dlewis23

I don't think that applies to all 3G phones. I have a MyTouch 3G and can talk, surf and text at the same time.

Although, being an old phone, It can do all but not as fast as a G2 or Droid Incredible. Laggy phone = sadness.

Thats because your phone is on T-Mobile. IE. GSM. HSPA splits up data and voice so they can both be used at the same time. On CDMA this is not the case unless you have a phone that supports VoRA. In the end it wont really matter once everyone is on LTE since voice will be carried over data.

actually I have a 4g phone however it can do voice and data even when I don't have 4g signal its new most people don't know that

That's because the 4G phones support VoRA. The 3G phones don't support it.

Btw dlewis my verizon android can talk and surf at the same time

Only when you are on connected to WIFI or have a 4G phone.

Since Verizon uses CDMA the data and voice is not split like HSPA so you can't use both at the same time. If you have a 4g Verizon phone voice is still over the 3G so you have a second connection to use for data. This has been a nagging issue for all CDMA networks.

And to mention I would probably be impressed if you could post a speed test of your 4 pulling 4.5mbits on 3g.

:::.. Download Test Results ..:::

Download Connection is:: 2507 Kbps about 2.5 Mbps (tested with 3 MB)

Download Speed is:: 313 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/m52yoO

Test Time:: 2011-03-25 07:12:32 GMT -7

1MB Download in 3.27 Seconds - 1GB Download in ~56 Minutes - 44X faster than 56K

Tested from a 3 MB file and took 10.039 seconds to complete

Running at 142% of hosts average (Mycingular.net)

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5 [!]

And thats testing in concrete roofed factory. Ill get your 4.5 Mbps when I'm not in this building. Testing use one of the apps yesterday gave me this:

And my DI battery is definately longer lasting than a iphone 4, i wont charge it for a day sometimes and it still has a bit to go. Hell it will take hours to deplete from 20% (with constant use). I bet you throw that puppy on a charger everytime you get in your vehicle or home.

Well lets see, I can't exactly throw that puppy on a charger in a vehicle because I don't have a vehicle that can exactly charge anything except its own battery because I'm on two wheels. But when I do finally get home, work, wherever I am. I don't throw it on a charger, I will on average go 2 days with out putting it on a charger. I've stretched it to 5 days before with out charging it.

"Hell it will take hours to deplete from 20% (with constant use)"

Get real!

Remember, reviews do say "we found battery life to be good, but not outstanding".

If i want to wifi tether my connection w/o having to pay besides what i already pay for unlimited data,

Yea keep doing that, and see how long before Verizon just magically puts you on there tethering plan. And if you don't think they know your doing it, you should Google around a bit.

also my camera is pretty darn good. i have an 8mp camera while your phone 4 has a little over half that many megapixels.

Let me give you a little lesson in cameras.

Megapixels doesn't mean jack shit. Having higher MP's doesn't mean something can take better pictures. It's all about the sensor and processing. Thats why a SLR of the equal or less MP's will take better pictures then a point and shoot all day long. While the camera in your phone will take better pictures then most, because in the iPhone 4 has a much larger sensor then the one in your phone, the iPhone 4 will take better pictures even tho it has a lower MP.

Hows the video on your phone, you gonna tell me its better then the video on the iPhone 4 too?

As can droid ;-0

Only, if when using a CDMA android phone that is connected to WIFI, or a GSM android phone.

Since he is on Verizon he can't talk and use 3G data at the same time.

lol i was at bestbuy today playing with the new HTC TB and with only 1-2 bars got this as a download speed

just 4 more days and that'll be my phone i'll do extensive tests of the 4G network and see how well it performs

Would have thought the upload would have been a little better, but it was in doors. Let us know what the battery life is like when using 4G. Hopefully they can get it to a somewhat decent level.

