any screenshots yet?

A boon to mankind

DIVORCE CAN BE A TRICKY PROCESS: cuts, bruises and broken limbs can put a lot of strain on any household. That's why Microsoft has come up with Alimony XP – a new member of the Office family to help you through those difficult times.
Integrating seamlessly with other Office applications, Alimony XP is ideal for creating authentic-sounding legal jargon guaranteed to put the squeeze on your erstwhile loved ones. Frighteningly detailed spreadsheets show just how much money you're owed, while tight integration with Outlook enables you to send anonymous hate mail to your ex spouse.

Links to an Access database can detail the household effects you plan on taking with you; while Microsoft Photo Editor enables you to deface pictures of your partner's family with comedy moustaches and humorous skin blemishes; and Microsoft Money 2002 will enable you to transfer large sums of money from their bank account into yours.

"The advantage of Alimony XP are too numerous to mention," commented Microsoft HomeBreaker Project Manager Alice Spinola. "For example, a pre-nuptial agreement created in Word can be imported with a single mouse click, enabling the TV, stereo and household pets to be transferred into your name. Through the .net initiative, it can even book haulage companies to come and take your belongings to your new address."

Future enhancements to Alimony XP include a hitman ordering module and automatic funeral planning.

-------------------------------------
El Buen Bob esPonJa!

Why you! Sponge BoB I haaate uu!

I'm still surprised to see that there are still some people ready to pay for MS Office while OpenOffice.org is FREE and fills all of normal users needs.

I guess it's the lack of publicity.

http://www.openoffice.org

IT'S NOT MS OFFICE SO IT SUCKS! (Gotta beat the NBM'ers to the punch haha) I really like OO, it works very well for me.

I'll stick with Software602 (also free, and a 14.5meg download!)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Actually, OpenOffice (and StarOffice) barf where MS products shine through. Try something simple like embedding a spread sheet in a word document, watch them cry out in agony.

Have you ever use OpenOffice.org ? I don't think so because I'm afraid what you said is UTTERLY WRONG.

See

http://www.via.ecp.fr/~bilou/screenshot.jpg

if you don't believe me.

It's really funny to see that you're using the same tatics that MS use: disinformation. Do you work for them ?

I'm talkinga bout these suites that proclaim support for MS word docs a such. Throw something simple, like an embedded spread at them, and they barf. No MS disinformation, fact. I was working with someone this past year who uses OpenOffice. I would email him documents that would cause major problems for him....all because of embedded spreadsheets. And no, I do not work for MS. And no, I do not just work with MS products. Long live the mainframe!

Funny how the story changed...

Well maybe if MS OPENED their file formats or USED open formats so there could be easy cross platform file distribution rather than forcing everyone to used closed file formats you wouldn't have that problem... or YOU could always use OO instead of MS.

Well maybe they would in your socialist idealistic world they open their file format so the world is a better place. :)

So, by your logic ISO is a socialist standards group, as are all hardware manufacturers that use their standards right? How can you possibly call them socialist ideals when he is simply asking for interoperability?

You are forgetting that opening a format for other people is different than companies working together in a industrial standard organization to create a standard.
How can you make such simple logic error?

Please explain how it's different, I'm all ears.

Review your Business class... It doesn't make any business sense for Microsoft to open their format. You think businesses do it out of the goodness of their heart?

Oh I forgot, even industrial standard organizations create stardards that are royality free for all.

Ok, let me ask again, "Please explain how it's different, I'm all ears."

Because (to use his terms) "companies working together in a industrial standard organization to create a standard" involves companies that agreed IN ADVANCE to create/use an open standard.

Whereas "opening a format for other people" involves a company deciding to do so or being forced to do so AFTER THE FACT.

Come on fewt, even you can see the difference between the two.

So, they have to agree in advance now? Hmmm I never realized that! ROTFLMFAO! Tell me another one guy!

call local college and you can purchase Office XP Pro for the low low campus agreement price of $27.06---tax may or may not be included but stil a great deal and solution for those who don't accidently find "free" M$ software online

Seriously? That sounds more like just the price for Word or something.

That sounds about right. Microsoft has partnered with many universities to sell Office extremely cheap to students. Albiet all you get is 4 CDs - no retail box or manuals. But in return Microsoft is able to lock students into using its software for classes and the like.

The big key to the low price of the "Student" version of Office XP is that it is NOT upgradable.

When the next version of Office comes out you can not buy the upgrade version, you will have to buy a full version again.

Microsoft labeled that pretty clearly, but I noticed that Costco and Sam's Club were both selling the "Student" version without making it clear to customers that it wasn't upgradable.

Yes Microsoft does that a lot. They pretty much give the software away for free to university students or whomever they please. Everyone else has to pay an arm and a leg to purchase the software. Its totally unfair, and it is the very reason why warez exists.

I myself now use the FREE software from www.openoffice.org

Even if the software isn't upgradable (which I haven't heard myself), but it still would be a steal at that price. The amount Microsoft charges just for "upgrades" is ludicrous.

Sounds like it would be cheaper to buy a new full version at that very low price than going and buying an upgrade version anyway.

Actually, if you check www.castudentbuys.org, you can purchase MS Office XP Pro for $99, only if you're a California community college student.

No, warez exists because people are too damn cheap to buy the software (for the most part).

The reason why university students get it so cheap is because they are generally what one would call "piss poor".

Well stated.

CPUGuy, if you thing someone who doesn't purchase Office to be cheap, then you must have an incredible amount of money...

I bought my OfficeXP upgrade for about $100, that's NOT expensive.

If you can't afford that, then you need to be buying parts of the Works suite.

I find that price a bit hard to swallow. The upgrade price at even high-volume resellers in my area is over $600 (Canadian) which translates to roughly $400 US. Not cheap in my books.

hey if you pay for my software I will sotp warezing, how bout it? I am a highschool kid with no jobs, around here that would hire me. SO!!! is it a deal cpuguy?

In Indy where I live, you can buy any M$ product for $5 a disc if your a student at a college here. I recently purchased Visual Studio 6 Professional for $40(Full Version). I'm not a student but a friend of mine is and she bought it for me. I'm looking into getting Office XP.

No, that's when you ask mommy and daddy for money.

Warez has been here since the beginning back when Bill Gates was doing it.
Its not because pirites are cheap ,its because to some thats how its always been ,,Look at linux it was free back then & still is.

see ya
Virus-kepping code free

That's completely illegal for 2 reasons - 1) the academic price must be *used* by a student, not just purchased by one and 2) the academic vesion cannot be used for commercial purposes by anyone.

What? That's insane. Academic versions exist to allow people in academia to use and learn the software without intent of commercial use.

... because they are too dirt poor to buy the full product.

Hey Kid: Once you joing "The Real World", you will find you are NOT "entitled" to anything. You will have to WORK for things, not whine and try getting it for free.
You aren't working at a real job yet" Mow lawns. Maybe you need your allowance taken away, plus computer, and be made to work around the house to earn your room and board. More of you kids need that, to teach you what responsibility is!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

While I must agree that Microsoft seems to include more bloat with Office each release I remember it being all seperate programs under the Office name. Most people think of Word when their Office, but in reality Office has much more products. Also remember Frontpage. Well for those who can't code Frontpage used to be a pain in the butt. 2 different programs and they really didn't work well together (FP explorer & FP editor), well this certainly has changed! The only thing I am scared off is Outlook. If anyone here tested Outlook 10, then you know they had this ldf format, I was a fool for switching over... lost a month worth of email. Anywho... if Outlook 11's format will be like that then I will never upgrade again ;-).

Anywho in the meantime... any word on when the beta testers will hear about it... are former beta testers included (this is one thing I forget)...

Sorry, but this gave me a laugh...I always get a kick out of it when people refer to writing HTML as 'coding'.

Sorry but that gave me a laugh as well. I always get a kick out of uber-geeks who look down on anyone who isn't has l33t as them.

I don't think it's about wether or not you're 1337. Writing HTML is generally not considered 'coding', therefore you should know the definition of the word(s) you are writing/speaking. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same when people screw up (e.g. the media) the differences between a 'cracker' and a 'hacker'.

Most people I know call it coding. And for all practial purposes, it is.

HTML is a programming language, for which you program webpages.

Well I am glad I gave you a laugh. Now writing webpages isn't just HTML anymore... maybe your stuck under a rock or something but it now actually involves coding.... go and find something else to laugh about

Writing webpages is much more then writing HTML now adays... Frontpage has a great editor for hard code.... I see writing webpages as writing all sorts of code... I NEVER said only HTML, for me HTML is something that is holding the internet back...

No, actually it's a Hypertext Markup Language. It's more like postscript (though 1,000,000 times less cryptic) than a programming language.

