Slashdot Mirror
One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong
snydeq writes "Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today, no longer selling new copies in most venues. Yet according to a report from InfoWorld, various downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive, particularly among businesses. In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs. Microsoft recently planned to further limit the ability to downgrade to XP now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline, but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course, extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011."
Great story, except it is a KNOWN zonealarm issue. 20 seconds on google would've told you that. But this is slashdot, so let's blame Microsoft!
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=759555&sid=3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&start=30
I've been using 64-bit Linux since 2006, and it's exactly like running 32-bit Linux, except you can use more RAM.
You can use more than 4gb of RAM on 32-bit Linux, too. All you have to do is install a Physical Address Extension (PAE) aware kernel:
sudo sudo apt-get install linux-headers-server linux-image-server linux-server
sudo shutdown -r now
It's probably related to the fact that you could pick up Windows 95 for about 90 bucks. There was no 'home', or 'home premium', or whatever. There was just a full version for 90 bucks. To get the 'full' version of the newest flavor of Windows 7, we must shell out almost 4 times the cost. This in just a little over 10 years. It's a bit ridiculous when you look at the rate of inflation. The product offers new features, but so do many software products on the market, yet they tend to retain the same costs. If I'm paying so much more for an OS, I expect much more value.
The full version of Windows 95 was Windows NT and it wasn't cheap.
Well, it depends on what you define crap - are service packs crap? What about device drivers, office suites, compression programs, media codecs, cd-burning software, development platforms? Shouldn’t i use my iPod because it requires iTunes and QuickTime?
Apart from these, I never install crap on my systems, yet all of my Windows systems measurably start up slower and slower as I use them. The time from the boot loader to the desktop changes from 30 s to 180 s. Other performances get worse, too: the time to launch a program, the responsiveness of Explorer, the time between right-clicking a file and seeing a popup menu, and so on.
(Yes, I defragged, scandisked, and I have no antivirus installed, so I think I have exhausted the range of my possibilities of intervention as a user.)