Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29152 > unrolled thread

Does anybody use Windows XP ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-26 15:30 -0700
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-26 17:05 -0700
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-03-27 00:49 +0100
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-27 01:33 +0000
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 01:45 -0700
      Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-03-27 08:39 -1000
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-01 01:26 +0200
          Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-03-31 23:55 -0700
            Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-01 11:16 +0200
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? jzakiya@gmail.com - 2014-03-27 11:18 -0700
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-03-27 20:04 +0000
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-27 18:11 -0400
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-03-28 02:05 +0000
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 10:53 +0100
      Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 15:15 -0700
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-28 15:42 -0700
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-28 16:17 -0700
          Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-28 17:49 -0700
            Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-28 17:52 -0700
              Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-28 18:50 -0700
                Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-28 22:31 -0700
                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-28 23:18 -0700
                    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-29 15:03 -0700
                      Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-29 16:55 -0700
                        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-29 20:19 -0700
                          Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-29 20:55 -0700
                            Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-30 21:14 +0200
                              Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-30 13:09 -0700
                                Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-31 13:26 +0200
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-31 18:14 -0400
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-31 15:42 -0700
                                    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-01 14:27 +0200
                            Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-30 22:58 -0700
                              Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-31 18:18 -0400
                                Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-31 23:10 -0700
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-04-01 00:17 -0700
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-01 19:16 -0400
                                    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-04-01 16:34 -0700
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-01 20:10 -0400
                                    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-04-01 21:26 -0700
                              Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-01 02:17 +0200
                                Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-03-31 22:23 -0700
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-01 07:45 +0200
                                  Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-01 11:37 +0000
                                    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-04-01 05:59 -0700
                                      Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-01 16:43 +0000
                                    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 14:33 +0200
                      Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-01 02:15 +0200
                Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-03-29 05:50 -0500
              Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-29 09:19 +0000
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 14:16 +0100
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-03-30 00:33 +0000
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-30 21:08 +0200
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 00:23 -0700
    Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-01 10:15 -0700
      Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-04-01 10:38 -0700
        Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-01 10:55 -0700
          Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-04-01 11:30 -0700
            Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-01 21:20 +0200
          Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-01 19:41 -0400
          Re: Does anybody use Windows XP ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 16:46 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#29206

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 22:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:55:28 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> 
> > It's possible that ARD and ZDF use formats that Linux can decode.
> 
> It's no problem to see ARD or ZDF ... for ten minutes.
> After ten minutes the system starts to stall.
> I guess allocated buffers are to small.

Or your system starts swapping..

> My overall experience is that Linux systems with graphical display
> need CPUs with much much more power than the CPUs my laptops have.

Memory probably, more then CPU power. Flash is resource hog.

> 
> No wonder that it is recommended to use bare Linux without graphics.
> 
> But in this case I prefer ForthOS. 



-- 
Click OK to continue...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29208

On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:17:24 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
> Or your system starts swapping..
> 
I don't know. System finally was frozen, nothing worked anymore. I had to use the power button to switch off. I didn't expect something like that. If it would be an embedded system, I would have a watchdog to resolve the situation. Does Linux have a watchdog function? I didn't get a bluescreen - I would have preferred a bluescreen.

Windows has the Ctrl+Alt+Delete function. Does Linux have something like this for emergency use?

> 
> Memory probably, more than CPU power. Flash is resource hog.
> 
If Flash is a resource hog, why does it work under XP then?

Today was a report in German TV - ZDF: "Service: Verabschiedung von Windows XP"
They made recommendations for elderly people (like me), and the lady they interviewed was exited about Windows 8. At the end they suggested to choose between Windows 7, Windows 8 and - believe it or not - Ubuntu, adding that the computer should have a minimum of 2GB of RAM.
Source: 
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/2124070/Service-Verabschiedung-von-Windows-XP
or
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/2124070/Service-Verabschiedung-von-Windows-XP?bc=svp;sv2;kua2123998&flash=off

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29209

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:17:24 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >
> > Or your system starts swapping..
> > 
> I don't know. System finally was frozen, nothing worked anymore. I
> had to use the power button to switch off. I didn't expect something
> like that. If it would be an embedded system, I would have a watchdog
> to resolve the situation. Does Linux have a watchdog function?

