Why is SP2 so big? It doesn't do much

[Testy]

And the "Severity Center" is pretty much a useless feature, it was the first
thing I disabled. Firewall and Pop-Up blocker also useless to me.

Testy

"NoSpam" > wrote in message
...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
>> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
>> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
>> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
>> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
>> lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates
>> a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
>> Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus
>> Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control
>> of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
>> lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
>
> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>
> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying for
> exactly.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004

[Testy]

And most of your stupid reply has nothing to do with size anyway!

Testy

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
...
> Who really cares what you consider useless?
>
> The question was related to the size of the SP2 download. That has
> nothing to do with what you think.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And the "Severity Center" is pretty much a useless feature, it was the
>> first thing I disabled. Firewall and Pop-Up blocker also useless to me.
>>
>> Testy
>>
>> "NoSpam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>>
>>>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong.
>>>> SP2 consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single
>>>> package. It replaces a great number of system files with updated files
>>>> that correct security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It
>>>> incorporates major elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical
>>>> updates issued since then. It replaces the Windows firewall with a
>>>> completely new (but still very lame) version. It add the new Windows
>>>> Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up blocker to Internet
>>>> explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook express. If you
>>>> have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection that
>>>> prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
>>>> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of
>>>> code. It does so much more than you can "see".
>>>
>>> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
>>> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>>>
>>> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
>>> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
>>> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
>>> for exactly.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004
>>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004

[Mixxy]

Serious question - why is SP2 so big?

It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.

Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it so
large?

[NoNoBadDog!]

First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
It does so much more than you can "see".

Bobby

"Mixxy" > wrote in message
.. .
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
> so
> large?
>
>

[John Waller]

List of fixes in SP2

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;811113

New features in SP2

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

None of it is particularly sexy or has Wow appeal for end users but it is
all critical and I'm sure it was a massive engineering exercise.

--
Regards

John Waller

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

To add:

The full size of SP2 is 266MB, not 80-100MB. What the OP is looking at there
is the average size of the express download from Windows Update. It only
contains SP2's specific security updates, and any missing critical updates.
The full package contains all critical updates since WinXP's original
release. Someone who has never or rarely updated will recieve a much larger
express package.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
...
> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
> lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a
> pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
> Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus
> Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control
> of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
> lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
>
> Bobby
>
> "Mixxy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>
>> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and
>> is
>> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>
>> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
>> so
>> large?
>>
>>
>
>

[Jon]

So that you only have to click on one file to install, rather than 40 or 50
or so (not counted) critical updates post SP1

Jon


"Mixxy" > wrote in message
.. .
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
> so
> large?
>
>

[coliboy]

I was expecting to see a large-ish entry in Add/Remove after installing SP2
(express installation). What I do see is "Windows XP Service Pack 2....Size
0.83MB"
Am I misunderstanding something here??

"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" wrote:

> To add:
>
> The full size of SP2 is 266MB, not 80-100MB. What the OP is looking at there
> is the average size of the express download from Windows Update. It only
> contains SP2's specific security updates, and any missing critical updates.
> The full package contains all critical updates since WinXP's original
> release. Someone who has never or rarely updated will recieve a much larger
> express package.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> > consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> > replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> > security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> > elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> > It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
> > lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a
> > pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
> > Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus
> > Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control
> > of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
> > lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
> >
> > Bobby
> >
> > "Mixxy" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> >>
> >> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and
> >> is
> >> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> >>
> >> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
> >> so
> >> large?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Synapse Syndrome]

"Mixxy" > wrote in message
.. .
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
so
> large?
>
>


What the hell did you expect it do?

ss.

[Test Man]

Don't rely on that size indicator, it's frequently wrong.


"coliboy" > wrote in message
...
> I was expecting to see a large-ish entry in Add/Remove after installing
SP2
> (express installation). What I do see is "Windows XP Service Pack
2....Size
> 0.83MB"
> Am I misunderstanding something here??
>
> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" wrote:
>
> > To add:
> >
> > The full size of SP2 is 266MB, not 80-100MB. What the OP is looking at
there
> > is the average size of the express download from Windows Update. It only
> > contains SP2's specific security updates, and any missing critical
updates.
> > The full package contains all critical updates since WinXP's original
> > release. Someone who has never or rarely updated will recieve a much
larger
> > express package.
> >
> > --
> > Best of Luck,
> >
> > Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> > Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> > www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> > Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> >
> > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong.
SP2
> > > consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package.
It
> > > replaces a great number of system files with updated files that
correct
> > > security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> > > elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since
then.
> > > It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
> > > lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It
incorporates a
> > > pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
> > > Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced
Virus
> > > Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining
control
> > > of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
> > > lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
> > >
> > > Bobby
> > >
> > > "Mixxy" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > >> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> > >>
> > >> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
and
> > >> is
> > >> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> > >>
> > >> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
is it
> > >> so
> > >> large?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

[NoSpam]

NoNoBadDog! wrote:

> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
> version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
> blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
> express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
> that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
> It does so much more than you can "see".

Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.

When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
for exactly.

[Apollo]

"NoSpam" > wrote in message
...
>
> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>
> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going?


> We're there really that many problems with XP when it shipped?

Yes, and there will still be problems no doubt.

> Makes you wonder what you're paying for exactly.

Yes :)

--
Apollo

[Don Taylor]

NoSpam > writes:
>Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
>things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.

>When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
>downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
>problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
>for exactly.

It might be something similar to Norton Antivirus. Every couple
of days they often download a substantial fraction of a megabyte
for an update.

I don't think any company could hire enough competent people to
churn out a good part of a megabyte of new software every few days.
But there is an alternative. Suppose they had written a hundred
different programs to make this work. SUppose they only needed to
change a single line in each one. The old promise that dll's were
going to mean that windows programs were going to be smaller than
pre-windows programs never happened. When they recompile all 100
of those programs they then have to send you the complete 100
programs all over again.

So, there might be 100 massive screwups in XP that are supposed to
be fixed with SP2, actually there were estimates that there were
many thousands of massive screwups when XP was first shipped, but
be generous here, one per program, Microsoft changes a line or
two in every one, more in some of them, recompiles all of them
and now has to send you 100 different megabyte or multimegabyte
programs for the update, even though often only a half dozen bytes
really got changed in any one of them.

[Ken Smith]

Make me a nice cuppa in the morning. Is that too much to ask?

> What the hell did you expect it do?

[NoNoBadDog!]

Did you even bother to read what I posted? Are you that dense?

Bobby


"NoSpam" > wrote in message
...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
>> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
>> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
>> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
>> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
>> lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates
>> a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
>> Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus
>> Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control
>> of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
>> lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
>
> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>
> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying for
> exactly.

[NoNoBadDog!]

Who really cares what you consider useless?

The question was related to the size of the SP2 download. That has nothing
to do with what you think.

Bobby

"Testy" > wrote in message
...
> And the "Severity Center" is pretty much a useless feature, it was the
> first thing I disabled. Firewall and Pop-Up blocker also useless to me.
>
> Testy
>
> "NoSpam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package.
>>> It replaces a great number of system files with updated files that
>>> correct security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates
>>> major elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued
>>> since then. It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but
>>> still very lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It
>>> incorporates a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to
>>> Outlook and Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds
>>> Enhanced Virus Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code
>>> gaining control of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates
>>> approximately 5 million lines of code. It does so much more than you can
>>> "see".
>>
>> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
>> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>>
>> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
>> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
>> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
>> for exactly.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004
>

[JAD]

like the size of ones head has nothing to do with ones intelligence...

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
...
> Who really cares what you consider useless?
>
> The question was related to the size of the SP2 download. That has
nothing
> to do with what you think.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And the "Severity Center" is pretty much a useless feature, it was
the
> > first thing I disabled. Firewall and Pop-Up blocker also useless
to me.
> >
> > Testy
> >
> > "NoSpam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> >>
> >>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally
wrong. SP2
> >>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single
package.
> >>> It replaces a great number of system files with updated files
that
> >>> correct security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It
incorporates
> >>> major elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates
issued
> >>> since then. It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely
new (but
> >>> still very lame) version. It add the new Windows Security
Center. It
> >>> incorporates a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds
security to
> >>> Outlook and Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it
adds
> >>> Enhanced Virus Protection that prevents certain types of
malicious code
> >>> gaining control of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates
> >>> approximately 5 million lines of code. It does so much more than
you can
> >>> "see".
> >>
> >> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only
visible
> >> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the
firewall.
> >>
> >> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in
3 meg
> >> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really
that many
> >> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're
paying
> >> for exactly.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004
> >
>
>

[NoSpam]

Don Taylor wrote:
> So, there might be 100 massive screwups in XP that are supposed to
> be fixed with SP2, actually there were estimates that there were
> many thousands of massive screwups when XP was first shipped, but
> be generous here, one per program, Microsoft changes a line or
> two in every one, more in some of them, recompiles all of them
> and now has to send you 100 different megabyte or multimegabyte
> programs for the update, even though often only a half dozen bytes
> really got changed in any one of them.

Delta compression should fix that in the future, which is part of what
SP2 does.

I have a feeling we'll still see bloody large updates from MS though.

[Aquila Deus]

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message >...
> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
> version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
> blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
> express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
> that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
> It does so much more than you can "see".
>

But:
- It stills use a lot of RAM
- It's still as slow as it used to be
- Still has virus, adware and spyware!
- As u wrote above, the new firewall is still lame
- Where is tabbed interface for IE?

So what's the difference?

<snip>

[Dave C.]

> - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
>

It's called Mozilla. -Dave

[NoNoBadDog!]

And Aquila Deus is still having problems adjusting to his new
anti-hallucination drugs.

Prove your claims of SP2 containing Viruses, adware or spyware.
I dare you to validate a single claim you have made.

