Save Windows XP!

unique_exposure

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Posts
568
Media
4
Likes
24
Points
103
Location
Southwest
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I believe that the newest version of Wine does support Windows Photoshop CS and CS2, but i think its still being tested so it may take them a while to fix all of the bugs. No word on CS3 yet.

Ive tried Gimp. It functions pretty similarly to Photoshop and has a nice plugin system that can add a ton of interesting features. And seeing as how Gimp is free, i think its a pretty nice program.

Thank you lustlover and dong !
 

Dorian_Gray

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
1,297
Media
43
Likes
254
Points
208
Location
Hiding in the light...
Gender
Male
I'd say your very argument applies to Vista, even more so because those holes are are yet largely unknown as are the potential agents to exploit them. The reason for the relative lack of Virus' for Linux/Mac is rather less to do with any inherently better security and immunity that it is to do with market share and an endemic hatred of Microsoft. Why target (comparatively) nice few Mac/Linux users when hitting XP/Windows 2000/3 will affect millions.

Also, people tend not to crap in their own back yard, right?

That argument is sound, I guess. While it's the target of hackers to infect as many machines as possible, the mac platform would be a WHOLE lot more intimidating to write a virus for. The last known trojan for mac osx was one that you had to go to a shady porn site, download the file yourself, manually open, and give your admin password for it to install. Granted it was disguised as a codec, but umm... who installs a codec from a porn site? And even then it was only an annoying network connection problem.



Technology is self serving, I agree. I like the latest doodad as much as anyone, but I also have to question if doodad v2 is really worth the upgrade from doodad v1 when I barely use 20% of doodad v1's features. I like the global warming reference ... :smile:

My stance on this is that if you're not going to use all the features on "device v.1" why buy it then question the move to "Device v.2"? I have to justify all the features of the device before I purchase. If I'm not going to use half the functionality, then somewhere there is a more specialized device that will suit my needs for probably a lot cheaper. Case in point: any windows mobile device. I'll admit I have a AT&T tilt, but it's only because there isn't a better device on the market.

This is where the simplicity of Mac comes in. Most people don't know a driver for a computer from James that drives the limo. They don't want to have to update drivers, install/maintain crappy bloated virus software(norton/McAfee), troubleshoot a wireless issue, clear the iconcache everytime vista's "new explorer" has a fault then crashes and all of your shell icons go on the fritz...(I could go on for milennia)
But with mac everything the average consumer plugs in is going to work sans the G**D*** driver CD. It's intelligent to the needs of the user not vice versa like vista and every other windows product ever made. Linux is also a pro at PnP. But most people think that "hey, if I don't get windows or a dell/hp that it won't run Office..." or something like that. People are set in their ways and are afraid of change. Thats why windows is so terrible today, Microsoft will not, maybe for a lack of competent software engineers I don't know, but they will not let go of the past and seriously retool windows. If you have a PC that is unable to run the "latest and greatest" thats not microsoft's fault, its all on the end user, get a new PC or Upgrade the one you have. If microsoft were as firm in software development as Apple is, you would be seeing great things coming out of Redmond all the time. When Apple said its moving from OS9 to OSX sure people bitched for a month or two but then they got over it, because they saw the MAJOR improvements in functionality they could get. (Not to mention looks)

**Sorry for the soap-box, but I just have been in the talkative mood today**
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male


Vista=XP? Where do you get this from? Vista<>XP. Not even close, it's a mostly new codebase. Citations please.

Back in 2001 when Longhorn was mooted it was to be based on the windows 2003 codebase and indeed I believe some very early ports were based on XP. XP and Windows 2003 have different codebases.

BTW, Windows 'classic' (XP classic looks like Windows 2000) is merely a reduced eye candy 'shell' to improve performance, it's not the old XP underneath even if it resembles it. Windows 2003 server has the same faclity, are you suggesting that's really XP too?:rolleyes:

The beta drivers were mostly just that, beta drivers. Driver support for Vista out of the gate was woeful, but the blame for that cannot be laid fairly at any one element.

