Searching \ for '[EE]:: Dell to factory install XP after June 30th' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=dell+factory+install
Search entire site for: ': Dell to factory install XP after June 30th'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Dell to factory install XP after June 30th'
2008\04\28@225430 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face


http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews


— Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall the
original software?
— A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end user.

A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell was
within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold
with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license.

2008\04\29@005922 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 4/29/08, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews
>
>
> — Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall the
> original software?
> — A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end user.
>
> A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell was
> within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold
> with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license.
>

The main issue is that Vista Ultimate is way too expensive.
Vista Business is cheaper but still more expensive than
Home Premium. But it is still good for customers who
really want XP and not Vista.

By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the same.

Xiaofan

2008\04\29@045638 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews

> — Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall
> the
> original software?
> — A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end
> user.

> A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell
> was
> within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold
> with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license.
/

> By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the
> same.

I would hope so.
"Doing the same" is just doing what u$oft allows for free.
Any good OEM PC supplier should offer the service as of
right.

Note that you are entitled to BOTH systems, any one at a
time, not just one or other.


       Russell

2008\04\29@052123 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews

> By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the
> same.

On the above page it also says:

The Round Rock, Tex.-based computer maker is not the only
OEM that has said it will provide customers with the older
operating system after Microsoft's deadline. Lenovo, the
Chinese company known for the ThinkPad line of laptops, will
sell XP media for downgrading through Jan. 31, 2009,
according to its website.

"Lenovo customers that have Windows Vista Business or
Windows Vista Ultimate 'qualified systems' may purchase a
Windows XP Recovery CD until January 31, 2009," the notice
read.

//

Note that buyers may legitimately copy an XPm Pro disk and
time and install it.



       R

2008\04\29@053622 by peter green

flavicon
face

> Note that buyers may legitimately copy an XPm Pro disk and
> time and install it.
>  
Yes you can use existing media to excercise the downgrade rights but
there are several advantages to having the OEM provide downgrade media
(as MS allowed big brand OEMs to do after some initial complaints) and
do the downgrade install.

1: If you use your own media and that media is whitebox or reail media
or media from the wrong big brand OEM afaict you will  have to telphone
activate, not an issue for those with access to legit VLK media/key but
potentially a majort PITA for some.
2: It saves you the hassle of actually doing the install
3: If the manufacturer is offering XP preinstalled then you will almost
certainly be able to easilly download XP drivers
4: dell at least will provide telephone support for both XP and vista
when you choose this option.

2008\04\29@091552 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Recently inherited an Dell Presario with XP home from granddaughter. Was
able to slipstream from the recovery disc and files on the HD an install
disc, which after installing different newly formated HD's was able to
successfully install XP, register it and use windows update.

Then decided to move the XP to another computer with an Intel
motherboard. Install went smooth, but when I tried to register it, I hit
a brick wall. Intel registry said I would have to do it through Dell,
and of course if I went to Dell and say the motherboard was changed,
they are going to sell me a new one or a new computer.Without
registering I couldn't keep updated, so I abandoned, XP is still working
on the Dell, and the Intel motherboard (which just failed 3 days ago,
but will be replaced) is running WINME dual boot with Kubuntu.

Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a
lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been
a struggle to get Linux up and running well.

peter green wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\29@154201 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On 4/29/08, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/A70864C555BE82C3CC257439006F2C60?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews
>>
>> — Q. Who can install the downgrade software or reinstall the
>> original software?
>> — A. An OEM (when authorised by end user), or the end user.
>>
>> A Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed late Friday that Dell was
>> within its rights to factory-install XP on machines sold
>> with a Vista Ultimate or Vista Business license.
>>
>
> The main issue is that Vista Ultimate is way too expensive.
> Vista Business is cheaper but still more expensive than
> Home Premium. But it is still good for customers who
> really want XP and not Vista.
>
> By the way, it is said that Lenovo is going to do the same.

I thought the "main" issue was that with identical hardware, and a fresh
load of XP and then a fresh load of Vista, numerous test sites have
indicated that performance on Vista is 30% lower for various benchmarks,
with no reasonable explanation from MS as to why Vista is considered an
"upgrade".

Businesspeople aren't going to pay for an "upgrade" that requires 30%
faster hardware to perform the same.

