines
And no, I usually don't run two big things at once. When I want to go from
CAD/CAM to word processing I close down the CAD/CAM software.... bad habit
from the Win3.1 days I guess :-)
WinXP by default installs various things which eat RAM and CPU cycles thus
it will be slower, specially in normal application NOT optimized for XP.
How else do you explain the fact that XP Home vs WinME has much higher
hardware requirements, same for Win2k vs XP Prof.
Sure, if the box is way above the XP requirements, you might not notice it
(and with loads of RAM) but try it on a machine with only 128 MB and say a
400 MHz CPU....
WinXP is in some games faster than Win2k because of the way DirectX
communicates with the HAL yes, but there are SO many variables that
determine which OS is faster in a certain situation, that I still stand by
my statement "Depends on what you want to do, how you have the OS set up vs
Win2k etc etc."
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
> So far apart from a physical related crash i havent managed to kill XP at
> all although ive only been running the final since August. Ive been
> running 2k since august 99 so will take a little catching up but so far no
> difference. My "more stable" comment was related to it over a 9x kernel
> OS not 2000
OK my bad.
>> They are monopolists and abuse that fact any way they can... sounds like
>> evil to me!
> People may not like their buisness ideas but microsoft CAN make good
> software and hardware. As for the other comment, ive been running XP for
> a while and 2000 for years before that and i can assure you Bill Gates has
> no control over my life what so ever.
Not saying they CAN'T make good stuff.... my problem is with the business
department mostly. They are the ones that stuff bullshit like activation
and loads of the new "features" , most clearly targeted towards novices,
down our throats.
Roderick Pommier
i have to call BS on you Gonzo, no way you've ever run a game without rebooting
under Win9x.
no way is any config of Win9x more stable than WinXP or Win2K.
i'll admit win9x is a better "Gaming" OS at this time. but as i stated "im
willing to sacrifice some compatibility" for WinXP's stable environment
Rod...
Roderick Pommier
FA-18 runs, so does Falcon
rod...
-snip-
> > Its faster, has much better support for legacy options, is slightly more
> > stable. Much better integration and other things in the user interface
>
> Better support for legacy "options"??? Why, then, must FA/18 be kissed
> goodbye?
Richard Whitcombe
> Not saying they CAN'T make good stuff.... my problem is with the business
> department mostly.
Fair enough that does leave a lot to be desired.
They are the ones that stuff bullshit like activation
> and loads of the new "features" , most clearly targeted towards novices,
> down our throats.
You can disable these features if you want and whether we like it or not
computer novices have to be catered for or we end up with a situation like
Linux
Gonzo
>
> "Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:AC2E7.8015$hO1.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > My point is that there is no reason to pay $100 for WinXP if you already
> > have Win2K and if you still run Win9x, Win2K would be money better
spent.
>
> Youd be far better off buying XP than 2K. i cant quite believe anyone
still
> wants to run a 9x kernel anyway
I don't think so. If a game is written for XP it will most surly be written
to run on the "spywareless" Win2K since they both use basically the same
kernel.
> > The main selling point of WinXP is compatibility with older games that
> Win9x
> > could run but guess what? It's not there, where is the benefit?
>
> It is there and it does work
Not any better than Win2K though, which is the point Im trying to make here.
> > You could have purchased some Cuban Cigars with that $100 you spent on
XP
> > and been better off.
>
> Yeah, increased risk of cancer and something that wont be there in a few
> months
Maybe I should have used a $100 Gym Membership coupon as an example, sheesh.
> > What does WinXP do for you that Win2K doesn't? Was it worth spending
$100
> > or was it just a fashion (gotta have the latest) type purchase?
>
> Read up. It offers more for home users, more integration of common tasks,
> more backward compatibility.
And less customizability and control for the end user. Everything WinXP has
you can buy or get for free for Win2K & Win9x.
> > BTW, in case you missed the other point, Win9x and Win2K do NOT have
> > built-in spyware that call home to MS when you install it. Only XP has
> > that. I thought you knew that. Learn something new every day huh Rod?
>
> XP DOES NOT HAVE SPYWARE. Stop believing the propaganda
Yeah, whatever. What do you call a program that calls home with info about
you? Not spyware right?
Gonzo
>
> > Would having a copy of WinXP suffice? All WinXP consists of is Win2K
with
> a
> > gaudy GUI change and a way for MS to control what you can install it on
> and
> > keep track of your hardware with no regard for your privacy. All the
> > bloatware that has been added to WinXP is already out there for W2K and
> > Win9X so big deal. Why pay $100 for MS's spyware to get a few new
> features
> > that can be added to your current OS? That's stupid IMO.
>
> Christ you are paranoid.
Perhaps to a certain extent so I guess this is a bad thing huh? Gosh, you
think I should take down my firewall and unlock my front door?
>Maybe they are all out to get you i dont know....
> Gaudy GUI can be turned off.
I know that, my point is that is has little else to offer besides fluff.
It's supposed to be an OS but in fact it is just a fluffed up version of
Win2K to separate the $$ from suckers out there.
