New Laptop - which flavour of Windows? (and other issues)

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Re: "But why? My attitude is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"!"
>
> Because it is broken, only the cracks are not on the surface.
>
> There is NO support by Intuit for anything over about 3 years old.
> There are security issues. And once you get more than about 6 years
> old, you may not be ABLE to migrate from the old version to a current
> version.

Sorry, you've lost me!

I've used Quicken 98 for 12 years or so to do the accounts for my own family
and for two voluntary organisations with which I am associated without
requiring any support from Intuit. So why should I need any *now*?

*What* security issues? My use of it never goes anywhere near the internet!
--
Cheers,
Roger
_______
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[John Rumm]

Barry Watzman wrote:
> There are 3 options for these situations:
>
> 1. Put up with the very annoying UAC prompts every time you use the
> older programs.
>
> 2. Turn off UAC entirely. Not recommended by the experts, but in
> reality you are no worse off than you would be if you were just using XP.
>
> 3. It is possible to configure UAC behavior on a program-by-program
> basis, e.g. off for ill-behaved older programs but on for later, UAC
> compliant software. A web search will find instructions. It's not easy
> or fun; this was not something Microsoft really intended to support, but
> it can be manually configured.

It can go a bit deeper than just dealing with UAC IME...

for example Word 2003 will install and run ok on Win7, but will pop up
the license acceptance agreement for the user to OK every time it runs.
This seems to be a failure to record the users acceptance, due to write
permissions. However it does not generate a UAC popup when it attempts
to save the users answer.

With that one, you can fix it by doing a run as admin on it, accepting
the agreement popup and then closing it. Next time you run with normal
rights, it works normally.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

 

[Barry Watzman]

Re: "for example Word 2003 will install and run ok on Win7, but will pop
up the license acceptance agreement for the user to OK every time it runs"

It does not do that on my system.


John Rumm wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> There are 3 options for these situations:
>>
>> 1. Put up with the very annoying UAC prompts every time you use the
>> older programs.
>>
>> 2. Turn off UAC entirely. Not recommended by the experts, but in
>> reality you are no worse off than you would be if you were just using XP.
>>
>> 3. It is possible to configure UAC behavior on a program-by-program
>> basis, e.g. off for ill-behaved older programs but on for later, UAC
>> compliant software. A web search will find instructions. It's not
>> easy or fun; this was not something Microsoft really intended to
>> support, but it can be manually configured.
>
> It can go a bit deeper than just dealing with UAC IME...
>
> for example Word 2003 will install and run ok on Win7, but will pop up
> the license acceptance agreement for the user to OK every time it runs.
> This seems to be a failure to record the users acceptance, due to write
> permissions. However it does not generate a UAC popup when it attempts
> to save the users answer.
>
> With that one, you can fix it by doing a run as admin on it, accepting
> the agreement popup and then closing it. Next time you run with normal
> rights, it works normally.
>
>

 

[John Doue]

On 3/13/2010 10:12 AM, Adrian C wrote:
> On 13/03/2010 13:18, John Doue wrote:
>> On 3/13/2010 5:56 AM, Adrian C wrote:
>>>
>>> Need to find round tuits.
>>>
>> You lost me here. What does your last sentence mean?
>>
>
> Sorry, it's uk.x parlance. It's an expression of my admitted laziness
>
> http://everything2.com/title/round+tuit
>

Thanks. I had not tried to pronounce it ...

--
John Doue

 

[John Doue]

On 3/13/2010 11:15 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> Re: "But why? My attitude is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"!"
>>
>> Because it is broken, only the cracks are not on the surface.
>>
>> There is NO support by Intuit for anything over about 3 years old.
>> There are security issues. And once you get more than about 6 years
>> old, you may not be ABLE to migrate from the old version to a current
>> version.
>
> Sorry, you've lost me!
>
> I've used Quicken 98 for 12 years or so to do the accounts for my own family
> and for two voluntary organisations with which I am associated without
> requiring any support from Intuit. So why should I need any *now*?
>
> *What* security issues? My use of it never goes anywhere near the internet!

