Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is SP2 so big? It doesn't do much

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Microsoft
  • Windows XP
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 2:21:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Serious question - why is SP2 so big?

It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.

Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it so
large?

More about : sp2 big

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 2:21:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
It does so much more than you can "see".

Bobby

"Mixxy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:T0f%c.58479$sW6.3745@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
> so
> large?
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 2:21:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

To add:

The full size of SP2 is 266MB, not 80-100MB. What the OP is looking at there
is the average size of the express download from Windows Update. It only
contains SP2's specific security updates, and any missing critical updates.
The full package contains all critical updates since WinXP's original
release. Someone who has never or rarely updated will recieve a much larger
express package.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:%23omWxAMlEHA.2864@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
> lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a
> pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
> Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus
> Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control
> of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
> lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
>
> Bobby
>
> "Mixxy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:T0f%c.58479$sW6.3745@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
>> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>
>> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and
>> is
>> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>
>> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
>> so
>> large?
>>
>>
>
>
Related resources
September 7, 2004 3:54:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

So that you only have to click on one file to install, rather than 40 or 50
or so (not counted) critical updates post SP1

Jon


"Mixxy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:T0f%c.58479$sW6.3745@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
> so
> large?
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 4:45:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Mixxy" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:T0f%c.58479$sW6.3745@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it
so
> large?
>
>


What the hell did you expect it do?

ss.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 7:39:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message news:<#omWxAMlEHA.2864@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>...
> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
> version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
> blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
> express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
> that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
> It does so much more than you can "see".
>

But:
- It stills use a lot of RAM
- It's still as slow as it used to be
- Still has virus, adware and spyware!
- As u wrote above, the new firewall is still lame
- Where is tabbed interface for IE?

So what's the difference?

<snip>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 8:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

NoNoBadDog! wrote:

> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
> version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
> blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
> express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
> that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
> It does so much more than you can "see".

Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.

When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
for exactly.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 8:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

NoSpam <nospam@pipex.net> writes:
>Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
>things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.

>When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
>downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
>problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
>for exactly.

It might be something similar to Norton Antivirus. Every couple
of days they often download a substantial fraction of a megabyte
for an update.

I don't think any company could hire enough competent people to
churn out a good part of a megabyte of new software every few days.
But there is an alternative. Suppose they had written a hundred
different programs to make this work. SUppose they only needed to
change a single line in each one. The old promise that dll's were
going to mean that windows programs were going to be smaller than
pre-windows programs never happened. When they recompile all 100
of those programs they then have to send you the complete 100
programs all over again.

So, there might be 100 massive screwups in XP that are supposed to
be fixed with SP2, actually there were estimates that there were
many thousands of massive screwups when XP was first shipped, but
be generous here, one per program, Microsoft changes a line or
two in every one, more in some of them, recompiles all of them
and now has to send you 100 different megabyte or multimegabyte
programs for the update, even though often only a half dozen bytes
really got changed in any one of them.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 8:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Did you even bother to read what I posted? Are you that dense?

Bobby


"NoSpam" <nospam@pipex.net> wrote in message
news:413dd57c$0$20253$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
>> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
>> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
>> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
>> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very
>> lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates
>> a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and
>> Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus
>> Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control
>> of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million
>> lines of code. It does so much more than you can "see".
>
> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>
> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying for
> exactly.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 8:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Who really cares what you consider useless?

The question was related to the size of the SP2 download. That has nothing
to do with what you think.

Bobby

"Testy" <fraudbuster@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:evq8LvPlEHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> And the "Severity Center" is pretty much a useless feature, it was the
> first thing I disabled. Firewall and Pop-Up blocker also useless to me.
>
> Testy
>
> "NoSpam" <nospam@pipex.net> wrote in message
> news:413dd57c$0$20253$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package.
>>> It replaces a great number of system files with updated files that
>>> correct security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates
>>> major elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued
>>> since then. It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but
>>> still very lame) version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It
>>> incorporates a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to
>>> Outlook and Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds
>>> Enhanced Virus Protection that prevents certain types of malicious code
>>> gaining control of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates
>>> approximately 5 million lines of code. It does so much more than you can
>>> "see".
>>
>> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
>> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>>
>> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
>> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really that many
>> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're paying
>> for exactly.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004
>
September 7, 2004 8:39:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

like the size of ones head has nothing to do with ones intelligence...

