Vista - Vista Won't End Windows XP Availability

Paul wrote: "Really? In that case a new mobo costs about £20 or less.

What are you going to do? Buy another 8 year old mobo? Give it up. He'll
essentially buy a new machine. New mobo, new memory, new cpu. Buying OLD
is pointless. Put a little more money into and you have brand spanking new.

The point here is that new hardware will eventually = new software.

I would bet top dollar that this whinny little kid who calls him/herself
Alias said the same exact crap about XP and W2K. He/she's a dime a dozen.

Justin wrote:
> Paul wrote: "Really? In that case a new mobo costs about £20 or less.
>
> What are you going to do? Buy another 8 year old mobo? Give it up. He'll
> essentially buy a new machine. New mobo, new memory, new cpu. Buying OLD
> is pointless. Put a little more money into and you have brand spanking new.

I'm not using it as a server but a stand alone computer.

> The point here is that new hardware will eventually = new software.
>
> I would bet top dollar that this whinny little kid who calls him/herself
> Alias said the same exact crap about XP and W2K. He/she's a dime a dozen.

When XP and W2K came out, I wasn't posting on newsgroups and had nothing
to say about it at all so you lose your bet.

Alias

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:e6C7ye2KHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Neither could my 386-25 with 4 megs, which ran Windows 3.11 just fine.
>> But that didn't stop me from getting a 486-33 with 16 megs when Windows
>> 95 came out.
>
> I'm not going to throw away a perfectly good, working computer.

But it's no longer perfectly good, since it didn't run what I wanted to run.

Besides, no one says you have to "throw it away". This is not an either/or
situation. Keep it. Sell it. Give it your little sister. Whatever.
Just don't whine because your 5 year old computer won't run the latest
software.

Mike

"arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.12.29.17.11.25.81002@goawayspammers.com...
> I pick up old computers at garage sales, install Ubuntu and a whole bunch
> of useful programs, and give them out for free to the poorer neighborhood
> kids.

Sure you do.

Just what a kid wants - an antique computer running an ancient OS with no
games, no educational software and no internet connection. Must be tons of
fun watching the screen saver.

Mike

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:OKiNBD4KHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Justin wrote:
>> Paul wrote: "Really? In that case a new mobo costs about £20 or less.
>>
>> What are you going to do? Buy another 8 year old mobo? Give it up.
>> He'll essentially buy a new machine. New mobo, new memory, new cpu.
>> Buying OLD is pointless. Put a little more money into and you have brand
>> spanking new.
>
> I'm not using it as a server but a stand alone computer.

What? That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.


>> The point here is that new hardware will eventually = new software.
>>
>> I would bet top dollar that this whinny little kid who calls him/herself
>> Alias said the same exact crap about XP and W2K. He/she's a dime a
>> dozen.
>
> When XP and W2K came out, I wasn't posting on newsgroups and had nothing
> to say about it at all so you lose your bet.

Well, you're a proven liar so that doesn't mean much.

James wrote:
> Ok, your definitions are another example of liberal crap/spin. Actually
> look them up, you might learn something.
>
> The United States was founded by a large group of Christians, on Christian
> principles...period. This isn't even subject to debate by the dumbest
> liberal of them all, it's fact.
>
> And if you had actually read the entire thread before you quipped, you'd
> have noticed I addressed this before you even asked at it. You might want
> to read up on something before you quote it loosely because you "heard it
> somewhere".
>
> "The separation of Church and State was intended to keep the State out of
> the
> Church, not the Church out of the State. C'mon, 10th grade "social
> studies". Google Christian principles, in conjunction with the Constitution
> and founding fathers. Better yet, try a library."

Ever hear of the inquisition? The Crusades? Religion needs to stay out
of politics just as much as politics needs to stay out of religion. If
the church got in the state, then there would be no tolerance of other
religions.