"Most people I know call it coding."
That really speaks leaps and bounds about most of the people you know.

As fewt said below, HTML is a markup language not a programming one. Programming only comes into it if you write perl/cgi-bin or servlets etc.

Excuse me, but the term "coding a webpage" is very much accepted.

hmm, I haven't ever heard it. I've heard "Designing a webpage", but never "Coding a webpage". If I had I would have corrected them. ;-)

I must say that HTML is definately not a programming language. As stated earlier it is a markup language used to place the different elements of the page into a more meaningful context with markup. As to the "coding" versus "designing" fiasco - "coding" a webpage generally refers to the act of working with a webpage using a text editor or creating scripts, etc. and "designing" a webpage usually refers to working with a webpage using a WYSIWYG enviroment or designing the layout (even on paper).

While I agree that HTML is not a programming language, you yourself have referred to creating web pages as "coding" fewt.

Web pages/sites can utilize a lot more than just HTML now (java, ASP, JSP, javascript, etc.) and the creation of a complex web page can involve a LOT of "coding".

In one thread where a criticism was thrown at you regaiding "a few lines of HTML", you countered with the fact that you have created web pages using "thousands of lines of code" and that "coding them" involved a heck of a lot more than a few lines of HTML.

I have, when? I probably said "code the backend". If they are dealing with code embedded into a page then that IS coding, I'm not disputing that. Oh, that comment about thousands of lines of code wasn't mine, or it wasn't referring to HTML.

Correct. When you said "thousands of lines of code" you were not referring to HTML. (I don't remember what exactly you were referring to, I think it was Java, but I could be remembering wrong. You were specifically discussing the fact that web pages are a lot more than just HTML)

I was just addressing the fact that the thread had drifted.

It started with whether or not writing HTML was "coding".

But along the way a couple of people seemed to generalize it to "creating web pages is NOT coding".

Writing HTML is not "coding", but web page creation these days often involves tons of "coding".

I think you are mistaking a comment nulledge made as mine. ;-)

So basicly any program code sent to the browser isnt actually program code at all? even dhtml stuff like javascript (or dare I say it vbscript stuff)?? uh huh ok. fine. lol.

In that case, you've just described 'scripting' not coding =) ehehhe, It depends on how paedantic you want to get. Writing a Java Servlet and scripting some javascript are (usually) on completely different levels, so I wouldn't call 'scripting' coding. Especially given that the majority of web sites don't make extensive use of javascript. I do however realise that some do, even to the extend of making games using javascript and images.

Here's an idea. Don't upgrade. Someone here said you don't have to, so why bother? Unless you need the added functionality, or forced to for compatibility issues, then stay with what works. I have access to all the latest and greatest because of my job. But at home I still use MS Works. The wife uses it easily, as does my son. It's low overhead and does what we need it to do there...

Just my FYI...

Truth be told, most businesses are still using Office 97...we were just deliberating whether to go to 2000...with the new licensing requirements, it looks like Star Office 6 is our primary candidate...if we upgraded our computers to all IBM's we get SmartSuite for free...does anybody really upgrade Office when M$ tells them to?

i currently work at Xerox in Software Development and use all version of Office from version 5 to xp. I understand that most businesses dont upgrade however this is a big security problem as older version of Office are still exploitable and once they are not supported you are stuck with an unsecure program. Also anyone who things Office 97 is better than Office 2000/XP is mad. You have to remember that people need Office for different needs, not every just writes letters etc, PowerPoint XP is amazing over PowerPoint 97 and 2000, as is Publisher and FrontPage. Word is just one application in a very large Suite. Also have you used Visio or Project Manager? Both are excellent bits of software in the Office Suite just not in the basic (Standard) version which just have Access, Word etc

i mean DAMN...everyone I know is still using Office 2000. And now they have revamped the interface for outlook and added a database for backup purposes? Leave it to Mirosoft to move away from something as simple as a PST file to some stupid database that probaly will be as stable as a bridge made out of toothpicks.

Yup, I agree. M$ just cant stop. First they mess with a perfiect Office suite (aka Office 95) add loads of bulk items and invent for the faithful upgraders Office 97, then as Office 97 in all its flavors....

THEN, they release Office 2000 complete with major fumbling and udging on the licence and EULA terms casuing a ripple in the SME market... then , wait for it .... they release Office XP and force you to register it via there online config tool, included with this release is more bloatedness and to an extent useless tools plus more fudging with the Licencing terms and conditions so SME`s pay through the Arse once again.