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:ejUqNERlEHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Who really cares what you consider useless?
>
> The question was related to the size of the SP2 download. That has
nothing
> to do with what you think.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Testy" <fraudbuster@canoemail.com> wrote in message
> news:evq8LvPlEHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > And the "Severity Center" is pretty much a useless feature, it was
the
> > first thing I disabled. Firewall and Pop-Up blocker also useless
to me.
> >
> > Testy
> >
> > "NoSpam" <nospam@pipex.net> wrote in message
> > news:413dd57c$0$20253$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> >> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> >>
> >>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally
wrong. SP2
> >>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single
package.
> >>> It replaces a great number of system files with updated files
that
> >>> correct security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It
incorporates
> >>> major elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates
issued
> >>> since then. It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely
new (but
> >>> still very lame) version. It add the new Windows Security
Center. It
> >>> incorporates a pop-up blocker to Internet explorer. It adds
security to
> >>> Outlook and Outlook express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it
adds
> >>> Enhanced Virus Protection that prevents certain types of
malicious code
> >>> gaining control of the OS after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates
> >>> approximately 5 million lines of code. It does so much more than
you can
> >>> "see".
> >>
> >> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only
visible
> >> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the
firewall.
> >>
> >> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in
3 meg
> >> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going? We're there really
that many
> >> problems with XP when it shipped? Makes you wonder what you're
paying
> >> for exactly.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004
> >
>
>
September 7, 2004 10:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"NoSpam" <nospam@pipex.net> wrote in message
news:413dd57c$0$20253$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> Still a perfectly valid question as far as I can see. The only visible
> things are the pop-up blocker, the security centre and the firewall.
>
> When you think you can download pop-up blockers and firewalls in 3 meg
> downloads, where's the other 84 meg going?


> We're there really that many problems with XP when it shipped?

Yes, and there will still be problems no doubt.

> Makes you wonder what you're paying for exactly.

Yes :) 

--
Apollo
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 10:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Make me a nice cuppa in the morning. Is that too much to ask?

> What the hell did you expect it do?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 7, 2004 11:03:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

> - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
>

It's called Mozilla. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 2:01:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Don Taylor wrote:
> So, there might be 100 massive screwups in XP that are supposed to
> be fixed with SP2, actually there were estimates that there were
> many thousands of massive screwups when XP was first shipped, but
> be generous here, one per program, Microsoft changes a line or
> two in every one, more in some of them, recompiles all of them
> and now has to send you 100 different megabyte or multimegabyte
> programs for the update, even though often only a half dozen bytes
> really got changed in any one of them.

Delta compression should fix that in the future, which is part of what
SP2 does.

I have a feeling we'll still see bloody large updates from MS though.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 5:00:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Because Microsoft products are half complete!. Microsoft is a publictly quoted company accountable to its shareholders. It has to sell products to generate revenues which should exceed previous period's. The only way to achive this is to rush products even if they are defective knowing that there are people out there prepared to buy anything that has Microsoft logo on it!!.

We have had patches virtually everyday since 09/11/2001 (mm/dd/yyyy) when XP started hitting the high street shops. But this wasn't enough for MS so we had SP1 (128 mb), and now SP2 (272 mb). This is still not enough and now you also need SP1 for .Net Framework 1.1. This should put you on alert that MS products can never be trusted. Read my signature below.


Mixxy wrote:

> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches and is
> 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is it so
> large?

--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for my work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching rich jerks!
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 5:00:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Dave Senior wrote:

> Because Microsoft products are half complete!. Microsoft is a publictly
> quoted company accountable to its shareholders. It has to sell products
> to generate revenues which should exceed previous period's. The only
> way to achive this is to rush products even if they are defective
> knowing that there are people out there prepared to buy anything that
> has Microsoft logo on it!!.
>
> We have had patches virtually everyday since 09/11/2001 (mm/dd/yyyy)
> when XP started hitting the high street shops.

