Text 10843, 80 rader
Skriven 2005-09-04 22:13:00 av ROBERT FOWLER (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av CHARLES ANGELICH
Ärende: Re: WinXP
=================
-=> CHARLES ANGELICH wrote to ROBERT FOWLER <=-

 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.

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

 WinXP has had far more sales as an OEM OS installed on new machines
 than W2K, whose OEM installation with new machines was limited to
 mostly laptops.  I suspect that XP does in fact, now represent the
 OS with the majority of home users.

 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.

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

 No.  You're alluding to memory leakage, which was a problem with
 the DOS kernel OSes, not XP.  

 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.

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

 It is.  But not all software is supported.  Users should determine
 which apps pose problems and remove them.
                                                 
 CA> As I've said XP enters most people's lives pre-installed on a
 CA> newer machine. That XP is a resource hog is not as apparent on
 CA> a newer machine with twice the memory, twice the ard drive
 CA> space, and even twice the video card speed/memory. We've all
 CA> agreed that XP can't be expected to work well on machines that
 CA> were built for W98 because it's a pig OS.

 Not originally, but if you're talking about XPSP2, relative to
 Win98/SE/ME, to be sure.  To that extent, some of the early
 hardware that came with XP installed is inadequate.

 Regards,

 Robert Fowler


... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.43
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)