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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1584 — How to tell if you're running WinXP

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...

If you're wondering who is still running Windows XP in this day and age,
given that support for the OS is ending soon, the answer is it might be YOU!
Or at least, so Microsoft suspects.…

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1586

On 14/03/2014 10:56, RS Wood 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...
>
> If you're wondering who is still running Windows XP in this day and age,
> given that support for the OS is ending soon, the answer is it might be YOU!
> Or at least, so Microsoft suspects.…
>

Hmmm, the Free Software Foundation have the following URL for their 
campaign.

http://www.upgradefromwindows8.com

Although the main graphic is good, the rest of the site design is pretty 
dull - the first thing a user sees to that site is a plain blog page, a 
tree-hugging request to sign a pledge, and further political activist 
items that unfortunately most folks will not care about in this day and age.

However, Open Source is good for everyone, not just the tree huggers.

C'mon chaps, get a decent site designer on board FSF!

  Videos, Citations, Applications, some stories! ...

-- 
Adrian C

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

#1609

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 :-)
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1611

On 2014-03-14, 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:
>
>>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 :-)

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.

What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires 20GB
for an install?

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

#1614

On Friday 14 March 2014 20:47, RS Wood conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> On 2014-03-14, 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:
>>
>>> 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 :-)
> 
> Holy cow, you win!

'Fraid not.  With WINdows, *everyone* LOSEs, except for Microsoft and 
the NSA. :-)


-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

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

#1615

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:47:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

>On 2014-03-14, 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:
>>
>>>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 :-)
>
>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.
>
>What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires 20GB
>for an install?

 Well, one reason why MS made the storage requirements 20 times larger
than win2k was possibly to put people off the idea of turning their
latest PoS OS into a "Disposable App". That wouldn't stop me, however,
from _only_ tolerating winXP and offspring as VM installs.

 More likely it was because 'they could' (they'd developed another
19GB's worth of bloat they just had to use up and the hardware
improvements in storage capacity and performance since the days of
wiin 2k would allow them to get away with it without too much change
to the apparent responsiveness of the system).

 It pays not to lose sight of the fact that every MS "Upgrade" is
effectively a hardware downgrade.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1616

On Friday 14 March 2014 21:06, Johny B Good conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:47:33 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
> <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-03-14, 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:
>>>
>>>> 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 :-)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires
>> 20GB for an install?
> 
>  Well, one reason why MS made the storage requirements 20 times larger
> than win2k was possibly to put people off the idea of turning their
> latest PoS OS into a "Disposable App". That wouldn't stop me, however,
> from _only_ tolerating winXP and offspring as VM installs.
> 
>  More likely it was because 'they could' (they'd developed another
> 19GB's worth of bloat they just had to use up and the hardware
> improvements in storage capacity and performance since the days of
> wiin 2k would allow them to get away with it without too much change
> to the apparent responsiveness of the system).
> 
>  It pays not to lose sight of the fact that every MS "Upgrade" is
> effectively a hardware downgrade.

     "Grove giveth and Gates taketh away."

There *is* an actual intent behind it.  Microsoft makes most of its 
Windows license sales from pre-installed copies on branded computers.  
Obsoleting the hardware by bloat in the operating system means that the 
(naive) customer will be more quickly inclined to purchase a new machine 
(with a new Windows copy/license).

This is good for Microsoft, and it's good for the computer vendors.  So 
that's a deal they've got going on between them.  And it's probably 
documented somewhere on the Web too.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

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

#1625

In article <lfvo85$155$4@dont-email.me>, Aragorn
<thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

> This is good for Microsoft, and it's good for the computer vendors.  So 
> that's a deal they've got going on between them.  And it's probably 
> documented somewhere on the Web too.

Does it need documenting? Statement of the bleeding obvious if you arse
me.

-- 
"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]

#1631

On Friday 14 March 2014 23:28, Tim Streater conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> In article <lfvo85$155$4@dont-email.me>, Aragorn
> <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> This is good for Microsoft, and it's good for the computer vendors. 
>> So that's a deal they've got going on between them.  And it's
>> probably documented somewhere on the Web too.
> 
> Does it need documenting?

Not for me, but...

> Statement of the bleeding obvious if you arse me.

Yes, but you'd be surprised how many people - read: MickeySoft fanboys - 
refuse to believe that without that it's documented somewhere by an 
official source.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

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

#1621

On 14/03/2014 19:47, RS Wood 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.
>
> What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires 20GB
> for an install?

When W2K first came out, people were open mouthed that a full 
installation of the OS took around a gigabyte of disc space.

-- 
Rod

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

#1651

On 2014-03-14, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/03/2014 19:47, RS Wood 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.
>>
>> What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires 20GB
>> for an install?
>
> When W2K first came out, people were open mouthed that a full 
> installation of the OS took around a gigabyte of disc space.

My first NT4 system in 1997 came with a 2GB disk.  I wondered how I would
fill it, yet towards the end of a year I was getting close.

