Internet Explorer Critical Update

[Smirnoff]

I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx

As an XP user I have version 8.

Is there any way I can get a patch for it?

I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.

[Linux User]

On 20/08/15 08:53, Smirnoff wrote:
> I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
> vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>
> As an XP user I have version 8.
>
> Is there any way I can get a patch for it?
>
> I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.


Unfortunately not. Your only option is to switch-over to Linux and it
can be run in duel boot with your XP installation and when you are good
at Linux, you can abandon Windows for ever.

Ubuntu is very well built and it supports most devices - old and new.

what do you use XP for mostly?

[Bert[_3_]]

In Linux User
> wrote:

> Your only option is to switch-over to Linux

Or Windows 7, 8 or 10.

Long-time or hardcore Windows users usually have a really hard time with
Linux.

The lack of familiar application programs is a problem too.

I have a Ubuntu 14.04.3 system that I use as a media server, but I used
to do things like that for a living.

--
St. Paul, MN

[Linux User]

On 20/08/15 18:05, Bert wrote:
> In Linux User
> > wrote:
>
>> Your only option is to switch-over to Linux
>
> Or Windows 7, 8 or 10.
>

The problem with this is that the machine must be very old and may not
even run any of the latest Windows OS. I mentioned Linux because
Linux's requirement is quite reasonable. I am running Linux on a P3
(1999 model) machine to test it out and it looks like I might stay with
Linux now.

With Linux, you can use Microsoft Office Online version but these days
people don't use Office application that much. It is all Email and pdf
files which Linux is good at. I think, Windows days are numbered now
that Windows 10 is given away free to existing Windows 7/Win8 users.

[Bert[_3_]]

In Linux User
> wrote:

> With Linux, you can use Microsoft Office Online version but these days
> people don't use Office application that much. It is all Email and
> pdf files which Linux is good at.

This suggests that you like Linux because you don't use it for very
much.

> I think, Windows days are numbered now that Windows 10 is given away
> free to existing Windows 7/Win8 users.

Until next July.

--
St. Paul, MN

[micky[_2_]]

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:53:10
+0100, "Smirnoff" > wrote:

>I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
>vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>
>https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>
>As an XP user I have version 8.

BTW, I think it was youtube that just refused to run on ie8. It had a
message that said it woudl not run on ie8 because it was too old. I'm
glad I have Firefox too, because I have the latest version of that. (Of
course google maps is still a much bigger mess than it is on win8)

>Is there any way I can get a patch for it?

This might help:
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/05/24/get-security-updates-windows-xp-april-2019/

It says it's good until April of 2019!

I'm sure others will give their opinion of this.

Besure to back up the registry before making changes, espeically if you
don't know what you're doing!

And make a checkpoint too. And make a reliable backup first too!

Let us know how things go.

I know a couple people or more who've done this, and none has complained
that I know of. Including me. I haven't had any problems that I know
of. Of course I've complained about 3 or 4 things here but I really
doubt they were caused by this. I can go over each one with you if you
want.

Somone writes:
>Be very careful with this because usoft is not testing XP updates as broadly as it used to for different kinds of hardware and drivers. Even when it was doing comprehensive testing occasional updates would break some PCs and have to be retracted and re-issued.
I don't know if this is true or not.

>I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.

Probalby not.

[Nil[_5_]]

On 20 Aug 2015, micky > wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> BTW, I think it was youtube that just refused to run on ie8. It
> had a message that said it woudl not run on ie8 because it was too
> old.

Youtube runs OK on IE8 - I just tried. You first get that "too old"
screen, but when you click on the "No thanks" button you move on the
the regular interface and things work as usual.

[Bill in Co]

Nil wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2015, micky > wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> BTW, I think it was youtube that just refused to run on ie8. It
>> had a message that said it woudl not run on ie8 because it was too
>> old.
>
> Youtube runs OK on IE8 - I just tried. You first get that "too old"
> screen, but when you click on the "No thanks" button you move on the
> the regular interface and things work as usual.

