|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
 Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011 22:47 Post subject: |
|
 |
Meh, people complaining about this shit are probably the same ones that think XP is awesome, even though that is only just one step above ME.
As long as they don't fuck the kernel up like they did with 5.0 -> 5.1 (Win2K -> WinXP), I don't care whatever else they throw in. 7 is by far the best version of Windows, and I dare say it's almost as stable as most "consumer" distros of Linux, but with better hardware support.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011 23:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Saying XP is one step ME is just hilariously incorrect. I hope you were joking. 
Saying XP is 2000 with a pretty theming support is one thing (at least at RTM and SP1 states), but comparing any NT-kernel based OS to 9x is just wrong on so many levels. Even something like NT3.1 (the first Windows built on the NT kernel) is orders of magnitude more advanced than 9x.
Also, internal kernel build number doesn't determine anything. Would XP have been considered a much major kernel upgrade had it been numbered as 6.0?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 3rd Jun 2011 00:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | Saying XP is one step ME is just hilariously incorrect. I hope you were joking.
Saying XP is 2000 with a pretty theming support is one thing (at least at RTM and SP1 states), but comparing any NT-kernel based OS to 9x is just wrong on so many levels. Even something like NT3.1 (the first Windows built on the NT kernel) is orders of magnitude more advanced than 9x.
Also, internal kernel build number doesn't determine anything. Would XP have been considered a much major kernel upgrade had it been numbered as 6.0? |
No, I wasn't joking. From SP1 it becomes usable, SP2 makes it stable - without any SPs though, XP is just as fucking terrible as 95/98/ME were. Have you never used (and I mean USED, not just installed) a vanilla XP installation? I didn't install it until SP2 was announced, because it simply wouldn't work on any of the computers I tried it on, two of which actually had the fucking "Designed for Windows XP" sticker. I had no problems with Vista, and most certainly not with 7, but XP was a fucking mess at its launch.
It's the same kernel as Windows 2000, but with wider hardware support and other "tweaks". It's those tweaks that fucked the damn thing up. Yes, the kernel is tons better than the old 16/32 bit kernel, but something went wrong. As far as I'm concerned, an unpatched XP still sits below Win2K, Vista and 7, all of which were much more stable at launch (mind you, I have not yet seen a Win7 installation fail on its own, always hardware failure).
XP SP2+ is a different matter. Just like 98SE did improve 98 quite a bit (although still not on par with 2K by a mile), it's SP2 that really made WinXP a solid OS.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 3rd Jun 2011 00:35 Post subject: |
|
|
XP was a solid OS since the beginning. I used to get the alpha/beta Whistler disks as I somehow got accepted as a beta tester...  Ever since that Beta 2 mark, XP was good and stable.
And XP did not have wider hardware support, much like 7 x64 doesn't over Vista x64. It's the illusion people had because hardware vendors actually bothered and made proper drivers.
2000 was my entry point to the NT kernel and I have never looked back. I a way, it is a "favorite" of mine, as it was amazing back then how stable it was, and how fast it ran. As I started understanding more and more in computers, the features became more and more appealing to me. In that regard, XP wasn't really a step forward at all. Even with SP2, it was 2000 with pretty dressing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 3rd Jun 2011 01:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, it had built in support for some more network cards, a scsi controller or two, that sort of thing. Probably not done by microsoft, but it was shipped as part of the package anyway. You must have been lucky, because it kept crashing in various ways on all the systems for me. Those all ran fine with 2000 and later with sp2 as well.
2000 was the shit anyway, stable as a rock.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34200
|
| Posted: Sat, 4th Jun 2011 00:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
