Save Windows XP

[Valandil]

Fail troll stuff

Intelligent stuff

This is why I didn't want to reply cogently. Too much effort for too little reward.

/agree with Wraith, for the sake of.

[DicyDax]

Yeah, so what? The Chinese people haven't done anything against it, they obviously don't care that much. They never asked for help. America is just being a bitch all the time.

Now, whilst I agree that China sucks, and that it is possibly the source of all evil, I don't think we should care. That's China's problem, let them solve it themselves. That's what we did.

[Wraith]

Yeah, so what? The Chinese people haven't done anything against it, they obviously don't care that much. They never asked for help. America is just being a bitch all the time.

Now, whilst I agree that China sucks, and that it is possibly the source of all evil, I don't think we should care. That's China's problem, let them solve it themselves. That's what we did.

Yea, who cares about the suffering of others. As long as it's not us, right?

Is this the general attitude of Denmark? Cause it it is, it's no wonders you guys aren't in the war, it's not because you love peace, it's because you're self-centered assholes!

[DicyDax]

Yeah. We are.

[Beta-guy]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5htzw ... gD91K1CM00

REDMOND, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft Corp. is scheduled to stop selling its Windows XP operating system to retailers and major computer makers Monday, despite protests from a slice of PC users who don't want to be forced into using XP's successor, Vista.

Once computers loaded with XP have been cleared from the inventory of PC makers such as Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co., consumers who can't live without the old operating system on their new machine will have to buy Vista Ultimate or Vista Business and then legally "downgrade" to XP.

Windows XP
RIP
2001 - 2008

[Wraith]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

[Corax]

HURRY SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION BECAUSE MICROSOFT TOTALLY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ONLINE PETITIONS

[Scone]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

If people could manage the learning curve, we should all switch to Gnu or Linux or Unix and march at Stallman's side in the FSF.

[tak197]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

Though I use Vista and am happy with it, my only complaint is the size. Isn't XP only about 1.4 GB in size and Vista 3.0GB in size?

[NintendoRev]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

Though I use Vista and am happy with it, my only complaint is the size. Isn't XP only about 1.4 GB in size and Vista 3.0GB in size?

Well that's like comparing 98 to XP in terms of size =P Vista's larger because it has alot more features and such. Anyways, I've got vista on this machine and it's been just fine for me since march (when i built the PC). So it's all good.

[Wraith]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

If people could manage the learning curve, we should all switch to Gnu or Linux or Unix and march at Stallman's side in the FSF.

Why the hell would we want to do that?

And anyone can manage the learning curve. They just don't want to. They see a slight changed and panic and throw their hands up and call me like it's the end of the freaking world.

[Wraith]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

Though I use Vista and am happy with it, my only complaint is the size. Isn't XP only about 1.4 GB in size and Vista 3.0GB in size?

Yes, but dude, the smallest desktop drive most companies make these days (unless you're talking about specialized high-spin drives) are 160GB. 3GB isn't all that bad.

[Cake]

My first computer I got when I was 15 had a 4 gig hard drive, and I couldn't fill it up. Now, somehow, I filled a 250 gig hd, and a 100 gig external drive. 0% is porn.

[tak197]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

Though I use Vista and am happy with it, my only complaint is the size. Isn't XP only about 1.4 GB in size and Vista 3.0GB in size?

Yes, but dude, the smallest desktop drive most companies make these days (unless you're talking about specialized high-spin drives) are 160GB. 3GB isn't all that bad.

Exactly. So the problem only exists if you have an older computer and are upgrading to Vista, as the memory size isn't as big as it is now. I wouldn't install it on my desktops at home (mine is from 2003, my parents' is from 2001), but I have a sync cable for them both to connect, and the XP files transfer to Vista in a snap.

[empath]

My first computer I got when I was 15 had a 4 gig hard drive, and I couldn't fill it up.

*wistful sigh* Well, my first computer had an 8-bit processor, 32kb ram, and no internal storage (tape drives FTL!). My first *PC* had an 8088 4.77MHz cpu, 384kb RAM, and...no internal storage; after upgrading memory to the 'maximum' of 604kb, I got a HUGE 20Mb (imagine - you could almost store 30 double-density 3.5" floppies on it!!!1! )

Now, somehow, I filled a 250 gig hd, and a 100 gig external drive. 0% is porn.

Hmmm, 350Gb total; so you've got 1.6 Gb of pron on there?