>MS has no more control on what hardware or
> software i install or use on my PC than anyone else does.
No, but it does control how many machines you can install it on.
> It sends no
> information back anywhere.
> There arent the integration things or the compatibility options in 2k.
> There is no spyware in XP
I think it does, and even if it doesn't it still limits what you can instal
it on. I wouldn't be stupid enough to pay $100 for an OS that puts
limitations on me personally.
> > Exactly! "Nothing has changed" over Win2K so why pay to add spyware to
> your
> > system? Even if I were running Win9x and wanted to upgrade I would
choose
> > W2K over WinXP any day.
>
> There is NO spyware in XP
Yeah, you keep saying that.
> > It also may make current CD burning software not work correctly and in
no
> > way will XP have all the custom settings that a stand alone burning
> software
> > package has so what's the point?
>
> My current software still works fine and for 90% of my tasks the default
> stuff suffices. If i want something complex i use Nero or other software.
> It saves me time and effort using the default
You use Nero but you paid $100 for an OS to save a few mouse clicks?
ROFLMAO!
> > What's your point? I can burn MP3s with two or three clicks in W2K and
> > Win9x. You going to tell me that paying $100 for a new OS to eliminate
> one
> > click was worth it? LOL! Damn, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
>
> I really suggest you go and do some reading about what it contains as its
> obvious reading this you havent got a clue really and just resorting in
the
> ever popular microsoft bashing.
> Integration makes simple tasks easier and quicker and XP does it well
<snip>
I have read every review that I could find. In fact, that's the reason I am
so against buying XP to begin with. Why does this bother you anyway? What
do you have to prove? If you are happy with it and you think it's all the
rage then what's the point of arguing with me? Is something bothering you
perhaps LOL!
Gonzo
news:9rs6j3$bnf$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Gonzo,
>
> let me first introduce myself, I work for a local council, and we are an
> official MS winXP Pilot.
> We are deploying it to 3000+ workstations, with win2k servers.
> We have been using winXP for several months now, and my roll is to design
> the anti virus environment (using ePO), and running the test lab, where we
> test application compatibility.
**Gasp!**
> Now for your points:
<pathetic MS propaganda deleted>
I will agree with you on the point that WinXP is basically Win2K. The same
Win2K that many of us have already paid for (Hint!) only that it's has a ton
of Gee-Wiz Fluff added too it to entice to all the (Gotta have the latest)
brainded consumers. Not to mention their BS installation limitation.
Ill keep my $100, thanks anyway.
Gonzo
How about "Stupidware" then LOL!
Andre
>
>> And no, I usually don't run two big things at once. When I want to go
from
> CAD/CAM to word processing I close down the CAD/CAM software.... bad habit
> from the Win3.1 days I guess :-)
>
Allright, that explains it. It's just a personal habit I suppose of mine to
have several apps always open, 5-10 browser windows open at once while OE
downloads news and so on. :)
> WinXP by default installs various things which eat RAM and CPU cycles thus
> it will be slower, specially in normal application NOT optimized for XP.
> How else do you explain the fact that XP Home vs WinME has much higher
> hardware requirements, same for Win2k vs XP Prof.
XP Home is essentially XP Pro with some features disabled. The memory used
by XP seems about the same as with Win2k, but I wouldn't advise anyone to
try gaming with less than 256M on Win2k or XP.
>
> Sure, if the box is way above the XP requirements, you might not notice it
> (and with loads of RAM) but try it on a machine with only 128 MB and say a
> 400 MHz CPU....
I've seen Win2k running on a P1-133Mhz with 64M and it wasn't that bad,
though only suitable for simple games like The Sims. :) I have a 512M
Athlon 1.4 at home, so as you say, I may not notice any slowdowns - XP
certainly doesn't seem slow to me. The Luna interface can be very jerky on
slower systems though, but it can be disabled completely or you can turn off
various effects one by one to make XP look virtually the same as Win2k if
you want. I'm using the Win2k theme simply because the default colour
scheme hurts my eyes. :)
>
> WinXP is in some games faster than Win2k because of the way DirectX
> communicates with the HAL yes, but there are SO many variables that
> determine which OS is faster in a certain situation, that I still stand by
> my statement "Depends on what you want to do, how you have the OS set up
vs
> Win2k etc etc."
Agreed. If you feel like doing some reading on some of the less well know
differences between Wiin2k and XP, try this link at MS (it may be wrapped):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/XPKernel.asp
Andre
gets sent to MS. It's on a web site somewhere, but I don't recall the URL.
I'll leave it to you to locate that link to see what they found. Or, you
could just keep on believing what those biased reviews that you have been
reading are telling you.
Did you see this review? :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22533.html
I thought it was hilarious, but I think it will back up your claims. :)
"Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u4pE7.13051$6f.4...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
> You can disable these features if you want and whether we like it or not
> computer novices have to be catered for or we end up with a situation like
> Linux
Explain this in more detail please? Have you seen the latest RedHat and
Suse products? Don;t get much better than that!
Gonzo
news:3be27d81$0$99480$bb07...@helios.is.co.za...
