Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ryan P. wrote:
The average person will have no idea how to make anything work in a
Linux build.
Normally there is zero need.

The only problem I had here was my scanner, which simply wasn't
supported period.

My wife now has it, and I bought a cheapo off ebay that was.

Linux appeals to the computer geeks of the world, not to
the average computer owner.
Not these days mate. Its come a long way.


OK, a couple of recent examples. . .

I had another go with Ubuntu on my PC only last night. It is installed on
the hard disk and set up to dual boot with XP - so I'm not running from CD.

First problem: Printer. It recognises my HP1220C printer, but when I try to
print a test page it prints multiple pages with a line of gibberish at the
top of each page. So I remove the paper to stop it wasting and a whole
ream - and when I try to troubleshoot, all it tells me is that bloody thing
is out of paper! I can't find how to actually cancel job and tell the
printer to stop what it's doing.

thats is the cups system.

you obviously had it thinking the printer was postctript, when it wasnt.

Happens here - mostly from the Macintosh client.

ReEmove tray, wait for gibberish to stop, switch printer off to clear
ITS memory and go into system/administration/printers, right click on
the printer and delete any queued jobs.


Then if its NOT a postcript printer, reinstalll it correctly.


Second problem: Dual monitors. In my XP setup, I'm using two monitors - the
laptop's own screen plus an external monitor, with the 'desktop' extended
across the two. This is easy to set up in XP - just by going to Display
Properties - but I haven't a clue how to do it in Ubuntu - and couldn't find
anything useful in 'Help'.


That's one I havent tried. I use virtual screens and a single monitor.

My guess is there is a special driver, which may be proprietary, to do
that. If the video car manufacturer decides he wont support linux,
that's that really.

So I gave up again. Pity - 'cos I'd really like to get shot of everything
Microsoft - but life's just too short to do so!

its still got a few years to go before we get shot of Microsoft, but its
moving, slowly.

When I started IT life there were no PC operating suystems, apart from
CP/M and 20 different mainframe and minicomputer systems.

Now there is Unix at the mainframe and mini level, and that's about it.
There's a few VMS/VM around still I believe. Unix and its child, Linux,
simply became the more open usable standard. To the point where Apple
now uses a version of it.

I shied away from linux for many years as a desktop, (been using it as a
server for years and Unix) because it simply couldn't cope..but recently
I decided after a brief flirtation with OS-X to give it a try. Its worth
it. Its now nearly as good user friendly wise as windows, and streets
ahead in most other areas.

BUT there is no breakthrough moment. third party peripherals and support
gets better, but its not windows levels yet. But each incremental
improvement means there is more onus on the third party gents to make
their stuff work with Linux. Its already inside most routers and
bridges, on most servers on the net. Windows is a dwindling island of
desktops. Still the biggest island by far, but it is shrinking.

AND the virtual box stuff means that you CAN still run windows programs
on it.

Which one needs to by and large.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

Christ how on earth do you manage to make it crash every day?

The LONGEST I have had windows running is about 2 days. My Linux is
dictated generally by the time between kernel upgrades, or a power cut,
whichever is the sooner. That's the only time it ever gets rebooted.
Unless I mess up its config and screw it beyond immediate redemption.

And it has never messed up so bad it needed reinstallation, except with
definite terminal hardware problems.

Rssntalling windows is a two monthly exercise for most of my friends who
use it as a desktop.

What does that tell you about them?
My windows runs for weeks if I let it.
It never crashes.
It runs stuff that you just can't get on linux not even an equivalent.
I installed last year and I don't expect to do so again until I buy a bigger
disk, then I may just clone it.
I guess some people just never learn how to use a computer.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
tony sayer wrote:

One of my daughters managed a Linux install recently with no problems.
Seems its getting easier..

A Linux install where everything goes to plan has been easier than a
Windows install where everything goes to plan for quite a while, of course
installing either O/S can fail to go to plan.

