Guys what really makes WinXP better than Win2k pro?
Thx
Thx
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Quote:
Yep, Microsoft has incorporated more fixes in XP than 2K. If ye take a look at the "Compatibility Administration Tool" you'll see all of the fixes for all of the software...although I've noticed sometimes fixes don't show up there that really are in the database....
Thats what I thought. It was the Compat Admin Tool that showed me just how extensive M$' committment to Application Compatibility was in XP. It's also the reason I get so pissed off at people who suggest using Compatibility Mode as a solution to every little issue in XP and saying XP sucks when it doesn't work.
Yep, Microsoft has incorporated more fixes in XP than 2K. If ye take a look at the "Compatibility Administration Tool" you'll see all of the fixes for all of the software...although I've noticed sometimes fixes don't show up there that really are in the database....
Thats what I thought. It was the Compat Admin Tool that showed me just how extensive M$' committment to Application Compatibility was in XP. It's also the reason I get so pissed off at people who suggest using Compatibility Mode as a solution to every little issue in XP and saying XP sucks when it doesn't work.
What makes XP better than 2K?
Nothing. XP is Microsoft's latest $ucce$$ful attempt to gain revenue for the next 2 years and on. Otherwise the name of this thread would be What makes 2K better than 9X?
XP is an ok OS for 80 percent of computer users (who don't know sh*t about computing to begin with) It is almost an idiot proof OS, almost and very bloated with extra crap. All XP really is, is 2K with a pretty shell (which you can duplicate with 3rd party programs), balloons to help ID10Ts, Self organizing menus and folders, and the latest versions of IE and DX.
In my experience XP ran just like 2K except that ADOBE Premiere 6.01 took 300MB more ram than it does in 2K. I use Premiere daily and can't have that massive mem leak. If .NOT is anything like XP, 2K will be on my machines for a while. My advice and plan is to move to XP when SP2 comes out for it. Ironically I have 2 XP Pro Full Retail CDs just waiting to be installed. Dusty they shall remain.
Nothing. XP is Microsoft's latest $ucce$$ful attempt to gain revenue for the next 2 years and on. Otherwise the name of this thread would be What makes 2K better than 9X?
XP is an ok OS for 80 percent of computer users (who don't know sh*t about computing to begin with) It is almost an idiot proof OS, almost and very bloated with extra crap. All XP really is, is 2K with a pretty shell (which you can duplicate with 3rd party programs), balloons to help ID10Ts, Self organizing menus and folders, and the latest versions of IE and DX.
In my experience XP ran just like 2K except that ADOBE Premiere 6.01 took 300MB more ram than it does in 2K. I use Premiere daily and can't have that massive mem leak. If .NOT is anything like XP, 2K will be on my machines for a while. My advice and plan is to move to XP when SP2 comes out for it. Ironically I have 2 XP Pro Full Retail CDs just waiting to be installed. Dusty they shall remain.
SO those of us you use XP and prefer it are idiots?.
I happen to like the pretty interface. Makes up for all the dull command line **** I gotta do.
It's different in the fact that it finally merged the business OS and the home OS into 1. Thank GOD for NTFS. I wish I were still working at my old store. Would have saved me a lot of trouble calls from little old ladies.
As for the Pro in me, I prefer 2000 cause it strains the hardware less, and is a bit easier to deploy for now.
I happen to like the pretty interface. Makes up for all the dull command line **** I gotta do.
It's different in the fact that it finally merged the business OS and the home OS into 1. Thank GOD for NTFS. I wish I were still working at my old store. Would have saved me a lot of trouble calls from little old ladies.
As for the Pro in me, I prefer 2000 cause it strains the hardware less, and is a bit easier to deploy for now.
Quote:Fisher-Price interface
XP's interface has often been likened to the toy company's brightly coloured playthings, designed to be easily understood and used by children. The implication is that Microsoft is being condescending through its interface design. I'm not convinced by this argument for three reasons.
One, the interface is no less functional than it ever was (with a few exceptions, mostly due to the differences between XP and 2000). You can still do everything you need to do -- in fact, you can do much more.
Two, we spend a lot more time staring at computer screens than ever before. If I'm going to spend the better part of my day looking at a computer screen, I'd prefer it to be as attractive as possible.
Three, if you don't like the revised interface, you can turn it off. What's more, you can turn it off selectively -- you can shut off individual things that drive you nuts, like the animated/scrolling menus (my least favourite feature) or the drop-shadow on the cursor. You can also revert to the original Start button, if that's your cup of hot chocolate, although having tried the new Start button, I know I'm happier with it.
If you want to hack the XP interface in ways not directly available to the end user, you can try out the Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP package, which includes an XP-specific version of the TweakUI program. If that doesn't provide enough power for you, go a step further and check out a program by StarDock called WindowBlinds, which lets you customise everything in the Windows interface.
http://www.apcmag.com/apc/apcmag.nsf/1_alldocs/CF9DE627F8FD02EACA256B53001B2A21
I pretty much agree with him about the new GUI. It's nowhere as childish as the people who hate it make it out to be. Plus, after 7 years of that dead-boring Explorer shell it's a refreshing change.