> Gonzo, someone has already put a packet sniffer on XP to see what exactly
> gets sent to MS. It's on a web site somewhere, but I don't recall the
URL.
> I'll leave it to you to locate that link to see what they found. Or, you
> could just keep on believing what those biased reviews that you have been
> reading are telling you.
>
> Did you see this review? :
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22533.html
> I thought it was hilarious, but I think it will back up your claims. :)
Oooo a link to some kid's web page. Im impressed. How about something a
little more credible like this:
Computer Shopper Oct 2001, Great XPectations by Serdar Yegulalp, page 127,
fourth paragraph on the page:
"At issue is the system snoop, which collects data about your PC to produce
the unique code it sends to MS. Whether XP will succesfully prevent casual
piracy or simply frustrate honest consumers who upgrade their systems is a
hard question and makes activation one of the most troubleing aspects of the
OS."
Scorch
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
>
>
> Youd be far better off buying XP than 2K.
Really?
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
"Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000
demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows
2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario,
our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as
did the Windows 2000 client."
Vamp
> "Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000
> demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows
> 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario,
> our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as
> did the Windows 2000 client."
>
>
I run have two main machines, One is XP and the other is 2k. Whatever
these people are doing is some kind of biased testing. There is no
perceivable difference in performance.
Vamp
Jove
Multitasking is the operative word Vamp.
Vamp
> Multitasking is the operative word Vamp.
>
Well I have probably 10-15 programs running simultaneously on both
machines and I cant' tell the difference. Granted these are not high
demand things. I am talking about news reader, email, organizer, sync
software, several IMs etc etc. For a normal user they are just not going
to be able to tell the difference (it's a non issues when deciding which
to use) . Now if you are running an on-line transactional thing then
that's a different story but we are in the flight sim newsgroup.
Vamp
Jan-Albert van Ree
Have a look at firingsquad.com ,
they did an extensive OS comparison (XP vs Win2k vs Win98SE)
With games Win98SE is usually fastest, Win2k second.
With business apps, Win2k and XP are about equal...
Too bad they only used two high-end machines (AMD 1.2 GHz and Intel P4)
I'd love to see the numbers with say Celeron 700 and Duron 700 as well.
Richard Whitcombe
>
> Richard Whitcombe wrote:
>
> > You can disable these features if you want and whether we like it or not
> > computer novices have to be catered for or we end up with a situation
like
> > Linux
>
> Explain this in more detail please? Have you seen the latest RedHat and
> Suse products? Don;t get much better than that!
Yes ive seen them and use them but from a computer beginner point of view
linux is still a long way out of reach in terms of simple setup and
installation for starters.
Taking RH7.2 as an example the install program even though it offers choices
still requires knowledge to work out what it means, the choices of packages
arent really self explanatory for computer-clueless people. Once installed
users have to worry about things like program compilation, library versions,
kernel versions, file permissions and various other things. You can say
what you like about windows but the install and basic use is far easier for
a novice to grasp.
For the record i use RH7.2 and WinXP on my systems here so can talk about
both.
Richard Whitcombe
to
> have several apps always open, 5-10 browser windows open at once while OE
> downloads news and so on. :)
Im writing this reply with 2 x SSH, 3 x IRC, Outlook Express, 3 x IE, an MP3
player and icq loaded amongst other things. So i think ive got the same
habit as you:)
> XP Home is essentially XP Pro with some features disabled. The memory
used
> by XP seems about the same as with Win2k, but I wouldn't advise anyone to
> try gaming with less than 256M on Win2k or XP.
Not sure how true it is but ive read several places the only difference
between home and pro is a 15mb CAB file hinting at identical core and just a
few missing snap ins (such as remote desktop and others)
> I've seen Win2k running on a P1-133Mhz with 64M and it wasn't that bad,
> though only suitable for simple games like The Sims. :) I have a 512M
> Athlon 1.4 at home, so as you say, I may not notice any slowdowns - XP
> certainly doesn't seem slow to me. The Luna interface can be very jerky
on
> slower systems though, but it can be disabled completely or you can turn
off
> various effects one by one to make XP look virtually the same as Win2k if
> you want. I'm using the Win2k theme simply because the default colour
> scheme hurts my eyes. :)
I turned off Luna as it reminded me of Tellytubbies style cartoon (probably
on UK people will understand that one) and configured mine to look like
Win2k. The default colour scheme also seemed to be catering for a 5 year
old. It was also slightly slower than the cleaner Win2k style interface
Richard Whitcombe
same
> Win2K that many of us have already paid for (Hint!) only that it's has a
ton
> of Gee-Wiz Fluff added too it to entice to all the (Gotta have the latest)
> brainded consumers. Not to mention their BS installation limitation.
>
> Ill keep my $100, thanks anyway.
In the same vein Win98 is Win95. Win 98SE is Win98 Service Pack 1 with a
charge. WinME is Win98 service pack 2 with additional charge.
Richard Whitcombe
> Perhaps to a certain extent so I guess this is a bad thing huh? Gosh, you
> think I should take down my firewall and unlock my front door?