There is little difference between the two, except for partitioning, the
linux partitioner is a real pain and its easy to destroy something you
didn't want to.

dennis@home wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote

A Linux install where everything goes to plan has been easier than a
Windows install where everything goes to plan for quite a while

There is little difference between the two

I'd say the difference was drivers. In windows you'll need to ferret out
and download drivers for most devices yourself, with Linux, if a driver
exists for your hardware (choose hardware wisely) it'll just be included
and work - granted from the little I've seen of Win2008_R2 it appears to
have improved over older versions.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

When I started IT life there were no PC operating suystems, apart from
CP/M and 20 different mainframe and minicomputer systems.

A youngster, eh? I wrote my own tiny OS for the 8080 using broken
calculators from Tottenham Court Rd. CP/M came later.

BUT there is no breakthrough moment. third party peripherals and
support gets better, but its not windows levels yet. But each
incremental improvement means there is more onus on the third party
gents to make their stuff work with Linux. Its already inside most
routers and bridges, on most servers on the net. Windows is a
dwindling island of desktops. Still the biggest island by far, but it
is shrinking.

That's fine, but the OP was asking about a laptop not a box with no
buttons or a server.
I work with audio, and fiddled with Slackware for ages, learning nothing
about how to multitrack, but lots about Linux.
I recently got a Netbook - vastly reduced, probably because it was
running Ubuntu.
Powered up, went like a dream, connected through the router and it
wanted to download updates, just like Windows. Foolishly, I let it.
Rebooted, and it had lost all wifi.
Even with extensive internet help and personal Skype 2-ways with an
expert, never could get that back, so installed the next generation
9.04.
Everything came good again.
Then started trying to get it to do audio mixing, editing etc. Only one
out of all the interfaces here had any hint on the internet that they
might work with Linux, and that was an old Tascam US-122. Huge
instructions later, and it worked. What a performance, though. I don't
think any of the Firewire devices work.
I had the Open Office front end connecting to my MySQL database, but
something, possibly another Ubuntu update, has stopped that working.
Still works on all the Windows laptops.

It works really well for what I bought it for - pointing a usb webcam at
the tow hitch on the Land Rover to help with backing up to boat
trailers.

I'd recommend it for that, but not for someone who wanted a normal
general purpose laptop.
--
Bill

Roger Mills wrote:


Second problem: Dual monitors. In my XP setup, I'm using two monitors - the
laptop's own screen plus an external monitor, with the 'desktop' extended
across the two. This is easy to set up in XP - just by going to Display
Properties - but I haven't a clue how to do it in Ubuntu - and couldn't find
anything useful in 'Help

Systemreferences:display

If you have ATI graphics then you will probably be prompted to
use the ATI program, if Intel graphics the default version works ,
don't know about Nvidia.



--
David Clark, MSc, PhD. UCL Centre for Publishing
Gower Str London WCIE 6BT
What sort of web animal are you?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/experiments/webbehaviour

On 18/03/10 16:14, Bill wrote:

I'd recommend it [Linux] for that, but not for someone who wanted a normal
general purpose laptop.

I might recommend it, with reservations. If someone was completely new
computers I might recommend Linux. It's no more difficult to learn *from
scratch* than Windows is. If you already know Windows then you have a
lot to unlearn before you can be reasonably proficient with Linux. Linux
is not Windows.

Support for Linux is growing and we are starting to see manufacturers
providing support. As they do that it becomes easier to adopt. As that
happens more people will use it. That encourages more manufacturers to
support it.

It's clear that Linux has reached the point where a company could decide
to become a Windows-free organisation. What doesn't currently make sense
is for an organisation that has Windows systems to take on the added
burden of a second system that requires different support skills.