I assume Barry refers to downloading data from banks over the Internet
through Intuit services. Which does not affect you (nor me, I never use
this service eventhough my version is recent).

As long as you are happy with Quicken 98, keep it. Still, I suggest you
*try*, preferably on a different machine, a more recent version to
explore its features. You might find some of them interesting.
Personally, I am using the 2007 version. I tried all the more recent
versions but sticked with 2007 which I find to be more balanced in terms
of features and clarity.

Remember, once your data has been converted to a more recent version
format, there is no going back. If you decide to go back, you have to
use a backup of the data files, all operations entered with the more
recent version will be lost.

And before you adopt a newer version, make sure you can print checks the
way you use too. That can be tricky.

--
John Doue

 

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion, John Doue
<notwobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/2010 11:15 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Barry Watzman
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Re: "But why? My attitude is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"!"
>>>
>>> Because it is broken, only the cracks are not on the surface.
>>>
>>> There is NO support by Intuit for anything over about 3 years old.
>>> There are security issues. And once you get more than about 6 years
>>> old, you may not be ABLE to migrate from the old version to a
>>> current version.
>>
>> Sorry, you've lost me!
>>
>> I've used Quicken 98 for 12 years or so to do the accounts for my
>> own family and for two voluntary organisations with which I am
>> associated without requiring any support from Intuit. So why should
>> I need any *now*? *What* security issues? My use of it never goes
>> anywhere near the
>> internet!
>
> I assume Barry refers to downloading data from banks over the Internet
> through Intuit services. Which does not affect you (nor me, I never
> use this service eventhough my version is recent).
>

Nor do I!

> As long as you are happy with Quicken 98, keep it. Still, I suggest
> you *try*, preferably on a different machine, a more recent version to
> explore its features. You might find some of them interesting.
> Personally, I am using the 2007 version. I tried all the more recent
> versions but sticked with 2007 which I find to be more balanced in
> terms of features and clarity.
>

Can you get 'evaluation' copies without having to part with hard cash?


> Remember, once your data has been converted to a more recent version
> format, there is no going back. If you decide to go back, you have to
> use a backup of the data files, all operations entered with the more
> recent version will be lost.
>
If I *did* change, I'd do it at year-end and start afresh for the new year
rather than importing all the old data.

> And before you adopt a newer version, make sure you can print checks
> the way you use too. That can be tricky.

I don't do that, anyway. With on-line banking and credit card purchases, I
only write a handful of cheques each year, and am quite happy to continue to
do that manually.
--
Cheers,
Roger
_______
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[tony sayer]

In article <jaGdnYOIcOtcFAbWnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, John
Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> scribeth thus
>Ryan P. wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/2010 7:02 PM, John Rumm wrote:
>
>Ok, with content this time!
>
>>> Wandering off topic a bit here, but, are you aware of any free solutions
>>> that can work in the manner of VNC-SC (i.e. a small prog a user can DL
>>> and run that then "phones home" back to me and gives remote control -
>>> nicely sidestepping any NAT and firewall issues on the remote end of the
>>> setup). While VNC-SC works well controlling XP machines, its painfully
>>> slow on Vista and Win7.
>>
>> I don't have any issues with speed going from my Vista laptop (or the
>> Win 7 partition on the laptop) via VNC to my Win 7 desktop upstairs.
>
>The normal VNC seems ok over a LAN when controlling Vista etc, but the
>single click version over a pair of ADSL connections seems to have major
>difficulties.
>
>> Of course, I turn off most of the Aero eye candy, as it does nothing
>> except increase power usage and suck RAM. That could be part of your
>> speed issue?
>
>Turning off aero helps - but its still almost postal - e.g. click for a
>menu and wait anything from 10 to 20 seconds to see the result etc.
>
>
Dunno what was wrong with WIN 2000 best prog microsoft ever wrote)..
--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

>
>I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
>concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
>poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
>changed that. It costs nothing to try, and if for some reason you
>still want to get windows you can buy it if and when you find linux
>isnt what you want. The days of linux being only for geeks are
>history.
>

Second all that .. try it, you've nowt to loose)...