Nate

2008\04\29@154606 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Carl Denk wrote:

> Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a
> lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been
> a struggle to get Linux up and running well.

If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable
option and available today for most applications.

(I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply
aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already
over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money
up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it
behave.  Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to make...)

There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"...

Windows -- Consistently getting worse.
Mac -- Consistently getting better.
Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time,
depending on what you're trying to do.  (GRIN)

Nate

2008\04\29@174403 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I thought the "main" issue was that with identical
> hardware, and a fresh
load of XP and then a fresh load of Vista, numerous test
sites have
indicated that performance on Vista is 30% lower for various
benchmarks,
with no reasonable explanation from MS as to why Vista is
considered an
"upgrade".

Businesspeople aren't going to pay for an "upgrade" that
requires 30%
faster hardware to perform the same.
/>


I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what
has happened since time immemorial. As features are added
speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is
bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally
saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be
somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual
problems.

If you want really fast Word Processing performance with
minimal memory requirements and small file sizes you should
try Word 2 :-). Runs well on Windows 3.1. And so, alas, it
goes.



       Russell

2008\04\29@193658 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Nate Duehr <natespamKILLspamnatetech.com> wrote:
> Carl Denk wrote:
>
> > Moral: Can't take an OEM version and move it to another machine. As a
> > lower priority, I'm trying to migrate away from Microsoft, but has been
> > a struggle to get Linux up and running well.
>
> If you're moving to Linux and it's not working well, Mac is a viable
> option and available today for most applications.

It seems to me that you have a point here. There are some software
which is available for Mac OS X but not Linux (some Adobe, MS Offfice).

For those who are satisfied with XP, you can always stick to XP.
I still see shops selling OEM version of XP as long as you buy
a relative complete system from them. Actually I still see Windows
98SE offered in some shops but not many people will buy it.

> (I know there are some things that PICList members want that simply
> aren't available on anything other than Windows, but if you're already
> over that and willing to move to Linux, Mac may cost you more money
> up-front, but lead to less downtime while you "hack" on Linux to make it
> behave.  Cost vs. Time... the same business decision anyone has to make...)
>
> There's also another way to look at the OS "wars"...
>
> Windows -- Consistently getting worse.

The general perception of Windows Vista is not so positive
even though there are users who like it. Hopefully Windows 7
will change that.

> Mac -- Consistently getting better.

Seems to be true. And it seems to me Macs are getting
cheaper as well, but still more expensive than PC loaded
with Windows.

> Linux -- Consistently getting better and worse at the same time,
> depending on what you're trying to do.  (GRIN)

For desktop usage, I think it is getting better and better.
But I do not like GUI junks like Compiz. My Ubuntu
8.04 installation hangs during startup if Compiz
is enabled. Other than that Ubuntu 8.04 runs smoothly
(but XP runs very smoothly as well).


Xiaofan

2008\04\29@194613 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I  said was a
large  OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and
similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and
I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they
could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or
deny that. ~)     Note that I did not plan to have one license on more
than 1 machine.

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\29@195835 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Carl Denk <EraseMEcdenkspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTalltel.net> wrote:
> Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I  said was a
>  large  OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and
>  similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and
>  I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they
>  could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or
>  deny that. ~)     Note that I did not plan to have one license on more
>  than 1 machine.

What I see here is that those OEM licenses (for small shops with officially
Microsoft endorsement) are for DIY people who want to build their own
machine. It is not that cheap but you can get it. There are also shops
who sell retail version of Chinese and Japanese version of XP so that
people who would use those versions can do it since most of the
PCs here will be preloaded with English version of Windows XP/Vista.

Xiaofan

2008\04\29@195933 by peter green

flavicon
face
Carl Denk wrote:
> Maybe there is a gray area of OEM licenses. The case I  said was a
> large  OEM (Compaq), and probably the same applies to HP, Dell, and
> similar who handle the licenses . I see OEM versions of XP for sale, and
> I would think the license would go back to Microsoft on those, and they
> could be moved to another machine, but I have o experience to confirm or
> deny that. ~)     Note that I did not plan to have one license on more
> than 1 machine.
>  
There are two types of OEM windows.

