2000 was NT 5, thoughOriginally Posted by sean_mackrory
2000 was NT 5, though
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
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.
If I say, "Penny for your though?", and someone proceeds to give me their "Two cents", then that means... ooh...Just my 2cp.
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.
Ha ha - yeah. I was pretty much referring to everything Pre-XP and post-982000 was NT 5, though
You can't honestly say you think ME is better than XP.
XP is better than ME.
And that's not an opinion.
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 08:17 PM.
I don't know how much ram I haveI'll tell Tom about what you guys said and see what response I get.
My computer is awesome.
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.
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.
..Ok, you have a point there.
You forgot linux in the boolean expression!
Linux > XP > ME
this threads going nowhere fast. and try a damn search we just covered spyware. Jebus.
I think Cerin's in love with Tom. Like that episode of Seinfeld where George had a crush on Tony...
>>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
hahaha I should have mentioned earlier Tom is studying to become a CT right now he works at wal-mart.
My computer is awesome.
>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
