Early adopter retros

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.RemoveThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
> philo wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.RemoveThis@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.

philo wrote:
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug DeleteThis @extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug DeleteThis @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.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.DeleteThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...
> philo wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.DeleteThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
> >> philo wrote:
> >>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.DeleteThis@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!

philo wrote:
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.RemoveThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...
>> philo wrote:
>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.RemoveThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
>>>> philo wrote:
>>>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.RemoveThis@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.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.TakeThisOut@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214517994.222436@ftpsrv1...
> philo wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.TakeThisOut@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214337523.618768@ftpsrv1...
> >> philo wrote:
> >>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.TakeThisOut@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>> news:1214249892.105975@ftpsrv1...
> >>>> philo wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.TakeThisOut@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>