Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january

On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january

Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications. XP
may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is) a
very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP, as good as it is.

I think the vista machine would probably run XP a lot faster than your old
machine.

On 2/3/2014 5:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications. XP
may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is) a
very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP, as good as it is.

I think the vista machine would probably run XP a lot faster than your old
machine.


Maybe, but why? This Vista machine outperforms the Compaq I had with XP
with basically the same CPU speed and RAM.

Other than slow boots from a power off condition, I have no complaints
about Vista. I rarely shut it down completely. I just put it in "sleep"
mode.

It has been stable and this HP Pavilion has had no hick-ups in 5 years,
used daily. Many people expressed frustration and problems with Vista
but I haven't had any issues or complaints. The Win 7 and 8 has some
updated applications that are better than what is in this Vista machine,
but I really haven't had any need to upgrade it.

I'll just use it until it croaks.

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:51:15 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/3/2014 5:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications. XP
may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is) a
very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP, as good as it is.

I think the vista machine would probably run XP a lot faster than your old
machine.


Maybe, but why? This Vista machine outperforms the Compaq I had with XP
with basically the same CPU speed and RAM.

Other than slow boots from a power off condition, I have no complaints
about Vista. I rarely shut it down completely. I just put it in "sleep"
mode.

It has been stable and this HP Pavilion has had no hick-ups in 5 years,
used daily. Many people expressed frustration and problems with Vista
but I haven't had any issues or complaints. The Win 7 and 8 has some
updated applications that are better than what is in this Vista machine,
but I really haven't had any need to upgrade it.

I'll just use it until it croaks.


My wife, on her Vista machine, lost all her icons on the desktop. Any idea what caused that? I don't
like the idea of playing with her Vista machine.

On 2/3/2014 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.


Geeze. And they call *me* Mr. Luddite.

On 2/3/2014 3:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/3/2014 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january



Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.


Geeze. And they call *me* Mr. Luddite.

Here's one t watch to the end, although it shouldn't take much coaxing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPJrrQlxzY

On 2/3/2014 4:33 PM, HanK wrote:
On 2/3/2014 3:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/3/2014 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january




Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications
like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.


Geeze. And they call *me* Mr. Luddite.

Here's one t watch to the end, although it shouldn't take much coaxing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPJrrQlxzY



LOL

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:02:20 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:48:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 10:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
Maybe I'll stick with XP even after the support stops.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...are-in-january


Or you could buy an upgraded motherboard with a fast 80286 CPU.



Windows XP is still used in many non-personal computer applications like
gas station pumps, ATM machines and other "transparent" applications.
XP may be retaining a market share because the cost of upgrading both
software and hardware to support Win 7 or 8 is expensive for these
applications.

As a user of XP, Windows 7 and 8 (and now an iMac) I think XP was (is)
a very good and stable OS but Windows 7 has it beat hands down.
Even this Vista machine runs faster and has more capabilities than XP,
as good as it is.


Who cares if it is faster, as long as the XP machine is going as fast
as it needs to go?
Most of the delay is in "calling home" on those applications, not
handling the local transaction.
Games and video processing are the main power hogs on a PC. If you are
just "computing" your old 4.77 mz PC/XT went as fast as you needed to
go. (Visicalc spread sheets etc)
We ran a quarter million dollar business on one.

I can't type faster than my machine can display. I figure that's good enough.