Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:26 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Paul Rudoff
(9 messages posted)
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 -- http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/spookcentral/
* Spook Central -- http://spookcentral.cjb.net
|
Responses to this message:
|
|
