Early adopter retros

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As

such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,

Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop

running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I

dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I

found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a

lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image

files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really

makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework

first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I

have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to

enjoying the discussions in the future.

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...

> Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As

> such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,

> Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop

> running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I

> dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I

> found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a

> lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image

> files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really

> makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework

> first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I

> have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to

> enjoying the discussions in the future.

 

 

 

yep!

 

I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something

like 22 different operating systems

at my disposal...

My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works

great!!!!

 

I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and NT3.1)

plus several versions of Linux.

Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...

but Win2k does a great job.

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...

> > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As

> > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,

> > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop

> > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I

> > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I

> > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a

> > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image

> > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really

> > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework

> > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I

> > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to

> > enjoying the discussions in the future.

>

>

>

> yep!

>

> I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something

> like 22 different operating systems

> at my disposal...

> My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works

> great!!!!

>

> I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and NT3.1)

> plus several versions of Linux.

> Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...

> but Win2k does a great job.

>

Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming from

you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest DL]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

I too was happy with win2k, but recently had to upgrade my production sys to

winxp in order to utilse certain Bus.software

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214102827.93579@ftpsrv1...

>

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

>> news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...

>> > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days.

>> > As

>> > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,

>> > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop

>> > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I

>> > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I

>> > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a

>> > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of

>> > image

>> > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really

>> > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework

>> > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I

>> > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to

>> > enjoying the discussions in the future.

>>

>>

>>

>> yep!

>>

>> I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something

>> like 22 different operating systems

>> at my disposal...

>> My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works

>> great!!!!

>>

>> I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and

>> NT3.1)

>> plus several versions of Linux.

>> Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...

>> but Win2k does a great job.

>>

> Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming

> from

> you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.

>

> --

> Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

> compulsive computer fiddler.

>

>

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214102827.93579@ftpsrv1...

>

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> >

> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> > news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...

> > > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days.

As

> > > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,

> > > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop

> > > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I

> > > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I

> > > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do

a

> > > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of

image

> > > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM

really

> > > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my

homework

> > > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I

> > > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to

> > > enjoying the discussions in the future.

> >

> >

> >

> > yep!

> >

> > I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have

something

> > like 22 different operating systems

> > at my disposal...

> > My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works

> > great!!!!

> >

> > I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and

NT3.1)

> > plus several versions of Linux.

> > Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...

> > but Win2k does a great job.

> >

> Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming

from

> you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.

>

 

 

I am no expert, simply an experimenter...and one who refuses to get caught

in the upgrade game.

All my machines are built from other people's discards.

My friends know that whenever they upgrade, I will buy whatever old stuff

they have.

I don't have to pay much at all for the surplus parts.

 

The real test came last year when I had a few major projects that required

me to use Publisher

and also to create a video.

 

Though I had quite a few machines and operating systems at my disposal...I

did not have to think

for more than a second or so...as I went right to my Win2k machine.

Not knocking XP of course, but since Win2k uses less resources...and since

all my applications run on Win2k...

that was my choice.

 

BTW: My Publisher document ended up being *huge* and though my machine

eventually slowed down toward the end of the project...

Win2k performed flawlessly.

 

I had also considered using Linux for my projects...but in the real

world...Microsoft software is the standard.

Since I worked at home on my project...but it was final-edited and printed

at an office elsewhere. I had to use the exact version of Publisher

that was being used at the other location. I just wanted to get to work and

have as few distractions as possible...so Win2k came through for me.

 

 

Additionally:

 

I am a Microsoft authorized refurbisher who does volunteer work for a

Non-profit organization.

I can refurbish an older machine such as a P-II or P-III and re-license it

with Win2k. The cost of a legal license is only $5 (USD)

Since all the machines are donated, over the past several years I have fixed

up and put back into service *many* discarded machines.

The fixed income members of the organization can purchase a rebuilt machine

for $10 (USD).

 

So Win2k is still going strong!

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

> So Win2k is still going strong!

>

Brilliant! I applaud your recycling ethic. Yes, W2K is continuing to

prove completely adequate for all my needs. I believe the MS "internal"

name for W2K is NT5.0, and the one for XP is NT5.1, which kind of begs

the question, apart from the eye candy and extra bells and whistles

(nothing wrong with them of course), just what "engine-room" differences

are there between the two?

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214181329.707229@ftpsrv1...

> > So Win2k is still going strong!

> >

> Brilliant! I applaud your recycling ethic. Yes, W2K is continuing to

> prove completely adequate for all my needs. I believe the MS "internal"

> name for W2K is NT5.0, and the one for XP is NT5.1, which kind of begs

> the question, apart from the eye candy and extra bells and whistles

> (nothing wrong with them of course), just what "engine-room" differences

> are there between the two?

>

 

 

Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

 

When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

by setting if for best performance.

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

, just what "engine-room" differences

>> are there between the two?

>>

>

>

> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

>

> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

> by setting if for best performance.

>

That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

Windows ever produced.

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

> , just what "engine-room" differences

> >> are there between the two?

> >>

> >

> >

> > Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

> >

> > When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

> > by setting if for best performance.

> >

> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

> Windows ever produced.

 

 

It may very well be.

 

But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good for

low end machines

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

philo wrote:

> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

>> , just what "engine-room" differences

>>>> are there between the two?

>>>>

>>>

>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

>>>

>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

>>> by setting if for best performance.

>>>

>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

>> Windows ever produced.

>

>

> It may very well be.

>

> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good for

> low end machines

>

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

>

>

Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version

of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,

and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for

complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although I

realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...

> philo wrote:

> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> > news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

> >> , just what "engine-room" differences

> >>>> are there between the two?

