|
Post by rapidjim on Oct 1, 2009 15:23:41 GMT -5
Hmmmmm might just download and give it a try, I have a spare laptop I am not using to try it on.
Now as far a Windows is concerned, I am presently using XP and I have not had any, and I mean any problems with it at home or work. When I started with computers, we will not say how long ago, LOL, I was using DOS, My first windows experince was 3.1, then 98 and now XP, nothing inbetween them, I have tried Vista on a friends work PC and tell the truth I didn't care for it, and my wife (who is back in school for web design) hated Vista, most of her school work didn't work so well, so I "upgraded" her back to XP. Her school does a lot with Microsoft, but mostly all her Professors use XP, kinda tels you something about Vista.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Oct 1, 2009 15:27:14 GMT -5
Windows 7 is rumored to be a much better Windows than those other ones, we will see.
|
|
|
Post by rapidjim on Oct 1, 2009 15:51:06 GMT -5
I have heard that also. I have a computer "geek" in the next town over that got ahold of a beta test version and he is impressed, he also hates Vista. Then two buying a new PC from Dell with Vista, they offer a free upgrade to Windows 7, what does that tell you?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Oct 1, 2009 16:45:03 GMT -5
well when I bought my last full sized laptop it came with a free upgrade to vista, like a fool I used it and hate vista from the start. I'm not sure I'm going to jump very fast into 7, even though some of my linux friends have said it was checking out pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by harrywr2 on Oct 1, 2009 17:28:25 GMT -5
I doubt it... more likely they have a bad designer who can't make the site compatible with Mozilla. -Rich There are hundreds of thousands of applications that are not 'mozilla' compatable. Most of them 10-20-30 years old. It's not about accessing 'web applications'. It's about running legacy applications that aren't web enabled to begin with...which is quite honestly the vast majority of applications in the world.
|
|
|
Post by d3adeyes on Oct 2, 2009 11:03:50 GMT -5
windows 7 is what Vista was supposed to be, before the cut the size down to make it a better file size to be downloaded. There was still a lot of dial-up connections at the time. I had longhorn for a while and it was great.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Oct 2, 2009 12:21:28 GMT -5
As far as I know, Microsoft sold Vista as a DVD. Downloading it was more for the beta testers and if you were going to download a DVD, a few hundred more megabytes to download wouldn't have been a problem.
It is my understanding that Longhorn and vista had/have two different kernels.
Vista was just plane a bad operating system.
|
|
|
Post by tankrider on Oct 2, 2009 18:09:57 GMT -5
I work at an Ace Hardware store and our IT provider sent out an urgent message to Not Upgrade to Vista basically to avoid it like the plague. Some who didn't listen had to have their operating software re-installed and for some it was a few days work.
|
|
|
Post by harrywr2 on Oct 3, 2009 12:54:30 GMT -5
Vista was just plane a bad operating system. Microsoft has a long history of trying to cram too much into too small of a hardware platform. Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away. As a result they have a ton of rob peter to pay paul code in all their OS's since MS-DOS 3.0. Robbing peter to pay paul can get ridiculous. A couple of simple things keeps my vista installation running smoothly. 4 Gigabyte of Ram and moving all large files out of my user folder. Vista likes to 'preload' all your files in your personal folder so you can have 'super fast' access. Unfortunately...if you've got more files then ram memory in those folders you get 'super slow' access. Also the 32 bit version of vista is just plain unfortunate. Unix/Linux on the otherhand with GUI would never run on the hardware Windows 3.1 would run on. A basic premise of the MIT Athena project was that simplicity of design rather then hardware footprint would drive development. Hence, the original X11 GUI interface took what was considered to be an enormous amount of hardware resources when it was first released. Of course no one could afford that much hardware in 1990...so the clever folks at Microsoft won the day with a 'rob peter pay paul' design. As intel intorduced faster,cheaper hardware Linux/X11 combination proved to be the 'lighter weight' operating system as it wasn't carrying any legacy support for 'advanced rob peter to pay paul'.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Oct 3, 2009 13:19:34 GMT -5
I started my computer experience back in the early 80's, had my first computer that was a "home computer" it was a TI 99/4A, great little machine for the time, everything else in its class was an 8 bit , this was a 16bit machine. I learned a little about writing basic language with it. Then TI got out of the home computer business and Apple was about the only thing you could get but it was way too expensive for me. I went to a CPM language machine, in many ways it was a big step back, but it was also a step forward in some of the programs it offered to me, like a full featured word processor, I credit that machine/word processor for getting my bachelors degree. But I also got to learn a lot about CPM, and CPM was the direct ancestor of DOS. Windows 3.1 was really probably just a GUI for DOS and used as far as I know the exact same commands as CPM because I found it very easy to use the commands in DOS.
Now my senior moment is setting in and I have no idea where I was going with this. Time to reboot.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by kuzikood on Oct 5, 2009 11:05:49 GMT -5
to err is human to really f&%k up , u need microsoft!
|
|
|
Post by kuzikood on Oct 5, 2009 11:09:03 GMT -5
i run xp for compatibility , i used to run win2kpro but its not compatible with my hardware i was running slackware linux but i did a stint as a net DJ at a webcam /radio site and had to switch to xp to get webcams and broadcaster to work right but i miss my slackware ive gotta build another system with mylinux i miss it
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Oct 5, 2009 11:23:42 GMT -5
Run a dual boot system, it is not hard to do and works great for me. My home pc runs XP and Granular linux, at one time I had XP, Granular and Ubuntu on it.
|
|
|
Post by kuzikood on Oct 7, 2009 0:49:54 GMT -5
i hate multi partitions on harddrives id just run seperate harddrives if i was gonna duel boot and blah i never have time to screrw around with puters anymore other than check my mail , look at some smut, and visit the forums lol scoot and work take up the rest of my time lol
|
|
|
Post by Rebel on Oct 7, 2009 1:07:13 GMT -5
Sounds like you need to find a yard sale computer then to put Linux on.
|
|