OT: Windows is too expensive

[Fyron]

IE7 is a more secure platform than IE6. You can just block iexplore.exe from accessing the net with a software firewall if you want. That way, it won't actually be vulnerable to much.

.NET is good for the same things any language runtime is good for, running applications written for it. As Microsoft continues to push it as the default application environment in Vista going forward, it will become a more ubiquitous platform, akin to Java.

If you are lamenting the lack of 640x480, XP does not support that resolution for the desktop (which is for the best). Anything else would be the fault of the video driver writers, not XP. XP is capable of supporting a greater range of resolution than 98. As with any OS, it lists what the drivers tell it to. There are third party tools available that will let you specify nearly any arbitrary resolution, provided your video card and monitor are capable of rendering and displaying them. I don't recall their names off-hand, but surely google can unearth them.

How is the external modem connected? If its USB, I would suspect poor driver support and/or a faulty device. USB specifies hot plug swap-ability. If its connected to a MIDI port or something, I have no idea. Does it do it every time you try to run it, or was it only after the first use?

[aegisx]

IE 7 is pretty nice. It uses security model which is improved over IE 6. It has tabbed browsing and an Anti-phishing filter However IE7 is still the biggest target out of the browsers since it is used a lot.

[Baron Munchausen]

Ugh! I can't stand anything smaller than 1024X768 anymore. No, what I am missing is 1280X960. They have 1280X1024 (not the long standard aspect ratio of nearly all computer monitors) but not 1280X960??? Weird.

The external modem is on a serial port. It's a plain old USR Sportster. And unless it is ON when XP boots so it can detect it, I don't have the ability to use it.

Also, one other nit I noticed. Why isn't there a 'most recently used documents' feature on the XP start menu? Was that too good an idea to carry over?

[Captain Kwok]

Under Start Menu properties click on customize and you can choose which items you want in the start list, such as recent documents etc. I also switch to classic view because I like the traditional windows UI a bit more than the XP one.

[Fyron]

Baron Munchausen said:
"No, what I am missing is 1280X960. They have 1280X1024 (not the long standard aspect ratio of nearly all computer monitors) but not 1280X960??? Weird."

That would be a driver issue. XP has no qualms about displaying 1280x960 if the drivers say it is supported. But if the drivers don't tell it that they can support a resolution, XP will hide it. Try going under the Advanced display properties and clicking on List All Modes. Does it list 1280x960 modes? If not, hunt down a resolution tweaking tool and force it.

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:
I also switch to classic view because I like the traditional windows UI a bit more than the XP one.

I highly recommend switching to classic view as well; the default XP UI is way too flashy and colorful, with not nearly enough function to back it up.

[Baron Grazic]

Baron Munchausen said:
2) Exactly what is .NET good for? My copy of Win Xp Home came with .NET 1.1 and I am guessing it was installed by default (How do you tell what version of .NET is installed?) but I don't know what it means for how I use my computer.

Hi Baron.
To determine your .net version, check out the %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET\Framework directory. This will contain all installed versions.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318785

[Baron Munchausen]

Ah... I keep forgetting that every single component or peripheral might need a manufacturer supplied driver. This despite the several thousand drivers included in Windows XP. Install driver for my monitor, then remove and re-install video card driver. Now it is properly recognized and I have zillions of video modes available again. Phew... What a pain in the arse it is to setup a computer.

[Baron Munchausen]

OK, with all the difficulties of setting up a new OS I am afraid to do the XP computer first. So I am planning to install Linux on a secondary system I have to learn how it goes. Questions:

1) If you want to run WINE is it required to have at least one partition with a Windows compatible file system on the machine or does WINE 'mask' the actual file system from Windows programs that you run?

2) This is an old system -- k6-2 -- what programs are 'lighter' on the CPU and would run better. XFce is supposed to be a light and fast windowing environment, for example. Does it lack a lot of functionality?

[Fyron]

Xfce lacks no functionality per se; what it lacks is resource-heavy apps and widgets shoehorned into KDE/Gnome. Another lightweight option is IceWM, which resembles Windows 95's look.