Personal firewall yes. They're pointless. Maintain a virus checker instead.
Front door. Take your pick there mat be real people out to get you in the
real world though.
> I know that, my point is that is has little else to offer besides fluff.
> It's supposed to be an OS but in fact it is just a fluffed up version of
> Win2K to separate the $$ from suckers out there.
Its an operating system with no features (which you call fluff). As you
state its based on Win2k so its an operating system. This thread was about
why anyone would use XP not a discussion on MS pricing policy which you seem
to be trying to turn it into
> No, but it does control how many machines you can install it on.
Nothing has changed from a legal point of view, just MS now have a method of
enforcing it. It wasnt legal to install your copy of Win98 on 2 or 3 PCs,
lend it to friends either.
> I think it does, and even if it doesn'
It doesnt send anything back full stop.
t it still limits what you can instal
> it on.
No it doesnt
> Yeah, you keep saying that.
The simple reason being there isnt
> You use Nero but you paid $100 for an OS to save a few mouse clicks?
> ROFLMAO!
I dont upgrade an OS for 1 thing like that. It has the feature which i use
so its a bonus it wasnt the sole reason for ditching 2k.
> I have read every review that I could find. In fact, that's the reason I
am
> so against buying XP to begin with. Why does this bother you anyway?
What
> do you have to prove? If you are happy with it and you think it's all the
> rage then what's the point of arguing with me? Is something bothering you
> perhaps LOL!
Stop using "LOL" everywhere it lowers your IQ. This thread was about why
anyone would use XP so i posted the reasons as to why i use it. It doesnt
bother me - i was posting my opinion to a question asked. If anyone wants
to use any other OS no matter how obsolete (CP/M, Amiga Workbench, Win95 or
whatever) its entirely up to them.
--
---
Regards, Richard Whitcombe
Glyn Ebwy, Cymru (Ebbw Vale, Wales)
ICQ: 1556459
Richard Whitcombe
> I don't think so. If a game is written for XP it will most surly be
written
> to run on the "spywareless" Win2K since they both use basically the same
> kernel.
What the hell is the obsession with spyware ?! There isnt any in XP,2K or
anyhting else. Only 3rd party apps have this and some of them got into
trouble for it and had to ditch it (eg real networks).
> Not any better than Win2K though, which is the point Im trying to make
here.
It runs many games that refused to run in Win2k. There are lists out there,
one i have personal experience with is EAW
>
> And less customizability and control for the end user.
You can configure everything you could under Win2k and all the new stuff.
That comment is plain wrong.
Everything WinXP has
> you can buy or get for free for Win2K & Win9x.
Some things would require considerable effort to setup
> Yeah, whatever. What do you call a program that calls home with info
about
> you?
Correct it doesnt. Stop believing the paranoia.
Richard Whitcombe
> "At issue is the system snoop, which collects data about your PC to
produce
> the unique code it sends to MS. Whether XP will succesfully prevent
casual
> piracy or simply frustrate honest consumers who upgrade their systems is a
> hard question and makes activation one of the most troubleing aspects of
the
> OS."
Thats the licence aquisition not any form of spyware, firstly you agree what
it sends and know what it sends. Its no different to any other form of
commercial software which offers you the chance to register online via the
install process just when MS do it people start whinging. If you dont
register the software expires in a certain number of days like a majority of
shareware stuff. No difference. Its purely an anti piracy measure - granted
an annoying one even for legit users who frequently test and change hardware
but certainly not spyware. Once activated the product sends no more data.
Richard Whitcombe
>
> "Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000
> demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows
> 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario,
> our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as
> did the Windows 2000 client."
>
Youd be amazed at the number of biased reviews out there and as people on
here so readily admit its the same kernel as Win2k (Its actual version ID is
NT5.1 in fact). The testing policy of these is dubious at best and i could
probably find in a few minutes an equally large number of reviews saying the
exact opposite. I did my own tests for my own personal use and found a very
small increase in XP over 2k performance for my regular tasks (so small no
real world noticable difference but benchmarks only) and know of others with
the same results
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
> Taking RH7.2 as an example the install program even though it offers
> choices still requires knowledge to work out what it means, the choices of
> packages
> arent really self explanatory for computer-clueless people. Once
> installed users have to worry about things like program compilation,
> library versions,
> kernel versions, file permissions and various other things. You can say
> what you like about windows but the install and basic use is far easier
> for a novice to grasp.
> For the record i use RH7.2 and WinXP on my systems here so can talk about
> both.
I think people , who are not totally clueless, that first read the manual
and then do the install will generally find their way. The manual that
comes with the retail version is quite excellent, and covers all steps.
Gonzo
You forget though that the content of the code "IS" information that is
being sent to MS. They can tell alot about your machine from that number as
I understand it. My defenition of spyware is ANYTHING that sends
information from my PC without my consent or without me knowing the content
of what is being sent.
If you are all OK with that then fine and dandy. Im not.
Gonzo
>
> > I don't think so. If a game is written for XP it will most surly be
> written
> > to run on the "spywareless" Win2K since they both use basically the same
> > kernel.
