Perhaps you noted that I linked to Wikipedia saying that CP/M is opensource these days and that what he looks for might be out there. That was new to me too, I just wanted to check the license on wikipedia. So, to some that part might be informative, yes... Read the whole post, will ya?
Of course, but I still use Nero 5.5. It does everything I want, so if I upgrade to Vista I have to shell out money for a new buring program? Wow.... That sucks donkeys balls.
That's exactly how users tend to think... I'm just illustrating.
I have a Vista Capable laptop (that came with XP MCE), and the small print on the box made it clear: "do not run Windows Vista on this Machine, you will not be happy". Bought January 2007. The fine print was a sticker added to the box. I supposed Fujitsu-Siemens already got complaints and needed to add such a sticker in Europe, or their legal department recommended it to avoid lawsuits.
Oh, come on... That was a honest translation mistake. The original arabic text said "bombs and rifles", that's easy to mix up with "candy and flowers"....
I just have this image of a subway being built under an old European city, them discovering another city buried underneath the 'modern' one and it holding up construction for years while it is excavated.
That happens quite often, and usually the archaeologists get a few months to take away everything. I heard that it's very desirable for archaeologists, because they don't have to keep the site intact for tourism;-) "Take everything, it will be destroyed if you don't" is quite a good motivator.
Well, I did say it was both hardware dependent (I never managed to get more than 3.5Gig on my AMD Athlon MP machine, even with PAE) and that if you had PAE you could go around it. I do believe PAE is supported in WinXP Pro, but I'm not sure. You have to modify your boot.ini for that.
So, yes, you can, but the poster seemed to insinuate that Vista was the only operating system supporting 4Gig and that XP only supports 3Gig. That's clearly wrong, and that is why I posted.
Vista 32-bit isn't going to support more than 3.5Gig either (just as WinXP and Win2k). So, unless you're running Vista 64 bit, this is no different. (It's a hardware limitation, Linux 32-bit can't use more than 3.5Gig either) Yes, there is stuff like PAE, but that really is just a hack. Essentially it's segmenting for 32-bit machines. Both WinXP and Win2k support up to 4Gig RAM, but most hardware simply don't. I have a AMD Athlon MP system that has 4Gig RAM. Only 3.5Gig is visible to WinXP, but the same is true for Linux and FreeBSD. For me there is no way out, because it is a 32-bit system.
I wouldn't, but there are odd people in this world;-)
I couldn't care less for IE7 or Office 2007. Been a Firefox and OpenOffice user (on Windows, granted) since the early days. (Firefox when it was still Phoenix and OpenOffice since the 1.0 betas) The point is evidently to move completely to Linux. I pretty much only use opensource programs these days, and a few "free as in beer" programs.
Over time every system slows down and begins to perform poorly.
That's really only the case on home systems. On well maintained, locked down machines, corporate machines, Windows doesn't build up any cruft.
I have a few WinXP machines that are used by "limited users" with few or no rights and they perform like on day one. That said, my users don't get to install anything willy-nilly.
Let me rephrase that: Are you sure that the licenses you use are allowed to be run in VMs and that you paid for those. It is only legal if the software running in the VM has been paid for that VM. You cannot run 5 instances of Windows XP on a single machine, if only one license has been paid for. Five visualized WinXPs mean five WinXP licenses. It is quite simple.
For all intents and purposes, a Windows XP running in a VM must be paid for and as such have a valid license.
That's a very cool setup. I admit that. However, how legal are those VMs? Is the system going to survive a visit by the BSA? The VM method is one way to go, but what happens when you cannot get a legal XP license anymore?
Why would people (ordinary people, not geeks, not teenagers using their parents' money) buy a new computer when they have a 1GHz 1GB 200GB humming away quite nicely? Yes, Ford released a new Mondeo, but my old one's fine.
I do agree... However, that won't help Linux or OS X, because those people will stick with what they have. My wifes machine is from 2003, it's a P-IV 2.6GHz Hyperthreading with 2Gig RAM (used to be 512Meg, I upgraded it when I found RAM on sale), a 80Gig harddisk and a NVidia FX5500 (it used to be a ATI, but I had the FX5500 lying around and I just replaced it). Apart from the harddisk, that is getting a bit cramped, the machine runs just fine on WinXP.
