A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 22nd 12, 04:18 AM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
QuestionQuigley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On 12/17/2012 4:49 AM, Greegor wrote:
Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of
Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster
than the previous hardware.

This entails huge costs, much greater than the
mere cost of computers and Windows.

Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary
software is a huge expense, as is any retraining
caused by such changes.

But these huge expenses were seen as
worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase.
Those days are over.

The applications that pay the bills for large
corporate users are things like order entry,
order recall, inventory, database, telephone
services scripts (Oracle) and word processing.

One outfit has about 150 computer workstations
in one room alone, plus about 30 more among
offices and operation center. But they have
about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP
would offer them no advantage whatsoever.

Even though an operating system is crucial
for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction
of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force
that MASS of old computers to be replaced with
no real advantage and for no real reason aside
from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes
a bit like the tail wagging the dog.

What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer
with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to
force old systems to be scrapped and new computers
which provide no actual advantage to be purchased
at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's
MARKETING NEEDS??

To force corporate customer service centers to
landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers
by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES
is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft.

And not a very nice one.

Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal.

How about that Android, eh?


It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. MS seems to
ignore the human interface. I'm sure the time wasted by users hunting
through each new menu causes billions of dollars of lost productivity
each year.

--
Question Quigley
Kilkee
County Clare, IE
Ads
  #2  
Old December 22nd 12, 11:44 AM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

In message , QuestionQuigley
writes:
On 12/17/2012 4:49 AM, Greegor wrote:
Microsoft's big opportunities to sell new versions of
Windows used to accompany hardware 6x faster
than the previous hardware.

This entails huge costs, much greater than the
mere cost of computers and Windows.

Adapting or replacing old, expensive or proprietary
software is a huge expense, as is any retraining
caused by such changes.

But these huge expenses were seen as
worthwhile because of the 6x speed increase.
Those days are over.

The applications that pay the bills for large
corporate users are things like order entry,
order recall, inventory, database, telephone
services scripts (Oracle) and word processing.

One outfit has about 150 computer workstations
in one room alone, plus about 30 more among
offices and operation center. But they have
about 25 such locations. Upgrading from XP
would offer them no advantage whatsoever.

Even though an operating system is crucial
for a computer, it is nonetheless a minor fraction
of the overall cost. If Microsoft is going to force
that MASS of old computers to be replaced with
no real advantage and for no real reason aside
from the marketing needs of Microsoft, it becomes
a bit like the tail wagging the dog.

What does Microsoft get per new OEM computer
with Win8? Maybe $30? Yet they expect to
force old systems to be scrapped and new computers
which provide no actual advantage to be purchased
at about $700 per system?? Just to fulfill Microsoft's
MARKETING NEEDS??

To force corporate customer service centers to
landfill/scrap all of those WinXP-Pro computers
by cutting off revised SECURITY UPDATES
is blatantly a MARKETING PLOY by Microsoft.

And not a very nice one.

Cutesy tiles instead of icons? Big deal.

How about that Android, eh?


It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel
that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost. MS seems to
ignore the human interface. I'm sure the time wasted by users hunting
through each new menu causes billions of dollars of lost productivity
each year.

The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like
what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though
unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then
the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the
old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit
from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate
support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.

Having said that, I do think they should put _more_ effort into easing
transitions. I'm not sure how it can be done, though: if you provide an
"old way" option, then as I've said above, most upgraders would just
activate it, and never get any benefit. (Whether there's any point in
those people upgrading anyway is a matter for another thread!) If they
provided some mechanism for the software to _gradually_ show the new
features, (a) it'd require quite a bit more programming effort, (b)
people might hate it just as much [remember how popular "clippy" was!]
if not more.

Some solution is of course always offered by third parties - "classic
shell" for W7 (and 8), for example, and several "old menu" offerings for
Office 2010.

FWIW, I use XP here, and Office 2003 - since they do all I want. I _did_
upgrade to XP from '98SElite, though: I _have_ found it more stable
(sorry 98Guy if you're here), and of course there's the better USB
support. I have played with 7 for long enough - I was setting up a new
big laptop for a very un-computerate person (she uses applications -
mail [I put Eudora OSE], Word, and IrfanView, and that's about it - and
probably has no interest in what version of Windows they operate under,
and I/we decided that 7 provided better future-proofing for her), and I
had it to play with for a month or two, and although I found some things
about it irritating, I think I could soon get to live with it with no
problems. At work, we moved to Office 2010 (from '03) a few months ago,
and there I _do_ find the new ("ribbon") interface irritating: I
genuinely have tried to give it a good go. (Also the so-called help
therein is also irritating, being more a google-like interface to
something online. Conversely, I think the help - and similar - in
Windows 7 is pretty good, and certainly better than XP and previous:
mainly because they've put some thought into considering what you might
call things, rather than forcing you - as in earlier versions - to think
of exactly what _they_ call things.)

