Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: "BillW50" <BillW50@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:02:52 -0500
In news:Xns9C37EF8E0EF58noonehomecom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Larry typed on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:32:58 +0000:
I don't distaste Windows. I've been using Micro$oft's products since
DOS 1.0 was released on 8086 hardware!
I don't remember any DOS v1.0 except QDOS v1.0. And Tim Patterson wrote
it because Gary Kildall failed to write CP/M-86 like he promised he
would. Gary did what he wanted, not what others wanted. Which later
destroyed him.
I'm using WinXPSP3 typing this message because it's convenient and
familiar with Xnews, a very old usenet client.
I have one machine running XPSP3 and the rest running XPSP2. And I
haven't seen any difference in stability or usability between SP2 and
SP3.
I'm sorry you got that impression that my post placing the 1GB limit
on Micro$oft was simply reporting all the thousands of articles
written on the subject.
It is truly rare for any of my XP machines to ever need 900MB of more of
memory for the OS and all of my running applications. Windows 2000 uses
half of this figure.
And I have a hard time believing that Microsoft made such a rule. As
what would stop manufactures from taking Vista laptops and dropping the
RAM down to 1GB and then asking Microsoft for XP licenses so they could
sell more computers because people wanted XP instead of Vista?
One of my friends wants to install Win7 on his box. I've asked him
to wait until 2010 for SP2 or 3 until a significant number of major
bugs users find are ironed out. He failed to listen and upgraded to
Vista 1.0 on day one, paying dearly for his transgression.....(c;]
That is always the smart move on your main machine anyway. Spare
machines you can do whatever you want to since it doesn't matter if they
work or not.
I missed several horrible "upgrades" like ME, Vista, some NT flavors
here. I've never been much of a "retail beta tester" for any
software.....
I used to in the 80's, but it got old very quickly. Now I let the young
kids to be the guinea pigs. <grin>
WinXPSP3 is a very stable product. I just wish its company wasn't so
hell bent on destroying it.
It doesn't matter what Microsoft wants to do with it. They are still
licensing new copies today because they didn't have a choice. It isn't
because they want too. Now I see Windows 7 has a XP compatibility mode.
Which will just cause XP to live out a much longer lifespan of any OS
before or after it. <grin>
--
Bill
Windows XP Pro SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Barry Watzman
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: BillW50
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- References:
- netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Mahlon Wagner
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Larry
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Barry Watzman
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Larry
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Barry Watzman
- Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- From: Larry
- netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- Prev by Date: Re: "Hard disk boot sector invalid"
- Next by Date: Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- Previous by thread: Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- Next by thread: Re: netbooks--1 GB Ram and XP-Why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|