It has OOM killer. When systems run out memory + swap it starts
killing processes by some criteria.

 I
> didn't get a bluescreen - I would have preferred a bluescreen.
> 
> Windows has the Ctrl+Alt+Delete function. Does Linux have something
> like this for emergency use?

You can force to run OOM killer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key

> 
> > 
> > Memory probably, more than CPU power. Flash is resource hog.
> > 
> If Flash is a resource hog, why does it work under XP then?

Because Linux Flash implementation is a crap. Ask Adobe why.

-- 
Click OK to continue...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29223

In article <97f6ca93-20a8-48e8-8b9e-db437fdb87c0@googlegroups.com>,
 <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:17:24 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> Or your system starts swapping..
>>
>I don't know. System finally was frozen, nothing worked anymore. I had
>to use the power button to switch off. I didn't expect something like
>that. If it would be an embedded system, I would have a watchdog to
>resolve the situation. Does Linux have a watchdog function? I didn't get
>a bluescreen - I would have preferred a bluescreen.
>
>Windows has the Ctrl+Alt+Delete function. Does Linux have something like
>this for emergency use?

Many linuces have the three finger salute as a built in very low level
command, that mostly regains control. (I say mostly, not that I ever
got in a situation in Debian where it failed.).

There is a fundamentally better way. Hook up a VT100 to the serial
port at the IBM-PC address (I know, mostly removed these days.)
Log in as root, and kill everything that is misbehaving.
In the end Linux is a multi user system, and it is foreseen that a user
misbehaves.
The modern way to do that is ssh via a local network.

Note that a local network has a weak link: the ethernet cable, or
the hub or even a wireless network.
Same goes for usb. If you mess up usb thoroughly (and it is
1000 pages of upmessability), your usb keyboard doesn't come
through.

What a watchdog would entail in a complicated system like Linux is
hard to tell. You could easily install yourself a facility that will
reboot every day at 0:00 hours, unless you reset the trigger in the
course of the day. This takes 5 lines at the right places, but nobody
has "built it in".
Hundreds of other methods of have a dog watching can be imagined.

>
>>
>> Memory probably, more than CPU power. Flash is resource hog.
>>
>If Flash is a resource hog, why does it work under XP then?
>
>Today was a report in German TV - ZDF: "Service: Verabschiedung von Windows XP"
>They made recommendations for elderly people (like me), and the lady
>they interviewed was exited about Windows 8. At the end they suggested
>to choose between Windows 7, Windows 8 and - believe it or not - Ubuntu,
>adding that the computer should have a minimum of 2GB of RAM.

There is nothing strange about that. Former MS-Window users I know are
between mildly and wildly enthousiastic about Ubuntu.

>Source:
>http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/2124070/Service-Verabschiedung-von-Windows-XP
>or
>http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/2124070/Service-Verabschiedung-von-Windows-XP?bc=svp;sv2;kua2123998&flash=off
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29226

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:37:26 PM UTC+2, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <97f6ca93-20a8-48e8-8b9e-db437fdb87c0@googlegroups.com>,
> 
>  <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> There is a fundamentally better way. Hook up a VT100 to the serial
> port at the IBM-PC address (I know, mostly removed these days.)
> Log in as root, and kill everything that is misbehaving.
> In the end Linux is a multi user system, and it is foreseen that a user
> misbehaves.

You don't need a terminal. Just use alt-Fx (x is 1 .. ) and switch to another console.

If *that* doesn't work, use a match and set fire to the dog.

-marcel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29230

In article <51acbd8c-67f2-412b-9abf-0c29974bd856@googlegroups.com>,
 <m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:37:26 PM UTC+2, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <97f6ca93-20a8-48e8-8b9e-db437fdb87c0@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>  <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a fundamentally better way. Hook up a VT100 to the serial
>> port at the IBM-PC address (I know, mostly removed these days.)
>> Log in as root, and kill everything that is misbehaving.
>> In the end Linux is a multi user system, and it is foreseen that a user
>> misbehaves.
>
>You don't need a terminal. Just use alt-Fx (x is 1 .. ) and switch to
>another console.
>
>If *that* doesn't work, use a match and set fire to the dog.

