Text 10836, 87 rader
Skriven 2005-09-04 20:13:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROBERT FOWLER
Ärende: Re: WinXP
=================

123c7705b86b
win95



Hello Robert - 

--8<--cut 

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

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

RF> He's comparing two Microsoft platforms though, not
RF> Microsoft with hardware manufacturers. Nevertheless, it
RF> doesn't stand to reason that hardware manufacturers will go
RF> to extremes to support software which is relatively unused
RF> for their products. 

I have no data regarding how 'relative' new hardware might be
to every version of Windows. I do know that the installed base
is not entirely composed of XP users and I would guess that XP
is not even in the majority. 

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. 

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

RF> I have had no problems with stability on either of my XP
RF> systems.  I don't know how one could improve on that.
RF> Perhaps the issue is more user related than not. 

Perhaps. Or it might be that you turn your machine off every
night and back on every morning (a reboot) or that you install
software that requires a reboot frequently enough to avoid some
of the stability issues? ;-) 

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. 

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

RF> I don't think that the hardware is an issue, unless one
RF> attempts to run XP on suboptimal hardware. More likely,
RF> there are issues confronting the individual attempting to
RF> move from the 9X/ME platform to XP. This could include both
RF> installing upgrade versions of XP and issues with retained
RF> software. 

Another possibility (retained software) yet Alan assures me
that XP is _better_ at using legacy softare? 

As I've said XP enters most people's lives pre-installed on a
newer machine. That XP is a resource hog is not as apparent on
a newer machine with twice the memory, twice the hard drive
space, and even twice the video card speed/memory. We've all
agreed that XP can't be expected to work well on machines that
were built for W98 because it's a pig OS. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      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)