Re: Vista to XP upgrade

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Graham, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. Graham

    Graham Guest

    Graham, Dec 9, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lookout wrote:

    > "Graham" <> wrote:
    >>"Lookout" <>
    >>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318
    >>>
    >>> This site lets you do it WHILE you are installing Vista. How do you
    >>> do it on a one year old lap top that already has Vista installed?

    >>
    >> Well, I suggest a completely install of XP.
    >>

    > It's already installed...has been for a year as I said in the post.


    I see your post saying, "..on a one year old lap top that already has
    Vista installed?" (Did you really mean something else?)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Therefore, Graham's advice to wipe and install XP fits, along with the
    link you posted.

    Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    http://www.ubuntu.com/

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 9, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:11:50 -0600, Lookout aided th' terraists with the
    following claims :

    > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:42:30 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Lookout wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>
    >>> Stupid option.

    >>
    >>Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)

    >
    > Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
    > I do.


    No, they'll say, wtf is "linux"?



    --
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities,
    can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
    http://www.alternet.org
    §ñühwØ£f, Dec 9, 2008
    #3
  4. Lookout wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >> Lookout wrote:
    >>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>
    >>> Stupid option.

    >>
    >> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)

    >
    > Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
    > I do.


    It depends on how you ask them...

    If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what you
    perceive to be "99% or 100."

    If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
    installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
    about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need expensive
    anti-this and anti-that programs?"

    Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
    reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so is
    all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and want to
    know more.

    Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 9, 2008
    #4
  5. Graham

    Walter Guest

    Lookout wrote:

    > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Lookout wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Stupid option.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well
    >>> as I do.

    >>
    >> It depends on how you ask them...
    >>
    >> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what
    >> you perceive to be "99% or 100."
    >>
    >> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
    >> installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
    >> about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need
    >> expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"


    Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that programs"?

    I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti virus)
    MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid of
    missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties the recycle
    bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by shit uninstallers
    like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster (tool that does a pretty
    good job of blocking malicious content 'on access' no matter what browser
    you use.)

    Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.

    All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the 'pay
    stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and combined with a
    little common sense will keep anyone running windows worry-free.

    >> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
    >> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so
    >> is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and
    >> want to know more.
    >>
    >> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)


    You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask folks
    if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with a "No, I'm
    not into learning something totally new. I've been using windows for x
    years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is send email, chat, and
    maybe make a movie now and then."

    And that's the end of that.

    > Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it.
    > It was and is a stupid solution.


    That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution. IMPRACTICAL
    in most cases, yes. But not stupid.
    Walter, Dec 9, 2008
    #5
  6. On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:41:40 -0500, Walter wrote:

    > Lookout wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Stupid option.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
    >>>> I do.
    >>>
    >>> It depends on how you ask them...
    >>>
    >>> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what you
    >>> perceive to be "99% or 100."
    >>>
    >>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
    >>> installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
    >>> about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need
    >>> expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

    >
    > Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that programs"?


    WHY should it need them at all?

    > I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
    > virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid of
    > missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties the
    > recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by shit
    > uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster (tool that
    > does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on access' no matter
    > what browser you use.)
    >
    > Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    > CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    > MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    > Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.
    >
    > All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the 'pay
    > stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and combined with a
    > little common sense will keep anyone running windows worry-free.
    >
    >>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
    >>> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so is
    >>> all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and want to
    >>> know more.
    >>>
    >>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)

    >
    > You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
    > folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with a
    > "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using windows
    > for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is send email,
    > chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."
    >
    > And that's the end of that.


    Not my experience at all. In fact more people are becoming interested in
    Linux.

    >> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and is a
    >> stupid solution.

    >
    > That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution. IMPRACTICAL
    > in most cases, yes. But not stupid.


    Not at all impractical, except in a very *few* cases.

