slow, cumbersome, unfriendly to other Windows OSes when networked,
unfriendly to MS powertoys, yet still elegent in in its GUI (when it
finally gets around to it) -- one might say, almost Macish.

Yurs,
Dan

On Sat 23 Feb 2008 11:50:06p, Dan S.
) wrote

slow, cumbersome, unfriendly to other Windows OSes when
networked, unfriendly to MS powertoys, yet still elegent in in
its GUI (when it finally gets around to it) -- one might say,
almost Macish.

My experience was that the first month with Vista sucked. After
that, it was pretty much all good.

--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom

"I before E except after C, and E before N in chicken"

On Feb 23, 11:50 pm, Dan S.
wrote:
slow, cumbersome, unfriendly to other Windows OSes when networked,
unfriendly to MS powertoys, yet still elegent in in its GUI (when it
finally gets around to it) -- one might say, almost Macish.

Yurs,
Dan

What kind of hardware do you have? I'm curious because I just bought
my mom a PC and since she's rather far away, I went with a mid-level
dual proc and 2 GB RAM.

Although, admittedly, as I read this, I wonder why I lost the argument
with myself to give her a Windows OS when the "recommended" RAM is 2
GB just to boot the GD thing and have it perform at a somewhat
acceptable level.

I guess, if nothing else, I'll convert her to Linux when she relocates
and she'll have a screaming fast PC.

Here is a simple way to Network XP and vista.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb727037.aspx

Have a read of the above link re Vista File and Printer Sharing.

Permissions/Share info is there as well.

If using Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro I.S., make sure file and printer
sharing is enabled in THEIR firewall.

1st thing to do is make sure that the Workgroup Name of ALL the computers is
the SAME.

In Vista Network and Sharing:

Network Discovery: ON (So it can see the other computers)

Network set to Private (Public is for hotspots, airports, etc)

File Sharing: ON

Public Folder Sharing: ON (Vista’s Public Folder is the same as XP’s Shared
Docs)

Password Protected: OFF (unless you want to set up identical usernames and
passwords on ALL computers in your Network) If you have it ON, you will be
asked for a username and password when you try to access a Vista computer
from an XP computer.

Also, run the XP’s Home Network File and Printer Sharing Wizard to include
Vista in your “New� Network, even if you had an XP Network set up prior to
adding a Vista computer to it.

--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Dan S." wrote:

slow, cumbersome, unfriendly to other Windows OSes when networked,
unfriendly to MS powertoys, yet still elegent in in its GUI (when it
finally gets around to it) -- one might say, almost Macish.

Yurs,
Dan

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:50:06 GMT, Dan S.
wrote:

slow, cumbersome, unfriendly to other Windows OSes when networked,
unfriendly to MS powertoys, yet still elegent in in its GUI (when it
finally gets around to it) -- one might say, almost Macish.

Yurs,
Dan


Vista actually works pretty well once you figure out how to
turn off most of the security "features." They bog the
system down quite a bit. - Tony

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:45:39 -0000, Chris Bellomy wrote...

Plus I'm
not constrained by annoying antivirus software.

MacHeads often toss this one out there.

Has it occurred to you that if there were more Mac users that there
might be more effort devoted toward ruining their day?
--
E.F. Hokie

insert witty or profound quote here

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:48:39 -0800 (PST), Chris Mihos wrote...

If a computer's usefulness is measured by the applications it
can run, and how easily, then your anecdotal observation doesn't
mean much. I use a Mac in an office dominated by peecee users,
and trust me, there's nothing they do that I can't. Plus I'm
not constrained by annoying antivirus software.

The main thing that's making me lean towards a Mac for my next laptop
is the integrated linux environment. Having all the mainstream PC/Mac
apps and linux too would be pretty powerful.

If Apple started selling computers at computer prices and stopped trying
to sell the latest nouveau pop art device, they'd impress me more.

Look at the MacBook Air... what useless junk. It looks pretty, though.

--
E.F. Hokie

insert witty or profound quote here

On Feb 24, 4:51 pm, E.F. Hokie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:48:39 -0800 (PST), Chris Mihos wrote...
If a computer's usefulness is measured by the applications it
can run, and how easily, then your anecdotal observation doesn't
mean much. I use a Mac in an office dominated by peecee users,
and trust me, there's nothing they do that I can't. Plus I'm
not constrained by annoying antivirus software.

The main thing that's making me lean towards a Mac for my next laptop
is the integrated linux environment. Having all the mainstream PC/Mac
apps and linux too would be pretty powerful.

If Apple started selling computers at computer prices and stopped trying
to sell the latest nouveau pop art device, they'd impress me more.

Yeah, but I've got government grants that l can charge it to. So cost
is not so much an issue.

In rec.sport.football.college E.F. Hokie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:45:39 -0000, Chris Bellomy wrote...

Plus I'm
not constrained by annoying antivirus software.

MacHeads often toss this one out there.

Has it occurred to you that if there were more Mac users that there
might be more effort devoted toward ruining their day?

Has it occurred to you that I administer servers that run the
most popular Internet server OSes in the world (Solaris and
Linux) and that I:

a) Understand more about security than the average user; and
2) Don't spend nearly as much time dicking with security issues
as desktop Windows users do?

cb

On Feb 24, 4:50 pm, E.F. Hokie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:45:39 -0000, Chris Bellomy wrote...
Plus I'm
not constrained by annoying antivirus software.

MacHeads often toss this one out there.

Has it occurred to you that if there were more Mac users that there
might be more effort devoted toward ruining their day?


Ah, the old, "if there were more" argument. I used to hear it when I
worked as an admin in an environment that was looking to migrate from
NetWare to Windows. "If there were more NetWare servers, there would
be more attacks on the OS," is how it would be argued. Curiously, you
never heard about NetWare attacks even though major banks, governments
and other secure industries used them, but we required entire teams of
people to try to manage the Windows side of the house. The reason
that there were not "more" NetWare servers was because we didn't need
them. I could easily handle several hundred users for file/print, ftp
and other services on a single or maybe a two server configuration for
major sites that needed redundancy. The reason that there were "more
Windows" servers was because when they replaced a single NetWare box,
they did so with multiple MS boxes due to instability.

But I know that this is not really the discussion ... so if the "if
there were more" argument were valid, why does Apache not receive the
attention that IIS does for cracks and hacks?