"aa" <a@microsoft.ru> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
news:en4Vusu%23JHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> In your place I would have that computer or a comparable
>> one running XP in about two days.
>>
>> Earle[/color]
> You seem to get high of your own smartness, Earlie.
> I am here on a reconnaissance and options contemplation, and so far I
> spent
> just half a day. As soon as I get enough info for taking decision, XP will
> be up an running in about two hours.
>[/color]
I could do it in one hour. ;^)

Earle

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:10:38 -0700, Frank <fb@fuk.you> wrote:
[color=blue]
>+Bob+ wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:10:19 -0400, "Mike" <rathbunger@garbagemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Is VISTA quicker? - No
>>>> Is it more convenient to use - No
>>>> Has it eliminated shortcomings of XP or w2k - No
>>>>
>>> Alias? JEWboy? Nah... You're just a spoiled idiot.[/color]
>>
>> He's a "spoiled idiot" because he points out the truth?
>>
>> Please detail the advantages of Vista. I'd love to see a list.
>>
>>[/color]
>You can read?
>Wonders never cease![/color]

Another fact-free post from Frank. Got a list of advantages, Franky?

aa wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> That was exactly the source of my worry. They now have a stick on all the
> computers Recommended for VISTA or something like that.[/color]


I believe the most common sticker actually says "*Designed* for Vista."

[color=blue]
>
> Also do you know if it is legally OK to buy, say, on ebay that OEM XP ? Will
> MS give support to such an installation?
>[/color]

Assuming that it's an unbranded, generic OEM license that has *NEVER*
been installed on any computer, yes. An OEM license, once installed, is
not legally transferable to another computer under _any_ circumstances.

However, one should be very careful buying any software on eBay, as
eBay makes no prior effort to ensure that such sales are legitimate.
The problems stem from two different sources, but have the same results:
the buyer gets ripped off. A great many people don't fully understand
the terms of the license they own, and don't understand that they cannot
legitimately resell it, and - worse still - there are a great many
sellers who do know that they're selling bogus licenses. eBay reacts
only when someone files a complaint, and then all that really happens,
especially in the case of the many deliberate fraudsters, is the seller
of the pirated software returns using a different alias, to continue
selling illegitimate licenses.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
[url]http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html[/url]

[url]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375[/url]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

i do hate Vista, I just tried to be different from my usual blasting Vista
in that post. Sorry.

Accept my apologies and be assured I f-g hate Vista's guts

"aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
news:OmmWOhk%23JHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> On a year old HP Pavilion/Vista I would like to remove Vista, format the
> disk and install w2k or XP. But HP support refused all the support in this
> respect saying they are not sure I will find all XP/w2k drivers for this
> machine.
> Has anybody here had difficulties finding XP/w2k drivers for relatively
> new
> machines, and for HP Pavilion in particular?[/color]

Contrary to their support BS, drivers are almost certainly available for XP.

Figure out the chipset it has, then visit the vendors web sites and get
current XP drivers and instructions. For example, I have a Q6600 with a
ICHR9 chipset so I go to Intel to get them.

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:O2btd1k%23JHA.5092@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
> news:OmmWOhk%23JHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> On a year old HP Pavilion/Vista I would like to remove Vista, format the
>> disk and install w2k or XP. But HP support refused all the support in
>> this
>> respect saying they are not sure I will find all XP/w2k drivers for this
>> machine.
>> Has anybody here had difficulties finding XP/w2k drivers for relatively
>> new
>> machines, and for HP Pavilion in particular?[/color]
>
> If HP doesn't think that drivers exist, and they are the people
> responsible for creating said drivers, you are going to have to stay with
> Vista.[/color]

Maybe he should post the model and then we can find the links?

Drivers almost certainly exist for XP. Yours is the line of a MS Droid.

I have yet to see a COTs PC that could not run XP.

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP[/color]
>>
>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain about
>> HP.
>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA only.
>>[/color]
>
>
> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>[/color]

Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)

--
"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free."
- Linus Torvalds

DRM and unintended consequences:
[url]http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101[/url]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:[color=blue]
> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:[color=green]
>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>
>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>> about
>>> HP.
>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>> only.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>[/color]
>
> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>[/color]


And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...

Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see and
manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the Linux
machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the Windows
machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain blissfully
ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:eYXOOqCSKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:[color=green]
>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>>
>>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>>> about
>>>> HP.
>>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>>> only.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>>[/color]
>
>
> And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
> networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
> developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...
>
> Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see and
> manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the Linux
> machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the Windows
> machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain blissfully
> ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)
>[/color]

Ubuntu 9.04 will see XP shares but there seems to be a problem with Windows
7......

Gordon wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:eYXOOqCSKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>>>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>>>
>>>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>>>> about
>>>>> HP.
>>>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>>>> only.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
>> networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
>> developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...
>>
>> Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see
>> and manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the
>> Linux machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the
>> Windows machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain
>> blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)
>>[/color]
>
> Ubuntu 9.04 will see XP shares but there seems to be a problem with
> Windows 7......[/color]


If you upgraded to 9.04 did you take the option to keep your Samba
config or did you allow it to be changed? If you did, or you just
installed 9.04 as a new install then I am surprised the Samba (SMB:)
shares can be seen... did you do anything to make that possible and if
so what?

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:eHtOf$CSKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Gordon wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:eYXOOqCSKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>>> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> HP.
>>>>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>>>>> only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
>>> networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
>>> developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...
>>>
>>> Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see and
>>> manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the Linux
>>> machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the Windows
>>> machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain blissfully
>>> ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Ubuntu 9.04 will see XP shares but there seems to be a problem with
>> Windows 7......[/color]
>
>
> If you upgraded to 9.04 did you take the option to keep your Samba config
> or did you allow it to be changed? If you did, or you just installed 9.04
> as a new install then I am surprised the Samba (SMB:) shares can be
> seen... did you do anything to make that possible and if so what?[/color]

A fresh install of 9.04 Remix. Fully updated and no configuration changes
made to Samba. The XP shares can be seen and accessed as normal, after
giving the password....
Windows 7 machine is seen on the network, but can't be accessed - I just get
an endless loop of the log-in dialog box...

"Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote in message
news:#qamIKDSKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:eHtOf$CSKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Gordon wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eYXOOqCSKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> HP.
>>>>>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>>>>>> only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
>>>> networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
>>>> developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...
>>>>
>>>> Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see and
>>>> manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the Linux
>>>> machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the
>>>> Windows machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain
>>>> blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ubuntu 9.04 will see XP shares but there seems to be a problem with
>>> Windows 7......[/color]
>>
>>
>> If you upgraded to 9.04 did you take the option to keep your Samba config
>> or did you allow it to be changed? If you did, or you just installed 9.04
>> as a new install then I am surprised the Samba (SMB:) shares can be
>> seen... did you do anything to make that possible and if so what?[/color]
>
> A fresh install of 9.04 Remix. Fully updated and no configuration changes
> made to Samba. The XP shares can be seen and accessed as normal, after
> giving the password....
> Windows 7 machine is seen on the network, but can't be accessed - I just
> get an endless loop of the log-in dialog box...[/color]


The problem is Microsoft introduced changes with SMB 2.0 in Vista. It
allows machines using only SMB 1.0 to see Vista but not access it.

XP seems to support SMB 2.0 or has changes necessary to access shares on
Vista over SMB 1.0 (needs further investigating).


To access Vista shares from machines with only SMB 1.0 (or compatibility),
disable SMB 2.0.

From an elevated command prompt

sc config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/nsi
sc config mrxsmb20 start= disabled


To reenable SMB 2.0

sc config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/mrxsmb20/nsi
sc config mrxsmb20 start= auto


Source:
[url]http://www.petri.co.il/how-to-disable-smb-2-on-windows-vista-or-server-2008.htm[/url]


I tested this with a Windows 98SE machine, which had problems connecting to
Vista mahcines but no problems accessing XP machines. After disabling SMB
2.0 I can access shares on the Windows 98SE as easily as any other Vista or
XP machines.

