Ping: casey.o

[BillW50]

What no-one has ever explained to me in words I can understand is
_why_ this is the case. I could understand (at a superficial level
only!) if, say, systems with a 64-bit OS could only run 64-bit
applications, but since they _can_ run 32-bit ones with a suitable
WOW, then why not lower? Why can't WOWs be nested/stacked/whatever?
And why don't Microsoft (I assume we're only talking Windows here)
support/provide/whatever this? OK, a "sandpit" might be required for
some older things, but is that really such a great effort or risk?

Because Microsoft is not Apple. That's why there is no WOW for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_On_Windows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64[/QUOTE]

I have always stayed away from Windows 64 bit versions since I have no
need for it and it runs less software than the 32 bit versions do.

 

[casey.o]

I have always stayed away from Windows 64 bit versions since I have no
need for it and it runs less software than the 32 bit versions do.

If I saw a need to read the articles, I might better understand what or
why 64 bit is (supposed to be) better...... But I have no interest in
using any 64 bit versions of Windows, and will be doing my best to use
LESS Windows in the future. It's kind of like food choices. I can
FORCE myself to eat a particular food that I dislike, but I cant force
myself to LIKE IT. I've been trying to FORCE myself to like XP, but I
really dont like it. And I know that I'd like Vista, Win7 or Win8 even
less.... I like things simple, which is why my preferred Windows OS is
Win98. Since MS has refused to offer any further development of a
simple OS, and continue to FORCE everyone to use their bloated crap,
this leaves me little choice but to look elsewhere for an OS.

Microsoft has become the restaurant that only serves ONE menu item.
Which means that if you dont like the menu, you go somewhere else. MS
mighjt think that they will make more money by continuing to FORCE users
to upgrade, but if enough users dont like the menu, they will find an
alternative. Almost everyone who I've talked to, who has tried Win8,
dislikes it. There is no excuse for them to NOT offer more than one
choice, or continue support for older OSs.

But at the same time, I see no reason that MS could not have made an OS
that can run BOTH 32bit and 64bit programs without any special changes.
I only see this as another excuse to PROFIT from selling more software,
as well as filling the pockets of computer hardware companies. This is
why there are so many computers going to landfills, which are still
ussable. Actually this one computer that I was running XP on (which was
destroyed by that virus), is capable of running 64bit apps. But that
means nothing to me....

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Good Guy

on them. My local bank has decided that they will abolish couter
service in 6 months time and we have to use online banking and cash
machines. I don't like it but it will be forced on me. I never use

[]
Change bank. (I do realise this may not be possible, if there's only one
from miles around offering "couter service" and it's the one that's
stopping it.)

 

[casey.o]

Maybe you got that virus from one of the updates or patches. You could
always consider just installing the WinXP disc, if you can figure out the
COA thing, and leaving it at that (skip all the updates where you somehow
picked up the virus, I guess). But if ALL you want is the Internet, maybe
Linux will suffice. (I still think Linux Mint Cinammon is one ofc the better
ones).

I dont have a clue where I got it. I know one of the AV programs said
the install file for Firefox 22 is contaminated with (something). But I
never ran that installer. On my laptop I was running FF14. I only DLd
that file in case I wanted to upgrade further, because it only takes
seconds to DL it at a Wifi, rather that hours to DL it at home on
dialup.

But there is the cahnce I may have clicked on it, and closed it
immediatrly, because that built in mouse on my laptop tends to open
stuff accidentally. (I hate those laptop builtin mice).

But then again, that may have not been the same virus. I just deleted
that file from my laptop, and from my backups. It's no biggie to
download it again, from a secure site, if I need it, which I dont,
because FF14 worked fine and is not super bloated yet.

I think I solved the whole problem of installing XP. I'm going to
remove the hard drive from the laptop. I have one of those adaptors to
use any HDD as an external drive. I'll boot up Win2000. copy my backup
of the laptop to that HDD, replace the HDD, and do what Paul said about
restoring the boot record using an XP CD. I'm 99% sure that will work.
I only have not done it yet, because I still want to thoroughly scan
Win2000, which is my next step, and I've been using that Dell installed
XP setup to run salitykiller.exe, to check all my flash drives and
external HDDs. If by chance it did become infected, then I just
reformat the HDD. It appears everything is coming up clean now, so tht
is good, but there is one flash drive I highly suspect is infected. I
put some ducttape on it to insure I dont plug it in. That will be the
LAST flash drive I scan before formatting the laptop HDD again, so I can
restore my backup.

 

[Todd]

In message <[email protected]>, Good Guy

on them. My local bank has decided that they will abolish couter
service in 6 months time and we have to use online banking and cash
machines. I don't like it but it will be forced on me. I never use

[]
Change bank. (I do realise this may not be possible, if there's only one
from miles around offering "couter service" and it's the one that's
stopping it.)

Do you have a credit union anywhere near?

