Re: Windows XP End-of-Live (was Re: Thank You Tim Perry)

On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:53:02 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Mike Dobony" <sword@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:ux1wcjkn8mdj.c71at6t6jgo4.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 06:29:47 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
> 
>>> Or, you can simply retrofit XP. A few customers have
>>> asked me about this. As long as XP drivers are available
>>> for the particular set of hardware, it is a viable
>>> option.
> 
>> And loose the extra software that only installs with the
>> install discs and Vista.
> 
> Most if not all of which is utter crap.
> 

Microsoft Office?  Video editing sw?  Audio editing sw?  Maybe not as
great
as some full blown apps, but useful for the occasional use.

>>  Also you may not have HW
>> drivers available for XP for that particular machine.
> 
> I covered that.  So far I have seen zero cases of that, and I've looked
a 
> number of times.

You looked into retroing XP onto a number of Vista laptops and getting all
the HW drivers needed?  I'll have to check into that.  For what I need a
laptop for does not necessitate a high end computer.  All I need is 1+GHZ,
1 gb ram, and 80gb HD.  Beyond that is icing.  All I need it for is
backing
up my do***ents from the desktop, word processing, and email.  For easy
hotmail access I need XP or Vista.  Vista is still a downgrade to XP as
far
as speed and usability from what I have seen.  I don't want the new Office
junk that requires an add-on to do the simple customizing that can be done
on earlier versions (icons and toolbars).  I suppose it is fine for many
novices to use who don't care about speed, but I don't want to cripple my
computers with a slow operating system.  I tried it on a fast computer
that
had XP on it and it is painfully slow compared to XP.  I suspect my
Pentium
III laptop is faster with XP than a 1.6 GHz laptop would be with Vista.  I
checked out some new ones and they seem much slower than my laptop.