    --
    Windows - "life without walls"
    Oh, the irony!
    Have these people actually read the M$ EULA?
    William Poaster, Dec 9, 2008
    #6
  7. On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:42:30 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Lookout wrote:
    >
    >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>> "Graham" <> wrote:
    >>>>> "Lookout" <>
    >>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This site lets you do it WHILE you are installing Vista. How do you
    >>>>>> do it on a one year old lap top that already has Vista installed?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, I suggest a completely install of XP.
    >>>>>
    >>>> It's already installed...has been for a year as I said in the post.
    >>>
    >>> I see your post saying, "..on a one year old lap top that already has
    >>> Vista installed?" (Did you really mean something else?)
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    >>
    >> Nope. I mean exactly that. The guy bought a lap top a year ago with
    >> Vista and want's XP.

    >
    > Ok, then. I guess that was a typo when you answered Graham with "It's
    > already installed..." in reply to his "install XP".
    >
    >> I don't want to get involved to the point of working on it myself and
    >> he's not real computer literate.

    >
    > I understand that. You can set yourself up for "future support" no matter
    > what. I do it for close friends.
    >
    >>> Therefore, Graham's advice to wipe and install XP fits, along with the
    >>> link you posted.

    >>
    >> I've heard that drivers are a problem and I don't know if he's capable
    >> of handling a difficult install. I thought I read where MS was offering
    >> XP to Vista users who wanted to upgrade back to XP

    >
    > I seem to recall that the 'upgrade to XP' option (for no or small fee)
    > expired some time ago. I haven't kept track of that. A friend bought a new
    > computer about a month ago from a mom'n'popshop which came with XP. They
    > didn't even offer Vista!
    >
    >>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>> http://www.ubuntu.com/

    >>
    >> Stupid option.

    >
    > Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)


    What's amusing is that quite soon they could well be running the "stupid
    option" without even knowing it! ;-)

    Asus are to embed Linux in their entire mainboard range, for a fast bootup
    Splashtop is an "instant on" Linux application, which will boot to the
    internet in *seconds*. Surfing the Web safely, immune from the malware
    that targets Windows.
    http://www.splashtop.com/splashtop_overview.php

    Now where one major manufacturer is doing this, others will follow
    because they wouldn't want to be left behind!
    William Poaster, Dec 9, 2008
    #7
  8. Graham

    Walter Guest

    William Poaster wrote:

    > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:41:40 -0500, Walter wrote:
    >
    >> Lookout wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of
    >>>>>>>> XP: http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Stupid option.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as
    >>>>> well as I do.
    >>>>
    >>>> It depends on how you ask them...
    >>>>
    >>>> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what
    >>>> you perceive to be "99% or 100."
    >>>>
    >>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your
    >>>> Windows installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you
    >>>> care to learn about an alternative operating system .. and that
    >>>> doesn't need expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

    >>
    >> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
    >> programs"?

    >
    > WHY should it need them at all?


    It doesn't need them. I just think it's good idea to have them around.

    >> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
    >> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets
    >> rid of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files,
    >> empties the recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left
    >> behind by shit uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware
    >> Blaster (tool that does a pretty good job of blocking malicious
    >> content 'on access' no matter what browser you use.)
    >>
    >> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    >> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    >> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
    >> dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.
    >>
    >> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the
    >> 'pay stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and
    >> combined with a little common sense will keep anyone running windows
    >> worry-free.
    >>
    >>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?"
    >>>> I reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free,
    >>>> and so is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk
    >>>> up and want to know more.
    >>>>
    >>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)

    >>
    >> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
    >> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with
    >> a "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
    >> windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
    >> send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."
    >>
    >> And that's the end of that.

    >
    > Not my experience at all. In fact more people are becoming interested
    > in Linux.


    Then you travel in the same circles as Beauregard, whereas I live in the
    real world.

    >>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and
    >>> is a stupid solution.

    >>
    >> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
    >> IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.

    >
    > Not at all impractical, except in a very *few* cases.


    Look. I'm not here to argue the virtues of one OS over another because
    quite honestly I don't care what anybody else runs until it shows up on my
    bench.

    Be that as it may, I use windows for some things and linux for others.
    People who bring their boxes to me for repair generally don't know or care
    what linux is. That's just the way it is around here. Occasionally a kid
    might want to mess around with it, but the older people just want their
    windows box to work like it used to. Like I said, they just want to launch
    some IM program, surf the net and send some email. That's all.

