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

Groups > comp.misc > #1584 > unrolled thread

How to tell if you're running WinXP

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  How to tell if you're running WinXP RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-14 10:56 +0000
    Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Adrian C <email@here.invalid> - 2014-03-14 11:44 +0000
    Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-14 18:48 +0000
      Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-14 19:47 +0000
        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-14 21:03 +0100
        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-14 20:06 +0000
          Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-14 21:19 +0100
            Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 22:28 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-15 03:18 +0100
        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-03-14 20:58 +0000
          Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 04:20 +0100
            Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:35 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-19 22:38 +0100
        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Elmer <efudd@invalid.com> - 2014-03-14 20:55 -0500
          Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-15 12:41 +0000
            Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-03-15 14:09 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-15 16:52 +0000
                Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-03-15 18:10 +0000
                  Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:34 +0000
                    Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-03-17 12:35 +0000
                    Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-19 16:31 +0100
            Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-15 14:20 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-15 16:21 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-15 16:54 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-15 17:20 +0000
                Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-15 17:32 +0000
                  Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-15 18:01 +0000
                    Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-15 19:19 +0000
                      Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-17 19:18 +0000
                        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-17 19:27 +0000
                          Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-17 21:38 +0000
                    Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:33 +0000
              Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 12:13 +0100
      Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-03-14 15:53 -0400
        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-14 20:25 +0000
      Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 22:26 +0000
        Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-15 00:51 +0000
          Re: How to tell if you're running WinXP Scion <a.b@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-20 16:41 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1797

On 2014-03-17, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-03-15, Rich <rich@example.com> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
>>> Ah. Well that seems like a rather silly objection. I can get 4,000 GB of
>>> disk space for $100, enough for 400+ windows 7 VMs. Pretty sure my Win7
>>> VM is not that large though. I think its more like 4-5GB.
>>
>> True, for home.  I suspect his situation is hosted VM's, were you don't
>> get 4T for $100.  And so the increase translates directly into an
>> increased cost.
>
> VirtualBox creates sparse file systems, so a Tb is not a Tb.

True, and for Windows clients, VMware Fusion goes a step further by 
allowing you to reclaim unused space inside the sparse image (I assume this
is done with knowledge of NTFS structures).

-- 
Paul Sture

"In that case," said Napoleon, "let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy
is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him."

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

#1638

On 2014-03-15, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> Holy cow, you win!  For shits and giggles in February I decided I'd
>>> install Windows on a virtual machine so I could play around.  I
>>> immediately gave up on Win7, even though I use it at work.  WinXP had
>>> heavy requirements (# of GB for a base install) but I found myself
>>> wishing I could track down a Win2000 disk, as it was pretty modest.
>
> Hmm, what was your issue with Windows 7? IMO it's Microshit's best OS.

I agree it's a very useable OS, compared to a lot of what Microsoft has
done.  But (making up numbers here, because I can't be arsed to look it
up): let's say I want a virtual machine where I can run a single Win
application.  Win7 requires 20GB to install, XP requires 10 to install,
and Win2000 requires 2GB to install.  Odds are I can get away with
installing just Win2000 and save a hell of a lot of disk space.  That's
all.

For that matter, I found Win2000 perfectly useable.

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

#1640

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:20:41 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

>On 2014-03-15, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>> Holy cow, you win!  For shits and giggles in February I decided I'd
>>>> install Windows on a virtual machine so I could play around.  I
>>>> immediately gave up on Win7, even though I use it at work.  WinXP had
>>>> heavy requirements (# of GB for a base install) but I found myself
>>>> wishing I could track down a Win2000 disk, as it was pretty modest.
>>
>> Hmm, what was your issue with Windows 7? IMO it's Microshit's best OS.
>
>I agree it's a very useable OS, compared to a lot of what Microsoft has
>done.  But (making up numbers here, because I can't be arsed to look it
>up): let's say I want a virtual machine where I can run a single Win
>application.  Win7 requires 20GB to install, XP requires 10 to install,
>and Win2000 requires 2GB to install.  Odds are I can get away with
>installing just Win2000 and save a hell of a lot of disk space.  That's
>all.
>
>For that matter, I found Win2000 perfectly useable.

 Sadly, only with software that's still win2k compatable. :-(

 In win2K's case, MS's dropping of support did demonstrate an upside
in that you could disable BITS and the automatic updates services and
delete all those $NTuninstall rollback kits and empty out the software
folder (without the dotnet crap, you could shrink the winnt folder
down to just under a GB, with it it's 1.36GB on my system).