--
Bernard Peek

In message , Huge
writes
FWIW, I've never used Windows for my home O/S. I presently run Ubuntu,
before that Solaris, before that SunOS and before that MS-DOS with GEM.
I think my point was that it can be a major task getting those sort of
OS's to interface with things like usb or firewire audio interfaces.
Lots of other interface devices spring to mind as well - things like
CAN-BUS devices for cars and so on.
The Linux that might, Ubuntu, in my admittedly very limited experience,
has similar problems to Windows - huge numbers of updates offered,
little guidance as to what should be avoided and to get things working
again I had to re-install.
I repeat my user experience with a Toshiba Ubuntu netbook. I behaved
like a typical new user. Switched on, thought this is good. Up popped
the Updates Available message. I let it do its worst, clicking default
on any message I didn't understand. The result was no wifi, so, if I
were a typical user, no internet, So the net in netbook wasn't there any
more.

What I'd love would be a modular sort of OS with a universal public
domain standard driver interface system. Communism missed its chance.
No hope now.
--
Bill

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
dennis@home wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote

A Linux install where everything goes to plan has been easier than a
Windows install where everything goes to plan for quite a while

There is little difference between the two

I'd say the difference was drivers. In windows you'll need to ferret out
and download drivers for most devices yourself, with Linux, if a driver
exists for your hardware (choose hardware wisely) it'll just be included
and work - granted from the little I've seen of Win2008_R2 it appears to
have improved over older versions.


That is exactly the same for windows, if you choose your hardware wisely
means windows will also include the drivers and will update them if
required.
The difference being that its very difficult to chose hardware that doesn't
have drivers for windows and its easy to chose hardware that doesn't work
with linux. Linux lacks decent drivers for lots of printers and scanners and
ATI graphics for example.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:46:16 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
the
linux partitioner is a real pain and its easy to destroy something you
didn't want to.

Which "linux partitioner"? I've seen some horrendous bells-and-whistles
ones before (Redhat had a nasty one at one point, IIRC).

I normally use fdisk though - makes it obvious what's going on (and I
usually back the MBR up using dd first, just in case I toast something)

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:46:16 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
the
linux partitioner is a real pain and its easy to destroy something you
didn't want to.

Which "linux partitioner"? I've seen some horrendous bells-and-whistles
ones before (Redhat had a nasty one at one point, IIRC).

They are all pretty bad.
The one on ubuntu 9.4 was bad, it even had the exact same warning at the end
when it was going to delete your windows partition as it did if it wasn't
going to do so. That would be a real pain for someone that didn;t understand
partitions, slices, etc.

I normally use fdisk though - makes it obvious what's going on (and I
usually back the MBR up using dd first, just in case I toast something)

In article , Bill
scribeth thus
In message , Huge
writes
FWIW, I've never used Windows for my home O/S. I presently run Ubuntu,
before that Solaris, before that SunOS and before that MS-DOS with GEM.
I think my point was that it can be a major task getting those sort of
OS's to interface with things like usb or firewire audio interfaces.
Lots of other interface devices spring to mind as well - things like
CAN-BUS devices for cars and so on.
The Linux that might, Ubuntu, in my admittedly very limited experience,
has similar problems to Windows - huge numbers of updates offered,
little guidance as to what should be avoided and to get things working
again I had to re-install.
I repeat my user experience with a Toshiba Ubuntu netbook. I behaved
like a typical new user. Switched on, thought this is good. Up popped
the Updates Available message. I let it do its worst, clicking default
on any message I didn't understand. The result was no wifi, so, if I
were a typical user, no internet, So the net in netbook wasn't there any
more.


Yep, and I've spent many many hours sodding around with Microsoft
problems and somehow I reckon I'm not the only one either;!...



--
Tony Sayer

In ,
The Natural Philosopher typed on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:25:58 +0000:
Doesn't run any better?

Christ how on earth do you manage to make it crash every day?

The LONGEST I have had windows running is about 2 days. My Linux is
dictated generally by the time between kernel upgrades, or a power
cut, whichever is the sooner. That's the only time it ever gets
rebooted. Unless I mess up its config and screw it beyond immediate
redemption.
And it has never messed up so bad it needed reinstallation, except
with definite terminal hardware problems.

Rssntalling windows is a two monthly exercise for most of my friends
who use it as a desktop.