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: []

What no-one has ever explained to me in words I can understand is
_why_ this is the case. I could understand (at a superficial level
only!) if, say, systems with a 64-bit OS could only run 64-bit
applications, but since they _can_ run 32-bit ones with a suitable
WOW, then why not lower? Why can't WOWs be nested/stacked/whatever?
And why don't Microsoft (I assume we're only talking Windows here)
support/provide/whatever this? OK, a "sandpit" might be required for
some older things, but is that really such a great effort or risk?

Because Microsoft is not Apple. That's why there is no WOW for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_On_Windows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64

Paul

Thanks for those. I didn't understand all of them! In particular, I
still don't get why WOW32 (or whatever) can't be run under WOW64 (or
whatever).

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>,

If I saw a need to read the articles, I might better understand what or
why 64 bit is (supposed to be) better...... But I have no interest in

It uses the hardware more efficiently - _if_ you have software written
to take advantage. Somewhat like only using two lanes of a four-lane
highway. But with modern hardware, for most users, the advantage is only
theoretical, not noticeable, most of the time.

using any 64 bit versions of Windows, and will be doing my best to use
LESS Windows in the future. It's kind of like food choices. I can
FORCE myself to eat a particular food that I dislike, but I cant force
myself to LIKE IT. I've been trying to FORCE myself to like XP, but I

I think most of us who have been using computers long enough that we
remember the transition from 9x to XP remember your grief (apart from
the irritating ones who always go for the latest thing - but they're
mostly not going to be here anyway). But you seem to be taking longer to
get through the process than some - or, at least, you are fighting it
harder! Stop fighting; it'll be easier in the long run. Or, talk to 98
Guy (preferably _not_ here!) about continuing to use 98 in today's
world: I think you'll find that's just as much work as accepting XP, and
there'll be fewer people to help you.

really dont like it. And I know that I'd like Vista, Win7 or Win8 even
less.... I like things simple, which is why my preferred Windows OS is

I think you'd find Vista irritating too. I've actually found the
transition from XP to 7 (which has been forced on me at work) pretty
painless, but that's starting from being as familiar with XP as you are
with 98.

Win98. Since MS has refused to offer any further development of a

98 - as we keep telling you - _isn't_ particularly simple; it's just
that you're so used to it that it _seems_ so.

simple OS, and continue to FORCE everyone to use their bloated crap,
this leaves me little choice but to look elsewhere for an OS.

There are times when some of us here wish you'd hurry up and do so them!
But really, please disregard the above line - just consider it a small
rant on the same level as your continued rants against XP. We _do_ want
to help "welcome you into the fold" of XP users, if you'd just moderate
the wailing a little.

Microsoft has become the restaurant that only serves ONE menu item.

Well (ignoring their other products, mainly the Office suite), they've
always only had one - an operating system. (Well, there was a time when
they did the two chains - 95/98/Me and NT3.51/NT4/2000 - but those
merged at around XP.)

Which means that if you dont like the menu, you go somewhere else. MS
mighjt think that they will make more money by continuing to FORCE users
to upgrade, but if enough users dont like the menu, they will find an

People have been saying that for years if not decades: and the
alternatives (mainly Linux) have a larger share than they did, but it's
still very much the minority. I thought it was really going to take off
when netbooks first appeared, but it seems not.

alternative. Almost everyone who I've talked to, who has tried Win8,
dislikes it. There is no excuse for them to NOT offer more than one
choice, or continue support for older OSs.

They're a company; what is in it for them to continue supporting older
OSs? Can you still buy leaded petrol (gasoline) where you are? I don't
think you can here.

But at the same time, I see no reason that MS could not have made an OS
that can run BOTH 32bit and 64bit programs without any special changes.

Now there, I am with you.

I only see this as another excuse to PROFIT from selling more software,

Except that (a) 64-bit systems _can_ run 32-bit software, just not
lower, and (b) there's actually not a lot of 64-bit around.
[]

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>,

But there is the cahnce I may have clicked on it, and closed it
immediatrly, because that built in mouse on my laptop tends to open
stuff accidentally. (I hate those laptop builtin mice).

I assume you mean touchpads. I never thought I'd get on with one either
- even thought I'd be using a plug-in mouse. But I did try (as having an
extra dangly thing seemed to spoil the portability of the netbook), and
now I use it all the time (and without an external mouse); it's, again,
something that comes with familiarity.

But you can always turn it off - I've yet to see a netbook/laptop where
there isn't a Fn+F key to do that. Or, if you've got the right drivers
(usually Synaptics), you can adjust the sensitivity (Control Panel,
Mouse, Device Settings tab [which you won't have if you don't have the
driver], Settings, Sensitivity - under which PalmCheck has "If the
TouchPad exhibits undesired pointer movement or clicks" ... and Touch
Sensitivity allows you to adjust that).
[]

I think I solved the whole problem of installing XP. I'm going to
remove the hard drive from the laptop. I have one of those adaptors to
use any HDD as an external drive. I'll boot up Win2000. copy my backup

Sounds like a good plan.

of the laptop to that HDD, replace the HDD, and do what Paul said about
restoring the boot record using an XP CD. I'm 99% sure that will work.

Make sure you have autoboot and the like turned off on your 2000 before
connecting the suspect HD.
[]