On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 19:35, Phillip T. George wrote:
> Brian,
>
> You are sadly mistaken.
> 1. Crackerjacks have GOOD prizes
> 2. Crackerjacks don't cost near that much $$$
Good point. :>
> :)
>
> Alls I was saying is $300 is not a good solution to run
> WinXP...especially if you had to pay for WinXP (I got my copy
> legitamately free. A friend of mine attended some sort of Microsoft
> seminar).
>
> A better solution would be getting another computer and/or KVM switch.
> Though you could even use remote desktop to get to the winXP machine,
> once properly configured (It wouldn't need a monitor, keyboard, or any
> of that crap).
Well, if this is for home use, you can get it for less AND I'd bet
that anything still requiring legacy software can be done without.
If it's a commercial situation, if the software is "necessary" then
it's making money for them, and they can afford to justify the cost.
There's no "but we really, really want it" when it comes to the bottom
line- it's about costs and benefits.
And getting a KVM switch is the last resort. Now, we're buying/using
a second computer to run these programs. Another pile of viruses in
which to attempt to get work done. Another springboard for the next
slammer, code red, call-it-what-you-will. Disabuse yourself of the KVM
switch. There are more and better ways around that.
When you transition, you'll know what I mean. It's like one of the
first cars being sold and the driver wants to know, 'It's a long trip-
where do I put the spare hay so I don't have to stop?'
I have to go to work now, but what _is_ the application so precious
that we think we need to stay on the legacy platform?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian FahrlÃnder Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ 5119262
AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
