"Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
news:hb2dnd_yurdy-W3YnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> Justin wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Yes, Vista is useless to old machines. Wow, there's a no brainier!
>>
>> W2K3 is useless to old machines.
>> XP is useless to old machines.
>> W2K is useless to old machines.
>> Win98 is useless to old machines.
>> Win95 is useless to old machines.
>>
>> Linux is useless to old machines.[/color]
>
> Any one of my computers could run ANY one of the above.
>
> Only *one* could run Vista.[/color]

Your thinking is back-asswards. Any one of your OLD machines can run an OLD
OS. Find a machine that's OLDER and you start knocking OSs off the list.
Either way, there are plenty of people with 2 year old machines that run
Vista just fine. So I guess it depends on what you call old.

The amount of trolls that claimed XP was garbage because it wouldn’t run on
their old hardware was astounding. But this time around, it's just absurd!

I just happen to be one of them morons that like Vista. Sure there some
problems but if you know how to use a PC you would know how to handle it. I
started of using 95 years ago and have gone through ever one, the worse being
XP.
Dido
"Synapse Syndrome" wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Shaun Dickinson" <shaundickinson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uCAH9mNYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Can anyone tell me if vista has any good points at all over xp ?[/color]
>
>
> The people that praise Vista and say that they have no problems can't really
> be soak testing it very well or are most probably morons. There are lots of
> problems with the unbolt apps at this stage, and even things as simple as
> moving or deleting files takes much longer than with XP, and I have powerful
> hardware here.
>
> There is no real reason to bother upgrading an XP machine. Just get it with
> a new computer, or wait till SPA sorts out (most of) the bugs.
>
> ss.
>
>
>[/color]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:04:28 -0800, Justin wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
> news:gZOdnZbwLZRQ0W3YnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d@giganews.com...
>[color=green]
>> - How Vista not supporting over half my systems and older peripherals...[/color]
>
> I doubt that. As well, there is plenty linux doesn't support.
>[color=green]
>> - How Vista not supporting some software I need (note that I have viable
>> linux alternatives hence the problem does not apply to linux)...[/color]
>
> Good for you. The entire world doesn't have "viable linux alternatives".
> It sound like you are not in the position to use a NEW OS. Nothing wrong
> with that.
>[color=green]
>> - How frequent activation phonecalls because I just updated my drivers
>> again...[/color]
>
> What? That makes no sense.
>[color=green]
>> - How never knowing if maybe my drivers were revoked today because a 15yr
>> old found a way to hack them and copy a blue ray dvd and news of it are
>> plastered all over the net with a detailed how-to...[/color]
>
> What? That makes no sense.[/color]

I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately that seems to be quite likely
according to MSs policy.

[color=blue]
>
> Again, It sound like you are not in the position to use a NEW OS. Nothing
> wrong with that. As well, that has nothing to do with anyone else.[/color]

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.08.20.12.34.548775@zianet.com...
[color=blue]
> I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately that seems to be quite likely
> according to MSs policy.[/color]

Did you miss my reply? A revoked driver means nothing. Other then the fact
that you wont be able to take advantage of the "hole" or "hack":

Posted in the MS Vista beta group:

Driver Revocation does not mean the driver will stop working. Driver
revocation means the driver will no longer be trusted to play secure
content. This means that your HD Movies will stop playing if the driver is
revoked but it doesn't mean your computer will stop working. Also, Microsoft
is unlikely to revoke drivers just for fun. It is in their interest to
revoke only drivers that have a new driver released.

While we are at it, revocation of hardware is not something that is
downloaded by Windows Update, its a property of the actual Premium Content
disks themselves.

The disk contains a revocation list of any devices (including rogue hardware
players) that can not authenticate with the disk. This actually means that
all of the premium content you already own will still continue to work even
with your revoked device.

Justin wrote:
[color=blue]
> The amount of trolls that claimed XP was garbage because it
> wouldn’t run on their old hardware was astounding.[/color]

Except XP was garbage... until SP1 or, maybe, even SP2.

--
Paul-B

Says who? I implemented XP long before SP1. So obviously that's not true
for everyone.



