Text 10822, 94 rader
Skriven 2005-09-04 14:58:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ALAN ZISMAN
Ärende: Re: WinXP
=================

123c7704dfad
win95



Hello Alan - 

CA>>> In the world _outside_ of FIDO and this echo most agree
CA>>> that W2K is the best most stable version of Windows
CA>>> Microsoft has ever sold. 

RF>> I would agree with that, since it really refers to
RF>> performance only. It says nothing about versatility, which
RF>> is W2K's weakness and XP's forte. 

CA>> Many people have referred to W2K 'weaknesses' versus XP
CA>> and I honestly have no idea what they are referring to.
CA>> Could you elaborate/expand on this a bit so that I have
CA>> some idea what exactly XP can do that W2K cannot do? 

AZ> WinXP has far better support both of recent hardware and
AZ> even of entire hardware categories-- including older
AZ> models-- such as scanners. In order to use my UMax SCSI
AZ> scanner with Win2K (with a Win2K-supported SCSI adapter), I
AZ> had to buy a US$30 driver from UMax... with WinXP, the same
AZ> scanner just works-- without the expensive driver. 

AZ> Built-in support for newer technologies such as WiFi,
AZ> Firewire, USB2 (etc) make for smoother installation and use
AZ> than is the case with Win2K, where the technologies can
AZ> generally be used, but are more dependent on the variable
AZ> quality of individual manufacturer's drivers, software, and
AZ> installation routines. 

Judging from what you have typed here, the manufacturers of
hardware have done a poor job of supporting their own product
in comparison to Microsoft who has done an exceptional job of
supporting other company's hardware.

Adding, swapping, and generally fiddling with hardware is more
of an interest in the FIDO Win95 echo than what I find in other
forums.  In other forums new software (usually freeware) is more
the focus of the groups than is new hardware.

AZ> Similarly, at my school, there is a whole set of software
AZ> that we are able to run on the Win98 systems that refuse to
AZ> run on NT/2000 systems. WinXP has better abilities to
AZ> emulate Win95/98 for such programs. (I haven't done much
AZ> testing on those programs-- I have a license that lets me
AZ> install either Win98SE or Win2000 freely on donated
AZ> computers, but don't have either adequate hardware or
AZ> licenses allowing me to use WinXP at school, so it's not a
AZ> choice). 

AZ> When XP was first released, some people commented that it
AZ> had the breadth of hardware support found in Win98SE
AZ> combined with the stability of the NT/2000 kernal. 

'Out of the box' installs have shown me that XP is _not_ all
that stable. After tweaking both my W2K continues to be more
stable than XP (home or Pro). This is what I read in other
forums as well when W2K and XP are compared. 

AZ> XP does require more hardware resources (CPU, hard drive,
AZ> RAM, etc), and generally does not do as well installed on
AZ> systems built prior to 2001 or so than Win2000 does. 

For many (if not most) who install their own OS this is done on
earlier hardware not brand new machines. Their is no
frustration installing XP if it is installed on the machine
when you plug it in. :-) 

AZ> To an extent, I don't there's a single 'best' OS version--
AZ> factors to consider include the hardware it's to be
AZ> installed on, the user's background and comfort level,
AZ> peripherals and software that will be used, etc etc. 

What you say is true when considering all possible variables of
hardware and user expertise at tweaking an OS. For those who
want access to newer software the field narrows to W2K, XPhome,
or XP-Pro at this time and within that smaller arena I continue
to agree with others who prefer W2K over XP. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)