    I think what happens is that people like you and Beau get so 'into' this
    stuff that you sometimes lose sight of what a 'typical' user does with his
    machine. A 'typical' user in my experience, is someone who runs windows (XP
    or Vista) and doesn't do much more with it than what I described above
    except maybe play a game now and then. Believe it or not, that's all MOST
    people really do with a computer. And that's why they don't give a shit
    about Linux for the most part. The only other thing I can say on the
    subject is that it seems to me the Mac users are for the most part a lot
    more savvy about their machines than windows users are. And the linux
    customers? Well they're non-existant because they can fix their own junk
    when it breaks.
    Walter, Dec 9, 2008
    #8
  9. I'll reply to this one.

    Walter wrote:
    > Lookout wrote:
    >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

    [let me snip a bunch here]
    >>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your
    >>> Windows installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you
    >>> care to learn about an alternative operating system .. and that
    >>> doesn't need expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

    >
    > Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
    > programs"?


    Nearly everyone I encounter is using a version of Norton Antivirus or
    McAfee Antivirus (or their suites), and oft not renewed nor updating.
    The people don't know about all the good free anti-stuff, unless someone
    like you or me is handy to tell them about it. I always do, if they seem
    receptive to the idea.

    ("My Norton died; should I buy McAfee?" or vice-versa.)

    > I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
    > virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid
    > of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties
    > the recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by
    > shit uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster
    > (tool that does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on
    > access' no matter what browser you use.)
    >
    > Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    > CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    > MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
    > dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.


    So what you are saying is that you need several anti-this and anti-that
    applications to keep your computer clean, whether they are free or fee.
    I don't need any of those things with my operating system. Because those
    things were free to you doesn't mean you can forget about needing them.

    The average Joe Sixpack home user also frequently forgets to do the
    required updating or using them at all, that you know is necessary.

    > All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the
    > 'pay stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and
    > combined with a little common sense will keep anyone running windows
    > worry-free.


    I'll agree with that.

    >>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
    >>> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and
    >>> so is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up
    >>> and want to know more.
    >>>
    >>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)

    >
    > You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
    > folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with
    > a "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
    > windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
    > send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."


    "and I hardly understand it." Perhaps if they did... ;-)

    > And that's the end of that.


    In your case, and Lookout's, I suppose it is. Best of luck in the
    future.

    >> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and is
    >> a stupid solution.

    >
    > That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
    > IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.


    I'll partially agree with that; it's only impractical if one pisses off
    the Windows users, rather than attempt to gently and gracefully urge
    them to try something new. It isn't hard. I've numerous friends now
    running Ubuntu who are most pleased that I came by and gave them the
    advice and a demo from the LiveCD.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 9, 2008
    #9
  10. Graham

    Walter Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > I'll reply to this one.
    >
    > Walter wrote:
    >> Lookout wrote:
    >>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

    > [let me snip a bunch here]
    >>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your
    >>>> Windows installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you
    >>>> care to learn about an alternative operating system .. and that
    >>>> doesn't need expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

    >>
    >> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
    >> programs"?

    >
    > Nearly everyone I encounter is using a version of Norton Antivirus or
    > McAfee Antivirus (or their suites), and oft not renewed nor updating.
    > The people don't know about all the good free anti-stuff, unless
    > someone like you or me is handy to tell them about it. I always do,
    > if they seem receptive to the idea.
    >
    > ("My Norton died; should I buy McAfee?" or vice-versa.)


    100% absolutely, positively, totally agree. I see the same shit ALL the
    time. But it's because people buy windows boxes off the shelf and almost
    inevitably they come preloaded with a 'free trial' of bloated crapware like
    McAffee or Norton. Not because they wanted it.

    >> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
    >> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid
    >> of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties
    >> the recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by
    >> shit uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster
    >> (tool that does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on
    >> access' no matter what browser you use.)
    >>
    >> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    >> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    >> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
    >> dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.

    >
    > So what you are saying is that you need several anti-this and
    > anti-that applications to keep your computer clean, whether they are
    > free or fee.


    No. *I* don't need them. Joe (let me turn on my IMs, click every link I
    see on a porn site and download every attachment somebody sends me in email)
    Sixpack needs them.