While a smoother appearance and a brighter, more vibrant screen may make you think that your iPhone 4 is so much better, its actually not. Aside from the fact that phone itself is horrible at its main functions. The battery doesn't last near long enough in comparison with other smart phones, so unless your by a usb jack all the time youll start to notice damn, my battery is always about to die. Everytime I call a iphone 4 user (from many different phones) I hear a long annoying high pitched beeeeeeeep. then it will connect, i dont know if thats a badass ringback tone you iphone users have by default. Also how is your call dropping? Everyone in our building with the iphone cant be on the phone in our elevator. But guess what, I can -- I have seen active sync on the iphone and compared it with my droid, when you send pictures or videos via iphone exchange its too slow. The droid does it instantly and does the upload in the bg. And by the best apps you mean you blew about 50-100 usd on some bs apps. Androids dl a A-Z pro torrent and boom anything you want at your disposal. Not to mention we dont have to update our itunes and firmware every so often and have your phone be a brick for a few hours come update day. And my 3G speeds are so much faster on my verizon network than they work on the att network... Anyways your iphone4 is verizon or att?

Really? Really now, thats your response? LOL...

First let me state I've never payed more then $7 for an iPhone app, and no more then $10 for an iPad app. IDK where the hell your getting $50 - $100 for apps but I've never spent anything close to that on an app, I don't know anyone who has ever payed more then $20 for an app. And most iPhone apps 99% are less then $10.

Now if I wanted to be a complete fucking ass hole to mobile app developers I could jail break my iPhone in about 2 minutes and torrent any app I want like your doing with your little Android apps.

As for main functions please elaborate on how they are horrible? Because I have no problem at all with its main functions. Battery life is longer then any other android phone I've seen. In the office where I work there are 2 iPhones, a BB Storm and 3 Android phones, my iPhone 4 lasts longer then all of them.

I suggest you go and learn what that beep your hearing is, its the network and is phone independent. I have had maybe 3 dropped calls since june that were caused by my phone, most of the time its caused by the other person with there crappy phone. I'm on AT&T and my 3G speeds will run circles around yours, since Verizon is EVDO AT&T's base 3.6 Mbps HSPA will be faster, but since I'm in a HSPA+ area I get anywhere from 3 - 4.5 Mbps download. Oh and I've had no problem using my iPhone 4 in a elevator, Since AT&T now uses the 800 MHz band in my area for HSPA, it has no problems in doors.

As far as exchange goes, you have got to be on one crappy ass exchange environment. Since exchange is server dependent, for the iPhone to be slow sending pics and vids but your droid is instant is a really stupid thing to say. I have an exchange server that I use for work, and a push IMAP that I use for all my personal email, and it sends just as fast on my iPhone as it does with a BB Storm or any of the 3 Android phones in our office. As soon as I push that send button it starts sending on my iPhone, no matter if I'm using exchange or IMAP.

Try and come at me with something a little better, because everything you said is totally ass backwards, and shows how much of an android fanboy you really are.

So I'm gonna go use my iPhone 4 to make a call, In doors now, and look at my awesome screen, use some of my better apps. Maybe take a picture or two with my better camera and I might send them to a few people using my exchange server not having to wait because its so not slow.

And Ill do all this while I'm on that call.

Your all not seriously arguing over who's scrolls/zoom's quicker and smoother?

Well I'll play at that game (And Win). My iPhone 4 scrolls, zooms in and out, is more responsive to touch then your Win Phone 7, Android, WebOS what ever else you may be running. I also have the best apps.

At least argue over something thats decent to argue over.

advanced task killer

Mentioning task killer anything, doesn't put this in your favor. Memory management on Android is a serious problem that Google has never really fixed. You should never ever have to open a task manager on a phone. The OS should be smart enough to manage apps on its own.

its not slow? 3 things.

Go in any browser and flick scroll its slow as hell

pinch to zoom anywhere, not only is it impeded by horrible hardware acceleration but entire operation is slower than molasses.

third play a game - even on dual core processors and regardless of OS's and compare the speed and experience to Windows or even god awful iPhone.

