ad/spy ware

This is a discussion on ad/spy ware within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by sean_mackrory The early NT-systems were rushed, IMO. 2000 was NT 5, though...

  1. #16
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Quote Originally Posted by sean_mackrory
    The early NT-systems were rushed, IMO.
    2000 was NT 5, though

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    313
    I disagree with XP being a superior OS. Too many "features" were added to XP that crippled its ability.

    At default settings, XP takes up more system resources than any OS that I have ever seen put out by Microsoft. Even tweaked, it seems to take more than even 2K or ME.

    Just my 2cp.

  3. #18
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    Just my 2cp.
    If I say, "Penny for your though?", and someone proceeds to give me their "Two cents", then that means... ooh...

    I'm not saying XP takes up less space. I just prefer it over 2k any day - though I probably use the backwards compatability more than most people.

    2000 was NT 5, though
    Ha ha - yeah. I was pretty much referring to everything Pre-XP and post-98

  4. #19
    Rad gcn_zelda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by Lithorien
    I disagree with XP being a superior OS. Too many "features" were added to XP that crippled its ability.

    At default settings, XP takes up more system resources than any OS that I have ever seen put out by Microsoft. Even tweaked, it seems to take more than even 2K or ME.

    Just my 2cp.
    You can't honestly say you think ME is better than XP.

    XP is better than ME.


    And that's not an opinion.

  5. #20
    Registered User Scribbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Aurora CO
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Lithorien
    At default settings, XP takes up more system resources than any OS that I have ever seen put out by Microsoft. Even tweaked, it seems to take more than even 2K or ME.
    Where do you get this statistic from? Here is a benchmark which shows an entirely different result. A well documented benchmark, with a summary containing the quote....

    Windows XP signifies the end of the 9x core. Based on our tests, users of WinME (and likely any other 9x-based OS), should upgrade immediately. WinME just can't keep up with the NT core, and upgraders will see large improvements in stability as well.

    Between the new GUI, the WPA and the feature creep, there are plenty of reasons to bag on Windows XP, but performance isn't one of them. Bloated or not, from a performance standpoint, Windows XP is a worthy successor to 2000


    It's worth checking out, all the numbers are made available for study.
    Last edited by Scribbler; 01-06-2005 at 07:17 PM.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    I don't know how much ram I have I'll tell Tom about what you guys said and see what response I get.
    My computer is awesome.

  7. #22
    Slave MadCow257's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    735
    If you want to know more about your pc (including finding your RAM) go to start/settings/control panel then click "system". One my pcs said it had 127 ram which is kind of wierd, and another one when you go to hardware manager in the BIOS it says the temp is 200 something degrees celcius. These are trivial mistakes though.

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    313
    I will agree that on some PCs, XP will run faster. Plain and simple. But for some reason, benchmarking my OWN PC, XP slows it down by about 20% in terms of how everything opens, load times, CPU usage comparisons, etc.

    Maybe it's just a fluke.

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by gcn_zelda
    You can't honestly say you think ME is better than XP.

    XP is better than ME.


    And that's not an opinion.


    ..Ok, you have a point there.

  10. #25
    UT2004 Addict Kleid-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    656
    You forgot linux in the boolean expression!

    Linux > XP > ME

    (I feel a very bad flame war coming...)

  11. #26
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    this threads going nowhere fast. and try a damn search we just covered spyware. Jebus.

  12. #27
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    I think Cerin's in love with Tom. Like that episode of Seinfeld where George had a crush on Tony...

  13. #28
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    >>I don't know how much ram I have

    On a low end machine (old) and playing games I would recomend 2000.

    XP needs much more RAM / CPU leaving very little for your games.

    Also close ALL apps running in the system tray (unless you explicitly need them ie firewall while on 'net)
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    hahaha I should have mentioned earlier Tom is studying to become a CT right now he works at wal-mart.
    My computer is awesome.

  15. #30
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    618
    >I will agree that on some PCs, XP will run faster. Plain and simple. But for some reason, >benchmarking my OWN PC, XP slows it down by about 20% in terms of how everything >opens, load times, CPU usage comparisons, etc. Maybe it's just a fluke.

    Turn off everything that XP loads on default... EVERYTHING...the cool looking pretty stuff... I can't remember specifically what to do, someone help me out here.
    Hmm

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. C API for Hard Ware Configuration
    By skumar in forum C Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-15-2002, 01:58 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21