Neowin.net

because it costs £150

Actually you can get the Upgrade version for less than £80 (Home).

EDIT: Someone else has got a really cheap price for the full version!

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=1957425630&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=66489

Currently £62 + delivery. (Full not just the upgrade)

Also, for a lot of people an XP upgrade means an entire hardware upgrade. Compared to Win 9x and 2000, Windows XP, even in classic mode, requires substantial CPU, RAM, and graphics power.

XP is much more optimized compared to 2000. It runs on a minimum Pentium 233mhz and 64mb ram. I doubt 2000 will run smooth on a 233mhz with 64mb. I'm running classic mode on an old p3, looks good to me. The speed can be optimised further by disabling unnecessary services.

But when you have a 133 pentium 1 and 20 megabytes of ram, xp doesnt run so nice

Yeah. The wife of a guy I work with brought her computer in for us to look at. Packard Bell, 1GBHDD, I forgot the MHz proco, maybe 133MHz, 64MB RAM, running Windows 95. She won't be upgrading to XP unless she buys a new setup, which she really doesn't want to do.

"All I do is type up things in word and print lables," she says.

QUOTE

"All I do is type up things in word and print lables," she says.

If that's all she does, then she doesn't need XP, IE, antivirus, or any other security measures since she doesn't need to go online to do these things.

Obviously, this person isn't someone for whom an upgrade is necessary or relevant.

if you run such a dated pc then im guessing you arent much of a tech head and as a result i doubt you would care if you have ie7 or not

Yeah, its much cheaper to do that than upgrade for no reason.

lol you are joking arnt you, either that or you dont pay for your operating system upgrades. A its expensive B whats wrong with 2000 C Nothing is stopping microsoft progressing its technology if it wanted to, you cannot blame that on the millions of business users who are unable to afford year upgrades on there systems. Microsoft are doing this for monetary reasons they want everyone to switch so it increases revenue because of the long delay before longhorn, nothing else.

Never. Speak. Again.

No, overpriced software slows the progression of technology.

Well, that and the fact that the technology has hardly progressed.

I would claim that nothing slows progress like closed standards and properitary formats. And when it comes to Windows 2000, I would say that with the proper updates it is very close to WindowsXP from a developer standpoint.

Windows 9x is another story however.

QUOTE

Well, that and the fact that the technology has hardly progressed.

Hardly true. Over the last 2 or 3 years, we've seen major advancements in hardware. Technology progressing isn't just software.

However, when you make a statement as broad as yours, it's hard to tell the timeframe. Do not judge how much technology as a whole has progressed in a few years. If you were referring to say 10 or 15 years though, you're wrong. There have been monumental advancements in computing since 1990.

I agree.

Of course they want people to use Windows XP. It is more secure and stable than any other Microsoft OS in a non-corporate environment and developing only for it will allow them to consolidate development and get Longhorn out the door faster.

They aren't saying they will not fix security holes, they are saying the improvements they have made in SP2 for Windows XP (popup blocker, Active-X Improvements, etc.) will not be available to any users not using Windows XP.

No kidding... they're shooting themselves in the foot with this one. It'll just drive people to alternative browsers...

But was anyone actually expecting Microsoft to take all the code they wrote for XP SP 2 (IE wise.. active x, popup blocker, all that) and port it backwards to work with 2000? I wasn't. In fact, I was expecting them to take their time and move it up to server 2003.

firefox rules

I agree, until IE has all the features of firefox i'm never returning... hope this google browser turns up... that would really spice things up!!!!

If they don't upgrade to an new OS, why would they upgrade to a new browser?

By the way, you honestly don't expect Microsoft to delay Longhorn until 2020 so they can backport everything do you?

Quit being a troll. How about this. "Who uses Windows anyway, USE LINUX YOU NEWB!"

ok, so let me get this straight. Im a noob for using IE? does this still hold true if i can make IE secure for me? id say that i am several steps above a noob just for doing that. stop flaming and spreading your "religion" all over the place. why do you have to force your view down people's throats?

wouldnt you say that a noob would move to something else if what he is using doesnt work for them?

STV

STV... umm, you do realize this is a news post and he wasn't forcing anything down anyone's throats.

Also:

QUOTE

Wouldnt you say that a noob would move to something else if what he is using doesnt work for them?

^^ How would that be noobish, I think it would be stupid to inconvenience yourself to try to fix something that should have never been broken in the first place. Or at the least, it should be fixed by the proprietor and not the end user.

I will say that unless IE makes some major changes it won't be used by myself.

Also, it's not a security issue which makes Firefox better, it's all of the extensions and ability to customize already inherent that makes it better.

True, Dun know what to say i think its a lil bit sad but i use firefox now anyway NOT forcing anyone to use it

@Surr3al: so your saying that "USE FIREFOX YOU NOOBS!" is not forcing someone's views down my throat?

actually, i do not "inconvenience" myself to fix IE. infact, it is rather easy. the main problem with IE to begin with was the security settings. IE has been made more secure due the the popup blocker, the better security settings and patched security holes. the word "better" is such a subjective word. all of those "extensions", for me, just get in the way of using a web browser.

STV

I agree with STV "USE FIREFOX YOU NOOBS!" is a stupid comment.

QUOTE

does this still hold true if i can make IE secure for me?

Maybe it doesn't make you a noob, but it still doesn't change the fact that IE is an unreliable, worthless piece of **** browser that should not be used anymore. It is simply not secure, and has been proven over the course of the last few years or so with all these big security issues. As commented by markjensen,

QUOTE

it makes excellent sense to argue that IE is a bigger security risk because it is integrated into the OS. A flaw in IE becomes a flaw in the OS. A flaw in Firefox is a flaw in an application only.

in the topic, Firefox outfoxing Internet Explorer? They simply need to de-integrate the browser directly from the OS, and this holds true for most other Windows apps by Microsoft, such as Windows Media Player 9 and above, with all it's security issues as well as with IE.

