XP Performance

[Tony Hammitt]

Yes, it's very important to prevent Grandma from learning anything about
computers.  After all, why would anyone over 60 ever want to learn anything
new, or do things for themselves.

Anyone else here who resents technological ageism?  Anyone else whose
Grandmother was a scholar?

I think you get my point.

	Tony

Marvin Bellamy wrote:
> 
> Trust me, I don't like M$.  I'm forced to use their products at work.
>  Actually, right now I'm not running *ANY* M$ products at home, but I am
> looking to reinstall Win98.  I'm not spouting M$ sales hype, I'm talking
> about my experiences with both OS's.  Why do we use Win2000 on our
> workstations?...because Linux it too difficult for non-techs who just
> want to powerup and download E-mail.  The premise for Linux is great,
> and I think it will eventually usurp Bill Gate's market share, but
> asking your Grandma or even your mom to "./configure; make; make
> install" is too much.
> 
> zscoundrel wrote:
> 
> > Actually, you are just repeating one of the more damaging M$ lines of
> > FUD.  I am using RH 7.1 just as it installed because I have more
> > important things to do right now than recompile the kernel.  I have
> > done it before, but with 7.1 I did not need to!
> >
> > I m able to do EVERYTHING I want to do!  I write letters, calculate
> > spreadsheets, decomprepress after a tough day with a game or two, surf
> > the web, exchange emails, modify pictures I take with my digital
> > camera, and every now and then I process files using CAT/GREP/LESS/, I
> > edit HTML files and then FTP them to my home page.
> > In fact, the ONLY thing I can't do is print on this super cheap Xerox
> > printer because the companby is to short sighted to provide a driver
> > for Linux - but this is not a Linux problem, because I just have not
> > had a chance to hook up the HP600 I usually use on this machine since
> > I moved.
> > Actually, it is not Linux's usability that insures it will NEVER
> > replaces windoze, but it's stability!  I can do almost anything my
> > wife can do on her 'doze computer , plus a lot more, because software
> > for her machine costs a bloody fortune, and most of mine is very
> > dependable shareware.  The more I think about it, the more I doubt
> > that Linux ever could replace 'doze!!!!  I don't think Linux could
> > EVER become that sloppy and buggy and crash prone because I can always
> > FIX THE BUGS and then  RECOMPILE the SOURCE!!!  (Well, unless
> > Microsoft releases a distro!)
> >
> > The reason M$ continues to dominate is the lies coming from Redmond
> > and the business relationship they foist onto their third party
> > vendors via draconian contract clauses and the aggresive way they
> > persue anyone in a market niche they decide they want to dominate.
> > Marvin Bellamy wrote:
> >
> >> Straying OT...
> >>
> >> The usability of Linux is what's killing it's chances of being a
> >> serious contender to Windows.  There are a lot of installation
> >> show-stoppers that aren't even documented.  I had a hell of a time
> >> with Redhat just getting AVIs to play, probably two weeks before I
> >> found a reference to the gcc2.96 issue.  How many people on this list
> >> run Linux exclusively? You almost always have to go back to Windoze
> >> to get some apps to run easily.  M$ is an evil corporate entity, but
> >> they got here by opening up the industry to non-techs.  Until there
> >> is a Linux distro that non-techs can easily use (I mean without
> >> relying on a techie friend to troubleshoot), M$ will continue to
> >> dominate.  I've been screwing around with Linux for about a year now
> >> (spending quite a bit of time per week tweaking my desktop), and I
> >> have just reached the point that I have all the functionality that I
> >> need (less running Win32 apps).  KDE is still much slower than
> >> Windoze :(
> >>
> >>
> >> Patrick Thurmond wrote:
> >>
> >>> I know your completely abhorrent to XP, and I don't blame you. But
> >>> your biggest complaint I see so far is that it costs money. Now I am
> >>> pretty experienced with computers in general and I have a hell of a
> >>> time just installing things like netscape or staroffice in linux. I
> >>> follow the directions to the letter (most which require console
> >>> commands) and that doesn't do it. Nor do many variations. I have
> >>> read alot of info on linux and when something that should be simple
> >>> like a software install becames a huge pain, you know somethings
> >>> wrong. And I not just talkin one distro, I am talkin redhat, debian,
> >>> mandrake, and slackware.
> >>>
> >>> My arguments aren't mindless or experienceless ones but come on,
> >>> program installation shouldn't be so difficult. I don't mind using
> >>> the console, but I have to type in huge strings to execute the
> >>> commands, that includes triggers and switches and such. Your talkin
> >>> down on XP, yet I haven't seen it crash, it can format a brand new
> >>> hdd in under 1 minute, and it boots very swiftly, and its really
> >>> user friendly. I will always use linux for things like servers and
> >>> net admin, no prob, but I am having a heck of a time using it as an
> >>> everyday desktop.
> >>>
> >>> -Patrick
> >>>
> >>>   Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at opus1.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     -----Original Message-----
> >>>     From: Patrick Thurmond [mailto:p_thurmond at yahoo.com]
> >>>
> >>>     > I will try to come in December to one of
> >>>     > the meetings and educate everyone on the
> >>>     > features of XP.
> >>>
> >>>     I think that would be a pretty poor way to spend LUG time, and a
> >>>     very good
> >>>     way to get yourself pelted with rotten vegetables.
> >>>
> >>>     We all get plenty of exposure to Microsoft's "education" as it is.
> >>>
> >>>     XP's primary benefit is that license fees go to Redmond.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
> >>> <http://rd.yahoo.com/O=1/I=brandr-mailfooter/*http://shopping.yahoo.com>
> >>> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>