 When the time comes in 23? days, winXP will also be in the same happy
position, allowing you to shrink the windows folder to around the 2 or
3 GB mark (and improve performance by disabling the associated
updating services).

 I think it'll take a few years yet before we start seeing non-winXP
compatable software displacing the current versions as has happened
with win2k. By the time winXP goes the same way, win7's ram and disk
space requirements will seem 'ever so modest' by the then current
standards of the day.

 The whole point of virtualising ms windows is to use whatever version
is needed as a disposable  'wrapper' to run a few 'must have' windows
apps. Snapshotting will remove any real need to bother with
performance sapping anti virus protection so it might well perform
better than an AV afflicted install running direct on the hardware in
use.

 The major issue with ubuntu styled linux distros as far as this
potential market in disaffected winXP refusenicks is concerned are the
endless changes to the desktop window manager. They're treating the
'end users' as guinnea pigs (or lab rats) with all this 'innovation'
in windows managers.

 If the ubuntu flavour of Debian distros were to standardise on a
desktop that looked not too disimilar to win2k's desktop, the take up
would be even greater amongst such ex-winXP noobs. The 'innovative'
and 'improved' desktops can still be offered as optional
customisations rather than as a 'Take it or leave it (if you dare)'
proposition that it seems to be today.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1642

In message <lg1njo$pqo$1@solani.org> 
  RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-15, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>> Holy cow, you win!  For shits and giggles in February I decided I'd
>>>> install Windows on a virtual machine so I could play around.  I
>>>> immediately gave up on Win7, even though I use it at work.  WinXP had
>>>> heavy requirements (# of GB for a base install) but I found myself
>>>> wishing I could track down a Win2000 disk, as it was pretty modest.
>>
>> Hmm, what was your issue with Windows 7? IMO it's Microshit's best OS.

> I agree it's a very useable OS, compared to a lot of what Microsoft has
> done.  But (making up numbers here, because I can't be arsed to look it
> up): let's say I want a virtual machine where I can run a single Win
> application.  Win7 requires 20GB to install, XP requires 10 to install,
> and Win2000 requires 2GB to install.  Odds are I can get away with
> installing just Win2000 and save a hell of a lot of disk space.  That's
> all.

> For that matter, I found Win2000 perfectly useable.

I used Win2000 for a long time. At least until SP1 for XP, and maybe
until SP2.

I was miles better than the other options at the time, but I would never
run it now.

What about Wine/Winebottler? For a single app that might be the way to
go.


-- 
The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music.

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

#1643

On 2014-03-15, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-15, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>> Holy cow, you win!  For shits and giggles in February I decided I'd
>>>> install Windows on a virtual machine so I could play around.  I
>>>> immediately gave up on Win7, even though I use it at work.  WinXP had
>>>> heavy requirements (# of GB for a base install) but I found myself
>>>> wishing I could track down a Win2000 disk, as it was pretty modest.
>>
>> Hmm, what was your issue with Windows 7? IMO it's Microshit's best OS.
>
> I agree it's a very useable OS, compared to a lot of what Microsoft has
> done.  But (making up numbers here, because I can't be arsed to look it
> up): let's say I want a virtual machine where I can run a single Win
> application.  Win7 requires 20GB to install, XP requires 10 to install,
> and Win2000 requires 2GB to install.  Odds are I can get away with
> installing just Win2000 and save a hell of a lot of disk space.  That's
> all.
>
> For that matter, I found Win2000 perfectly useable.

I'm waiting for ReactOS to enter at least 'beta' status.
<http://www.reactos.org/>.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

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

#1644

On 2014-03-15, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

> I'm waiting for ReactOS to enter at least 'beta' status.
><http://www.reactos.org/>.

Sounds *awful*. Why would they want to inflict the hideously broken Windows
UI on people?


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 1st day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
A non-empty Hausdorff topological space is a continuous image of the unit
interval if and only if it is a compact, connected, locally connected
second-countable space.

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

#1645

On 2014-03-15, Huge wrote:
> On 2014-03-15, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm waiting for ReactOS to enter at least 'beta' status.
>><http://www.reactos.org/>.
>
> Sounds *awful*. Why would they want to inflict the hideously broken Windows
> UI on people?

I think it sounds like a great idea.  I don't really like anything
about windows, but for times when you need a VM install or for a
grandmother who isn't interested in learning a new interface, this
sounds like a good solution.  All the compatibility with fewer
design and security problems?  A real replacement for windows?
Sounds like something I really want to see existing.