"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1.net> wrote in message
news:55bg1gF22p0mkU1@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> Justin wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The amount of trolls that claimed XP was garbage because it
>> wouldn’t run on their old hardware was astounding.[/color]
>
> Except XP was garbage... until SP1 or, maybe, even SP2.
>
> --
> Paul-B[/color]

Justin wrote:
[color=blue]
> Says who? I implemented XP long before SP1. So obviously that's not true
> for everyone.[/color]

It especially is never true for you. =)

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出すひなんてないのは
君のこと忘れた時がないから

Justin wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
> news:hb2dnd_yurdy-W3YnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...[color=green]
>> Justin wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Yes, Vista is useless to old machines. Wow, there's a no brainier!
>>>
>>> W2K3 is useless to old machines.
>>> XP is useless to old machines.
>>> W2K is useless to old machines.
>>> Win98 is useless to old machines.
>>> Win95 is useless to old machines.
>>>
>>> Linux is useless to old machines.[/color]
>>
>> Any one of my computers could run ANY one of the above.
>>
>> Only *one* could run Vista.[/color]
>
> Your thinking is back-asswards. Any one of your OLD machines can run an
> OLD
> OS. Find a machine that's OLDER and you start knocking OSs off the list.
> Either way, there are plenty of people with 2 year old machines that run
> Vista just fine. So I guess it depends on what you call old.[/color]

Old OS?? My current OS is having a *new* release next month...nothing old
about that.

Out of curiosity though, how many of those 2 year old machines were able to
run vista out of the box *without* needing significant upgrades?

I mean sure, if I were to sink 500-600 bucks into each one of the computers,
I could probably get from 1 out of 10 to...7 out of 10? Some of the laptops
I am unsure they are upgradable enough.

Vista simply isn't worth that expense.

An OS needs to consume the *least* amount of resources possible not the
*highest* amount of resources possible.
[color=blue]
>
> The amount of trolls that claimed XP was garbage because it wouldn’t run
> on
> their old hardware was astounding. But this time around, it's just
> absurd![/color]

Most likely because the operating system is so absurd?

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出すひなんてないのは
君のこと忘れた時がないから

"Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
news:3tSdnRfthqtpDm3YRVnyhwA@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> It especially is never true for you. =)[/color]

Never say never! My first batch of XP installations were horrible.
However, drivers where long since straightened out prior to SP1.

"Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
news:yZKdnRl3suxgCG3YRVnyuQA@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> Out of curiosity though, how many of those 2 year old machines were able
> to
> run vista out of the box *without* needing significant upgrades?[/color]

$0. Don't assume everyone wants ultimate and everything it has to offer.
[color=blue]
> Most likely because the operating system is so absurd?[/color]

Most likely the people are.

So tell us, these systems that are out of spec. How old are they and what
are they?

Stephan Rose wrote:[color=blue]
> Justin wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Yes, Vista is useless to old machines. Wow, there's a no brainier!
>>
>> W2K3 is useless to old machines.
>> XP is useless to old machines.
>> W2K is useless to old machines.
>> Win98 is useless to old machines.
>> Win95 is useless to old machines.
>>
>> Linux is useless to old machines.[/color]
>
> Any one of my computers could run ANY one of the above.
>
> Only *one* could run Vista.
>[color=green]
>> OSX is useless to old machines.[/color]
>
> OSX I can't comment on, I hear there is an x86 version now but that's about
> all I know.[/color]

[url]http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page[/url]
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>> So then, by your logic, all OSs are useless. Nice![/color]
>
> No, just Vista.
>[/color]


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
[url]http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html[/url]

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"DRM is not added to anything in Vista."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

"Nina DiBoy" <nin@di.boy> wrote in message news:esqa7d$4do$2@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Stephan Rose wrote:[color=green]
>> Justin wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Yes, Vista is useless to old machines. Wow, there's a no brainier!
>>>
>>> W2K3 is useless to old machines.
>>> XP is useless to old machines.
>>> W2K is useless to old machines.
>>> Win98 is useless to old machines.
>>> Win95 is useless to old machines.
>>>
>>> Linux is useless to old machines.[/color]
>>
>> Any one of my computers could run ANY one of the above.
>>
>> Only *one* could run Vista.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> OSX is useless to old machines.[/color]
>>
>> OSX I can't comment on, I hear there is an x86 version now but that's
>> about
>> all I know.[/color]
>
> [url]http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page[/url][/color]

Yup! Completely unsupported by Apple and completely illegal to obtain and
use. Not to mention, very limited hardware support.

Justin wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
> news:yZKdnRl3suxgCG3YRVnyuQA@giganews.com...[color=green]
>> Out of curiosity though, how many of those 2 year old machines were able
>> to
>> run vista out of the box *without* needing significant upgrades?[/color]
>
> $0. Don't assume everyone wants ultimate and everything it has to offer.[/color]

Fair enough, however...the lowest Vista release doesn't even register on my
radar as it offers absolutely no benefit over XP in any way at all. Not
even useless eyecandy.

That's just to run Vista for the point of running Vista.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Most likely because the operating system is so absurd?[/color]
>
> Most likely the people are.[/color]

Don't know. You're probably the strongest supporter of Vista I've met yet!
Everyone I've talked to personally either on the phone, or in person,
doesn't even want to hear the word Vista.

We just had the owner of a company in today that will be manufacturing
plastic parts for us and I just asked him what CAD packages they were using
and under what OS since I am still evaluating multiple linux alternatives
there. So that kind of sparked Vista there for a moment.