So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and
forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm
not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be
fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and
helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by
Sikhs.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of
enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill (quoted by Deb Shinder in WinNews Newsletter,
2012-11-30)
  #3  
Old December 22nd 12, 02:54 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
knuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On 12/22/2012 5:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like
what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though
unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then
the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the
old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit
from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate
support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.



So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and
forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm
not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be
fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and
helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by
Sikhs.])



I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.

However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer? In my work on the
computer the mouse works best, as it allows me access to all of the
areas on the screen with minimal physical movement. With the mouse I
can quickly move to any place on the screen and keep my hand in the area
where I am doing non computer things. i.e marking my place on the
physical page I am working with, turning the electrical switch over to
better see the information written on it, turning the chip to a better
angle to read what is written on it.

When comparing physical movement required by the mouse resting under my
hand to the movement needed to move my arm and hand all over the screen
to get the same results, the mouse will all ways win. So what if the
operating system is a tad faster, it does not increase the speed that I
can move my arm and hand. The touch screen causes a net increase in the
time to do any operation with the operating system because of the
increase physical movement of the body to get the job done.

This difference between the mouse and touch screen increases
significantly as the screen size increases and there is more territory
to move the hand to get the results you are looking for.

Using the same computer without a touch screen, still increase the
physical interaction time with the computer, because simulating a touch
screen using a mouse requires significantly more movement across the
screen. Again a net increase in the physical time to interact with the
operating system to get the same results.

Ergonomically the mouse wins hands down. How many muscle problems in
the arm and shoulder will be caused by keeping your arm and hand
extended in front of you for 8 hours a day?

With Windows 8, Microsoft has create a whole new medical syndrome.






  #4  
Old December 22nd 12, 04:17 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
wrote:

I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.

However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?


That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely
ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
using a standard desktop.

  #5  
Old December 22nd 12, 04:38 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,699
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
wrote:


It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel



I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other
times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that
has " a new look and feel."

For example, there is very little change in the interface between
Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And
even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change
from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not
*just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still
there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8,
and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at
and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was
Windows 8, not Windows 7.



that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost.



But I agree with you here. Sometimes Microsoft makes changes that are
not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to
make it different. But that's not very different from what
manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
  #6  
Old December 22nd 12, 07:52 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
knuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
wrote:

I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.

However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?


That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely
ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
using a standard desktop.


Blinded by your opinion, you missed the hole point of what I wrote
  #7  
Old December 23rd 12, 01:10 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

In message , knuttle
writes:
On 12/22/2012 10:17 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:54:56 -0500, knuttle
wrote:

I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.


In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.


So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.

However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that
assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?


That explains a lot about your attitude. You seem to have completely
ignored the multiple mentions of being able to avoid the modern UI and
using a standard desktop.


Blinded by your opinion, you missed the hole point of what I wrote


No, he has made the point I was about to make: most (not all) of the W8
knockers do seem to be people whose hatred of the new interface has
blinded them to the fact that you can turn it off.

The W8 designers wanted to introduce a new way of working: it might
appear to be designed for touch screens, though there is more to it than
_just_ that. They also provided something similar to the old desktop.
They had to choose _one_ of them as the default; they _do_ provide an
actual button on it to change to the other one, so it isn't really
difficult. Which one they chose was probably a toss-up: their choice
might have been swayed by a combination of actually wanting 8 to appear
different, and getting people to try the new way. (If they'd made the
old one the default, the majority of both old and new users would never
have tried the new one, at least for long enough to give it a fair try.)

It may well be that the new way _is_ not a good one, but new things have
to be tried, or we'd never get anywhere (this new way of making marks on
flattened plant material - I'll stay with my clay tablets, thank you).
The only way to truly evaluate it, however, would be to poll new users -
people who'd never had a computer before (which must be getting hard to
find now!) - along with similarly new users of, say, 7.

(FWIW, I have no intention of moving from XP at the moment; however,
I've played with 7 for long enough that I think I could live with it. I
haven't played with 8 nearly enough.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank
you.
  #8  
Old December 23rd 12, 01:25 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:42 -0500, QuestionQuigley
wrote:


It seems each version of Windows and MS Office has a new look and feel



I don't agree at all. Sometimes the changes *are* major, but other
times they are much more minor. It's certainly not "each version" that
has " a new look and feel."

For example, there is very little change in the interface between
Windows XP and Vista, or between Microsoft Office 2000 and 2003. And


Agreed. But the change to Office 2007 and 2010 brought in the "ribbon",
which most people seem to either love or hate (i. e. few are not
bothered). [FWIW, I don't particularly like it, but don't hate it,
provided I can slide it out of the way to get my screen space back,
which I believe can be done.]

even Windows 8, which many people think has a giant interface change
from Windows 7 is very different only if you want it to be. It's not
*just* the modern/metro interface; the old desktop interface is still
there and easy to switch to if you want to use it. I use Windows 8,
and use the old desktop interface almost exclusively; if you looked at
and used my computer. you'd have a hard time realizing that it was
Windows 8, not Windows 7.



that causes many users to get lost. It is one thing to improve
functionality, speed, and reliability, but it seems pointless to create
new layouts and menus that result in users getting lost.



