Making XP desktop look like Win98

[Tim Meddick]

My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

to begin by simply starting Task Manager. Then, in the "Processes" tab,

re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

to smallest). To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

"hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

Notepad-style apps takes ages).



To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :



"Process Explorer" :

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip



"AutoRuns" :

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip



....However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

applications.



==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:2aa20813-010e-47ac-86f5-40eb08012a92@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute

> to

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.



....snip....



What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

 

[Tim Meddick]

My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

to begin by simply starting Task Manager. Then, in the "Processes" tab,

re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

to smallest). To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

"hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

Notepad-style apps takes ages).



To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :



"Process Explorer" :

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip



"AutoRuns" :

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip



....However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

applications.



==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:2aa20813-010e-47ac-86f5-40eb08012a92@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute

> to

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.



....snip....



What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

 

[glee]

Thanks Tim.





"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

news:eaoyM4zBLHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

> The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the

> need to download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the

> link below :

>

> Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :

>

> http://download.microsoft.com/downl...a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

>

>

>

>

> ==

>

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

>

>

>

>

> "glee" wrote in message

> news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> "dadiOH" wrote in message

>> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

>>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but

>>>> it

>>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

>>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will

>>>> keep

>>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The

>>>> old

>>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

>>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

>>>>

>>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP

>>>> look

>>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a

>>>> new

>>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

>>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

>>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

>>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not

>>>> required

>>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

>>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

>>>> junk.

>>>>

>>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

>>>>

>>>> Thanks

>>>>

>>>> Jerome

>>>

>>> Display Properties

>>> Appearance tab

>>> Windows and buttons

>>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

>>>

>>> Right click the taskbar

>>> Properties

>>> Start Menu tab

>>> Check "Classic Start menu"

>>>

>>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

>>

>>

>> I would add one more:

>> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is

>> Tweak UI for XP from the package.

>> Install and then run TweakUI.

>> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic

>> Search in Explorer" and select it.

>> Click Apply> OK.

>>

>> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with

>> the simpler Win2K search window.

>>

>> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

>>

>> This and other tips can be found here:

>> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

>>

>> --

>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

>> A+

>> http://dts-l.net/

>>

>

 

[glee]

Thanks Tim.





"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

news:eaoyM4zBLHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

> The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the

> need to download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the

> link below :

>

> Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :

>

> http://download.microsoft.com/downl...a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

>

>

>

>

> ==

>

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

>

>

>

>

> "glee" wrote in message

> news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> "dadiOH" wrote in message

>> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

>>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but

>>>> it

>>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

>>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will

>>>> keep

>>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The

>>>> old

>>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

>>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

>>>>

>>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP

>>>> look

>>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a

>>>> new

>>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

>>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

>>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

>>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not

>>>> required

>>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

>>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

>>>> junk.

>>>>

>>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

>>>>

>>>> Thanks

>>>>

>>>> Jerome

>>>

>>> Display Properties

>>> Appearance tab

>>> Windows and buttons

>>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

>>>

>>> Right click the taskbar

>>> Properties

>>> Start Menu tab

>>> Check "Classic Start menu"

>>>

>>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

>>

>>

>> I would add one more:

>> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is

>> Tweak UI for XP from the package.

>> Install and then run TweakUI.

>> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic

>> Search in Explorer" and select it.

>> Click Apply> OK.

>>

>> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with

>> the simpler Win2K search window.

>>

>> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

>>

>> This and other tips can be found here:

>> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

>>

>> --

>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

>> A+

>> http://dts-l.net/

>>

>

 

[glee]

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> snip

>4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

>what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

>minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

>immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.

>

>It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

>deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

>to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98

> snip



On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any newer

OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.



I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K



--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[glee]

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> snip

>4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

>what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

>minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

>immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.

>

>It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

>deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

>to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98

> snip



On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any newer

OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.



I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K



--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[thanatoid]

"dadiOH" wrote in

news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:









> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

> operating systems.



No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

sound of bleating...







--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[thanatoid]

"dadiOH" wrote in

news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:









> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

> operating systems.



No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

sound of bleating...







--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[thanatoid]

Robert Macy wrote in





(you should try it somtime!)