    > I don't need any of those things with my operating
    > system. Because those things were free to you doesn't mean you can
    > forget about needing them.


    Beau. It's not that big a deal to install a decent free AV program on a
    windows box, along with some malware prevention/removal tools. I find
    people much more receptive to THAT, than I do to having me install an
    entirely different OS on their machines. I'm not arguing with you about
    security. Certainly any flavor of linux (out of the box) is much more
    secure than windows.

    > The average Joe Sixpack home user also frequently forgets to do the
    > required updating or using them at all, that you know is necessary.


    Not my problem. He goes home with an instruction sheet on how to update and
    run anything I install.

    >> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the
    >> 'pay stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and
    >> combined with a little common sense will keep anyone running windows
    >> worry-free.

    >
    > I'll agree with that.
    >
    >>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?"
    >>>> I reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and
    >>>> so is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up
    >>>> and want to know more.
    >>>>
    >>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)

    >>
    >> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
    >> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with
    >> a "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
    >> windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
    >> send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."

    >
    > "and I hardly understand it." Perhaps if they did... ;-)


    The point is...It's not my job to make them understand. :) In fact it's
    better for me if they don't.

    >> And that's the end of that.

    >
    > In your case, and Lookout's, I suppose it is. Best of luck in the
    > future.
    >
    >>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and
    >>> is a stupid solution.

    >>
    >> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
    >> IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.

    >
    > I'll partially agree with that; it's only impractical if one pisses
    > off the Windows users, rather than attempt to gently and gracefully
    > urge them to try something new. It isn't hard. I've numerous friends
    > now running Ubuntu who are most pleased that I came by and gave them
    > the advice and a demo from the LiveCD.


    See my other post in reply to William Poster.
    Walter, Dec 9, 2008
    #10
  11. Walter wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Walter wrote:
    >> [let me snip a bunch here]
    >>> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
    >>> programs"?

    >>
    >> Nearly everyone I encounter is using a version of Norton Antivirus or
    >> McAfee Antivirus (or their suites), and oft not renewed nor updating.
    >> The people don't know about all the good free anti-stuff, unless
    >> someone like you or me is handy to tell them about it. I always do,
    >> if they seem receptive to the idea.
    >>
    >> ("My Norton died; should I buy McAfee?" or vice-versa.)

    >
    > 100% absolutely, positively, totally agree. I see the same shit ALL the
    > time. But it's because people buy windows boxes off the shelf and almost
    > inevitably they come preloaded with a 'free trial' of bloated crapware like
    > McAffee or Norton. Not because they wanted it.


    ...and that is also true. "What? I have to PAY?"

    >> So what you are saying is that you need several anti-this and
    >> anti-that applications to keep your computer clean, whether they are
    >> free or fee.

    >
    > No. *I* don't need them.


    I knew that. Sorry, I meant the royal you. The Joes.

    > Joe (let me turn on my IMs, click every link I see on a porn site and
    > download every attachment somebody sends me in email) Sixpack needs
    > them.


    ...and they do, don't they?
    http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg

    >> I don't need any of those things with my operating
    >> system. Because those things were free to you doesn't mean you can
    >> forget about needing them.

    >
    > Beau. It's not that big a deal to install a decent free AV program on a
    > windows box, along with some malware prevention/removal tools. I find
    > people much more receptive to THAT, than I do to having me install an
    > entirely different OS on their machines. I'm not arguing with you about
    > security. Certainly any flavor of linux (out of the box) is much more
    > secure than windows.


    Ok, so our philosophies differ only in that you repair; and I repair and
    attempt to negate the need for further repair. <g>

    >> The average Joe Sixpack home user also frequently forgets to do the
    >> required updating or using them at all, that you know is necessary.

    >
    > Not my problem. He goes home with an instruction sheet on how to
    > update and run anything I install.


    Same here, for those keeping Windows.

    >> "and I hardly understand it." Perhaps if they did... ;-)

    >
    > The point is...It's not my job to make them understand. :) In fact
    > it's better for me if they don't.


    They come back in six months, bringing more cash! <lol>

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 9, 2008
    #11
  12. Graham

    John Holmes Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

    > Lookout wrote:
    >
    >> "Graham" <> wrote:
    >>>"Lookout" <>
    >>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBa
    >>>> sic&articleId=9040318
    >>>>
    >>>> This site lets you do it WHILE you are installing Vista. How do you
    >>>> do it on a one year old lap top that already has Vista installed?
    >>>
    >>> Well, I suggest a completely install of XP.
    >>>

    >> It's already installed...has been for a year as I said in the post.

    >
    > I see your post saying, "..on a one year old lap top that already has
    > Vista installed?" (Did you really mean something else?)
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > Therefore, Graham's advice to wipe and install XP fits, along with the
    > link you posted.
    >
    > Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    > http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >


    Ubuntu sucks. Get Slackware instead.

    --
    <snip>
    John Holmes, Dec 9, 2008
    #12
  13. Lookout wrote:
    > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:14:42 -0700, §ñühwØ£f <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:11:50 -0600, Lookout aided th' terraists with the
    >> following claims :
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:42:30 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>>> Stupid option.
    >>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)
    >>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
    >>> I do.

    >> No, they'll say, wtf is "linux"?

    > Yup. It's useless to 99% of the PC users. The won't have any interest.


    Having no knowledge of its existence is not the equivalent of useless.

    Do try again :)
    §ñühw¤£f, Dec 9, 2008
    #13
  14. Graham

    Walter Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Walter wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> Walter wrote:
    >>> [let me snip a bunch here]
    >>>> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
    >>>> programs"?
    >>>
    >>> Nearly everyone I encounter is using a version of Norton Antivirus
    >>> or McAfee Antivirus (or their suites), and oft not renewed nor
    >>> updating. The people don't know about all the good free anti-stuff,
    >>> unless someone like you or me is handy to tell them about it. I
    >>> always do, if they seem receptive to the idea.
    >>>
    >>> ("My Norton died; should I buy McAfee?" or vice-versa.)

    >>
    >> 100% absolutely, positively, totally agree. I see the same shit ALL
    >> the time. But it's because people buy windows boxes off the shelf
    >> and almost inevitably they come preloaded with a 'free trial' of
    >> bloated crapware like McAffee or Norton. Not because they wanted it.

    >
    > ..and that is also true. "What? I have to PAY?"
    >
    >>> So what you are saying is that you need several anti-this and
    >>> anti-that applications to keep your computer clean, whether they are
    >>> free or fee.

    >>
    >> No. *I* don't need them.

    >
    > I knew that. Sorry, I meant the royal you. The Joes.
    >
    >> Joe (let me turn on my IMs, click every link I see on a porn site and
    >> download every attachment somebody sends me in email) Sixpack needs
    >> them.

    >
    > ..and they do, don't they?
    > http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg
    >
    >>> I don't need any of those things with my operating
    >>> system. Because those things were free to you doesn't mean you can
    >>> forget about needing them.

    >>
    >> Beau. It's not that big a deal to install a decent free AV program
    >> on a windows box, along with some malware prevention/removal tools.
    >> I find people much more receptive to THAT, than I do to having me
    >> install an entirely different OS on their machines. I'm not arguing
    >> with you about security. Certainly any flavor of linux (out of the
    >> box) is much more secure than windows.

    >
    > Ok, so our philosophies differ only in that you repair; and I repair
    > and attempt to negate the need for further repair. <g>


    Not even in that way. If I sense somebody knows what the hell they're on
    about, I'll offer to show them both Slackware and Ubuntu. The "problem" is,
    only maybe one in twenty people are even remotely interested. And that's
    just how it is in the real world as I know it. Joe Sixpack (who owns 90%
    percent of the machines out there) does not know, nor is he interested in
    knowing what linux is all about. The exception would be the
    late-teens/early 20's crowd. Most of them are savvy enough not to need my
    services, but when I do see one, and approach him or her about linux, they
    are generally more receptive than the older crowd. Most ask me how to set
    up a dual-boot. But IMO that's a smart thing to ask, and a start. :)

    >>> The average Joe Sixpack home user also frequently forgets to do the
    >>> required updating or using them at all, that you know is necessary.