Big brand OEM licenses (known by microsoft as "royalty OEM" are locked
to the bios and do not normally need activation. If you change the
motherboard then they will go into deactivated mode. Afaict MS usually
won't activate them under theese circumstances though there may be ways
to persude them.

Whitebox OEM (known by ms as "system builder") licenses are activated in
the same way as retail licenses. Afaict if you are prepared to lie on
the phone to MS it should be possible to get theese reactivated on a
different machine. Anyone can buy theese though you are suppposed to
register as a system builder before using them (MS don't seem to enforce
this requirement in any way though).

2008\04\30@044820 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Xiaofan,

Why do not you use Xubuntu instead? It uses Xfce, no Compiz, no Aqua or Aero
style stuff, but everything works purely and surely.

Tamas


On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\30@051520 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 4/30/08, Tamas Rudnai <KILLspamtamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why do not you use Xubuntu instead? It uses Xfce, no Compiz,
> no Aqua or Aero style stuff, but everything works purely and surely.

I like Gnome. When I disable Compiz, my Ubuntu 8.04 works
nicely just as the previous LTS version 6.06 and it offers
more up to date packages.

I do not need cut-down version like Xubutu since it does not
offer the same user experience as full Gnome/KDE environment.
I think it is only meant for really old hardware.

Xiaofan

2008\04\30@051810 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
compiz sits on top of your window manager of choice.
I use compiz on my EEE running XFCE in eeeXubuntu.
makes for the big wow factor ;->

Xiaofan probably has (still) a driver issue, I'd give the restricted
drivers a go or possibly try the "official" drivers direct from ATI but
thats likley going to suck ass.

I find compiz improves performance, desktop changes, minimises/maximises
etc are all pretty much instant (or cool looking), without it there is a
noticeable redraw delay (especially on slower systems (like the eee)).

Tamas Rudnai wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2008\04\30@061526 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 4/30/08, Jake Anderson <TakeThisOuTjakeEraseMEspamspam_OUTvapourforge.com> wrote:
> compiz sits on top of your window manager of choice.
> I use compiz on my EEE running XFCE in eeeXubuntu.
> makes for the big wow factor ;->
>
> Xiaofan probably has (still) a driver issue, I'd give the restricted
> drivers a go or possibly try the "official" drivers direct from ATI but
> thats likley going to suck ass.

I agree with you that there is a driver issue with my old ATI9800SE.
Last time I have tried the restricted driver and it sucks -- stability
issues. Anyway I really do not need compiz for the things I do.
Without compiz my life is easier under Linux. It forze my pass
installation of OpenSuse 10.3 and I remmeber Fedora 7 as well.
Fedora 8 is a different story thanks to the fact that it conflicted
with FreeBSD partitions. So I removed it and keep FreeBSD.

> I find compiz improves performance, desktop changes, minimises/maximises
> etc are all pretty much instant (or cool looking), without it there is a
> noticeable redraw delay (especially on slower systems (like the eee)).
>

I will wait for my next PC to use compiz. No more ATI graphics for
me (driver related issues), no more NVdia chipset for me (USB related
problems with NForce 3).

Xiaofan

2008\04\30@083930 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
What are the pros and cons of SP3 for XP, di I hear somewhere where Ms
was tightening the noose?

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\30@110105 by Jeff Findley

flavicon
face

"Apptech" <apptechEraseMEspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:010101c8aa42$1fa83560$e701a8c0@y2k...
> I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what
> has happened since time immemorial. As features are added
> speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is
> bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally
> saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be
> somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual
> problems.

While true, what's new in Vista that is really needed?

I've personally found XP SP2 to be more stable than Win98 SE, so I'm glad
that my newer PC's have XP.  Also, I find driver support in XP, especially
USB support, to be a lot better.  There is a lot of hardware I've bought
that works well with XP without the need to install a device specific
driver.

> If you want really fast Word Processing performance with
> minimal memory requirements and small file sizes you should
> try Word 2 :-). Runs well on Windows 3.1. And so, alas, it
> goes.

While true, there was a lot you could not do with Windows 3.1 that Win95 and
Win98 could do.  Windows 3.1 was still stuck with short 8.3 character
filenames, which was a fundamental restriction of the older DOS/Windows
architecture that was very "in your face" to users.

