re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 12:17 pm
Windows XP Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Gordon Banks
(1 messages posted)
I have to differ. I just bought an HP Pavillion with Athlon 2800 XP+ processor for
a very good price. XP Home was included. This wasn't installed over an old OS,
but from the first boot up there have been problems. It is almost daily sending
MS messages about why some program didn't work (of course, I never get any fixes
back from them). It won't shut down (I have to manually turn the computer off).
I've upgraded with all the latest patches, and it is still nothing but trouble.
I'm planning on starting over and installing Windows 2000, which isn't nearly as
good as Linux, but I have software I have to run on a Windows machine. Avoid XP
is my advice.
On Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 4:48 am, NR wrote:
>Oddly enough, I've never had a SINGLE problem w/ WinXP. No crashes, no hardware
>conflicts, no instability, EVER, because - as you SHOULD do when installing a new
>OS - I formatted my system drive and did a CLEAN install. Installing over a previous
>version of the OS, such as 95, 98 or 2000, will cause nothing but problems - and
>Windows isn't the only OS that has problems when doing this, I've had the same issues
>w/ MacOS (including OSX...had to do a format and clean install of THAT) & Linux
(RedHat
>& Caldera).
>
>Using multiple small libraries (.dlls) is the most efficient way to develop a product
>such as an OS. This way, 3rd-party developers only have to call the libraries needed
>by their app, giving them a much lower memory footprint when running. Same w/ the
>OS: having a big 50MB library of code to access essential features means 50 more
>MB of RAM the OS is using to run - memory better used by programs. Plus, having
>multiple smaller libraries (as MacOS, OSX, Linux, WinNT, BeOS, NeXT, Sun, Unix,
Irix,
>etc.) does makes it easier to update the OS between versions and when issuing service
>or bug patches. I can't believe a "Pro" computer user would claim having one big
>library, or rolling it all directly into the OS - a total nightmare - is a GOOD
thing.
> Hell, even applications have gone the rough of dynamic linked libraries; apps such
>as Photoshop used to be more central-repository oriented, and in recent years have
>split off this code into multiple, well thought-out, related libraries for the reasons
>listed above. Tsk Tsk.
>
>You have old hardware? Upgrade. OS developers shouldn't be forced to deal w/ 5yr-old,
>or even older, hardware forever. Legacy support can only go so far and stil allow
>innovations & updates without creating what the previous poster dubbing "spaghetti
>code."
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | | |  | re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' (Gordon Banks: Thu, Apr 8, 2004, 12:17 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum
|
|