Today, they anounce Office 11. One has to ask the time-honored question. Will it ever stop?

Microsoft are indeed the Office vulgarian, they release a good product (office 95) bulls*** people later that they MUST upgrade to a seemingly better suite and all the time secretly raking in the dollars on suites often with minor fixes disguised as major releases..

I err... rest my case

FRom Longwinded Len

What do you expect? You want them to just keep tweaking Office 95? That wouldn't be a very good business practice.

I don't think Microsoft comes to everyone's houses and holds them at gunpoint and forces them to upgrade, do they?

Personally, I like like Office 2k & XP. I didn't start using office until 97, because up until Corel broke wordperfect at v8, I used that because I like it better.

And yes, it never will end, because if MS stops making office products, then they lose a large chunk of revenue. And yes, there are signifacant enough of differences between versions to warrant upgrading for *some* users. Personally, I like the prospects of where this sounds like MS is going with office 11.

Which doesn't change the fact that, for the vast majority of users, there has been no significant upgrade since Office 95. It's true. Between Office 2000 and Office XP, nothing warrants me shelling out 300-600 dollars for an upgrade. And I can just imagine what businesses have to pay as far as licensing fees. But it sure wasn't broken at Office 95. If they had just stopped tweaking with it and just updated the GUI every year or so, most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.

You know what, you can just shut your mouth right there buddy (or stop your fingers, rather).

There are more people in the world then just YOU. Other people have different needs than YOU. Just because YOU don't need it/like/want it doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't also.

Note what you said. Nothing warrants YOU shelling out $300-$600 for it. Personally, I think the smart tags are well worth the money right there. Not to mention the fact that Powerpoint 2002 is flat out awesome compared to previous versions.

I do agree that Microsoft's software is generally getting better (disregard winME and winXP), but the fact that they come out every single year, and every time the software gets a bit and bit slower (though on my 1.4Ghz.. I don't feel too big of a difference)... They should like make service packs every year.. and upgrade every... 2 or 3 years.. like what they did with 95-97-2000, not 2002-2003... It's wasting everyone's money..

Like yes...and like put it in one of those like cool boxes, and like look at the holograms on the CD. They're like way cool...They should like change the Start Button, to like Like Start Already...And call Windows Explorer Like Explore Okay...And Microsft Word should be called Like Word...

Cool...

very true, different people have different needs, different jobs mean you use different parts of the software. Most of the people posting here only ever seem to use Word for writing letters, dont they know about its other features?! Obviously they are not "power users" of the software.

2000 came out in 99, XP came out in 2001.

You must also note that all MS software (and generally all software in general) generally gets pushed back from it's original release scheadule.

yeah they do! that bill gates is evil :P

umm i think if you actually knew what you were talking about you would know there is ALOT of differences in office XP over Office 2000, try loading up PowerPoint XP for one and making a slideshow, now try doing it in Office 2000, there are so many new features that could not even be thought of in Office 2000. The main principle (eg word is a word processor) has not changed, but it should not, there have been hundreds of added features/fixes/enhancements in ALL Office XP programs over Office 2000. I understand if all you do is write letters in Word then upgrading is pointless but what about the people who do use it for more than letters, etc.? You are looking at it from just 1 point of view, yours!, look at it from multiple POV and i think you will see people need different features. I design alot of slideshows for work, mainly for boardmeetings etc. and the features in PowerPoint XP make my life alot quicker, easier and more professional looking. I do agree that WPA is a bit of a put me off but the company has the write to include piracy protection, alot of other companies include very similar types of security, i dont mind as i own a legit copy of Office XP, it is people who dont own it legally are the only people who need to worry.

"...they release Office XP and force you to register it via there online config tool..."

I beg your pardon? There is no such requirement at all in Office XP.

You have to activate it, you do not have to register it.
(There's a BIG difference between the two)

And what's wrong with XP?

You obviously know very little bount security and the need for a secure backup media. Having a database as the mail storage rather than a "PST" file is a much better idea, it will make searching much easier, make it a more secure and stable platform for getting mail, people are getting more and more mail these days and so the need for a better system to store them is needed. I suppose you are also upset that the next major release of Windows (NT 6.0, LongHorn) is going to use an SQL type file system and not NTFS? You should really understand the technology before you start to pick it apart saying it is pointless.