Hardly.

> But this wasn't enough
> for MS so we had SP1 (128 mb),

SOP for any software house to do a rollup.

> and now SP2 (272 mb).

Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.

> This is still not
> enough and now you also need SP1 for .Net Framework 1.1. This should put
> you on alert that MS products can never be trusted. Read my signature
> below.

If you think Linux is 'update free' then you're in for a big surprise.


> Mixxy wrote:
>
>
>> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>
>> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>> and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>
>> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why is
>> it so large?
>
>
> -- I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no
> activation.
>
> I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for
> my work.
>
> I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching
> rich jerks!
>
>
>
September 8, 2004 5:19:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>
>
> > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> >
>
> It's called Mozilla. -Dave

or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.

toad
September 8, 2004 5:22:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Mixxy wrote:

> Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>
> It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
> and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>
> Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
> is it so large?

At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
are 3 700MB ISO files :) 

Toad
September 8, 2004 7:34:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Toad wrote:
> Mixxy wrote:
>
>
>>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>
>>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>
>>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
>>is it so large?
>
>
> At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
> are 3 700MB ISO files :) 

So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
compilers etc that the Linux distros include.

--
Paul
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 7:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Paul wrote:
>
> Toad wrote:
> > Mixxy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> >>
> >>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
> >>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> >>
> >>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
> >>is it so large?
> >
> >
> > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
> > are 3 700MB ISO files :) 
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>

Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2, but
that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
the OS alone.
September 8, 2004 7:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?


"Paul" <paul.hill@[NOSPAM]clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1094654007.19246.0@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> Toad wrote:
> > Mixxy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> >>
> >>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP
patches
> >>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> >>
> >>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big.
Why
> >>is it so large?
> >
> >
> > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux
distros
> > are 3 700MB ISO files :) 
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>
> --
> Paul
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 7:34:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Since SP-2 includes all the Critical Updates included with SP-1, there
is no need to include updates or SP-1 with SP-2.
Windows XP with SP-2 easily fits on one CD.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"ToolPackinMama" <laura@lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:413F29DE.D102F061@lauragoodwin.org...
> Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
> but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be
> for
> the OS alone.
September 8, 2004 7:34:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

would there be much of a difference between the size of the OS with or
without the service 0 0. installed? has anybody looked to see if the
'size' grows -dramatically- with the install of the PSS. I realize
that the delivery size is 'x' megs but after the SP is applied, the
install folders and all unneeded / duplicate files are deleted. The
fact is I'm not sure if there are files ADDED as much as they are
overwritten? Went to check the size of my backup compared to the size
currently on the HD, No go as the backup now contains the SP. (been
awhile now since I installed it on the Granddaughters Machine)

"ToolPackinMama" <laura@lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:413F29DE.D102F061@lauragoodwin.org...
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Toad wrote:
> > > Mixxy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
> > >>
> > >>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP
patches
> > >>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
> > >>
> > >>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big.
Why
> > >>is it so large?
> > >
> > >
> > > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux
distros
> > > are 3 700MB ISO files :) 
> >
> > So would Windows if it included all the additional tools,
utilities
> > compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
> >
>
> Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be
for
> the OS alone.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 7:34:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

JAD wrote:
>
> Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
> granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
> compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?

Linux gives the end-user more freedom, control, and choices. Most
desktop PC end-users won't use all of that freedom, control and choices,
but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made available to them.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 7:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> Since SP-2 includes all the Critical Updates included with SP-1, there
> is no need to include updates or SP-1 with SP-2.
> Windows XP with SP-2 easily fits on one CD.

Maybe so, but that's still only the OS. It doesn't include a full
office suite like Open Office, plus hundreds (thousands? of additional
applications, utilities, compilers, games, etc. including GIMP.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 7:34:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

But that is what you were saying "for the OS alone"
Your entire sentence is listed below to refresh your memory on what
you wrote.