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

#1647

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Randy Westlund
<Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 2014-03-15, Huge wrote:
>> On 2014-03-15, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm waiting for ReactOS to enter at least 'beta' status.
>>><http://www.reactos.org/>.
>>
>> Sounds *awful*. Why would they want to inflict the hideously broken Windows
>> UI on people?
>
>I think it sounds like a great idea.  I don't really like anything
>about windows, but for times when you need a VM install or for a
>grandmother who isn't interested in learning a new interface, this
>sounds like a good solution.  All the compatibility with fewer
>design and security problems?  A real replacement for windows?
>Sounds like something I really want to see existing.

 Well, it's an intrigueing enough concept that I've downloaded a VB
image and the Live CD iso image to experiment with.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1736

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:19:21 +0000, Johny B Good
<johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Randy Westlund
><Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2014-03-15, Huge wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-15, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm waiting for ReactOS to enter at least 'beta' status.
>>>><http://www.reactos.org/>.
>>>
>>> Sounds *awful*. Why would they want to inflict the hideously broken Windows
>>> UI on people?
>>
>>I think it sounds like a great idea.  I don't really like anything
>>about windows, but for times when you need a VM install or for a
>>grandmother who isn't interested in learning a new interface, this
>>sounds like a good solution.  All the compatibility with fewer
>>design and security problems?  A real replacement for windows?
>>Sounds like something I really want to see existing.
>
> Well, it's an intrigueing enough concept that I've downloaded a VB
>image and the Live CD iso image to experiment with.

 The Live CD just hung in debug mode... on two different systems so
it's far from ready even as an 'alpha' AFAIC.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1737

On 2014-03-17, Johny B Good wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:19:21 +0000, Johny B Good
> <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Randy Westlund
>><Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>I think it sounds like a great idea.  I don't really like anything
>>>about windows, but for times when you need a VM install or for a
>>>grandmother who isn't interested in learning a new interface, this
>>>sounds like a good solution.  All the compatibility with fewer
>>>design and security problems?  A real replacement for windows?
>>>Sounds like something I really want to see existing.
>>
>> Well, it's an intrigueing enough concept that I've downloaded a VB
>>image and the Live CD iso image to experiment with.
>
>  The Live CD just hung in debug mode... on two different systems so
> it's far from ready even as an 'alpha' AFAIC.

Thanks for reporting back.  I guess I'll wait a bit before messing
with it myself :/

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

#1745

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:27:06 +0000 (UTC), Randy Westlund
<Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 2014-03-17, Johny B Good wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:19:21 +0000, Johny B Good
>> <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Randy Westlund
>>><Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>I think it sounds like a great idea.  I don't really like anything
>>>>about windows, but for times when you need a VM install or for a
>>>>grandmother who isn't interested in learning a new interface, this
>>>>sounds like a good solution.  All the compatibility with fewer
>>>>design and security problems?  A real replacement for windows?
>>>>Sounds like something I really want to see existing.
>>>
>>> Well, it's an intrigueing enough concept that I've downloaded a VB
>>>image and the Live CD iso image to experiment with.
>>
>>  The Live CD just hung in debug mode... on two different systems so
>> it's far from ready even as an 'alpha' AFAIC.
>
>Thanks for reporting back.  I guess I'll wait a bit before messing
>with it myself :/

 I almost forgot about the VM image. I'll give that a try sometime
very soon. I might have more luck with that.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1707

On 2014-03-15, Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-03-15, Huge wrote:
>> On 2014-03-15, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm waiting for ReactOS to enter at least 'beta' status.
>>><http://www.reactos.org/>.
>>
>> Sounds *awful*. Why would they want to inflict the hideously broken Windows
>> UI on people?
>
> I think it sounds like a great idea.  I don't really like anything
> about windows, but for times when you need a VM install or for a
> grandmother who isn't interested in learning a new interface, this
> sounds like a good solution. 

Good points and ones I had not thought of. Thank you.

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 3rd day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
A non-empty Hausdorff topological space is a continuous image of the unit
interval if and only if it is a compact, connected, locally connected
second-countable space.