I don't know how you guys are able to keep using it. I've had enough issues
with some web site compatibilities using IE8 that I finally gave up, and
just use PaleMoon and Firefox now. It's just not worth the hassle,
anymore. :-) (but I still proudly use OE. :-)

[Nil[_5_]]

On 20 Aug 2015, "Bill in Co" > wrote
in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> I don't know how you guys are able to keep using it. I've had
> enough issues with some web site compatibilities using IE8 that I
> finally gave up, and just use PaleMoon and Firefox now. It's
> just not worth the hassle, anymore. :-) (but I still proudly
> use OE. :-)

I never use IE of any version. I just tried it now as a test to see if
it worked with youtube. Now that I know that it does, it's back to the
mothballs.

[Andy[_17_]]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 2:53:18 AM UTC-5, Smirnoff wrote:
> I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
> vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>
> As an XP user I have version 8.
>
> Is there any way I can get a patch for it?
>
> I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.

Why do you use Internet Explorer ?

Firefox and Seamonkey are much more secure.

Puppy Linux is "Windows" friendly and very well developed.

http://www.puppylinux.com/index2.html

Andy

[Andy[_17_]]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 1:06:49 PM UTC-5, Bert wrote:
> In Linux User
> > wrote:
>
> > With Linux, you can use Microsoft Office Online version but these days
> > people don't use Office application that much. It is all Email and
> > pdf files which Linux is good at.
>
> This suggests that you like Linux because you don't use it for very
> much.
>
> > I think, Windows days are numbered now that Windows 10 is given away
> > free to existing Windows 7/Win8 users.
>
> Until next July.
>
> --
> St. Paul, MN

I use Linux every day.

It blows Windows out of the water.
I used Windows for 20+ years.

Linux

1. Is much faster
2. No virus,malware issues, etc.
3. Internet speeds are 3 -5 X the speed in Windows
4. 1/3 the size
5. It does not spy on you constantly
6. It does not require constant updates or bug you for upgrades
7. It does not break things that used to work in earlier versions

Andy

[micky[_2_]]

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:34:34
-0600, "Bill in Co" > wrote:

>Nil wrote:
>> On 20 Aug 2015, micky > wrote in
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>
>>> BTW, I think it was youtube that just refused to run on ie8. It
>>> had a message that said it woudl not run on ie8 because it was too
>>> old.
>>
>> Youtube runs OK on IE8 - I just tried. You first get that "too old"
>> screen, but when you click on the "No thanks" button you move on the
>> the regular interface and things work as usual.

Thanks. That is so annoying of them. Haven't they heard of the word
"maybe".

>I don't know how you guys are able to keep using it. I've had enough issues
>with some web site compatibilities using IE8 that I finally gave up, and
>just use PaleMoon and Firefox now. It's just not worth the hassle,
>anymore. :-) (but I still proudly use OE. :-)

I've actually had few problems with IE, maybe none if you don't count
that it doesn't immediately remember the tabs from the previous sessoin,
and maybe I had trouble bringing them up at all.

But I used it when FF was giving me trouble. That's over now and I'm
back to FF I haven't really used IE for 15 years or more. . I have
SeaMonkey too but it's mozilla so I excpected the same trouble. I had
chrome but didn't like it.

[sctvguy1]

On 2015-08-20 07:53:10 +0000, Smirnoff said:

> I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
> vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>
> As an XP user I have version 8.
>
> Is there any way I can get a patch for it?
>
> I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.

Look on Google for the "XP hack" to allow updates to the OS until 2019.
I just applied the IE update today on my "hacked" XP on an old Dell.
It tells the world that you are running Windows Point of Sale or an
imbedded form of XP, but you still get the updates! I use my old
machine for games only.

[Smirnoff]

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 2:53:18 AM UTC-5, Smirnoff wrote:
>> I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
>> vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>>
>> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>>
>> As an XP user I have version 8.
>>
>> Is there any way I can get a patch for it?
>>
>> I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.
>
> Why do you use Internet Explorer ?
>
> Firefox and Seamonkey are much more secure.
>
> Puppy Linux is "Windows" friendly and very well developed.
>
> http://www.puppylinux.com/index2.html
>
> Andy


My main browser is Firefox (currently 40.0.2) so I don't use IE as such.

