XP slated for marketing burst

TalkBack 10 of 59:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

re: win98 works just fine

>>There are millios still using windows 98 that cannot afford windows xp. Low income families and seniors on fixed incomes, to name a couple. There are millions others that have gotten xp machines and "WISH LIKE HELL" that they had not! What a pain in the a** compared to a win98 (or even win2000) machine that is already comfortable to use and works just fine.<<

Geeze.. You're making it sound like most people with home computers these days are living at or below the poverty level. Sheesh. This is AMERICA! Not Bangladesh!

And yes, there's a learning curve associated with ANY new operating system. And yes, there may be some discomfort when you change from one OS to the next. But that's one of those immutable laws about this universe. Change is inevitable and constant.

I will grant that there ARE some people who are financially challenged and can't afford a new computer or an upgrade to XP. But that's NOT the case with everyone.

>>All anyone has to to is use a browser and email client such as Slimbrowser or AOL (if an IE base browser is preferred), opera, mozilla, netscape, firefox, thunderbird etc. All of these are just as good or better than IE and Outlook Express.<<

You obviously have a limited set of needs but NOT everyone uses their computers for just e-mail and browsing. Some people actually use their home computers for other purposes - like word processing, spreadsheets, games, etc..., whatever. Some tasks require more horsepower than others.

Oh... And if they were to get rid of the AOL which is what? $25 bucks a month these days and went with a cheaper ISP (PeoplePC, NetZero or the like) they could put that extra $15 odd dollars per month into savings toward a new machine. They could have one within a year. Yes... It would mean taking off the "training wheels" and learning how to use things like a real search engine to find content - but they would be better off for it.

>>XP is first and foremost a Microsoft tool for making the user go where MS wants them to. It is way too restrictive in so many ways, especially for the single user or family that only uses one logon (or profile).<<

Restrictive? Explain yourself.

I don't find it the slightest bit limiting. Nor am I forced to go where MS wants me to. I can go to any web site I choose to visit. And XP supports multiple log ons so everyone can have their own profiles. And with the fast user switching feature in XP, each user can configure their desktop to look and feel how they want it to. 9x, on the other hand, regardless of who was logged in, your desktop was shared. Same wallpaper, same mouse cursors, same everything.

>>Give me a version of XP that I can keep all the extras but EASILY turn off all the wizards and other roadblocks that MS puts up. One that would be more like windows 2000 but with the hardware support and extra enhancements that XP offers such as clearer fonts and align to grid.<<

What roadblocks? XP's wizards help those who aren't computer savvy do things like configure their systems. Even some of us who ARE computer savvy find that they make life easier at times. If you're whining about XP's "themes" - you can even turn those off and make it look like Windows 2000 for the most part.

>>I won't hold my breath on that ever happening. For MS, XP and future windows operating systems is more about control and maintaining the monopoly than about giving customers what they want or actually need.<<

I beg to differ. XP is about what MOST customers want in an OS. It's stable. Much more so than any 9x version. It runs Windows software. And with Service Pack 2 (coming soon) it will offer easier to configure security as well.

However, you ARE right in one respect. It is about maintaining market share - ie the "dreaded dastardly" monopoly. So what. Having one more or less uniform OS can be a good thing. Having a dozen or two competing versions of an OS can be a logistical nightmare from a support perspective. A little history lesson:

Before IBM came on the scene with their first PC, the dominant OS at the time was CP/M. Every hardware vendor at the time tweaked the OS to work on their computers and their's alone. Software vendors likewise had to tweak their programs to run on each different OS. If you were working for, say, Ashton-Tate (the guys who wrote dBase), you would have to first find out what OS they were using, and their configuration and such before you could solve the problem.

Back in those days, hardware choices were fairly limited. Today, the options and combinations are pretty close to unlimited. So, its very easy to see why MS would choose to put some limits on what's supported, and what's not.

Posted by: Wolfie2K3   Posted on: 05/06/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now