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

#1672

On 2014-03-15, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-15, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>> Holy cow, you win!  For shits and giggles in February I decided I'd
>>>> install Windows on a virtual machine so I could play around.  I
>>>> immediately gave up on Win7, even though I use it at work.  WinXP had
>>>> heavy requirements (# of GB for a base install) but I found myself
>>>> wishing I could track down a Win2000 disk, as it was pretty modest.
>>
>> Hmm, what was your issue with Windows 7? IMO it's Microshit's best OS.
>
> I agree it's a very useable OS, compared to a lot of what Microsoft has
> done.  But (making up numbers here, because I can't be arsed to look it
> up): let's say I want a virtual machine where I can run a single Win
> application.  Win7 requires 20GB to install, XP requires 10 to install,
> and Win2000 requires 2GB to install.  Odds are I can get away with
> installing just Win2000 and save a hell of a lot of disk space.  That's
> all.
>
> For that matter, I found Win2000 perfectly useable.

Fine if you can get away with it, but there comes a point where one by
one, developers drop support for older platforms, download websites
which catered for older versions of apps disappear etc, and you get stuck.

-- 
Paul Sture

"In that case," said Napoleon, "let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy
is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him."

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

#1613

Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> writes:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:56:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
> <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
>>From the «lovely green hillside» department:
>>Title: Not sure if you're STILL running Windows XP? AmIRunningXP.com to the rescue!
>>Author: Neil McAllister
>>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:01:11 -0400
>>Link: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/am_i_running_xp/
>>
>>Better double check...
>
>  Just checked, and guess what? It says "You are NOT running
>  Windows XP", which is all perfectly true, I'm running Windows 2000
> SP4 :-)

Got you beat, I have a friend running W98.  He swears it's the best OS
MSFT ever wrote.  Conclusive proof that it takes all kinds.

I'm running Fedora 20.  No worries.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#1620

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:53:49 -0400, despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen)
wrote:

>Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:56:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
>> <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>From the «lovely green hillside» department:
>>>Title: Not sure if you're STILL running Windows XP? AmIRunningXP.com to the rescue!
>>>Author: Neil McAllister
>>>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:01:11 -0400
>>>Link: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/am_i_running_xp/
>>>
>>>Better double check...
>>
>>  Just checked, and guess what? It says "You are NOT running
>>  Windows XP", which is all perfectly true, I'm running Windows 2000
>> SP4 :-)
>
>Got you beat, I have a friend running W98.  He swears it's the best OS
>MSFT ever wrote.  Conclusive proof that it takes all kinds.
>
 It certainly proves your friend knows jack shit about the relative
merits of DOS based windows versions. Win95OSR2 beat all of its
successors hands down. The only effective upgrade path from there was
win2k.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1624

In article <sce6i9doldbf9agp9v8r179lb6vmm5foqd@4ax.com>, Johny B Good
<johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:56:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
> <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> 
> >Link:
> >http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/am_i_running_
> >xp/
> >
> >Better double check...
> 
>  Just checked, and guess what? It says "You are NOT running
>  Windows XP", which is all perfectly true, I'm running Windows 2000
> SP4 :-)

Yes, I'm not running XP either, but it was unable to tell me which
version of OS X I'm running. Sad really.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

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

#1629

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:26:31 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <sce6i9doldbf9agp9v8r179lb6vmm5foqd@4ax.com>, Johny B Good
><johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:56:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
>> <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Link:
>> >http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/am_i_running_
>> >xp/
>> >
>> >Better double check...
>> 
>>  Just checked, and guess what? It says "You are NOT running
>>  Windows XP", which is all perfectly true, I'm running Windows 2000
>> SP4 :-)
>
>Yes, I'm not running XP either, but it was unable to tell me which
>version of OS X I'm running. Sad really.

 Nor did it tell me which version of NT I was running so no need to
feel left out. All it was meant to do was report whether or not you
were running winXP without any further comment.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1824

Johny B Good put finger to keyboard:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:26:31 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
>>In article <sce6i9doldbf9agp9v8r179lb6vmm5foqd@4ax.com>, Johny B Good
>><johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:56:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
>>> <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >Link:
>>> >http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/
am_i_running_
>>> >xp/
>>> >
>>> >Better double check...
>>> 
>>>  Just checked, and guess what? It says "You are NOT running Windows
>>>  XP", which is all perfectly true, I'm running Windows 2000
>>> SP4 :-)
>>
>>Yes, I'm not running XP either, but it was unable to tell me which
>>version of OS X I'm running. Sad really.
> 
>  Nor did it tell me which version of NT I was running so no need to
> feel left out. All it was meant to do was report whether or not you were
> running winXP without any further comment.

Ah, a bit like
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web