What will make XP better than Win2K?

[beer]

I fail to see anything that will make Windows XP better than Windows 2000 for an advanced tech guru...I realize that we are a vast minority in their marketplace, but surely there must be SOMETHING that will give gurus a reason to upgrade from Win2K...

Is there anything worthwhile??!

 

[JellyBaby]

Well, I've heard game compatability and solving DLL hell are two biggies. Stability over 9x is another. But for the tech. guru? Hmmm...not sure.

 

[Daedalus]

It bridges the gap for average endusers into the stability of the NT world. It should be harder for them to screw it up like with 98/Me.

 

[xtreme2k]

If you wana
pay m$ every year,
be forced to upgrade to future OS,
forced 'activation',
more bloatware as part of your OS,
then just upgrade to XP

 

[Emulex]

64 bit chip support

(for server of course)

 

The fact that it is "XP" makes it better than "2k" which was "NT" not to be consfused with "9x", or is it "ME"?

Oh, fsck it, it's because marketing says so.

 

[Valhalla1]

<< Well, I've heard game compatability and solving DLL hell are two biggies. Stability over 9x is another. >>



I've never had a single game compatibility issue with windows 2000. I've never had this &quot;dll hell&quot; problem either. If you know how to properly maintain your PC and not randomly install crap that you'll never use, you don't run into these problems.

Stability over 9x? What tech guru in their right mind uses 9x? the question was, what does XP have to offer over NT 5

 

[xtreme2k]

I really hate it when M$ put a few stuff on an existing OS and call it a new OS.

Look at Win98 from Win95. They did do crap in 3 years. All they did was put in IE4, Media Player, add AGP support, a few driver and bug fix. There, you go.
Look at WinME from Win98. All they did was put in a Movie maker, Media Player, IE5.5, change the font and color, and this rollback feature and they call it a brand new OS.

Look at Win2000 from WinNT4. All the did was add USB support, change Font and color, add IE5, WMP6.4, update the computer manger, fix a few bugs... there another OS.
Now from Win2000 to WinXP. Add in Skin, add in IE6, WMP8 and this Winblows Activation crap, remote control desktop (which is actually copied over from Netmeeting) there, another OS for you guys.

I am basically sick of these minor upgrades that M$ say it gives you a so much better 'XP'

 

[xtreme2k]

Basically they are not brand new at ALL.

They put some extra programs on an EXISTING OS, put a few bug fix, new drivers, slightly more support, update the IE and DirectX. And call it a new OS.

 

[RevVveD1]

Emulex said it ...

----------------------
&quot;64 bit chip support&quot;

(for server of course)
----------------------

if it works.. heh

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

isn't that MS developement strategy overall? Add new features and occasionally throughin major changes that disallow backward compatibility. i don't know enough about the CompSci behind an OS though to be too cynical...

 

[xtreme2k]

Win2k Kernel isnt that much different from WinNTs. But I must say it is a lot bigger difference compared to 95 to 98 to ME or anything else

 

[nd]

<< W2k is more than a minor upgrade to NT4. W2K is an OS for those with a clue >>

Clueness is relative.

 

[xtreme2k]

Red:

I agree totally about your views on Creative. But M$ is just another example of this crap.

 

[bigbootydaddy]

what ever happened to the joining, or standardization of the two kernals?? and there are plenty of win2k issues with games...quit flaming.

 

[shiner]

I have yet to get my hands on a copy of XP but wouldn't mind giving it a look. I'm sure that in the end I will stick with Win2k though. XP just seems to be a useless upgrade path to me. I've been running Win2k since the early betas and I've never had an issue with it. Sure it's crashed a couple of times but that was because of something stupid(experimentation) that I did.

XP reminds me of Microsoft Bob from what I've seen. A friendly little interface for people that probably shouldn't even be using a computer on top of an existing OS.

Of course I'm still a big believer in IBM's OS/2. Too bad IBM doesn't have MS' marketing department. If they did this whole Win2k v. Win XP discussion would be irrelevant. Unfortunately IBM's marketing department is suck. They couldn't sell water in the desert.

 

[xtreme2k]

Basically I am currently learning Linux and I wana get out of this M$ crap.

 

[nd]

<< Oh that's right, those who are l33t Haxors with a clue use Linux >>

Win98 user to you: &quot;Oh, that's right, those who are l33t Haxors with a clue use Win2k&quot;

 

[Descartes]

xtreme2k: Linux is dead, deal w/ it.

It's not a viable OS for many of those that use it. Many use Linux simply because they're too insecure to stand up against their IRC buddies when they're flamed for not being &quot;l33t0&quot; because they use an MS product.

And again, xtreme2k. Get a clue. Win2k is just like NT4 w/ only a few enhancements? PLEASE go elsewhere to show your ignorance! It's monkies like you that only see aesthetic changes that elicits the catering mentality that MS has for it's myopic consumers.

Win2k is more than a damn enhancement over NT. Making a change to core OS functionality is much more than just a simple damn line of code. Get real.

 

[xtreme2k]

Basically I do not see any huge difference between NT4 and 2000 without some huge big fix some reramp of the core and added support. If you have the clue, then please explain to me how NT is so DIFFERENT that is actually considered something TOTALLY NEW? Also, if you can, please explain how linux is dead while more and more ISP uses linux to maintain their network infrastructure and more and more end users are giving linux a go. I must say program support wise and userbase wise, linux is in no match M$ products. But it is no where near dead.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Well them XP is for all the Kiddie Gamers out there then! >>

Red, Hey I resemble that remark! I pity da foo who disses da gamer! Pity him.

<< I've never had a single game compatibility issue with windows 2000. I've never had this &quot;dll hell&quot; problem either. >>

Valhalla1,

Use the Search function. You'll find issues with Win 2K and games. DLL hell is less of a problem if you maintain your system but it's something the OS can definitely address. I believe MS is somehow allowing each application to run with the set of DLLs it wanted to install -- to guarantee the app works as planned. Pretty nifty and hopefully they'll pull it off.

 

[xtreme2k]

As far as I know the 'DLL HELL' fix is really no big deal.

What M$ does is that they require 3rd party software to put the DLL back into their own Program Files directories and not in the Windows Directories. I dont see how difficult it could be to implement this. This should've been done when Win95 came out.

 

[nd]

Descartes,

Please, talk some more. You're hilarious.

 

<< xtreme2k: Linux is dead, deal w/ it. >>


Man, you're rich.



<< Win2k is more than a damn enhancement over NT. Making a change to core OS functionality is much more than just a simple damn line of code. Get real. >>


Core OS functionality, bawhahaha. How is Win2k anything more than a 1.0 revision to NT 4? The kernel is pretty much the same, the interface is pretty much the same. All they did was enough tweaking to bring it from NT 4.0 to 5.0. You read too many MSDN articles my friend, you are brainwashed.

XP is a point upgrade from NT 5.0. That's it. XP Personal is nothing but Windows NT 5.1 minus SMP support. Everyone seems to think that they ported the 9x codebase to the NT kernel. Wrong. All they did is trash the 9x codebase and jumped over to the NT code. The difference between XP Personal and XP Pro will be an INF file.

 

[Descartes]

I feel like I'm drowning in ignorance and the only lifeguard around won't even throw me a damn life preserver.



<< Please, talk some more. You're hilarious. >>



Ahh, how sweet



<< Man, you're rich. >>



Am I? I was being facetious. Perhaps my humor becomes less evident later in the day. Hard to convey the appropriate level of facetiousness over these forums.



<< Core OS functionality, bawhahaha. How is Win2k anything more than a 1.0 revision to NT 4? The kernel is pretty much the same, the interface is pretty much the same. All they did was enough tweaking to bring it from NT 4.0 to 5.0. You read too many MSDN articles my friend, you are brainwashed. >>



I'll answer you, dwell, as I actually respect your opinion, and you've always been well informed (even if we are sometimes on the opposite side of the fence). To answer your questions:

We can't argue that even a &quot;pretty much the same&quot; change denotes a great deal of work for the transition. I'm not saying this warrants an entire rerelease of the product, but a &quot;minor change&quot; to a project as large as Win2k is a gross oversimplification.

It's a little more than &quot;tweaking.&quot; True, they've basically directed their regurgitation into a new area and slapped a new label on it, but it benefits us as developers. There are many reasons why my target platform is Win2k (especially since my last target was NT4 ), but since COM+ essentially integrates MTS into the core services, I'm happy. There are MANY benefits, development wise, that COM+ brought on the table. True, a lot of them were available in RM's, service packs, technology previews, etc., but Win2k brings a lot to the board as well. I'm not a MS marketing rep (although I may at times sound like it), so I'm not going to repeat the list of reasons I choose Win2k as my target platform.

Yes, I do read too many MSDN articles, but not out of arbitration.

[edit]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.[/edit]