«

Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
> In article <423c104b$>,
> "Peter S" <> wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm, I don't get people who have to clear down their machines. I'm a
>>developer, I load and unload some pretty heavy stuff on my Windows PC (XP
>>SP2), including Oracle databases, Application Servers and stuff. I installed
>>Windows XP in September 2001 and am still running that original install. It
>>is bloody stable.
>>
>>I mean, what do you do to your machine?? - I think you should choose the
>>hardware you buy (wrt having quality drivers), or the software you load a
>>little more carefully.
>
> Make up your mind. Either Windows is robust in being able to cope with
> all kinds of software and hardware installs, or it's not. In the first
> paragraph you boast that it is with the stuff that you use, and then in
> the second you admit that maybe it's not with the stuff the OP uses.

Userland software should not make any difference to the stability of the
system, but drivers do, no matter what OS you are running. Some software
requires the installation of additional drivers, such as virtual CD/DVD
tools, packet capture tools etc.

As most drivers for Windows are provided by third parties and not
Microsoft, the OS itself could be very stable. The drivers vary in
quality substancially.

Enough defending Windows... I believe XP is a stinking pile of ****, and
will continue to use Windows 2000 until either ReactOS matures, or X and
those numerous window environements that run on it close to Windows in
terms of usability, and all those widget toolkits start behaving in a
uniform way.

The Other Guy

Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 20/03/2005 12:11 a.m.:
> Collector»NZ wrote:
>
>> Used the last update rom from MS and then had a look at Windows Update
>> and gee guess how much I have to try and get on a flaky dial up
>> connection?
>
>
> is that from win2k?
> I would say that 25MB of that would be the .net runtime which isn't
> strictly needed ... unless it is needed, so that takes it back to 45MB
> ~8MB will be Media Player
> ~8MB will be Direct X
Nope 13.3 Mb for Media Player
dot net is 21 Mb

BTW the figures quoted are the stubs, actual download size varies
considerably. I would suspect I will end up downloading more MB than the
original installation files.

--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
================================================== ====================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

Mercury said the following on 20/03/2005 12:36 a.m.:
> Its been available for some time. You only need to knwo where to look.
>
> The big question is How and Why are you trashing your system so often?
>
>
> "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>Just performed the usual wipe and reload of my main Win2k Box a
>>requirement every now and then due to the stability issues that creep in
>>as you use it. (And misuse it)
>>
>>Used the last update rom from MS and then had a look at Windows Update and
>>gee guess how much I have to try and get on a flaky dial up connection?
>>
>>41 Critical updates and Service paks total 25MB
>>8 Windows updates total 45MB
>>In 5 sessions due to some updates having to be install seperate to others.
>>
>>What a **** load. Isnt it about time MS shelled out some dough and
>>released a new update ROM
>>

Fix of FW top Poster
Mercury said the following on 20/03/2005 12:36 a.m.:
> Its been available for some time. You only need to knwo where to look.
>
> The big question is How and Why are you trashing your system so often?
>
>
Well I do have the latest service pak CD update from MS plonker.

As to trashing the system, well thats windows lousy software
installation and removal system on a dev machine. It is pathetic at
removing all components of installs, hell the registry gets a **** load
of unneeded and unwanted stuff in it.

--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
================================================== ====================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

Peter S said the following on 20/03/2005 12:42 a.m.:
> "Collector»NZ" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>Just performed the usual wipe and reload of my main Win2k Box a
>>requirement every now and then due to the stability issues that creep in
>>as you use it. (And misuse it)
>>
>>Used the last update rom from MS and then had a look at Windows Update and
>>gee guess how much I have to try and get on a flaky dial up connection?
>>
>>41 Critical updates and Service paks total 25MB
>>8 Windows updates total 45MB
>>In 5 sessions due to some updates having to be install seperate to others.
>>
>>What a **** load. Isnt it about time MS shelled out some dough and
>>released a new update ROM
>
>
> Hmm, I don't get people who have to clear down their machines. I'm a
> developer, I load and unload some pretty heavy stuff on my Windows PC (XP
> SP2), including Oracle databases, Application Servers and stuff. I installed
> Windows XP in September 2001 and am still running that original install. It
> is bloody stable.
>
> I mean, what do you do to your machine?? - I think you should choose the
> hardware you buy (wrt having quality drivers), or the software you load a
> little more carefully. I don't think you can blame Microsoft for not
> releasing patch disks, as in the environment I am in with full geek
> developers running 2000 and XP randomly installing stuff off the net they
> don't break the environment and don't worry about having to reinstall.
>
> Perhaps better would be when you download the patches to write them to a CD
> as it would seem you have to reuse them fairly often, then just access any
> extras using Win Update.
>
> Pete.
>
>
Have you checked the registry for all the **** that gets left behind by
crappy uninstallers not to mention files and directories.
I reload about every 8-12 months.

I test lot of different and sometimes very esoteric software for the
many sites i support and it just bogs the machine eventually. BTW dont
compare win2k and XP Pro they are similar but different beasts.

Have you ever tried to track down the appropiate downloads on MS site to
download and burn to CD, hell it would take almost as long as the
download form windows update. Hell we pay for the product then we have
to spend a lot of time fixing with patches from MS.

--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
================================================== ====================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

Peter Lowrie said the following on 20/03/2005 12:53 a.m.:

A new pathetic nominee for Village Idiot



--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 40.9000°S, 174.9830°E |
================================================== ====================
"I used to jog, but the ice kept bouncing out of my glass."
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine......
However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."

> Collector»NZ scribbled:

>> Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 20/03/2005 12:11 a.m.:

>>> Used the last update rom from MS and then had a look at Windows
>>> Update and gee guess how much I have to try and get on a flaky dial
>>> up connection?

>> is that from win2k?
>> I would say that 25MB of that would be the .net runtime which isn't
>> strictly needed ... unless it is needed, so that takes it back to
>> 45MB ~8MB will be Media Player
>> ~8MB will be Direct X


> Nope 13.3 Mb for Media Player
> dot net is 21 Mb

Both of which are available on CD Roms for the price of a magazine, and that
you dont actually have to install via WU. They're NOT critical updates that
WU insists you need.

> BTW the figures quoted are the stubs, actual download size varies
> considerably. I would suspect I will end up downloading more MB than
> the original installation files.

Go to the MS download site to get/keep the updates on a CD Rom/Hard drive
for when you need to reinstall them. Just use WU to tell you what you need
to install, dont let it do the installs.

--

Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

> Collector»NZ scribbled:

>> Perhaps better would be when you download the patches to write them
>> to a CD as it would seem you have to reuse them fairly often, then
>> just access any extras using Win Update.
>> Pete.

> Have you checked the registry for all the **** that gets left behind
> by crappy uninstallers not to mention files and directories.
> I reload about every 8-12 months.
> I test lot of different and sometimes very esoteric software for the
> many sites i support and it just bogs the machine eventually. BTW dont
> compare win2k and XP Pro they are similar but different beasts.

Threee freeware tools for you...
http://www.ccleaner.com/
http://www.lavasoft.de/software/reghance/
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/

> Have you ever tried to track down the appropiate downloads on MS site
> to download and burn to CD, hell it would take almost as long as the
> download form windows update. Hell we pay for the product then we have
> to spend a lot of time fixing with patches from MS.

Use WU to tell you what you need (both critical and recomended) then follow
the links provided by WU to the appropriate download MS webpage.

--

Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
> Make up your mind. Either Windows is robust in being able to cope with
> all kinds of software and hardware installs, or it's not. In the first
> paragraph you boast that it is with the stuff that you use, and then in
> the second you admit that maybe it's not with the stuff the OP uses.

it can be both, just as any system can be.

Collector»NZ wrote:
>> I would say that 25MB of that would be the .net runtime which isn't
>> strictly needed ... unless it is needed, so that takes it back to 45MB
>> ~8MB will be Media Player
>> ~8MB will be Direct X

> Nope 13.3 Mb for Media Player
> dot net is 21 Mb

> BTW the figures quoted are the stubs, actual download size varies
> considerably. I would suspect I will end up downloading more MB than the
> original installation files.

well I was pretty close with my guestimates...
There will be more, as I know that once you do the first round, theres
atleast a patch for .net

Collector»NZ wrote:
> Have you ever tried to track down the appropiate downloads on MS site to
> download and burn to CD

there is a folder on your machine that holds all the updates after
you've installed them, cant think of it off the top of my head.