But seriously - yeah; 'programmer bloat' is a major issue: they always have a desire 'fill that 'unused' space.' What happened to being able to fit a full word processor (including multiple spelling dictionaries) zipped on a single High-Density 3.5" floppy?

Lessee...I've got a 288Gb according to Vista (supposed to be a 320Gb drive according to the sticker on the side of the case that I never got around to removing), and 160 gigs of that is taken up...by games, a few apps, a ton of lolcat and 'inspiration poster' pics, and...huh...not very much pron at all. Guess that's what the web is for!

[Wraith]

Meh. If they're getting new machines, it should be able to handle Vista. I feel a great deal of pitty for people so terrified of a little change that they downgrade their computers to avoid a minor learning curve.

Though I use Vista and am happy with it, my only complaint is the size. Isn't XP only about 1.4 GB in size and Vista 3.0GB in size?

Yes, but dude, the smallest desktop drive most companies make these days (unless you're talking about specialized high-spin drives) are 160GB. 3GB isn't all that bad.

Exactly. So the problem only exists if you have an older computer and are upgrading to Vista, as the memory size isn't as big as it is now. I wouldn't install it on my desktops at home (mine is from 2003, my parents' is from 2001), but I have a sync cable for them both to connect, and the XP files transfer to Vista in a snap.

No arguments there. As a general rule, I don't recommend upgrading the OS on a system that was built more than a year before the OS was released without upgrading the system. This doesn't always apply, of course. If you built a top of the line monster system in mid 2006, it should still have enough power to run Vista just fine.

And yea, Vista's files and settings transfer tool is a GREAT tool.

[Beta-guy]

But seriously - yeah; 'programmer bloat' is a major issue: they always have a desire 'fill that 'unused' space.' What happened to being able to fit a full word processor (including multiple spelling dictionaries) zipped on a single High-Density 3.5" floppy?

with less bloat, it's easier to track down bugs, and make a stable OS... Windows 2000 and XP beat Vista in performance. you know what I'd consider a perfect OS? Windows XP, with DirectX 10.1 and get rid of WPA, the only people it inconveniences are the honest consumers. That'd be perfect. if they could optimize the code to perform like NT4 even better.

when I buy an OS I want functionality, and performance not a bunch of crappy features that end up causing potential problems/security holes and lower performance. To be clear I've been using Vista since Christmas (constantly) as it came on a laptop I got. I even got it on the day it came out and put it on my quad core. for me there really wasn't a 'learning curve' so I don't oppose Vista for a learning curve.

[scorpkahnpoop]

If you want performance and functionality Winodws is not the way to go.

[Beta-guy]

If you want performance and functionality Winodws is not the way to go.

I'd go with Linux, but I need compatibility for games, and until Linux get all the commercial games released on Linux, I'm stuck on Windows, that said I'm also looking at ReactOS (once it's matured) right now it doesn't do much but it's an open source project trying to recreate 'Windows' for binary/driver compatibility, and similar UI. it'll be a while yet but once it's finished, I bet it'll be good to go

[Wraith]

with less bloat, it's easier to track down bugs, and make a stable OS... Windows 2000 and XP beat Vista in performance.

That kind of depends on how you define performance. If you strictly mean how much horsepower you have left to run applications while running the OS, then yes, 2000 and XP beat Vista. But you know what? Windows 95 beats all three of them. You could run that on a Pentium 1 and 16MB of RAM. Stability, versatility and security are just as important to me, and in those arenas, Vista is tops.

when I buy an OS I want functionality, and performance not a bunch of crappy features that end up causing potential problems/security holes and lower performance.

What features are causing potential security holes in Vista?

To be clear I've been using Vista since Christmas (constantly) as it came on a laptop I got. I even got it on the day it came out and put it on my quad core. for me there really wasn't a 'learning curve' so I don't oppose Vista for a learning curve.

Then why did you earlier say that you got frustrated because you couldn't figure out a BSOD and uninstalled it?

[Wraith]

If you want performance and functionality Winodws is not the way to go.

Holy crap, Scorp are you STILL flapping your sad little n00b gums? Because I haven't seen any evidence that you've learned anything about computers.

[scorpkahnpoop]

lol. It's is you that clearly knows not enough.

lol at the fact my g0g account was banned but not this one.

[Beta-guy]

with less bloat, it's easier to track down bugs, and make a stable OS... Windows 2000 and XP beat Vista in performance.