1. and 2. This is not as much of a valid argument as it once was. The latest round of Android devices (On the higher end) have fixed this for the most part by just throwing raw CPU power at it, its not to iPhone level of smoothness and probably never will be, but neither will Windows Phone 7.

3. While Win Phone 7 is a million times better the Android at gaming and Android is god awful at gaming, You can't really put Win Phone 7 in the same class as the iPhone when it comes to gaming. iOS is far above all the others in this area. I haven't seen anything that comes close to Rage, Real Racing 2, Infinity Blade and others on either of the other platforms.

And once the iPhone 5 gets the A5 processor it will take another jump in gaming because it spanks the shit out of everything else that is out there.

Whats this?

http://www.google.co...0e1d04ac32ef934

There is a difference between Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone 7. Right now there are no viruses for Windows Phone 7.

But I would rather go Win Phone 7, over Android any day of the week right now. Androids UI is a complete fucking mess still. At least with Win Phone 7 you get a UI that is consistent for the most part and is somewhat close to iOS in the way the OS is polished off. The overall quality of Apps on Android is far too low.

I bought a toshiba satalite myself last year. Love it. Havnt had a bit of problems other than the battery's take a poop rather quickly. They will end up after about 5 months only lasting about 1½ before needing charge.

You know if you condition the battery it will last longer...

I'm going to be buying a 27" iMac instead... My resolutions now are 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 ... the resolution on the 27" mac displays is something that people have to see in person it fully understand. 2560x1440 is 3.69 million pixels... my 27 inch is 2.07 million pixels and my 25 inch is 2.3 million pixels. 78% and 60% more pixels respectively, in the same amount of space.

Yea, the 27" iMac is the way to go. There is a ton of extra screen space over a 1920x1200 screen. The only thing that sucks with it is its really hard to go back to a small screen.

Don't you think you have your dock a little big there? It looks like its at the default size settings.

I've also got the same mouse as you too.

Ca3le you should utilize spaces , not much of a learning curve at all , and quadruples the screen real estate by default, and expandable to 16. Switch between them default control arrow keys, done.

Allocate different spaces for different apps. You get used to it and it flows very nice after a short grunt here and again.

I couldn't live with out spaces. I use it for everything now. I can't stand having everything on one desktop. It's part of the reason why I hate using Windows now.

As for tuning on Win7, it really can't be done like it can in XP since the stack is auto tuning. I have found the best thing to do is to use TCP Optimizer since some of the settings can be changed and then just download, download, and download some more.

But you have to do it from a place that can max your connection all the time. Also use IE8 when doing it. Over time it will get better as the stack adjusts.

I too favor silence over performance... I'd rather that I can't hear it and it run a little hotter. Another reason why I love SSD, FINALLY I don't have to hear the damn hard drive... although, it can make it hard to tell if the computer is doing it's job or not...... then, because of the speed of SSD 1ms later I know that it's doing it's job.

... Seriously, if you guys don't already have Solid State drives do yourself a favor and get one. It's the most drastic upgrade you can do for your computer. My computer cold boots in 10-15 seconds. ... Photoshop CS5 loads in >2 seconds and most other programs load in >1 second. And I didn't even tell you guys the funny part.... (haha) my main computer is just a Mac Mini 2.53GHz with 4GB ram and everything is instant! GET SOLID STATE!

--- I'll post some pics of my setup later on, it's pretty crazy. It's just a mac mini but I have 25" and 27" monitors... and I still don't have enough desktop space for the stuff I do -- My network setup looks pretty crazy too, I have everything mounted on the wall in plain view, it trips people out.

You can hear the regular drive? I haven't been able to hear a regular 7200RPM hard drive in a few years, the good ones have gotten so quite. And I have insanely good hearing, and one right in front of my face when every i'm on my computer.

What SSD did you end up going with in your mini? I'm gonna go with one when I upgrade my iMac next time around since the 27in ones have a specific rail inside to mount a SSD to. I want to go with one of the OWC SSD's.