> Thank you for the URL to litepc. Using a dial up modem, the

> site opened in less than a second giving me much text to

> read/review as the 'pretty' pictures were downloading and

> filling in -- instead of the other way around! I'm really

> tired of blank screens, until useless pictures appear

> buried in the text, but litepc did things in the right

> order! TEXT to read while images were forth coming

>

> Interestingly at this site, the first comment from a

> satisfied customer referenced their own problem with WinXP.

> Brought to mind the time I had problems with one of our

> WinXP systems [booting slowly, and never recovering once on

> the internet!, well almost, once in a while I regained

> WinXP to do something] I posted to the WinXP users group

> and was confronted with the most childish responses I've

> seen in ?? years. Everything from "you did something

> wrong", to "buy better hardware", to "make certain you

> burden your system with excessive antimalware and antivirus

> software"! I NEVER got an effective answer from the WinXP

> group, nor even a response from any site they sent me to,

> other than lists of hoops to jump through!



I spent about 5 weeks at a few XP sites when I was putting XP on

another partition because of a stupid piece of new hardware. The

level of maturity and intelligence reminded me of primary

schools in 'C' horror movies taking places in backwoods counties

where inbreeding is encouraged.





ped stuff I am too ignorant to understand.







--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[thanatoid]

Robert Macy wrote in





(you should try it somtime!)



> Thank you for the URL to litepc. Using a dial up modem, the

> site opened in less than a second giving me much text to

> read/review as the 'pretty' pictures were downloading and

> filling in -- instead of the other way around! I'm really

> tired of blank screens, until useless pictures appear

> buried in the text, but litepc did things in the right

> order! TEXT to read while images were forth coming

>

> Interestingly at this site, the first comment from a

> satisfied customer referenced their own problem with WinXP.

> Brought to mind the time I had problems with one of our

> WinXP systems [booting slowly, and never recovering once on

> the internet!, well almost, once in a while I regained

> WinXP to do something] I posted to the WinXP users group

> and was confronted with the most childish responses I've

> seen in ?? years. Everything from "you did something

> wrong", to "buy better hardware", to "make certain you

> burden your system with excessive antimalware and antivirus

> software"! I NEVER got an effective answer from the WinXP

> group, nor even a response from any site they sent me to,

> other than lists of hoops to jump through!



I spent about 5 weeks at a few XP sites when I was putting XP on

another partition because of a stupid piece of new hardware. The

level of maturity and intelligence reminded me of primary

schools in 'C' horror movies taking places in backwoods counties

where inbreeding is encouraged.





ped stuff I am too ignorant to understand.







--

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean,

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

> My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

> to begin by simply starting Task Manager.   Then, in the "Processes" tab,

> re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

> to smallest).  To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

> "hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

> Notepad-style apps takes ages).

>

> To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :

>

> "Process Explorer" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

>

> "AutoRuns" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

>

> ...However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

> process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

> applications.

>

> ==

>

> Cheers,    Tim Meddick,    Peckham, London.    

>



Thanks Tim. Apologies for seemingly ignoring your excellent

suggestions.



I had already downloaded ProcessExplorer, and had used it, [I think it

was that program that had found the huge hog, enabling me at that time

to simply shut it off and go on] nice program. The other I

downloaded, but have not moved to the WinXP - still haven't turned it

back on in the last month. When using it, I just turn it on, run

whatever, and shut down. Since been adequately getting by, it is hard

to justify a long time and sustained effort at improving it. But when

I do ...



And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

> My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

> to begin by simply starting Task Manager.   Then, in the "Processes" tab,

> re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

> to smallest).  To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

> "hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

> Notepad-style apps takes ages).

>

> To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :

>

> "Process Explorer" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

>

> "AutoRuns" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

>

> ...However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

> process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

> applications.

>

> ==

>

> Cheers,    Tim Meddick,    Peckham, London.    

>



Thanks Tim. Apologies for seemingly ignoring your excellent

suggestions.



I had already downloaded ProcessExplorer, and had used it, [I think it

was that program that had found the huge hog, enabling me at that time

to simply shut it off and go on] nice program. The other I

downloaded, but have not moved to the WinXP - still haven't turned it

back on in the last month. When using it, I just turn it on, run

whatever, and shut down. Since been adequately getting by, it is hard

to justify a long time and sustained effort at improving it. But when

I do ...



