re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 at 11:06 am
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by anu
(440 messages posted)
There is Macintosh.
On Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:26 pm, Paul Rudoff wrote:
>As a new Windows 2000 user, I just wanted to share my opinion about this article.
>
>The "benefits" they list for Windows XP aren't really beneficial at all. Let me
>explain.
>
># The new Windows XP interface is more cheerful and colorful than earlier versions,
>although the less-cartoony "Classic" interface can still be used if desired.
>
>Who wants "cheerful and colorful"?!? I've seen the interface. It looks like a
Looney
>Tunes cartoon threw up on your computer ... and not in a good way. To get it to
>look and act like traditional Windows, you have to do a lot of tweaking, which is
>more work than you should have to do.
>
>Making the computer interface look "pretty" usually causes it to slow down as it
>has to waste resources on all the unnecessary graphics and junk. That's why I no
>longer use wallpaper, system sounds, or even a screen saver.
>
># Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in
>CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.
>
>"Bells and whistles," by definition, is unnecessary eye and ear candy. Or, in other
>words, stuff that distracts you from the products shortcummings.
>
>Built-in CD writer support sounds like a good thing, assuming it's done correctly.
> However, it's not necessary to have it built in as you can easily add "support"
>to earlier versions of Windows (as I have already done). So, this isn't exactly
>a "must have" reason to buy XP.
>
>The Windows Movie Maker is something that I *could* have a use for it, assuming
it
>was made correctly (and this *IS* Microsoft we're talking about here).
>
>I wouldn't trust the built-in Internet Connection Firewall as far as I could throw
>it. I'll stick with good old ZomeAlarm thank you very much.
>
>And Remote Desktop Connection sounds like a hacker's dream. I wonder how easy it
>is to exploit this.
>
># Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows
>2000.
>
>Yes and no. Windows 2000 is known internally as Windows NT 5.0 and Windows XP is
>Windows NT 5.1. In other words, XP isn't even a FULL version above 2000. Which
>means that they are essentially the same thing. I think the only difference might
>be the added "bells and whistles" noted above.
>
>I have not had a single problem running ANY of my games on Windows 2000, including
>ones that were made for the Windows 95/98 line, before 2000 and XP existed.
>
># Windows XP is the latest OS - if you don't upgrade now, you'll probably end up
>migrating to XP eventually anyway, and we mere mortals can only take so many OS
upgrades.
>
>[cough]bullshit[cough]. I know one person, and I'm sure they're are MANY more,
who
>are still using Windows 98. You know why? Because it's still useable. The latest
>is not always the greatest, and in most cases, there's usually no need to upgrade
>to the latest.
>
>Hell, if Windows 95 had USB support, it would still be quite useable, too. (Yes,
>I know that the very last release of 95 had USB support, but I think the support
>in 98 is better ... and it's definitely more supported in the industry.)
>
>The only reason I upgraded to 2000 is just to be on the NT architecture since DOS
>is going the way of the Dodo. I think that 2000 will have a much longer lifespan
>than 95/98/ME.
>
># Manufacturers of existing hardware and software products are more likely to add
>Windows XP compatibility now than Windows 2000 compatibility.
>
>This is a redundant statement because a lot of existing hardware and software products
>are ALREADY compatible with Windows 2000 seeing as how it has already been out for
>a while. The new scanner I bought this past June supports Windows 98, ME, 2000,
>and XP. Almost all of my old hardware was compatible with 2000. I had to download
>new drivers and stuff for my video card and modem, but that's not a problem. The
>only piece of hardware that wasn't compatible with 2000 was my old scanner. But
>you know what? It isn't compatible with XP either!
>
>Also I should point out that most manufacturers are NOT more likely to add XP compatibility
>now than 2000 compatibility. If they're not going to support 2000, chances are
they
>won't support XP. They'll just tell you that your product is too old and to buy
>a new one (which means more money for them). Umax, the makers of my old scanner,
>is a good example of this.
>
>For further reading, I suggest you check out this site:
>
>Boycott Microsoft! Why You Must NOT Upgrade To Windows XP
>http://www.arachnoid.com/boycott/
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to say.
>--
>Yours Truly,
>Paul Rudoff
>
>* MY WEBSITES:
>* Merchandise For Sale -- TARGET="_blank">http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/spookcentral/
>* Spook Central -- http://spookcentral.cjb.net
|
