On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, michael hast wrote:
> Ken Elliott wrote:
>
> >>>windows core code is the same as used in Windows 1.0.
> >
> >Not at all. NT 3.5 was all new code. Nothing from Windows 1.0 was in it.
> >They started adding some Win32 stuff in W2k and XP for program
> >compatibility. I like W2K, but really dislike XP.
> >
> >That being said, I'm really liking FC3 and Debian.
>
> Okay, as a matter of curiosity, what is the functional difference
> between 2k & XP?
Got me. One of the first things I did to the two XP machines that are mine
is turn off all the goofy Fisher-Price UI stuff (it makes navigation by
keyboard more cumbersome), so it at least *looks* like W2K. You can turn
off the graphical login too, so it looks even more like W2K. (It doesn't
appear for me, so the issue hasn't arisen.)
> I have to admit that I've thought of bringing the butterfly back into my
> house for one machine, and I don't want to waste money on XP if 2k will be
> a better choice.
I'd say, don't waste your money unless/until you find that the software you
want requires XP.
-- -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar VIRGO: All Virgos are extremely friendly and intelligent - except for you. Expect a big surprise today when you wind up with your head impaled upon a stick. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:44 EDT