[geeks] Help me convert a computer illiterate to an iMac!

[Eric Dittman]

> If it's new, it will have XP (probably home edition--which -sucks-[0])
> on it, and XP is different enough from Windows 2000 to completely baffle
> even a seasoned user.  Hell, even the Start menu is different--with
> items adding themselves to and removing themselves from the main pane.

I didn't find XP that different from W2K.  Just eye candy that
can easily be turned off.

> Well, XP is slow.  I ran it on a 1.1GHz Athlon for about a month before
> I got sick and tired of the sluggish UI and the problems it has with a
> 4.1 analog speaker setup.  XP is confusing and ugly, and it'll make you
> jump through hoops to do stuff that used to just require opening a
> control panel.  A friend of mine (an avid PC-user) calls XP the "click
> OS" because everything's about 80 million clicks away.  -He- won't even
> put XP on his machines, and he won't run anything other than Windows.

If you turn off the eye candy, WXP is just an improved W2K.  I
found WXP to operate faster than W2K on the same system once the
extra WXP GUI stuff is turned off.

> [0] I should qualify that.  Home edition is XP Pro sans multiprocessing
>     and reasonably useful networking.  Gone are the days when you could
>     right-click on a folder, click "Sharing..." and make some files
>     visible on the network.  No, that was too confusing!  Now, to share
>     files, you have to -move- -the- -folder- to C:\Documents and
>     Settings\Shared Files\.  Granted OSX tries to get you to do the same
>     thing, but at least there's a NetInfo workaround.  XP enforces it at
>     the redirector layer.

I've seen posts that talk about enabling XP Pro-style sharing
for XP Home.
-- 
Eric Dittman
dittman at dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/