New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)
in [Laptops]
|
From: BillW50 on 18 Apr 2010 15:42 In news:hqfcai$f1u$4(a)news.eternal-september.org, Barry Watzman typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:34:25 -0400: > When the problem is a "security hole", the "brokenness" may not be > obvious. > BillW50 wrote: >> >> I personally believe in the old saying, don't fix something that >> ain't broke. So while I am in the minority, I believe in time more >> and more will also be convinced that OS updates are not necessary a >> good thing to blindly always do. Yes I admit on paper it looks good to update all of the time. Although in practice, it looks far better avoiding updates. I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from Microsoft code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all Microsoft code. OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then Microsoft and IBM parted company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code stayed with Microsoft. And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into Microsoft's Windows NT. IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code. And every OS/2 update that IBM put out was called fixpacs. And every fixpac just made things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess! I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of fixpacs that didn't work right. I hear tell that IBM did finally got it right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too. But IBM had lost a majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something else that worked. Usually this was towards Windows, IBM's competitor. Since day one of personal computers, I believed in having more than one computer. This allows for many things. As no fear of one computer failing is one big plus right there. Plus you are free to experiment on a spare that you would never do with a single computer system. And years after that OS/2 ordeal, Microsoft updates started to have their own problems too. As I remember Explorer breaking on some of my systems with every other update. And the next update without any input from me would fix it once again. It just seemed to be a normal part of keeping Windows up-to-date. Thank goodness for spares around that I didn't update to get my work done in between. Since some of my spares I stopped accepting any updates, all is fine with them so far for the past number of years. So I am highly considering reinstalling Windows XP SP2 without any other updates just to see what happens. Heck I haven't ran the original Windows XP release in so long, I might even experiment there as well. -- Bill Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
From: Bob Eager on 18 Apr 2010 16:22 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:42:36 -0500, BillW50 wrote: > I started learning this truth during the OS/2 switchover from Microsoft > code over to IBM code. As many recall OS/2 v1.xx was all Microsoft code. > OS/2 v2 was almost all Microsoft code too. Then Microsoft and IBM parted > company. And IBM was left with OS/2 v1 and v2 code and Microsoft's OS/2 > v3 code stayed with Microsoft. > And Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code turned into > Microsoft's Windows NT. Well, no. They started again...with a new architect. > IBM tried to make their own OS/2 v3 and it was a real disaster. They > really tried to rewrite OS/2 with all of their own code. No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user interface (which was good) and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware. But there was never a rewrite. Most of the code was the same model until the end. > And every OS/2 > update that IBM put out was called fixpacs. There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1. > And every fixpac just made > things worse and worse and at some point they had to plug in the > Microsoft code back in to make it work again. What a mess! Complete fabrication. > I gave up with OS/2 and IBM after OS/2 v3 ordeal and the dozens of > fixpacs that didn't work right. v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy until they got the Microsoft bugs out. > I hear tell that IBM did finally got it > right later with v4 and I think there was a v5 too. There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5. > But IBM had lost a > majority of OS/2 users by this point that most left for something else > that worked. Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd have to pay much more for Windows? I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I have to use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
From: dennis on 18 Apr 2010 17:27 "BillW50" <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote in message news:hqfaeg$bqk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Really? Windows 7 froze up whenever I placed my favorite BattStat v0.98 > utility in the startup with UAC enabled. I had to tell it always it was > okay to run every time I booted the machine. This is totally unnecessary. That is true, if battstat was well written it wouldn't need to. A lot of badly written apps fall foul of UAC but not the ones that followed the guidelines. I blame the programmers not M$ for tightening up the security.
From: Bob Eager on 20 Apr 2010 02:40 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:37:21 -0500, BillW50 wrote: > Oh okay that is good to know. How close was DEC RT-11 compared to VMS? Nothing like it at all. I once had the RT-11 source code, and brought a system up from scrtafch using just that. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
From: BillW50 on 19 Apr 2010 13:45
In news:61hms59ulfs9gfpc5mt3gh5pd18qusj1fp(a)4ax.com, AJL typed on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:49:52 -0700: > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >> AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. > > In Vista I use a free program called TweakUAC which says it allows UAC > to run but in "quiet mode". Having never gotten a virus before or > after installation I can't say how effective it is in quiet mode, but > at least it never bugs me much anymore... ;) Wow, that is very nice. Here is Apple's commercial about Vista's UAC, remember it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw -- Bill Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009) |