Actually there is some truth to his statement, go read licensing 6.0. *shiver*

The real question is, what isn't wrong with it?

Fewt for you that is a very childish post. XP might be "candy covered" but it is an excellent OS for all users from just a 2 hours a night on the net user to a never rebooted power users system.

How is it childish? It's a true statement, how many patches have there been now, how large is the first service pack? Why is it that I am still getting urgent critical issue email from MSFT constantly though it takes weeks for them to follow with patches? It looks like it was designed by a 6 year old with a fresh box of crayolas! I used it for 3 mos where the messaging service decidedly stopped working out of the blue, applications were constantly crashing (not the OS mind you), it refused to come out of hybernation without crashing, and wouldn't support half of my software collection. Again, what ISN'T wrong with it!

Fewt buddy, you know you can always give me a call toll free for help with XP! LOL!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

i agree that the updates are a bit over the top (personally i feel it should have stayed in development for at least another 6 months and had a few extra features added/fixed, but that is just my opinion). The only problems i have had with software is using major software which was not designed for Windows XP (such as Norton AntiVirus 2000 and 2001, 2001 does work if patched though). It is childish looking however KDE 3 and GNOME 2 are getting a more childish looking, with highcolor "crayola coloured" icons etc, also look at Mac OS X! I have never had applications which are designed for Windows XP crash on me, only applications which, the developer has stated, do not work on Windows XP, i also had this with Windows 2000 when running programs developed for 98, and with ME when running programs developed for 95, etc. it is the problem with new system operation, you of all people will understand that. My standby and hibination features work perfectly, not one problem. When you say the "messaging" service crashed do you mean Windows Messenger or the intergrated "Messenger" service for TCP/IP when using "net send", either way i have had no problem with either. The first Service Pack is huge, but that is because it is adding alot of support for new features, Windows 2000 service packs are alot smaller but did not included alot of new features, etc.

I still think that saying "what isnt wrong with windows xp" is a little childish, but i do see your point, anyone else can however state "what isnt wrong with linux" it is slow, simple tasks are too complex, has poor driver support from first party (developers, and it has been around long enough for them to know about!), etc. infact you could say this about any operating system, the bad points easily outway the good points for every OS i know, however there are alot more bad points and less good points when it comes to Linux ;)

LOL I already get paid to support it, and well I'll kep getting paid to support it while I use my (almost) trouble free linux machine at home.

The messenger service, used by "net send" it worked one day, and then just didn't ever again. "however there are alot more bad points and less good points when it comes to Linux ;)" oh? Lets hear them. (Save the it can't run windows apps argument though since it's not designed to.) :-P

haha

I dont really see the big deal in this pst replaced by a database argument. A pst file is pretty much a database anyway - open access up and you can import/link to "tables" in a pst file already (or on an exchange server for that matter). I assume all they mean is they are going to change the file format a little - which is no surprise, they do that with every other office app with every release!

haha if i wanted to run Windows applications i would use Windows. In linux (redhat 7.1) explain how "easy" it is to pop in a CDROM, copy some files of it, take out the CDROM, put in another and copy some files to the harddrive from it then eject it.

You cant unless you mount the drive, copy, unmount the drive, then remount the drive and then copy and then unmount the drive. One of the things i hate about *NIX is having to mount drives in order to use them, Linux is getting better and better i admit (Mandrake 8.x automounts and unmounts, and i think a few others do also) however the more linux develops and gets better it is more like Windows. Also Linux is deadly slow, personally i could not use KDE or GNOME (the most popular shells) for everyday use at work/home, i have a decent PC, it is only a P3 700Mhz with 768MB RAM but it runs Windows 2000 perfectly, when i put RedHat or Mandrake etc on it it is slow as hell, opening a browser window just to see my home contents takes about 5-10 seconds, i know it doesnt seem like ages but compared to windows opening a window (i am not just talking about Explorer here, i have used other programs such as Commander, and Beyond Compare etc.) and it is open as soon as i double click (single click from the quick launch bar). The bugs in Linux are mainly that it is so slow, you have to agree with that.