"Windows XP would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the
patches, and SP2, but
that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
the OS alone."
The above statement is obviously wrong.

As for Office games etc, that all depends on what you install.
This is not unique to windows or any other OS.
A basic fact applies to all...the more you install, the larger it is
and the more CDs will be needed.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"ToolPackinMama" <laura@lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> Maybe so, but that's still only the OS. It doesn't include a full
> office suite like Open Office, plus hundreds (thousands? of
> additional
> applications, utilities, compilers, games, etc. including GIMP.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 8:57:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

>
> SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>
> > and now SP2 (272 mb).
>
> Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
> have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>

OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What can
SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
September 8, 2004 8:57:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>>
>>
>>>and now SP2 (272 mb).
>>
>>Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
>>have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>>
>
>
> OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
> turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
> that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What can
> SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
>
>

There are a lot of changes with SP2. See this link for detailed info.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 8:59:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Toad" <Toad@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:10jsnh5secgp7c6@corp.supernews.com...
> Dave C. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> > >
> >
> > It's called Mozilla. -Dave
>
> or Crazy Browser, GreenBrowser, MyIE2, DeepNet which are all free
> front-ends to IE with tabbed interfaces and include pop-up blockers too.
>
> toad

To borrow a line from a recent movie I saw on Showtime . . .

Sometimes you have to tear something down to rebuild it. :) 

Which is my way of saying the easiest way to fix something as broken as IE
is to replace it with something decent. :)  -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 9:01:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

> >
> > At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
> > are 3 700MB ISO files :) 
>
> So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
> compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>

Not to mention gobs of free software. Imagine if Microsoft released Windows
with all the Office Applications. It would fit nicely on one DVD,
hough. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 9:03:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:10juarlean1ec1a@corp.supernews.com...
> Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
> granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
> compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?
>

The last time I installed a recent linux distro, it did come on 3 CDs, but I
only needed the first one to fully install the OS and gobs of free software.
The other 2 CDs were the developer stuff. -Dave
September 8, 2004 10:59:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:10jubvc1d57vn55@corp.supernews.com...
> would there be much of a difference between the size of the OS with or
> without the service 0 0. installed? has anybody looked to see if the
> 'size' grows -dramatically- with the install of the PSS. I realize
> that the delivery size is 'x' megs but after the SP is applied, the
> install folders and all unneeded / duplicate files are deleted. The
> fact is I'm not sure if there are files ADDED as much as they are
> overwritten? Went to check the size of my backup compared to the size
> currently on the HD, No go as the backup now contains the SP. (been
> awhile now since I installed it on the Granddaughters Machine)
>

I've just had a look at the CD's, installs will vary greatly from machine to
machine due to different hardware and installed options.

WinXP PRO SP1
6658 Files
159 Folders
560,745,861 bytes

WinXP PRO SP2
6999 Files
204 Folders
649,015,872 bytes

So not that much difference really, I may do a 'diff' from my linux box to
see how many of the original files were changed, If I get the time later.

HTH

--
Apollo
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 11:34:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

> >
> > OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard
it
> > turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to
turn
> > that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall. I'm curious. What
can
> > SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave
> >
> >
>
> There are a lot of changes with SP2. See this link for detailed info.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx
>

OK, I just reviewed the top ten reasons to upgrade to SP2. Of the top ten
reasons, EIGHT of those reasons can be done better by other software, most
(all?) of it freeware. You don't need SP2. The only improvement I see
there in the TOP TEN reasons is the improved wireless support. But my
wireless connections are working great now. Basically, it looks like ~200MB
of nothing. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 11:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

ToolPackinMama wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
>>Toad wrote:
>>
>>>Mixxy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Serious question - why is SP2 so big?
>>>>
>>>>It's about (80 to 100 MB for users fully up to date with XP patches
>>>>and is 200 plus MB for those who haven't been applying patches.
>>>>
>>>>Let's say it is a average minimum of 90 MB. That is very big. Why
>>>>is it so large?
>>>
>>>
>>>At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
>>>are 3 700MB ISO files :) 
>>
>>So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
>>compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>>
>
>
> Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,

No, a slipstreamed SP2 Windows XP CD, which includes all updates, is just
one plain ole' CD. Less than full at that.