I've been running a P-III 600MHz/512Meg RAM laptop until begin this year. XP ran great on it. I only replaced because it started to physically fall apart. My dad runs to this day his P-III 733MHz/512Meg RAM with XP.
I do understand the sentiment, but someday those machines will have a component failure. There is a good chance that I won't be able to find a component to make the machine work again.... What then? A new machine and that means.... Vista.
My own car is 8 years old. At least I'm pretty much guaranteed to have parts for the next 12 years (at least....) The timelines are very different.
I've never called Microsoft either, and I could install an NT 4.0 these days. However, what you describe is installations in a very controlled environment. Probably not desktops. You, see, if you've got a network of NT 4.0 machines that is completely isolated from the Internet, you could even run them as desktop machines provided you find the graphics drivers. (Unlikely for machines built in the last 3 years)
I was talking from the desktop perspective, in a more or less regulated network. Personally, I run OpenBSD on an old P-III 80MHz. Works perfectly fine. Support? I can support myself, thank you very much. However, I'm not a decision maker. That's what one needs to keep in mind.
For me personally, I can avoid it completely. I've been a Mac OS X user, a Debian user, FreeBSD user. However, at work, sooner or later I'll have a Vista install in front of me. That part I cannot avoid. (Unless, I finally land that Unix job I've been dreaming of...)
It's already happening with laptops that came preinstalled with Vista. It's very hard or impossible to find drivers to make a working XP install on those.
I (and I'm sure many others) feel that Windows 2000 was the best operating system Microsoft has designed to date.
Oh, I'm one of those. Microsoft peaked with Win2k, but are you sure you get all security updates? Is IE7 available for your system. Does Office 2007 work for you?
As you read in my post, I switched to XP very late. Why did I switch? There is exactly one feature that is so useful in a home setting, that I still wonder why it hasn't been backported to Win2k. For me the "killer feature" was "fast user switching".
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us like BBW ;-)
Also, keep in mind they do have GGG (German Goo Girls).
I have that movie somewhere....
Chill dude, it was a joke... You know, the things you laugh with.
Perhaps you noted that I linked to Wikipedia saying that CP/M is opensource these days and that what he looks for might be out there. That was new to me too, I just wanted to check the license on wikipedia. So, to some that part might be informative, yes... Read the whole post, will ya?
Of course, but I still use Nero 5.5. It does everything I want, so if I upgrade to Vista I have to shell out money for a new buring program? Wow.... That sucks donkeys balls.
That's exactly how users tend to think... I'm just illustrating.
Alabama you say? That's entirely natural. After all they were supposed to be for the third world... ;-)
Not CP/M, but FreeDOS is pretty cool. According to wikipedia, CP/M is open source, so perhaps what you seek may exist.
They probably hope that pirates will make Vista popular and that a fraction actually will buy Vista in the end ;-)
Well, I must assume that all 2000€++ computers will run Vista "okay"... So, probably not.
Ask Dell
I have a Vista Capable laptop (that came with XP MCE), and the small print on the box made it clear: "do not run Windows Vista on this Machine, you will not be happy". Bought January 2007. The fine print was a sticker added to the box. I supposed Fujitsu-Siemens already got complaints and needed to add such a sticker in Europe, or their legal department recommended it to avoid lawsuits.
Oh, come on... That was a honest translation mistake. The original arabic text said "bombs and rifles", that's easy to mix up with "candy and flowers"....
Well, don't the Bin Ladens have a construction company? ;-)
I just have this image of a subway being built under an old European city, them discovering another city buried underneath the 'modern' one and it holding up construction for years while it is excavated.
That happens quite often, and usually the archaeologists get a few months to take away everything. I heard that it's very desirable for archaeologists, because they don't have to keep the site intact for tourism ;-) "Take everything, it will be destroyed if you don't" is quite a good motivator.
Well, I did say it was both hardware dependent (I never managed to get more than 3.5Gig on my AMD Athlon MP machine, even with PAE) and that if you had PAE you could go around it. I do believe PAE is supported in WinXP Pro, but I'm not sure. You have to modify your boot.ini for that.
So, yes, you can, but the poster seemed to insinuate that Vista was the only operating system supporting 4Gig and that XP only supports 3Gig. That's clearly wrong, and that is why I posted.