>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
> news:u5JcGL2KHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> James wrote:
>>> And this country is founded upon Christian principles and ideals and has
>>> succeeded as a result, up to this point...
>> False. Ever hear of the Separation of Church and State?
>>
>>> when the liberals have begun to shift the focus from those ideals to
>>> purely "equality".
>> Liberal: Open to change
>>
>> Conservative: Opposed to change.
>>
>> Which are you?
>>
>>> Enjoy getting invaded by Islam...hope it works out for you.
>> Over one million Muslims live in LA alone, so who's being "invaded"?
>>
>> Alias
>>
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>> news:uKkcpWzKHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> mxh wrote:
>>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ei5eHRpKHHA.3488@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Paul Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> "Red nosed reindeer" <-> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eXemtGpKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this is so true... I keep hearing people who once they downloaded
>>>>>>>> IE7, and
>>>>>>>> saw all the problems the quickly removed it and went to firefox 2
>>>>>>>> since they wanted the tabs but not the problems. Mind you that these
>>>>>>>> were ie6 users..
>>>>>>> A vocal minority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MSIE 7: 30.7%
>>>>>>> MSIE 6: 41%
>>>>>>> Firefox 2: 7.7%
>>>>>>> Firefox 1.x: 5.8%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those are numbers for this month from a non-Microsoft related forum
>>>>>>> which has clocked up 1.5 million hits.
>>>>>> LOL! Not good statistics. In Europe, the use of Fire Fox is over 40%.
>>>>>> Course, in JesusLand (aka USA), where all the sheep live, it's to be
>>>>>> expected that most users would think that IE is the only browser.
>>>>> Others have easily disproven your assertion. The real issue is that
>>>>> you
>>>>> refuse to admit your mistake.
>>>> I admitted that I exaggerated. Did you miss those posts?
>>>>
>>>>> Couple that with your generalized statement regarding the USA and
>>>>> you've got a sure fire recipe for stupid.
>>>> Most people in the USA believe in Jesus, yes? Every single elected
>>>> official, until recently, has believed in Jesus. The money says "In God
>>>> We Trust". Bush claims to have a direct line to his god.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>



--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

James wrote:
> Ok...now look up the political context, not the adjective. That's like
> saying that someone who isn't a Democrat opposes Democracy, lol. You're
> getting there though, you learned to actually look something up before you
> blindly copied/pasted it. Once we get to reading, interpretation and
> thought, we'll have made serious progress.
>
> Freedom of religion, an *amendment* to the Constitution:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances"


How many laws by the congress or rulings by the supreme court prohibit
the free exercise of religion? Many. So the gov't goes against the
constitution.

> Keeping the State out of the Church. It says nothing about keeping the
> Church out of the State.
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
> news:uSnvch2KHHA.960@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> James wrote:
>>> Ok, your definitions are another example of liberal crap/spin. Actually
>>> look them up, you might learn something.
>> lib·er·al /?l?b?r?l, ?l?br?l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
>> Pronunciation
>> -adjective
>> 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
>> 2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political
>> party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
>> 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
>> 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom
>> possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection
>> of civil liberties.
>> 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters
>> of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident
>> artists and writers.
>> 6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than
>> aristocracies and monarchies.
>> 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward
>> foreigners.
>> 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or
>> conventional ideas, values, etc.
>> 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a
>> liberal donor.
>> 10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
>> 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of
>> a rule.
>> 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
>> 13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
>> -noun
>> 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
>> 15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in
>> politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
>> [Origin: 1325-75; ME < L li-bera-lis of freedom, befitting the free,
>> equiv. to li-ber free + -a-lis -al1]
>>
>> -Related forms
>> lib·er·al·ly, adverb
>> lib·er·al·ness, noun
>>
>> -Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent,
>> charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10.
>> See ample.
>> -Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
>>
>> con·serv·a·tive /k?n?s?rv?t?v/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> -adjective
>> 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to
>> restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
>> 2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
>> 3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness:
>> conservative suit.
>> 4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative
>> party.
>> 5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of
>> Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
>> 6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
>> 7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to
>> zero; irrotational; lamellar.
>> -noun
>> 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
>> 9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
>> 10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party,
>> esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
>> 11. a preservative.
>>> The United States was founded by a large group of Christians, on
>>> Christian principles...period. This isn't even subject to debate by the
>>> dumbest liberal of them all, it's fact.
>> Yawn.
>>
>>> And if you had actually read the entire thread before you quipped, you'd
>>> have noticed I addressed this before you even asked at it. You might
>>> want to read up on something before you quote it loosely because you
>>> "heard it somewhere".
>>>
>>> "The separation of Church and State was intended to keep the State out of
>>> the
>>> Church, not the Church out of the State. C'mon, 10th grade "social
>>> studies".
>> False. You might check the part in the constitution that refers to
>> "freedom of religion".
>>
>>> Google Christian principles, in conjunction with the Constitution
>>> and founding fathers. Better yet, try a library."
>> Double yawn.
>>
>> Alias
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>> news:u5JcGL2KHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> James wrote:
>>>>> And this country is founded upon Christian principles and ideals and
>>>>> has succeeded as a result, up to this point...
>>>> False. Ever hear of the Separation of Church and State?
>>>>
>>>>> when the liberals have begun to shift the focus from those ideals to
>>>>> purely "equality".
>>>> Liberal: Open to change
>>>>
>>>> Conservative: Opposed to change.
>>>>
>>>> Which are you?
>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy getting invaded by Islam...hope it works out for you.
>>>> Over one million Muslims live in LA alone, so who's being "invaded"?
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uKkcpWzKHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> mxh wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ei5eHRpKHHA.3488@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Paul Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Red nosed reindeer" <-> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:eXemtGpKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this is so true... I keep hearing people who once they downloaded
>>>>>>>>>> IE7, and
>>>>>>>>>> saw all the problems the quickly removed it and went to firefox 2
>>>>>>>>>> since they wanted the tabs but not the problems. Mind you that
>>>>>>>>>> these were ie6 users..
>>>>>>>>> A vocal minority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MSIE 7: 30.7%
>>>>>>>>> MSIE 6: 41%
>>>>>>>>> Firefox 2: 7.7%
>>>>>>>>> Firefox 1.x: 5.8%
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those are numbers for this month from a non-Microsoft related forum
>>>>>>>>> which has clocked up 1.5 million hits.
>>>>>>>> LOL! Not good statistics. In Europe, the use of Fire Fox is over
>>>>>>>> 40%. Course, in JesusLand (aka USA), where all the sheep live, it's
>>>>>>>> to be expected that most users would think that IE is the only
>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>> Others have easily disproven your assertion. The real issue is that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> refuse to admit your mistake.
>>>>>> I admitted that I exaggerated. Did you miss those posts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Couple that with your generalized statement regarding the USA and
>>>>>>> you've got a sure fire recipe for stupid.
>>>>>> Most people in the USA believe in Jesus, yes? Every single elected
>>>>>> official, until recently, has believed in Jesus. The money says "In
>>>>>> God We Trust". Bush claims to have a direct line to his god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias
>
>