>
> What the hell is the obsession with spyware ?! There isnt any in XP,2K or
> anyhting else. Only 3rd party apps have this and some of them got into
> trouble for it and had to ditch it (eg real networks).
That's like saying "what the hell is the obsession with our constitution?"
If everything is so honky dory then why is MS always being taken to court
and under investigation?
> > Not any better than Win2K though, which is the point Im trying to make
> here.
>
> It runs many games that refused to run in Win2k. There are lists out
there,
> one i have personal experience with is EAW
>
> >
> > And less customizability and control for the end user.
>
> You can configure everything you could under Win2k and all the new stuff.
> That comment is plain wrong.
>
> Everything WinXP has
> > you can buy or get for free for Win2K & Win9x.
>
> Some things would require considerable effort to setup
Moral of the story: If it's too hard to do, it's not worth it?
> > Yeah, whatever. What do you call a program that calls home with info
> about
> > you?
>
> Correct it doesnt. Stop believing the paranoia.
No it does. I have already explained that but you are still in denial.
Deal with it.
Gonzo
>
>
> > Perhaps to a certain extent so I guess this is a bad thing huh? Gosh,
you
> > think I should take down my firewall and unlock my front door?
>
> Personal firewall yes. They're pointless. Maintain a virus checker
instead.
> Front door. Take your pick there mat be real people out to get you in the
> real world though.
I take it you have never gotten a trojan and you live in a good
neighborhood. Good for you. Im a skeptic by nature for a reason.
> > I know that, my point is that is has little else to offer besides fluff.
> > It's supposed to be an OS but in fact it is just a fluffed up version of
> > Win2K to separate the $$ from suckers out there.
>
> Its an operating system with no features (which you call fluff). As you
> state its based on Win2k so its an operating system. This thread was
about
> why anyone would use XP not a discussion on MS pricing policy which you
seem
> to be trying to turn it in
I see it for what it is, you OTOH want to keep wearing your rose colored
glasses to justify your purchase. Hey, if you like it then fine. I could
care less. More power too you. But there are people out there that may
want to read the other side of the coin on this issue so forgive anyone that
doesn't agree 100% with you.
> > No, but it does control how many machines you can install it on.
>
> Nothing has changed from a legal point of view, just MS now have a method
of
> enforcing it. It wasnt legal to install your copy of Win98 on 2 or 3 PCs,
> lend it to friends either.
That's irrelavent as I have five PC's here at the house. Not all companies
are like MS. Lotus for example lets you install their software on ALL the
machines you own as long as you can only use one of them at a time. If I
decide to boot up two or more of my PC then that's my business Mr. Netcop.
> > I think it does, and even if it doesn'
>
> It doesnt send anything back full stop.
It's sends a code to MS that tells them what kind of hardware you have
installed. That is a fact. If it sends anything else, nobody knows for
sure but you seem to think otherwise. MS will even admit that the code is
sent and that it is a signature of your hardware.
> t it still limits what you can instal
> > it on.
>
> No it doesnt
Yes it does. You can't install it on multiple owned PCs or laptops.
> > Yeah, you keep saying that.
>
> The simple reason being there isnt
Your full of it.
> > You use Nero but you paid $100 for an OS to save a few mouse clicks?
> > ROFLMAO!
>
> I dont upgrade an OS for 1 thing like that. It has the feature which i
use
> so its a bonus it wasnt the sole reason for ditching 2k.
Im happy for you.
> > I have read every review that I could find. In fact, that's the reason
I
> am
> > so against buying XP to begin with. Why does this bother you anyway?
> What
> > do you have to prove? If you are happy with it and you think it's all
the
> > rage then what's the point of arguing with me? Is something bothering
you
> > perhaps LOL!
>
> Stop using "LOL" everywhere it lowers your IQ.
It bothers you that I find your purchase and defense of XP amusing? LOL!
>This thread was about why
> anyone would use XP
This thread is about whatever we choose it to be about. If the topic as
swayed then feel free to drop out at any time. If you look at the header,
we were originally talking about FA-18 in XP. Want to talk about that?
Didn't think so.
>so i posted the reasons as to why i use it.
Good then go back to using it then.
> It doesnt
> bother me
Aparently it does otherwise you wouldn't be playing netcop and jumping on
each and every posting that I make on the subject. You have made that
pretty obvious.
>- i was posting my opinion to a question asked. If anyone wants
> to use any other OS no matter how obsolete (CP/M, Amiga Workbench, Win95
or
> whatever) its entirely up to them.
And if you want to use an overpriced, spyware, fluffed up version of Win2K
then that's entirely up to you. More power too you tough guy.
Gonzo
> In the same vein Win98 is Win95. Win 98SE is Win98 Service Pack 1 with a
> charge. WinME is Win98 service pack 2 with additional charge.
There is a difference between impovements and fluff. XP adds the later and
gives MS more control at the consumer's expense.
Gonzo
>
> Have a look at firingsquad.com ,
> they did an extensive OS comparison (XP vs Win2k vs Win98SE)
> With games Win98SE is usually fastest, Win2k second.