As for desktop space, you gotta go with higher resolution monitors. If your still using that monitor you were before you gotta upgrade that sometime to either the Dell 27in or the Apple 27in display and get your self some 2560x1440 res.

I was thinking about getting 2 SSD's but i currently have raid-0 setup on my box, and honestly im so far out of the loop i dont know how to fk with raid anymore. a standard HDD install i have no problems with... Hows raid effect SDD's tho? will their be any differences or will i just install em and throw in my windows 7 bootable disk as normal?

You don't really have to go with Raid or 2 SSD's. You could save the money and get one good SSD (since they are still very expensive) and have 2.5x the drive performance if not more. Since your computer uses the motherboards raid controller it doesn't really give a performance gain on raid 0 unless you invested in a proper raid controller.

As for there being a difference with SSD on raid setup there wouldn't be, you would just have to configure the raid with the new drives, as you would with a regular hard drive.

Whats up with the no rear case fan? Your not really getting any air out of the case.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817264004&cm_re=usb_ethernet_adapter-_-17-264-004-_-Product

I don't think that will work for what he wants to do. That is just a ethernet port that works over USB.

As for what you want to do. You could get a router that has a USB port for plugging in the drive and having it on the network. but it would be only 1 port.

I have no idea why you would use it for data servers, but that's entirely your choice.

Simple. If one of the servers was running MySQL you would want the MySQL packets to get priority over say an image.

Or you can have both serving at 100Mbps and not worry about it. Unless you use a hub.

No I couldn't. I can only have one transmitting at 100 Mbps, and the over receiving at 100 Mbps. They both can not be receiving or transmitting at 100 Mbps at the same time.

You need to lean how full duplex works, it doesn't give you 200 Mbps in one direction, it allows you to have 100 Mbps going in and out at the same time. Stop adding it up.

You must be doing something wrong because those graphs don't correlate to each other at all. One of them dips down extremely while the other is chugging along. All that proves is that one of them worked slower for several hours.

First, they do correlate to each other in that they are maxing the 100 Mbps port in the beginning of the graph. You just don't know what the servers are doing. The large dip in the first graph is just the natural dip in the traffic for the day that happens to most sites. The second server is for backup and a few other things but it can only reach a maximum of about 15 Mbps because the other server is using majority of the bandwidth. They will never have the same flow because they are both doing different things.

I will reply to the rest of your post later.

Now, when you think about it, all that 100Mbit bandwidth is actually split in half for every connected device. As NO TWO can send at once. Same thing with wireless, if Device A and Device B send at once, they will be alternating for each packet, therefore only getting 13.5 of the available 27 Megabits of bandwidth. CSMA/CA is still working, so it requires that half of the bandwidth. You end up with A sending a packet and then B then back to A, etc. They can't both do that at full speed.

Stop saying split in half because its not true or correct. Just because you have 2 devices connected to a hub/switch/router/whatever doesn't mean they split the bandwidth in half at all. The bandwidth is just shared among them.

Here is an example.

I have 2 COLO servers connected to a switch and the switch has 100 Mbps of bandwidth. That doesn't mean that each server has 50 Mbps just by them being connected. It all has to do with what each server is doing.

I can have one serving files at ~90 Mbps and the other can be serving files at ~10 Mbps. Nothing is ever split in half.

Here is a bandwidth graph for both servers for the exact same time. And they are connected to the same switch.

They don't just get 50 Mbps of bandwidth. Ever hear of QOS?

Also STOP, saying 27 Mbps of bandwidth for a 54G network. Because that also is not correct. CSMA/CA doesn't take the 54 and cut it in half. The reason you don't get 54 Mbps is as I said before because of the environment around you and distance from the router as well as a few other small things. But the number is just not cut in half. It can be lower or higher then 27 Mbps.

100Mbps LAN will give you 200Mbps on a full duplex switched network.

Dlewis, you know what Hub's are?

A hub is an intermediary device, such as a switch or router, but it doesn't work very efficiently. Just like wireless.