> but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
> the OS alone.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 11:52:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>SOP for any software house to do a rollup.
>>
>>
>>>and now SP2 (272 mb).
>>
>>Same thing, except it also adds new functionality that's almost enough to
>>have been called WindowsXP SE and sold as a new release.
>>
>
>
> OK, what can you do with SP2 that couldn't be done before? I've heard it
> turns on the XP firewall which was always there, but you should WANT to turn
> that one off anyway, if you have a decent firewall.

The typical user tends to take the O.S. 'as is' and, in that case, having a
built in firewall is a distinct improvement (and so is something as simple
as defaulting it to 'on'). SP2 also 'prods' (or nags, depending on your
point of view) the typical user about various security risks.

> I'm curious. What can
> SP2 users do that I can't? (typing this on SP1a) -Dave

Given enough time, knowledge, and resources one can always do just about
'anything' with just about any computer but that isn't the issue. The
'advantage' is that nothing else 'need' be done in those particular areas
or rather that, for the typical user who normally does nothing else, it
improves security.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 8, 2004 11:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>>At least it fits on a single CD. Almost all the latest Linux distros
>>>are 3 700MB ISO files :) 
>>
>>So would Windows if it included all the additional tools, utilities
>>compilers etc that the Linux distros include.
>>
>
>
> Not to mention gobs of free software. Imagine if Microsoft released Windows
> with all the Office Applications. It would fit nicely on one DVD,
> hough. -Dave
>
>

Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to operate.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 12:48:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

On 7 Sep 2004 15:39:28 -0700, [Aquila Deus] said :-

>"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message news:<#omWxAMlEHA.2864@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>...
>> First of all, your statement "It doesn't do much" is totally wrong. SP2
>> consists of many updates and hotfixes combined into a single package. It
>> replaces a great number of system files with updated files that correct
>> security issues, compatibility problems, etc. It incorporates major
>> elements of SP1, and the hotfixes and critical updates issued since then.
>> It replaces the Windows firewall with a completely new (but still very lame)
>> version. It add the new Windows Security Center. It incorporates a pop-up
>> blocker to Internet explorer. It adds security to Outlook and Outlook
>> express. If you have an AMD64 processor, it adds Enhanced Virus Protection
>> that prevents certain types of malicious code gaining control of the OS
>> after a buffer overrun. SP2 updates approximately 5 million lines of code.
>> It does so much more than you can "see".
>>
>
>But:
>- It stills use a lot of RAM
>- It's still as slow as it used to be
>- Still has virus, adware and spyware!

What a complete load of hogwash.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 1:27:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

> Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
operate.
>

It's that way now. The last time I installed a linux distro, the
installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.
That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably pretty
damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and clicking
a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows. The
problem with linux is MICROSOFT. If it wasn't for the Microsoft
stranglehold on office applications, linux could easily replace Windows.
Someone will now scream that there are open source applications (free!!!)
that will open and save in Microsoft Office data file formats. No, not
really. Not even Microsoft Office does that. That is, when you have work
to do, you not only need to be running MICROSOFT OFFICE, but you need to be
running the right version of it, also. When you e-mail a document halfway
around the world, you can't WONDER what it will look like when it's opened
up, if it can be opened up at all. If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.
THAT is the only reason linux will not catch on in a big way. That, and
most games won't run on linux. If enough businesses start using open source
software instead of Microsoft Office . . . and some game developers start
porting to linux . . . then Microsoft is in huge trouble. But as long as
Microsoft Office is so dominant, Microsoft has no reason to worry about
linux.

I almost forgot to add . . . another thing holding linux back is that there
are so many different distros, and applications packaged differently for
each distro. That's another kink that needs to be worked out before linux
will catch on in a big way. For example, if you want open office suite for
linux fedora, you can probably find a package that will install with a
couple of mouse clicks. But try to install that on suse linux and it won't
work. There needs to be a standard way of installing apps. in linux so that
one package will install on all distros without any "tweaking". Yeah, you
can recompile a kernel for just about anything, but the typical user isn't
even gonna think about it. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 1:43:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

>>Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
>
> operate.
>
>
> It's that way now.