So the question to Microsoft is *why* is Vista better than XP?  I don't
think that this question has truly been answered.  We're still running 32
bit XP here at work.  XP 64 and Vista are both noticably slower when run on
the same hardware.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein



2008\04\30@112022 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Jeff Findley <EraseMEjeff.findleyspamugs.com> wrote:
>
> "Apptech" <RemoveMEapptechEraseMEspamEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:010101c8aa42$1fa83560$e701a8c0@y2k...
> > I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what
> > has happened since time immemorial. As features are added
> > speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is
> > bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally
> > saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be
> > somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual
> > problems.
>
> While true, what's new in Vista that is really needed?
>
> I've personally found XP SP2 to be more stable than Win98 SE, so I'm glad
> that my newer PC's have XP.  Also, I find driver support in XP, especially
> USB support, to be a lot better.  There is a lot of hardware I've bought
> that works well with XP without the need to install a device specific
> driver.
>

When it comes to USB, newer version of Windows generally
have better support than the old versions. XP SP2 will of course
be much better than Windows 98SE in terms of USB. Even
the ill-fated Windows Me has better USB support than
Windows 98SE.
www.microsoft.com/whdc/connect/USB/USBFAQ_intro.mspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms794253.aspx

Windows XP SP3 will fix some bugs for USB with XP SP2.
But Vista SP1 should be better in this aspect.

Example: http://www.cygnal.org/ubb/Forum9/HTML/001572.html

Wikipedia does list a lot of Vista features.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

But I've heard enough of Vista problem. Even my wife now
starts to complain about her new Vista notebook. Initially
she has very few problems. Now it seems she has more
and more problems... But stillshe does not want to use
my XP desktop and let me use her Vista notebook. ;-)

Xiaofan

2008\04\30@122920 by Dr Skip

picon face
Don't say I didn't warn ya! ;)

Humans are adaptable, and you get used to the Vista problems (like scheduling
large copies at over night) if you have no choice or for a new large screen or
such. Isn't it great we get to PAY for the privilege of exercising our
adaptability? ;)


Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> But I've heard enough of Vista problem. Even my wife now
> starts to complain about her new Vista notebook. Initially
> she has very few problems. Now it seems she has more
> and more problems... But stillshe does not want to use
> my XP desktop and let me use her Vista notebook. ;-)
>
> Xiaofan

2008\04\30@140329 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Carl Denk wrote:

> What are the pros and cons of SP3 for XP, di I hear somewhere where Ms
> was tightening the noose?


Not sure, but there was an article out yesterday that the release is  
delayed due to problems with it.

--
Nate Duehr
RemoveMEnatespam_OUTspamKILLspamnatetech.com



2008\04\30@210216 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Carl Denk <RemoveMEcdenkTakeThisOuTspamspamalltel.net> wrote:
> What are the pros and cons of SP3 for XP, di I hear somewhere where Ms
>  was tightening the noose?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=68c48dad-bc34-40be-8d85-6bb4f56f5110&displaylang=en

Normally as all the service packs, a small minority of user will have
problems. SP2 breaks a lot of things but SP3 should have less
impact than SP2.

One good thing about SP3 is that it include SP1/SP2. So
you do not need even to have SP1 in order to install SP3.
But I guess most of the people should have SP2 installed,
or at least SP1.

Xiaofan

2008\04\30@211018 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Thanks :)
With a little luck, I should be able to slipstream SP3 making reinstall
quick and simple. :)  But I think I'll wait a while on that until
experience shows it's kind of stable. :)

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\30@215502 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 11:00 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:
> So the question to Microsoft is *why* is Vista better than XP?  I don't
> think that this question has truly been answered.  We're still running 32
> bit XP here at work.  XP 64 and Vista are both noticably slower when run on
> the same hardware.

I think you are hitting the nail on the head.

Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've experienced has produced
a TANGIBLE benefit. Yes, the new OSs often ran slower on the same
hardware, but you lived with it because the new OS gave you something
you didn't get in the old one.

win3.1->win95 gave real 32bit app support, long file names, and an
actually useful GUI
win95->win98 gave real FAT32 support (technically win95b was first with
FAT, but there were many issues that weren't resolved until 98), MUCH
better stability, and actually useful USB support (win95c had USB, but
it sucked beyond belief)
win98->win2k gave the incredible stability of WinNT, but fused most of
the usability of 98, alone with pretty decent USB support, a better file
system, and much better networking suport
win2k->winXP basically bettered the "fusing", taking out some of the
"crankiness" of win2k, pretty much perfected USB support, actually
bettered performance in a few ways, and to some people improved the GUI
(I prefer the win2k style, but that's me)

What has winXP->Vista given us? Aside from the eye candy (which isn't
even AVAILABLE in every version of VISTA) everything else is seen by
most of the public as worse. Yes, security is tighter in Vista, but it
annoys the user to much they want to throw the machine out the window.

See, VISTA was initially GOING to provide numerous benefits over XP.
They had plans for a truly useful enhancement to the file system, along
with many other features that would have blown XP out of the water.
Unfortunately for MS, they ran so far behind they were basically forced
to release VISTA without these features, leaving a shell of an OS that
doesn't seem to offer any reason for existing, other then lining MS's
wallet.

In the mean time MacOS has catapulted itself up the feature ladder, many
people consider MacOS a more modern and feature filled OS then Vista.
Linux on the desktop has also improved by many magnitudes, some would
say it's reached the feature set of Vista, others would say it hasn't,
but it is getting there.

These next few years will be interesting for MS, they don't have
something to save they're butt like Win2K was for the massive failure
that was WinME. It'll be fun to watch, no matter which way things go.

TTYL

2008\04\30@223608 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've
> experienced has produced
> a TANGIBLE benefit.

DOS 4 ? :-)

And, while I hated ME at the time, in retrospect it does
some useful things better than its predecessor.

I have XP & W2000 on all machines here (mix of desktops and
laptops) except one laptop with Vista Home+ or whatever they
call it. So far I have been unable to access the laptop from
the LAN, but can use it freely to access LAN and internet
via LAN. No amount of trying to turn off the things which
seem to be blocking me has so far managed to turn off the
things that are blocking me.



       Russell

2008\04\30@230114 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechKILLspamspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've
>  > experienced has produced
>  > a TANGIBLE benefit.
>
>  DOS 4 ? :-)

DOS 4 provided some improvement over DOS 3.3 along with some
bugs. For example, DOSSHELL "GUI". But DOS 4.01 fixed those bugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_x86_DOS_operating_systems

But I admit I only used DOS 3.3 extensively last time. And then
I used Windows 95, skipping Windows 3.x.

>  And, while I hated ME at the time, in retrospect it does
>  some useful things better than its predecessor.

For example, USB mass storage support.

Xiaofan

2008\04\30@232139 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 14:35 +1200, Apptech wrote:
> > Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've
> > experienced has produced
> > a TANGIBLE benefit.
>
> DOS 4 ? :-)

Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history. First MS OS I
ever used use DOS 6.22.

> And, while I hated ME at the time, in retrospect it does
> some useful things better than its predecessor.

No doubt. ME DID have some useful features, the problem was the useful
features were FAR outweighed by the instability relative to 98.

Vista sits in a similar spot. It HAS some enhancements, but they are FAR
outweighed by all the hindrances it has, compared to it's predecessor.

TTYL


'[EE]:: Dell to factory install XP after June 30th'
2008\05\01@002658 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Dr Skip <drskipSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Don't say I didn't warn ya! ;)

I think if she would allow me to use the Vista notebook, I would
have solved most issues... And it is still usable and faster/better
than the last XP notebook for her.

>  Humans are adaptable, and you get used to the Vista problems (like scheduling
>  large copies at over night) if you have no choice or for a new large screen or
>  such. Isn't it great we get to PAY for the privilege of exercising our
>  adaptability? ;)
>

That is true. Major upgrade like XP and Vista can take some time to
get used to. But I agree that MS does have problems with Vista.
For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature. Personally
I think it is good to have for average users and long overdue. But
they omit the fine tuning features in the home premium version (most
common version for consumers) which is a mistake.

Xiaofan

2008\05\01@010637 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature.
> Personally
> I think it is good to have for average users and long
> overdue. But
> they omit the fine tuning features in the home premium
> version (most
> common version for consumers) which is a mistake.