In a hub, when a packet arrives to a port, it is repeated to ALL other ports. This forces a hub network to work at half duplex, meaning data can only go one way with one packet at a time. Bandwidth is shared in an ALMOST identical way to wireless networks, but you don't lose bandwidth when you use a single computer on a hub.

Hub's, and ALL other Wired Ethernet Media, use CSMA/CD, Carrier Sense Multiple Access Collision Detection. This means it will look out on the network, JUST like wireless, and see if it is available. If it is, it sends it's packet. The only difference is, Wireless keeps collisions to a bare minimum, CSMA/CD allows collisions on a 10/100 Hub network. This means that if two devices send at the same time, and they see the collision BEFORE they finish transmitting the packet (which is why it doesn't work on Gigabit) they will send a 32-bit signal to inform ALL devices on the network of the collision, and every device in that collision domain will back off of sending for a certain amount of time, which is randomly generated by the NIC card.

Now, when you think about it, all that 100Mbit bandwidth is actually split in half for every connected device. As NO TWO can send at once. Same thing with wireless, if Device A and Device B send at once, they will be alternating for each packet, therefore only getting 13.5 of the available 27 Megabits of bandwidth. CSMA/CA is still working, so it requires that half of the bandwidth. You end up with A sending a packet and then B then back to A, etc. They can't both do that at full speed.

And even if I am wrong about the CSMA/CA keeping that half of the bandwidth for the full time, you still have the devices transmitting together. Leaving you half bandwidth. Sure if you stopped using every other wireless device you would get the most bandwidth you could, but that's a hypothetical situation.

Dude. Stop. Go back and read what I said again because your digging your self a very big hole.

100Mbps LAN will give you 200Mbps on a full duplex switched network.

I have no clue why you brought that up. I never mentioned anything about full/half duplex anything.

You can also use 802.11a which will have MUCH less interference than 802.11b/g/n, because 802.11a works on the 5Ghz frequency, whereas 802.11b/g/n work at 2.4Ghz, just like your cell phones.

Cell phones don't use 2.4 Ghz. Thats a cordless phone in your house. And no one uses 802.11 A networks anymore, for various reason but mainly because they just suck and the range is much shorter.

This article explains more. Although it is lacking some.

http://www.hackorama.com/wifi/

I wouldn't take anything seriously you read there.

802.11g has 54Mbps theoretical bandwidth, but like mentioned earlier I get only 18Mbps through my wireless connection, and only 24Mbps when copying the same large files using my 10/100 LAN which has a theoretical 100Mbps bandwidth. So I guess it could be the power saving 4200 RPM Hard Disk on the laptop that is slowing down the network transfer. So 802.11b with its 11Mbps, might only provide an actual 6Mbps.

He can only figure out how to get 24 Mbps when coping a file over a wired 10/100 LAN but then basically blames it on his 4200 RPM notebook drive that can write at about 25 MB/s which is 200 Mbps. A 100 Mbps Lan will transfer at about 98 Mbps in the real world.

Wi-Fi uses CSMA/CA, Carrier Sense Multiple Access Collision Avoidance. This takes up half of the bandwidth immediately because it has to check whether or not the network is available. Once it determines network availability, it can then send it's data. This is because Wi-Fi is a Shared Medium. This leads to the bandwidth being shared by every device connected to that particular Access Point. Thus you end up with half the bandwidth you would have originally gotten, under best circumstances.

Thanks,

EBrown

Just because something uses "half the bandwidth immediately" doesn't mean it slows down the network to any degree you will notice. Remember once it does it "check" its all done and now full bandwidth is available.

Just because bandwidth is shared, that doesn't give you less of anything till one of those users starts to use something.

USB is shared, but that doesn't mean if you have 10 devices plugged in each device only has 1/10 of the bandwidth. It all depends on who/what is using how much of the available bandwidth. The reason why you get about 1/2 the actual speed of a B or G network is not because of anything being shared its because of the environment around the router. Walls and other Electronic devices/signals impede the WIFI signal thus slowing it down. If you take your computer and put it right next to the router you will get much closer to the 54 Mbps G max.

