Internet Explorer is the problem, not Windows.

 

You always seem to be defending windoze...

You always seem to be defending windoze...

I don't particularly think that's true. There's a difference between defending something just because you like it, and pointing out that a problem is with B and not A.

If it was IE 5.2 on the Mac, I'd have made the same point.

 

This is all terribly off-topic.

I don't particularly think that's true. There's a difference between defending something just because you like it' date=' and pointing out that a problem is with B and not A.

If it was IE 5.2 on the Mac, I'd have made the same point.

 

This is all terribly off-topic.[/quote']

Alright whatever you say.

Alright whatever you say.

I don't see how stating that a problem with Internet Explorer is a problem with Internet Explorer and not with Windows is the same as "defending Windows", particularly since Windows was not actually under any kind of attack, and I didn't defend anything.

 

This is not the place, splitting thread. Thread split from here.

This is kind of funny...

I would've chosen simple, self-evident, unnecessary or kind of sad to replace "funny" Cap'n. Nice title, though, Sayo.

The title was most of it.

 

 

But I do have a kind of odd sense of humor.

Windows XP is rather good, I'll have you know.

That's why I use it (but not IE).

Windows XP is rather good, I'll have you know.

I have clients who haven't budged since Windows 98. I beg them to come up to XP, that it's not like the intervening horror stories, but they are frightened and spook easily.

 

What are the best reasons (besides compatibility) for them to upgrade?

hmm i find xp a bit 'kiddy'

What are the best reasons (besides compatibility) for them to upgrade?

NTFS allows highly customisable permissions to be applied to profiles, directories and files.

 

Oh, and real stability.

Xp is too expensive... I went to ME when it was 150 bucks for the upgrade.. only because I couldn't get my LAN working on 98.

 

When operation spunkworm (or whatever that anti-piracy coalition thiing) all goes through with Intel, AMD and TinySquishy full swing.. I would rather go to Linux for privacy (not piracy) as I don't like all that registering crap where you can't upgrade your computer w/o the entire corporate world knowing about it.

 

Linux just doesn't have the support as of yet though.

but you have to admit that Lotus is Far better than microsoft office

$150 for ME.

 

lolz

NTFS allows highly customisable permissions to be applied to profiles' date=' directories and files.

 

Oh, and real stability.[/quote']

 

Should be noted that 2k was the first 'doze OS to ship ntfs.

 

It should also be noted that XP is nothing but 2k with a couple of twiddly graphics bits on and some flashy crap.

More than that... I noticed it had some wacky user profile stuff 2k dint.

Every major function that exists in XP also exists in 2k (as far as I'm aware) apart from cosmetic differences, and things like the recognition of folders containing movies etc.

 

This is totally my own opinion though, could be wrong.

Should be noted that 2k was the first 'doze OS to ship ntfs.

No it wasn't, Windows NT was. Which sucked big time.

I think weve gone off topic.

No it wasn't, Windows NT was. Which sucked big time.

 

Fair enough. I meant to say client OS (as in a major 'doze release), not server platforms like NT.

I think weve gone off topic.

That's rich coming from you, seeing as this thread is essentially the bastard offspring of your spam from another thread.

hmm i find xp a bit 'kiddy'

XP Home is.

XP Professional isn't, from what I hear.

XP Professional's still kiddy. They tried to make it look like OS X and now it looks like something out of the Fischer Price factory.

not server platforms like NT.

There was NT Workstation, which really did suck huge amounts of ass.