What does that even mean?

A challenge I'll gladly accept:

Windows X&#8217;s Shrine » Vista Transformation Pack

look at how tough it is to make XP or even Server 2003 have features that Vista has ?

and vice versa

Windows Vista: Classic Look - GROK Knowledge Base

Did you know, base home versions of Vista don't even have Aero ?

Techgage - Windows Vista Version Comparison

I can even convert Windows Server 2003 to Windows XP and they use cdroms of each version to load files that are compatible between the two versions.

How to convert your Windows Server 2003... to a Workstation!

I'll bet Vista home is enhanced version of XP. All versions of Vista sit on NTFS too.

Windows vista ntfs (New Technology File System)
How to write to a NTFS filesystem - Freespire

Delineating the differences between Windows from 2000 to Vista, even Windows Server 2008, isn't any more difficult than delineating the differences between Linux or even OS X versions.

I agree there are improved features for Vista, the OS shell/kernel may have been reworked (and that is probably why most versions of XP and earlier software applications, even drivers from 3rd party sources don't work/install). But to say they scrapped everything and this is new from the ground/foundation up would be like saying every kernel revision in Linux scraps the previous kernels. There are software applications even in Linux that don't work with older or even newer versions of Linux kernels. I have an old copy of Corel's Office 2000 for Linux that no longer works with the modern kernels of Linux. Then again, some kernels/distros it does work, you just have to manually map icons and other things to account for those changes. The last distro I was able to get it to run with was Xandros OCE version 1.1, that was around 2003 ?

Xandros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway SP3 for XP is on it's way:

Why all Vista users should upgrade to Windows XP | The Digital Home - Don Reisinger's take on the tech closest to home - CNET Blogs

Perhaps most important, SP3 delivers on security. SP3 adds support for FIPS 140-1 Level 1 cryptography as a DLL at the kernel level. Because of this, developers can now access the Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module and improve the security of their drivers with the help of cryptographic algorithms.

Somehow I think this tells me that there is no difference now with driver security with XP and Vista ? All Vista does, even Office 2007 from what I can see is the encryption at various levels of file system. And in the end, this requires the faster processors and systems of today to have to rebuild whatever it is you are trying to access & use. Basically systems that are technologically faster are crippled by having to go thru this process everytime. A dual or quad core processor is working harder to open an Excel file that is about 1/2 the size saved in Office 2007 than it was in 2003. It takes longer to open that file using yesterday's hardware.

In your response to what does that even mean, that was in regards to my Server 2008 comment. Even with corporate operating systems for servers Server 2003 will be phased out much like XP and prior versions of their desktop OS for the masses.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh, an anyone that thinks OS X is the solution here are some examples of OS X breaking sh*t:

Applications "broken" by Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) - The macosxhints Forums
MacSlash | Tiger OS: What Applications Break?
Mac OS X 10.5.1 Breaks VOIP Again? : In Pursuit of Mysteries
Gordon's Tech: Leopard breaks AppleWords, what about Classic
OS X breaks VPN - again. : leopard, vpn, checkpoint
Leopard 10.5.1 Update Breaks Cisco VPN, with Fix - Nate Koechley&#8217;s Blog

Yeah, right now Linux is about the only thing worth using. When Ubuntu releases a new version every 6 months, at least they make sure you get the newest versions of applications too. They open your files because of open source compatibility. And they're free, imagine that, getting a better Office suite for free than what Apple has ever produced ? While there is a learning curve, Open Office isn't to vastly different from MS Office.

OpenOffice.org: Home
The OpenOffice.org Office Suite

You can even get it for Windows, OS X for Intel & PPC

download: OpenOffice.org Download
 

joybunny

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
599
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
161
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I work in both Windows and Mac environments. Windows at work, Mac at home. That's unless Windows gets screwed up then I bring in my Mac to fix it. Some said it's unnatural, even unholy but it works.

