Posted on 04/07/2007 6:51:09 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
If you were looking for any glimpse into the mind of Microsoft, this is it: The company has completely abandoned Windows XP, and it has absolutely no plans to ever ship an XP SP3. My guess is that Microsoft will do what it did with the final Windows 2000 Service Pack: Claim years later that it's no longer needed and just ship a final security patch roll-up. This is the worst kiss-off to any Microsoft product I've ever seen, and you'd think the company would show a little more respect to its best-selling OS of all time. But the reality is, Microsoft is looking ahead to new revenue and not behind to money that's already in the bank. And though hundreds of millions of people will be running XP for years to come, despite Microsoft's best efforts at selling them a later Windows version, the company has absolutely no plans to actually support those customers. This flies in the face of its publicly-stated life cycle support plans. And it really freaks me out. It should freak you out as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at windowsitpro.com ...
I’m personally running Suse 10.1 right now.
Suse from what I’ve seen is the slowest....... read “most windows like” when it comes to normal day-to-day usage. It just feels really slow like windows used to when I used it.
Novell screwed up a handful of things. Look for two programs, Kerry and Beagle. They’re similar to google desktop search. When you do your initial install these programs are catalogging your hard drive. They’ll eventually finish catalogging but in the meantime they give a false impression of extreme sluggishness.
Just fire up the SUSE-YAST2 control panel and disable these system services.
I’ll be migrating back to Fedora when 7 is released.
I would suggest you create your own “migration” thread here on FR for additional tips, ideas, suggestions, and also positives/negatives. It’s bound to get buried here in this thread amongst all the arguing..... once Golden Eagle joins the discussion things fall apart.
LOL every time you try to use the word “lie”, since you’ve been lying for over a year now claiming windows 2000 is quote “unsupported” when security patches will be provided till 2010.
It’s also a lie to claim Red Hat support is cheaper than Windows. Automated Windows patching is free, while Red Hat charges a yearly subscription for their service.
No, its a lie to say its not without setting a frame of reference. Desktop / Server, how long do you want to use it? what environment? how big is your redhat foot print (They give huge discounts to large customers)? All these things factor in and any blanket statement like Redhat is Cheaper or Windows is cheaper is irresponsible. Showing again you have at best a simple understanding of how IT works you keep comparing apples to an unknown fruit.
BTW Windows updates are not free, you have to buy windows to get them! yet more dishonesty (half-truth) on this thread by you.
^^^^^^^^^^Microsoft has pledged to provide security patches for Windows 2000 till 2010.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You’re free to be dishonest at any time. Full support for windows 2000 does not exist anymore.
Full support according to microsoft themselves ended on 6/30/2005
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=5&y=7&p1=3071
Red Hat offers 7 year support for RHEL, not 5.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^What 2000 year products do Red Hat and Novell still support, and will support till 2010?^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you’re willing to pay for it, you can get anything you want. MS will do the same thing for NT4 if you wish to contact them with questions.
Money talks. With as much as you go on and on and on about microsoft, I’m sure you’re aware of this very simple fact.
Careful Half hes going to runaround for the next three years calling you a liar. You dare to say security fixes is only a subset of support and does not, alone, qualify as support? I made that mistake in May of 2005 and our local troll has been trying to spin it as a lie to this very day.
I could care less. I haven’t seen any poster who takes GE seriously. Besides, I posted a link.
A lie spoken a thousand times is still a lie.
If you mean correct all the lies posted by the Linux pimpers then yes, I destroy their BS constantly.
That’s all you have to say for yourself? “Money talks and you can get whatever you want from Red Hat”? LOL just what I expected, you can’t even come close to backing up your claim, and try to attack me for exposing your BS instead.
You keep claiming Windows 2000 is currently unsupported which is a lie. Claiming it’s not a lie is another. You really can’t seem to post much of anything that’s truthful that I can tell.
A car has tires but a tire ain't a car! Support has security patches but security patches ain't support. Hell my two year old kid can understand a tire is not a car but a car has tires why cant you?
LOL, what a pantload. Keep posting BS like that, you'll keep going down in flames.
Ive seen you do many foolish things to make your self the caricature of a troll you are to do but feign stupidity is not one of them.
I see what you mean he is unable to grasp concepts that even a toddler could..
Another lie.
Security Patches are crucial and no support would be worth a damn if it was lacking security patches. But Thats a ‘has a’ relationship Security patches do not have an ‘is a’ relationship with Support.
You yourself on this thread have said you cat get Linux support from anyone for 7 years and you have asked about a supported product from 2000 - 2010 with Linux.
If all you're looking for is security patches You can Run Linux itself, they are still patching the 2.2 kernel and all the gnu libs so by your definition of ‘security fixes’ equals support Linux has a much longer support life cycle than MS. Do you now see the flaw in your statement
I cant explain it to you any more clearly than that and if you were, at the very least, a functional toddler you would understand that.
I'm smart enough to know you're lying when you claim Windows 2000 is "unsupported" while I'm still downloading free security updates direct from Microsoft. You trying to claim someone forced to manually patch their Linux kernel with generic patches is somehow equal support to autopatching direct from Microsoft is another whopper too. Like I said you can't seem to make a single post without making up another absurd lie. Guess that's why you love Linux so much, all the pimpers seem to have the same problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^LOL just what I expected, you can’t even come close to backing up your claim^^^^^^^^^^^^
I’m not the one claiming that Microsoft is offering full support until 2010 when their website states otherwise.(and the link that I posted shows)
Newb is the one claiming Windows 2000 is quote “unsupported”, I’m just correcting the endless linux lies like normal, and posting the fact that Microsoft will be providing free automatic security patches till 2010. Obviously it eats you up, but you’ll have to learn to accept reality one day, or keep getting called on all the BS you post.
by your definition of ‘support every linux from about 1995 on is supported.
Incorrect, of course. Microsoft provides automatic installs of security patches to Windows 2000, and will till 2010, despite your endless claims to contrary. No version of Linux offers anything close, despite your endless claims to the contrary. You are completely wrong, on every point, once again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.