He's trying not to even think about it and the costs and problems that he'll
incur if and when he has to one day switch.

That seems to be a pretty common attitude towards vista with every single
person I interact with.
[color=blue]
>
> So tell us, these systems that are out of spec. How old are they and what
> are they?[/color]

They are anything ranging from 5 months old to 6 years old all currently
running XP across the board. This very system I am using right now included
but here XP is dual-boot and except for the occasional gaming I don't even
boot into XP anymore.

All other systems are currently running XP Only. All operating flawlessly.

These are spread out between my apartment, my parents house and the office
at my parents and all for various different uses.

With the exception of my primary two development machines, they are all
low-end machines.

My latest machine right here being a E6600 Core Duo with 2 gigs ram and a
7800 GT is the only real reasonable candidate that I'd consider Vista on
performance wise.

My other development system which is a P4 3.0GHz with 1 gig of ram with a
6600 would probably be capable of running Vista, but seeing its XP
performance I don't consider it a likely candidate for the performance
level I expect. I run very demanding apps on both those systems so the less
resources the OS uses, the better!

Then all the remaining machines are various aged Pentium 4's ranging from 2
years old to 6 years old. Less than a gig of ram each...and no significant
hardware accelerated video.

They are just machines used for accounting, word processing, e-mail, that
type of stuff. Most might meet the very very lowest spec Vista but seeing
how everything is running XP Professional right now, that'd be a downgrade
just from that standpoint. If I wanted to get a version of Vista that is
considered on the same level as XP Professional...forget about it.

We have run the upgrade advisor on multiple systems...it had complaints on
every single one.

And there are two systems, the 6 yearish old ones, that I simply don't see
Vista running on...but it'd make no sense to replace them just to run a
different OS as they are more than sufficient to do their job.

Peripherals are another major problem.

We've got a HP laser printer sitting around too that is also around the 6
year age mark now I think. Ya seriously think HP will release Vista drivers
for it? But it does its job...

I don't even know if there are any vista drivers for our color laser yet
either. Though if not, that one *might* get some drivers...maybe...

I have a whole bunch of development hardware, j-tag debuggers and the like,
which are not vista supported as there aren't any vista drivers for them at
this point. Will that change? Yea...eventually.

But ya know what? To really be honest...none of this really is my ultimate
problem with Vista. Really, my ultimate problem isn't even with Vista. I
mean sure, it's got no feature that in any way particularly appeals to me
(or anyone I know)...and has plenty of things that don't appeal to me (and
lots of people I know)...but aside that...

My ultimate problem is with Microsoft themselves at this point in time.

The way they are basically forcing this onto everyone. The way they are
trying to milk every last drop out of their customers. You may say users
have a choice, but do they really? Temporarily...yes. But only
temporarily.

DX10 being exclusive to Vista is a choice I don't agree with. And yes, it's
a choice. DX is an interface...making it XP compatible would not be
impossible.

The whole activation crap with the now constant "genuine" monitoring is
something I don't agree with. If my purchase of the software is not good
enough anymore I don't need to buy it at all.

The whole set of guidelines MS is working on imposing on developers on how
to develop their software is something I don't agree with. I am going to
develop my applications the way the work-flow and app makes the most sense,
not the way it looks prettiest in Vista. I mean there are things in those
guidelines that do make sense, I won't disagree. Generally things that a
5th grader with common sense could figure out.　But they are also trying to
put applications that follow their guidelines at certain "advantages" over
applications that don't. Just in terms of marketing for now but...I do try
to think ahead in the future.

The guideline thing doesn't affect me all that much, at this point in time,
as I design specialized apps that don't compete with the mass market...but
I do worry about what it might mean in the future.

Overall, to really boil it down to the real thing that bugs me the most?

I just can no longer agree with MS' overall philosophy. I don't like the
path they are walking down. MS appears to be going down the path that's
called "Our way or get lost"...well...I got lost and chose my own way.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出すひなんてないのは
君のこと忘れた時がないから

"Nina DiBoy" <nin@di.boy> wrote in message news:esqa7d$4do$2@aioe.org...[color=blue]
>
> [url]http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page[/url]
>[/color]


Do you know if this can run on VirtualPC 2007?

ss.

"Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
news:pPydndly77wWLG3YnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> Fair enough, however...the lowest Vista release doesn't even register on
> my
> radar as it offers absolutely no benefit over XP in any way at all. Not
> even useless eyecandy.[/color]

Fair enough.
[color=blue]
> We just had the owner of a company in today that will be manufacturing
> plastic parts for us and I just asked him what CAD packages they were
> using
> and under what OS since I am still evaluating multiple linux alternatives
> there. So that kind of sparked Vista there for a moment.
>
> He's trying not to even think about it and the costs and problems that
> he'll
> incur if and when he has to one day switch.
>
> That seems to be a pretty common attitude towards vista with every single
> person I interact with.[/color]

That's VERY common. I as well am not ready to move forward with Vista. I
still need lots of drivers in order to move forward. 300+ machines. As
well as our main accounting package is not up to speed yet. SAP.