Personally I think Microsoft is getting ready to make a big boo-boo. Remember Windows ME or or the Apple Performa 6200? Gah, what a disaster! Have I used Vista? Yes, and I was not impressed. Obviously, somebody is underestimating the potential growth of Linux in business.

Mac is not just for graphic design. I work in networking and computer tech support/training and use my Mac all the time. Just like the American Express card, I don't leave home without it.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That is my distro of choice also! I love it! Can't wait for Fedora 9.

I've noticed the IT professionals like and tried a bunch of distros, but ultimately wind up back with RH/Fedora or Suse, something that has corporate implications for certification.

I like Ubuntu personally, and I think Oracle moving towards the Debian based distro will effect RH/Fedora popularity at the corporate level eventually. My gripe with most distros, you need to download so many cdroms. Since Ubuntu does everything thru repositories, would just assume select what I need and install only that.

Oracle courts Ubuntu, Red Hat in denial
 

Dorian_Gray

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
1,297
Media
43
Likes
254
Points
208
Location
Hiding in the light...
Gender
Male
I've noticed the IT professionals like and tried a bunch of distros, but ultimately wind up back with RH/Fedora or Suse, something that has corporate implications for certification.

I like Ubuntu personally, and I think Oracle moving towards the Debian based distro will effect RH/Fedora popularity at the corporate level eventually. My gripe with most distros, you need to download so many cdroms. Since Ubuntu does everything thru repositories, would just assume select what I need and install only that.

Oracle courts Ubuntu, Red Hat in denial

Thats another reason fedora is cool, it has one install DVD. Or you can choose the live DVD. Either way they've condensed it into one disk image. And anaconda is great.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thats another reason fedora is cool, it has one install DVD. Or you can choose the live DVD. Either way they've condensed it into one disk image. And anaconda is great.

Sabayon is like that too, one dvd iso, but it's 3.4-4 GB of download. I have the slower DSL broadband and while not too horrible for cdrom sized iso's it shows with a dvd. Sometimes getting it takes awhile and when the md5sum gets corrupted, you wind up burning a dvd that's crap.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
A challenge I'll gladly accept:

Windows X&#8217;s Shrine &#187; Vista Transformation Pack

look at how tough it is to make XP or even Server 2003 have features that Vista has ?

and vice versa

So, if I fit a Ferrari gear knob to a Skoda, does that make it a Ferrari?

Windows Vista: Classic Look - GROK Knowledge Base

Did you know, base home versions of Vista don't even have Aero ?

I covered this already. And yes I did, could be a marketing ploy, do you think?:rolleyes:


And this proves XP = Vista how?

I can even convert Windows Server 2003 to Windows XP and they use cdroms of each version to load files that are compatible between the two versions.

How to convert your Windows Server 2003... to a Workstation!

Yes, XP and Win 2003 shared a codebase.

And this proves XP = Vista how?

I'll bet Vista home is enhanced version of XP. All versions of Vista sit on NTFS too.

Windows vista ntfs (New Technology File System)
How to write to a NTFS filesystem - Freespire

NTFS is a file system, not an operating system. Came in NT3.1 - I guess that's the same as Vista too, then?

Delineating the differences between Windows from 2000 to Vista, even Windows Server 2008, isn't any more difficult than delineating the differences between Linux or even OS X versions.

Please translate that into XP=Vista.

I agree there are improved features for Vista, the OS shell/kernel may have been reworked (and that is probably why most versions of XP and earlier software applications, even drivers from 3rd party sources don't work/install). But to say they scrapped everything and this is new from the ground/foundation up would be like saying every kernel revision in Linux scraps the previous kernels. There are software applications even in Linux that don't work with older or even newer versions of Linux kernels. I have an old copy of Corel's Office 2000 for Linux that no longer works with the modern kernels of Linux. Then again, some kernels/distros it does work, you just have to manually map icons and other things to account for those changes. The last distro I was able to get it to run with was Xandros OCE version 1.1, that was around 2003 ?