Why are you using that old version of Linux? Get a new version and you'll find an icon that appears on your desktop when you insert a CDROM. (RedHat 7.1 will do this also if you turn the automount service on.) If you want a desktop Linux, get one. RedHat makes a professional workstation and a server OS, not something that's ready for the typical desktop. For Desktop Linux, get Lycoris. Linux is not deadly slow, unless it's misconfigured. Again get a desktop Linux and your problems here will go away too. If you want to get better performance out of RedHat add this to rc.sysinit: /sbin/hdparm -c 3 -d 1 -u 1 /dev/hda I'm sorry if browsing your filesystem is a little slower than it is in Windows, but you'll find that things like video etc are 100x faster. (I can play video on a linux machine but when I boot into 2K it's choppy after a clean install with all the proper drivers loaded.) If you want light weight file management, get a light weight file manager. (I use xftree, it opens in under 1 second when clicked.) I can't agree with you because it's simply not true.

fair enough, we have different opinions. I personally dont like Linux, UNIX is nice such as Solaris, but Linux, in my opinion isnt as good as UNIX or Windows yet it wants to be both. I actually found poor video performance on my machine using Mandrake 8.2 and RedHat 7.2 yet in Windows 2000 it was perfect. Playing a DVD on Linux is also a mission as there isnt a decent Software DVD player, or a DVD player which supports my DVD Decoder Card (i tried several open source drivers for my DVD Card but all were of very poor performance, it is s REALmagic HollyWood+) and ripping MP3s on linux i found to be very slow, i could do a whole CD in Windows using CDex in a matter of minutes when ripping to 320kbps. I will try what you mentioned about adding an extra line to a file in redhat, hopefully it will improve performance.

Run it as root also so you don't have to wait for a reboot to see a performance boost.

a quick search on google.com and it says Windows 2000 Pro came out on Februrary 17th 2000 however i am sure it came out in 1999 also. Do you have any additional info?

Microsoft needs to do QA their software. Linux doesn't have that process.

Are your software design for Windows XP? Maybe it isn't design to run them! (referring to "Save the it can't run windows apps argument though since it's not designed to" comment)

The software crashing sounds like you configure something improperly. With your computer knowledge, I would hae thought that you are able to work around them like the rest of us.

>Microsoft needs to do QA their software. Linux doesn't have
>that process.

Well, that's because Linux is a kernel. RedHat QA's their software, as does SUSE, and many other Linux companies.

>Are your software design for Windows XP? Maybe it isn't

No, however XP makes the claim to be "more compatable" than 2000 so why should I have to have XP certified software?

>design to run them! (referring to "Save the it can't run
>windows apps argument though since it's not designed to"
>comment)

I was referring to Linux distributions themselves, they are not designed to run any windows software.

>The software crashing sounds like you configure something
>improperly. With your computer knowledge, I would hae

No, nothing is configured improperly. The software may not be "layered" correctly, but well that's another windows problem.

>thought that you are able to work around them like the rest
> of us.

"work around them"? Why should I? I want my software investments to work as is! Why should I go and reinvest in software when XP claims that it's "compatable"?

>>Microsoft needs to do QA their software. Linux doesn't have
>>that process.

>Well, that's because Linux is a kernel. RedHat QA's their software, as does SUSE, and many other Linux companies.

Well, thats because patches security problem on Linux software don't come from RedHat or SUSE directly. You still end up with a lag time between source patch and the official vendor patch.

>>Are your software design for Windows XP? Maybe it isn't

>No, however XP makes the claim to be "more compatable" than 2000 so why should I have to have XP certified software?

So the "half of [your] software collection" worked on Windows 2000?

>>design to run them! (referring to "Save the it can't run
>>windows apps argument though since it's not designed to"
>>comment)

>I was referring to Linux distributions themselves, they are not designed to run any windows software.

So no Linux distribution include WINE? WINE is design to run Windows software, but that doesn't mean it is perfect. Windows is design to run Windows software, but that doesn't mean that it will work with all the software. It is that commicial software ventor's fault.

>>>applications were constantly crashing

>>The software crashing sounds like you configure something
>>improperly. With your computer knowledge, I would hae

>No, nothing is configured improperly. The software may not be "layered" correctly, but well that's another windows problem.

No they are not "layered" properly. I have not ever heard of that term. Interpreting the possible meaning of the term produces many different possible definition. Still, millions of people are able to get their software to work, tthere has to be some difference in the system or software so that yours don't work.

>>thought that you are able to work around them like the rest
>> of us.

>"work around them"? Why should I? I want my software investments to work as is! Why should I go and reinvest in software when XP claims that it's "compatable"?

Are you confusing PR junk from Microsoft with the reality? They can just make application to operate properly and claim that! You are smart enough to not to trust Microsoft's claim and not think that it is gospel.

