Windows doesn't "just work"

BackOnTrack

23n1th wrote: »

I would imagine I'm comparing them since XP (the 10 year old OS you're refering to) was the OS used on the netbook in the first place (ie, I didn't decide to install it), is it my fault m$ was using an out of date OS? Who is iPhan?

Microsoft weren't using an out of date OS the netbook manufacturer was. M$ are quite well aware that XP is an out of date OS and that is why they are ending support for it you can't blame them because the netbook manufacturer decided to go with it.

That you choose to attack microsoft for this rather than the manufacturer who chose the OS shows exactly that all you are trying to do is bash microsoft but the funny thing is you probably actually believed microsoft were to blame. So blinded by your dislike of microsoft you completely failed to realise the blame lay with the manufacturer.

Anyway keep on ranting oh and btw iPhan is a derogatory term for a mac fanboy. Usually linux fanboys have a bit of a better argument than mac fanatics but you truly have descended to the level of a fanatical apple user.

CoolHotCold

http://support.thetechguys.com/layout.aspx?ID={b1fdbd43-ca23-4266-883d-c6762d457a63}&CatID={789879f1-f9f1-470a-86b6-3445bf15cc31}

Should be the one, took me 2 minutes to find it.

23n1th

BackOnTrack wrote: »

Microsoft weren't using an out of date OS the netbook manufacturer was. M$ are quite well aware that XP is an out of date OS and that is why they are ending support for it you can't blame them because the netbook manufacturer decided to go with it.

Actually you're wrong, but don't let that stop you. When this netbook was manufactured there was no other M$ OS to put on it, so m$ are to blame, vista didn't work.

In fact I think you'll find the netbook market was the reason XP lasted so long what with M$ extending its shelf life because they had no viable alternative for the netbook market.

That you choose to attack microsoft for this rather than the manufacturer who chose the OS shows exactly that all you are trying to do is bash microsoft but the funny thing is you probably actually believed microsoft were to blame. So blinded by your dislike of microsoft you completely failed to realise the blame lay with the manufacturer.

Ok obviously being wrong didn't stop you, never mind. What was the manufacturer to do compile win 7 starter release themselves and put it on the netbook? Dont be silly.

Anyway keep on ranting oh and btw iPhan is a derogatory term for a mac fanboy. Usually linux fanboys have a bit of a better argument than mac fanatics but you truly have descended to the level of a fanatical apple user.

Where as you've descended to the level of ranting about stuff you're ignorant about.:rotfl:

Mr_Oink

23n1th wrote: »

Actually you're wrong, but don't let that stop you.

It never has in the past :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

TwistedPsycho

Doesn't Windows Update still provide some Hardware Drivers.........

Obviously without a Optical Drive on the Advent 4211-B (aka MSI Wind 100), they would probably expect the majority of masses to update their drivers somehow without access to anything like USB CD-ROM or Pen Drives.


Oh and just to add weight to the XP Battle.... This morning, I installed XP Pro onto a computer with a 2GHz P4 CPU, 128MB RAM and an 8GB HDD. So people still do use it.

KillerWatt

23n1th wrote: »

little clue is better than no clue just as half competent is better than incompetent.

Good job you ain't a sparks or gas fitter then, but it's the people with little or no knowledge that have been the cause of everyone else having to pay through the nose to cover the cost of the various exams that are being introduced to ensure that eastern european sparky you got at half price isn't going to raze your house to the ground through only knowing half the story.

Lokolo

If I asked for a pizza with ham on, and got a pizza with chicken; I wouldn't go back.

So why would you put Linux on a computer when XP was asked for?

KillerWatt

Lokolo wrote: »

So why would you put Linux on a computer when XP was asked for?

Because it's easier than learning the job you told everyone you were capable of doing in the first place


PS

@ the OP,

Just a light hearted joke, no malice meant.
If you are really stuck, PM me and I'll talk you through setting XP up properly on your friends machine.

23n1th

Lokolo wrote: »

If I asked for a pizza with ham on, and got a pizza with chicken; I wouldn't go back.

So why would you put Linux on a computer when XP was asked for?

Why exactly!

Just like when you don't read the original post of a thread (which in this case if you're wondering doesn't say anything about having installed linux on anything!) and make random comments that then don't make sense. Why?

KillerWatt wrote: »

Because it's easier than learning the job you told everyone you were capable of doing in the first place


PS

@ the OP,

Just a light hearted joke, no malice meant.
If you are really stuck, PM me and I'll talk you through setting XP up properly on your friends machine.

Don't worry I've got it working, though I will be showing them the alternative.

Hammyman

23n1th wrote: »

Good job you ain't me then, little clue is better than no clue just as half competent is better than incompetent. Both of which you seem to be when commenting on linux. There are plenty of linux distros that run with 64mb of ram. Silly hammy.

Indeed there are however I actually said fully fledged GUI and not a stripped down one like DSL which is basically nothing more than the Linux equivalent to Windows 1.0.

I guess I'm just used to things working, which is apparently what everyone think windows is supposed to do.

The millions of posts in Linux support forums prove otherwise.

I don't see how, seeing as its working as they wanted at the cost of £0.

Who said it was working? I just said you're incompetent and I stand by that.