Not hardly.

> The last time I installed a linux distro, the
> installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.

Beside it not being as 'simple' as you suggest, 'installing' wasn't what I
meant by easy enough for the typical user to operate.

> That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably pretty
> damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and clicking
> a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows.

That's like saying moving your feet is just as easy going uphill as it is
on flat ground. It isn't the 'clicking' of the mouse button that matters.

But before you even get to that point one has to figure out which GUI
you're using.

And then there's the ever fun "I just installed <insert whatever>. I wonder
where the hell it went." Doesn't always happen but it happens often enough.


> The
> problem with linux is MICROSOFT. If it wasn't for the Microsoft
> stranglehold on office applications, linux could easily replace Windows.
> Someone will now scream that there are open source applications (free!!!)
> that will open and save in Microsoft Office data file formats. No, not
> really. Not even Microsoft Office does that. That is, when you have work
> to do, you not only need to be running MICROSOFT OFFICE, but you need to be
> running the right version of it, also. When you e-mail a document halfway
> around the world, you can't WONDER what it will look like when it's opened
> up, if it can be opened up at all. If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
> and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
> knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.

You forget to install the version filters?

> THAT is the only reason linux will not catch on in a big way. That, and
> most games won't run on linux. If enough businesses start using open source
> software instead of Microsoft Office . . . and some game developers start
> porting to linux . . . then Microsoft is in huge trouble. But as long as
> Microsoft Office is so dominant, Microsoft has no reason to worry about
> linux.
>
> I almost forgot to add . . . another thing holding linux back is that there
> are so many different distros, and applications packaged differently for
> each distro. That's another kink that needs to be worked out before linux
> will catch on in a big way. For example, if you want open office suite for
> linux fedora, you can probably find a package that will install with a
> couple of mouse clicks. But try to install that on suse linux and it won't
> work. There needs to be a standard way of installing apps. in linux so that
> one package will install on all distros without any "tweaking". Yeah, you
> can recompile a kernel for just about anything, but the typical user isn't
> even gonna think about it.

Now you're catching on.

Now, Debian has probably one of the easiest installers around with the
least pain for a typical user but there's also some other exciting
development going on in that area too.



-Dave
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 3:51:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

> > The last time I installed a linux distro, the
> > installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows
installation.
>
> Beside it not being as 'simple' as you suggest, 'installing' wasn't what I
> meant by easy enough for the typical user to operate.
>
> > That was a couple of distros ago, so the latest distros are probably
pretty
> > damned impressive from the viewpoint of a "typical user". Oh, and
clicking
> > a mouse in linux is just as easy as clicking a mouse in windows.
>
> That's like saying moving your feet is just as easy going uphill as it is
> on flat ground. It isn't the 'clicking' of the mouse button that matters.
>
> But before you even get to that point one has to figure out which GUI
> you're using.
>
> And then there's the ever fun "I just installed <insert whatever>. I
wonder
> where the hell it went." Doesn't always happen but it happens often
enough.
>
>

Yes, I know there are ways to tweak the open source apps. to match a
particular version of Office. But without a working PC *RUNNING* Microsoft
Office, you have no way of knowing if the software is working correctly
until it's too late. If you need to run Microsoft Office anyway, what's the
point of trying to coax linux to emulate it? Besides which, the typical
computer user wouldn't bother to even try, and therein lies the real
problem.

But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
operate. Note that's if their particular distro comes with all the software
they want pre-packaged. (I know there's still some software installation
headaches that need to be addressed).

OH, and it doesn't matter what GUI you want to use with linux. Last I
checked, there were only two major choices of GUI for linux (and some others
that the real geeks play around with). Of the two major ones, they both
operate identically, and they run each other's software seamlessly. From
memory, I believe the last major distribution I installed actually installed
BOTH GUI's by default, and then asked you to choose one to use at login. I
could bounce back and forth between the two if I wanted, but the one I used
(gnome) worked fine, so I stuck with that. And yes, I was running some KDE
apps. on that, no problems at all.

Before someone gets the wrong impression, I'm not a linux fanatic. I LIKE
linux, but I run Windows XP. Even if I wasn't "required" to run Windows for
telecommuting, I'd still run Windows XP. Eventually I'll be running linux
again. It might not happen until I retire, but it'll happen. Linux is just
too good to ignore indefinitely. And yes, I was dual booting linux and
windows for a while. I finally figured out that was a waste of time, as I
HAD to run windows but didn't have to run linux. Bouncing back and forth
constantly drove me nuts and Windows XP really isn't too evil, so I'm
running that exclusively now. -Dave
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:10:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> But that is what you were saying "for the OS alone"
> Your entire sentence is listed below to refresh your memory on what
> you wrote.
>
> "Windows XP would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the
> patches, and SP2, but
> that wouldn't include hundreds of applications, that would just be for
> the OS alone."
> The above statement is obviously wrong.

How ya figure? The patches etc. ARE for the OS alone.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10juarlean1ec1a@corp.supernews.com...
> > Why would it need those? compilers for what....its a work in progress
> > granted, but there is no need for the end user to have to use
> > compilers. It come with the utilities it needs..xinux needs all those?
> >
>
> The last time I installed a recent linux distro, it did come on 3 CDs, but I
> only needed the first one to fully install the OS and gobs of free software.
> The other 2 CDs were the developer stuff. -Dave

True.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:12:46 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> OK, I just reviewed the top ten reasons to upgrade to SP2. Of the top ten
> reasons, EIGHT of those reasons can be done better by other software, most
> (all?) of it freeware. You don't need SP2. The only improvement I see
> there in the TOP TEN reasons is the improved wireless support. But my
> wireless connections are working great now. Basically, it looks like ~200MB
> of nothing. -Dave

Well said.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:16:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
>
> ToolPackinMama wrote:

> > Good lord, yes. Linux comes with hundreds of programs. Windows XP
> > would fill several CDs if you included SP1 all the patches, and SP2,
>
> No, a slipstreamed SP2 Windows XP CD, which includes all updates, is just
> one plain ole' CD. Less than full at that.

Does that include the full OS?

Even so, it wouldn't equal a Linux CD with hundreds of applications,
including a full office suite, and GIMP. Especially not at the same
price. Linux ~with~ all the extras is a fraction of the cost of Windows
XP alone, without extras.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to operate.

It's easy enough for the typical user who only wants to browse the web,
enjoy porn/music and send/recieve email, right now. Those who use an OS
to easily create/view image/text documents of various flavors also have
everything they need, right now.

It's the game-players that have problems (IMHO).
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:23:07 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> > Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
> operate.
> >
>
> It's that way now.

For web-browsing and email, yes, it's there now. FWIW, most newbie home
users only use their computers and internet for web-browsing and email
(in my experience). They _can_ do this with Linux as easily as with
Windows.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:27:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> > Perhaps some day Linux will be easy enough for the typical user to
> operate.
> >
>
> It's that way now. The last time I installed a linux distro, the
> installation when smoother, faster and easier than any windows installation.

I agree.

> If you aren't running Microsoft Office,
> and a very specific version of Microsoft Office at that, you have no way of
> knowing what that document will look like before you hit the "send" button.

Well, try saving it as "text only". :) 

> There needs to be a standard way of installing apps.

That, IMHO, is the one thing holding Linux back.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:30:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> But linux really IS as easy as I suggest. Anybody comfortable with Windows
> XP should find any recent linux distro a real breeze to both install and
> operate.

I agree.

> Linux is just too good to ignore indefinitely.

I agree.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 9, 2004 4:36:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows-xp (More info?)

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2q6t1sFrdisrU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > - Where is tabbed interface for IE?
> >
>
> It's called Mozilla. -Dave

But M$ should just replace IE with it.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!