Correction: ...can just make one application operate properly...

As I said, don't ever interpret that PR from Microsoft in absolute sense.

>>>Microsoft needs to do QA their software. Linux doesn't have
>>>that process.

>>Well, that's because Linux is a kernel. RedHat QA's their software, as does SUSE, and many other Linux companies.

>Well, thats because patches security problem on Linux software don't come from RedHat or SUSE directly. You still end up with a lag time between source patch and the official vendor patch.

Oh, they don't? You must have missed that class then. http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/

>>>Are your software design for Windows XP? Maybe it isn't

>>No, however XP makes the claim to be "more compatable" than 2000 so why should I have to have XP certified software?

>So the "half of [your] software collection" worked on Windows 2000?

Yes, the very same applications that puke in XP worked in 2000. (Microsoft's Greetings Workshop comes to mind.)

>>>design to run them! (referring to "Save the it can't run
>>>windows apps argument though since it's not designed to"
>>>comment)

>>I was referring to Linux distributions themselves, they are not designed to run any windows software.

>So no Linux distribution include WINE? WINE is design to run Windows software, but that doesn't mean it is perfect. Windows is design to run Windows software, but that doesn't mean that it will work with all the software. It is that commicial software ventor's fault.

Sure, they may bundle wine, but do they claim to be able to run Windows
applications? I know of only one Linux distribution that's made that claim and
well they backpeddled on it quickly too. Microsoft claims that Windows is
compatable with your legacy applications. Perhaps you should pay attention to
the advertisements made on the packaging, and during the installation.

>>>>applications were constantly crashing

>>>The software crashing sounds like you configure something
>>>improperly. With your computer knowledge, I would hae

>>No, nothing is configured improperly. The software may not be "layered" correctly, but well that's another windows problem.

>No they are not "layered" properly. I have not ever heard of that term. Interpreting the possible meaning of the term produces many different possible definition. Still, millions of people are able to get their software to work, tthere has to be some difference in the system or software so that yours don't work.

If you haven't heard that term, then you aren't fluent enough with computing to argue with me
about the topic. When you get your first MMC snapin could not initialize error, you
will quickly come to understand it's meaning.

>>>thought that you are able to work around them like the rest
>>> of us.

>>"work around them"? Why should I? I want my software investments to work as is! Why should I go and reinvest in software when XP claims that it's "compatable"?

>Are you confusing PR junk from Microsoft with the reality? They can just make application to operate properly and claim that! You are smart enough to not to trust Microsoft's claim and not think that it is gospel.

They make the claim I expect them to stand by it. Perhaps you need to look at your own perception of reality.

So, you are admitting that they lie to sell product, yet you question my perception of reallity when calling them on it? ROTFLMFAO!

They did not technically lie. Any smart people would learn never to trust PR fluff.

>>>>>though it takes weeks for them to follow with patches?

>>>>Microsoft needs to do QA their software. Linux doesn't have
>>>>that process.

>>>Well, that's because Linux is a kernel. RedHat QA's their software, as does SUSE, and many other Linux companies.

>>Well, thats because patches security problem on Linux software don't come from RedHat or SUSE directly. You still end up with a lag time between source patch and the official vendor patch.

>Oh, they don't? You must have missed that class then. http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/

Disclosure of the bug is different from the release of the patch. The Gobbles example comes to mind... (that was really bad act on Gobbles's part...)

>>>>Are your software design for Windows XP? Maybe it isn't

>>>No, however XP makes the claim to be "more compatable" than 2000 so why should I have to have XP certified software?

>>So the "half of [your] software collection" worked on Windows 2000?

>Yes, the very same applications that puke in XP worked in 2000. (Microsoft's Greetings Workshop comes to mind.)

Blame Microsoft Greeting Workshop, don't blame WinXP. The OS is fine.

>>>>design to run them! (referring to "Save the it can't run
>>>>windows apps argument though since it's not designed to"
>>>>comment)

>>>I was referring to Linux distributions themselves, they are not designed to run any windows software.

>>So no Linux distribution include WINE? WINE is design to run Windows software, but that doesn't mean it is perfect. Windows is design to run Windows software, but that doesn't mean that it will work with all the software. It is that commicial software ventor's fault.

>Sure, they may bundle wine, but do they claim to be able to run Windows
applications? I know of only one Linux distribution that's made that claim and
well they backpeddled on it quickly too. Microsoft claims that Windows is
compatable with your legacy applications. Perhaps you should pay attention to
the advertisements made on the packaging, and during the installation.

PR junk, why do you insist on interpreting it like it will work with all software? Anyone could write something that works in Win95 (or Win2K in your example) and fail on WinXP.

>>>>>applications were constantly crashing

>>>>The software crashing sounds like you configure something
>>>>improperly. With your computer knowledge, I would hae

>>>No, nothing is configured improperly. The software may not be "layered" correctly, but well that's another windows problem.

>>No they are not "layered" properly. I have not ever heard of that term. Interpreting the possible meaning of the term produces many different possible definition. Still, millions of people are able to get their software to work, tthere has to be some difference in the system or software so that yours don't work.

>If you haven't heard that term,

Then why did you put quote between the word "layered"? Pleas do explain it to me.

>then you aren't fluent enough with computing to argue with me

I agree, I probably have less than half of your industrial certification and other stuff, but I can get over half of my software application working on WinXP. (although some of the older Windows games are just impossible...) One thing comes to mind, I assume you use Linux as your primary workstation, are those half of the software custom written?

>about the topic. When you get your first MMC snapin could not initialize error, you
will quickly come to understand it's meaning.

Blame the software vendor. You refered to those MMC software as all your applications. So all you have is MMC software on your computer? Sorry, the only third party software with MMC I have is Diskeeper.

>>>>thought that you are able to work around them like the rest
>>>> of us.

>>>"work around them"? Why should I? I want my software investments to work as is! Why should I go and reinvest in software when XP claims that it's "compatable"?

>>Are you confusing PR junk from Microsoft with the reality? They can just make application to operate properly and claim that! You are smart enough to not to trust Microsoft's claim and not think that it is gospel.

>They make the claim I expect them to stand by it. Perhaps you need to look at your own perception of reality.

I hope you are smart enough to realize that they can stand proudly beside their claims with one example. The hundred of counterexamples you have don't make them any more of a liar.

Then it must not be true if "smart people" know better than to trust it!

>Disclosure of the bug is different from the release of the patch. The Gobbles example comes to mind... (that was really bad act on Gobbles's part...)

Agreed

>Blame Microsoft Greeting Workshop, don't blame WinXP. The OS is fine.

Why? The software seems to run fine on every other MS OS I've installed it on.

>PR junk, why do you insist on interpreting it like it will work with all software? Anyone could write something that works in Win95 (or Win2K in your example) and fail on WinXP.

What does compatable mean to you? To me it means "compatable"!

>Then why did you put quote between the word "layered"? Pleas do explain it to me.

Layering: The order in which applications are installed, used to satisfy dependencies and allow features otherwise disabled to be available
for use. Example: Install Office before Notes and find new options in Notes.

>I agree, I probably have less than half of your industrial certification and other stuff, but I can get over half of my software application working on WinXP. (although some of the older Windows games are just impossible...) One thing comes to mind, I assume you use Linux as your primary workstation, are those half of the software custom written?

I would too if I bought all new software, but I digress.

>Blame the software vendor. You refered to those MMC software as all your applications. So all you have is MMC software on your computer? Sorry, the only third party software with MMC I have is Diskeeper.

SQL server was actually the offender, I am blaming the manufacturer.

>I hope you are smart enough to realize that they can stand proudly beside their claims with one example. The hundred of counterexamples you have don't make them any more of a liar.

Sure, they are thugs. They can manipulate the truth and the sheeple will flock to them as if it were the gospel.

I just realize that this portion of the thread has gone completely off topic! Is there a Microsoft Operating system article we can continue this?

>The software seems to run fine on every other MS OS I've installed it on.

I agree, this doesn't make sense.

>What does compatable mean to you? To me it means "compatable"!

Don't you just hate them playing with words like compatible? I am having some trouble finding the more compatible claim on their web site.

>Layering: The order in which applications are installed, used to satisfy dependencies and allow features otherwise disabled to be available
for use. Example: Install Office before Notes and find new options in Notes.

It really depends on the intellegence of the installation software. Agree.

>SQL server was actually the offender, I am blaming the manufacturer.

Agree. This one you can blame Microsoft Windows XP.

>Sure, they are thugs. They can manipulate the truth and the sheeple will flock to them as if it were the gospel.

Agree

"Windows XP includes these features to help you resolve quickly any compatibility problems that you might encounter"

http://www.microsoft.com...iews/compat/default.asp