rian Livingston/Scott Dunn of Windows Secrets Newsletter Upset Win 98 Users

Brian Livingston wrote one of the first and best series of
Windows books beginning with Windows 95 Secrets in 1995.

Since introduction of XP, he has consistently pooh-poohed Windows
98 users who have refused to switch and who cite the speed and
reliability of it and the lack of worry that some critical MS
download tonight will break their mission critical application
tomorrow.


In their latest newsletter Scott Dunn writes:

But like a fabled perpetual motion machine, XP keeps on going and
going -- and if you follow some simple guidelines, the OS will
keep running in top condition until Vista's successor is ready in
2010.

XP is an operating system with serious legs.

Microsoft may not have planned it this way, but XP could end up
rivaling NT and 2000 as the version of Windows with the longest
lifespan.

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080515

This statement upset Win 98 users who know from experience that
the high point of MS relative development excellence and overall
reliability and usability remains Win 98.

In their next newsletter, Dunn wrote:

XP SP3 triggers false positives in security apps

Installing Windows XP Service Pack 3 can cause your anti-malware
programs to report the presence of Trojans and keyloggers that
aren't there.

The false positives have blocked important system files in some
cases, and in others they have misled users into reinstalling XP

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080522

Their system with legs, their system with the longest life
expectancy just had one of its biggest screwups yet.

When XP came out, many 98 users said they had to wait to see
something equal in stability. XP SP3 shows they need to wait
some more.

Given 98's at the moment indefinite life, 98 will end up the
windows system with the longest life expectancy.

"smith" wrote in message
...
Brian Livingston wrote one of the first and best series of
Windows books beginning with Windows 95 Secrets in 1995.

snipped
Watch yourself, PCR has that book memorized.

--


Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Oh, great! Another Luddite to shower us with BS.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"smith" wrote in message
...
Brian Livingston wrote one of the first and best series of
Windows books beginning with Windows 95 Secrets in 1995.

Since introduction of XP, he has consistently pooh-poohed Windows
98 users who have refused to switch and who cite the speed and
reliability of it and the lack of worry that some critical MS
download tonight will break their mission critical application
tomorrow.


In their latest newsletter Scott Dunn writes:

But like a fabled perpetual motion machine, XP keeps on going and
going -- and if you follow some simple guidelines, the OS will
keep running in top condition until Vista's successor is ready in
2010.

XP is an operating system with serious legs.

Microsoft may not have planned it this way, but XP could end up
rivaling NT and 2000 as the version of Windows with the longest
lifespan.

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080515

This statement upset Win 98 users who know from experience that
the high point of MS relative development excellence and overall
reliability and usability remains Win 98.

In their next newsletter, Dunn wrote:

XP SP3 triggers false positives in security apps

Installing Windows XP Service Pack 3 can cause your anti-malware
programs to report the presence of Trojans and keyloggers that
aren't there.

The false positives have blocked important system files in some
cases, and in others they have misled users into reinstalling XP

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080522

Their system with legs, their system with the longest life
expectancy just had one of its biggest screwups yet.

When XP came out, many 98 users said they had to wait to see
something equal in stability. XP SP3 shows they need to wait
some more.

Given 98's at the moment indefinite life, 98 will end up the
windows system with the longest life expectancy.

"Gary S. Terhune" none wrote in
:

Oh, great! Another Luddite to shower us with BS.

Are you referring to the poster Smith or Widows Secrets author
Scott Dunn?

Top-Poster and Full-Quoter supreme "Gary S. Terhune" spewed:

Oh, great! Another Luddite to shower us with BS.

You're such a loser Gary.

XP was abortion of OS until August 2004 (at the earliest). It was not
ready for prime-time when it was launched as a replacement for 98 back
in the fall of 2001.

The world saw an explosion of spam starting in 2003 thanks to the
hoards of bot-controlled XP machines in homes and offices. Win-98
right out-of-the-box was more secure than XP.

XP was released 6 weeks after 9/11 - making it the computer world's
version of 9/11.

Until SP2 came out, you take an XP machine and give it a live internet
connection and it becomes infected in under 30 minutes. No e-mail
opening, no web-surfing required.

Win-98 is going away only because of a lack of drivers written for it,
and because of the illegal practices that Milkro$oft uses to insure
that nobody can sell new hardware without an OS.