How to disable UAC prompts while leaving Vista security
largely intact.
A good thing, he says.

       http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/06/dont_shut_off_v.html


           Russell

Lots of user comment on that page.
Including:

This article is inaccurate, when this setting is changed it
automatically turns off UAC. If you don’t believe me check
security centre. Oh and another way to get to the setting is
as follows:

Select START | RUN and type gpedit.msc and hit enter. Accept
prompts.

Select local computer policy

Then windows settings

Then security settings

Then local policies

Then security options

Scroll to bottom and you will find UAC related policies.

But as I said this turns off UAC anyway.

Tested on vista ultimate with all updated applied.

2008\05\01@013056 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Apptech <spamBeGoneapptechSTOPspamspamEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature.
>  > Personally I think it is good to have for average users and long
>  > overdue. But they omit the fine tuning features in the home
> > premium version (most common version for consumers) which
> > is a mistake.
>
>  Select START | RUN and type gpedit.msc and hit enter. Accept
>  prompts.
>
>  Tested on vista ultimate with all updated applied.
>

Group policy editor does not exist in Vista Home Basic
or Vista Home Premium. It does not exist in
XP Home either but XP does not have UAC.

It is said similar things can be done with registry but
I have not tried it. I just leave UAC on with my wife's
PC and this will save my support time. ;-)

Xiaofan

2008\05\01@032635 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > For example, UAC is one of the most complained feature.


UAC explained, by Microsoft

       http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/00d04415-2b2f-422c-b70e-b18ff918c2811033.mspx?mfr=true


       Russell

2008\05\02@065629 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've experienced has produced
> a TANGIBLE benefit. Yes, the new OSs often ran slower on the same
> hardware, but you lived with it because the new OS gave you something
> you didn't get in the old one.

absolutely Agreed!!

> win3.1->win95 gave real 32bit app support, long file names, and an
>...
> What has winXP->Vista given us? Aside from the eye candy (which isn't

exactly...

--
Ciao, Dario -- ADPM Synthesis sas -- http://www.adpm.tk

2008\05\02@070013 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>>DOS 4 ? :-)
>
> Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history. First MS OS I
> ever used use DOS 6.22.

are you so young Herbert? :-))

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\05\02@112840 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 12:59 +0200, Dario Greggio wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >>DOS 4 ? :-)
> >
> > Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history. First MS OS I
> > ever used use DOS 6.22.
>
> are you so young Herbert? :-))

Hehe, perhaps, although chances are it's more to do with simply what my
school had.

First computer I ever touched was a Commodore 64. After that my school
used Unisys Icon machines (anybody ever use those machines?). I
basically became the comp admin for those machines (my teacher noticed
how much I seemed interested in those machines, didn't want to deal with
them, so one day she plonked the manual for them and the root password
down on my desk). It was really great because whenever I wanted a break
all I'd have to do was muck up the server in a benign way, and wait for
the emissary from another classroom to fetch me to fix the problem... :)

I did briefly use some x86 based machines in elementary, not quite sure
what they ran actually (suppose they ran DOS 5?). Also used an original
Macintosh for a while in one of my classes. First DOS machines I
actually USED were running 6.22 in high school. First machine I actually
owned came with IBM DOS 6.3.

Ahh, the memories...

TTYL

2008\05\02@125343 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 14:35 +1200, Apptech wrote:
> > > Every other MS OS upgrade (except ME) that I've experienced has
> > > produced a TANGIBLE benefit.
> >
> > DOS 4 ? :-)
>
> Wasn't there for that one, although I do know the history.
> First MS OS I ever used use DOS 6.22.


DOS 6.22 was the one everybody upgraded to, even from 6.2.

There were only 2 differences IIRC, one was to change the compression
software after Stacker complained (no-one cared about that), but the real
one was commas.  

Yes, commas.

It added commas to file sizes, so while DIR used to report '1656954 bytes',
it now said '1,656,954 bytes'.  Now there's a compelling reason for an
upgrade.  It was ~$10 to upgrade from 6.x, $ well spent.

(Slight possibility it was 6.2, memory is fuzzy; the memristors must be
de-fluxing, or whatever they do)

Tony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...