That is of course the first thing to try. (With me it is ctrl-alt-Fx
and ctrl-alt-F7 to go back.
That doesn't work if the X-system is fried. Then mostly ctrl-alt-backspace
used to kill the X-system. That trick has been removed in some
distributions because it is not Microsoft compatible enough.

>
>-marcel

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29274

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> There is a fundamentally better way. Hook up a VT100 to the serial
> port at the IBM-PC address (I know, mostly removed these days.)
> Log in as root, and kill everything that is misbehaving.
> In the end Linux is a multi user system, and it is foreseen that a user
> misbehaves.
> The modern way to do that is ssh via a local network.
Absolutely agreed! I have had a Wyse25 hooked up until it went to the big
network in the sky - and it saved my *** several times. Note I let it
scroll /var/log/messages all the time. Once it showed some "Sense errors"
from the SCSI harddrive. I backuped the lot, brought it up again only to
see that the disk had died.

After that I looked for a cheap replacement (the Wyse had been a gift) and I
found that a RasPi and a cheap screen were only 200 Euros. Given a bit of
tweaking the RasPi runs 24/7 for a year now. It didn't have a great deal to
do in order to "save the day", but I'd feel naked without it.

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29205

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> 
> All these Linux flavors I tested today show me that Windows XP is
> still better. Only with Windows XP I am able to see TV without
> problems, even if PClinuxOS Mate was fairly good, but not pleasant
> all the time.

Flash on Linux is resource hog. ZDF flash videos take significant
amount of RAM ~250MB and whole CPU time at 1.6Ghz to run in full screen.

-- 
Click OK to continue...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29180

Paul Rubin wrote:
> visualforth@rocketmail.com writes:
>>>   If you want something small, try Debian and (if you want graphics)
>>> XFCE.
>>
>> Thanks, Paul. I am sure I need to be a Linux expert to get running
>> both together.  Only a Linux expert is able to tell which version is a
>> big kitchen sink distro.
>
> To run XFCE with Debian, I think you just check a box for it during the
> Debian installation dialogue.  Just how small a computer are you trying
> to run this stuff on?
>

The installer for the current stable - Debian 7 (Wheezy) has 
menus choices for the popular Desktops:
   - Default is Gnome3
   - KDE, LXDE, XFCE are menu choices under
     Advanced options -> Alternative desktop environments

Support is available via mailing list at 
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ .
(The archives are available on the same page)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29179

In article <29f1c2a7-aaec-44e6-91ca-38fc18dc7691@googlegroups.com>,
 <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, March 28, 2014 8:49:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>  If you want something small, try Debian
>> and (if you want graphics) XFCE.
>
>Thanks, Paul. I am sure I need to be a Linux expert to get running both
>together.
>Only a Linux expert is able to tell which version is a big kitchen sink distro.

Really? I give you this simple rule. If you need more than one CD to install it,
it is a kitchen sink distro.

>
>> Of course if you want to go all-out Forth, there is forthos.org ...
>
>I once had running ForthOS on one of my laptops.
>ForthOS would be my choice, if I would know how to get graphics on it!

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29182

Mark Wills wrote:

> My issue with Linux had always been the installation of software. It must
> be built from the source code and quite often it simply doesn't work. When
> it goes wrong is normally a dependency that is missing. Trouble is, as a
> newcomer you're totally in the dark as to how to fix the problem. When one
> asks on the Linux support the replies are often obnoxious or insulting, or
> both. For example "if you don't know how to do that then fuck off back to
> Windows".
What a bull! If you use a decent distro, you just issue whatever you want
(apt-get, yum, zypper) and it will take care of the dependencies for you.
You ONLY have to take care of dependencies if you:
- Don't use a mjor distro;
- Use an ancient version;
- Want a somewhat obscure program.

> I always found it ironic that the "Linux crowd" are always advocating
> Linux (fair enough) then when you get stuck and ask for help you're about
> as welcome as a fart in a sleeping bag.
Try Google. Works most of the time for me.. If you have an issue, chances
are somebody already bumped into it.

