swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to maartena
Re: final version will be on p2p soon
Yes and XP got pretty good - after the 1st service pack.
Win 98 (DOS series) to Win 2000 (NT series) was a big improvement. Even NT4 to 2000 (= NT 5.0) was a significant improvement. Windows 2000 was the high point of Microsoft's history.
XP (= NT 5.1) performs as well as 2000 only on better hardware and only with a lot of the unnecessary services and features turned off. Its functional improvements over 2000 are few and are not critical.
For Vista (= NT 6.0) to perform as well as XP or 2000 on the same hardware is laughable. Only on *much* better hardware can it be as fast. And when you turn off the frivolous GUI stuff and unnecessary services, is there any real improvement over XP? A few new features, not critical.
Then there's more DRM, stricter activation requirements - IMHO, it's for diehard fans only, and those who have to use it for games or work. |
|
Nanoprobe
Crunching in subspace
Premium
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula
clubs:  | BINGO! We have a winner. Next subject please.
--
Resistance is Futile |
|
sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA
| reply to swhx7
Absolutely RIGHT! Nailed it!
Smart SysAdmins kept production machines and office equipment on Win2k till XP/2k3 matured (at least a year)... Same will have to be said about Vista. If Microsoft didn't strap DX10 onto Vista, then it would have nothing substantial at all over XP, other then some eye candy. After all, by the time DX10 games start to come out, along with DX10 Video cards, that's hopefully when Vista will mature enough for us to start considering an upgrade...
Still, doubling my RAM just so Vista can run strict DRM and monitor my activities, will be a tough pill to swallow. |
|