But I agree with you here. Sometimes Microsoft makes changes that are
not better or worse than what used to be, and seem to be done just to
make it different. But that's not very different from what
manufacturers of other products--for example automobiles--do.


(-:

(Sometimes there must indeed be an element of just making it look new,
but also sometimes it's a way of trying things genuinely new - some of
which work, some of which don't, and no amount of trialling will really
tell you which.)

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

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

No, I haven't changed my mind - I'm perfectly happy with the one I have, thank
you.
  #9  
Old December 23rd 12, 02:41 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

How much does a multi touch screen for a desktop system cost?

If I'm going to buy W8 to run on one of my machines,
will any of the free third party DVD players run
on the basic version of W8?

What's added to the "Professional" version of W8?

Is there an Ultimate version of W8?

Is that compatability stuff to run old software
built into all versions of W8, or only certain versions?

I can't even buy a "clean boot" RETAIL version of W8
where the license is transferrable?

Microsoft actually has service centers where for $99
they will remove crapware and make you
a clean boot of W8?

When does Microsoft plan to pull the plug
on W7 and stop the SECURITY UPDATES
just to force those users to buy Windows 9?

Has it occurred to anybody that this model
where each Microsoft OS has really bad
SECURITY FLAWS actually benefits Microsoft?

What would happen to user DEPENDENCY
on Microsoft if they made a version of Windows
WITHOUT huge security flaws, without the
need for 200+ SECURITY UPDATES?

Aren't we all just like JUNKIES hooked and
dependent on Microsoft for SECURITY UPDATES?
  #10  
Old December 23rd 12, 02:56 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
knuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , knuttle


wrote:


I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.


In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.


So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.


I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2
My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer
was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating
system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced
DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it.

I definitely am not afraid of new things.

While you are criticizing me for what I said, you never answered the
ergonomic problems I have with Windows 8
  #11  
Old December 23rd 12, 03:54 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Auric__
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 295
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

knuttle wrote:

On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , knuttle


wrote:

I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.


In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)


"First version" isn't something I'd normally consider up for debate... but
then, "the first version of Windows" (i.e. Windows 1.0) predates OS/2 by a
couple of years. (If you were truly using OS/2 when Windows 1.0 came out, I'd
like to borrow your time machine.) As for "extolling the virtue" of Win1, let
me qoute Wikipedia (The Web's Largest Source of Disinformation[tm]):

"[...] when finally released, Windows 1.0 aroused little interest."

(*I* didn't even hear of Windows until around 1989-ish.)

Also, the first version of OS/2 was essentially "DOS plus"; no GUI provided
until OS/2 1.1, a year and a half after OS/2 1.0, and nearly half a year
after the release of Windows 2.1. Until then, any comparison between OS/2 &
Windows would've been apples and oranges.

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.


I'm a bit curious about this. If you upgraded to XP (from what, may I ask?)
for that reason, did you switch to NT3.1 when it first came out? It was the
first Windows system based on the OS/2 codebase.

So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.


I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2


Oh god. COBOL. I'm so sorry.

My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer
was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating
system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced
DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it.


The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells
on top of DOS. Just sayin'.

--
Excuse me while I change into something more formidable.
  #12  
Old December 23rd 12, 08:23 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
knuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote:



The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells
on top of DOS. Just sayin'.

Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8
  #13  
Old December 23rd 12, 08:30 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
John Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

knuttle wrote:
On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote:



The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just
shells
on top of DOS. Just sayin'.

Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8


http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-d...p-start-screen

I've not tried these solutions, though, as I don't run Windows 8, and
can't @rsed to pay fifty quid to try it out.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
XP on this machine, 7 on another.
  #14  
Old December 24th 12, 01:16 AM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Auric__
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 295
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

knuttle wrote:

On 12/23/2012 9:54 AM, Auric__ wrote:

The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just
shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'.


Still no response to the ergonomic problems of Window 8


I haven't used it yet so I can't give any first-hand answers.

--
- Your boss is a sick ****, Mal.
- I know.
  #15  
Old December 27th 12, 11:52 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:56:53 -0500, knuttle
wrote:

On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , knuttle


wrote:

I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
using
OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.


In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)

I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
OS/2 far superior and stable.


So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.


I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2
My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer
was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating
system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced
DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it.

I definitely am not afraid of new things.

While you are criticizing me for what I said, you never answered the
ergonomic problems I have with Windows 8


I answered your question, but you didn't like it.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.