Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (61804)	10/21/2001 8:56:50 AM
From: Timetobuy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

What is really needed then is a new system? ROFLMAO! And if I don't NEED a new system, then I guess I won't be getting XP. That's what I thought would happen. Thanks for your insight. I won't even think about installing XP. Instead I'll just buy a completely new system with XP or the next OS on it in 2 or 3 years.

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (61804)	10/21/2001 9:48:17 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Bill - I'm not exactly a "heathkit" guy but I do have a wide range of computers... including a 90 MHz Pentium purchased from Zeos in 1994. WinXP installed with less trouble on that whole range of machinery than any previous MSFT OS, and also those systems run better, including the antique. I also did a dual pentium box (TYAN motherboard, 233 MHz Pentium), a dual 200 PentiumPro, and some newer machines. One box was almost identical to the one the poster you quoted used, including the Matrox G400. I suspect this guy, rather than being a geek, was not savvy enough to load the Win2K drivers for some of his gear. Win2K drivers may not be certified for WinXP but so far I have not had any problems with that combo. Those are all RC1 systems - I plan to upgrade the whole lot to the "real" version of XP as soon as it is available, because XP is just a whole lot faster and more trouble free, especially in the network management but also in launching applications, executing linked code, and so on. I don't know exactly why it is faster than Win2K, which is substantially the same code base, but it is.

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (61804)	10/21/2001 2:19:37 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

Since I don't intend to buy a new machine with XP preinstalled, I guess I won't be running XP, then. BTW, I used to build Heathkits. I upgrade my PCs from time to time, too, rather than buy a whole new one. Charles Tutt (TM)

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (61804)	10/21/2001 5:47:28 PM
From: Keith Monahan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Plan A (Easy): Buy a new machine with XP preloaded which has a "Designed for Windows XP" logo on it. Plan B (Hard): Attempt to install XP on an old collection of parts one purchased years ago in a misguided attempt to "save money". My point in posting info about new machine pricing is that the aggressive pricing on new machines makes "Plan A" the obvious choice for the consumer. "Plan A" may be the only reasonable option, but it will also cost Microsoft sales. With RAM prices so low, most people have already "turbo charged" their P2 or P3, so why get a new PC just to get XP? I would love to buy XP tomorrow because it is a superior operating system, but since I can't install it easily on my existing hardware, I will wait another 12-18 months until I really need to upgrade.