Xandros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does Linux have to do with this? Again, this proves Vista=XP how?

As usual you have focussed on the superficial. They can be made to look and even act the same (remember the Vista shells for XP? were they Vista or merely XP dressed up in shell suit). But that's window dressing. They are based on a different code base.

Anyway SP3 for XP is on it's way:

Why all Vista users should upgrade to Windows XP | The Digital Home - Don Reisinger's take on the tech closest to home - CNET Blogs

Perhaps most important, SP3 delivers on security. SP3 adds support for FIPS 140-1 Level 1 cryptography as a DLL at the kernel level. Because of this, developers can now access the Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module and improve the security of their drivers with the help of cryptographic algorithms.

Again, this proves Vista=XP how?

Somehow I think this tells me that there is no difference now with driver security with XP and Vista ? All Vista does, even Office 2007 from what I can see is the encryption at various levels of file system. And in the end, this requires the faster processors and systems of today to have to rebuild whatever it is you are trying to access & use. Basically systems that are technologically faster are crippled by having to go thru this process everytime. A dual or quad core processor is working harder to open an Excel file that is about 1/2 the size saved in Office 2007 than it was in 2003. It takes longer to open that file using yesterday's hardware.

Driver security wasn't even mentioned by me, neither was drive encryption,n or file opening times these are functions, not structure. None of what you have cited proves anything other than you failed the challenge.

In your response to what does that even mean, that was in regards to my Server 2008 comment. Even with corporate operating systems for servers Server 2003 will be phased out much like XP and prior versions of their desktop OS for the masses.

Of course. But it doesn't prove XP=Vista.

Want to try again?
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I have Windows Home Premium and I like it. I currently have 4 windows open with 14 tabs (all different websites) I especially like the Snipping Tool and also the Windows Media Center. I also like the Google gadget bar to the right.
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Of course. But it doesn't prove XP=Vista.

Want to try again?

You mean to tell me that the fantasy of Vista is that they took a team of software developers at Microsoft and devoid of any prior product MS has ever produced, bits and pieces of that code no longer are used in Vista ?

You probably think OS X Leopard is completely devoid of any prior version of OS X or even any version of Linux doesn't borrow from a prior version ?

All of these facts support XP=Vista, otherwise my hardware from "x" years back wouldn't run it.

Features new to Windows Vista - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Security and safety

Main article: Security and safety features new to Windows Vista
Beginning in early 2002 with Microsoft's announcement of their Trustworthy Computing initiative, a great deal of work has gone into making Windows Vista a more secure operating system than its predecessors. Internally, Microsoft adopted a "Secure Development Lifecycle"[17] with the underlying ethos of, "Secure by design, secure by default, secure in deployment". New code for Windows Vista was developed with the SDL methodology, and all existing code was reviewed and refactored to improve security.

What does "all existing code" mean to you ? I've made my assertion at the basest of Vista is XP, you seem to think Vista is this ground floor foundation that has no XP roots. Look at the timeline, early 2002, The XP copy I have indicates it was introduced in 2001.

I'll go one further for you, Windows Server 2008 = Vista = Windows Server 2003 = XP, they all have new code and features, but at the base is an evolution of NT with enhancements. No company scraps the programming code that has earned them 90&#37; of the market share, that would simply be stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008

If you don't understand that I have defended my position at this point, you don't understand the context of my statements.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
You mean to tell me that the fantasy of Vista is that they took a team of software developers at Microsoft and devoid of any prior product MS has ever produced, bits and pieces of that code no longer are used in Vista ?

Did I say that?

You probably think OS X Leopard is completely devoid of any prior version of OS X or even any version of Linux doesn't borrow from a prior version ?

I didn't say that either.

All of these facts support XP=Vista, otherwise my hardware from "x" years back wouldn't run it.

