[QUOTE=LionelHutz405]
I don’t understand. Doesn’t that document refer to the rights to USE prior versions?
I want to BUY a prior version. My vendor (admittedly a small shop) can’t do that for me. I don’t know of any vendor who can.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s time you politely (but fiirmly) request the vendor do a little research if they’d like to remain your vendor.
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
I think it’s time you politely (but fiirmly) request the vendor do a little research if they’d like to remain your vendor.
[/QUOTE]
Who would I switch to?
We are just a small shop. What vendor would be able to do that? Dell won’t (Isn’t is a big deal that they even offer XP anymore?).
None of the mainstream vendors (Best Buy, whatever) will.
[QUOTE=LionelHutz405]
Who would I switch to?
We are just a small shop. What vendor would be able to do that? Dell won’t (Isn’t is a big deal that they even offer XP anymore?).
None of the mainstream vendors (Best Buy, whatever) will.
[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression your ‘small local vendor’ was a guy with a computer store that wasn’t willing to bring in Windows XP.
amazon.com is showing a TON of entries for Windows 2000 pro and Windows XP pro.
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
I was under the impression your ‘small local vendor’ was a guy with a computer store that wasn’t willing to bring in Windows XP.
amazon.com is showing a TON of entries for Windows 2000 pro and Windows XP pro.
[/QUOTE]
I want to buy the whole computer, not just the operating system. A new computer running Win2K. In other words, with all the drivers already loaded and working. I know of no vendor that will do that.
[QUOTE=LionelHutz405]
I want to buy the whole computer, not just the operating system. A new computer running Win2K. In other words, with all the drivers already loaded and working. I know of no vendor that will do that.
[/QUOTE]
That I’d have a hard time justifying. But FTR, DELL DOES sell brand new small-office computers with XP preloaded:
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
That I’d have a hard time justifying. But FTR, DELL DOES sell brand new small-office computers with XP preloaded:
[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you mean by ‘justifying’.
I’d want Win2k to be sure software already running on it would still run OK.
And FTR, Dell’s Canadian web site (I’m Canadian) does not offer XP as a Vista alternative. At least not the last time I checked.
[QUOTE=LionelHutz405]
Not sure what you mean by ‘justifying’.
I’d want Win2k to be sure software already running on it would still run OK.
And FTR, Dell’s Canadian web site (I’m Canadian) does not offer XP as a Vista alternative. At least not the last time I checked.
[/QUOTE]
Justifying as a business case. It costs money to support older stuff, w2k is an 8 year old OS. As much as I hate the forced update nature of Microsoft products, I can understand them dropping support at SOME point in time.
Contacting Dell Canada couldn’t hurt.
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
Justifying as a business case. It costs money to support older stuff, w2k is an 8 year old OS. As much as I hate the forced update nature of Microsoft products, I can understand them dropping support at SOME point in time.
Contacting Dell Canada couldn’t hurt.
[/QUOTE]
It costs more, in my case, to support the newer stuff. The existing stuff just works and has a near zero support cost already. Moving to Vista, I’d have a hard time coming up with any business benefits, but there would be significant risks. (Mission critical stuff that runs fine on Win2K might not run on Vista.)
Hardware isn’t changing fast enough to worry that I won’t be able to buy the hardware that it runs on. It’s understandable Microsoft will drop support for old operating systems at some time, but they are artificially shortening that time to spur adoption of the new versions.
[QUOTE=LionelHutz405]
It costs more, in my case, to support the newer stuff. The existing stuff just works and has a near zero support cost already. Moving to Vista, I’d have a hard time coming up with any business benefits, but there would be significant risks. (Mission critical stuff that runs fine on Win2K might not run on Vista.)
Hardware isn’t changing fast enough to worry that I won’t be able to buy the hardware that it runs on. It’s understandable Microsoft will drop support for old operating systems at some time, but they are artificially shortening that time to spur adoption of the new versions.
[/QUOTE]
I was not referring to YOUR costs. I was referring to Dell and Microsoft’s costs. FWIW, the copy of windows 2000 you bought in 2001 will most likely work with a new computer, made with 2 year old components. Otherwise, how long wuld you expect them (Dell/Microsoft) to support the equipment/software you bought 5+ years ago? $100 for an oem version or $250 for the standalone version does NOT buy you perpetual support.
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
FWIW, the copy of windows 2000 you bought in 2001 will most likely work with a new computer
[/QUOTE]
But I can’t legally install it since it’s in use on another computer. So I’d really like to buy another computer with another copy of Win2K already on it. Since it will most likely work fine their really isn’t much of a support cost to Microsoft or Dell to do that is there?
Here is the point I’m tiptoeing around:
People purchase computers and software and expect them to operate forever. They’re expensive, and magic, and a hassle to purchase. But in the budget, there is no consideration for maintenance and upkeep. You’re happy your application currently costs you zero, that’s dandy. But what you fail to recognize is: it ISN’T costing you nothing, it just hasn’t cost you anything YET.
Assume you got good use out of the following: Do you complain when your clothes wear out? When your tires wear out? When last night’s dinner is used up?
As an IT person, my livelyhood is made in supporting computers. You might as well ask a musician to do everything for free, or your Doctor. Folks do it, but they also have to eat too.
The DVORAK keyboard was superior to the QWERTY, Sony Betamax was a superior format to VHS. Neither ended up as an industry standard. Hop on the Wayback machine and read postings about Win95 over Win3.1. SSDD
Ok well, I went ahead and bought the laptop that I wanted. Windows Vista and all. Irksome thing, it doesn’t have things like Microsoft Office, so I installed Open Office, Mozilla Thunderbird, and Firefox. All of the programs that I want, will run on it, and I am happy with it.
I am afraid that all of us will have to suck it up and get familiar with Vista eventually. I am glad that I had this conversation with you though, it has shed new light on what I can expect from Microsoft and other software producers in the near future.
Thanks for all the great input people.
[QUOTE=squeegee]
I can not believe a Mac user wrote that. Without a trace of irony. 
Vista is fine, if annoying until you turn off some of the security. I’ve been using it for months, no problems. Just having some of the security holes plugged is worth any inconvenience, and its got some very nice features in the desktop that I like. I still use XP as well, and don’t see Vista as a “must have” upgrade by any means, but its not really all that different from XP in practice.
[/QUOTE]
My big question is this; like someone upthread stated, I’d honestly be happy with a Win95 style GUI but modern functionality if possible. XP did a lot of things differently from traditional windows (like the bubbly, colorful gui, different organization of information when using the explorer, different start menu, etc) which could all be turned off in a couple simple steps (most of it simply by changing the theme).
So, Can the same be done with Vista?
Because that really is a deal-breaker for me. I would’ve stuck with the version of Windows before XP (2k? the name escapes me; it wasn’t Millenium/ME though) if it didn’t have the ability to turn such things off. Similarly, I have to be able to turn off automatic updates so it won’t interrupt what I’m doing (my xp system currently just posts an alert in the system tray that doesn’t interrupt games, etc, when there’s an update). Ditto for other intrusive security “features.”
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Except for the fact that I was force-fed the cake. Once Vista rolled out, I was prompted repeatedly to install it, with assurances of how super-duper it was going to be. Once you sign up for Windows updates (which I did after one of their famed security holes effed up my computer, requiring a visit to the 'puter doctor and a patch), you are repeatedly prompted to switch to Vista if you haven’t, with dire warnings of potential security problems if you stay with XP.
[/QUOTE]
Are you a corporate user? I’m assuming you’re not running the usual home use licensed XP, because I have literally never had that happen to me, and I regularly use Windows Update.
er… sorry :smack:
Got to stop posting to a thread before reading through the whole thing. Okay, so you can set the theme to windows classic (as in pre-XP style) rather than aero (or whatever they’re calling the new one) and the XP default? okay.
Also, I kind of have to laugh at the guy who argued about it being good for gaming, in spite of the fact that one of the most successfull games out there (world of warcraft) doesn’t work well on it. He even acknowledged it in one post, then went on to ignore it later. WoW has ~8 million players, IIRC, and has at least a couple years of continued viability as the main MMO. You can’t really disregard it if you’re going to be talking about using a machine for gaming, because for a good chunk of pc gamers out there, it’s one of the main games they’re thinking of.
Mu hubby got a new machine this weekend with vista, the only pain was getting our network talking. One mac, 2 other XP boxes - the mac & XP boxes could see vista but not go on the Public share which we set up, but Vista didn’t see a thing.
After hours of searching we changed the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\LMCompatibilityLevel from a 3 to a 1 and rebooted - and then the XP & mac laptop could see Vista and XP could come on to the Public share. Still XP & the Mac weren’t showing up in the Network browser in Vista…
Another couple hours of looking on the web for an answer & then we installed the “Link Layer Topology Discovery (LLTD) responder” patch from Microsoft - and now all is good.
[QUOTE=H3Knuckles]
er… sorry :smack:
Also, I kind of have to laugh at the guy who argued about it being good for gaming, in spite of the fact that one of the most successfull games out there (world of warcraft) doesn’t work well on it. He even acknowledged it in one post, then went on to ignore it later. WoW has ~8 million players, IIRC, and has at least a couple years of continued viability as the main MMO. You can’t really disregard it if you’re going to be talking about using a machine for gaming, because for a good chunk of pc gamers out there, it’s one of the main games they’re thinking of.
[/QUOTE]
The reason I dismissed it was because it only affected one out of hundreds of newish games out there, and the problem did Not affect EVERYONE playing WOW on vista (just some hardware configurations) and because I figured the problem would be solved quickly, and I believe it was (latest updates).
[QUOTE=lexi]
Mu hubby got a new machine this weekend with vista, the only pain was getting our network talking. One mac, 2 other XP boxes - the mac & XP boxes could see vista but not go on the Public share which we set up, but Vista didn’t see a thing.
After hours of searching we changed the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa\LMCompatibilityLevel from a 3 to a 1 and rebooted - and then the XP & mac laptop could see Vista and XP could come on to the Public share. Still XP & the Mac weren’t showing up in the Network browser in Vista…
Another couple hours of looking on the web for an answer & then we installed the “Link Layer Topology Discovery (LLTD) responder” patch from Microsoft - and now all is good.
[/QUOTE]
Of COURSE! Why did I think of that! :dubious: 
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank]
Of COURSE! Why did I think of that! :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
It took us 4 hours of searching to find out we needed to do all that to get XP, Mac OS X & Vista all talking together - it seems it was so hard to find because Microsoft wants you to upgrade all your machines, or as you were setting up your network you would have had some information on what you needed to do to get it running.