I have a question about What's 
the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?:


Microsoft claims XP is faster.  How is that possible with bloatware.  XP takes more 
memory than W2K, has more useless features, requires a faster processor, and what 
can't I do with W2K that I need to do with XP?  And then there is an exteremly-limiting 
key code for registration... come on Microsoft, who are you fooling?

So I've made my opinions clear.  Here is a more scientific study on the differences 
between XP and W2K:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml

Simpler is better.  Don't believe the hype and get the most out of your CPU.

Regards all.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Yeah you are quite correct but XP is so sooo pretty and we all know that a pretty 
desktop encourages higher productivity ;)                                     NOT

waste some time ere:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phattag/






On Monday, September 2, 2002 at 10:54 am, T23 User wrote:
>I have a question about What's 
>the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?:

>
>Microsoft claims XP is faster.  How is that possible with bloatware.  XP takes more 
>memory than W2K, has more useless features, requires a faster processor, and what 
>can't I do with W2K that I need to do with XP?  And then there is an exteremly-limiting 
>key code for registration... come on Microsoft, who are you fooling?
>
>So I've made my opinions clear.  Here is a more scientific study on the differences 
>between XP and W2K:
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
>
>Simpler is better.  Don't believe the hype and get the most out of your CPU.
>
>Regards all.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Hi Phil-

If it's aesthetics that you're after then go for the Mac.  I am a forced Mac convert 
to PC.  And as you might be able to guess from the username, I'm an IBM Thinkpad 
user, i.e. aesthetics are of minimal importance, though form factor, reliability 
and service are.  I would love to have a more attractive laptop, but now I've gotten 
used to it, and for that matter also to W2K.

By the way, there are ways to pretty a desktop without adding 25MB+ to the booting 
operating system - don't you agree?

Best-
T23 User






On Monday, September 2, 2002 at 3:48 pm, phil wrote:
>Yeah you are quite correct but XP is so sooo pretty and we all know that a pretty 
>desktop encourages higher productivity ;)
>NOT

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

XP becomes more Maclike. It has a builtin program compatibility wizard to run older applications not suited for a NT environment. Another thing its file system is cross between 9x and NT. Also I am finding out that the wizard can be a power tool to run memory draining apps w/o the need for more memory. I noticed some programs have 2 separate requirements for ram usage: one for 9x and the other for 2000/XP.


On Monday, September 2, 2002 at 10:54 am, T23 User wrote:

>I have a question about What's 
>the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?:

>
>Microsoft claims XP is faster.  How is that possible with bloatware.  XP takes more 
>memory than W2K, has more useless features, requires a faster processor, and what 
>can't I do with W2K that I need to do with XP?  And then there is an exteremly-limiting 
>key code for registration... come on Microsoft, who are you fooling?
>
>So I've made my opinions clear.  Here is a more scientific study on the differences 
>between XP and W2K:
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
>
>Simpler is better.  Don't believe the hype and get the most out of your CPU.
>
>Regards all.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum