Vista

[imbeaujp]

I do not think so, Windows 95 is more than 12 years ago !

Why would you want to use a program that old ?

and what about cobolt programs ?

[nova]

imbeaujp wrote:

I do not think so, Windows 95 is more than 12 years ago !
Why would you want to use a program that old ?

Because they still work just fine. While maybe not quite 12 years old (I think it's about 11 ), I still use Corel Draw7, Corel Photo Paint 7, and a number of other old programs. They do everything I need them to do and I don't need to fork out a ton of cash (can you say $449.99 for Photoshop CS3?) on upgrades or new programs. Fortunately, so far, all my old programs still work with XP.

[warpdrive]

Well, as I said, to expect Microsoft to keep backward compatibility all the way back to Win95 is unreasonable IMHO

[Big Worm]

nova wrote:

Because they still work just fine. While maybe not quite 12 years old (I think it's about 11 ), I still use Corel Draw7, Corel Photo Paint 7, and a number of other old programs. They do everything I need them to do and I don't need to fork out a ton of cash (can you say $449.99 for Photoshop CS3?) on upgrades or new programs. Fortunately, so far, all my old programs still work with XP.

I think the truth finally came out. You just don't like any kind of modern software.

Let me guess you still use filemanager?

[drf]

imbeaujp wrote:

I do not think so, Windows 95 is more than 12 years ago !

Why would you want to use a program that old ?

and what about cobolt programs ?

As has been said, becasue they still do exactely what is needed. Alot of my clients only upgrade becasue of hardware failure, no other reason.

[thxgoon]

Big Worm wrote:

I think the truth finally came out. You just don't like any kind of modern software.

Let me guess you still use filemanager?

What's wrong with that? I have members of my family who gave the computer and internet thing a shot. They bought a computer so they could use email and learn the internet. It might have been used about once a week. Well after having to install new updates constantly, new virus protection software, an ever changing AOL interface and just the weird things that windows will do from time to time they finally said screw it. It's not worth it.

I can understand the need to have more advanced systems that can do the amazingly advanced things that about 10% of it's users will actuallly need, but why can't they design it in such a way that the 90% of people can still use the basics without dealing with all of the problems or having to relearn how to 'drive' the computer?? You can drive any car on the market if you have the keys. Gas on the right, brake on the left. Turn the wheel clockwise and you go right and vise versa. This hasn't changed EVER. But cars have obviously advanced. Why can't MS figure this out?

On a side note, tonight I tried running microsoft flight sim in a multiplayer mode for the first time and after 3 hours of fiddling I still couldn't get it to work - and I consider myself fairly savvy with computers.

[drf]

thxgoon wrote:

What's wrong with that? I have members of my family who gave the computer and internet thing a shot. They bought a computer so they could use email and learn the internet. It might have been used about once a week. Well after having to install new updates constantly, new virus protection software, an ever changing AOL interface and just the weird things that windows will do from time to time they finally said screw it. It's not worth it.

I can understand the need to have more advanced systems that can do the amazingly advanced things that about 10% of it's users will actuallly need, but why can't they design it in such a way that the 90% of people can still use the basics without dealing with all of the problems or having to relearn how to 'drive' the computer?? You can drive any car on the market if you have the keys. Gas on the right, brake on the left. Turn the wheel clockwise and you go right and vise versa. This hasn't changed EVER. But cars have obviously advanced. Why can't MS figure this out?

On a side note, tonight I tried running microsoft flight sim in a multiplayer mode for the first time and after 3 hours of fiddling I still couldn't get it to work - and I consider myself fairly savvy with computers.

Precisely, All some people need is a very basic version of windows that will run a word processor, IE and email. Believe it or not, but there are PC users out there that don't need to be on the bleeding edge of technology soley so they can email there son in England.

[nova]

Big Worm wrote:

I think the truth finally came out. You just don't like any kind of modern software.
Let me guess you still use filemanager?

No,... I usually like new software, I just don't like having to pay $500 for new software when I just spent $500 for new software last year that does not work this year.

File Manager,....nah,..... I'm hip with Windows Explorer Although I gotta admit, I really hated to give up DCOM. That's DCOM the file manager (Directory Commander by Dave Frailey, for those that remember, it was tons better than file manager), not the current MS DCOM (Distributed Component Object Manager). BTW, this old DOS program still works with XP. Go figure I may just have to try it out with Vista also.

[Fincave]

warpdrive wrote:

Why would they need a new OS because the hard drive died? I'd just reinstall XP from the recovery disk or original disk.

I do not think it is always all that easy. I installed Ubuntu over XP, since then decided I want both. I have the recovery discs that I made when I bought my laptop but they do not work as the 'hidden partition' that XP makes and that the recovery discs need, is no longer there.

It seems to be becoming rare for people to get an installation disc with their machine, par for the course is having to make your own recovery discs, should you accidentally, inadvertantly or even on purpose erase XP completely from your hd and later decide you want XP back and only have recovery discs, you are out of luck! I am waiting to see if someone I work with has/can find original installation discs and will then re-install XP and activate it with my product key.

[drf]

Fincave wrote:

It seems to be becoming rare for people to get an installation disc with their machine, par for the course is having to make your own recovery discs.

That is very true and one of the first things I recommend is that if someone is buying a new machine that "comes with windows" that they ask the saleperson to either show them the disc, or garuntee that it is a complete stand alone installation disc and not a recovery disc or pre-installed no-disc deal. and most importantly that the disc isn't locked to a particular brand of computer.

[imbeaujp]

drf wrote:

That is very true and one of the first things I recommend is that if someone is buying a new machine that "comes with windows" that they ask the saleperson to either show them the disc, or garuntee that it is a complete stand alone installation disc and not a recovery disc or pre-installed no-disc deal. and most importantly that the disc isn't locked to a particular brand of computer.

This is a verry goog advice, I totally agree with you on that. But many brands like HP do not pakage anymore their products with thoses discs... And if you want a "real" OS pakage instead the preload version, you got to buy one.

They want to keep the pice as low as possible and they also do not test thier products on previous os (they will not provide-test driver or support you). When you buy a new PC "designed for Vista" it is made for vista, period.

But it doesn't means that your new PC will not work with XP, it only means that they did not spends many days to test it on previous versions and that they will not test new drivers to work on "old" OS.

[drf]

imbeaujp wrote:

But it doesn't means that your new PC will not work with XP, it only means that they did not spends many days to test it on previous versions and that they will not test new drivers to work on "old" OS.

If I am not careful I could get rather conrtadictory. You are right, I would add though that from about ME onwards there has been very little new hardware that needs a newer OS to work properly, yet there are countless examples of software.