> I guess I'm tarring everyone with the same brush - not my intention,  just
> reflecting on my experience. I'll stick with Windows for now.
Well, these nice "installers" can wipe out an entire installation by
overwriting DLL's. Most DLL's don't use the same kind of peaceful
coexistence as Linux libs do. Note that Linux users have had "app stores"
since - well, the beginning of time?? Several years before an American
Windows mag already hailed the superiority of the Linux "app store" like
concept. Point is - if it doesn't resemble Windows, most Windows users
assume it's inferior.

For your information - it isn't. It's far superior. And frankly, I really
don't care whether you use Windows or not - I (fortunately) don't have to
work with it. What I do object to, though, is you spreading misinformation.

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29186

Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote:
> My issue with Linux had always been the installation of software.
> It must be built from the source code and quite often it simply
> doesn't work. When it goes wrong is normally a dependency that
> is missing.

I am surprised. Do you have any examples? Even in the last century
there were several Linux distributions (SuSe, Slackware, etc) that
took care of these dependencies by providing precompiled binary
packages and also walked you through the first time installation
of the basic system. That was the whole point of having such
distributions. I am sure 'apt-get install' or 'installpkg' is
not too complicated, even for seasoned Windows users.

But even when compiling from source, the dependencies are usually
mentioned, so you just install the needed software. Of course that
requires additional work; on the other hand, since those dependencies
are often optional, you can make your own choices about what capabilities
to include.

I rarely ever experienced situations where more than  './configure'
and 'make' were needed (beside checking the Makefile of course).
And most software I have on my Linux boxes is simply not available
for Windows.

> Trouble is, as a newcomer you're totally in the dark as to how to
> fix the problem. When one asks on the Linux support the replies
> are often obnoxious or insulting, or both. For example "if you
> don't know how to do that then fuck off back to Windows". 
> 
> I always found it ironic that the "Linux crowd" are always
> advocating Linux (fair enough) then when you get stuck and ask
> for help you're about as welcome as a fart in a sleeping bag. 

Well, I do not know where you asked for help. Usenet newsgroups?

> 
> I guess I'm tarring everyone with the same brush - not my intention,
> just reflecting on my experience. I'll stick with Windows for now.

No problem. You can always switch when the pain becomes unbearable.

-- 
Marc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29190

Mark Wills wrote:

> My issue with Linux had always been the installation of software. It must
> be built from the source code and quite often it simply doesn't work.

m(

You should learn to use the package manager of your Linux distribution.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29194

Not on my systems, but sometimes. I use Linux (mint 13 at present). I can't say it would be easy to use for anyone as I'm not them. It was really a hate of blue screen death and that niggling gradual drift of any windows system I've had into startup dialog errors, lack of a full bash shell access, policy management restrictions and some other things.

Most distros today are much bigger than in the older days, and the faster ones have many configuration difficulties. I tried tiny core linux for a while, but wifi and 915 resolution on an eeepc were to say the least a network not there to get a network up and running, and a package on the unavailable net. Puppy and the very simple browser linux are quite good, but it's configuration again.

I did have an X windows set up problem in mint 13, but it was easy as I'd had much harder problems with an old SiS alpha driver on a SuSE system. The new LTS Ubuntu looks good, with only minor problems due to a BIOS no SD card boot issue. But all these systems benefit from lots of memory, and around a 30GB disk as a fair usable amount. They can run on about 10GB with space, but I do occasionally run intensive 1GB apps for FPGA.

Common hardware works best!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29231

I received a popup message today from Microsoft Security Essentials

======
Requires your attention

Support for this operating system is ending.  When this occurs Microsoft Security Essentials will no longer be supported and your PC might be unprotected.  To make sure your PC stays protected, click the link below to see our end-of-support guidance for operating systems.

End-of-support guidance for operating system
( last half of 'm' cut off )

Maybe they should have applied the client area to the long text string for the link, and then adjusted the pop-up window length accordingly. 