You can't, can you?

Shut up and crawl back into the hole you came out of.

You are a loser and a moron.

Bobby


"Aquila Deus" > wrote in message

///SNIP////


>>
>
> But:
> - It stills use a lot of RAM
> - It's still as slow as it used to be
> - Still has virus, adware and spyware!
> - As u wrote above, the new firewall is still lame
> - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
>
> So what's the difference?
>

[Dave Senior]

Because Microsoft products are half complete!. Microsoft is a publictly quoted company accountable to its shareholders. It has to sell products to generate revenues which should exceed previous period's. The only way to achive this is to rush products even if they are defective knowing that there are people out there prepared to buy anything that has Microsoft logo on it!!.

We have had patches virtually everyday since 09/11/2001 (mm/dd/yyyy) when XP started hitting the high street shops. But this wasn't enough for MS so we had SP1 (128 mb), and now SP2 (272 mb). This is still not enough and now you also need SP1 for .Net Framework 1.1. This should put you on alert that MS products can never be trusted. Read my signature below.


Mixxy wrote:

> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it so
> large?

--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for my work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching rich jerks!

[David Maynard]

Dave Senior wrote:

> Because Microsoft products are half complete!. Microsoft is a publictly
> quoted company accountable to its shareholders. It has to sell products
> to generate revenues which should exceed previous period's. The only
> way to achive this is to rush products even if they are defective
> knowing that there are people out there prepared to buy anything that
> has Microsoft logo on it!!.
>
> We have had patches virtually everyday since 09/11/2001 (mm/dd/yyyy)
> when XP started hitting the high street shops.

Hardly.

> But this wasn't enough
> for MS so we had SP1 (128 mb),

SOP for any software house to do a rollup.

> and now SP2 (272 mb).

Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.

> This is still not
> enough and now you also need SP1 for .Net Framework 1.1. This should put
> you on alert that MS products can never be trusted. Read my signature
> below.

If you think Linux is 'update free' then you're in for a big surprise.


> Mixxy wrote:
>
>
>> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>
>> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>> and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>
>> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is
>> it so large?
>
>
> -- I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no
> activation.
>
> I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for
> my work.
>
> I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching
> rich jerks!
>
>
>

[Toad]

Dave C. wrote:

>
>
> > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> >
>
> It's called Mozilla. -Dave

or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.

toad

[Toad]

Mixxy wrote:

> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
> and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
> is it so large?

At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
are 3 700MB ISO files :)

Toad

[Paul]

Toad wrote:
> Mixxy wrote:
>
>
>>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>
>>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>
>>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
>>is it so large?
>
>
> At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
> are 3 700MB ISO files :)

So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
compilers etc that the Linux distros include.

--
Paul

[ToolPackinMama]

Paul wrote:
>
> Toad wrote:
> > Mixxy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> >>
> >>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
> >>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> >>
> >>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
> >>is it so large?
> >
> >
> > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
> > are 3 700MB ISO files :)
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>

Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2, but
that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
the OS alone.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Since SP-2 includes all the Critical Updates included with SP-1, there
is no need to include updates or SP-1 with SP-2.
Windows XP with SP-2 easily fits on one CD.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"ToolPackinMama" > wrote in message
...
> Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
> but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be
> for
> the OS alone.

[JAD]

Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?


"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Toad wrote:
> > Mixxy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> >>
> >>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP
patches
> >>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> >>
> >>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big.
Why
> >>is it so large?
> >
> >
> > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux
distros
> > are 3 700MB ISO files :)
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>
> --
> Paul

[JAD]

would there be much of a difference between the size of the OS with or
without the service 0 0. installed? has anybody looked to see if the
'size' grows -dramatically- with the install of the PSS. I realize
that the delivery size is 'x' megs but after the SP is applied, the
install folders and all unneeded / duplicate files are deleted. The
fact is I'm not sure if there are files ADDED as much as they are
overwritten? Went to check the size of my backup compared to the size
currently on the HD, No go as the backup now contains the SP. (been
awhile now since I installed it on the Granddaughters Machine)

"ToolPackinMama" > wrote in message
...
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Toad wrote:
> > > Mixxy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> > >>
> > >>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP
patches
> > >>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> > >>
> > >>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big.
Why
> > >>is it so large?
> > >
> > >
> > > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux
distros
> > > are 3 700MB ISO files :)
> >
> > So would Windows if it included all the additional tools,
utilities
> > compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
> >
>
> Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be
for
> the OS alone.

[ToolPackinMama]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> Since SP-2 includes all the Critical Updates included with SP-1, there
> is no need to include updates or SP-1 with SP-2.
> Windows XP with SP-2 easily fits on one CD.

Maybe so, but that's still only the OS. It doesn't include a full
office suite like Open Office, plus hundreds (thousands? of additional
applications, utilities, compilers, games, etc. including GIMP.

[ToolPackinMama]

JAD wrote:
>
> Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
> granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
> compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?

Linux gives the end-user more freedom, control, and choices. Most
desktop PC end-users won't use all of that freedom, control and choices,
but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made available to them.

[Diogenes]

ToolPackinMama wrote:
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>>
>> Since SP-2 includes all the Critical Updates included with SP-1,
>> there is no need to include updates or SP-1 with SP-2.
>> Windows XP with SP-2 easily fits on one CD.
>
> Maybe so, but that's still only the OS. It doesn't include a full
> office suite like Open Office, plus hundreds (thousands? of additional
> applications, utilities, compilers, games, etc. including GIMP.

That was not in the statement posted by you that these responses are for.
Your post was inane and showed that you don't know anything about Windows and
its updates.


You're a typical linux****.
Linux makes you stupid.
All linux users (lusers) are gay.

[Diogenes]

ToolPackinMama wrote:
> JAD wrote:
>>
>> Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in
>> progress granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to
>> use compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all
>> those?
>
> Linux gives the end-user more freedom, control, and choices. Most
> desktop PC end-users won't use all of that freedom, control and
> choices, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made available to
> them.

No, linux doesn't have support for modern peripherals and the end-users are
supposed to write their own drivers and relink the kernel. That's why linux
bundles tools needed by linux, and Windows don't because they are unneeded.

You're a typical linux****.
Linux makes you stupid.
All linux users (lusers) are gay.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

But that is what you were saying "for the OS alone"
Your entire sentence is listed below to refresh your memory on what
you wrote.

"Windows XP would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the
patches, and SP2, but
that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
the OS alone."
The above statement is obviously wrong.

As for Office games etc, that all depends on what you install.
This is not unique to windows or any other OS.
A basic fact applies to all...the more you install, the larger it is
and the more CDs will be needed.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"ToolPackinMama" > wrote in message
> Maybe so, but that's still only the OS. It doesn't include a full
> office suite like Open Office, plus hundreds (thousands? of
> additional
> applications, utilities, compilers, games, etc. including GIMP.

[Apollo]

"JAD" > wrote in message
...
> would there be much of a difference between the size of the OS with or
> without the service 0 0. installed? has anybody looked to see if the
> 'size' grows -dramatically- with the install of the PSS. I realize
> that the delivery size is 'x' megs but after the SP is applied, the
> install folders and all unneeded / duplicate files are deleted. The
> fact is I'm not sure if there are files ADDED as much as they are
> overwritten? Went to check the size of my backup compared to the size
> currently on the HD, No go as the backup now contains the SP. (been
> awhile now since I installed it on the Granddaughters Machine)
>

I've just had a look at the CD's, installs will vary greatly from machine to
machine due to different hardware and installed options.

WinXP PRO SP1
6658 Files
159 Folders
560,745,861 bytes

WinXP PRO SP2
6999 Files
204 Folders
649,015,872 bytes

So not that much difference really, I may do a 'diff' from my linux box to
see how many of the original files were changed, If I get the time later.

HTH

--
Apollo

[The Grass is greener]

On 7 Sep 2004 15:39:28 -0700, [Aquila Deus] said :-

>"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message >...
>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
>> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
>> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
>> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
>> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
>> version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
>> blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
>> express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
>> that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
>> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
>> It does so much more than you can "see".
>>
>
>But:
>- It stills use a lot of RAM
>- It's still as slow as it used to be
>- Still has virus, adware and spyware!

What a complete load of hogwash.

[Dave C.]

>
> SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>
> > and now SP2 (272 mb).
>
> Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
> have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>

OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What can
SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave

[Dave C.]

"Toad" > wrote in message
...
> Dave C. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> > >
> >
> > It's called Mozilla. -Dave
>
> or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
> front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.
>
> toad

To borrow a line from a recent movie I saw on Showtime . . .

Sometimes you have to tear something down to rebuild it. :)

Which is my way of saying the easiest way to fix something as broken as IE
is to replace it with something decent. :) -Dave

[Dave C.]

> >
> > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
> > are 3 700MB ISO files :)
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>

Not to mention gobs of free software. Imagine if Microsoft released Windows
with all the Office Applications. It would fit nicely on one DVD,
hough. -Dave

[Dave C.]

"JAD" > wrote in message
...
> Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
> granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
> compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?
>

The last time I installed a recent linux distro, it did come on 3 CDs, but I
only needed the first one to fully install the OS and gobs of free software.
The other 2 CDs were the developer stuff. -Dave

[Rock]

Dave C. wrote:

>>SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>>
>>
>>>and now SP2 (272 mb).
>>
>>Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
>>have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>>
>
>
> OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
> turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
> that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What can
> SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
>
>

There are a lot of changes with SP2. See this link for detailed info.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx

[Dave C.]

> >
> > OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard
it
> > turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to
turn
> > that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What
can
> > SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
> >
> >
>
> There are a lot of changes with SP2. See this link for detailed info.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx
>

OK, I just reviewed the top ten reasons to upgrade to SP2. Of the top ten
reasons, EIGHT of those reasons can be done better by other software, most
(all?) of it freeware. You don't need SP2. The only improvement I see
there in the TOP TEN reasons is the improved wireless support. But my
wireless connections are working great now. Basically, it looks like ~200MB
of nothing. -Dave

[David Maynard]

ToolPackinMama wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
>>Toad wrote:
>>
>>>Mixxy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>>>
>>>>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>>>>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>>>
>>>>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
>>>>is it so large?
>>>
>>>
>>>At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
>>>are 3 700MB ISO files :)
>>
>>So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
>>compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>>
>
>
> Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,

No, a slipstreamed SP2 Windows XP CD, which includes all updates, is just
one plain ole' CD. Less than full at that.

> but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
> the OS alone.

[David Maynard]

Dave C. wrote:

>>SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>>
>>
>>>and now SP2 (272 mb).
>>
>>Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
>>have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>>
>
>
> OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
> turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
> that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall.

The typical user tends to take the O.S. 'as is' and, in that case, having a
built in firewall is a distinct improvement (and so is something as simple
as defaulting it to 'on'). SP2 also 'prods' (or nags, depending on your
point of view) the typical user about various security risks.

> I'm curious. What can
> SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave

Given enough time, knowledge, and resources one can always do just about
'anything' with just about any computer but that isn't the issue. The
'advantage' is that nothing else 'need' be done in those particular areas
or rather that, for the typical user who normally does nothing else, it
improves security.

[David Maynard]

Dave C. wrote:

>>>At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
>>>are 3 700MB ISO files :)
>>
>>So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
>>compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>>
>
>
> Not to mention gobs of free software. Imagine if Microsoft released Windows
> with all the Office Applications. It would fit nicely on one DVD,
> hough. -Dave
>
>

Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to operate.

[Dave C.]

> Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
operate.
>

It's that way now. The last time I installed a linux distro, the
installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.
That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably pretty
damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and clicking
a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows. The
problem with linux is MICROSOFT. If it wasn't for the Microsoft
stranglehold on office applications, linux could easily replace Windows.
Someone will now scream that there are open source applications (free!!!)
that will open and save in Microsoft Office data file formats. No, not
really. Not even Microsoft Office does that. That is, when you have work
to do, you not only need to be running MICROSOFT OFFICE, but you need to be
running the right version of it, also. When you e-mail a document halfway
around the world, you can't WONDER what it will look like when it's opened
up, if it can be opened up at all. If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.
THAT is the only reason linux will not catch on in a big way. That, and
most games won't run on linux. If enough businesses start using open source
software instead of Microsoft Office . . . and some game developers start
porting to linux . . . then Microsoft is in huge trouble. But as long as
Microsoft Office is so dominant, Microsoft has no reason to worry about
linux.

I almost forgot to add . . . another thing holding linux back is that there
are so many different distros, and applications packaged differently for
each distro. That's another kink that needs to be worked out before linux
will catch on in a big way. For example, if you want open office suite for
linux fedora, you can probably find a package that will install with a
couple of mouse clicks. But try to install that on suse linux and it won't
work. There needs to be a standard way of installing apps. in linux so that
one package will install on all distros without any "tweaking". Yeah, you
can recompile a kernel for just about anything, but the typical user isn't
even gonna think about it. -Dave

[David Maynard]

Dave C. wrote:

>>Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
>
> operate.
>
>
> It's that way now.

Not hardly.

> The last time I installed a linux distro, the
> installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.

Beside it not being as 'simple' as you suggest, 'installing' wasn't what I
meant by easy enough for the typical user to operate.

> That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably pretty
> damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and clicking
> a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows.

That's like saying moving your feet is just as easy going uphill as it is
on flat ground. It isn't the 'clicking' of the mouse button that matters.

But before you even get to that point one has to figure out which GUI
you're using.

And then there's the ever fun "I just installed <insert whatever>. I wonder
where the hell it went." Doesn't always happen but it happens often enough.


> The
> problem with linux is MICROSOFT. If it wasn't for the Microsoft
> stranglehold on office applications, linux could easily replace Windows.
> Someone will now scream that there are open source applications (free!!!)
> that will open and save in Microsoft Office data file formats. No, not
> really. Not even Microsoft Office does that. That is, when you have work
> to do, you not only need to be running MICROSOFT OFFICE, but you need to be
> running the right version of it, also. When you e-mail a document halfway
> around the world, you can't WONDER what it will look like when it's opened
> up, if it can be opened up at all. If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
> and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
> knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.

You forget to install the version filters?

> THAT is the only reason linux will not catch on in a big way. That, and
> most games won't run on linux. If enough businesses start using open source
> software instead of Microsoft Office . . . and some game developers start
> porting to linux . . . then Microsoft is in huge trouble. But as long as
> Microsoft Office is so dominant, Microsoft has no reason to worry about
> linux.
>
> I almost forgot to add . . . another thing holding linux back is that there
> are so many different distros, and applications packaged differently for
> each distro. That's another kink that needs to be worked out before linux
> will catch on in a big way. For example, if you want open office suite for
> linux fedora, you can probably find a package that will install with a
> couple of mouse clicks. But try to install that on suse linux and it won't
> work. There needs to be a standard way of installing apps. in linux so that
> one package will install on all distros without any "tweaking". Yeah, you
> can recompile a kernel for just about anything, but the typical user isn't
> even gonna think about it.

Now you're catching on.

Now, Debian has probably one of the easiest installers around with the
least pain for a typical user but there's also some other exciting
development going on in that area too.



-Dave
>
>

[Dave C.]

> > The last time I installed a linux distro, the
> > installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows
installation.
>
> Beside it not being as 'simple' as you suggest, 'installing' wasn't what I
> meant by easy enough for the typical user to operate.
>
> > That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably
pretty
> > damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and
clicking
> > a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows.
>
> That's like saying moving your feet is just as easy going uphill as it is
> on flat ground. It isn't the 'clicking' of the mouse button that matters.
>
> But before you even get to that point one has to figure out which GUI
> you're using.
>
> And then there's the ever fun "I just installed <insert whatever>. I
wonder
> where the hell it went." Doesn't always happen but it happens often
enough.
>
>

Yes, I know there are ways to tweak the open source apps. to match a
particular version of Office. But without a working PC *RUNNING* Microsoft
Office, you have no way of knowing if the software is working correctly
until it's too late. If you need to run Microsoft Office anyway, what's the
point of trying to coax linux to emulate it? Besides which, the typical
computer user wouldn't bother to even try, and therein lies the real
problem.

But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
operate. Note that's if their particular distro comes with all the software
they want pre-packaged. (I know there's still some software installation
headaches that need to be addressed).

OH, and it doesn't matter what GUI you want to use with linux. Last I
checked, there were only two major choices of GUI for linux (and some others
that the real geeks play around with). Of the two major ones, they both
operate identically, and they run each other's software seamlessly. From
memory, I believe the last major distribution I installed actually installed
BOTH GUI's by default, and then asked you to choose one to use at login. I
could bounce back and forth between the two if I wanted, but the one I used
(gnome) worked fine, so I stuck with that. And yes, I was running some KDE
apps. on that, no problems at all.

Before someone gets the wrong impression, I'm not a linux fanatic. I LIKE
linux, but I run Windows XP. Even if I wasn't "required" to run Windows for
telecommuting, I'd still run Windows XP. Eventually I'll be running linux
again. It might not happen until I retire, but it'll happen. Linux is just
too good to ignore indefinitely. And yes, I was dual booting linux and
windows for a while. I finally figured out that was a waste of time, as I
HAD to run windows but didn't have to run linux. Bouncing back and forth
constantly drove me nuts and Windows XP really isn't too evil, so I'm
running that exclusively now. -Dave

[ToolPackinMama]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> But that is what you were saying "for the OS alone"
> Your entire sentence is listed below to refresh your memory on what
> you wrote.
>
> "Windows XP would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the
> patches, and SP2, but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
> the OS alone."
> The above statement is obviously wrong.

How ya figure? The patches etc. ARE for the OS alone.

[ToolPackinMama]

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> "JAD" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
> > granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
> > compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?
> >
>
> The last time I installed a recent linux distro, it did come on 3 CDs, but I
> only needed the first one to fully install the OS and gobs of free software.
> The other 2 CDs were the developer stuff. -Dave

True.

[ToolPackinMama]

"Dave C." wrote:

> OK, I just reviewed the top ten reasons to upgrade to SP2. Of the top ten
> reasons, EIGHT of those reasons can be done better by other software, most
> (all?) of it freeware. You don't need SP2. The only improvement I see
> there in the TOP TEN reasons is the improved wireless support. But my
> wireless connections are working great now. Basically, it looks like ~200MB
> of nothing. -Dave

Well said.

[ToolPackinMama]

David Maynard wrote:
>
> ToolPackinMama wrote:

> > Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> > would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
>
> No, a slipstreamed SP2 Windows XP CD, which includes all updates, is just
> one plain ole' CD. Less than full at that.

Does that include the full OS?

Even so, it wouldn't equal a Linux CD with hundreds of applications,
including a full office suite, and GIMP. Especially not at the same
price. Linux ~with~ all the extras is a fraction of the cost of Windows
XP alone, without extras.

[ToolPackinMama]

David Maynard wrote:

> Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to operate.

It's easy enough for the typical user who only wants to browse the web,
enjoy porn/music and send/recieve email, right now. Those who use an OS
to easily create/view image/text documents of various flavors also have
everything they need, right now.

It's the game-players that have problems (IMHO).

[ToolPackinMama]

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> > Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
> operate.
> >
>
> It's that way now.