Microsoft could have done some VERY simple things to make 98 more
stable, like increasing the heap sizes. The reputation '98 got in the
retarded tech-press back in 1999 and 2000 were the fault of (a) bad
AGP drivers, and (B) trying to run it with a ridiculously low 16 or 32
mb of memory.

PLONK (You're making my list quite long, you twit.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Nine-Tee-8-GY" wrote in message
...
Top-Poster and Full-Quoter supreme "Gary S. Terhune" spewed:

Oh, great! Another Luddite to shower us with BS.

You're such a loser Gary.

XP was abortion of OS until August 2004 (at the earliest). It was not
ready for prime-time when it was launched as a replacement for 98 back
in the fall of 2001.

The world saw an explosion of spam starting in 2003 thanks to the
hoards of bot-controlled XP machines in homes and offices. Win-98
right out-of-the-box was more secure than XP.

XP was released 6 weeks after 9/11 - making it the computer world's
version of 9/11.

Until SP2 came out, you take an XP machine and give it a live internet
connection and it becomes infected in under 30 minutes. No e-mail
opening, no web-surfing required.

Win-98 is going away only because of a lack of drivers written for it,
and because of the illegal practices that Milkro$oft uses to insure
that nobody can sell new hardware without an OS.

Microsoft could have done some VERY simple things to make 98 more
stable, like increasing the heap sizes. The reputation '98 got in the
retarded tech-press back in 1999 and 2000 were the fault of (a) bad
AGP drivers, and (B) trying to run it with a ridiculously low 16 or 32
mb of memory.

The poster. But perhaps I was too harsh and "smith" was just passing along
info with no agenda whatsoever.

Because I also take issue with the Dunn. Thus the "shower us with BS" part,
though it's pretty obvious to me that he was engaging in hyperbole, and/or
even tweaking 98 fanatics.

The world -- business, industrial, and to a lesser degree, SOHO and basic
home users -- is MUCH more heavily invested in WinXP than it ever was in
Win98. Just because Microsoft comes out with a new system in 2010 (if they
do), it's still going to be many, many years before WinXP loses anything
like the share Win98 lost in a relatively short time after XP was released.

And just where is the cutoff line? When does an OS stop having "legs"? 5%
share? 3% share? 1% share? 0.5% share? 0.0000000001% share? Because it's
already well into the lower of those numbers and steadily sinking, whereas
investment in XP just keeps increasing. No, I didn't say XP's market share
is increasing (not sure), I'm talking about actual sales of the OS, plus
continuing programming and hardware development based upon the XP model --
money spent that people will want to get their full use out of.

Who knows what MS will do for their next OS, but if it's not going to be
another Vista, it will have to be a whole new paradigm. What Vista was
supposed to be. That translates into "expensive to change over", because
there will be little question of bringing forward old apps. It's going to
mean all new everything, everywhere. (Though MS *might* be able to pull off
some compatibility tricks, like they did in XP, the more they do so, the
more likely they are to compromise the new OS.) Which means that their
marketing techniques will have to change, also, to embrace a much longer
cycle. Of course, they could do lots of things to force the market, but I'm
betting that, the computer-using public having fully matured by then,
consumers won't react well to heavy-handed tactics (like waving the
end-of-support matrix in our faces.)

If they're *really* lucky, the new OS will have such obvious advantages that
the change over will be relatively fast and enthusiastic. Even *then* it
will take several years more for XP to come close to ducking under 10%
market share.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"windows user" wrote in message
...
"Gary S. Terhune" none wrote in
:

Oh, great! Another Luddite to shower us with BS.

Are you referring to the poster Smith or Widows Secrets author
Scott Dunn?

I misspoke when I used the term "market share" in the last sentence. Now
that I think about it, I'm not sure what term to use, but I'm talking about
percentage of machines in use.

Also, it is obviously "Mr. Dunn" we are speaking of, not "the Dunn".

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Gary S. Terhune" none wrote in message
...
The poster. But perhaps I was too harsh and "smith" was just passing along
info with no agenda whatsoever.

Because I also take issue with the Dunn. Thus the "shower us with BS"
part, though it's pretty obvious to me that he was engaging in hyperbole,
and/or even tweaking 98 fanatics.

