xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: 
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to SAM Hunter$
Re: M$ want more M$$
said by Lost in Space:
I have used all the MS Windows from 3.1 to XP and although XP is not perfect I think it is good OS, far and away the best in their line.
Most of that sounded good, but I have to disagree with the above statement. 2K was much better. |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| said by Linuvas:
Most of that sounded good, but I have to disagree with the above statement. 2K was much better.
I agree 2k is a great OS and it came out of the box with less glitches and patches needed than XP. So in that regard it is currently better. But XP should correct that with the appropriate service patch. Remember in terms of design function 2k was designed more for an upgrade or replacement of NT instead of the 95/98/Me family.
The only problem with 2k is its relatively limited or weak hardware support (it tends to like the newer and high end hardware) and it lack of home or consumer software support. For instance forget about gaming specifically and many other home type software.
However, if you are a business with high end or relatively new hardware all around AND you don't want to learn XP's new and different interface 2K is a great choice! However, MS is no doubt not going to pump much if any improvements and upgrade into 2k but XP instead has they see XP as the bridge between and replacement for all previous OS programs. So MS in that respect will eventually functionally kill off support for 2000 as well as NT and so on.
But as far as what is the best OS it is just a matter of what the user's need are. But no doubt 2k is great.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-28 19:46:44] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to xrobertcmx
Aren't they essentially the same technology with slightly modified GUI's?
--
Palpatine for Senate |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| said by Leviathan:
Aren't they essentially the same technology with slightly modified GUI's?
Yes to the GUI but a totally different code or "technology". I am a lightweight intermediate in computers but the general lightweight answer to your question is that Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP have has some type of foundation element in their code known as a kernel which depending upon the type is THE key to stability and indirectly how smart you can make the OS and how much demands you can put on it. Windows 95/98/Me were not on the same kernel or foundation code. So, that is why inherently they always have applications crash, or Windows freezes or the infamous blue screen of death.
With XP I have not had a single lock up, freeze, or blue screen of death since I got it about six months ago. And I use it a lot. I am on the computer at least 8 and not unusual 12 hours a day. Been online continuously since 9 AM so far. Also, if you do have an individual program under XP crash you can just "end task" and it will not effect anything else on your computer. Sometimes you then can just restart the previously "end task" program it will come back up okay. That sure wasn't the way with 95/98/Me. XP is also is a lot more powerful, (with the requisite memory and CPU demands), and smarter. A whole Lot smarter.
I am sure there are about 100,000 other DSLR members who will if they see your post give you a more detailed and precise explanation.
Hope this was some help.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-29 00:27:40] |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to SAM Hunter$
said by Lost in Space:
The only problem with 2k is its relatively limited or weak hardware support (it tends to like the newer and high end hardware) and it lack of home or consumer software support. For instance forget about gaming specifically and many other home type software.
That is an interesting concept. I've used 2K and XP. I've had more hardware support issues with XP. My DVD Drive won't work in DMA, and there is no fix, but it worked fine in 2K.
Also the interface on XP is nearly the same, or at least instictual if you have used windows, not to mention that I set it to classic.
And I think you are right in that MS will kill off 2K, even though sales of 2K will remain higher then XP for another year. |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to SAM Hunter$
said by Lost in Space:
Yes to the GUI but a totally different code or "technology". I am a lightweight intermediate in computers but the general lightweight answer to your question is that Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP have has some type of foundation element in their code known as a kernel which depending upon the type is THE key to stability and indirectly how smart you can make the OS and how much demands you can put on it. Windows 95/98/Me were not on the same kernel or foundation code. So, that is why inherently they always have applications crash, or Windows freezes or the infamous blue screen of death.
That's interesting. My understanding was that 95/98/ME shared similar Kernals, and that 2K was a new OS built from the ground up off of NT technology. I know that NT/2K/XP all share the same file system NTFS or at least support for it, and that XP was built off of 2K. |
|
