Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a deep
reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista. I
personally believe Vista has too heavy of a memory and disk space footprint,
less snappy performance, and it fails to allow one to go back to the classic
look and feel of XP. For instance, what happened to the old fashioned
vanilla folders in Explorer? And the lack of an "UP" button in Vista's
Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that away?)

Sign petition here.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware.

"Bob Campbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good. XP is ancient. Bye bye XP!
>
> >And the lack of an "UP" button in Vista's
>> Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that away?)
>
> Because the up button is stupid? It takes 6 clicks to get back to the
> top level if you are 6 levels deep. Vista takes 1 click.

"Spin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
> resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware.

So you'll be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy disk drives,
640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then?

IDIOT.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080404...nYLCU1CG.or7oF

Apparently you have not seen the news that XP will be continued.

So please take this to the XP area and not post this in the Vista area?
Thank you.

"Spin" wrote:

> Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a deep
> reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista. I
> personally believe Vista has too heavy of a memory and disk space footprint,
> less snappy performance, and it fails to allow one to go back to the classic
> look and feel of XP. For instance, what happened to the old fashioned
> vanilla folders in Explorer? And the lack of an "UP" button in Vista's
> Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that away?)
>
> Sign petition here.
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/
>
>

You are beating a dead horse.

"Spin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a deep
> reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista. I
> personally believe Vista has too heavy of a memory and disk space
> footprint, less snappy performance, and it fails to allow one to go back
> to the classic look and feel of XP. For instance, what happened to the
> old fashioned vanilla folders in Explorer? And the lack of an "UP" button
> in Vista's Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that away?)
>
> Sign petition here.
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

Where did I say I would be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy
disk drives,
640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then? Why are you so defensive?

"Gordon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fu03k6$d4s$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Spin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
>> resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware.
>
> So you'll be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy disk drives,
> 640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then?
>
> IDIOT.

"Gordon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fu03k6$d4s$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
>> resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware.
>
> So you'll be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy disk drives,
> 640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then?


That computers is more suited to MS-DOS. You can't run Windows 3.1 on it.

ss.

"Spin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Where did I say I would be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy
> disk drives,
> 640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then? Why are you so defensive?

Ever heard of sarcasm?
You wrote:
>>> If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
>>> resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware

I assumed as you obviously DON'T enjoy "OSes which use up vast amounts of
system and disk space resources"
then you would be using one that doesn't. As in my example.

The "UP" button was replaced with breadcrumbs which are much better.

"SAM-R" <SAM-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You are beating a dead horse.
>
> "Spin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a
>> deep reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista.
>> I personally believe Vista has too heavy of a memory and disk space
>> footprint, less snappy performance, and it fails to allow one to go back
>> to the classic look and feel of XP. For instance, what happened to the
>> old fashioned vanilla folders in Explorer? And the lack of an "UP"
>> button in Vista's Explorer as well. (Now why did the have to take that
>> away?)
>>
>> Sign petition here.
>> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/
>
>

XP is MUCH LESS of a hog than Vista. I would purchase a new Operating
System from Microsoft even if it included NOTHING more than new driver
support and was leaner on resources. In other words if the appearance
didn't change I would still buy it (for example Windows 98 Second Edition).

"Gordon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fu042p$do9$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Spin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Where did I say I would be using an IBM XT with no HDD, two 5 1/4" floppy
>> disk drives,
>> 640k RAM and Windows 3.1 then? Why are you so defensive?
>
> Ever heard of sarcasm?
> You wrote:
>>>> If you enjoy OSes which use up vast amounts of system and disk space
>>>> resources, then by all means enjoy your bloatware
>
> I assumed as you obviously DON'T enjoy "OSes which use up vast amounts of
> system and disk space resources"
> then you would be using one that doesn't. As in my example.