The world -- business, industrial, and to a lesser degree, SOHO and basic
home users -- is MUCH more heavily invested in WinXP than it ever was in
Win98. Just because Microsoft comes out with a new system in 2010 (if they
do), it's still going to be many, many years before WinXP loses anything
like the share Win98 lost in a relatively short time after XP was
released.

And just where is the cutoff line? When does an OS stop having "legs"? 5%
share? 3% share? 1% share? 0.5% share? 0.0000000001% share? Because it's
already well into the lower of those numbers and steadily sinking, whereas
investment in XP just keeps increasing. No, I didn't say XP's market share
is increasing (not sure), I'm talking about actual sales of the OS, plus
continuing programming and hardware development based upon the XP model --
money spent that people will want to get their full use out of.

Who knows what MS will do for their next OS, but if it's not going to be
another Vista, it will have to be a whole new paradigm. What Vista was
supposed to be. That translates into "expensive to change over", because
there will be little question of bringing forward old apps. It's going to
mean all new everything, everywhere. (Though MS *might* be able to pull
off some compatibility tricks, like they did in XP, the more they do so,
the more likely they are to compromise the new OS.) Which means that their
marketing techniques will have to change, also, to embrace a much longer
cycle. Of course, they could do lots of things to force the market, but
I'm betting that, the computer-using public having fully matured by then,
consumers won't react well to heavy-handed tactics (like waving the
end-of-support matrix in our faces.)

If they're *really* lucky, the new OS will have such obvious advantages
that the change over will be relatively fast and enthusiastic. Even *then*
it will take several years more for XP to come close to ducking under 10%
market share.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


"windows user" wrote in message
...
"Gary S. Terhune" none wrote in
:

Oh, great! Another Luddite to shower us with BS.

Are you referring to the poster Smith or Widows Secrets author
Scott Dunn?

smith wrote:
| Brian Livingston wrote one of the first and best series of
| Windows books beginning with Windows 95 Secrets in 1995.

I DO have "Windows 98 Secrets" (Livingston/Straub), just as Brian A.
said-- & I have read each of the 1207 pages 1.3 times!

| Since introduction of XP, he has consistently pooh-poohed Windows
| 98 users who have refused to switch and who cite the speed and
| reliability of it and the lack of worry that some critical MS
| download tonight will break their mission critical application
| tomorrow.

I forgive him for that-- owing to he &/or Straub must sadly have
succumbed to XP-irradiation poisoning! Half our MVPs here are also
half-succumbed themselves! They each have one glowing eye & two purple
toes!

| In their latest newsletter Scott Dunn writes:
|
| But like a fabled perpetual motion machine, XP keeps on going and
| going -- and if you follow some simple guidelines, the OS will
| keep running in top condition until Vista's successor is ready in
| 2010.
|
| XP is an operating system with serious legs.

Those are legs that have fallen off long-term XP-user hips!

| Microsoft may not have planned it this way, but XP could end up
| rivaling NT and 2000 as the version of Windows with the longest
| lifespan.
|
| http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080515
|
| This statement upset Win 98 users who know from experience that
| the high point of MS relative development excellence and overall
| reliability and usability remains Win 98.
|
| In their next newsletter, Dunn wrote:
|
| XP SP3 triggers false positives in security apps
|
| Installing Windows XP Service Pack 3 can cause your anti-malware
| programs to report the presence of Trojans and keyloggers that
| aren't there.
|
| The false positives have blocked important system files in some
| cases, and in others they have misled users into reinstalling XP
|
| http://windowssecrets.com/comp/080522
|
| Their system with legs, their system with the longest life
| expectancy just had one of its biggest screwups yet.
|
| When XP came out, many 98 users said they had to wait to see
| something equal in stability. XP SP3 shows they need to wait
| some more.
|
| Given 98's at the moment indefinite life, 98 will end up the
| windows system with the longest life expectancy.

Uh-huh. And wearing tinfoil hats & radiation suits, it will be up to us
98-users to carry those XP/Vista machines to the nuclear-reactor energy
sites where they belong. They can heat water better than radium &
strontium-13 ever did! It used to take a certain MVP 15 minutes to heat
a burrito on a Win98 machine-- now, he does it in 10 seconds on an
XP-machine! And a certain other MVP can no longer drink cold beer within
10 feet of his XP-machine beyond the first sip!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR