How old is your operating system's current installation?
- Less than 1 year old (Which OS is that?)
- 1 to 2 years old (Which OS is that?)
- 3 to 4 years old (Which OS is that?)
- 5 to 6 years old (Which OS is that?)
- More than 6 years-old (Which OS is that?)
I got a chance to install Win Vista Ultimate and installed it. Have used since first came out. Kinda like it, most things I use are Vista compatible. Uses a lot of memory though. Luckily I have 3 GB. I also have a hard drive with XP which I have used a long time since 2 months after it had first come out. Really liked that a lot. Still use it often.
my computer is running windows vista basic less than a year. The thing is when starting there comes a pop up saying device detector not working and has to close up all the time.
most of my comps are running winxp every since it came out. have never had to reload them, got an old computer (duel pentium pro) started with win nt then win2k when it came out. had to reload it onec about 6 years ago when it had a hard drive crash and had to be replaced.
Hi,
It's easy staying up to date with Linux, and no upgrade costs. Except that I am a member of the Mandriva Club which costs me about $12 per month. I see it not so much as a cost, but as a contribution. For many years I travelled free while these faithful Linux guys kept on pumping out more and more excellent work. Eventually I decided I should be contributing financially and not just politically.
This is contributed to a Community Forum, but no-one does "Community" better than the Open Source movement. If I strike a snag I can send an email to a list, and, get this, in many cases a developer of the particular software will be the one to respond. Don't get that from MS. Any way, the cheerful, and co-operative spirit of the OSS movement is a great encouragement, there are real people out there who are busting their *ss for you and me. And they genuinely like to help.
These days you do not have to be a geek to run a Linux OS on your computer, because Mandriva, Ubuntu, even Fedora Core are all very easy to install and use.
Stacks of useful software is free and dead easy to install, thanks to automated package managers in most modern distributions of Linux. These work from a GUI or from the Command Line Interface (CLI). The CLI is not as terrifying as some may think: imagine you want a finance package called Gnucash - oh, sorry it's already installed. Well let's say a Genealogical program called gramps, you can use the gui in Mandriva or you can open a Console and at the root command line, type in "urpmi gramps" (no quotes), that's it! The program will find where gramps is stored on the internet, and download it, and install it, without a reboot and within a couple of minutes you are ready to start looking up your family tree.
These days, everything works, unless you are on the expensive side of the bleeding edge of tech advancement. So if you are like 90% of computer users who trail a bit behind the "latest and greatest" then a modern Linux distro could set you free.
Attn: algreig
I viewed your bio after reading your interesting post! If you don't mind answering a few questions it would be appreciated!
There are only a few apps holding me back from switching over to Linux. My browser and email are fine as I use Mozilla FF & TB, but my wife uses Eudora and refuses to switch. Also, we like to do our taxes with Turbotax.
I know about the Penelope project to create a Eudora-friendly version of Thunderbird, so that should take care of itself. This leaves just Turbotax as my wall. Any thoughts?
Phil
Hawaii
I have Windows XP Professional installed on all five of my computers -- old and brand new. Like the millions of others, I'm waiting to install Vista till we're at SP 1. It's not that I worry about Microsoft's initial reliability on new product releases -- I'm a retired micro-softie. I just haven't been hankering for a new interface and many of the new OS benefits aren't as compelling to an individual user as they might/should be to a corporate person or group. That said, people tend to forget that we all went through plenty of minor hells getting XP where we all wanted it to be in terms of reliability and stability. So, why change a great thing?
I'll be a happy XP user for another 1-2 years and then I'll probably move over to Vista after the first Service Pack is released -- about a year from now I expect.
Thanks and good luck everyone.
Brad
I have 3 PCs, One being a laptop. All are running Win XP. Have had no problems with this operating system. I do take my machines down every two years, and reinstall everything to get the junk off my systems. Maybe this helps. I can not justify switching to Vista at this time. All of these PCs are capable of handling Vista. I have read many articles relating to Vista, and will wait for the service pack to come out, before trying it on just one of the units.
My laptop: Vista-7 months...The other 3 PC's all XP...all installations less than 2 years.
XP is my most easy-used OS.I've used it from 2002 when I for first time have my own PC.
I have a Dell desktop running XP Professional and have not had problems with it. It is used daily for 10 hours or more, 7 days a week. It is superb. I recently bought a new computer and opted for XP Professional again. This is the 64bit version and is running alongside the old Dell. I will probably wait for Vista to iron out all the bugs before switching, if I switch.
Mike
in October 2000 i picked-up a Dell Precision 220 with dual 1GHz P3 processors, 500MBytes of RDRAM and a 4-disk ATA-RAID array. it still runs but i think the fan bearings are going. the major mistake i made was choosing a system that did not support more than 1 memory slot. that's why i could not add more memory (there was a 1GByte RDRAM for a short while but then it was taken off the market; i would love to add the memory and use the Precision 220 as a server).
i am finally going to replace this computer with a Dell XPS720 but it appears that they are only shipping with the 2-disk RAID supported right off the chip set instead of inserting a RAID array card that would support 4 disks instead of 2. the XPS 720 has the disk capacity, power and thermal to support 4 disks so i need to find out why they don't offer this configuration.
i am finally going to replace this computer with a Dell XPS720 but it appears that they are only shipping with the 2-disk RAID supported right off the chip set instead of inserting a RAID array card that would support 4 disks instead of 2. the XPS 720 has the disk capacity, power and thermal to support 4 disks so i need to find out why they don't offer this configuration.]/b]
Two main reasons:
1.) Because it's expensive to do so. MOST consumers will look at the price of the extra two drives and won't see the real need to spend that extra money. Instead of buying four 80 GB drives for say, about $250, they'll go for two 160 GB drives for $175 - or better still ONE 320 GB drive for $100. It's all about the perception of the value.
Yes, a company that has mission critical stuff going on a PC will look at the expense and write it off as the cost of doing business, but try selling the merits of spending more money to the average home user and they'll look at you funny.
2.) RAID arrays, while cool and while they DO still serve a purpose, seem to be slowly falling out of favor in some circles. They're not perfect. They do have issues. There's the extra system overhead RAID configurations add to a system and in the end, they still might not save your data any better than a single drive with a good backup.
Coming from a defunct XP system, I went with Vista Ultimate on a totally new rebuild. My buddy, who was the only one in these parts to run the Vista Beta version as soon as it was out, recomended I go with Vista and I haven't had any problems. Before XP, I was running 98SE and everyone was saying they would never move on. So goes life. I'm having a ball discovering all the new stuff. My computing life has nothing to do with my work so I'm not bored with it yet and find it very relaxing. I use my computer mainly for my Photography hobby.
I have a vista one which is only about 2-3 months old but I do still have a windows 95 (upgraded to 98) laptop that is still running (but I never use it)and an XP laptop and desktop which are about 4 years old.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |