OT - RAM utilities -> XP sucks? -> ME is worse?

[Baron Munchausen]

As with all Microsoft products, you don't want to get the newest edition of Windows. Using the first release of MS products is participating in the public beta testing. When XP is patched a hundred times and the next Version is about to come out it will probably be safe to acquire and install XP. And by then lots of third-party software will be using 'special' features not available in Win98, too, so Win98 will be truly obsolete.

So I have learned that migration to the second generation just as it becomes the second generation is the best strategy. I call it 'live on the trailing edge' as opposed to 'live on the bleeding edge'.

[tesco samoa]

Fryon your off on that comment.

2000 is from the NT family.

XP is not.

[Fyron]

2000 is a blending of NT and 98.

And, that is a part of the problem with XP.

[Wardad]

NT systems were not designed to be backward compatable with DOS based programs (read: DOS games, Win3.1 and Win 95 games).
Even NT 4.0 did not support USB, so the peripherial support was hell too (again it is bad for gaming).
NT is a more secure system, with (unix like) permissions being controlled by an admin. You could not break NT security by trying to boot it from a DOS disk.
Windows 2000 is built from the NT core. It is definitly better than NT. It supports USB and multi media functions.

I use win98se at home. I have not had a reason to run down to the store and spend $150 on some anal opsys that won't let me swap out a hard drive.

If linux could run my libary of DOS and WIN games I'd dump M$ in a heart beat.

[Gandalph]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Fryon your off on that comment.

2000 is from the NT family.

XP is not.

Actually, 2000 is an upgrade of the NT kernel and XP is an offshoot of the upgraded (ie win2000) kernel. The basic core technologies of windows 2000 and XP are the same.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Gandalph:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Fryon your off on that comment.

2000 is from the NT family.

XP is not.

Actually, 2000 is an upgrade of the NT kernel and XP is an offshoot of the upgraded (ie win2000) kernel. The basic core technologies of windows 2000 and XP are the same.

---

Exactly.

[KirbyEF]

Once again Microsoft (the Evil Empire) has pulled a fast one on the masses.... XP is to 2000 as ME is to SE....

I'll stick with SE... and maybe 2000 for a server.

KirbyEF

[Fyron]

Originally posted by kirbyef:
Once again Microsoft (the Evil Empire) has pulled a fast one on the masses.... XP is to 2000 as ME is to SE....

I'll stick with SE... and maybe 2000 for a server.

KirbyEF

Here here! All hail kirbyef, soothsayer of great wisdom! j/k

[Thermodyne]

Windows 2000 is NT-5. They just used the turn of the century as a marketing ploy. And XP is just 2000 with some add-ons. A few new wizards and some new policies. Then it was wrapped in a GUI that they thought would be more attractive to the home user. Oh, and lets not forget the new registration policy. If you spend some time in the registry, you will see that they are the same operating systems. XP home is another story. It was intended for the untrained masses, so many of the old configuration tools are missing or hidden. While it is hard to screw it up, it is also hard to reconfigure it away from a base install. And some time in the registry will turn up a few differences from the pro OS’s.

[KirbyEF]

Has anyone played with Linux?

I have used Red Hat and a couple of others...

KirbyEF