-- 
Paul Sture

While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to
play the bagpipes                                    -- @flamingowurst

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

#1709

On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-03-14, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/03/2014 19:47, RS Wood 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.
>>>
>>> What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires 20GB
>>> for an install?
>>
>> When W2K first came out, people were open mouthed that a full 
>> installation of the OS took around a gigabyte of disc space.
>
> My first NT4 system in 1997 came with a 2GB disk.  I wondered how I would
> fill it, yet towards the end of a year I was getting close.

Parkinsons law applies. When you have more disk, you buy a GoPro and start
using loss-less audio & buying "high resolution" music.


-- 
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]

#1809

On 2014-03-17, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-14, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/03/2014 19:47, RS Wood 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.
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of a virtual machine running an OS that requires 20GB
>>>> for an install?
>>>
>>> When W2K first came out, people were open mouthed that a full 
>>> installation of the OS took around a gigabyte of disc space.
>>
>> My first NT4 system in 1997 came with a 2GB disk.  I wondered how I would
>> fill it, yet towards the end of a year I was getting close.
>
> Parkinsons law applies. When you have more disk, you buy a GoPro and start
> using loss-less audio & buying "high resolution" music.

Yes indeed.  In fact one of my first tasks with the NT system was to put a
complete backup of my laptop onto it, and that used a quarter of the space.

Yes too to the lossless audio and even for low quality internet radio
streams simply because a) I have the disk space to do that and b) why
bother converting to a space efficient format if I am simply going to
listen to it once and then throw it away?

-- 
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]

#1630

On 3/14/2014 2:47 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-03-14, 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:
>>
>>> 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 :-)
> 
> 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.

http://thepiratebay.se/search/windows%202000/0/99/300

Not that I'd ever visit there, myself.

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

#1635

In message <lg0bus$kbi$1@dont-email.me> 
  Elmer <efudd@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/2014 2:47 PM, RS Wood wrote:
>> On 2014-03-14, 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:
>>>
>>>> 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 :-)
>> 
>> 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.

> http://thepiratebay.se/search/windows%202000/0/99/300

> Not that I'd ever visit there, myself.

Never even heard of it.

-- 
"Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary
 and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s
 invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty- five is new and exciting
 and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything
 invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of
 things."  -- Douglas Adams

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

#1637

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <lg0bus$kbi$1@dont-email.me> 
>   Elmer <efudd@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 3/14/2014 2:47 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> >> On 2014-03-14, 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:
> >>>
> >>>> 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 :-)
> >> 
> >> 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.

His issue appears to be the size of the VM disk image necessary to host
the different OSes.  With W7, one must use up at least about 8-10GB of
disk just to get the OS installed.  With XP the same level of "just
installed" typically ran about 2-3GB.

So about a 3x to 4x increase in disk footprint.  For very little gain
in a VM context.

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

#1641

In message <53245f2e$0$17090$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> 
  Rich <rich@example.com> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <lg0bus$kbi$1@dont-email.me> 
>>   Elmer <efudd@invalid.com> wrote:
>> > On 3/14/2014 2:47 PM, RS Wood wrote:
>> >> On 2014-03-14, 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:
>> >>>
>> >>>> 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 :-)
>> >> 
>> >> 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.

> His issue appears to be the size of the VM disk image necessary to host
> the different OSes.  With W7, one must use up at least about 8-10GB of
> disk just to get the OS installed.  With XP the same level of "just
> installed" typically ran about 2-3GB.

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.

> So about a 3x to 4x increase in disk footprint.  For very little gain
> in a VM context.

Over XP? Sure, but Win7 is a lot more usable than WinXP.

-- 
The night is always old. He'd walked too often down dark streets in the
secret hours and felt the night stretching away, and known in his blood
that while days and kings and empires come and go, the night is always
the same age, always aeons deep. Terrors unfolded in the velvet shadows
and while the nature of the talons may change, the nature of the beast
does not. --Jingo

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

#1646

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <53245f2e$0$17090$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> 
>   Rich <rich@example.com> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> In message <lg0bus$kbi$1@dont-email.me> 
> >>   Elmer <efudd@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> > On 3/14/2014 2:47 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> >> >> On 2014-03-14, 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:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 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 :-)
> >> >> 
> >> >> 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.

> > His issue appears to be the size of the VM disk image necessary to host
> > the different OSes.  With W7, one must use up at least about 8-10GB of
> > disk just to get the OS installed.  With XP the same level of "just
> > installed" typically ran about 2-3GB.

> 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.

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

#1708

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.


-- 
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]

#1717

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, it does.  But if Win2k consumes an actual 2G of that sparse 4T
filesystem, and Win7 consumes and actual 8G or 16G of that sparse
filesystem, then he is paying either 4x or 8x the "per Gig cost" that
his hosting provider charges for a base Win7 install vs. a base Win2k
install.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web