However, I seem to remember that you can't completely uninstall IE from
XP, only any updated version (IE8) which would still leave the imbedded
version (I believe it came originally with IE7).

That said, I am concerned that I might click on some obscure link or old
bookmark that may inadvertently launch IE8 and leave it open to attack.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:17:03 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>BTW, I think it was youtube that just refused to run on ie8. It had a
>message that said it woudl not run on ie8 because it was too old. I'm
>glad I have Firefox too, because I have the latest version of that. (Of
>course google maps is still a much bigger mess than it is on win8)

Youtube really has a huge hissy fit when I connect to it with K-Meleon
1.5.4 (Win98 version), But after fighting with their annoying nag
screens, it does work! Even FF 24 brings up the YT nag screens. Someone
should find the asshole that made those nag screens and punch their
lights out!

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:53:10 +0100, "Smirnoff" >
wrote:

>I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
>vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>
>https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>
>As an XP user I have version 8.
>
>Is there any way I can get a patch for it?
>
>I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.

Do you actually USE IE?
I thought MS just included it to waste hard drive space!!!

[Smirnoff]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:53:10 +0100, "Smirnoff"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>I know MS no longer supports XP but it seems there is a critical
>>vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 7-11.
>>
>>https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms15-093.aspx
>>
>>As an XP user I have version 8.
>>
>>Is there any way I can get a patch for it?
>>
>>I assume the Vista download wouldn't work.
>
> Do you actually USE IE?
> I thought MS just included it to waste hard drive space!!!
>
>

My main browser is Firefox (currently 40.0.2) so I don't use IE as such.

However, I seem to remember that you can't completely uninstall IE from
XP, only any updated version (IE8) which would still leave the embedded
version (I believe it came originally with IE7).

That said, I am concerned that I might click on some obscure link or old
bookmark that may inadvertently launch IE8 and leave it open to attack.

If I click on Microsoft Updates (I know XP is no longer supported) to
check whether an optional update is still there such as .NET Framework
4, it always opens in IE.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:58:30 +0100, "Smirnoff" >
wrote:



>>
>> Do you actually USE IE?
>> I thought MS just included it to waste hard drive space!!!
>>
>>
>
>My main browser is Firefox (currently 40.0.2) so I don't use IE as such.
>
>However, I seem to remember that you can't completely uninstall IE from
>XP, only any updated version (IE8) which would still leave the embedded
>version (I believe it came originally with IE7).
>
>That said, I am concerned that I might click on some obscure link or old
>bookmark that may inadvertently launch IE8 and leave it open to attack.
>
>If I click on Microsoft Updates (I know XP is no longer supported) to
>check whether an optional update is still there such as .NET Framework
>4, it always opens in IE.
>
>

I wonder of my trick would work on XP, that I use in Win98.
Win98 also had IE embedded, but there was a way to remove the browser
itself, just the engine for it still existed. I've had the same install
of Win98 installed since 1998, so I cant recall how I removed IE.

But with the actual browser gone, if something wanted to load IE, I'd
get an annoying error message. But it was easy to solve. I just made a
copy of calc.exe, then renamed it to iexplore.exe. When something wants
to load IE, I just get the calculator.

Even if you dont remove IE, just rename (the real) iexplore.exe to
something like iexplore.e-- and make a copy of calc.exe and rename that
to iexplore.exe. Problem solved. If you ever need the actual IE
program, just so some renaming again.

[Bert[_3_]]

In Andy
> wrote:



> I use Linux every day.

What version?

>
> It blows Windows out of the water.

When doing what?

> I used Windows for 20+ years.
>
> Linux
>
> 1. Is much faster

Much faster? Hardly.

> 2. No virus,malware issues, etc.

Funny! If you believe that, you're probably infected.

> 3. Internet speeds are 3 -5 X the speed in Windows

That's absurd.

> 4. 1/3 the size

Measuring what?

> 5. It does not spy on you constantly

You're certain of that? Do you use anything from Google or Mozilla?

> 6. It does not require constant updates or bug you for upgrades

You're obviously not paying attention. I have my system configured to
check for updates (not just security patches) every day, and I usually
get something 4 or 5 days of the week. Security patches come nearly as
frequently.

> 7. It does not break things that used to work in earlier versions

Of course it does.