Reinstalling Windows? That is the wrong way to do things. I install them
once and that is it. I make backups and if the hard drive fails or
something, just restore it to another hard drive. I have 4TB of external
drive space so making multiple backups are easy and I can make as many I
would like too without problems of running out of space. And you are
back up and running in about 20 minutes or less.

Only had Windows running for two days tops? Gee mine don't get rebooted
for months at a time. Some of them for years at a time. Even when I was
running Windows 98, I wouldn't have to reboot for about every 2 months
and that was it.

Linux? Well Xandros crashes all of the time. So that one isn't so good.
Ubuntu doesn't crash too often, but there is very limited applications
and games for Linux. Plus Linux is terrible in the multimedia
department. So Linux isn't so hot of an OS anyway. As I still think of
Linux as just a glorified PDA OS. As that is about all it is good for
anyway. Just those simple computing tasks.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

Huge wrote:
On 2010-03-19, BillW50 wrote:

As I still think of
Linux as just a glorified PDA OS. As that is about all it is good for
anyway. Just those simple computing tasks.

Moron.


Indeed. where performance counts its the default - e..g. more web
servers run Linux than anything else.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Indeed. where performance counts its the default - e..g. more web servers
run Linux than anything else.


However most of them are never accessed except by the robot counting them.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Indeed. where performance counts its the default - e..g. more web
servers run Linux than anything else.


However most of them are never accessed except by the robot counting them.


eh? what planet is this? Most of them are accessed by people downloading
web pages, or there isn't much point in having them is there?

Oh. Its Planet Dennis, where the laws of Reality don't apply.

Have they eased up on the Largactyl again Dennis?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Indeed. where performance counts its the default - e..g. more web
servers run Linux than anything else.


However most of them are never accessed except by the robot counting
them.


eh? what planet is this? Most of them are accessed by people downloading
web pages, or there isn't much point in having them is there?

Oh. Its Planet Dennis, where the laws of Reality don't apply.

Its the planet where most users don't give a stuff about the tens of
millions of web servers that contain junk, its called Earth BTW.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ryan P. wrote:

The average person will have no idea how to make anything work in a
Linux build.

Normally there is zero need.

The only problem I had here was my scanner, which simply wasn't
supported period.

My wife now has it, and I bought a cheapo off ebay that was.

Linux appeals to the computer geeks of the world, not to
the average computer owner.

Not these days mate. Its come a long way.


OK, a couple of recent examples. . .

I had another go with Ubuntu on my PC only last night. It is installed on
the hard disk and set up to dual boot with XP - so I'm not running from
CD.

First problem: Printer. It recognises my HP1220C printer, but when I try
to print a test page it prints multiple pages with a line of gibberish at
the top of each page. So I remove the paper to stop it wasting and a whole
ream - and when I try to troubleshoot, all it tells me is that bloody
thing is out of paper! I can't find how to actually cancel job and tell
the printer to stop what it's doing.

Second problem: Dual monitors. In my XP setup, I'm using two monitors -
the laptop's own screen plus an external monitor, with the 'desktop'
extended across the two. This is easy to set up in XP - just by going to
Display Properties - but I haven't a clue how to do it in Ubuntu - and
couldn't find anything useful in 'Help'.

So I gave up again. Pity - 'cos I'd really like to get shot of everything
Microsoft - but life's just too short to do so!
--
Cheers,
Roger
_______
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.
A long shot but that HP printer behaviour sounds a bit like what happened
with one of ours. Only by chance did I come across a thread that explained
that the printer (with integral scanner) expected us to do a print head
alignment before it counted as installed - by putting the first test page on
the scanner to let it read what adjustments were needed. We had no idea it
needed to do this and were rather peeved by the waste of paper and ink every
time we turned it on. Of course no sooner did we discover the secret, than
the ink ran out...

S

In ,
Barry Watzman typed on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:52 -0400:
If you feel that a given [old] OS meets your needs, fine, you can say
that. I said it for a long time about Windows 98.