Never-mind

==================
Your Choices.
1.  Stop using Computers
2.  Use Unix Computer
3.  Upgrade to another Windows OS
4.  Hold your ground with XP and use other protection software
5.  ????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29233

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, Jason Damisch wrote:
> I received a popup message today from Microsoft Security Essentials
> 
> 
> 
> ======
> 
> Requires your attention
> 
> 
> 
> Support for this operating system is ending.  When this occurs Microsoft Security Essentials will no longer be supported and your PC might be unprotected.  To make sure your PC stays protected, click the link below to see our end-of-support guidance for operating systems.
> 
> 
> 
> End-of-support guidance for operating system
> 
> ( last half of 'm' cut off )
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they should have applied the client area to the long text string for the link, and then adjusted the pop-up window length accordingly. 
> 
> 
> 
> Never-mind
> 
> 
> 
> ==================
> 
> Your Choices.
> 
> 1.  Stop using Computers
> 
> 2.  Use Unix Computer
> 
> 3.  Upgrade to another Windows OS
> 
> 4.  Hold your ground with XP and use other protection software
> 
> 5.  ????

I got an email today from Control Engineering, leading to an article 
"Goodbye Windows XP; Hello IsXP?"

Dennis Brandl wrote:

"Goodbye Microsoft Windows XP, you have had your time. You are now obsolete at the ripe old age of 13. It doesn't matter that there are tens of millions, even hundreds of millions, of you still out there. It doesn't matter that you are running ATMs and point-of-sale terminals, and are in thousands of production facilities. It doesn't matter that you are running in critical infrastructure and mission critical systems. It doesn't matter that these systems are keeping our water, food, and medicine safe, and keeping our water, natural gas, and gasoline flowing. Your time had passed on April 14, 2009, at the ripe old age of 8, but you have been on extended life support since them. None of these things matter; your final time has now passed, and on April 8, 2014, you will no longer be a supported product...

If Windows XP had been built on an open source model, there would probably still be an active community to support the operating system, just as other open source software has lasted 30 or more years. However, the Windows XP system is Microsoft's property and the only support is through Microsoft. Microsoft may continue to offer extended support, but that seems unlikely given the move to the "one-size-fits-all" approach for PCs, notepads, and phones. If support is offered, the cost per PC will probably be high with limited support, and could still be stopped any time at Microsoft's discretion. 

A better solution would be for Microsoft to outsource Windows XP support to an independent third party, to provide Lifetime Support XP (lsXP)."

May be somebody has the idea to file an anti-monopoly case against Microsoft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29234

Here is a pertinent question.

I'm not personally developing anything at the moment.  But hypothetically if I were, and I wanted to support Windows OSes from XP through 7 or 8, then I would probably want to have a PC for each incarnation of Windows from XP through 7 or 8.  So, I would have several PCs in my shop for testing on, each with a different version of Windows.

That leads to the question.  What happens when the installation of my XP machine becomes too crusty, with everybody and their pet goat trying to run something at startup, and with countless thingies showing when do the Control-Alt-Delete maneuver. In this case I *NEED* to reinstall *XP*. I can do this because I have the legal reinstall disc. But it would be nice to then get all of the updates from Microsoft installed from up until they cut off support for XP.   

Is there a normal way to do this, like pay Microsoft lots of $$ to become an official developer and they give you another stack of disks with updates on them or whats the story?

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29236

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:55:57 PM UTC-4, Jason Damisch wrote:
> Here is a pertinent question.

> In this case I *NEED* to reinstall *XP*. I can do this because I have the legal reinstall disc. 

Last week my Windows XP crashed just after a Microsoft update.
It was irreparable with the maintenance tools.

I had to reinstall, using the original CDs and SP3.
To my surprise all my data and programs still have been there after reinstalling.

But some programs which I needed didn't run any more, even after reinstalling them. And when I accidentally started one of these programs the system was looking for a missing file - not saying which file was missing - and the hard disk was running and scratching all the time until shutting off. 

That's  why I started to look for Linux.

> But it would be nice to then get all of the updates from Microsoft installed from up until they cut off support for XP.   

