Re: Repair Windows XP

[Guest johannes]

Daniel James wrote:

>

> In article news:<MPG.212e3e3a5b0746d598a592@news.individual.net>, Conor

> wrote:

> > Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC.

>

> This is uk.comp.homebuilt (at least, that's where I'm reading it) ... many

> people here buy PCs in bits and typically pay £80 for XP Pro OEM (I'm

> assuming nobody would be daft enough to install XPH or Vasti). In that

> situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF linux will

> do all you need.

 

It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have

applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows

using Windows compilers and tools? I could of course use an emulator, and

Linux zealots love that idea. But why should I? Why this extra layer of

slow down and complication when it's completely unnecessary?

 

This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another

context. But not as a Window replacement.