--
St. Paul, MN

[Good Guy[_2_]]

On 21/08/2015 17:59, Bert wrote:
>> 4. 1/3 the size
> Measuring what?
>
>

His penis perhaps.

Why are you wasting time with Linux junkies? They seem to have
abandoned their own newsgroup and squatted our Windows newsgroup(s). Is
it because nobody responds to them?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, Andy
> writes:
>On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 1:06:49 PM UTC-5, Bert wrote:
>> In Linux User
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > With Linux, you can use Microsoft Office Online version but these days
>> > people don't use Office application that much. It is all Email and
>> > pdf files which Linux is good at.
>>
>> This suggests that you like Linux because you don't use it for very
>> much.

_I_ "like" my Windows XP; you could probably say I don't use it for very
much, but I'd say I use it for what I want to use a computer for
(genealogy, email, news, word and image processing, web browsing, music
and videos - can't think of much else ATM). I don't spend a lot of time
_looking_ for new things to do with the computer - those I have use more
time than I have available.
>>
>> > I think, Windows days are numbered now that Windows 10 is given away
>> > free to existing Windows 7/Win8 users.
>>
>> Until next July.
>>
I don't follow the logic anyway: why does a limited (both in to whom,
and for how long) free "up"grade signify that its days are numbered?
>> --
>> St. Paul, MN

(Andy: the news software you're using obviously doesn't recognise
properly-formed signature separator lines [or you've turned it off].)
>
>I use Linux every day.
>
>It blows Windows out of the water.

I don't think for a lot of actual _users_, any OS could be said to blow
any other out of the water: many don't care what the underlying OS is
(I'm moving that way myself).

>I used Windows for 20+ years.
>
>Linux
>
>1. Is much faster

(Meaningless without quantification.)

>2. No virus,malware issues, etc.

The means by which it (almost) forces you to use it does encourage safer
computing; Windows, particularly older versions, is less that way
inclined (or - which is another way of saying the same thing - it is
easy to turn off and/or bypass the security features). The counter to
this is that Linux is slightly more cumbersome to use; enthusiasts,
however, become used to this and can do things as fast as Windows
enthusiasts a lot of the time.

>3. Internet speeds are 3 -5 X the speed in Windows

That is complete Sellafield. The speed of the internet is independent of
the OS via which you access it. If you mean that a lot of Windows
_browsers_, for example, are slower than a lot of *n*x ones, then you
_may_ have some mileage - though I doubt it.

>4. 1/3 the size

There are so many flavours of Linux, that you can probably find one of
any size you like. Granted, it's in theory easier to be selective about
which bits of Linux you want to install - but for those of us who can't
be arsed rebuilding Colonels [we run out of the special sauce (-:], this
remains theoretical. (Not that I'd not like Windows to be more easily
configurable too.)

>5. It does not spy on you constantly

From what I've read about W10, you do seem to have a point there. (But I
have not played with it myself, and I don't know what proportion of
those writing about it dislike it.)

>6. It does not require constant updates or bug you for upgrades

Nor does Windows, if you don't want them. Of course, people keep finding
security holes, which - if others have patched them - it is _wise_ to
take advantage of; presumably, this applies to Linux too. If more are
being found in Windows, I would posit that that is simply a matter of
there being more people using it.

>7. It does not break things that used to work in earlier versions

Others have answered that for me.
>
>Andy
>
>
>
(You had trailing blank lines.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're plumbing shallows we didn't know existed here" - Jeremy Paxman (as
quizmaster of "University Challenge"), 1998 (when losing team suddenly put on a
spurt by showing knowledge of things like the Eurovision Song Contest ...)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >,
writes:
>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:58:30 +0100, "Smirnoff" >
>wrote:
[]
>>However, I seem to remember that you can't completely uninstall IE from
>>XP, only any updated version (IE8) which would still leave the embedded
>>version (I believe it came originally with IE7).

6, I think.

Yes, from XP (possibly 2000) on, it cannot be totally removed.
[]
>I wonder of my trick would work on XP, that I use in Win98.
>Win98 also had IE embedded, but there was a way to remove the browser
>itself, just the engine for it still existed. I've had the same install
>of Win98 installed since 1998, so I cant recall how I removed IE.