For web-browsing and email, yes, it's there now. FWIW, most newbie home
users only use their computers and internet for web-browsing and email
(in my experience). They _can_ do this with Linux as easily as with
Windows.

[ToolPackinMama]

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> > Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
> operate.
> >
>
> It's that way now. The last time I installed a linux distro, the
> installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.

I agree.

> If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
> and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
> knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.

Well, try saving it as "text only". :)

> There needs to be a standard way of installing apps.

That, IMHO, is the one thing holding Linux back.

[ToolPackinMama]

"Dave C." wrote:

> But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
> XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
> operate.

I agree.

> Linux is just too good to ignore indefinitely.

I agree.

[ToolPackinMama]

Diogenes wrote:

> You're a typical linux****.

What nonsense. :)

[ToolPackinMama]

Diogenes wrote:

> No, linux doesn't have support for modern peripherals and the end-users are
> supposed to write their own drivers and relink the kernel.

That's pure nonsense. :)

[ToolPackinMama]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> But that is what you were saying "for the OS alone"

Yes, for the OS alone...

The Linux CD's aren't for the OS alone. One CD is enough to hold the
Linux OS alone. The Linux CDs include hundreds (thousands?) of
utilities and applications, including a full office suite (Open Office)
and a Photoshop-type image manipulation program (GIMP). Therefore,
several Linux CDs is not the same as one XP CD, especially not at that
price. A Linux distro of several CDs worth of OS and apps and add-ons
costs a tiny fraction of what it costs for the XP OS alone.

That's a fact.

[Dave C.]

> > Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
operate.
>
> It's easy enough for the typical user who only wants to browse the web,
> enjoy porn/music and send/recieve email, right now. Those who use an OS
> to easily create/view image/text documents of various flavors also have
> everything they need, right now.
>
> It's the game-players that have problems (IMHO).

Don't forget telecommuters who need to run Microsoft Office, not some
imitation that works "OK" if other people send you files. -Dave

[Dave C.]

>
> > If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
> > and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way
of
> > knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send"
button.
>
> Well, try saving it as "text only". :)
>

I notice the smiley face. :) -Dave

[David Maynard]

ToolPackinMama wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>ToolPackinMama wrote:
>
>
>>>Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
>>>would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
>>
>>No, a slipstreamed SP2 Windows XP CD, which includes all updates, is just
>>one plain ole' CD. Less than full at that.
>
>
> Does that include the full OS?

Yes, of course.

> Even so, it wouldn't equal a Linux CD with hundreds of applications,
> including a full office suite, and GIMP. Especially not at the same
> price. Linux ~with~ all the extras is a fraction of the cost of Windows
> XP alone, without extras.

I didn't say it did. The point of discussion was whether Windows XP and
SP2, with all updates, would fill several CDs. It doesn't, when 'put together'.

[David Maynard]

ToolPackinMama wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to operate.
>
>
> It's easy enough for the typical user who only wants to browse the web,
> enjoy porn/music and send/recieve email, right now. Those who use an OS
> to easily create/view image/text documents of various flavors also have
> everything they need, right now.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Even before one gets to any 'operational' issues they've first got to get
past which of the umpty dump dump bazillion versions to try and then what
the heck those umpty dump dump thousands of 'free programs' do and what the
cryptic names mean. And then 'root' and super user if they're to accomplish
almost anything.

Plus, I think you way underestimate the value to 'typical' users of wizards
and windows being more tightly integrated.


> It's the game-players that have problems (IMHO).

[David Maynard]

Dave C. wrote:

>>> The last time I installed a linux distro, the
>>>installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows
>
> installation.
>
>>Beside it not being as 'simple' as you suggest, 'installing' wasn't what I
>>meant by easy enough for the typical user to operate.
>>
>>
>>>That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably
>
> pretty
>
>>>damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and
>
> clicking
>
>>>a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows.
>>
>>That's like saying moving your feet is just as easy going uphill as it is
>>on flat ground. It isn't the 'clicking' of the mouse button that matters.
>>
>>But before you even get to that point one has to figure out which GUI
>>you're using.
>>
>>And then there's the ever fun "I just installed <insert whatever>. I
>
> wonder
>
>>where the hell it went." Doesn't always happen but it happens often
>
> enough.
>
>>
>
> Yes, I know there are ways to tweak the open source apps. to match a
> particular version of Office. But without a working PC *RUNNING* Microsoft
> Office, you have no way of knowing if the software is working correctly
> until it's too late. If you need to run Microsoft Office anyway, what's the
> point of trying to coax linux to emulate it? Besides which, the typical
> computer user wouldn't bother to even try, and therein lies the real
> problem.

I wasn't talking about tweaking Open Source apps; I was talking about you
saying there was a problem from one version of MS Office to the other.
Trying to open a new doc in an ancient version might be a problem but I've
got docs going back to Word 2 for DOS and I never, in all the newer
versions, ran into any problems that I can remember. I can also open all
the Works 2 docs I've got, just as they were when I was using Works for DOS.


> But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
> XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
> operate. Note that's if their particular distro comes with all the software
> they want pre-packaged. (I know there's still some software installation
> headaches that need to be addressed).

I've GOT various Linux versions and I disagree that they're just as easy
for the 'typical' user, although they're certainly a lot better than just a
few years ago.

Last one I tried was Lindows 4.5 but it apparently doesn't understand the
display card in the test machine I put it on because all I got was a blank
screen after the initial boot. Gonna try it on another one when I get
around to it (I'm having more fun with the mini live CD distros at the
moment), but that's just one of the 'surprises' folks can run into.


> OH, and it doesn't matter what GUI you want to use with linux. Last I
> checked, there were only two major choices of GUI for linux (and some others
> that the real geeks play around with). Of the two major ones, they both
> operate identically, and they run each other's software seamlessly. From
> memory, I believe the last major distribution I installed actually installed
> BOTH GUI's by default, and then asked you to choose one to use at login. I
> could bounce back and forth between the two if I wanted, but the one I used
> (gnome) worked fine, so I stuck with that. And yes, I was running some KDE
> apps. on that, no problems at all.

Maybe you didn't try enough things to discover some of the problems.

> Before someone gets the wrong impression, I'm not a linux fanatic. I LIKE
> linux, but I run Windows XP. Even if I wasn't "required" to run Windows for
> telecommuting, I'd still run Windows XP. Eventually I'll be running linux
> again. It might not happen until I retire, but it'll happen. Linux is just
> too good to ignore indefinitely. And yes, I was dual booting linux and
> windows for a while. I finally figured out that was a waste of time, as I
> HAD to run windows but didn't have to run linux. Bouncing back and forth
> constantly drove me nuts and Windows XP really isn't too evil, so I'm
> running that exclusively now. -Dave

I like Linux but when I don't have time to 'play' and need to get something
done NOW I whip up one of the windows machines.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

How much space Linux uses on a CD is not relevant.
I was commenting to the WRONG information "Windows XP would fill
several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches"
Clearly a FALSE statement since it all fits on a single CD.
The other products are NOT part of the operating system.
Cost also has absolutely no bearing on the space used for the
operating system.
You keep bringing other irrelevant points to cloud the facts.

What you say may or may not be a fact in this post, but were clearly
WRONG in the post I originally responded.

Otherwise please explain this statement you made:
"Windows XP would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the
patches"
Just because you may be incapable of placing Windows XP and all
current patches on a single CD, do not assume others can't.

Fortunately not all Linux users feel the need to misrepresent a
product to show the value of Linux.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"ToolPackinMama" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, for the OS alone...
>
> The Linux CD's aren't for the OS alone. One CD is enough to hold
> the
> Linux OS alone. The Linux CDs include hundreds (thousands?) of
> utilities and applications, including a full office suite (Open
> Office)
> and a Photoshop-type image manipulation program (GIMP). Therefore,
> several Linux CDs is not the same as one XP CD, especially not at
> that
> price. A Linux distro of several CDs worth of OS and apps and
> add-ons
> costs a tiny fraction of what it costs for the XP OS alone.
>
> That's a fact.

[Aquila Deus]

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message >...
> And Aquila Deus is still having problems adjusting to his new
> anti-hallucination drugs.
>
> Prove your claims of SP2 containing Viruses,

Isn't windows itself a big virus?

> adware or spyware.

Windows Update service.

> I dare you to validate a single claim you have made.

Does sp2 make xp immune to all the viruses and spywares/adwares on Internet?

>
> You can't, can you?

dude, I just did.

>
> Shut up and crawl back into the hole you came out of.
>
> You are a loser and a moron.

BWHAHAHAHA!!

>
> Bobby

Is this pronounced as Bou-Bee or Bah-Bee?

>
>
> "Aquila Deus" > wrote in message
>
> ///SNIP////
>
>
> >>
> >
> > But:
> > - It stills use a lot of RAM
> > - It's still as slow as it used to be
> > - Still has virus, adware and spyware!
> > - As u wrote above, the new firewall is still lame
> > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> >
> > So what's the difference?
> >

[Aquila Deus]

"Dave C." > wrote in message >...
> > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> >
>
> It's called Mozilla. -Dave

But M$ should just replace IE with it.

[Harry]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:57:21 -0400, "Dave C." > wrote:

>>
>> SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>>
>> > and now SP2 (272 mb).
>>
>> Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
>> have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>>
>
>OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
>turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
>that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What can
>SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
>
Read this for the background fixes made to XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;811113

[Don Taylor]

"Dave C." > writes:
....
>But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
>XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
>operate.
....

One likely not representative data point.
Have an XP box with all my expensive licensed (math) software running
on it. A person I was working with suggested I try out Linux. That
seemed reasonable, I earned my money a couple of decades ago writing
code sitting inside of BSD Unix, I even did a bit of system
administration before the world went Windows and networking crazy.

