If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:17:30 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: Char Jackson wrote in : My point there is that it all takes work. Underneath it all, the average office user is having to upgrade again and again just to stay where they want to be! That's actually not true, at least in my experience. Plenty of office users around my area are still using W2k and XP, I'd say a large majority, quite a few years after Vista and 7 have been released. Good. Just means they ARE digging their heels in. Not that many firms can upgrade whenever M$ insists on it. Not at all. Businesses upgrade when it makes sense for them to do so. There's no digging in heels, nor is there any Microsoft insistence. Tech refresh usually happens on a semi-fixed cycle, but it varies based on the costs to refresh versus the costs to maintain the status quo. Costs in this case aren't limited to dollars. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:01:24 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote: Char Jackson wrote in : The typical user, the average user, doesn't need to know the first thing about disk access, so that probably isn't a great example. In fact, I don't know what you were trying to point out there. :-) Their ignorance costs. Every time the underlying OS changes methods to access files and hardware, someone has to write that new code. Not knowing this doesn't make the problem go away. It just puts the burden on others. We're not talking about developers, we're talking about users. As users, people don't need to know the first thing about APIs and disk access methods. Do you have a better example to illustrate the point you're trying to make? BTW, have you noticed that each of your posts includes multiple paragraphs of unrelated ranting? I snip it, of course, but I'm curious. What's that all about? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
Char Jackson wrote in
: BTW, have you noticed that each of your posts includes multiple paragraphs of unrelated ranting? I snip it, of course, but I'm curious. What's that all about? If you can't make the connections between scales of stuff, how will you understand? Scientists have to do it all the time, that;s how we get all our magic boxes. If you want tight, pert little answers, buy them in boxes like everyone else who wants that. Fortunately, that';s not what I'm here for. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
Char Jackson wrote in
: On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:17:30 -0600, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Char Jackson wrote in m: My point there is that it all takes work. Underneath it all, the average office user is having to upgrade again and again just to stay where they want to be! That's actually not true, at least in my experience. Plenty of office users around my area are still using W2k and XP, I'd say a large majority, quite a few years after Vista and 7 have been released. Good. Just means they ARE digging their heels in. Not that many firms can upgrade whenever M$ insists on it. Not at all. Businesses upgrade when it makes sense for them to do so. There's no digging in heels, nor is there any Microsoft insistence. Tech refresh usually happens on a semi-fixed cycle, but it varies based on the costs to refresh versus the costs to maintain the status quo. Costs in this case aren't limited to dollars. However you cut it, what remains is that people do what they want, and conflicts of interest DO arise. What matters to us who want to keep running the stuff we know and trust is that we don't give it up just because it won't run on a newer OS. The fact that any of it DOES run on newer system is entirely due to business having to win over those customers who would otherwise prefer to stay put. You may not want to call it 'digging in of heels', you could just call it inertia. But don't ever confuse it with stupidity or slowness. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:34:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: STILL USE XP???? I still use Win98. I never liked XP, and never used it on my home computer. It came on my laptop, and I found that the built in wifi dont work with anything earlier. But that computer is just for use on the road. I can run firefox and agent. Thats all I need on the road. I can tolrate Win2000, but nothing later. ---- Alcoholics Anonymous - Created Under the Influence of Belladonna & LSD |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
"BillW50" wrote in :
I still use Win98. How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95, and 98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or so. Lack of drivers is probably the worst. And lack of application support is probably number two. Another problem with Windows 98 that really bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources. How do you put up with that? Easily. Run code that does not wastefully consume them, and which returns them properly to be used again. W98 had a huge base of software. Shortage was never the problem. Drivers can be a problem, but even there ways can be found. Sound Forge and Cakewalk and many other things like LnS firewall all depend on their own drivers). Same goes for decent hardware, the maker usually supports it with their opwn driver. If maker doesn't care enough to do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway. Last but not at ALL least, W98 SE can be small, stable, fast, and it's a 32 bit OS with an extremely powerful API. The advances from W98 SE till now are small, incremental, compared to the jump between DOS and W98 SE. W98 won't ever become useless, even if the distant future sees lots of people still around with decent living standards, and fast computers that make today's stuff look like 1980's gear, there will still be people running W98 on a virtual machine because it does what they want. The only current development likely to make W98 anythign like obsolete is the huge growth in ARM chips instead of i386 chips. And this doesn't apply to desktop machines. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
BillW50 wrote:
STILL USE XP???? I still use Win98. How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95, and 98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or so. Lack of drivers is probably the worst. Lack of drivers has only really affected win-98 since maybe early 2006. More than 75% of the hardware (motherboards, video cards) available at retail in early 2006 still came with win-98 drivers. My own win-98 systems have socket-478 or socket-775 intel pentium CPU's running anywhere from 2.6 to 3.5 ghz, with 512mb and 1 gb ram, with SATA hard drives up to 1.5 tb in size, with Nvidia 6200 and 6600 AGP 8x video cards. Take a system like that, add KernelEx, and there isin't much software that you can't run on it. And lack of application support is probably number two. KernelEx. But truth be told, Firefox 2.0.0.20 (the last "win-9x/me" version) can still correctly render 99% of web pages today. But with KernelEx, you can go to higher versions of FF. I have Opera 11 when I absolutely need to access a handful of web-sites, but otherwise FF 2 is my default browser. Another problem with Windows 98 that really bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources. How do you put up with that? It's no issue, because you're recalling the days back in 1999 - 2001 when your average win-98 system was running with maybe 62 or 128 mb of ram and had buggy hardware drivers AND application programs. Over the next 2 to 4 years drivers and software improved. I simply don't have resource problems - and I have a taskbar with usually 10 or 20 apps running at any given time. Windows 98 lacked unlimited System Resources and limited USB support. Time to upgrade. There are universal USB drivers for win-98. System resources are no problem. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
98 Guy wrote in :
I have Opera 11 when I absolutely need to access a handful of web-sites, but otherwise FF 2 is my default browser. Do you find that FF makes a pig's ear of eBay CSS rendering? That was what drove me to use OperaUSB 10.63. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you still use Windows XP?
| Same goes for decent hardware, the maker
| usually supports it with their own driver. If maker doesn't care enough to | do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway. | I think that's a bit optimistic. I switched to XP from 98 because of hardware. There simply isn't a market for companies to write drivers. And some, like video hardware, are products that depend on forced obsolescence. If they're not constantly convincing teenagers that their video games are suffering under last years' chip then they're out of business. And even the few people who might be running Win98 wouldn't have any reason to update to such advanced graphics hardware. But they also can't just go and buy an 8MB ATI card with Win98 drivers at Staples. The hardware just isn't there anymore. I had an interesting experience at one point before I siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs by lying. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|