However, there is a STRONG (not universal, but strong) consensus that:

1. Windows XP was far better than Windows 2K or 98
2. Windows 7 is better than XP

And I suspect that the number of people who accept 2. will grow over
time, as the number of people who accepted 1. grew. I no longer use
Windows 98. I did so for a LONG time after XP came out (years), but I
no longer do, except on very old hardware on which there is no choice.
And although, for hardware and software compatibility reasons, I am
currently [still] using XP, I myself accept 2. as valid. And at some
point I will stop using Windows XP.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I had Windows 7 Ultimate
RC on two machines for 10 months and I wasn't impressed at all. I also
have two unopened Windows 7 upgrade up on the shelf that I seriously
doubt that I will ever use them.

And both Vista and Windows 7 displays can be customized. Thus makes it
very difficult to write documentation. As the documentation screen shots
may not look like your screen. Thus makes life very difficult and wastes
people time. And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
the opposite. As they control the user. And it appears some people like
this. So it must be some sort of fetish thing I suppose. But it isn't
for me. Good thing I have 6 Windows XP machines. As that should hold me
into the next decade or two. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

Then turn them off.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
the opposite. As they control the user.

Only if the user lets them...

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

In
,
NT typed on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:15:30 -0800 (PST):
[...]
I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
changed that. It costs nothing to try, and if for some reason you
still want to get windows you can buy it if and when you find linux
isnt what you want. The days of linux being only for geeks are
history.

NT

You must be easy to please. As I find all flavors of Linux as a very
poor substitute to replace Windows with. I've used Linux for a number of
years. And even Ubuntu is just awful when it comes to playing multimedia
files. As Ubuntu needs three times the processor power just to play the
dang files compared to Windows on the same machine. And support for many
file types are just awful! I actually like my Palm OS far more than I
like Linux. And my favorite version of Linux is Xandros. At least it
actually works, unlike Ubuntu. But it still doesn't work as well as
Windows XP.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

Then turn them off.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does just
the opposite. As they control the user.

Only if the user lets them...

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.

So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things I
didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the wrong key.

Shades of that dreadful paper clip thing in Office.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

Same with the Mac, it comes with far too much stuff enabled on it. Its a
bloody walking advert, not a computer fit for work.

In ,
Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010 10:30:25 GMT:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

Then turn them off.

Can't turn them all off. And Windows 7 blocks my access to some
application configuration files. Both Vista and Windows 7 also blocks
stream recorders from downloading files. And blocks most systems from
recording the sound coming from the sound card. So what good is that?

And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does
just the opposite. As they control the user.

Only if the user lets them...

The user doesn't have much of a choice. As if you force it, the OS
starts to break.

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are
forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too.
Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

Somewhere on teh intarwebs The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

Then turn them off.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does
just the opposite. As they control the user.

Only if the user lets them...

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.

So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things
I didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the
wrong key.
Shades of that dreadful paper clip thing in Office.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

Same with the Mac, it comes with far too much stuff enabled on it.
Its a bloody walking advert, not a computer fit for work.

What worries me is that, according to a friend who works in IT looking after
a few business' machines, you can't run 7 with the 'Windows Classic'
interface that I always use for any XP installs. (I avoided Vista but
suspect that I'll have to embrace 7 one day.)

I like the clean and simple classic interface. No bells and whistles, just
an OS. I'd actually been considering moving to 7 fairly soon until I heard
that it's no longer an option. Now I'll delay for as long as is possible.
--
Shaun.

"When we dream.... that's just our brains defragmenting" G Jackson

~misfit~ wrote:
Somewhere on teh intarwebs The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.
Then turn them off.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does
just the opposite. As they control the user.
Only if the user lets them...

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.
So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things
I didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the
wrong key.
Shades of that dreadful paper clip thing in Office.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

Same with the Mac, it comes with far too much stuff enabled on it.
Its a bloody walking advert, not a computer fit for work.

What worries me is that, according to a friend who works in IT looking after
a few business' machines, you can't run 7 with the 'Windows Classic'
interface that I always use for any XP installs. (I avoided Vista but
suspect that I'll have to embrace 7 one day.)

