What will make XP better than Win2K?

[joohang]

Descartes: I love your posts, man. We should be friends.

The DLL Hell will be gradually be a "bye bye" as applications become developed in the .NET platform with "managed code" on top of CLR. (Or so the MSDN article says.)

All I've seen about Windows XP so far were mainly UI "enhancements," which I'm sure most of you will disagree.

I read an MSDN article on Windows XP a couple of days ago, but didn't see much. Here's the link to the article, if you're interesting.

MSDN Article

P.S. Je pense, donc je suis.

 

[joohang]

<< Add new features and occasionally throughin major changes that disallow backward compatibility >>

I personally don't see anything wrong with that. Why?

- Netmeeting is a free download
- IE is a free download
- A bunch of those were free download

I think MS deserves to make some money for development of those somewhere. They are doing business, after all.

Also, Windows 98 license was the same (or close enough, at least) as Windows 95. If Windows 98 is simply Windows 95 with &quot;free enhancements&quot; why did people bother buying Windows 98? (or pirating, perhaps?) Considering all the improvements (especially with Plug-n-Play), I believe that same licensing cost is a pretty good deal. With new computers, they were selling Windows 98 in place of Windows 95.

And Windows 2000 was more than a minor upgrade to NT4. Go grab a book on Active Directory or any Windows 2000 MCSE guides out there. Not all computer users are gamers or &quot;l33t&quot; idiots.

 

[joohang]

<< Note about the MSDN articles. These aren't articles on how MS is the panacea of all developer woes, these are (usually) articles that give insight as to how things are implemented, design patterns, etc.. I find these resources to be incredibly advantageous. This isn't a religious argument, but an argument of opinion. My work is brought to fruition, thus my comments are based off the empirical, not theoretical. >>

Descartes: If 50% of the major developers out there read MSDN regularly, Windows experience would be so much better.

I reinstalled Windows 9x/NT so many times and found it most stable when I didn't install any shareware. After so many reinstallations, now I know which applications are properly compiled and stick with those.

 

[sharkeeper]

Blackcomb will be the next real upgrade to 2000.

Cheers!

 

[Descartes]

joohang: I absolutely agree w/ you. When we were looking for more developers, at least 60% of those that applied got _all_ of the questions wrong that dealt w/ how to properly handle MTS(COM+) transactions.

I can't feel bad for them when the information is readily available. I also don't feel bad for rebuking some of the comments made on this forum for the poster's lack of understanding.

[edit]I exaggerated on my percentage a little bit [/edit]

 

[nd]

<< Forgive me, I saw your Avatar and thought you might have been a linux Weenie. Actually I'm a Hardware guy and all I ask for my OS is to not crash daily or run out of resources. Linux isn't dying, in fact if the hair brained scheme by Bill Gates to have a Subscription OS pans out I'm sure that the support for Linux will increase along with the money that will follow making it evolve that much faster. It could be 3 year from now some form of linux will be the choice of experienced End User (not just the 3l33t HaX0rs)and MS could be regulated to the AOL Hell group. >>

No, I am a linux user. I was presenting a hypothetical situation which you were supposed to read and say &quot;ahh, that's foolish -- now I know how I sound&quot;. First of all, you can't possibly have any evidence indicating that only 3l33t HaX0rs (as you call them) use Linux, and this makes you sound truly naive (and I think it comes from ignorance rather than stupidity). Many experienced &quot;End Users&quot; choose Linux. The fact is I have used Windows NT/2k extensively at work, and have been using Linux for almost 5 years. Who uses an OS for 5 years to be l337? I have technical/philisophical views on why Windows is fundamentally broken, and strongly prefer UNIX-like operating systems. This is why I prefer Linux as an end user. As a programmer, I strongly prefer open source, where Linux also happens to satisfy me. Who are you to tell me that I'm not experienced enough based on my decision of not using Win2k?

If you like Win2k, that's fine -- have fun. Don't tell me that I'm a weenie because I run Linux (and it's probably not a good idea to speak down to Win9X users either -- note that I'm not talking down to you). I will not accept anecdotal arguments like &quot;linux is for 31337 hax0rs&quot;, so please (if you really wish to continue this, which I don't) make further arguments technical in nature.