The easiest way was to use the products of 98lite (last time I looked
the company still existed, under the name XPlite IIRR). Either 98lite
itself, if you wanted to switch shells and so on, or just a simple
product they gave away free called IEradicator.

Under 98, you _could_ completely remove IE. Some things - such as some
help files - would only work if you left two or three .dll files.
>
>But with the actual browser gone, if something wanted to load IE, I'd
>get an annoying error message. But it was easy to solve. I just made a
>copy of calc.exe, then renamed it to iexplore.exe. When something wants
>to load IE, I just get the calculator.

Ingenious!
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're plumbing shallows we didn't know existed here" - Jeremy Paxman (as
quizmaster of "University Challenge"), 1998 (when losing team suddenly put on a
spurt by showing knowledge of things like the Eurovision Song Contest ...)

[micky[_2_]]

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:45:04
+0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote:

>In message >,
writes:
>>On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:58:30 +0100, "Smirnoff" >
>>wrote:
>[]
>>>However, I seem to remember that you can't completely uninstall IE from
>>>XP, only any updated version (IE8) which would still leave the embedded
>>>version (I believe it came originally with IE7).
>
>6, I think.
>
>Yes, from XP (possibly 2000) on, it cannot be totally removed.
>[]
>>I wonder of my trick would work on XP, that I use in Win98.
>>Win98 also had IE embedded, but there was a way to remove the browser
>>itself, just the engine for it still existed. I've had the same install
>>of Win98 installed since 1998, so I cant recall how I removed IE.
>
>The easiest way was to use the products of 98lite (last time I looked
>the company still existed, under the name XPlite IIRR). Either 98lite
>itself, if you wanted to switch shells and so on, or just a simple
>product they gave away free called IEradicator.

IEradicator

IEradicator is a tiny (~25k), free utility to strip IE4 and IE5 from
unmodified Windows98 or Windows98SE installations without requiring any
additional files. http://www.litepc.com/download.html
http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html
http://www.litepc.com/release_notes/ieradicator.txt
IEradicator is a tiny, script that uses the Windows setup engine to
surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows
95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium and
Windows 2000(sr1).


"* Windows 98, ME without Internet Explorer is faster, more stable,
and takes up less space on your hard disk."

Why would it be faster???????


It's funny. I never see this stuff advetised on Monday night football.

http://www.litepc.com/xppreview.html Free trial of xplite or 2000lite

FREE TRIAL - a free, feature rich, no-nags edition that works with both
Windows XP and Windows 2000. Trial, or use for life

So I gather you'd recommend this, J.P??????????


$40 to buy pro edition
Money back guarantee
Lifetime Upgrades
Online Support Desk
Download Anytime

http://www.litepc.com/

98lite PREVIEW - a free, feature rich, no-nags edition of 98lite to
trial, or use for life.

http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html

Full edition under same terms as above, $25

>Under 98, you _could_ completely remove IE. Some things - such as some
>help files - would only work if you left two or three .dll files.

>>But with the actual browser gone, if something wanted to load IE, I'd
>>get an annoying error message. But it was easy to solve. I just made a
>>copy of calc.exe, then renamed it to iexplore.exe. When something wants
>>to load IE, I just get the calculator.
>
>Ingenious!
>[]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, micky
> writes:
[]
>IEradicator
>
>IEradicator is a tiny (~25k), free utility to strip IE4 and IE5 from
>unmodified Windows98 or Windows98SE installations without requiring any
>additional files. http://www.litepc.com/download.html
>http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html
>http://www.litepc.com/release_notes/ieradicator.txt
>IEradicator is a tiny, script that uses the Windows setup engine to
>surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows
>95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium and
>Windows 2000(sr1).
>
>
>"* Windows 98, ME without Internet Explorer is faster, more stable,
>and takes up less space on your hard disk."
>
>Why would it be faster???????
>
Well, I can see it would be faster to boot; not sure whether it should
be faster in general use, though I wouldn't be surprised if that were
true: maybe having IE running (which it probably is, to some extent,
even when a browser window as such isn't open) slows things down a bit,
especially on machines that can run Windows '9x.
>
>It's funny. I never see this stuff advetised on Monday night football.