So I built a little Linux box, stuck a Knoppix CD in it, and because
this was strictly a trial to see how things would go and because
some of the licensed software on the XP box doesn't want to be
disturbed, I thought I would try out this new-fangled Internet
Connection Sharing, using the XP box to connect to the net and let
the Linux box borrow access to the net through the XP box, the
bandwidth needed for the project software was very small but
absolutely essential. XP seemed to claim that this could work.

I had no idea the responses I would get from people when I had
problems with this and went looking for a little help. Without too
much trouble I got to the point where I could, sometimes, ping back
and forth between the two. But any attempt to get the Linux box
to reach the net failed. I borrowed a pile of books from the
library. No luck, borrowed more, searched the net, no luck. So I
politely asked a few questions of the Linux folks. Roughly the
response was that if I wanted them to come over and burn anything
I had that ever had any Microsoft on it and replace it all with
Linux then they would help, not otherwise. So I tried the opposite
side, and asked Microsoft folks. Roughly the response was that
they would help me burn the Linux stuff OR that they had no idea
how to do anything with Linux. I even offered to pay people. Nope.

I struggled trying to make this work, and not having any time to
spend on what I was really supposed to be doing, for three months.
Finally I told the person I was doing the work for that I was going
to abandon the project, sorry I couldn't help him but I quit. The
person who I was working with on the math project rewrote a bunch
of the code so we could run it without needing any networking at
all. I transfer data back and forth between the group of Linux
boxes using a floppy disk now.

[Greg R]

To Aquila Deus
Bobby ask nonobaddog. Has a problem understanding people. If he
does not understand people he claims they are on drugs.

He accused my being on drugs as well. Had to tell him, my grammar
is bad at time due to my disability. A form of dyslexia. I will say
something if he gives incorrect information out. Other than that I
just ignore him.

He still didn’t get the message Symantec Ghost was acquired from
Binary Research Limited group.

He keep saying ghost was a Symantec/Norton product since it inception.
Symantec/Norton’s did not develop ghost. Binary Research did.

http://www.symantec.com/corporate/


Greg R




>And Aquila Deus is still having problems adjusting to his new
>anti-hallucination drugs.

[Harry]

On 9 Sep 2004 00:36:17 -0700, (Aquila Deus)
wrote:

>"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message >...
>> And Aquila Deus is still having problems adjusting to his new
>> anti-hallucination drugs.
>>
>> Prove your claims of SP2 containing Viruses,
>
>Isn't windows itself a big virus?
?????

>
>> adware or spyware.
>
>Windows Update service.
Anonymous logging of downloads from Microsofts site. Its the same as a
website cookie. It does not log key strokes. It does not popup ads.

And its not compulsory. Updates can be downloaded without using this
service.

>
>> I dare you to validate a single claim you have made.
>
>Does sp2 make xp immune to all the viruses and spywares/adwares on Internet?
So how does that validate your claim? Of course it doesnt make XP
immune, its an OS not an anti virus/anti spam/anti spyware product.
>
>>
>> You can't, can you?
>
>dude, I just did.
Sorry, try again......
>
>>
>> Shut up and crawl back into the hole you came out of.
>>
>> You are a loser and a moron.
>
>BWHAHAHAHA!!
>
>>
>> Bobby
>
>Is this pronounced as Bou-Bee or Bah-Bee?
>
>>
>>
>> "Aquila Deus" > wrote in message
>>
>> ///SNIP////
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > But:
>> > - It stills use a lot of RAM
>> > - It's still as slow as it used to be
>> > - Still has virus, adware and spyware!
>> > - As u wrote above, the new firewall is still lame
>> > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
>> >
>> > So what's the difference?
>> >

[Dave C.]

> >OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
> >turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to
turn
> >that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What
can
> >SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
> >
> Read this for the background fixes made to XP
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;811113
>

Good information. TONS of bug fixes. It's just odd that in years of
running Windows XP, I haven't experienced any of those specific issues. I
suspect if I did run into one of those bugs, I could find a better solution
than installing ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave

[Dave C.]

"Don Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave C." > writes:
> ...
> >But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with
Windows
> >XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
> >operate.
> ...
>
> One likely not representative data point.
> Have an XP box with all my expensive licensed (math) software running
> on it. A person I was working with suggested I try out Linux. That
> seemed reasonable, I earned my money a couple of decades ago writing
> code sitting inside of BSD Unix, I even did a bit of system
> administration before the world went Windows and networking crazy.
>
> So I built a little Linux box, stuck a Knoppix CD in it, and because
> this was strictly a trial to see how things would go and because
> some of the licensed software on the XP box doesn't want to be
> disturbed, I thought I would try out this new-fangled Internet
> Connection Sharing, using the XP box to connect to the net and let
> the Linux box borrow access to the net through the XP box,

(snip)

Yikes. I'm experienced with both operating systems, and that sounds like a
real nightmare. It's not always easy to get two Windows XP boxes to
cooperate for ICS, so I can imagine the headaches caused by one of the boxes
running linux. I haven't tried ICS on linux. My experience with broadband
and linux is that linux will configure itself for Internet access if it is
connected directly to the Internet or through a hardware router. I'm sorry
you had such a problem getting someone to try to help you with this issue.
I would have advised you to invest in a router. That has nothing to do with
linux in particular. It's just that a router is the best solution if you
need more than one computer of any kind connected to a single Internet
connection. On a side note, broadband downloads are faster in linux, in my
experience. -Dave

[ToolPackinMama]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> How much space Linux uses on a CD is not relevant.
> I was commenting to the WRONG information "Windows XP would fill
> several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches"
> Clearly a FALSE statement since it all fits on a single CD.

Well, the Linux OS also fts on a single CD. That other stuff is free
extras.

[David Maynard]

Harry wrote:

> On 9 Sep 2004 00:36:17 -0700, (Aquila Deus)
> wrote:
>
>
>>"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message >...
>>
>>>And Aquila Deus is still having problems adjusting to his new
>>>anti-hallucination drugs.
>>>
>>>Prove your claims of SP2 containing Viruses,
>>
>>Isn't windows itself a big virus?
>
> ?????

Don't worry about it. That's just typical bash Microsoft babble and there's
no logic or meaning to it.

[Harry]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:41:28 -0400, "Dave C." > wrote:

>> >OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
>> >turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to
>turn
>> >that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What
>can
>> >SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
>> >
>> Read this for the background fixes made to XP
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;811113
>>
>
>Good information. TONS of bug fixes. It's just odd that in years of
>running Windows XP, I haven't experienced any of those specific issues. I
>suspect if I did run into one of those bugs, I could find a better solution
>than installing ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave
>
Considering the number of bugs fixed I would hardly call it worthless.
The 200Mb includes all the bugs, not just one, so I'd rather have them
all fixed than wait until I come across one.

If their was a chance the brakes on your car could fail, youd be
pretty keen to have then fixed! ...Or would you not bother, as youve
never had them fail before !?

[David Maynard]

Dave C. wrote:

> "Don Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dave C." > writes:
>>...
>>
>>>But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with
>
> Windows
>
>>>XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
>>>operate.
>>
>>...
>>
>>One likely not representative data point.
>>Have an XP box with all my expensive licensed (math) software running
>>on it. A person I was working with suggested I try out Linux. That
>>seemed reasonable, I earned my money a couple of decades ago writing
>>code sitting inside of BSD Unix, I even did a bit of system
>>administration before the world went Windows and networking crazy.
>>
>>So I built a little Linux box, stuck a Knoppix CD in it, and because
>>this was strictly a trial to see how things would go and because
>>some of the licensed software on the XP box doesn't want to be
>>disturbed, I thought I would try out this new-fangled Internet
>>Connection Sharing, using the XP box to connect to the net and let
>>the Linux box borrow access to the net through the XP box,
>
>
> (snip)
>
> Yikes. I'm experienced with both operating systems, and that sounds like a
> real nightmare. It's not always easy to get two Windows XP boxes to
> cooperate for ICS, so I can imagine the headaches caused by one of the boxes
> running linux.

'Technically' there's no difference: the ICS machine does NAT and you point
the client machines to it as the router. From the user's standpoint,
though, with Windows you make a client disk that automatically sets up the
client machines but you have to do it manually with Linux.

That's what I mean about Windows being more tightly integrated.

> I haven't tried ICS on linux. My experience with broadband
> and linux is that linux will configure itself for Internet access if it is
> connected directly to the Internet or through a hardware router.

Almost any network aware O.S. will automatically accept DHCP configuration
as default (frankly, I don't know of any that won't but there's probably
SOME exception so I say almost). The trick, of course, is having DHCP set
up somewhere, or you have to do it manually.

Since he could ping the ICS box, but not get internet access, I'd guess
that he had a valid IP but didn't have the ICS machine's IP set as the
default gateway on the Linux box. Second problem is that the Linux
hosts.allow and hosts.deny configuration files default to blocking all
hosts/IPs.

To do windows file and printer sharing he'd then have to set up Samba,
which is a whole 'nother matter.

> I'm sorry
> you had such a problem getting someone to try to help you with this issue.
> I would have advised you to invest in a router. That has nothing to do with
> linux in particular. It's just that a router is the best solution if you
> need more than one computer of any kind connected to a single Internet
> connection. On a side note, broadband downloads are faster in linux, in my
> experience. -Dave
>
>

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

That was never questioned by me.
It was just your statement "Windows XP would fill several CDs if you
included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,"

Again "That other stuff..." is irrelevant to the misinformation you
posted.

I suggest you learn the facts instead of misstate them as you have in
your eagerness to blindly promote what you think is best.
Because of your wrong statement, you have done nothing to promote your
point, instead you have given cause to question everything you say.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"ToolPackinMama" > wrote in message
...
> Well, the Linux OS also fts on a single CD. That other stuff is
> free
> extras.