>
>NT

--
Tony Sayer

 

[tony sayer]

>for example Word 2003 will install and run ok on Win7, but will pop up
>the license acceptance agreement for the user to OK every time it runs.
>This seems to be a failure to record the users acceptance, due to write
>permissions. However it does not generate a UAC popup when it attempts
>to save the users answer.

Or use the latest version of Open Office)...

--
Tony Sayer

 

[John Doue]

On 3/13/2010 5:59 PM, Roger Mills wrote:

snip

>
>> As long as you are happy with Quicken 98, keep it. Still, I suggest
>> you *try*, preferably on a different machine, a more recent version to
>> explore its features. You might find some of them interesting.
>> Personally, I am using the 2007 version. I tried all the more recent
>> versions but sticked with 2007 which I find to be more balanced in
>> terms of features and clarity.
>>
>
> Can you get 'evaluation' copies without having to part with hard cash?

Not that I know ...
>
>> Remember, once your data has been converted to a more recent version
>> format, there is no going back. If you decide to go back, you have to
>> use a backup of the data files, all operations entered with the more
>> recent version will be lost.
>>
> If I *did* change, I'd do it at year-end and start afresh for the new year
> rather than importing all the old data.

Your decision. But the day you need some information about past years,
you will have to do this import.

>
>> And before you adopt a newer version, make sure you can print checks
>> the way you use too. That can be tricky.
>
> I don't do that, anyway. With on-line banking and credit card purchases, I
> only write a handful of cheques each year, and am quite happy to continue to
> do that manually.

Sure, check writing is fast becoming a thing of the past.

In some European countries (Finland for instance), checks simply are not
used at all, all transactions being made online, with instant transfers
between banks. People who do not have a computer, or feel uncomfortable
using them, can use terminals installed in shops and banks. It is even
possible - I frequently do it - to almost instantly tranfer funds from
one EU country to another EU country, at no cost.

In Florida, I still occasionally print checks for creditors who, for one
reason or another, do not accept bank transfers. And I find that
printing them comes in handy, although it probably is now more trouble
than anything else for the solitary check!
--
John Doue

 

[Barry Watzman]

What you guys are missing about using Quicken 98 is that at some point
you may want to, or may NEED to, upgrade to a later version (for example
if Quicken 98 does not work (at all) on a computer running some much
later operating system (including, possibly, a future OS).

The problem is that you CAN NOT upgrade from Quicken 98 to Quicken 2010
(or even, I think, to many earlier versions of Quicken). The
upgrade/import functions of Quicken don't recognize VERY old Quicken
file formats. They usually only go back about 2 previous versions.

In my case, I ended up upgrading from Quicken 98 to Quicken 2000 to
Quicken 2003 to Quicken 2006 to Quicken 2010. (It might have been
possible to have done it in fewer steps, but at least two steps would be
the minimum required).

The point is, you probably don't have all those intermediate versions,
and finding them becomes increasingly difficult as time passes. Which
means that you are creating a situation in which, someday, you may find
that you have screwed yourself.


John Doue wrote:
> On 3/13/2010 11:15 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Barry Watzman
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Re: "But why? My attitude is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"!"
>>>
>>> Because it is broken, only the cracks are not on the surface.
>>>
>>> There is NO support by Intuit for anything over about 3 years old.
>>> There are security issues. And once you get more than about 6 years
>>> old, you may not be ABLE to migrate from the old version to a current
>>> version.
>>
>> Sorry, you've lost me!
>>
>> I've used Quicken 98 for 12 years or so to do the accounts for my own
>> family
>> and for two voluntary organisations with which I am associated without
>> requiring any support from Intuit. So why should I need any *now*?
>>
>> *What* security issues? My use of it never goes anywhere near the
>> internet!
>
> I assume Barry refers to downloading data from banks over the Internet
> through Intuit services. Which does not affect you (nor me, I never use
> this service eventhough my version is recent).
>
> As long as you are happy with Quicken 98, keep it. Still, I suggest you
> *try*, preferably on a different machine, a more recent version to
> explore its features. You might find some of them interesting.
> Personally, I am using the 2007 version. I tried all the more recent
> versions but sticked with 2007 which I find to be more balanced in terms
> of features and clarity.
>
> Remember, once your data has been converted to a more recent version
> format, there is no going back. If you decide to go back, you have to
> use a backup of the data files, all operations entered with the more
> recent version will be lost.
>
> And before you adopt a newer version, make sure you can print checks the
> way you use too. That can be tricky.
>

 

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> What you guys are missing about using Quicken 98 is that at some point
> you may want to, or may NEED to, upgrade to a later version (for
> example if Quicken 98 does not work (at all) on a computer running
> some much later operating system (including, possibly, a future OS).
>
> The problem is that you CAN NOT upgrade from Quicken 98 to Quicken
> 2010 (or even, I think, to many earlier versions of Quicken). The
> upgrade/import functions of Quicken don't recognize VERY old Quicken
> file formats. They usually only go back about 2 previous versions.
>

[I wish you wouldn't top-post!]

To answer your point, it depends on what you mean by "upgrade". If you mean
making your historic data available in the new version, I'm sure you're
right. However, if this is not an issue, you can switch to whatever version
you like - or to a different product - in one go.

In my case, access to historic data is a 'nice to have' - and I occasionally
look back at the odd figure from a past year - but if I had to start from
scratch at the beginning of a new year, it would not be a disaster.
Meanwhile, I want to keep the version that I know and love going as long as
I possibly can.
--
Cheers,
Roger
_______
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[John Doue]

On 3/14/2010 11:09 AM, Barry Watzman wrote:
> What you guys are missing about using Quicken 98 is that at some point
> you may want to, or may NEED to, upgrade to a later version (for example
> if Quicken 98 does not work (at all) on a computer running some much
> later operating system (including, possibly, a future OS).
>
> The problem is that you CAN NOT upgrade from Quicken 98 to Quicken 2010
> (or even, I think, to many earlier versions of Quicken). The
> upgrade/import functions of Quicken don't recognize VERY old Quicken
> file formats. They usually only go back about 2 previous versions.
>
> In my case, I ended up upgrading from Quicken 98 to Quicken 2000 to
> Quicken 2003 to Quicken 2006 to Quicken 2010. (It might have been
> possible to have done it in fewer steps, but at least two steps would be
> the minimum required).
>
> The point is, you probably don't have all those intermediate versions,
> and finding them becomes increasingly difficult as time passes. Which
> means that you are creating a situation in which, someday, you may find
> that you have screwed yourself.
>
>
> John Doue wrote:
>> On 3/13/2010 11:15 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
>>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Barry Watzman
>>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Re: "But why? My attitude is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"!"
>>>>
>>>> Because it is broken, only the cracks are not on the surface.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO support by Intuit for anything over about 3 years old.
>>>> There are security issues. And once you get more than about 6 years
>>>> old, you may not be ABLE to migrate from the old version to a current
>>>> version.
>>>
>>> Sorry, you've lost me!
>>>
>>> I've used Quicken 98 for 12 years or so to do the accounts for my own
>>> family
>>> and for two voluntary organisations with which I am associated without
>>> requiring any support from Intuit. So why should I need any *now*?
>>>
>>> *What* security issues? My use of it never goes anywhere near the
>>> internet!
>>
>> I assume Barry refers to downloading data from banks over the Internet
>> through Intuit services. Which does not affect you (nor me, I never
>> use this service eventhough my version is recent).
>>
>> As long as you are happy with Quicken 98, keep it. Still, I suggest
>> you *try*, preferably on a different machine, a more recent version to
>> explore its features. You might find some of them interesting.
>> Personally, I am using the 2007 version. I tried all the more recent
>> versions but sticked with 2007 which I find to be more balanced in
>> terms of features and clarity.
>>
>> Remember, once your data has been converted to a more recent version
>> format, there is no going back. If you decide to go back, you have to
>> use a backup of the data files, all operations entered with the more
>> recent version will be lost.
>>
>> And before you adopt a newer version, make sure you can print checks
>> the way you use too. That can be tricky.
>>
Barry,

I am not missing anything. I exactly know what you mean. But this is
*not* a security issue, and the OP raised the question of what security
issue you were referring to. Still waiting for your answer on this one.

Of course, if you were implying it might become difficult to locate an
older version able to upgrade the data to an intermediate level, then
you might have a point, but you did not make this clear. Personally, the
oldest version I have kept in 2006. I use 2007.

If you carefully read the thread, the OP answered this concern by saying
he would move to a newer version by creating a new set of data at the
beginning of a given year (the way I understand him).

I am not saying I would proceed this way (since accessing the older data
would require keeping version 98 available, which might not run on a
newer system), but it is his privilege. May be the OP has no real need
to keep the old data accessible ... or may be, he does not consider ever
needing to move to a machine with, say, W7 ...

Bottom line, I do think you are right to advise him to move to a newer
version (not necessarily the newest) but he is in a better position to
appreciate his needs.

--
John Doue

 

[Gib Bogle]

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <jaGdnYOIcOtcFAbWnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, John
> Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> scribeth thus
>> Ryan P. wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2010 7:02 PM, John Rumm wrote:
>> Ok, with content this time!
>>
>>>> Wandering off topic a bit here, but, are you aware of any free solutions
>>>> that can work in the manner of VNC-SC (i.e. a small prog a user can DL
>>>> and run that then "phones home" back to me and gives remote control -
>>>> nicely sidestepping any NAT and firewall issues on the remote end of the
>>>> setup). While VNC-SC works well controlling XP machines, its painfully
>>>> slow on Vista and Win7.
>>> I don't have any issues with speed going from my Vista laptop (or the
>>> Win 7 partition on the laptop) via VNC to my Win 7 desktop upstairs.
>> The normal VNC seems ok over a LAN when controlling Vista etc, but the
>> single click version over a pair of ADSL connections seems to have major
>> difficulties.
>>
>>> Of course, I turn off most of the Aero eye candy, as it does nothing
>>> except increase power usage and suck RAM. That could be part of your
>>> speed issue?
>> Turning off aero helps - but its still almost postal - e.g. click for a
>> menu and wait anything from 10 to 20 seconds to see the result etc.
>>
>>
> Dunno what was wrong with WIN 2000 best prog microsoft ever wrote)..

What was wrong with W2000 (from MS's point of view) was that everybody already
had it. That wasn't good for sales.

 

[Gib Bogle]

NT wrote:

> I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
> concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
> poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
> changed that.

Let me put in a plug here for Jolicloud. http://www.jolicloud.com/
This is a customised version of Ubuntu, specifically tailored for netbooks (it
seems to work fine on most laptops too). The user interface is very easy to get
used to. I've put it on my Asus eeePC as a boot alternative to XP. One of its
appealing features is the speed of booting and shutdown. Note that it is still
"Pre-Beta", but even at this stage it's pretty impressive.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com>:
>Some of your applications are REALLY old. Quicken 98? Really, you
>should make upgrading to later versions a bit of a priority.

You seem to be assuming that later versions are better. After several
Quicken "upgrades" that made the product worse rather than better for my
purposes, I stopped upgrading at Quicken 6 (1997, I believe). Nothing
I've seen or read since suggests that I made the wrong decision.

--
Mike Barnes

 

[Mike Barnes]

tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>:
>
>>
>>I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
>>concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
>>poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
>>changed that. It costs nothing to try, and if for some reason you
>>still want to get windows you can buy it if and when you find linux
>>isnt what you want. The days of linux being only for geeks are
>>history.
>>
>
>Second all that .. try it, you've nowt to loose)...