I still have yet to test Linux, though.

Not yet sure what the downside of disabling SMB 2.0 is. There's no
performance changes. Only other thing is security "enhancements" in SMB
2.0, but it may be just induced from the incompatibility with SMB 1.0.


Reference on Samba (smb.conf) configuration and explanation of SMB security
modes:
[url]http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/ref-guide/s1-samba-security-modes.html[/url]

"Tae Song" <tae_song********.com> wrote in message
news:C79E70A1-80E8-4EC4-9158-DA4534AE2284@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote in message
> news:#qamIKDSKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:eHtOf$CSKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:eYXOOqCSKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>>>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> HP.
>>>>>>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>>>>>>> only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
>>>>> networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
>>>>> developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...
>>>>>
>>>>> Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see
>>>>> and manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the
>>>>> Linux machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the
>>>>> Windows machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain
>>>>> blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu 9.04 will see XP shares but there seems to be a problem with
>>>> Windows 7......
>>>
>>>
>>> If you upgraded to 9.04 did you take the option to keep your Samba
>>> config or did you allow it to be changed? If you did, or you just
>>> installed 9.04 as a new install then I am surprised the Samba (SMB:)
>>> shares can be seen... did you do anything to make that possible and if
>>> so what?[/color]
>>
>> A fresh install of 9.04 Remix. Fully updated and no configuration
>> changes made to Samba. The XP shares can be seen and accessed as normal,
>> after giving the password....
>> Windows 7 machine is seen on the network, but can't be accessed - I just
>> get an endless loop of the log-in dialog box...[/color]
>
>
> The problem is Microsoft introduced changes with SMB 2.0 in Vista. It
> allows machines using only SMB 1.0 to see Vista but not access it.
>
> XP seems to support SMB 2.0 or has changes necessary to access shares on
> Vista over SMB 1.0 (needs further investigating).
>
>
> To access Vista shares from machines with only SMB 1.0 (or compatibility),
> disable SMB 2.0.
>
> From an elevated command prompt
>
> sc config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/nsi
> sc config mrxsmb20 start= disabled
>
>
> To reenable SMB 2.0
>
> sc config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/mrxsmb20/nsi
> sc config mrxsmb20 start= auto
>
>
> Source:
> [url]http://www.petri.co.il/how-to-disable-smb-2-on-windows-vista-or-server-2008.htm[/url]
>
>
> I tested this with a Windows 98SE machine, which had problems connecting
> to Vista mahcines but no problems accessing XP machines. After disabling
> SMB 2.0 I can access shares on the Windows 98SE as easily as any other
> Vista or XP machines.
>
> I still have yet to test Linux, though.
>
> Not yet sure what the downside of disabling SMB 2.0 is. There's no
> performance changes. Only other thing is security "enhancements" in SMB
> 2.0, but it may be just induced from the incompatibility with SMB 1.0.
>
>
> Reference on Samba (smb.conf) configuration and explanation of SMB
> security modes:
> [url]http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/ref-guide/s1-samba-security-modes.html[/url][/color]

Done that - no joy.