And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

...snip..

> On what hardware are you trying to run XP?  If you try to run any newer

> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays.  What processor,

> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

>

> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

>

> --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

> A+http://dts-l.net/



True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

7 !!!!



Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

'grotty' hardware.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

...snip..

> On what hardware are you trying to run XP?  If you try to run any newer

> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays.  What processor,

> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

>

> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

>

> --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

> A+http://dts-l.net/



True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

7 !!!!



Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

'grotty' hardware.

 

[glee]

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:6d4ceee9-e780-4d91-99c7-526cf27d8edc@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

>..snip..

>> On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any

>> newer

>> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

>> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this

>> 'evaluation'?

>> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

>>

>> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

>> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

>>

>

>True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

>7 !!!!

>

>Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

>hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

>conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

>powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

>'grotty' hardware.



My XP installation is not on the greatest hardware, yet it boots up as

fast as my Win98 system. Only the shutdown takes a little longer.

Again, it is your hardware.



The point is, you are going through this thread bemoaning the slowness

of XP, but you are running it on hardware not suited for it. It isn't

an issue of XP being slower, it's an issue of your deficient hardware.



Did you similarly complain because the bloated Win95 with all that eye

candy GUI was so slow to boot on your machine upgraded from Win3.x, with

a 200MB hard drive and 1MB RAM? Oh, excuse me, you could not have even

installed with 1MB RAM....so did you increase it to 4MB at great cost

and still have it crawl because it needed at least 8MB?



Most newer operating systems use more resources, and require hardware

upgrades, or even replacement. Is that your complaint? You could

always buy a Mac.....then you would have NO control over what hardware

you got, and pay a premium price for it too.



--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[glee]

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:6d4ceee9-e780-4d91-99c7-526cf27d8edc@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

>..snip..

>> On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any

>> newer

>> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

>> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this

>> 'evaluation'?

>> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

>>

>> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

>> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

>>

>

>True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

>7 !!!!

>

>Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

>hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

>conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

>powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

>'grotty' hardware.



My XP installation is not on the greatest hardware, yet it boots up as

fast as my Win98 system. Only the shutdown takes a little longer.

Again, it is your hardware.



The point is, you are going through this thread bemoaning the slowness

of XP, but you are running it on hardware not suited for it. It isn't

an issue of XP being slower, it's an issue of your deficient hardware.



Did you similarly complain because the bloated Win95 with all that eye

candy GUI was so slow to boot on your machine upgraded from Win3.x, with

a 200MB hard drive and 1MB RAM? Oh, excuse me, you could not have even

installed with 1MB RAM....so did you increase it to 4MB at great cost

and still have it crawl because it needed at least 8MB?



Most newer operating systems use more resources, and require hardware

upgrades, or even replacement. Is that your complaint? You could

always buy a Mac.....then you would have NO control over what hardware

you got, and pay a premium price for it too.



--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[glee]

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> snip

>And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

>effective, help than the WinXP group.



LOL! Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert? It's being

crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group. Tim

and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

98 group. You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

despite what you might think.

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[glee]

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> snip

>And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

>effective, help than the WinXP group.



LOL! Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert? It's being

crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group. Tim

and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

98 group. You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

despite what you might think.

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[The poster formerly known as 'Th]

On 6/9/2010 1:24 AM, thanatoid wrote:

> "dadiOH" wrote in

> news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>

>

>

>

>> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

>> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

>> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

>> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

>> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

>> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

>> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

>> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

>> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

>> operating systems.





True. You know the iPad takes this even further!



>

> No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

> gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

> years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

> sound of bleating...

>

 

[The poster formerly known as 'Th]

On 6/9/2010 1:24 AM, thanatoid wrote:

> "dadiOH" wrote in

> news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>

>

>

>

>> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

>> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

>> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

>> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

>> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

>> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

>> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

>> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

>> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

>> operating systems.





True. You know the iPad takes this even further!



>

> No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

> gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

> years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

> sound of bleating...

>