> With business apps, Win2k and XP are about equal...
That's because Win2K and XP are the same OS except for the fluff and the
spyware.
Richard Whitcombe
> I think people , who are not totally clueless, that first read the manual
> and then do the install will generally find their way. The manual that
> comes with the retail version is quite excellent, and covers all steps.
> --
Ive not seen the manual as i download ISOs but even so it still has
problems. For example i had to recompile the kernel with specific modules
for IP Tables then had to manually add my not recognised network card
amongst other things. Its things like this that can dissaude beginners.
With windows the same system was just configured and set up.
Richard Whitcombe
> spyware.
>
Sounding like a broken record now. THERE IS NO SPYWARE
Richard Whitcombe
> There is a difference between impovements and fluff. XP adds the later and
> gives MS more control at the consumer's expense.
>
There is NOTHING in XP that gives MS any more control over my system than
Windows 9x/2k or any other OS has. You may not want to believe it being
totally biased and paranoid over MS but its the truth. It adds worthwhile
improvments. What "improvments" would you say win98SE has over win98 for
example. None except the patches and some more pretty colours.
Richard Whitcombe
> I take it you have never gotten a trojan and you live in a good
> neighborhood. Good for you. Im a skeptic by nature for a reason.
I ran and maintain a virus checker so no i have never been infected by a
trojan.
> I see it for what it is, you OTOH want to keep wearing your rose colored
> glasses to justify your purchase. Hey, if you like it then fine. I could
> care less. More power too you. But there are people out there that may
> want to read the other side of the coin on this issue so forgive anyone
that
> doesn't agree 100% with you.
No but theyd appreciate it if you stated the truth and backed it up with
facts. The spyware comment is getting VERY tiresome now and the "fluff" you
fail to go into detail on indicating you have in fact done little if any
research other than believing what other biased people have told you.
> That's irrelavent as I have five PC's here at the house. Not all
companies
> are like MS. Lotus for example lets you install their software on ALL the
> machines you own as long as you can only use one of them at a time. If I
> decide to boot up two or more of my PC then that's my business Mr. Netcop.
Thats a legal and licencing agreement thing. If you decide to boot up 2 in
breach of a licence you agreed to thats your problem and you are breaking
the law. You cant blame MS for enforcing its legal right. It makes it
harder to pirate which seems to upset you. Most if not all commercial
software only allow one instance to be installed without forking out for
addition or volume licences.
> It's sends a code to MS that tells them what kind of hardware you have
> installed. That is a fact. If it sends anything else, nobody knows for
> sure but you seem to think otherwise. MS will even admit that the code is
> sent and that it is a signature of your hardware.
See further down in the thread - its a hardware authentication. It doesnt
spy,it tells you exactly what it sends, it does it once and is merely a
registration process like thousands of other applications.
> Yes it does. You can't install it on multiple owned PCs or laptops.
Not within the licencing rights no but you wont find any software that says
"Please pirate me"
>
> It bothers you that I find your purchase and defense of XP amusing? LOL!
No its irritating when you state untrue facts and scaremonger, back it up
with more facts and fill the posts up with drivel like "LOL" to try and hide
it
> This thread is about whatever we choose it to be about. If the topic as
> swayed then feel free to drop out at any time. If you look at the header,
> we were originally talking about FA-18 in XP. Want to talk about that?
> Didn't think so.
Yes OK. Janes F18 works quite happily in XP when run as administrator user.
Happy ?
>
> Aparently it does otherwise you wouldn't be playing netcop and jumping on
> each and every posting that I make on the subject. You have made that
> pretty obvious.
Im responding to all open threads in this. Ive got better things to do than
follow you round
> And if you want to use an overpriced, spyware, fluffed up version of Win2K
> then that's entirely up to you. More power too you tough guy.
The blatent lies about spyware today. Out of curiosity do you check all
your cupboards havent got evil spies hiding in them before you go to bed?
Richard Whitcombe
> You forget though that the content of the code "IS" information that is
> being sent to MS. They can tell alot about your machine from that number
as
> I understand it. My defenition of spyware is ANYTHING that sends
> information from my PC without my consent or without me knowing the
content
> of what is being sent.
its merely a code made with an algorithm made up using address and types of
hardware. They cant tell anything else anout your PC. It doesnt send
without your consent as it tells you EXACTLY that its going to send and what
its sending and you have to agree by clicking on a button to authorise it.
Its hardly hidden and its a hell of a lot less than other online
registration programs for other software which ask for a
name,address,email,telephone and other details which they send to register
> If you are all OK with that then fine and dandy. Im not.
>
Im not paranoid, nothing in my PC is a threat to national security or life
as i know it. I dont really give a shit if MS know what video card i have
in my PC in order to give me a code.
Richard Whitcombe
> That's like saying "what the hell is the obsession with our constitution?"
> If everything is so honky dory then why is MS always being taken to court
> and under investigation?
Your constitution not mine. There is no spyware, it sends NOTHING without
consent. MS is being taken to court over things like buisness policy,
monopolistic behaviour and dating back 10 years to deliberate
incompatibilities with DOS/Windows3 and DRDOS amongst other things. Nothing
to do with sending personal information back. The only ones i know that
have been caught for that is Real Networks.
> No it does. I have already explained that but you are still in denial.
> Deal with it.
>
It doesnt, its a one off registration scheme common to just about every
commercial or shareware piece of software available. It sends it once,
tells you what its sending, makes you agree to the send and never bothers
you again. Hardly intrusive and certainly not spying.
Gonzo
What do you call NOT Being able to install it on all your PCs? I call that
control by MS. Take off your rose colored glasses.
Gonzo
> > That's because Win2K and XP are the same OS except for the fluff and the
> > spyware.
> >
>
> Sounding like a broken record now. THERE IS NO SPYWARE
According to Computer Shopper Magazine and many others there is. Why are
you in denial about this?
Gonzo
If you are writing me off a some kind of uninformed paranoid Usenet poster
"as you like to portray me apparently", then why are you so obsessed with my
postings? Something bothering you maybe?
You jump on my postings like a fly on shit and yet you post: "I've got
better things to do than follow you round", yet that's exactly what you are
doing. I would say Get a Life Bud! Run along and play with your spywared
OS.
Although I have already give you sever examples to back up my opinion and
stated facts, you insist on turning a blind eye to them and then have the
audacity to tell me that I do not back up what I post. What a hypocrite you
are LOL!
Do you work for MS?
"Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9rvc8p$1040l8$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
Gonzo
> Im not paranoid, nothing in my PC is a threat to national security or life
> as i know it. I dont really give a shit if MS know what video card i have
> in my PC in order to give me a code.
What is this Obsession you have for sticking up for MS? Does Bill have you
in his pocket or elsewhere? LOL
Richard Whitcombe
> According to Computer Shopper Magazine and many others there is. Why are
> you in denial about this?
Because there is none. computer shopper is hardly a recognised journal of
this. Its all the usual MS bashing paranoia with no facts what so ever to
back it up.
Richard Whitcombe
> What do you call NOT Being able to install it on all your PCs? I call
that
> control by MS. Take off your rose colored glasses.
>
They are quite allowed to reinforce their legal right. What about software
that requires dongles (hardware) to install and run on a certain PC ?
Identical thing. You seem to be getting upset because it stops your little
bit of piracy. I suppose in the same way you object to shop security guards
because they prevent you taking what you want through the door without
paying for it ?
I can install XP on the computer i want, i can install any software i want
and do what i want with it. MS has no control. Wake up and stop the
pathetic groundless MS bashing for once.
Richard Whitcombe
"Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VGGE7.18508$Wv.4...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> I have a question for you Mr. Whitcombe,
>
> If you are writing me off a some kind of uninformed paranoid Usenet poster
> "as you like to portray me apparently", then why are you so obsessed with
my
> postings? Something bothering you maybe?
>
> You jump on my postings like a fly on shit and yet you post: "I've got
> better things to do than follow you round", yet that's exactly what you
are
> doing. I would say Get a Life Bud! Run along and play with your spywared
> OS.
>
> Although I have already give you sever examples to back up my opinion and
> stated facts, you insist on turning a blind eye to them and then have the
> audacity to tell me that I do not back up what I post. What a hypocrite
you
> are LOL!
>
> Do you work for MS?
Im replying to threads in this post (if you notice i actually answered the
question originally posted before you jumped on this band wagon). Im
replying now because you are spreading rubbish. You have given no evidence
what so ever to back up any one of your claims, fill the posts with rubbish
"LOL" comments to attempt to pad out the contentless post.
Provide me with SPECIFIC examples of spyware and i might listen. I wont
hold my breath though as there isnt any and you wont fine it. Lets see some
facts for a change instead of "LOL".
And no i dont work for MS and have no intention doing so. Unlike you
however im looking at the issue from both sides and making my own mind up
not engaging in the fashionable "must hate MS" brigade.
Richard Whitcombe
Id ask the opposite, why are you worringly obsessed with MS being the
portrayer of all evil ? Cant you admit for 1 minute the company may
actually put some good software and hardware ? You are just joining the
great uninformed bandwagon trying to look intelligent by bashing a company
on issues you dont understand. Oh look, its "LOL" again. Change the
record.
Gonzo
Oh I see, and YOU ARE the authority then LOL! Don't fucking make me laugh.
You are a typical brainded lemming consumer that believes everything he
reads on the side of his cerial box. I almost feel sorry for you.
Why don't you pull your head out of MS's ass for a while and get some air.
You look ridiculous and you are starting to sound like a usenet stalker.
Here, let me help you out of your prediciment by puting you out of your
misery:
*plonk*!
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
Can be checked easily...
Just set up a Linux router, run tcpdump, connect the XP box to the net with
the linux box in between and check the packets going by. Anybdoy? No I
won't, no way on earth will I ever install XP. Just had a go at it at the
Medi Planet show in Brussels, Belgium and I still haven't totally recovered
:-)
Jan-Albert van Ree
Richard Whitcombe wrote:
Problem is that RedHat still does whacky things with the kernel...
