by Elsewhere 41 Replies latest jw friends
Windows search works, but it has to be set up correctly. If you have MP3s in weird places then Windows Search may not index those folders.
I use Windows Search on XP because it tightly integrates with Outlook 2007, unlike Google Desktop. Searches my entire email PST file instantly. I love it. I don't care about Windows Search for my hard drive itself because I organize stuff pretty well, but every once in a while it comes in handy.
Think i'll just stay w windoze 4 (2000) for as long as i can.
Windows 4 was Windows 95. Windows 5 was Windows 2000, which is actually still a fine operating system. Personally I prefer XP over 2000 though since it has better support. I make XP look like 2000 though.
What was Windows 98?
When is the new Windows being released? There's a beta out now right? I'm in the market for a new laptop and I'd rather not get one with Vista.
Chris
Holy crap, I can't believe how many people still use Microsoft OSes.
I moved over to Linux and installed 2G of RAM into my machine. It's gotta be the quietest OS I've ever used (besides DOS). The hard drive barely makes any noise, and I can't even tell the computer's running. It took some time getting used to that.
Oh yeah, and apps load 10x faster. I will NEVER go back to Microsoft.
Windows 98 was a "4.something" version.
If you buy a Dell system, you can request a downgrade to XP. They give you both the Vista and XP licenses (and install discs). At least they do this for business customers.
The new version won't be out till late this year, at the earliest.
Alternatively, just get Vista and disable anything that annoys you. UAC, search, Aero, .... hell, make it look like Windows 2000 if you want!
Nos, you're kidding right? Did you actually think Linux has risen to the ranks of a majority OS? Even Mac OS X hasn't done that (yet).
Marking for later...thanks Elsewhere!!
I tried Ubuntu Linux very briefly and was disappointed. It seems to lack a lot of features that were present in older Linux distributions I tried. One example is that other distros had more window managers to choose from, as well as some useful server components. Ok, more games too. Other than that it seems stable enough, and pretty intuitive.
Last year I bought a 24" widescreen monitor that cost me about $700. I was quite disappointed when the display seemed washed out, and even showed some faint banding across the screen. I was using Dell hardware, one computer running XP, one with Vista, and one with Server 2003 & 2008. All have decent video cards and up to date drivers. Last month I bought a Mac Pro and connected it to the same monitor, just as the other computers, through a Belkin KVM switch, and the display is great. It's running OS X, Vista Enterprise on the Bootcamp partition, and Ubuntu in a VMWare virtual machine. All operating systems are displaying perfectly from this box. The only thing the other computers with the display problems have in common is that they are all Dell hardware, with the exception of the video cards. I don't think I'll be buying Dell hardware in the future.
W
FF, doesn't make sense that the display would look noticeably better on a Mac. The quality of the display is mostly dependent on the display itself. Basically all video cards nowadays, even the non-3D integrated Intel ones, can drive a 24" LCD monitor without issue.
BTW, Ubuntu by design has the Gnome window manager. If you want KDE, you should get Kubuntu. If you want XFCE, get Xubuntu. Or just go Debian and choose whatever window manager you want. :)
Doc, you're right. It makes no sense at all. But here's a pic to show what I see. There are faint horizontal bands every inch or so right across the screen. There are other bands, more distinct, eminating from the right side of open windows. I've got some old clones kicking around here. When I get time I'll connect them and see if they have the same problem.
W
