18 replies to this topic

[Temmu]

windows xp released; do you need this?

title of cnet article! here's the link that has a series of day-one articles -
http://news.cnet.com...001-274947.html

fond memories, that!

[Webb]

I see your point but the Cnet author apparently didn't.

Windows 98 was just DOS with a GUI slapped over it.  XP was a new version of Windows NT/Windows 2000.  Huge difference.

I too had to be dragged kicking and streaming into the strange new world but now I love my XP/SP3.

Now you've made me all teary for Windows 2000.  That was the best product Microsoft ever made.

[Temmu]

interesting thought. why would you say win 2k is the best?
it was based on nt, and didn't require as many reboots when installing or changing stuff, that i remember.

[Webb]

Win2K was WinXP without the bloat.

It booted fast, had small memory requirements and ran like a '65 Mustang.  You just couldn't crash it.

I reluctantly gave it up for XP because MS didn't provide updated drivers and becase XP had ClearType.  MS refused to provide ClearType for 2K so it could force people to upgrade to XP.

[LilBambi]

Yes, until Windows 7, Win2K was the most stable OS Microsoft ever made. I loved XP (after SP2), but Windows 7 is now my favorite Windows OS. Now they will kill it....sigh...

[Temmu]

thx, webb, for refreshing my memory!
yes, lilbambi, i have grown fond of win 7 also.  after my experience with vista, i didn't think i'd like 7, but i do.

[crp]

Temmu, on 03 June 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

thx, webb, for refreshing my memory!
yes, lilbambi, i have grown fond of win 7 also.  after my experience with vista, i didn't think i'd like 7, but i do.

XP had a lot more under the engine than W2K. We still have a W2K pc running at work and I dread having to go work on it.
I had msVista and jumped at the chance to update it to W7. W7 is good, BUT given preference I would use XP.
Anyone know where to get an  'XP Forever' bumper sticker? :-)

[Temmu]

crp, on 04 June 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

XP had a lot more under the engine than W2K. We still have a W2K pc running at work and I dread having to go work on it.
I had msVista and jumped at the chance to update it to W7. W7 is good, BUT given preference I would use XP.
Anyone know where to get an  'XP Forever' bumper sticker? :-)

http://www.makestick...e.aspx?TID=5870

yes, there was nothing wrong with xp.
i like win 7 too.

[amenditman]

I think, looking back, that Windows 7 is the first version that was released pretty much in working order. All the others I've had needed a year or so of patches to be dependable across the board.

[crp]

What was odd about msVista (at least in the Home version) was that it worked fine at first. But after 3 months I (and many , many others) noticed accumulating problems that were not going away. By the time SP1 came out I was telling people to stick to XPsp3 and avoid the msVista.
To me the problems indicated that there were serious plumbing problems , ghost code and code bloat in the OS.
Win7 did work pretty well out of the gate and I still have not had any issues with the "Home" version.
IIRC, Win98 was rock solid throughout as well.

[amenditman]

crp, on 05 June 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

IIRC, Win98 was rock solid throughout as well.

98 was just 95 mostly fixed.

[Temmu]

yes, as 7 is just vista fixed.
mark russinovich, of sysinternals fame, now working for ms, states that win 7 has 1/2 of the code that vista did.
clean is good.

[amenditman]

Temmu, on 06 June 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

yes, as 7 is just vista fixed.

True.

Quote

mark russinovich, of sysinternals fame, now working for ms, states that win 7 has 1/2 of the code that vista did.
clean is good.

In computer code, musical composition, and pizza toppings. Less is usually better.

[Tushman]

Webb, on 01 June 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Now you've made me all teary for Windows 2000.  That was the best product Microsoft ever made.

Depends on who you're asking.  XP was more capable and rich in features than Windows 2000.  It was the first OS that Microsoft released where they attempted to combine both the NT and Win9.x code base.  That is one of the reasons why it was infinitely better in running video games compared to Windows 2000.  The great myth spreading around at that time was that Windows 2000 could not run video games.  What a bunch of rubbish. I was able to successfully run several games in windows 2000 - but the frame rates were awful.  So for a long while i dual-booted with Win98/ W2K - using the former only for the purpose of gaming.

A year after XP came out, I upgraded to XP and never looked back.  As far as boot times go, I never noticed Win2000 being real quick about it.  If you compare a fresh installation of 2000 versus XP, there was no question in my mind that XP was faster.

Edited by Tushman, 06 June 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[LilBambi]

XP was like Win98SE in many ways in regard to gaming. They finally got it going really well. Then they broke it again in Vista and tried to fix that in Win7 too, with some success for sure.

Now they will be basically breaking everything again with Windows 8. Sigh...

[Temmu]

good write-up tushman.

Quote

In computer code, musical composition, and pizza toppings. Less is usually better.

amenditman

Quote

Now they will be basically breaking everything again with Windows 8. Sigh.

likewise, lilbambi, sigh!

[crp]

I like the lead in this article:

Quote

"Too many cooks" -- "an unmitigated disaster" -- "the worst thing since fried Vista". Oh dear. Some people really have it in for Windows 8. Wait, so do I.

And there are good reasons.

[Temmu]

again, what was ms thinking?
change is not always for the better. or even good.

[amenditman]

Temmu, on 11 June 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

again, what was ms thinking?
change is not always for the better. or even good.

That corporation practices change as a selling motivator. Profit margins rule!