Mike wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
> news:e6C7ye2KHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Neither could my 386-25 with 4 megs, which ran Windows 3.11 just
>>> fine. But that didn't stop me from getting a 486-33 with 16 megs when
>>> Windows 95 came out.
>>
>> I'm not going to throw away a perfectly good, working computer.
>
> But it's no longer perfectly good, since it didn't run what I wanted to
> run.
>
> Besides, no one says you have to "throw it away". This is not an
> either/or situation. Keep it. Sell it. Give it your little
> sister. Whatever. Just don't whine because your 5 year old computer
> won't run the latest software.
>
> Mike
>

Actually, considering that it's running Ubuntu, it *is* running the
latest software. Give me one reason why I "need" Vista and what it can
do that XP Pro or Ubuntu can't besides load my system with DRM and SPP
crap and a bit of eye candy. Oh, and the 400 euros I could otherwise
spend on something useful.

Alias

Mike wrote:
> "arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.12.29.17.11.25.81002@goawayspammers.com...
>> I pick up old computers at garage sales, install Ubuntu and a whole bunch
>> of useful programs, and give them out for free to the poorer neighborhood
>> kids.
>
> Sure you do.
>
> Just what a kid wants - an antique computer running an ancient OS

It's newer than XP.

> with
> no games, no educational software and no internet connection. Must be
> tons of fun watching the screen saver.
>
> Mike
>

Ubuntu has more games built in than Windows XP. Ubuntu connects to the
Internet just fine, thank you very much. Ubuntu comes loaded with tons
of educational software. You obviously have done nothing with Ubuntu
other than maybe watching the hundreds of screen savers that comes
bundled with it that XP and Vista could only dream about. My favorite is
the Matrix screen saver.

Alias

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:uKkcpWzKHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> mxh wrote:
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>> news:ei5eHRpKHHA.3488@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Paul Smith wrote:
>>>> "Red nosed reindeer" <-> wrote in message
>>>> news:eXemtGpKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> this is so true... I keep hearing people who once they downloaded IE7,
>>>>> and
>>>>> saw all the problems the quickly removed it and went to firefox 2
>>>>> since they wanted the tabs but not the problems. Mind you that these
>>>>> were ie6 users..
>>>>
>>>> A vocal minority.
>>>>
>>>> MSIE 7: 30.7%
>>>> MSIE 6: 41%
>>>> Firefox 2: 7.7%
>>>> Firefox 1.x: 5.8%
>>>>
>>>> Those are numbers for this month from a non-Microsoft related forum
>>>> which has clocked up 1.5 million hits.
>>>
>>> LOL! Not good statistics. In Europe, the use of Fire Fox is over 40%.
>>> Course, in JesusLand (aka USA), where all the sheep live, it's to be
>>> expected that most users would think that IE is the only browser.
>>
>> Others have easily disproven your assertion. The real issue is that you
>> refuse to admit your mistake.
>
> I admitted that I exaggerated. Did you miss those posts?

Apparently. I only caught the multiple instances in which you defended
yourself.


>> Couple that with your generalized statement regarding the USA and you've
>> got a sure fire recipe for stupid.
>
> Most people in the USA believe in Jesus, yes? Every single elected
> official, until recently, has believed in Jesus. The money says "In God We
> Trust".

True, but your statement was meant to be offensive. It's doubtful that your
statement "where all the sheep live" was biblically rooted. It seemed to be
fashioned as an insult. And of course, it was. Back-pedaling always seems
so...spineless? One who owns up to his mistakes will always find respect.

> Bush claims to have a direct line to his god.

I can't really say, but do you believe a "direct line to God" is an
impossiblity? A liability? What?