They don't use the default kernel, but patch one by themselves, adding and
taking out stuff. For instance, the standard kernel since 2.2.16 has had
support for the Highpoint and Promise IDE chipsets. However with RedHat 7.1
no such support out of the box. Same with soundcards.
Going to try Mandrake soon, when the new version is out. I like RedHat for
their quick security updates and the RPM system, but in some ways they drop
the ball too much too many times.
Jon
It isn't bullshit, its designed to proctect the system, and keep it stable,
christ your stupid!
Jon
Jon
and read the press statements they've made, they are clearly not going to
bundle 'spyware' as part of the os (and HAVNT), like i keep on saying,
they'd be comminting financial suicide, and would be torn apart in the
courts.
They are smarter than u will ever be, they have done the right thing.
Jon
"Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zEFE7.17342$Wv.4...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Gonzo
news:9s4ha8$shj$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> gonzo, if you actually took time to look into the trouble MS have been in,
> and read the press statements they've made, they are clearly not going to
> bundle 'spyware' as part of the os (and HAVNT), like i keep on saying,
> they'd be comminting financial suicide, and would be torn apart in the
> courts.
>
> They are smarter than u will ever be, they have done the right thing.
There is some truth to that I guess but let's see how overal sales of WinXP
pan out and we will see in the end whether it's financial suicide for MS or
not.
In the end it will be a matter of how many "thinking" people with common
sense there are versus how many "braindead" fashion buyers there are.
Most people see WinXP for what it is, otherwise there wouldn't have been so
many negative reviews on it.
Gonzo
YES IT IS STUPID. Almost as stupid as you are for buying XP you dumbass!
The warez crowd has killed that copy protection even before XP was released.
The only people that this hurts is MS's own loyal customers who have to deal
with the bullshit.
Here's a quarter, go buy a fucking brain! You want to start getting
personal? I can play that game to asshole!
Andre
ran the installer a message popped up informing me that there were "known
issues" or words to that effect with the game and that I should download the
patch from EA. I had the patch already downloaded, ran that, started up the
game and it worked fine.
On Win2k, the installer would refuse to run unless you used appcompat.exe,
then the installer would hang and only continue when you end-tasked
appcompat.
One of the EA sports demos ran fine as well, where it would simply hang in
Win2k.
So games compatibility does seem to have been addressed in XP. Best of all
companies like EA (who were one of the biggest offenders for making Win2k
unfriendly software) no longer have the excuse of "Win2k is not a gaming OS,
so we don't support it."
"Gonzo" <rmur...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nVFE7.17582$Wv.4...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Andre
>
> Not sure how true it is but ive read several places the only difference
> between home and pro is a 15mb CAB file hinting at identical core and just
a
> few missing snap ins (such as remote desktop and others)
>
Do you recall how you could "upgrade" NT 3.5 or 3.51 (not sure which one)
from Workstation to Server version simply by changing a registry key? :)
>
> I turned off Luna as it reminded me of Tellytubbies style cartoon
(probably
> on UK people will understand that one) and configured mine to look like
> Win2k. The default colour scheme also seemed to be catering for a 5 year
> old. It was also slightly slower than the cleaner Win2k style interface
>
It's just that the colours are really awful. I was expecting to see more
than just the "Classic" and Luna themes available. Who was it that was
claiming that one of the Tellytubbie's was gay?
Adam
"Andre" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3be791c8$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
>
> "Richard Whitcombe" <Richard....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9rukt0$1020ff$1...@ID-32032.news.dfncis.de...
>
> >
> > Not sure how true it is but ive read several places the only difference
> > between home and pro is a 15mb CAB file hinting at identical core and
just
> a
> > few missing snap ins (such as remote desktop and others)
Where did you read this at? I would like to review those articles also.
Thanks,
A
Andre
of XP and selectively disable certain features for the "Home" version. NT4
was done this way as well.
"Adam" <Ad...@home.com> wrote in message news:g5VF7.27092> > >
STP
> Yeah, whatever. What do you call a program that calls home with info
about
I don't think it sends info about *you*, just checks to make sure there is
only one legit copy of XP being used. You can block all this with Zonealarm
anyway. I did get a strange thing happen a few times, was off the internet
and brought up windows search, it came up with a message that I or a program
made a request to connect to sa.windows.com , which I traced and did a whois
on and it is Microsoft, Redmond, Washington. I emailed the contact about
this but got no response so far. If you try to connect to sa.windows.com you
will get
You are not authorized to view this page
So yea, there is something going on with XP that I don't like. I also notice
that sometimes when Zonealarm is running and I connect to the internet it
will ask me if I want to allow Win32 services to act as a server on my
machine. I just deny it and everything still works as usual, but what's up
with that? Anyone know? It only comes up sometimes and not every time I
conncet to the internet.
STP
>
>Once activated the product sends no more data.
That's not what I heard. It still checks to see that only one copy of XP is
on the internet using your code. Read my post above about explorer wanting
to connect to sa.windows.com even though I have already activated my copy.