[color=blue]
> They are anything ranging from 5 months old to 6 years old all currently
> running XP across the board. This very system I am using right now
> included
> but here XP is dual-boot and except for the occasional gaming I don't even
> boot into XP anymore.[/color]

I doubt the 6 year old machine is doing very well with XP. It certainly
isn't pushing any limits.
[color=blue]
> All other systems are currently running XP Only. All operating flawlessly.[/color]

I bet they all run Win98 flawlessly. So why upgrade to XP? :)

[color=blue]
> My latest machine right here being a E6600 Core Duo with 2 gigs ram and a
> 7800 GT is the only real reasonable candidate that I'd consider Vista on
> performance wise.[/color]

Ok.
[color=blue]
> My other development system which is a P4 3.0GHz with 1 gig of ram with a
> 6600 would probably be capable of running Vista, but seeing its XP
> performance I don't consider it a likely candidate for the performance
> level I expect. I run very demanding apps on both those systems so the
> less
> resources the OS uses, the better![/color]

Vista with classic? You wont get eye candy but you'll get all the other new
features.
[color=blue]
> Then all the remaining machines are various aged Pentium 4's ranging from
> 2
> years old to 6 years old. Less than a gig of ram each...and no significant
> hardware accelerated video.[/color]

You don't need a gig of ram and you don't need significant hardware
accelerated video.
[color=blue]
> They are just machines used for accounting, word processing, e-mail, that
> type of stuff. Most might meet the very very lowest spec Vista but seeing
> how everything is running XP Professional right now, that'd be a downgrade
> just from that standpoint. If I wanted to get a version of Vista that is
> considered on the same level as XP Professional...forget about it.[/color]

Well, if you don't need the added features then of course you don't need
Vista. I just hate to see people make claims that they wont update "just
because" of everything they read when knuckleheads like alias run around
screaming bloody murder about Vista.

Same as...Vista is too expensive!

BS!

It's the same price as XP. Ultimate aside. If you can't afford it then
just say you don't have the money.

[color=blue]
> We have run the upgrade advisor on multiple systems...it had complaints on
> every single one.[/color]

Such as?

[color=blue]
> We've got a HP laser printer sitting around too that is also around the 6
> year age mark now I think. Ya seriously think HP will release Vista
> drivers
> for it? But it does its job...[/color]

What model? If it's one of the tanks then yes, they did.

[color=blue]
> I don't even know if there are any vista drivers for our color laser yet
> either. Though if not, that one *might* get some drivers...maybe...[/color]

Check the site. A ton of HP drivers already come with Vista.
[color=blue]
> I have a whole bunch of development hardware, j-tag debuggers and the
> like,
> which are not vista supported as there aren't any vista drivers for them
> at
> this point. Will that change? Yea...eventually.[/color]

Perfectly valid.
[color=blue]
> The way they are basically forcing this onto everyone. The way they are
> trying to milk every last drop out of their customers. You may say users
> have a choice, but do they really? Temporarily...yes. But only
> temporarily.[/color]

I can't agree with that. I wont pretend to fully understand all the
politics between MS and hardware vendors but it clearly seems to be "the
people" that drive this force.

1. If you want Windows then you buy a PC.
2. If you want Mac then you buy Apple.
3. There is absolutely no "strong drive" for Linux. Period. If there was,
then people would be cashing in (retailers).
4. Build your own. Mom/Pop store.

The consumer has choice.
[color=blue]
> DX10 being exclusive to Vista is a choice I don't agree with. And yes,
> it's
> a choice. DX is an interface...making it XP compatible would not be
> impossible.[/color]

Yup, it was a choice. However, "making it XP compatible"...costs money. I
can understand why they didn't. In fact there where many reasons that I
read. Off the top of my head, costs and the need to drive forward. They
wanted devs to create DX10+Vista apps and not have to worry about making
DX10+XP+Vista apps.

[color=blue]
> The whole set of guidelines MS is working on imposing on developers on how
> to develop their software is something I don't agree with. I am going to
> develop my applications the way the work-flow and app makes the most
> sense,
> not the way it looks prettiest in Vista.[/color]

Are you saying the guidelines do not allow for efficient work-flow or
work-flow that makes sense? I think you'd have a fight on your hand there
with the devs.
[color=blue]
> I mean there are things in those
> guidelines that do make sense, I won't disagree. Generally things that a
> 5th grader with common sense could figure out.　But they are also trying to
> put applications that follow their guidelines at certain "advantages" over
> applications that don't. Just in terms of marketing for now but...I do try
> to think ahead in the future.[/color]

Fair enough.