"Tae Song" <tae_song********.com> wrote in message
news:C79E70A1-80E8-4EC4-9158-DA4534AE2284@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote in message
> news:#qamIKDSKHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:eHtOf$CSKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:eYXOOqCSKHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>>>> "aa" <a@microsoft.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:u0YULZo%23JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Nobody forced you to buy that HP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Earle, if you read me carefully you will see that I do not complain
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> HP.
>>>>>>>> My complaint is about MS who forced HP to sell computers with VISTA
>>>>>>>> only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [url]www.ubuntu.com[/url]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, now I've seen everything, Mike Hall suggesting Ubuntu. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And not the best time to do it since most Linux has just had it's
>>>>> networking ability (With Windows via Samba) destroyed by the Samba
>>>>> developers, or at least that is what it looks like from here...
>>>>>
>>>>> Supposedly a security issue, but all my Windows (Inc Vista) can see
>>>>> and manipulate the shares on the Linux machines with no trouble, the
>>>>> Linux machines however can't see anything except the workgroup, so the
>>>>> Windows machines are made more secure but the linux machines remain
>>>>> blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are being observed :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu 9.04 will see XP shares but there seems to be a problem with
>>>> Windows 7......
>>>
>>>
>>> If you upgraded to 9.04 did you take the option to keep your Samba
>>> config or did you allow it to be changed? If you did, or you just
>>> installed 9.04 as a new install then I am surprised the Samba (SMB:)
>>> shares can be seen... did you do anything to make that possible and if
>>> so what?[/color]
>>
>> A fresh install of 9.04 Remix. Fully updated and no configuration
>> changes made to Samba. The XP shares can be seen and accessed as normal,
>> after giving the password....
>> Windows 7 machine is seen on the network, but can't be accessed - I just
>> get an endless loop of the log-in dialog box...[/color]
>
>
> The problem is Microsoft introduced changes with SMB 2.0 in Vista. It
> allows machines using only SMB 1.0 to see Vista but not access it.
>
> XP seems to support SMB 2.0 or has changes necessary to access shares on
> Vista over SMB 1.0 (needs further investigating).
>
>
> To access Vista shares from machines with only SMB 1.0 (or compatibility),
> disable SMB 2.0.
>
> From an elevated command prompt
>
> sc config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/nsi
> sc config mrxsmb20 start= disabled
>
>
> To reenable SMB 2.0
>
> sc config lanmanworkstation depend= bowser/mrxsmb10/mrxsmb20/nsi
> sc config mrxsmb20 start= auto
>
>
> Source:
> [url]http://www.petri.co.il/how-to-disable-smb-2-on-windows-vista-or-server-2008.htm[/url]
>
>
> I tested this with a Windows 98SE machine, which had problems connecting
> to Vista mahcines but no problems accessing XP machines. After disabling
> SMB 2.0 I can access shares on the Windows 98SE as easily as any other
> Vista or XP machines.
>
> I still have yet to test Linux, though.
>
> Not yet sure what the downside of disabling SMB 2.0 is. There's no
> performance changes. Only other thing is security "enhancements" in SMB
> 2.0, but it may be just induced from the incompatibility with SMB 1.0.
>
>
> Reference on Samba (smb.conf) configuration and explanation of SMB
> security modes:
> [url]http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/ref-guide/s1-samba-security-modes.html[/url][/color]

Minor correction. Window 98SE still can't access Vista shares. I was
looking at another machine with a similar name.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:51:22 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earleh@live.com.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Absurd! MS, as far as I know, does not sell hardware - why do you think I
>> might consider MS under obligation to provide me with a computer? HP are
>> happy to supply computers with XP, but MS does not sell them relevant
>> license.[/color]
>
>MS is being difficult perhaps, but they're breaking no law. MS
>sells/licenses operating systems to HP, who then assembles and sells the
>complete product to you, the customer. MS and HP working together "provide"
>the computer/operating system combination. They are under no obligation to
>provide you with a new one that runs XP. That's like going to my local
>Honda dealer and telling them I want another 1999 Honda Civic HX, just like
>the one I am trying to trade in. My choices are to buy one of the new cars
>available, or to keep using the old one. It's the same with electronics
>like your computer.
>[/color]
That sounds like a monopoly but that is for another thread.

You could possible get a used Honda Civic HX.


The problem isn't the computer (Well from what tech's told me, Vista
is really slow and windows 7 runs really fast) The problem people buy
tons of software of software, the Microsoft changes the operating
system. Then the old software doesn't work and make people mad.
Then have to keep buying new.

In fact, I just got xp disk and I am now dual booting between 98se
and xp. The reason I got that was I forced to. Yes forced to, if I
wanted to keep paying my bills online. The Credit card company uses
flash and my banking sites does as well. So in a way you are forced
to upgrade or not have a computer. The newest Flash software no
longer supports windows 98se

Greg