I like the clean and simple classic interface. No bells and whistles, just
an OS. I'd actually been considering moving to 7 fairly soon until I heard
that it's no longer an option. Now I'll delay for as long as is possible.

yeah. I run classic on my XP virtual machine.

All these bloody icons everywhere eat up bandwidth and CPU.

In article , ~misfit~ sore_n_ha
scribeth thus
Somewhere on teh intarwebs The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big
waste of time.

Then turn them off.

OS like Vista and Windows 7 works differently than previous OS. As
before, you controlled the OS. But under Vista and Windows 7 does
just the opposite. As they control the user.

Only if the user lets them...

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.

So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things
I didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the
wrong key.
Shades of that dreadful paper clip thing in Office.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

Same with the Mac, it comes with far too much stuff enabled on it.
Its a bloody walking advert, not a computer fit for work.

What worries me is that, according to a friend who works in IT looking after
a few business' machines, you can't run 7 with the 'Windows Classic'
interface that I always use for any XP installs. (I avoided Vista but
suspect that I'll have to embrace 7 one day.)

I like the clean and simple classic interface. No bells and whistles, just
an OS. I'd actually been considering moving to 7 fairly soon until I heard
that it's no longer an option. Now I'll delay for as long as is possible.

A few of our old WIN 2000 Pro installs have a classic simplicity about
them and do all we -need- ...
--
Tony Sayer

In ,
BillW50 typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:52:35 -0500:
[...]
And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the
Internet. The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

I am referring to KB971033. Lauren Weinstein's Blog write a great
article about this update which can be found here.

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html

Who controls and owns your Windows 7 OS? Microsoft does. :-(

Sorry... but I don't have a fetish for allowing Microsoft to play games
with my OS. Maybe it is fine for the rest of you, but I am not
interested. I played those games back in the 80's with GeoWorks. And
those games cost me over $1000. And for what? Anybody using GeoWorks
today? I hope they used my money wisely and enjoyed cruising around in
their yachts. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:52:35 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In , Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010
10:30:25 GMT:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big waste of
time.

Then turn them off.

Can't turn them all off.

I don't seem to get any at all.

And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

I agree. I use it because I have to. I didn't say it was good. But it's
better than Vista.

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.

If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are
forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too.
Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too.

Don't use Mac or Linux either! .-)


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:37:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.

So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things I
didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the wrong
key.

I'm not a fan. Just think it's better than Vista.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

It's not bad...for a jumped up UNIX wannabe.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:19:05 +1200, ~misfit~ wrote:

What worries me is that, according to a friend who works in IT looking
after a few business' machines, you can't run 7 with the 'Windows
Classic' interface that I always use for any XP installs. (I avoided
Vista but suspect that I'll have to embrace 7 one day.)

He hasn't looked very hard then.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:37:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's faster than Vista, easier to use, less obstructive.
So say its fans. I spent nearly 1/4 hr trying to stop it doing things I
didn't want every time my mouse wandered somewhere or I hit the wrong
key.

I'm not a fan. Just think it's better than Vista.

I suppose that's why I like Linux. I have to spend the time turning on
stuff I WANT, not turning off stuff that I don't.

It's not bad...for a jumped up UNIX wannabe.


That's a very fair description.

Its a bit behind in the driver, eye candy and multimedia stakes, but its
way ahead in the font rendering, and general stability stakes.

Like PostScript, X-Windows works if you throw enough CPU at it.

Gnome ain't bad, for what it is. I like the relative simplicity. Must
try KDE one dull day when nothing else appeals.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:56:13 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

A few of our old WIN 2000 Pro installs have a classic simplicity about
them and do all we -need- ...


I still have fond memories of Windows NT 4.0 which never crashed.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:11:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Gnome ain't bad, for what it is. I like the relative simplicity. Must
try KDE one dull day when nothing else appeals.

I use KDE....but not Linux!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:56:13 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:
A few of our old WIN 2000 Pro installs have a classic simplicity about
them and do all we -need- ...


