Microsoft Extends XP's Life (8GB, programs, app, versions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you sure you are not buddies with Steve Gates?(correction - Bill Gates)?
You wish that you can install as many times as you like.
M$ wants yours and most peoples money who are M$ lovers and as much of it as they can get away with.
is that not what a company regardless of what they make is wanting to make? of course they want money, all companies in buisness would like that, microsoft just happens to be one that is very good at it.
Ive had more devastating hard drive crashes using Linux than I ever had using Windows. Also, just a couple of years ago, if you were to shut off your PC without shutting down Linux properly, you would many times have to wipe the drive and re-install the OS. Maybe they have fixed that by now, but file system corruption was a HUGE problem on Linux (Fedora Core 4). Linux fanboys need to be careful what they wish for. Linux on every PC will only bring many of the so called "problems" with Windows over to Linux.
Face it, Linux is for geeks who like to spend a lot of time messing with their computers. They love things like fiddling in the command prompt, or compiling their software to install it, which would scare the average user away. They are advanced enough so they don't need or want the plug and play capabilities Windows users depend on. Windows and Mac are for people who want to just get stuff done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I don't know about the Linux of yesteryear - but I never heard of this type of problem with the Linux of the past few years.
MS Windows has its place as is Linux and MAC.
All I know is that I turn my computer on and do things just like a windows computer without the command line.
is that not what a company regardless of what they make is wanting to make? of course they want money, all companies in buisness would like that, microsoft just happens to be one that is very good at it.
no, they provide a product that people want. If demand dwindled, the price would drop. But they do have the market on major OS's cornered. Therefore as long as they have the demand, they can choose a price. It is very simple economics.
Linux and Mac are just as vernable to viruses as windows, maybe moreso. My brother a mac user, just got his first virus. Why did he not get one years before while not even running any scaning software? The market share is the awnser, mac was not that protected, and not that popular so virus producers were not putting any thought into it. The virus that did come out spread like wildfire amongst the mac world.
Right now, mac and Linux might run relativly well with low overhead, but if they were to gain a considerable ammount of market share, they to would be headed down the "bloat ware" path due to having to use virus scanners, and varrious other scanners to protect themselves.
Why does an anti-virus program have to be bloated? Theres no 'law' of antivirus that requires that... its just that companies KEEP making ****ty products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
Ive had more devastating hard drive crashes using Linux than I ever had using Windows. Also, just a couple of years ago, if you were to shut off your PC without shutting down Linux properly, you would many times have to wipe the drive and re-install the OS. Maybe they have fixed that by now, but file system corruption was a HUGE problem on Linux (Fedora Core 4). Linux fanboys need to be careful what they wish for. Linux on every PC will only bring many of the so called "problems" with Windows over to Linux.
Face it, Linux is for geeks who like to spend a lot of time messing with their computers. They love things like fiddling in the command prompt, or compiling their software to install it, which would scare the average user away. They are advanced enough so they don't need or want the plug and play capabilities Windows users depend on. Windows and Mac are for people who want to just get stuff done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I used to get a chkdsk run every single time, if I shut down windows improperly from 3.1-Me. Even now I get occasional chkdsks and problems with both of my Windows boots.
Thus far the only problem I've needed to resort to command line for was installing 3d ATI video card drivers on my linux boot. Everything else was done through the GUI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma
no, they provide a product that people want. If demand dwindled, the price would drop. But they do have the market on major OS's cornered. Therefore as long as they have the demand, they can choose a price. It is very simple economics.
Its called price gouging. Its the same bull that the Oil companies do. Yes, they have the market share, and YES they have a product that is very close to a necessity, and its because of that they can jack that price up to astronomical levels. Microsoft loses money on each Xbox they sell, same as Sony... they make that money up on the video game sales. $50-$60/ea. And the video game market is a LOT smaller than the OS market.. so... you're going to tell me that their price is fair? It will drop, just needs another force to act upon it for it to happen.
I'm all for people making money... I'm not all for the richest people making more money than is fair for a product that is largely a necessity of life.
I'm not even a linux fanboy and I support Linux. I'm actually a Windows Tech most of the time for my day job, so I know all about Windows. I think that linux is a better operating system. FOR EVERYONE.
So, stop this defeatist "its never going to happen bs"
Stop the, "It'll never make mainstream because Windows is superior"
Its all just ridiculous diatribes about the same useless points. None of you have brought forth any facts about Windows and its specific merits against Linux.
Your only arguments have been, "Its hard to learn, its hard to use"
Have any of you TOUCHED Office '07? Its the most confusing piece of software ever for long-time users. OpenOffice is damn close to the original office layouts (have to say I prefer excel over Calc or whatever it is).
Bring forth some serious arguments and some facts behind those arguments, or go download Ubuntu and give it a shot.
I'm an IT professional (software engineer) and the decision to keep XP alive is a wise choice by Microsoft. So far I haven't heard anything positive from people that I work with and installed Vista on their machines. Yes it's prettier than XP, and it has a couple of useful features that are not in XP, but I got no use for them. That's why I'm not in a hurry to upgrade to Vista anytime in near future.
I have 4 computers at home, 3 Windows XP Professional and Home (2 desktops and 1 laptop), and 1 Dell desktop that I rebuilt and runs RedHat Linux, and I use it for programming.
I built one of the desktops in 2004 so I can run my flight simulator, it has the Pentium 4 HT, 3.1 GHZ, 3 gigs of memory, GeForce 7800 OC 256 meg AGP Nvdia graphics card, 2 Western Digital 10,000 RPM SATA disk drives configured in RAID 1, and a 5.1 surround sound card. It is a very fast machine, but I will upgrade the hardware on it sometime in the near future and replace the motherboard with one built for the Duo or Quad core processors, PCI-Express graphics cards, and can support up to 8 gigs of memory. Even with this upgrade, I'm still going to stay with XP Home because an OS that requires a lot of resources from the machine to run, I will not bother with it. I'd rather see most of the resources allocated to the software, where it's really needed and XP does a good job at that.
It is a very fast machine, but I will upgrade the hardware on it sometime in the near future and replace the motherboard with one built for the Duo or Quad core processors, PCI-Express graphics cards, and can support up to 8 gigs of memory. Even with this upgrade, I'm still going to stay with XP Home because an OS that requires a lot of resources from the machine to run, I will not bother with it. I'd rather see most of the resources allocated to the software, where it's really needed and XP does a good job at that.
Why not use Windows 2000? It only uses 60MB of RAM on boot after install. Seriously, XP on a high end machines today with 8GB? of RAM is not necissary. XP won't even recognize half of your RAM. You will not see any slowdown from using Vista on that PC.
MS extending the life of XP until the next version is released is basically the death of Vista. Nobody wants to give up XP, even if it means not full utilizing their high end systems. MS MUST kill off XP after the next version is released or in 2015 people will still be using XP on 8-core systems with 16GB of RAM because "it works faster".
Like I said to you earlier in this thread that I respect your choice of using Windows - to each their own.
TiVo and most DVR's run a Linux based OS. Why? Because there is no licensing fees paid to Microsoft for a MS OS and the Linux based OS's run just fine as witnessed by the huge installed base of TiVo and other DVR's!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.