-Ensure you don't have to many devices connected to your adapter. Bandwidth is cut in half for each additional device. So one device on a 54 Mbit Network is actually 27 Mbit. Two would be 13.5 Mbit, etc.

It does not work like that at all. It doesn't matter if you have 1 or 10 devices connected its bandwidth will not cut in half for each additional device.

-Encryption will also slow your wireless down. Albeit not by a hugely extraordinary amount, but still. Keep that in mind.

This also is not really true, WPA and WPA2 will not really slow down anything you will ever notice. You will lose potential bandwidth by moving 10 inches away from your router then you will by turn on encryption.

So I want Raid 1 then?

Thanks,

EBrown

If you want redundancy then yes. If you want performance + redundancy then Raid 10.

If you just want to save money and have performance buy a SSD and put just your OS and Programs on it use a second drive for everything else.

That MB is RAID capable , think about grabbing another HDD by all means, at least one, in fact get two more as RAID 5 requires minimum 3 .

Cost matters here because you have a 1tb drive , so maybe just RAID1 will be a nice little read boost while gaming. But if you do , match the exact size of the drive , of course the same brand helps , but I've done it several times with different stickers on it but the same size. More then likely the same drive with different branding.

Raid 1 doesn't increase performance, it only mirrors the drives its for redundancy. Raid 0 would give a performance increase both in read and write speeds.

Using the MB raid controller can in some cases slow the drives down because its using the CPU to do the mirroring.

Going for Raid 10 would be the fastest for both read and write, but you would need 3 drives.

Yeah, I do plan to buy another drive soon. Prolly another 1T and a SSD for my OS. (Although that's pretty expensive.) And I planned to Raid 0 the two 1T's, and then use a different disk for my OS. (As I already do. I use an IDE one though, so it's pretty slow.)

Thanks,

EBrown

If you go for Raid 0 keep in mind. If either of the drives fail or the raid it self fails you will loose all your data on the drive.

Hey, i know a bunch of you guys have talked about HTC phones before. Mudman, i know you have said you've owned an htc ...if im remembering right anyway....

anyhow, im trading up from a blackberry storm 2 (iphone users can tell me all they want that theirs is better, i consider that a lie LOL)....anyway, im getting the htc incredible. anyone use it before?

anyone use the htc sense along with droid 2.1? i know 2.1 is a little out dated right now but i figure its not that important and i can always get an update later on if i so need it. if not, then i guess im screwed huh lmao.

anyway, let me know what you guys have had with htc and if the incredible is as good as i've seen through the research about it.

thanks,

starship_troopers (RyanS.)

If you look here http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/10/smartphone-buyers-guide-the-best-phones-for-atandt-verizon-spr/

Its Verizon's best phone, but you shouldn't be getting 2.1, it should come with 2.2, or update once you get it to 2.2.

Its a good phone, but if you get one of the AMOLED ones the screen is hard to read out doors. Other then that its pretty good and the camera in it is ok.

But... If you scroll to the bottom list on engadget you will notice this "the best of the best is still Apple's iPhone 4". And thats no lie

It makes absolutely no sense other then monetary to remove them, unless the software to begin with was free , making more sense now ? Hello ?

No it does make since to remove it from Windows Update, your just not understanding why it does.

But if you go here http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=1001aaf1-749f-49f4-8010-297bd6ca33a0&displaylang=en

You can get the last service pack issued.

Dude what planet are you living on ?

You aren't serious with all this BS , you can't be. Iv'e not heard such a load of crap in quite some time. They can't afford ?

Look, your trying to get me to go for this reasoning that MS doesn't have the server room to store updates ?You think they erase all the code they have built for all these years ? Do you expect me to believe there having trouble with bandwidth ? That if not the most successful industry quite possible in human existence doesn't have the resources to be able to host updates on multiple servers for multiple platforms ? No , I think not, if that were even close to resembling a partial truth , how is it that as you say MS sunset 2k just this past july ? AND there doing " 7 " And there doing XP , .......... BS !!!!!!!! but now there at there capacity and need to chuck a couple OS's to " get rid of the old junk " . Stop please don't take me for an idiot.