I still have fond memories of Windows NT 4.0 which never crashed.

unless you had a program that allocated and deallocated kernel memory.
IIRC a friend who discovered this wrote just such a program. You lose 4
bytes every time..for ever.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:11:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Gnome ain't bad, for what it is. I like the relative simplicity. Must
try KDE one dull day when nothing else appeals.

I use KDE....but not Linux!

what then..BSD?

On 18/04/10 14:12, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:56:13 +0100, tony
wrote:

A few of our old WIN 2000 Pro installs have a classic simplicity about
them and do all we -need- ...


I still have fond memories of Windows NT 4.0 which never crashed.

It still has its uses. If you want a generic Windows virtual machine
then NT4 has the advantages of being reasonably stable without hogging
too much memory. That's particularly important if you are running
several VMs.


--
Bernard Peek

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:25:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:11:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Gnome ain't bad, for what it is. I like the relative simplicity. Must
try KDE one dull day when nothing else appeals.

I use KDE....but not Linux!

what then..BSD?

Yup. Been using it since 1977...not the same version, of course!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote on 18 Apr 2010 12:48:13 GMT:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:52:35 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In , Bob Eager typed on 18 Apr 2010
10:30:25 GMT:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:13:31 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

And clicking on all of those safety prompts are also a big waste of
time.
Then turn them off.
Can't turn them all off.

I don't seem to get any at all.

Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just
visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work.
And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it
complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this
version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess.

But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything
worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an
application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for
updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over
and over again?

And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

I agree. I use it because I have to. I didn't say it was good. But it's
better than Vista.

Well I don't think you will find one to disagree with you there. Even
those that dislikes Windows 7 will even admit this. ;-)

Windows 7 is the least worst since XP. Had to upgrade because I'll be
teaching it at work. Not that I use it very much at all.
If you have to use it, then you have to use it. A handful of people are
forced to use Mac and Linux machines too that really don't want too.
Fortunately for me, I can use anything I want too.

Don't use Mac or Linux either! .-)

Oh I do, just to mix things up a bit. But I admit that Windows XP does
100% of what I want to do. While Windows 7 does about 95%. And Linux
comes in at about 25%.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

On 18/04/10 15:43, BillW50 wrote:


Is that after you disabled the UAC I think it is called? I was just
visiting my sister yesterday and I was trying to get her WiFi to work.
And when all fails, RTFM right? So I opened up a PDF file and it
complained that Adobe Reader 7 was known to have issues with this
version of Windows. Well that is great it warns you about this I guess.

But I ignored the warning and opened the document anyway. Everything
worked fine for me. But isn't it a given if an older version of an
application doesn't work well with a newer OS, it is time to check for
updates? Why do we need our hand held and to be reminded of this over
and over again?

UAC is one of the best new features in Windows and I don't recommend
disabling it. A significant fraction of Windows machines are compromised
because users do dumb things. If you keep running into UAC under W7 you
should rethink how you are using the computer. It's a little too
aggressive in Vista but W7 fixes that.



And from a recent update, Microsoft can now remotely disable your
Windows 7 at anytime they want to if you are connected to the Internet.
The user doesn't even control their own OS anymore.

That's been true since automated patching was invented.


--
Bernard Peek

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:14:58 +0100, Bernard Peek
wrote:
On 18/04/10 14:12, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:56:13 +0100, tony
wrote:

A few of our old WIN 2000 Pro installs have a classic simplicity about
them and do all we -need- ...


I still have fond memories of Windows NT 4.0 which never crashed.

It still has its uses. If you want a generic Windows virtual machine
then NT4 has the advantages of being reasonably stable without hogging
too much memory. That's particularly important if you are running
several VMs.


I don't have that use for it. My NT-equipped PC has been replaced
twice since, in each case with computers supplied with a copy of the
then-current variant of Windows, and the computer I use for work is a
Mac, so it's just a memory now. But it is a good memory, because it
was just about crash-proof - even better than a Mac!