[Dave C.]

> Considering the number of bugs fixed I would hardly call it worthless.
> The 200Mb includes all the bugs, not just one, so I'd rather have them
> all fixed than wait until I come across one.
>
> If their was a chance the brakes on your car could fail, youd be
> pretty keen to have then fixed! ...Or would you not bother, as youve
> never had them fail before !?
>
>

Have you ever heard anybody say if it ain't broke, don't fix it??? There's
a reason they say that. If I happen to run into one of the bugs that SP2
addresses, it will be a minor inconvenience, at worst. Probably take me all
of a few minutes to figure out a convenient workaround. But to avoid that
possibility, you would have me fix hundreds of problems that don't exist,
and risk creating many new problems in the process??? No, I stand by my
opinion that SP2 is ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Just because you do not recognize something as broken does not mean
all is well.

Perhaps you do not need SP-2.
But you far from represent the masses.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
> Have you ever heard anybody say if it ain't broke, don't fix it???
> There's
> a reason they say that. If I happen to run into one of the bugs
> that SP2
> addresses, it will be a minor inconvenience, at worst. Probably
> take me all
> of a few minutes to figure out a convenient workaround. But to
> avoid that
> possibility, you would have me fix hundreds of problems that don't
> exist,
> and risk creating many new problems in the process??? No, I stand
> by my
> opinion that SP2 is ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave

[Harry]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:54:18 -0400, "Dave C." > wrote:

>> Considering the number of bugs fixed I would hardly call it worthless.
>> The 200Mb includes all the bugs, not just one, so I'd rather have them
>> all fixed than wait until I come across one.
>>
>> If their was a chance the brakes on your car could fail, youd be
>> pretty keen to have then fixed! ...Or would you not bother, as youve
>> never had them fail before !?
>>
>>
>
>Have you ever heard anybody say if it ain't broke, don't fix it??? There's
>a reason they say that. If I happen to run into one of the bugs that SP2
>addresses, it will be a minor inconvenience, at worst. Probably take me all
>of a few minutes to figure out a convenient workaround. But to avoid that
>possibility, you would have me fix hundreds of problems that don't exist,
>and risk creating many new problems in the process??? No, I stand by my
>opinion that SP2 is ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave
>
But the problems do exist. Albeit not on your PC, but they do exist.

Just browsing the list I can see that their are issues affecting CPU
performance; registry keys being indvertantly deleted; system lockups;
and hard disk corruption.

Lets hope you really dont come across one of these minor
inconveniences.

Dont come whinging to us when your PC starts playing up.

[Dave C.]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Just because you do not recognize something as broken does not mean
> all is well.
>

I don't know about that. My computer is rock-solid stable, spyware and
virus free. It's also very productive and does everything I need to do to
telecommute from home. It interfaces perfectly with many peripheral
components, and networks wirelessly with other computers in my home. No
problem at all. If you try to tell me that it's broken, that will just make
you look foolish. -Dave

[JAD]

<My honest opinion of it >


Is just that,,,,,,,,,

"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
>
> > But the problems do exist. Albeit not on your PC, but they do
exist.
> >
> > Just browsing the list I can see that their are issues affecting
CPU
> > performance; registry keys being indvertantly deleted; system
lockups;
> > and hard disk corruption.
> >
> > Lets hope you really dont come across one of these minor
> > inconveniences.
> >
> > Dont come whinging to us when your PC starts playing up.
> >
>
> Let me get this straight . . . you would advise someone to fix a
perfectly
> good computer because you imagine that something bad might happen
sometime
>

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I never suggested your computer is broken, that is your idea.

I did say "Just because you do not recognize something as broken does
not mean all is well."
Which was a response to your comment "Have you ever heard anybody say
if it ain't broke, don't fix it???"


--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
> I don't know about that. My computer is rock-solid stable, spyware
> and
> virus free. It's also very productive and does everything I need to
> do to
> telecommute from home. It interfaces perfectly with many peripheral
> components, and networks wirelessly with other computers in my home.
> No
> problem at all. If you try to tell me that it's broken, that will
> just make
> you look foolish. -Dave

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

No one even suggested that, again that is your idea.

However just because all seems well, does not mean all is well.
Every computer can be looked at individually.

Also your comment "...you imagine that something bad..." suggests this
is all Harry's idea.
Perhaps you should step back and research a bit and discover these
problems and fixes are not something Harry imagined.
You have a bad way of twisting what was said.

They are real whether you believe it or not.
They may not affect all computers but they are real just the same.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"JAD" > wrote in message
...
> Let me get this straight . . . you would advise someone to fix a
> perfectly
>> good computer because you imagine that something bad might happen
> sometime

[Apollo]

"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
>> Considering the number of bugs fixed I would hardly call it worthless.
>> The 200Mb includes all the bugs, not just one, so I'd rather have them
>> all fixed than wait until I come across one.
>>
>> If their was a chance the brakes on your car could fail, youd be
>> pretty keen to have then fixed! ...Or would you not bother, as youve
>> never had them fail before !?
>>
>>
>
> Have you ever heard anybody say if it ain't broke, don't fix it???
> There's
> a reason they say that. If I happen to run into one of the bugs that SP2
> addresses, it will be a minor inconvenience, at worst. Probably take me
> all
> of a few minutes to figure out a convenient workaround. But to avoid that
> possibility, you would have me fix hundreds of problems that don't exist,
> and risk creating many new problems in the process??? No, I stand by my
> opinion that SP2 is ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave
>

You really don't have a clue d00d.

So if you happen to come across a security vulnerability (after the event),
it would only be a minor inconvenience to change all passwords, including
any online banking, credit cards, email accounts assuming your accounts
haven't been cleared out already.

I haven't had a single issue with my slipstream of sp2 (apart from the usual
services bloat), my system seems snappier and more responsive too.

--
Apollo

[Aquila Deus]

"Synapse Syndrome" > wrote in message >...
> "Mixxy" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> >
> > It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> > 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> >
> > Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
> so
> > large?
> >
> >
>
>
> What the hell did you expect it do?

to become linux!

[relic]

Aquila Deus wrote:
> "Synapse Syndrome" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Mixxy" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>>
>>> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>>> and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>>
>>> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
>>> is it
>> so
>>> large?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What the hell did you expect it do?
>
> to become linux!

Not buggy enough.

--
- relic -
Don't take life too seriously, You won't get out alive.

[Aquila Deus]

Greg R > wrote in message >...
> To Aquila Deus
> Bobby ask nonobaddog. Has a problem understanding people. If he
> does not understand people he claims they are on drugs.
>
> He accused my being on drugs as well. Had to tell him, my grammar
> is bad at time due to my disability. A form of dyslexia. I will say
> something if he gives incorrect information out. Other than that I
> just ignore him.
>
> He still didn?t get the message Symantec Ghost was acquired from
> Binary Research Limited group.
>
> He keep saying ghost was a Symantec/Norton product since it inception.
> Symantec/Norton?s did not develop ghost. Binary Research did.
>
> http://www.symantec.com/corporate/
>
>
> Greg R

Thanks for your backing! :))

[David Maynard]

Dave C. wrote:

>>Considering the number of bugs fixed I would hardly call it worthless.
>>The 200Mb includes all the bugs, not just one, so I'd rather have them
>>all fixed than wait until I come across one.
>>
>>If their was a chance the brakes on your car could fail, youd be
>>pretty keen to have then fixed! ...Or would you not bother, as youve
>>never had them fail before !?
>>
>>
>
>
> Have you ever heard anybody say if it ain't broke, don't fix it??? There's
> a reason they say that.

Yes, there is. But that presumes it really "ain't broke" and his point of
it being broke, really, is still valid.

> If I happen to run into one of the bugs that SP2
> addresses, it will be a minor inconvenience, at worst. Probably take me all
> of a few minutes to figure out a convenient workaround. But to avoid that
> possibility, you would have me fix hundreds of problems that don't exist,
> and risk creating many new problems in the process??? No, I stand by my
> opinion that SP2 is ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave
>
>

[David Maynard]

Harry wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:54:18 -0400, "Dave C." > wrote:
>
>
>>>Considering the number of bugs fixed I would hardly call it worthless.
>>>The 200Mb includes all the bugs, not just one, so I'd rather have them
>>>all fixed than wait until I come across one.
>>>
>>>If their was a chance the brakes on your car could fail, youd be
>>>pretty keen to have then fixed! ...Or would you not bother, as youve
>>>never had them fail before !?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Have you ever heard anybody say if it ain't broke, don't fix it??? There's
>>a reason they say that. If I happen to run into one of the bugs that SP2
>>addresses, it will be a minor inconvenience, at worst. Probably take me all
>>of a few minutes to figure out a convenient workaround. But to avoid that
>>possibility, you would have me fix hundreds of problems that don't exist,
>>and risk creating many new problems in the process??? No, I stand by my
>>opinion that SP2 is ~200MB of worthless software. -Dave
>>
>
> But the problems do exist. Albeit not on your PC, but they do exist.
>
> Just browsing the list I can see that their are issues affecting CPU
> performance; registry keys being indvertantly deleted; system lockups;
> and hard disk corruption.
>
> Lets hope you really dont come across one of these minor
> inconveniences.
>
> Dont come whinging to us when your PC starts playing up.

Well, let's not get carried away here. Someone not installing SP2 is in no
worse shape than they were a month ago.

