-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ High Plains Thumper on Saturday 03 Oct 2009 00:36 : \____
<snip>
>>> 50 dollars would have been a reasonable cost to pay for an
>>> upgrade to 7. I just don't see why they would not give XP
>>> support with premium 7. Also not sure why they charge more
>>> for the capability to do a clean install. That's just
>>> ridiculous. Who wouldn't want to be able to do a clean
>>> install? I know it's a hassle to put your personal things on
>>> another drive but to have a clean system install is the only
>>> way to do anything in my opinion. That's been Windows worst
>>> trait that follows every operating system from day one.
>>> Clutter! Does it really need all that junk? Like a damn
>>> packrat. [/quote]
>>
>> IOW, Vista 7 is a facility for running XP programs with some
>> Aero CPU/GPU hog.
>
> Except that from what I gather, this feature is only available in
> the most expensive, full featured version. IOW, one will not get
> it with Windows 7 lite (i.e., home version, netbook version,
> etc.) One would be better off IMHO, to dual boot (if that is the
> way they want to go.) However, if like the other EULA's, this
> would be a violation, as upgrading means not using the previous
> operating system. Period. I certainly won't be plonking down a
> couple hundred US greenbacks, just for an application launcher (OS).
Wait. Is it true that not all "Editions" (opposite of additions, i.e. removal)
can run this feature? That would make V7 a lot worse than I thought.
>> Selling point: it's not as bad as Vista. [yes, and eating
>> grass is better than eating dung]
>
> So far from what I gather, most are not interested. They lose
> compatibility with XP programs, unless they purchase the most
> expensive desktop edition. Who wants to upgrade programs that
> they have been familiar with and suits them fine, just for a new
> shiny system?
It has nice wallpapers.
>>> Saving the last for best:
>>>
>>> [quote] #63 Hamranhansenhansen Posted 18 August 2009 -
>>> 05:09 PM
>>>
>>> I don't get it. It seems like Windows is a ton of work. To
>>> administer it, to install it, to maintain it, and even just
>>> to work with it. All day long you are making things that are
>>> only compatible with Microsoft when the majority of
>>> computers don't run Microsoft software.
>>>
>>> Check out how incompatible with the rest of the world you
>>> are:
>>>
>>> * Windows has NT instead of Unix like everybody else, so
>>> Windows users have viruses and botnets while Unix users have
>>> free Web server software and PHP and Ruby and Perl and so
>>> on.
>>>
>>> * Windows has DirectX instead of OpenGL like everybody else,
>>> so while we all have hardware-accelerated graphics on our
>>> smartphones with built-in OpenGL chips, you guys rarely see
>>> 3D even on your PC, unless it's in a game.
>>>
>>> * Windows has legacy Microsoft text encodings instead of
>>> UTF-8 like everybody else, so you guys make Web pages with
>>> bad characters in them and I have to fix them for hundreds
>>> of dollars per hour.
>>>
>>> * Windows has HTML 3.2 instead of HTML 5 like everybody
>>> else, so you guys are seeing basically a 10 year old Web.
>>> Also, IE 8 is half the speed of even the slowest modern
>>> browser. It's remarkable to me you can do without typography
>>> also.
>>
>> Chrome is said to be super-fast. It runs on all platforms
>> (soon officially).
>
> I haven't tried Chrome, but then FireFox has suited all my needs.
> Ocassionally I use Sea Monkey browser (unbranded Mozilla). It
> works fine also.
ThunbderBrowse is my main browser now.
>>> * Windows has Windows Media instead of ISO MPEG-4 like
>>> everybody else. That is like having an optical disc drive
>>> that can't read CD and DVD. About 90% of the world's digital
>>> media is in ISO MPEG-4, including all of iTunes and all of
>>> YouTube.
>>>
>>> I guess if you use all Microsoft products you don't notice
>>> this? Or maybe after playing Microsoft's various upgrade
>>> games and activation and installing all your apps over again
>>> to go from XP to Windows 7, you don't mind installing
>>> Firefox and iTunes and EasyPHP and a dozen other popular
>>> Windows apps that make a Windows system into the lamest Unix
>>> in the world.
>>>
>>> When you can put Ubuntu on almost anything, and there is not
>>> only WINE but also a free virtualizer to run your whole XP,
>>> I sincerely don't get why you would bother going to
>>> Vista-based Windows. What kind of cool things are you
>>> expecting to happen on NT/DOS over the next few years? What
>>> is worth the hundreds of dollars in licensing fees, but even
>>> more, what is worth all this I-T work? What are you going to
>>> get on the other side? [/quote]
>>
>> Exactly. I found this a few days ago:
>>
>> Ubuntu Is Pretty Cool (My Linux Experiment)
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> * I had an old Windows XP laptop that was slow and required
>>> constant attention. One of the great things about almost any
>>> Linux distribution is that is small and efficient. It is
>>> often recommended as a good way to get some new life out of
>>> an older machine.
>
> Exactly. I have Windows 2000 Pro on my Dell C600 laptop with 850
> MHz Intel mobile processor. Win2k just grinds on-and-on to boot.
> Even when the desktop is up, one still has to wait for the disk
> grinding to cease, before using any applications. Ubuntu 8.04
> LTS boots quickly. Once the desktop is up, the disk grinding
> stops, I am ready to load an application.
Linux 2.6.31 is /very/ fast.
>>> * Ubuntu makes it easy. I picked the Ubuntu distribution
>>> because it was easy to figure out and install. The software
>>> takes you step by step through the process and even gives
>>> you the option to split your hard drive so you can have both
>>> Linux and Windows (or whatever) on the same machine.
>>>
>>> * I am not sacrificing much (if anything). As the title to
>>> this post suggests, Ubuntu is pretty cool. True, the user
>>> interface is a little different but, having oriented myself
>>> (and pretty quickly for an old guy, I am proud to say), it
>>> seems a little better than Windows. It does well all of the
>>> things my old Windows machine did poorly. I have faster
>>> web-browsing now through my trusty Firefox browser. Web apps
>>> (like Google Docs) are operating system agnostic and I have
>>> yet to run into a major plugin that is not also available
>>> for Linux distributions. Open Office (a free Office-like
>>> application) works very well with most of my Office files
>>> (and others). There are also tons of new productivity and
>>> gaming applications to explore as well, all with little
>>> (some would say no) risk of virus or malware infection.
>> `----
>>
>> http://sourcesandmethods.blogspot.com/2009/09/ubuntu-is-pretty-cool-my-linux.html
>
> True. It doesn't get any better than this! :-)
>
- --
~~ Best of wishes
"Unlike cockroaches, Windows NT is something you can't
possibly be unfair to." -- Peter da Silva
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.25 0.85 1.06 1/308 614
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkrGnOAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4xSwCgqKN4ow2DZ+5py0IMC0gm82ry
+BwAn0V83u/PqsVAjbl5e4MVbk5l17q+
=J+YN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