Even then , if what you say was true , then they would have to chuck ALL OS's . Just makes no sense , but good try.

Simply put , MS is money hog and exists for no other reason then to exploit every aspect of todays human communications and entertainment industry , penetrating, capitalizing as well as hiding progress in computer science that no one else other then some of apples dorks do.

The world can always use more progress in every aspect, the world doesn't really need to be exploited financially and told there 5 year old 500$ OS is outdated. When 2k was introduced what , in late 99 ? Thats a decade ago , hello ?

Nope , MS does this tripe to force users into purchasing yet another release from them. Plain and simple.

Just look at the GNU project.

Dude, come on. Did you even fucking comprehend what I wrote?

You might want to read it again to make sure.

First its nothing about server room. Of course they don't erase all that code they wrote, that has nothing to do with the update system. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, and it has nothing to do with multiple servers for multiple platforms. They are still updating Windows XP, Vista, and 7 because lots of people still use them and they are still relevant.

But guess what, one day the update system wont work for them too, just like with Windows 2000, Me, 98, 95, 3.1 and every other OS that came before Windows 2000. Every OS has a EOL. Windows 2000 was in July of this year, Windows ME was in July of 06. And guess what Windows Vista has a EOL for support dated for April 2012, Windows XP has one for April 2014, and Windows 7 believe it or not has a EOL for main stream support of April 2015.

It has absolutely nothing to do with capacity.

Since the update system is tied together for all OS's, to do modern upgrades to the system you have to let the old go.

Again take Xbox live example I gave the same rules apply. They couldn't do the upgrades they wanted or add all the new features they wanted while the first gen xbox was still able to use xbox live. One of the big things was the amount of friends you could have, they couldn't raise the limit for live on the 360 because the original xbox had a limit in place.

They don't have to chuck all OS's, Since Vista, XP and 7 are newer they wouldn't have the same sets of limits that Windows 2000 does.

Your just pissed because they stopped updates, and are at the same point people were at when Apple removed PPC support from Snow Leopard. You can't expect them to keep fucking updates up for a 10 year old fucking OS. Especially when only 0.2% of computers use that OS.

It's time to upgrade, a decade for a OS is like 100 human years if not more.

There is a very good reason why Google is doing forced OS updates/upgrades in the background of Chrome OS...

Yea well still , I'm not saying they should be forced to do anything , let alone spend there time and resources on updating an " old " OS. None the less, they have the capabilities to keep one frackin server in onw corner of one of there hundreds of server farms somewhere. with at the least what updates they stopped at. Wouldn't cost them shit. Considering there's still so many out there still running it as every day workstations. I run into it time and again. I guess if i have the care I'll grab the packages if i can from somewhere. Someone has it all I am sure.

There ploy to make a buck is endless. A company as large as MS puts out a system such as vista and sells billions of dollars worth , then a few years later stops support , it's laughable

Hell , you can still get most every Linux distro ever made , at least the functioning items. And people donate there resources at that.

Its not really to make a buck. its to get people to upgrade there old crap. It costs them a lot of money to keep updating these older OS's and keep the update services online for them. Also since the windows update system is a "all in one" type of thing meaning each OS uses the same basic system, they can't really make many big changes to it while a old OS is still being updated.

Just like with Xbox Live, it was the same basic system that ran on the first xbox as the 360. They couldn't make any big changes to it because it would screw up the original xbox, so they just ended xbox live service for original xbox. The same principal applies.

To make there systems new and modern they have to get rid of the old. Microsoft has screwed up there update system in the past so much, and pissed a lot of people off, that they have to get rid of the old so they can put more resources towards the new.

They can't afford to have another IE6 where 10 years later people are still using it as there main browser.