Err, drivers anyone?


As usual you look only at the superficial. I have never said Vista doesn't have commonality of features, that doesn't make them architecturally the same which is what you stated. This is true in the same way that a Ford <> Ferrari because they both have engines and wheels and me be, ultimately based on a common ancestor.:rolleyes:

Security and safety

Main article: Security and safety features new to Windows Vista
Beginning in early 2002 with Microsoft's announcement of their Trustworthy Computing initiative, a great deal of work has gone into making Windows Vista a more secure operating system than its predecessors. Internally, Microsoft adopted a "Secure Development Lifecycle"[17] with the underlying ethos of, "Secure by design, secure by default, secure in deployment". New code for Windows Vista was developed with the SDL methodology, and all existing code was reviewed and refactored to improve security.

What does "all existing code" mean to you ? I've made my assertion at the basest of Vista is XP, you seem to think Vista is this ground floor foundation that has no XP roots. Look at the timeline, early 2002, The XP copy I have indicates it was introduced in 2001.


I already stated that early ports of Longhorn were based on XP but that work was abandoned. Up until 2004 it was. Are you reading impaired also? XP was introduced in 2001, so what? Work on Longhorn had already started at that point.

BTW, SDL is a design ideology and previous code means previous code in a process. It doesn't presuppose from whence that code originated. In this case at the start it was XP. But see above^^^^, and later on that, because I will say it only once.

I'll go one further for you, Windows Server 2008 = Vista = Windows Server 2003 = XP, they all have new code and features, but at the base is an evolution of NT with enhancements. No company scraps the programming code that has earned them 90&#37; of the market share, that would simply be stupid.


In terms of features yes. I've never disputed this. In terms of the codebase that produces them, no. The one real element (a weakness) they all share is the MBR. But to say that makes them all the same is akin to saying a wheelbarrow is the same as a F1 car because they both have wheels.

I hate citing Wikipedia articles but perhaps you should read these extracts.

"...Faced with ongoing delays and concerns about feature creep, Microsoft announced on August 27, 2004 that it had revised its plans. The original "Longhorn", based on the Windows XP source code, was scrapped, and Longhorn's development started anew, building on the Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 codebase, and re-incorporating only the features that would be intended for an actual operating system release.

Some previously announced features such as WinFS were dropped or postponed, and a new software development methodology called the "Security Development Lifecycle" was incorporated in an effort to address concerns with the security of the Windows codebase."


and

"...in conjunction with the fact that many of Microsoft's most skilled developers and engineers had been working on Windows Server 2003, led to the decision to "reset" development of Longhorn, building on the same code that would become Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, instead of the older Windows XP..."

The have features in common, of course. Windows 3.11, Solaris and Tiger have features in common. Would you argue that therefore Windows for Workgroups=Tiger=Solaris?
 

transformer_99

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
2,429
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I hate citing Wikipedia articles but perhaps you should read these extracts.

"...Faced with ongoing delays and concerns about feature creep, Microsoft announced on August 27, 2004 that it had revised its plans. The original "Longhorn", based on the Windows XP source code, was scrapped, and Longhorn's development started anew, building on the Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 codebase, and re-incorporating only the features that would be intended for an actual operating system release.

Some previously announced features such as WinFS were dropped or postponed, and a new software development methodology called the "Security Development Lifecycle" was incorporated in an effort to address concerns with the security of the Windows codebase."


and

"...in conjunction with the fact that many of Microsoft's most skilled developers and engineers had been working on Windows Server 2003, led to the decision to "reset" development of Longhorn, building on the same code that would become Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, instead of the older Windows XP..."

Yes, you said Longhorn was scrapped, did you bother to even look at the link where Windows Server 2003 could be transformed into XP by simply performing about 10 easy to do steps ?

How to convert your Windows Server 2003... to a Workstation!

You actually have to use the XP cdrom to perform some of them as it copies and uses files from an XP installation to convert Server 2003. So now you are going to tell me that Server 2003 SP1 is the base for Longhorn. Does that really tell you all you need to know ? Longhorn was never scrapped as they put it. Just morphed from Server 2000 to Server 2003. Understand Server 2008 is based on Vista, but you tell me that's based upon Server 2003 and I've clearly delivered that indication that XP and 2003 are the same thing. Everything from enabling the cdrom burning, luna themes, Direct X, audio, System Restore features

"The most requested feature (apart from the Logon Screen & Fast User Switching) is here! You will need your Windows XP CD on hand to install this, as files from Windows XP are required to install System Restore into Windows Server 2003."

Windows Server 2003 is XP only in classic mode and by classic mode, it appears as Windows Server 2000 in it's gui and features.

What I find interesting, WinFS is not a feature of Vista, so it's NTFS again ? So what changed with regards to that (Vista) and XP ?

Anyway, this is beating a dead horse, you won't give up your argument in the debate and I hold my end just as vehemently. If Vista is a brand new OS for you, then it is and always will be. For me, I don't perceive it that way and never will.

I see it as I do Leopard, a lot of Tiger, less so from Panther and Jaguar. But OS X takes a lot from BSD Unix and Linux. Same holds with my view of Vista. It is XP/Server 2003 and that means that lurking around somewhere in Vista's revamped code is code from prior versions of Windows. You'd really have to compare the native processes that run for each, any new ones, you'd have to scrutinize to identify whether it was running as the base OS (out of necessity) or whether it was eye candy to be more or less superfluous and give you the impression of something you've never seen before.

Similarly Linux has Xorg for video, but the eye candy is Compiz. Well Vista has it's basic video and it's equivalent eye candy is Aero glass. They both have their own OS kernel, the heart of that in MS products is the NT kernel, and simply morphing it from version to version doesn't preclude the latest OS product as completely new, not even significantly different. Enhanced and feature rich maybe, but completely new, hardly. I even feel that way about the Linux kernel. Yes, comparing the 2008 kernels to the ones in the late 90's and the differences are going to be more pronounced, but the more recent kernels, subtle differences at best. MS and Apple run their kernels far longer than Linux distros.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
We need some humor: An alternative to Windows, Mac, and Linux -- for those who are technology-impaired -- would be XO, a/k/a OLPC. :biggrin:

Note: I'm not being dismissive of XO, it's very worthwhile and I hope it succeeds.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Yes, you said Longhorn was scrapped, did you bother to even look at the link where Windows Server 2003 could be transformed into XP by simply performing about 10 easy to do steps ?

How to convert your Windows Server 2003... to a Workstation!

*SNIPPED irrelevant diversionary content *

I didn't say it was scrapped. I said it's original XP codebase design was scrapped. As was clear from the posted extracts. I looked at the link, I'm already aware of its content. It's nothing new and it doesn't prove that XP=Vista in the way you stated.

You're continued tangents into Linux and Mac OS are interesting in their own right but all but irrelevant to the basic premise of your argument. I have stated my position with evidence and not veered of into other OS designs and what not.

Essentially, IMO you have failed to provide evidence that isn't largely anecdotal, tangential or superficial to support your own. You haven't been able to convince me I'm wrong. I'm not denying the possibility I am wrong, just saying you haven't convinced me. You have been (primarily) arguing that common user features alone render the two OS' the same, I have always been referring to their architecture.

I suggest as you do, that we end this here on an agreement to disagree - to continue seems utterly pointless?
 

Dorian_Gray

Cherished Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
1,297
Media
43
Likes
254
Points
208
Location
Hiding in the light...
Gender
Male
I don't really understand this thread. You can use XP now, and you can continue to use XP for as long as you want. I ran win98 on my laptop until two years ago. Just save the service packs on a disk and you are set.

there ya go! you can run your copy of xp until your processor melts down or till dec. 12 2012... either way you can still get it free from some bay with pirates in it..lol:biggrin1: