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

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?
96 answers Last reply
More about doesn much
  1. 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?
    >
    >
  2. 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?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  3. 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?
    >
    >
  4. 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.
  5. 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>
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
    >
  10. 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
    > >
    >
    >
  11. 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
  12. 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?
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  16. 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!
    >
    >
    >
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. 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
    >
    >
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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).
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Microsoft Windows XP Systems