XP's interface has often been likened to the toy company's brightly coloured playthings, designed to be easily understood and used by children. The implication is that Microsoft is being condescending through its interface design. I'm not convinced by this argument for three reasons.
One, the interface is no less functional than it ever was (with a few exceptions, mostly due to the differences between XP and 2000). You can still do everything you need to do -- in fact, you can do much more.
Two, we spend a lot more time staring at computer screens than ever before. If I'm going to spend the better part of my day looking at a computer screen, I'd prefer it to be as attractive as possible.
Three, if you don't like the revised interface, you can turn it off. What's more, you can turn it off selectively -- you can shut off individual things that drive you nuts, like the animated/scrolling menus (my least favourite feature) or the drop-shadow on the cursor. You can also revert to the original Start button, if that's your cup of hot chocolate, although having tried the new Start button, I know I'm happier with it.
If you want to hack the XP interface in ways not directly available to the end user, you can try out the Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP package, which includes an XP-specific version of the TweakUI program. If that doesn't provide enough power for you, go a step further and check out a program by StarDock called WindowBlinds, which lets you customise everything in the Windows interface.
http://www.apcmag.com/apc/apcmag.nsf/1_alldocs/CF9DE627F8FD02EACA256B53001B2A21
I pretty much agree with him about the new GUI. It's nowhere as childish as the people who hate it make it out to be. Plus, after 7 years of that dead-boring Explorer shell it's a refreshing change.
I think the best thing about winXP, is it's ability to find the network in no time, and with no manual configuration. Just pop up network configuration window and choose Repair. It then finds LAN, and gateway leading to internet if any.
My notebook simply can't live without this nice little detail
My notebook simply can't live without this nice little detail
Overall I prefer XP over W2K, but by a slim margin. This is mostly due to it's better multimedia and game compatibility, faster boot time, and less reboots required when adding/removing/changing windows components and other programs. Hell, I didn't have to reboot 1 time to install Office XP! I also think XP has better crash recovery than W2K.
Things I don't like are many of the "advanced" options we all love in W2K are a bit hidden in XP, even the Professional Edition, which I find weird. Also, there seem to be a good amount of nuisance bugs with the new gui, such as taskbar icons acting weird, the new Start Menu getting shuffled around for no apparent reason.
One thing that annoys the hell out of me is sometimes I cannot delete, rename, copy, or move a media file because it gives me the error that it is being used by another program. This happens with media files usually, and the only way I could ever get around it was to shut down. Just rebooting would not fix this problem for me. Beleive me, I cannot find any programs that are using the file. I think Windows just gets it locked somehow. If anyone can shed more light on this for me, I would appreciate it.
Things I don't like are many of the "advanced" options we all love in W2K are a bit hidden in XP, even the Professional Edition, which I find weird. Also, there seem to be a good amount of nuisance bugs with the new gui, such as taskbar icons acting weird, the new Start Menu getting shuffled around for no apparent reason.
One thing that annoys the hell out of me is sometimes I cannot delete, rename, copy, or move a media file because it gives me the error that it is being used by another program. This happens with media files usually, and the only way I could ever get around it was to shut down. Just rebooting would not fix this problem for me. Beleive me, I cannot find any programs that are using the file. I think Windows just gets it locked somehow. If anyone can shed more light on this for me, I would appreciate it.
Try Process Explorer to find out what program has what files open
Quote:
I believe a lot of techies just dont like new stuff cause they aren't familiar or comfortable with it. We have old guys at work who refuse to use new **** and we have to support thier old software cause they wont switch
I know exactly what you mean!
I used to be a chemist at an industrial gas standards plant. The older guys refused to do anything different from what they had been doing for the past 20 years. They got into such a rut that they were scared sh1tless when new technology showed up. Their brains had been deprived of oxygen in that environment for so long, that learning something new caused them great anguish.
Needless to say, I had to leave that horrible industry to formally learn networking and start a new career to satisfy my endless craving to learn new things.
I believe a lot of techies just dont like new stuff cause they aren't familiar or comfortable with it. We have old guys at work who refuse to use new **** and we have to support thier old software cause they wont switch
I know exactly what you mean!
I used to be a chemist at an industrial gas standards plant. The older guys refused to do anything different from what they had been doing for the past 20 years. They got into such a rut that they were scared sh1tless when new technology showed up. Their brains had been deprived of oxygen in that environment for so long, that learning something new caused them great anguish.
Needless to say, I had to leave that horrible industry to formally learn networking and start a new career to satisfy my endless craving to learn new things.
I eat up new computer stuff like candy but XP has left an "icky" feeling with me since I started using the betas. Can't really explain it either. I'll use it if I have to but I really hate having to "force" an OS to do what I want to do with it I love tweaking but with XP it's just pathetic tweaks that MS should have taken care of before release. I just see it as an unfinished project that MS pushed out the door somewhat like Windows ME just to finally get a home OS with the NT core. It's the principal of the thing.... for those reasons Windows 2000 remains a stronge contender for sometime to come.