> >>>>

> >>>

> >>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

> >>>

> >>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

> >>> by setting if for best performance.

> >>>

> >> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

> >> Windows ever produced.

> >

> >

> > It may very well be.

> >

> > But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good

for

> > low end machines

> >

> >

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

> >

> >

> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version

> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,

> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for

> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although I

> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

>

>

 

 

I did give Vista a good, three month try out.

It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k

look...

However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new hardware...so

I am not going to be using it.

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

philo wrote:

> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...

>> philo wrote:

>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

>>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

>>>> , just what "engine-room" differences

>>>>>> are there between the two?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

>>>>>

>>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

>>>>> by setting if for best performance.

>>>>>

>>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

>>>> Windows ever produced.

>>>

>>> It may very well be.

>>>

>>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is good

> for

>>> low end machines

>>>

>>>

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

>>>

>>>

>> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version

>> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,

>> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for

>> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although I

>> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

>>

>>

>

>

> I did give Vista a good, three month try out.

> It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k

> look...

> However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new hardware...so

> I am not going to be using it.

>

>

Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,

ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I

built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK for

it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage

any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software

company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any

further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like

an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that MS

need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer

modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the

level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he

suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS

don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's

difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and more

functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...

> philo wrote:

> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> > news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...

> >> philo wrote:

> >>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> >>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

> >>>> , just what "engine-room" differences

> >>>>>> are there between the two?

> >>>>>>

> >>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

> >>>>> by setting if for best performance.

> >>>>>

> >>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

> >>>> Windows ever produced.

> >>>

> >>> It may very well be.

> >>>

> >>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is

good

> > for

> >>> low end machines

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

> >>>

> >>>

> >> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version

> >> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,

> >> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for

> >> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although

I

> >> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> > I did give Vista a good, three month try out.

> > It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k

> > look...

> > However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new

hardware...so

> > I am not going to be using it.

> >

> >

> Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,

> ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I

> built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK for

> it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage

> any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software

> company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any

> further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like

> an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that MS

> need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer

> modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the

> level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he

> suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS

> don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's

> difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and more

> functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.

>

>

 

I like the "modular" idea.

 

Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!

[Guest Peter in New Zealand]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

philo wrote:

> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...

>> philo wrote:

>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

>>> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...

>>>> philo wrote:

>>>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

>>>>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

>>>>>> , just what "engine-room" differences

>>>>>>>> are there between the two?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

>>>>>>> by setting if for best performance.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of

>>>>>> Windows ever produced.

>>>>> It may very well be.

>>>>>

>>>>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is

> good

>>> for

>>>>> low end machines

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy version

>>>> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,

>>>> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for

>>>> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh. Although

> I

>>>> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> I did give Vista a good, three month try out.

>>> It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k

>>> look...

>>> However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new

> hardware...so

>>> I am not going to be using it.

>>>

>>>

>> Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,

>> ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I

>> built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK for

>> it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage

>> any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software

>> company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any

>> further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like

>> an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that MS

>> need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer

>> modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the

>> level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he

>> suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS

>> don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's

>> difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and more

>> functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.

>>

>>

>

> I like the "modular" idea.

>

> Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!

>

>

Love that idea. W2K would make a great basic starting point, but then

perhaps MS's bottom line might start slowing down. I don't mean to beat

the money drum (so many folk seem to), but in the end a philosophy of

continuous growth seems to be the necessary strategy now-a-days. Trouble

is you can't grow indefinitely, so I suppose one day something's gotta

give. Interesting to see if that happens to MS. On the other hand their

OS and software have made the remarkable standardisation we see now

actually possible. Sure would hate to go back to the old days of every

computer manufacturer having his own OS and apps.

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

[Guest philo]

Re: Early adopter retros

 

 

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1214517994.222436@ftpsrv1...

> philo wrote:

> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> > news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...

> >> philo wrote:

> >>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> >>> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...

> >>>> philo wrote:

> >>>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:1214213167.958605@ftpsrv1...

> >>>>>> , just what "engine-room" differences

> >>>>>>>> are there between the two?

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy

> >>>>>>> by setting if for best performance.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>> That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version

of

> >>>>>> Windows ever produced.

> >>>>> It may very well be.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is

> > good

> >>> for

> >>>>> low end machines

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>> Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy

version

> >>>> of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,

> >>>> and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for

> >>>> complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh.

Although

> > I

> >>>> realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>

> >>> I did give Vista a good, three month try out.

> >>> It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a

Win2k

> >>> look...

> >>> However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new

> > hardware...so

> >>> I am not going to be using it.

> >>>

> >>>

> >> Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,

> >> ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I

> >> built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK

for

> >> it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage

> >> any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software

> >> company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any

> >> further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like

> >> an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that

MS

> >> need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer

> >> modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the

> >> level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he

> >> suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS

> >> don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's

> >> difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and

more

> >> functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.

> >>

> >>

> >

> > I like the "modular" idea.

> >

> > Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!

> >

> >

> Love that idea. W2K would make a great basic starting point, but then

> perhaps MS's bottom line might start slowing down. I don't mean to beat

> the money drum (so many folk seem to), but in the end a philosophy of

> continuous growth seems to be the necessary strategy now-a-days. Trouble

> is you can't grow indefinitely, so I suppose one day something's gotta

> give. Interesting to see if that happens to MS. On the other hand their

> OS and software have made the remarkable standardisation we see now

> actually possible. Sure would hate to go back to the old days of every

> computer manufacturer having his own OS and apps.

>

 

 

Yep.

The world never sits still.

I'm sure Microsoft will be around for a long time...

but for some reason, nothing lasts forever! <G>