[Don Taylor]

David Maynard > writes:
>Dave C. wrote:
>> "Don Taylor" > wrote in message
>>>One likely not representative data point.
>>>Have an XP box with all my expensive licensed (math) software running
>>>on it. A person I was working with suggested I try out Linux. That
>>>seemed reasonable, I earned my money a couple of decades ago writing
>>>code sitting inside of BSD Unix, I even did a bit of system
>>>administration before the world went Windows and networking crazy.
>>>
>>>So I built a little Linux box, stuck a Knoppix CD in it, and because
>>>this was strictly a trial to see how things would go and because
>>>some of the licensed software on the XP box doesn't want to be
>>>disturbed, I thought I would try out this new-fangled Internet
>>>Connection Sharing, using the XP box to connect to the net and let
>>>the Linux box borrow access to the net through the XP box,
>> (snip)
>> Yikes. I'm experienced with both operating systems, and that sounds like a
>> real nightmare. It's not always easy to get two Windows XP boxes to
>> cooperate for ICS, so I can imagine the headaches caused by one of the boxes
>> running linux.

Tell me about it, or, perhaps not :)

>'Technically' there's no difference: the ICS machine does NAT and you point
>the client machines to it as the router. From the user's standpoint,
>though, with Windows you make a client disk that automatically sets up the
>client machines but you have to do it manually with Linux.

>That's what I mean about Windows being more tightly integrated.

It sounded like it should have worked, or I wouldn't have tried.

>> I haven't tried ICS on linux. My experience with broadband
>> and linux is that linux will configure itself for Internet access if it is
>> connected directly to the Internet or through a hardware router.

>Almost any network aware O.S. will automatically accept DHCP configuration
>as default (frankly, I don't know of any that won't but there's probably
>SOME exception so I say almost). The trick, of course, is having DHCP set
>up somewhere, or you have to do it manually.

Tried DHCP, no joy. So I fell back on static addressing since I would
never need more than 9 ip addresses in 192.168.(0..8) or would ever
need to have them change. Still no joy.

>Since he could ping the ICS box, but not get internet access, I'd guess
>that he had a valid IP but didn't have the ICS machine's IP set as the
>default gateway on the Linux box. Second problem is that the Linux
>hosts.allow and hosts.deny configuration files default to blocking all
>hosts/IPs.

I thought I had the gateway address set correctly.
I thought I had checked hosts.* to allow this,
but then I tend to not swear I'm positive about
most things just so I don't ignore the right answer.

But it could never reach a name server, and when I
fell back on using numeric ip addresses, and forcing
it to not first try name resolution on them, it would
not reach the outside destination either.

>To do windows file and printer sharing he'd then have to set up Samba,
>which is a whole 'nother matter.

I guaranteed that I would never need either of those, once I figured out
the advice that I had to make Samba work was only necessary in those two
cases.

And it still didn't work.

But I had volunteers to come over and urinate on the competitors products
:)

However, at this point it really doesn't matter, I swore off the whole
mess and now say "I'm net-not-working" if anyone asks. Floppies will
do and I'll just leave it at that. The math is getting done now and
that is good enough, I get paid for the work.

But it would be an interesting challenge to see if anyone could make
either product friendly enough that the "average user" could accomplish
something like this in, say 5 minutes, and not leave any gaping security
holes open. It doesn't really seem like this should be rocket science.

[Jon Danniken]

"Dave C." wrote:
> "Toad" wrote:
> > Dave C. wrote:
> > >
> > > It's called Mozilla. -Dave
> >
> > or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
> > front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.
> >
>
> To borrow a line from a recent movie I saw on Showtime . . .
>
> Sometimes you have to tear something down to rebuild it. :)
>
> Which is my way of saying the easiest way to fix something as broken as IE
> is to replace it with something decent. :) -Dave

I've tried a few of the other browsers, but I have found them to be buggy as hell, and
with "features" that I consider absolute rubbish (like tabbed browsing). While there
are a couple of things that I find annoying with IE, as far as I am concerned it's
still far and away the best product out there.

Jon

[Jon Danniken]

"Harry" wrote:
> (Aquila Deus) wrote:
> >
> >Windows Update service.
> Anonymous logging of downloads from Microsofts site. Its the same as a
> website cookie. It does not log key strokes. It does not popup ads.
>
> And its not compulsory. Updates can be downloaded without using this
> service.

Actually, from my experience I had to set "Automatic Updates" to "Automatic" to even
be able to do manual downloads of updates. I turn it off after I'm done looking for
any available updates.

Jon

[mc]

Mixxy wrote:
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it so
> large?
>
>
Top 10 reasons why SP2 is sooooo Big.

10. 80 MB of future backdoors.
9. Big Brother friendly.
8. 100 MB of encryption.
7. Append Append Append.
6. "This CD has so much free space", microsoft developers.
5. Bill Gates about to buy Hard-drive company.
4. Linux software in hidden easter-egg.
3. Backstreet Boy's video used as test mpg.
2. OJ's selling steroids.
1. Viagra.

[David Maynard]

Don Taylor wrote:

> David Maynard > writes:
>
>>Dave C. wrote:
>>
>>>"Don Taylor" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>One likely not representative data point.
>>>>Have an XP box with all my expensive licensed (math) software running
>>>>on it. A person I was working with suggested I try out Linux. That
>>>>seemed reasonable, I earned my money a couple of decades ago writing
>>>>code sitting inside of BSD Unix, I even did a bit of system
>>>>administration before the world went Windows and networking crazy.
>>>>
>>>>So I built a little Linux box, stuck a Knoppix CD in it, and because
>>>>this was strictly a trial to see how things would go and because
>>>>some of the licensed software on the XP box doesn't want to be
>>>>disturbed, I thought I would try out this new-fangled Internet
>>>>Connection Sharing, using the XP box to connect to the net and let
>>>>the Linux box borrow access to the net through the XP box,
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>Yikes. I'm experienced with both operating systems, and that sounds like a
>>>real nightmare. It's not always easy to get two Windows XP boxes to
>>>cooperate for ICS, so I can imagine the headaches caused by one of the boxes
>>>running linux.
>
>
> Tell me about it, or, perhaps not :)
>
>
>>'Technically' there's no difference: the ICS machine does NAT and you point
>>the client machines to it as the router. From the user's standpoint,
>>though, with Windows you make a client disk that automatically sets up the
>>client machines but you have to do it manually with Linux.
>
>
>>That's what I mean about Windows being more tightly integrated.
>
>
> It sounded like it should have worked, or I wouldn't have tried.

Yes, well, normally it does. (Don't you just hate people who say that? hehe)

I'd have to set up a machine specifically for the 'built in ICS'
configuration because I'm using Win2K server with Routing and Remote Access
NAT (and, of course, DHCP, WINS, and DNS) but Linux seamlessly comes up
under that configuration, well, except for Samba, which takes a bit of work
to sort out. And I've been playing with DSL Linux, plus a couple of others,
which are Knoppix remasters and those all simply boot and, poof, internet,
so I was a bit surprised to hear your problems with it.

ICS *should* have worked pretty much the same as my 'manually' configured
'full blown' setup, but apparently not.


>>> I haven't tried ICS on linux. My experience with broadband
>>>and linux is that linux will configure itself for Internet access if it is
>>>connected directly to the Internet or through a hardware router.
>
>
>>Almost any network aware O.S. will automatically accept DHCP configuration
>>as default (frankly, I don't know of any that won't but there's probably
>>SOME exception so I say almost). The trick, of course, is having DHCP set
>>up somewhere, or you have to do it manually.
>
>
> Tried DHCP, no joy. So I fell back on static addressing since I would
> never need more than 9 ip addresses in 192.168.(0..8) or would ever
> need to have them change. Still no joy.

Well, you can't use 0 (nor 255) and 1 is the ICS router IP.

Plus, your subnet mask should be 255.255.255.0 (for the simple, non
segmented, net you were doing)


>>Since he could ping the ICS box, but not get internet access, I'd guess
>>that he had a valid IP but didn't have the ICS machine's IP set as the
>>default gateway on the Linux box. Second problem is that the Linux
>>hosts.allow and hosts.deny configuration files default to blocking all
>>hosts/IPs.
>
>
> I thought I had the gateway address set correctly.
> I thought I had checked hosts.* to allow this,
> but then I tend to not swear I'm positive about
> most things just so I don't ignore the right answer.
>
> But it could never reach a name server, and when I
> fell back on using numeric ip addresses, and forcing
> it to not first try name resolution on them, it would
> not reach the outside destination either.

DNS should be set to the ICS host, e.g. 192.168.0.1. It then makes the
external DNS request and hands the response back to the client.

Here's the MS article on static configuring an ICS client. It's the same
regardless of what O.S. it is.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=309642

Here's an A to Z tutorial on ICS.

http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_ics/

>
>
>>To do windows file and printer sharing he'd then have to set up Samba,
>>which is a whole 'nother matter.
>
>
> I guaranteed that I would never need either of those, once I figured out
> the advice that I had to make Samba work was only necessary in those two
> cases.
>
> And it still didn't work.
>
> But I had volunteers to come over and urinate on the competitors products
> :)

Hehe. Yeah, I noticed the 'helpful' urinators.

>
> However, at this point it really doesn't matter, I swore off the whole
> mess and now say "I'm net-not-working" if anyone asks. Floppies will
> do and I'll just leave it at that. The math is getting done now and
> that is good enough, I get paid for the work.
>
> But it would be an interesting challenge to see if anyone could make
> either product friendly enough that the "average user" could accomplish
> something like this in, say 5 minutes, and not leave any gaping security
> holes open. It doesn't really seem like this should be rocket science.

Well, 'windows to windows' should pretty much come out that way because of
the wizards and client setup disks; gaping security holes being another matter.

