Posted on 04/10/2005 6:06:02 AM PDT by infocats
Thanks, I asked about a PS2-to-USB converter to stick in front of the KVM switch, they told me it would not work. Kinda pissed me off as I could't think of why inot and left empty handed. It's a long drive to compUSA, I wanted to leave with a new system, but didn't want to spend $1000 and I didn't want XP as an OS. Well I can nurse these old P1's and P2's along for a while longer, but it would be nice to have a little more horse power. If OSX is unix then I should be able to telnet to it as a last resort. I also have XWindows installed not the PCs so I should be able to run mac apps that have XWindows UIs withot problems. I might just go buy the damn thing today and be done with it. But I'd like a to know more about OSX first.
have you, or anyone u know, tried xp mce 2005 on a 64bit athlon? i recently got into the mania of streaming music/video/pictures to appliances/computers/pda's and whatnot and want to try MS's solution in addition to UPnP media servers i am presently running (twonkyvision). Heck, i finally broke down and bought an xbox mainly for the mce extender capability.
Never mind that. Will the next version of Windows be worth the cost of the upgrade???
Yeah, but that line is right at the climax of the song ... errr, uhhh ... I meant end of the song.
The KVM switch and a new USB keyboard may be your best option, but you can use Microsoft's free Remote Desktop Connection Client for Mac to access a Windows 2000 or XP Pro screen on a Mac. You can also use free implementations of the VNC protocol for that purpose. And the Mac can be a client or a server in a Windows file sharing environment. Telnet is available, but ssh is the preferred method for remote terminal access.
It's a long drive to compUSA
Check today's Best Buy flyer in your Sunday newspaper. They are selling Mac minis now.
I can. They've been having huge problems with the fact that most people see no particular reason to upgrade their software. Take a poll and see how many folks are still running MSOffice-97, as oposed to the newer XP version. Upgrades are a big deal for microsoft.
Check out the number of people on this thread who have not upgraded since Win98. MS considers this money lost.
I really hope they break backwards compatability even more than they did with XP (not to mention SP2). It will get more people to look at alternatives to the defective products marketed out of Redmond.
I think they'll see the upgrade revenue potential as more of a monetary incentive to them than the hit they may take from people switching. They are probably right in this, as I can't tell you how many times I've seen people yelling and screaming about how messed up windows is, and how it had thrashed itself and needs to be reloaded, along with the anti-virus/anti-spyware programs and everything else, yet they still go ahead and reload rather than consider anything else that might actually work better for them.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. I think many MS users are, by definition, insane, thus they'll continue on the treadmill because they are too frightened at the thought of stepping off.
I remember all of those DOS programmers who swore they would never use a mouse, and a lot of them still have a DOS mentality in 2005. For the vast majority of users, the ability to run a program written in 1981 is not essential - especially considering all of the bugs and security problems associated with obsolete environments.
Gates focused on what customers wanted.
Sure, everyone knows that Microsoft's customers wanted a big stinking pile of worms, viruses and spyware. And Gates delivered.
No.
I've crashed XP so many times that I've lost count. I no longer bother to send MS those error messages that automatically appear when it crashes.
That was the one. It was a video that "morphed" the band into a Happy Days episode.
Yeah that was a terrific video. That particular album was also really good. That video turned me and my sister on to them.
Good observation, R.
I think his sticking point is that nothing runs in 256KB of ram these days. If you meant 256 MB of ram, that's a couple of orders of magnitude or so different.
Hey, my brother lives in a cave too. He's happy as a lark with his Win 98. I have had exactly zero trouble with Win XP-- including SP2. I figure I'll stick with Win XP as long as I can.
Windows 98 is faster (on my machine anyway), crashes less and is more virus resistant.
64mb was the minimum, 256kb was recommended.
I guess my claim is based on the time I had my friend's machine and saw no improvement in how snappily windows opened nor speed in web surfing.
You shouldn't ever post your experience as indicative of Win 98 running as fast as Win XP because you have no idea how to gauge the two.
I do. I have been building PC's since the mid 90's, my first a PII 450. My current machine is a P4 2.8C. I have run Win 95, 98, 2000, and XP on my machines (5 iterations). My boot times in Win 98 were approx 1:15. Today, my machine takes 83 seconds to boot to the signon screen, and that's after two raid arrays initialize (each one taking approx 5 sec in the startup). Additionally, I can assure you that using benchmarks my PC kicks a Win 98 machines a$$.
Windows XP is more efficient, faster and more powerful than Win 98. Anyone who claims otherwise has never taken the time to adequetly compare the two.
Of course, if you're running a PII or first gen PIII I could see how Win 98 can run faster. Then again, your system would suck, IMO.
My prediction is that it will be massive, slow, and full of bugs and copy protection/spying features. Even the newer computers will struggle to run it, and the boot up time will be approximately three times the boot up time of a Pentium 60 from 1994 running Windows 3.1.
Hate to bother you with an off topic question, but if you could help at all...
I need to go the other way for training sessions. Need to have an XP client observe/control a Mac (Panther) server. The XP is offsite, access is through a VPN.
I've tried Timbuktu til I'm tired - keeps freezing after 30-50 minutes. Both ends have broadband (DSL w/fixed IP on the Mac).
I've heard of Chicken of the VNC, but am wary of too much config/setup for OSS. And I'm clueless on setting up VNC on XP.
Should I pursue VNC more or maybe look at Apple's Remote Desktop; any suggestions?
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.