imported_Phil
Diamond Member
- Feb 10, 2001
- 9,837
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Um wrong again ronald... just becuase you get a driver that has multiple OS's supported does not mean it favors all...
there are usually different .inf files within those drivers
Don't you get tired of being wrong?
Let's have a look at some drivers. Say, the nVIDIA nForce chipset drivers.
So..
c:\nvidia\nForceWin2KXP\4.24
Now, within there, are multiple drivers for multiple bits of hardware. However, there's something missing. Oh, that's right, there's one driver for 2000 and XP.
Next!
Originally posted by: CVSiN
um ok whatever you say... I dont follow your insult but ok...
I'm saying that you flunked English. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ring any bells?
Originally posted by: CVSiN
um retard.. windows 2000 has been around since 1998 I tested it..
it was released in 1999 to the public...
and do some freaking math idiot... what date is it today...
we are almost to the end of another year.. the OS is actually almost 6 years old if you want to get technical..
I don't think you quite understand.
You yourself said that Windows 2000 is five years old. For the sake of argument, let's take the "age" of an OS (meaning the final, grown if you will, product) as it's public release date.
So 2000 is five years old, give or take a few months.
Now, I said that Windows XP is four years old.
I'll say it again: what's your point?
If you need it explaining further then I suggest you contact your local education authority and inform them that you're too stupid to enter the adult world.
ya and? this OS was written before the milleneum....Also, this is the 21st century, "smacktard".
therefore my statement is correct...
Again, shooting yourself in the foot. By inviting bamacre to "join the 20th century", you were implying that he is, in fact, living in the 19th century. Guess what, genius? Computers weren't around then.
Also, I would dearly love to see how you can invite someone to the past, i.e. the 20th century.
Originally posted by: CVSiN
This last statement is still as laughable as it was when I responded to the above poster..
YES the drivers were silmilar... but there were not 100% functional..
these are 2 VERY VERY different OS.s if half you freaking retards were actually in the Industry and supposted and trained on multiple OS's instead of just reading the freaking web all day you might GET A FREAKING CLUE.
I am "in the industry" and I am trained on multiple operating systems. Any response along the lines of "well, you can't be very good then" will an admission on your part that a) you're not and b) you're twelve.
Plus, did you see the part where I said "half the 2000 drivers"? I'd say that's roughly 50% functional.
just becasue drivers were cross platform does not make them the same...
See above regarding nVIDIA's nForce chipset drivers.
So get the fvck off your so called high horse and do some freaking homework asshat.
I enjoy evenings laughing at people like you. Your little temper tantrums really are quite amusing when viewed from a different perspective.
You may feel that you are intimidating and that you're shouting down on someone, when in reality, you're beating your little fists against the desk in rage that you can't think of anything less childish as name-calling.
2000 is NOT designed as a gaming OS...
that was my POINT...
XP does this better and it works 500% better in that aspect..
END OF FVCKING ARGUMENT..
I actually agree with you on something: Windows 2000 is not a gaming OS. Correct.
However, that's not to say that it won't play games. I find your claims of "500% better" laughable. Show me some real, solid proof that 2000 is, in fact, a better gaming OS* and I'll eat my desk.
* = in terms of real-world or benchmarking results, aiming to prove that Windows 2000 is consistantly greater than 20% slower than XP.
Run along.