QUOTE

... As commented by markjensen ...

Jeez... My name gets drug in, and I didn't even post in this news article!

I only quoted you on that, because I thought you had such a perfect way of describing that the whole problem resides within the OS itself.

Not a problem. It just surprised me, is all.

QUOTE

They simply need to de-integrate the browser directly from the OS

How do you mean its a flaw in the OS? If it's a part of the OS and theres a flaw, technically it is a flaw in the OS, but its only a flaw in part of the OS which uses the ie engine (and the only thing i can think if that uses the ie engine is IE itself).

QUOTE

(and the only thing i can think if that uses the ie engine is IE itself)

I am quite sure that the HTML processing that is done by IE is done by other apps such as Word and possibly the Windows Help system. It surely isn't just for the IE web browser.

XP is a stable product :| People should switch...
Just because its stable? Im missing something here. Help me out. Spending S$250 on a new OS doesnt do me justice. Win2000 uses the original core, or rather an improved NT core. Its just as stable, if only less pretty. [The prettiness of XP sickens me]
Quite a sweeping statement you have there.

Other people DO find it pretty though!

$199 is the price for the Full version of XP HOME, 299 is for PRO

i dont think that those are the actual prices that businesses pay for XP. i doubt that they go to a retail store and buy a bunch of copies of windows xp. if they get them from microsoft, it would be cheaper.

STV

and if you add the ", Service Pack 2." at the end of the quote you left off..... you'd realize what they were talking about.

The article is saying IE6 SP2 is available ONLY for XP (through SP2) and not for any other version of Windows.

As long as one of you believes that, keep dreaming; Only another 80% to go(being generous), You can keep firefox thank you very much

Hates XP? There's plenty more reason to hate Win9x. Besides, XP is more popular and more compatible than 98 now anyways...

So's Windows 2000.... I sell it much more than XP, because its so much better

Apparently, you aren't one of those "business" folks. Pretty much all new business purchases are desktops and laptops with, you guessed it, XP. As more and more XP PC's get supported, IS departments are far more likely to convert 2000 users to XP to keep their support issues more manageable. This has/is happening all over the place. You see, legitimate businesses purchase VLK's at a much lower price than retail "off the shelf" copies of OS's and Office, so the actual cost of the OS per machine isn't nearly as high as you might think.

Is too.

QUOTE

IE is old news. I don't use it even with SP2 installed. Better alternatives out there.

Maybe for you, but how about the 90+ percent of people that actually use IE?

They'll have to upgrade or lump it then wont they.

Wow, you've managed to be both a troll AND a sheep!

lol

if you want an upgrade, try "links2 -g" for a real thrill!

Really, you should insist she uses a firewall and Anti Virus, especially if she insists on using IE.

First, XP works on almost all older hardware automatically or with a little tweaking. You may have to download driver updates, but that should be it.

Second, Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to upgrade to Windows XP. They are giving you an option:

XP with support, security patches, compatibility, etc
98 with no support (soon), few security patches, less compatibility

It is completely up to you. If you think Microsoft is forcing you to use XP, think again. They are only recommending it and between XP and 98, XP is looking like the better choice

Yeah, installing XP on a AT ~200mgz 128MB, would be . And do you know how much HD she have?




3 GB. Not enough room for other stuff. So she's stuck with 98. I have assured her into enforcing security measures on her computer but she pushes me back saying that 98 works and is good. Maybe I can show her an example, later.

Does work my Grandad does it although he only had a windows 3.1 before that(not the same opc obviously) so he doesn't see much difference in speed, but it works fine for him

QUOTE

he have no AV and firewall installed

OMG that’s a suicide, (on electronic terms of course)

Allright. I can't help myself.

It does absolutely not require any more graphics power. What on earth do you mean? And CPU power? Where did you get this from? Under the hood, services have been combined, and code have been improved. It is in several aspects faster than 2000. It does however use slightly more RAM, due to more services running by default. And more disk space, mainly due to the System restore feature.

But geez.

I agree that Windows XP is a lot more CPU and memory intensive than Windows 9x.

But I would really say that we have come to a point where even the most low-end systems in stores come with support for Windows XP, and if your system can't run Windows 2000/XP, you will really enjoy the upgrade for many other reasons than just a new OS.

Great name, CheeseCow.

First off, the min specs from MS for XP are P3 500 with 128MB of RAM, which is flat out BS. I've done a clean install of XP on a system with these exact specs and it was so damn sluggish. I ended up installing win2K on this machine instead and it runs perfectly, has been for the last 4 years!

If someone has had a PC for 5 years running 9x and it does everything they need it to do, except protect them because MS refused to fix these flaws in the first place, they should not be required to upgrade thier hardware just so they can run a newer, corrected, version of Windows, and obviously 200 million people feel this way.

Corporations are another good example because with hundreds or thousands of licenses to roll and all the third-party software to support, they can't just upgrade everything the second it's available. I work for a massive company and we just finally finished migrating from NT to 2K. We'll probably be using 2K after Longhorn ships!

Last edited by 59192 on 23 Sep 2004 - 20:35

i agree with AnalogKid82. I had an old dell latitude p2 266Mhz with 128MB ram and win2k would run alright on it, not exactly lightning fast but alright but XP ha forget about it.....im not even going to start about how slow it would run. XP is more cpu and memory intense, people are just used to running it on 1Ghz + systems where they hardly notice any difference and think oh they run the same.