No *money* to lose. I'd place myself firmly in the geek category and
once spent countless hours trying to get Ubuntu to do what I want a PC
to do. Those wasted hours count as a loss to me.

--
Mike Barnes

 

[tony sayer]

In article <n32P$UTnQfnLFwYS@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid>, Mike Barnes
<mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> scribeth thus
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>:
>>
>>>
>>>I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
>>>concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
>>>poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
>>>changed that. It costs nothing to try, and if for some reason you
>>>still want to get windows you can buy it if and when you find linux
>>>isnt what you want. The days of linux being only for geeks are
>>>history.
>>>
>>
>>Second all that .. try it, you've nowt to loose)...
>
>No *money* to lose. I'd place myself firmly in the geek category and
>once spent countless hours trying to get Ubuntu to do what I want a PC
>to do. Those wasted hours count as a loss to me.
>

Well what couldn't you get it to do?..
--
Tony Sayer

 

[John Doue]

On 3/15/2010 4:44 AM, Mike Barnes wrote:
> Barry Watzman<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com>:
>> Some of your applications are REALLY old. Quicken 98? Really, you
>> should make upgrading to later versions a bit of a priority.
>
> You seem to be assuming that later versions are better. After several
> Quicken "upgrades" that made the product worse rather than better for my
> purposes, I stopped upgrading at Quicken 6 (1997, I believe). Nothing
> I've seen or read since suggests that I made the wrong decision.
>

Well, I believe Quicken 98 is much better . Seriously.

I exactly see your point and sometimes, I wish I were still using
Quicken 98, but I am not sure it supported various currencies at the
time, and having one foot in Europe and one in the US, the first version
which integrated currencies support came as a big relief to me. I forget
which one it is.

I evaluate each new version that comes on the market and since I exactly
know what I want, it does not take me more than a day to decide if I
move my data to it or not. My biggest beef with new versions is that
they almost never correct previous deficiencies while making the product
always more complex to use.

Admittedly, my needs are fairly simple. I do not download data from by
bank, since I update my accounts each day manually in Quicken (I am the
kind of guy who never lets the cashier put the receipt in the bag, for
fear of throwing it away later. I do not need complex reports, only
simple ones ... which amazingly are the most difficult to get since no
wizard is here to help).

Please read and reread the points made by Barry and my comments about
them. If you value the possibility of going back several years in your
accounts, you may find one day that sticking to an older version like
yours was not so wise. Chances are this will happen the day, you need to
buy a new machine, have to move to Windows 7, and find (just a may be)
the version of Quicken you have will not run with Windows 7.

In that situation, you might have a rather difficult problem to solve.
My suggestion is to keep abreast of newer versions and to evaluate them.
I do not believe Intuit provides evaluation versions, but I know it will
reimburse you if, after having bought it, you say you don't like it and
want a refund. IIRC, I did it once.

--
John Doue

 

[Mike Barnes]

tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>:
>In article <n32P$UTnQfnLFwYS@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid>, Mike Barnes
><mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> scribeth thus
>>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I know I sound like a broken record on this, but seriously all these
>>>>concerns and many more are non-issues if you try Ubuntu. Linux has a
>>>>poor usability reputation, but ubuntu is the distro that's really
>>>>changed that. It costs nothing to try, and if for some reason you
>>>>still want to get windows you can buy it if and when you find linux
>>>>isnt what you want. The days of linux being only for geeks are
>>>>history.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Second all that .. try it, you've nowt to loose)...
>>
>>No *money* to lose. I'd place myself firmly in the geek category and
>>once spent countless hours trying to get Ubuntu to do what I want a PC
>>to do. Those wasted hours count as a loss to me.
>>
>
>Well what couldn't you get it to do?..

My log from that time (2006) is only available from backups and I can't
be arsed to restore it so my memory will have to do. I remember that the
Ubuntu equivalents to Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Quicken, Microsoft Office
(particularly with regard to my macros), iTunes, and Turnpike (my
mail/news client) were completely unsatisfactory. There were a few dozen
further applications that I never got round to looking at before I gave
up.

--
Mike Barnes