«

Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets of
application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
prospect.

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candidate/>

On Aug 5, 3:59*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
> separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets of
> application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
> software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
> admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
> prospect.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candi...>

There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
updates, antivirus etc is there?

In message <f7cd7275-71c3-46bf-bbb9->, JohnO wrote:

> On Aug 5, 3:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
>> separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets
>> of application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
>> software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
>> admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
>> prospect.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candidate/>
>
> There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
> updates, antivirus etc is there?

Wonder why Microsoft is providing it, then?

JohnO wrote:
> On Aug 5, 3:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
>> separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets of
>> application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
>> software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
>> admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
>> prospect.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candi...>
>
> There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
> updates, antivirus etc is there?

Like I have to with my XP Pro/Ubuntu dual boot setup?

Every time (and I DO mean every time) I boot into Ubuntu theres updates
to install. It gets to be a real pain, cant do anything until the latest
updates are installed and more often than not rebooted...

Not like that with XP.

--

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

Max Burke wrote:

>
> Like I have to with my XP Pro/Ubuntu dual boot setup?
>
> Every time (and I DO mean every time) I boot into Ubuntu theres updates
> to install. It gets to be a real pain, cant do anything until the latest
> updates are installed and more often than not rebooted...
>
> Not like that with XP.
>

Open "Update Manager" and change the settings to suit yourself.
Is that too hard ?

In article <h5bsa9$abs$>, wrote:
>JohnO wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 3:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
>>> separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets of
>>> application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
>>> software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
>>> admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
>>> prospect.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candi...>
>>
>> There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
>> updates, antivirus etc is there?
>
>Like I have to with my XP Pro/Ubuntu dual boot setup?
>
>Every time (and I DO mean every time) I boot into Ubuntu theres updates
>to install. It gets to be a real pain, cant do anything until the latest
>updates are installed and more often than not rebooted...
>
>Not like that with XP.

Not like that with my kubuntu. You don't have to run updates. How is yours
different ?

Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <h5bsa9$abs$>,
> wrote:
>> JohnO wrote:
>>> On Aug 5, 3:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to
>>>> manage, two separate sets of antivirus and other crap to
>>>> install, two separate sets of application and driver
>>>> compatibility headaches, two separate sets of software licences
>>>> for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system admins
>>>> just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
>>>> prospect.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candi...>
>>>>
>>> There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
>>> updates, antivirus etc is there?
>> Like I have to with my XP Pro/Ubuntu dual boot setup?
>>
>> Every time (and I DO mean every time) I boot into Ubuntu theres
>> updates to install. It gets to be a real pain, cant do anything
>> until the latest updates are installed and more often than not
>> rebooted...
>>
>> Not like that with XP.
>
> Not like that with my kubuntu. You don't have to run updates. How is
> yours different ?
>
Plain Ubuntu doesn't lock you out while it downloads and install its
updates.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

On Aug 5, 5:29*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <f7cd7275-71c3-46bf-bbb9-6a64a474b...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups..com>, JohnO wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 3:59 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
> >> separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets
> >> of application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
> >> software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
> >> admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
> >> prospect.
>
> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candi....>
>
> > There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
> > updates, antivirus etc is there?
>
> Wonder why Microsoft is providing it, then?

For the same reason folks use VMWare and other virtualisation
packages.

In message <f8623c46-f5a0-401b-
a19a->, JohnO wrote:

> On Aug 5, 5:29 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <f7cd7275-71c3-46bf-bbb9-6a64a474b...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> JohnO wrote:
>>
>>> There's no compulsion to run XP Mode and therefore maintain the
>>> updates, antivirus etc is there?
>>
>> Wonder why Microsoft is providing it, then?
>
> For the same reason folks use VMWare and other virtualisation
> packages.

Because Windows gets unstable if you try to install more than one thing on
it at once?

In message <h5b02q$ffl$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Two separate OSes in one, two separate sets of updates to manage, two
> separate sets of antivirus and other crap to install, two separate sets of
> application and driver compatibility headaches, two separate sets of
> software licences for each machine ... I can see a whole lot of system
> admins just falling about themselves and crying tears of joy at the
> prospect.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/04/windows_xp_mode_release_candidate/>

And Sony doesn't want to support it <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/sony_vaio_virtualization_disabled/>.