1. Stability. I haven't seen a BSOD in 2K/XP for *ages*. I've seen many crashes of X, KDE, GNOME ...
2. Speed and resource efficiency. Both XP and 2K can run on PII-233's with 128 MB of RAM very well. Try a modern Linux distro on that? Blegh.
3. Software availability, installation, and quality. I don't even need to comment here.
4. Drivers. Nearly every piece of hardware on the PC is supported by Windows. Most of these drivers are written by the company that makes the hardware itself (ie. the most knowledgeable entity about that piece of hardware). Linux, on the other hand, is limited to hackjob, half-functioning drivers for many pieces of hardware.
5. Multimedia. Framerates are better, sound support is better, many more codecs for movies available, etc.
The list could go on ...
1. I saw quite a few BSoDs in XP.... on my 100MHz... AND when I'd use DivX on the 1.4... but on the 1.2 thats not a problem. Havent seen one BSoD yet.
2. I had XP running plenty fast on a 400MHz / 96MB, but I went 2000 just because it would be much faster on that.
3. No comment to add.
4. In XP, you put something in, it pops up saying its dealing with it, it does. No reboots or searches nessicarty. I LOVE that about XP.
5. I couldnt get my sound to work in Linux :-| Windows always makes it work...
1. Stability. I haven't seen a BSOD in 2K/XP for *ages*. I've seen many crashes of X, KDE, GNOME ...
2. Speed and resource efficiency. Both XP and 2K can run on PII-233's with 128 MB of RAM very well. Try a modern Linux distro on that? Blegh.
3. Software availability, installation, and quality. I don't even need to comment here.
4. Drivers. Nearly every piece of hardware on the PC is supported by Windows. Most of these drivers are written by the company that makes the hardware itself (ie. the most knowledgeable entity about that piece of hardware). Linux, on the other hand, is limited to hackjob, half-functioning drivers for many pieces of hardware.
5. Multimedia. Framerates are better, sound support is better, many more codecs for movies available, etc.
The list could go on ...
I have noticed nothing of that... except third part.
Oh, well maybe we should stop arguing about it, it's getting boring... Anyway you won't make me think XP is good.
my computer, when it ran windows xp crashed almost every day. 1st it was that the drivers that came with my computer that said they were compatable wernt, zonealarm made my computer BSOD when it was trying to start, service pack 1 installed incorrectly, leaveing me with a bsod on boot, and i can contuine to list more.
2000 on the other hand, has only crashed 2 times,
1. bad driver
2. i was trying to setup a tv tuner card and installed the wrong software.
i perfer bsd over linux, but on occasions when i want to waste time, i mess around with linux.
Speaking of directly writing to memory, I wonder why so many trainers for older games, which worked fine on 98, no longer have any effect on the game in XP....
Comments
i noticed lol, 2003 isnt too bad on that either...
1. I saw quite a few BSoDs in XP.... on my 100MHz... AND when I'd use DivX on the 1.4... but on the 1.2 thats not a problem. Havent seen one BSoD yet.
2. I had XP running plenty fast on a 400MHz / 96MB, but I went 2000 just because it would be much faster on that.
3. No comment to add.
4. In XP, you put something in, it pops up saying its dealing with it, it does. No reboots or searches nessicarty. I LOVE that about XP.
5. I couldnt get my sound to work in Linux :-| Windows always makes it work...
Oh, well maybe we should stop arguing about it, it's getting boring... Anyway you won't make me think XP is good.
2000 on the other hand, has only crashed 2 times,
1. bad driver
2. i was trying to setup a tv tuner card and installed the wrong software.
i perfer bsd over linux, but on occasions when i want to waste time, i mess around with linux.
And the XP install on my laptop hasn't BSODed in...
Ever, really LOL