>>what is the functional difference between 2k & XP?
Win 2K is NT 5.0
Win XP is NT 5.1
The .1 is a whole lot of added on junk, in my opinion. Case in point: I
plug my Camera into a W2K machine and nothing happens. I pull up Explorer
and move the files. In XP, it starts up a wizard and asks what I want to
do. I have to close it before I can continue. This occurs because XP has a
small applet loaded that watches for these things, to "help" me. I don't
need the help, it gets in the way, steals memory and CPU cycles. Same type
of thing happens with I put a CD in the drive. Drives me crazy.
W2K seems faster/snappier, more stable (likely due to less code). It runs
everything I've loaded and has been rock solid. I might get a crash once a
year (if that). XP is annoying, offers me nothing of value, and seems
slower. In other words, I believe MS took a good product and overloaded it
with accessories to "dumb it down" for people who don't know how to use
computers. If they want to offer a special version for them - fine. Sadly,
they are leaving guys like us behind. This is what led me to Linux.
Linux has brought a lot of the fun back to computing for me. I still depend
on W2K for my workhorse apps (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, InDesign, AutoCAD,
SolidWorks, and Visual Studio). But I've started down the Linux path and am
developing Apache/MySQL/PHP apps that will run on any OS, any browser. I
may switch to Java, Python, or Ruby. Its nice to have options, and its
wonderful to be able to try this stuff for free. We now use a Linux Server
at work, with Linux and Windows clients. It has been rock solid - yes, a
tad bit better than my Windows servers, once I got my hardware selection
right.
Ken Elliott
=====================
-----Original Message-----
From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of michael hast
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:13 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] New Windows Singularity
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.
>
>Ken Elliott
>
>
Okay, as a matter of curiosity, what is the functional difference between 2k
& XP? 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. (Once again, Ken, sorry for my little tantrum there.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 - 19:56:52 EDT