(-:
>
>http://www.litepc.com/xppreview.html Free trial of xplite or 2000lite
>
>FREE TRIAL - a free, feature rich, no-nags edition that works with both
>Windows XP and Windows 2000. Trial, or use for life
>
>So I gather you'd recommend this, J.P??????????
>
Well, looking at it (which I haven't for some time), it looked to be
somewhat different from 98lite; 98lite was a fairly major streamlining
of the OS, involving replacing the main shell with that from 95, which
was much less resource-hungry and somewhat more stable, while still
keeping the real developments 98 brought (such as improved - though
still limited by even XP standards - USB support).

XP lite _seemed_ from looking at the web pages to be rather a TweakUI on
steroids - basically it makes XP much more configurable. But I haven't
tried it, so can't recommend for or against it. I certainly would
recommend 98lite for 98 systems, especially for anyone who had also used
95. (Note: there are some 98 folk who are very much against it, and will
very much say "you're on your own" if you have almost any problem with a
98lited system.)
>
>$40 to buy pro edition
>Money back guarantee
>Lifetime Upgrades
>Online Support Desk
>Download Anytime
>
>http://www.litepc.com/
>
>98lite PREVIEW - a free, feature rich, no-nags edition of 98lite to
>trial, or use for life.

That's the one I've used a lot.
>
>http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html
>
>Full edition under same terms as above, $25

I've _seen_ the Pro edition, but not played with it enough to really
comment.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." - Harlan Ellison

[micky[_2_]]

In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 07:37:22
+0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote:

>In message >, micky
> writes:

>>http://www.litepc.com/xppreview.html Free trial of xplite or 2000lite
>>
>>FREE TRIAL - a free, feature rich, no-nags edition that works with both
>>Windows XP and Windows 2000. Trial, or use for life
>>
>>So I gather you'd recommend this, J.P??????????
>>
>Well, looking at it (which I haven't for some time), it looked to be
>somewhat different from 98lite; 98lite was a fairly major streamlining
>of the OS, involving replacing the main shell with that from 95, which
>was much less resource-hungry and somewhat more stable, while still
>keeping the real developments 98 brought (such as improved - though
>still limited by even XP standards - USB support).
>
>XP lite _seemed_ from looking at the web pages to be rather a TweakUI on
>steroids - basically it makes XP much more configurable. But I haven't
>tried it, so can't recommend for or against it. I certainly would
>recommend 98lite for 98 systems, especially for anyone who had also used
>95. (Note: there are some 98 folk who are very much against it, and will
>very much say "you're on your own" if you have almost any problem with a
>98lited system.)

Thanks a lot for your detailed answert. I dl'd it already but I'm going
to think about whether I need it. Spend time first on upgrading
computer.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message >, micky
> writes:
>In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 07:37:22
>+0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > wrote:
>
>>In message >, micky
> writes:
>
>>>http://www.litepc.com/xppreview.html Free trial of xplite or 2000lite
>>>
>>>FREE TRIAL - a free, feature rich, no-nags edition that works with both
>>>Windows XP and Windows 2000. Trial, or use for life
>>>
>>>So I gather you'd recommend this, J.P??????????
>>>
>>Well, looking at it (which I haven't for some time), it looked to be
>>somewhat different from 98lite; 98lite was a fairly major streamlining
[]
>>XP lite _seemed_ from looking at the web pages to be rather a TweakUI on
>>steroids - basically it makes XP much more configurable. But I haven't
>>tried it, so can't recommend for or against it. I certainly would
>>recommend 98lite for 98 systems, especially for anyone who had also used
>>95. (Note: there are some 98 folk who are very much against it, and will
>>very much say "you're on your own" if you have almost any problem with a
>>98lited system.)
>
>Thanks a lot for your detailed answert. I dl'd it already but I'm going
(You're welcome.)
>to think about whether I need it. Spend time first on upgrading
>computer.
>
I assume you mean XPlite. If you do try it (free or full version),
please post back here with your impressions; there are probably a lot of
people (including me) who'll be interested.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish trial by
jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)