Vista 32-bit isn't going to support more than 3.5Gig either (just as WinXP and Win2k). So, unless you're running Vista 64 bit, this is no different. (It's a hardware limitation, Linux 32-bit can't use more than 3.5Gig either) Yes, there is stuff like PAE, but that really is just a hack. Essentially it's segmenting for 32-bit machines. Both WinXP and Win2k support up to 4Gig RAM, but most hardware simply don't. I have a AMD Athlon MP system that has 4Gig RAM. Only 3.5Gig is visible to WinXP, but the same is true for Linux and FreeBSD. For me there is no way out, because it is a 32-bit system.
I wouldn't, but there are odd people in this world ;-)
I couldn't care less for IE7 or Office 2007. Been a Firefox and OpenOffice user (on Windows, granted) since the early days. (Firefox when it was still Phoenix and OpenOffice since the 1.0 betas) The point is evidently to move completely to Linux. I pretty much only use opensource programs these days, and a few "free as in beer" programs.
Over time every system slows down and begins to perform poorly.
That's really only the case on home systems. On well maintained, locked down machines, corporate machines, Windows doesn't build up any cruft.
I have a few WinXP machines that are used by "limited users" with few or no rights and they perform like on day one. That said, my users don't get to install anything willy-nilly.
Let me rephrase that: Are you sure that the licenses you use are allowed to be run in VMs and that you paid for those. It is only legal if the software running in the VM has been paid for that VM. You cannot run 5 instances of Windows XP on a single machine, if only one license has been paid for. Five visualized WinXPs mean five WinXP licenses. It is quite simple.
For all intents and purposes, a Windows XP running in a VM must be paid for and as such have a valid license.
That's a very cool setup. I admit that. However, how legal are those VMs? Is the system going to survive a visit by the BSA? The VM method is one way to go, but what happens when you cannot get a legal XP license anymore?
Why would people (ordinary people, not geeks, not teenagers using their parents' money) buy a new computer when they have a 1GHz 1GB 200GB humming away quite nicely? Yes, Ford released a new Mondeo, but my old one's fine.
I do agree... However, that won't help Linux or OS X, because those people will stick with what they have. My wifes machine is from 2003, it's a P-IV 2.6GHz Hyperthreading with 2Gig RAM (used to be 512Meg, I upgraded it when I found RAM on sale), a 80Gig harddisk and a NVidia FX5500 (it used to be a ATI, but I had the FX5500 lying around and I just replaced it). Apart from the harddisk, that is getting a bit cramped, the machine runs just fine on WinXP.
I've been running a P-III 600MHz/512Meg RAM laptop until begin this year. XP ran great on it. I only replaced because it started to physically fall apart. My dad runs to this day his P-III 733MHz/512Meg RAM with XP.
I do understand the sentiment, but someday those machines will have a component failure. There is a good chance that I won't be able to find a component to make the machine work again.... What then? A new machine and that means.... Vista.
My own car is 8 years old. At least I'm pretty much guaranteed to have parts for the next 12 years (at least....) The timelines are very different.
I've never called Microsoft either, and I could install an NT 4.0 these days. However, what you describe is installations in a very controlled environment. Probably not desktops. You, see, if you've got a network of NT 4.0 machines that is completely isolated from the Internet, you could even run them as desktop machines provided you find the graphics drivers. (Unlikely for machines built in the last 3 years)
I was talking from the desktop perspective, in a more or less regulated network. Personally, I run OpenBSD on an old P-III 80MHz. Works perfectly fine. Support? I can support myself, thank you very much. However, I'm not a decision maker. That's what one needs to keep in mind.
For me personally, I can avoid it completely. I've been a Mac OS X user, a Debian user, FreeBSD user. However, at work, sooner or later I'll have a Vista install in front of me. That part I cannot avoid. (Unless, I finally land that Unix job I've been dreaming of...)
It's already happening with laptops that came preinstalled with Vista. It's very hard or impossible to find drivers to make a working XP install on those.
Another problem with Win2k: Wireless... You're dependent on the drivers/interface the manufacturer delivers and those are very very sucky.
I (and I'm sure many others) feel that Windows 2000 was the best operating system Microsoft has designed to date.
Oh, I'm one of those. Microsoft peaked with Win2k, but are you sure you get all security updates? Is IE7 available for your system. Does Office 2007 work for you?
As you read in my post, I switched to XP very late. Why did I switch? There is exactly one feature that is so useful in a home setting, that I still wonder why it hasn't been backported to Win2k. For me the "killer feature" was "fast user switching".