I guess some of my software didn't run anymore because it's using routines installed by the updates. Of course it will be possible to get updates, but that will need a while - may be too long.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29240

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:55:57 PM UTC-4, Jason Damisch wrote:
>> Here is a pertinent question.
> 
>> In this case I *NEED* to reinstall *XP*. I can do this because I have the
>> legal reinstall disc.
> 
> Last week my Windows XP crashed just after a Microsoft update.
> It was irreparable with the maintenance tools.
> 
> I had to reinstall, using the original CDs and SP3.
> To my surprise all my data and programs still have been there after
> reinstalling.
> 
> But some programs which I needed didn't run any more, even after
> reinstalling them. And when I accidentally started one of these programs
> the system was looking for a missing file - not saying which file was
> missing - and the hard disk was running and scratching all the time until
> shutting off.
> 
> That's  why I started to look for Linux.
> 
>> But it would be nice to then get all of the updates from Microsoft
>> installed from up until they cut off support for XP.
> 
> I guess some of my software didn't run anymore because it's using routines
> installed by the updates. Of course it will be possible to get updates,
> but that will need a while - may be too long.

This all sounds like typical Windows XP "eXPerience".  Don't worry, it will 
go with you, whereever you go.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29251

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:55:57 -0400, Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com>  
wrote:

> Here is a pertinent question.
>
> I'm not personally developing anything at the moment.  But
> hypothetically if I were, and I wanted to support Windows OSes from XP
> through 7 or 8, then I would probably want to have a PC for each
> incarnation of Windows from XP through 7 or 8.  So, I would have several
> PCs in my shop for testing on, each with a different version of Windows.
>
> That leads to the question.  What happens when the installation of my XP
> machine becomes too crusty, with everybody and their pet goat trying to
> run something at startup, and with countless thingies showing when do
> the Control-Alt-Delete maneuver. In this case I *NEED* to reinstall
> *XP*. I can do this because I have the legal reinstall disc. But it
> would be nice to then get all of the updates from Microsoft installed
> from up until they cut off support for XP.
>
> Is there a normal way to do this, like pay Microsoft lots of $$ to
> become an official developer and they give you another stack of disks
> with updates on them or whats the story?
>

The usual methods:

1)
-install XP (purchased on CD)
-install SP1 (burned to CD by you)
-install SP2 (burned to CD by you)
-install SP3 (burned to CD by you)
-connect to the internet, update via MS update, while still available...
-alternately, download needed updates via archive sites

2)
-copy all XP, SP1, SP2, SP3 files from CDs to your system
-combine all updated files into a "slipstream" image
-burn new bootable XP install disk using updated "slipstream" image
-connect to the internet, update via MS update, while still available...
-alternately, download needed updates via archive sites

3)
-boot PC using MS-DOS v7.10 bootdisk from Windows 98/SE
-use FDISK from Windows 98/SE to create a FAT32 partition
-use XP's OFORMAT to align format the partition
-use XP's CVTAREA to reserve contiguous space in the partition for NTFS  
metadata
-use OPK version of XP to install WinXP to FAT32
-use XP's CONVERT to convert the FAT32 partition to NTFS

Instructions for "slipstreaming" a new CD and in depth info on
an OPK FAT32 install of XP are available on the internet.

But, if you ever *NEED* to reinstall XP, you could be screwed ...
Let's review:

1) Most PCs that come with re-install and recovery CDs don't provide you
with a MS license number needed to re-install.  (I bet you didn't know
this.)  This is because the authorized MS OEM used their own special
license number to install to many PCs, which they don't give to you...
So, in that common case, you're lefting scrounging the internet
for a list of illegally obtained license numbers.  Hopefully, one of
them is for your PC vendor, or you won't have a valid license number
to re-install with.  Also, many of those that were provided with a
license number, lost or misplaced it, or threw it out with the PC
packaging, etc.

2) Most PCs that come with XP pre-installed, also have a bunch of device
drivers, OS patches for BIOS, etc that are *NOT* available on the
recovery disks.  So, you reinstall, and now you can't get drivers for
your printer, or touch pad, etc.  And, you didn't backup your existing
system.  That was the only place they existed.

3) You reinstall XP from your recovery disk, but the version your vendor
installed was upgraded to SP1, or SP2, or SP3, or patched for the vendor's
BIOS.  Your PC doesn't work correctly without the upgraded XP version.

4) Your vendor installed a special boot partition that works inconjuction
with the PCs BIOS.  You wiped out the partition when you reformatted the
drive.  Now, your PC won't boot, can't boot.

This is the reason most corporate IT departments use Norton Ghost or a
similar application to "clone" the existing system after it was initially
setup.  They don't have to reinstall from scratch later on.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web