[Don Taylor]

David Maynard > writes:
>Don Taylor wrote:
>> David Maynard > writes:
>>>Dave C. wrote:
>>>>"Don Taylor" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>One likely not representative data point.
>>>>>Have an XP box with all my expensive licensed (math) software running
>>>>>on it. A person I was working with suggested I try out Linux. That
>>>>>seemed reasonable, I earned my money a couple of decades ago writing
>>>>>code sitting inside of BSD Unix, I even did a bit of system
>>>>>administration before the world went Windows and networking crazy.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I built a little Linux box, stuck a Knoppix CD in it, and because
>>>>>this was strictly a trial to see how things would go and because
>>>>>some of the licensed software on the XP box doesn't want to be
>>>>>disturbed, I thought I would try out this new-fangled Internet
>>>>>Connection Sharing, using the XP box to connect to the net and let
>>>>>the Linux box borrow access to the net through the XP box,
....
>>>That's what I mean about Windows being more tightly integrated.
>> It sounded like it should have worked, or I wouldn't have tried.

>Yes, well, normally it does. (Don't you just hate people who say that? hehe)

Naaa, I have other buttons to push

>I'd have to set up a machine specifically for the 'built in ICS'
>configuration because I'm using Win2K server with Routing and Remote Access
>NAT (and, of course, DHCP, WINS, and DNS) but Linux seamlessly comes up
>under that configuration, well, except for Samba, which takes a bit of work
>to sort out. And I've been playing with DSL Linux, plus a couple of others,
>which are Knoppix remasters and those all simply boot and, poof, internet,
>so I was a bit surprised to hear your problems with it.

I tend to guess now that either Windows or Linux would be pretty seamless
BUT ONLY as long as they don't have to play well with anyone else.

>ICS *should* have worked pretty much the same as my 'manually' configured
>'full blown' setup, but apparently not.

>> Tried DHCP, no joy. So I fell back on static addressing since I would
>> never need more than 9 ip addresses in 192.168.(0..8) or would ever
>> need to have them change. Still no joy.

>Well, you can't use 0 (nor 255) and 1 is the ICS router IP.

Oops, my typo, it was 1..9, not 0..8

>Plus, your subnet mask should be 255.255.255.0 (for the simple, non
>segmented, net you were doing)

Did that

>> But it could never reach a name server, and when I
>> fell back on using numeric ip addresses, and forcing
>> it to not first try name resolution on them, it would
>> not reach the outside destination either.

>DNS should be set to the ICS host, e.g. 192.168.0.1. It then makes the
>external DNS request and hands the response back to the client.

Did that

>Here's the MS article on static configuring an ICS client. It's the same
>regardless of what O.S. it is.

>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=309642

>Here's an A to Z tutorial on ICS.
>http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_ics/

I read a lot of web pages, a lot of books, who knows.

>> And it still didn't work.
>>
>> But I had volunteers to come over and urinate on the competitors products
>> :)

>Hehe. Yeah, I noticed the 'helpful' urinators.

Yup

>> But it would be an interesting challenge to see if anyone could make
>> either product friendly enough that the "average user" could accomplish
>> something like this in, say 5 minutes, and not leave any gaping security
>> holes open. It doesn't really seem like this should be rocket science.

>Well, 'windows to windows' should pretty much come out that way because of
>the wizards and client setup disks; gaping security holes being another matter.

As I said above, as long as they don't have to "play well with others..."
But that is just my guess.

And the reason I went out of my way to ask various folks for help was
because I didn't want to leave holes for some net vandal to exploit.

But, as I said, doesn't matter any more, let the zealots kill each other.

[Judas]

JAD wrote:
> dave likes to talk....allot

al·lot 1. To parcel out; distribute or apportion. 2. To assign as a portion;
allocate.

Perchance you mean "a lot" ?

[Dave C.]

> >
> > Dont come whinging to us when your PC starts playing up.
>
> Well, let's not get carried away here. Someone not installing SP2 is in no
> worse shape than they were a month ago.
>

Thank You! -Dave

[Alias]

"Dave C." > wrote

> > >
> > > Dont come whinging to us when your PC starts playing up.
> >
> > Well, let's not get carried away here. Someone not installing SP2 is in
no
> > worse shape than they were a month ago.

LOL!

Alias
> >
>
> Thank You! -Dave
>
>

[Aquila Deus]

"Jon Danniken" > wrote in message >...
> "Dave C." wrote:
> > "Toad" wrote:
> > > Dave C. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's called Mozilla. -Dave
> > >
> > > or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
> > > front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.
> > >
> >
> > To borrow a line from a recent movie I saw on Showtime . . .
> >
> > Sometimes you have to tear something down to rebuild it. :)
> >
> > Which is my way of saying the easiest way to fix something as broken as IE
> > is to replace it with something decent. :) -Dave
>
> I've tried a few of the other browsers, but I have found them to be buggy as hell, and
> with "features" that I consider absolute rubbish (like tabbed browsing).

Try GreenBrowser. It has tabbed-browsing, and the prevention of
duplicated web-pages, and popup-block and ad-filter.

> While there
> are a couple of things that I find annoying with IE, as far as I am concerned it's
> still far and away the best product out there.

Then you need my css file to speed up IE, especially if you use
ClearType :)

search for "Speed Up IE!" in alt.os.windows-xp, by d2004xx

--
me = d2004xx = d2003xx = d2002xx

[Jon Danniken]

"Aquila Deus" wrote:
> "Jon Danniken" wrote:
> > "Dave C." wrote:
> > > "Toad" wrote:
> > > > Dave C. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's called Mozilla. -Dave
> > > >
> > > > or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
> > > > front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To borrow a line from a recent movie I saw on Showtime . . .
> > >
> > > Sometimes you have to tear something down to rebuild it. :)
> > >
> > > Which is my way of saying the easiest way to fix something as broken as IE
> > > is to replace it with something decent. :) -Dave
> >
> > I've tried a few of the other browsers, but I have found them to be buggy as hell,
and
> > with "features" that I consider absolute rubbish (like tabbed browsing).
>
> Try GreenBrowser. It has tabbed-browsing, and the prevention of
> duplicated web-pages, and popup-block and ad-filter.

I don't use "tabbed browsing", and my hosts file gets rid of about every ad; Zone
Alarm (that I need anyway) takes care of popups.

> > While there
> > are a couple of things that I find annoying with IE, as far as I am concerned it's
> > still far and away the best product out there.
>
> Then you need my css file to speed up IE, especially if you use
> ClearType :)
>
> search for "Speed Up IE!" in alt.os.windows-xp, by d2004xx

I don't find IE to be too slow, but I will look into "Speed Up IE!" anyway just for
the halibut; thanks for the tip.

Jon

[Aquila Deus]

"Jon Danniken" > wrote in message >...
> "Aquila Deus" wrote:
> > "Jon Danniken" wrote:
> > > "Dave C." wrote:
> > > > "Toad" wrote:
> > > > > Dave C. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's called Mozilla. -Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
> > > > > front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > To borrow a line from a recent movie I saw on Showtime . . .
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes you have to tear something down to rebuild it. :)
> > > >
> > > > Which is my way of saying the easiest way to fix something as broken as IE
> > > > is to replace it with something decent. :) -Dave
> > >
> > > I've tried a few of the other browsers, but I have found them to be buggy as hell,
> and
> > > with "features" that I consider absolute rubbish (like tabbed browsing).
> >
> > Try GreenBrowser. It has tabbed-browsing, and the prevention of
> > duplicated web-pages, and popup-block and ad-filter.
>
> I don't use "tabbed browsing", and my hosts file gets rid of about every ad; Zone
> Alarm (that I need anyway) takes care of popups.

I use host file too :) But ad-filter lets you use wildcard like http://*/ads/*.

>
> > > While there
> > > are a couple of things that I find annoying with IE, as far as I am concerned it's
> > > still far and away the best product out there.
> >
> > Then you need my css file to speed up IE, especially if you use
> > ClearType :)
> >
> > search for "Speed Up IE!" in alt.os.windows-xp, by d2004xx
>
> I don't find IE to be too slow, but I will look into "Speed Up IE!" anyway just for
> the halibut; thanks for the tip.

PS: The tip enables offscreen rendering in IE

[Jon Danniken]

"Aquila Deus" wrote:
> "Jon Danniken" wrote:
> > "Aquila Deus" wrote:
> > > Then you need my css file to speed up IE, especially if you use
> > > ClearType :)
> > >
> > > search for "Speed Up IE!" in alt.os.windows-xp, by d2004xx
> >
> > I don't find IE to be too slow, but I will look into "Speed Up IE!" anyway just
for
> > the halibut; thanks for the tip.
>
> PS: The tip enables offscreen rendering in IE

I've heard of this in 3D apps, but how would it apply to a browser window?

Jon

[Aquila Deus]

"Jon Danniken" > wrote in message >...
> "Aquila Deus" wrote:
> > "Jon Danniken" wrote:
> > > "Aquila Deus" wrote:
> > > > Then you need my css file to speed up IE, especially if you use
> > > > ClearType :)
> > > >
> > > > search for "Speed Up IE!" in alt.os.windows-xp, by d2004xx
> > >
> > > I don't find IE to be too slow, but I will look into "Speed Up IE!" anyway just
> for
> > > the halibut; thanks for the tip.
> >
> > PS: The tip enables offscreen rendering in IE
>
> I've heard of this in 3D apps, but how would it apply to a browser window?

M$'s "filter" CSS property enables this and DirectDraw in IE to do
special effects like transparency. It makes IE faster than opera and
mozilla :)

[toad]

Paul > wrote in news:1094654007.19246.0
@lotis.uk.clara.net:

> Toad wrote:
>> Mixxy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>>
>>>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>>>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>>
>>>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
>>>is it so large?
>>
>>
>> At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
>> are 3 700MB ISO files :)
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>

I know :) - I was just wondering why the original poster was so worried
about 200MB...

Toad

[private]

Its designed to stuff up peoples computers and keep repair men in a
job............

OR,this is just a vicious rumor,started by
millions of unhappy users................