That kind of depends on how you define performance. If you strictly mean how much horsepower you have left to run applications while running the OS, then yes, 2000 and XP beat Vista. But you know what? Windows 95 beats all three of them. You could run that on a Pentium 1 and 16MB of RAM. Stability, versatility and security are just as important to me, and in those arenas, Vista is tops.

when I buy an OS I want functionality, and performance not a bunch of crappy features that end up causing potential problems/security holes and lower performance.

What features are causing potential security holes in Vista?

To be clear I've been using Vista since Christmas (constantly) as it came on a laptop I got. I even got it on the day it came out and put it on my quad core. for me there really wasn't a 'learning curve' so I don't oppose Vista for a learning curve.

Then why did you earlier say that you got frustrated because you couldn't figure out a BSOD and uninstalled it?

1. I don't see any features in Vista that makes the 'need' to upgrade from XP to Vista, to performance to feature ratio in my opinion is XP is the winner, unless you like aero suck up time on your video card while you're trying to play Crysis... and if you're on a laptop... well expect short battery life while areo is making use of the video card's hardware acceleration. the ONLY features I'd say add anything to Vista are Windows Calendar (they brought it back from Windows 3.1 and added new features to it), Windows DVD Maker (I don't use it but can see others enjoying it), they finally did Windows Update the way I was expecting it to be done in windows 98, and finally Logical Disk Manager, the ability to resize partitions is an excellent feature, the rest I think vista would benefit by having removed. oh yeah yay for UAC

2. you want to know what features are security holes? http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=875 and as always security holes will continues to be found.

3.I bought Vista the day it was out, and was pissed off by the BSOD and 6 months later I formatted and stuck X64 on it, XP X64 was on it until it eventually died just a short while ago. I got a laptop for Christmas it was preloaded with vista, and I ran it with vista. the BSOD's on my quad core has been suggested that it could be an incompatibility with the NVIDIA 680I chipset atleast at the time, I'm hoping drivers are out to resolve that issue.

[Wraith]

lol. It's is you that clearly knows not enough.

lol at the fact my g0g account was banned but not this one.

Right. Of course. You can tell I don't know what I'm talking about from that time I said that I could get Sims to run with 2megs of RAM on a MAC. Or that times when I didn't know what a BBS was. Or when I made claim after claim about Windows that was thoroughly debunked. I mean, what kind of idiot would say such things?



Wait...something was wrong with that statement...hmmm....

[Wraith]

1. I don't see any features in Vista that makes the 'need' to upgrade from XP to Vista

1. You don't 'need' to upgrade. It's just advantageous to do so.
2. The features are gravy. Improved stability and security are the main course.

...performance to feature ratio in my opinion is XP is the winner, unless you like aero suck up time on your video card while you're trying to play Crysis...

I do. The high frame rate I'm left with reminds me that I know how to build solid gaming rigs.

and if you're on a laptop... well expect short battery life while areo is making use of the video card's hardware acceleration.

Gee, if only laptop graphic cards were optimized for low power consumption, so that the difference was nominal.

the ONLY features I'd say add anything to Vista are Windows Calendar (they brought it back from Windows 3.1 and added new features to it), Windows DVD Maker (I don't use it but can see others enjoying it), they finally did Windows Update the way I was expecting it to be done in windows 98, and finally Logical Disk Manager, the ability to resize partitions is an excellent feature, the rest I think vista would benefit by having removed. oh yeah yay for UAC

2. you want to know what features are security holes? http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=875 and as always security holes will continues to be found.

So, the best you could come up with a vulnerability that involved surfing sketchy websites while Speech recognition (which I've yet to meet anyone who actually USES it) is enabled, then sitting there, while a set of audio commands are played loudly through your your speakers, and a set of commands are issued, all the while this is being displayed on your screen.



Yea. I no longer feel safe with Vista

3.I bought Vista the day it was out, and was pissed off by the BSOD and 6 months later I formatted and stuck X64 on it, XP X64 was on it until it eventually died just a short while ago. I got a laptop for Christmas it was preloaded with vista, and I ran it with vista. the BSOD's on my quad core has been suggested that it could be an incompatibility with the NVIDIA 680I chipset atleast at the time, I'm hoping drivers are out to resolve that issue.

A posibility. It was actually suggested somewhere (though I confess I can't remember where), that nVidia drivers made up a third of the Vista crashes that happened in Vista's first year. They make awesome hardware, but they clearly need to work on their coding.