    >>
    >> Not my problem. He goes home with an instruction sheet on how to
    >> update and run anything I install.

    >
    > Same here, for those keeping Windows.
    >
    >>> "and I hardly understand it." Perhaps if they did... ;-)

    >>
    >> The point is...It's not my job to make them understand. :) In fact
    >> it's better for me if they don't.

    >
    > They come back in six months, bringing more cash! <lol>


    Ka-Ching
    Walter, Dec 9, 2008
    #14
  15. Lookout wrote:

    .....
    >>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>
    >>> Stupid option.

    >>
    >>Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)

    >
    > Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
    > I do.


    Isn't it stupid to let 90 out of 100 pcs become malware-infested members of
    botnets spewing spam and further malware all over the place?
    Isn't it stupid from us former windows users who now have too much time on
    our hands thanks to easy maintainence of our linux boxen, to still listen
    to all these acquaintances when they beg for cleaning their messed-up
    windows pc's?
    wisdomkiller & pain, Dec 9, 2008
    #15
  16. On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:58:00 -0500, Walter wrote:

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:41:40 -0500, Walter wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Stupid option.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well
    >>>>>> as I do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It depends on how you ask them...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what
    >>>>> you perceive to be "99% or 100."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
    >>>>> installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
    >>>>> about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need
    >>>>> expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"
    >>>
    >>> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
    >>> programs"?

    >>
    >> WHY should it need them at all?

    >
    > It doesn't need them. I just think it's good idea to have them around.
    >
    >>> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
    >>> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid
    >>> of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties the
    >>> recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by shit
    >>> uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster (tool that
    >>> does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on access' no
    >>> matter what browser you use.)
    >>>
    >>> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    >>> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
    >>> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
    >>> dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.
    >>>
    >>> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the 'pay
    >>> stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and combined with
    >>> a little common sense will keep anyone running windows worry-free.
    >>>
    >>>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
    >>>>> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so
    >>>>> is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and
    >>>>> want to know more.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind. ;-)
    >>>
    >>> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
    >>> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with a
    >>> "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
    >>> windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
    >>> send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."
    >>>
    >>> And that's the end of that.

    >>
    >> Not my experience at all. In fact more people are becoming interested in
    >> Linux.

    >
    > Then you travel in the same circles as Beauregard, whereas I live in the
    > real world.
    >
    >>>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and is
    >>>> a stupid solution.
    >>>
    >>> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
    >>> IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.

    >>
    >> Not at all impractical, except in a very *few* cases.

    >
    > Look. I'm not here to argue the virtues of one OS over another because
    > quite honestly I don't care what anybody else runs until it shows up on my
    > bench.
    >
    > Be that as it may, I use windows for some things and linux for others.
    > People who bring their boxes to me for repair generally don't know or care
    > what linux is. That's just the way it is around here. Occasionally a kid
    > might want to mess around with it, but the older people just want their
    > windows box to work like it used to. Like I said, they just want to
    > launch some IM program, surf the net and send some email. That's all.


    > I think what happens is that people like you and Beau get so 'into' this
    > stuff that you sometimes lose sight of what a 'typical' user does with his
    > machine. A 'typical' user in my experience, is someone who runs windows
    > (XP or Vista) and doesn't do much more with it than what I described above
    > except maybe play a game now and then.


    For the people I've installed Linux distros for, & who are NOT technically
    savvy, all they want to do is *exactly* what you've described above.
    i.e: they just want to run an IM program, surf the net & send some
    emails.
    They *were* windows users, & simply got fed up with it because it their
    windows box *didn't* continue to work like it used to.
    As a bonus, they have found they don't have to worry about upgrading virus
    checkers & adware checkers etc, & defragging drives.

    > Believe it or not, that's all MOST people really do with a computer.


    Indeed it is, & why some have changed their OS.

    And yes, this *is* the real world, although different from your windows
    world.

    > And that's why they don't give a shit about Linux for the most part.


    Well as you said, that's in your part of the world.

    > The only other thing I can say on the subject is that it seems to me the
    > Mac users are for the most part a lot more savvy about their machines
    > than windows users are. And the linux customers? Well they're
    > non-existant because they can fix their own junk when it breaks.
    William Poaster, Dec 9, 2008
    #16
  17. Lookout wrote:

    > The Linux freaks just don't get it.


    So ... you're a Windows freak, then.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 10, 2008
    #17
  18. Lookout wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>Lookout wrote:
    >>> The Linux freaks just don't get it.

    >>
    >>So ... you're a Windows freak, then.

    >
    > Nope...wrong again. (That seems to happen to you quite a bit)


    How could an alternative solution ever be "wrong?" As I said, it might
    not be your cup of tea, but it was not "wrong." Just different.

    You seem to have only a black-and-white outlook on things. You should
    realize there are many shades of grey.

    > As I said this isn't for me. And to be honest Linux is NOT an option
    > for us. My wife connects with the work system from home and she must
    > use the XP interface or they won't set it up. We don't have a choice.


    Here's another alternative solution. She may be able to use a virtual
    machine, such as VMWare. I have done just that when the work system
    required Windows.

    My wife is one of those casual home users who only does email, some
    surfing, writes an occasional word document, and plays a few light games
    like solitaire and mahjongg. She has no problem at all using Ubuntu with
    the GNOME desktop, with SeaMonkey for email/surfing, and OpenOffice for
    the documents. When I installed it for her, it took only about ten
    minutes for familiarization and she was ready to go.

    Your friend who wants to downgrade Vista just might fit in this category
    as well. You'd never know until you tried.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 10, 2008
    #18
  19. Graham

    Walter Guest

    Mike Easter wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Lookout wrote:

    >
    >>> As I said this isn't for me.

    >
    > But presumably you are going to be supporting it and further
    > presumably you don't feel comfortable supporting a legitimate easily
    > managed linux distro install.
    >
    >>> And to be honest Linux is NOT an option
    >>> for us.

    >
    > That is why you personally aren't using linux. This is an OS for
    > someone else on a different machine.
    >
    >> When I installed it for her, it took only about ten
    >> minutes for familiarization and she was ready to go.
    >>
    >> Your friend who wants to downgrade Vista just might fit in this
    >> category as well. You'd never know until you tried.

    >
    > It is very likely that a linux distro would be just the ticket. Not
    > only would it be a workable solution, but it would be a better idea
    > than pirating an XP. Alternatively one could find a legitimate
    > version of XP home to buy.


    There may be no purchase necessary depending on which version of Vista the
    person 'Lookout' is posting for is running. He hasn't made that information
    available yet. He just keeps saying "Vista" as if there's only one.

    As was pointed out in the other thread, at least two versions of Vista come
    with the option to 'upgrade' to XP free of charge.
    Walter, Dec 10, 2008
    #19
  20. On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:59:47 -0600, Lookout aided th' terraists with the
    following claims :

    > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:38:06 -0700, §ñühw¤£f <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Lookout wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:14:42 -0700, §ñühwØ£f <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:11:50 -0600, Lookout aided th' terraists with the
    >>>> following claims :
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:42:30 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
    >>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
    >>>>>>> Stupid option.
    >>>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid. ;-)
    >>>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
    >>>>> I do.
    >>>> No, they'll say, wtf is "linux"?
    >>> Yup. It's useless to 99% of the PC users. The won't have any interest.

    >>
    >>Having no knowledge of its existence is not the equivalent of useless.
    >>
    >>Do try again :)

    >
    > Nah...you're stupid for Linux.


    Your personal failure is noted :)


    --
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities,
    can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
    http://www.alternet.org
    §ñühwØ£f, Dec 10, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. cisconewbie

    Cisco 837 upgrade IOS upgrade gone wrong

    cisconewbie, Sep 22, 2006, in forum: Hardware
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,333
    kuruvi
    Oct 5, 2008
  2. TechGeekPro
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    624
    Consultant
    Feb 6, 2007
  3. DP
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    709
    Aaron Kelley
    Jul 23, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Tmlyb2s=?=

    Upgrade from vista 32 bit to vista 64 bit

    =?Utf-8?B?Tmlyb2s=?=, Feb 2, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    374
    Dennis Pack
    Feb 3, 2007
  5. Agent86
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    731
    Computerflyer
    Feb 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page