Remembering Windows XP's early days

**Sazar** · February 26th, 2008

All credit to this link.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

I found it amusing and relatively accurate

I am amused by the current lovefest going on with Windows XP. It’s the greatest operating system ever, in the minds of some, especially compared to the allegedly bloated, slow Windows Vista. In fact, InfoWorld has gone so far as to kick off a “Save XP” petition drive.

Vista bashers really hate it when you point out that the same criticisms being leveled at Vista today were commonly aimed at XP after its launch. Fortunately, I’ve found a near-perfect example of this trend. It’s illuminating, and ironically, it comes from InfoWorld blogger Randall Kennedy, who has been bashing Vista and hyping the “Save XP” campaign relentlessly on his Enterprise Desktop blog. His latest entry dismisses any comparison between Vista now and XP then:

This is followed by several comments from 2001 and 2007, with comparisons between Win2k and XP, and then XP and Vista.

On Windows 2000:

2001: “IT departments should take advantage of license downgrade provisions and continue to press forward with Windows 2000 deployments until the installed hardware base catches up with XP.”

2007: “Windows 2000 doesn’t count since it was never a mainstream product.”

On why your old OS was better:

2001: “Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version.”

2007: “[E]xhaustive testing confirms that Windows Vista is at least twice as slow as Windows XP when running on the same hardware.”

On hardware:

2001: “[U]ntil 2GHz desktop PCs become commonplace, we have a hard time recommending widespread adoption of Windows XP at all.”

2007: “Windows XP SP3 … absolutely screams on today’s high-end, multi-core desktops.”

On “bloated” new features:

2001: “Shops lured by XP features should weigh their options carefully. In many cases, these features may not be compelling enough to justify saddling your end-users with a slower OS.”

2007: “Vista, which is basically Windows XP with more “stuff” heaped on top, and you begin to see why so many users are balking at the upgrade message. There’s simply not enough “meat” to justify the pain involved.”

Oh sweetness. Why art facts so funneh

**perris** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by Sazar

All credit to this link.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

I found it amusing and relatively accurate

This is followed by several comments from 2001 and 2007, with comparisons between Win2k and XP, and then XP and Vista.

Oh sweetness. Why art facts so funneh

huh?

my memory is clearly differant then this link, it's taking a scenario that is not the same sazar;

very few people had windows 2000, that was a professional operating system and it was the same technology as xp...to which vista is the same technology as 2000 as well, the link that "2000 doesn't count because it wasn't mainstream} is precisely correct

xp to vista is a completetly differant cenario then when xp was introduced, most people came off of 98 NOT 2000, and compared to 98, xp was clearly the better operating system, clearly, and that is dollars to dollars instead of dollars to donuts

in point of fact, if you had 2000 you had to be nuts to switch to xp until they worked out the kinks, you already had the superior technology, if you had 98 you had to be nuts not to get xp since 98 was flawed

vista is to xp what mileniun was to 98, they are trying to do more with the same memory restrictions and it just does not hold water, all vista does is add interface over existing technology

the analogy concerning vista intro vs xp intro just does not hold

**LeeJend** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by perris

huh?

vista is to xp what mileniun was to 98, they are trying to do more with the same memory restrictions and it just does not hold water, all vista does is add interface over existing technology

Good analogy. Putting it that way fits. When every machine is a dual core, 3 gig, 4 GB RAM then VISTA's drawbacks go away.

But I resent the comment about using 2000, I installed it for about 6 months until switching to XP. 2000 was supposed to be unsupported for drivers and useless for gaming but I never had a problem with it in either regard. 2000 Benchmarked out 25% faster on my system than 98SE which is why I switched to it. I went ot XP becasue the P;ug and Play functionality was a thing of beauty.

I transitioned to XP when that came out and initial install and use was flawless. It should have been since 2000 was already running fine for me. XP also benched out 25% faster than 98SE. NOTE This was in a mid range gaming machine. Every game and application worked with XP/2000.

My experience with Vista has been pathetic. I had to install XP on my new laptop because VISTA does not run any of my expensive software and the laptop ran so piss poor slow with VISTA it was unusable.

I installed VISTA SP1 RC1 because it was supposed to be god's gift to VISTA performance. After install I got a system crash every time within 40 seconds of VISTA loading. I could barely get it off my machine due to the instability it introduced. Granted there have been some real looser XP updates (the great XP slow down patch a few years ago comes to mind). But eveyone was raving about RC1.

VISTA's good points:
1) It was so slow on the mainstream hardware available last spring that they were discounting computers with VISTA installed by 50% to get rid of them. I got a great $700 laptop for $350 thanks to VISTA being on it.

Note there are several class action lawsuits in process over how over blown "VISTA Ready" was at launch.

2) It makes me really appreciate 2000/XP and the fine job MS did considering what an antiquated kernel they had inherited.

**Sazar** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by perris

huh?

my memory is clearly differant then this link, it's taking a scenario that is not the same sazar;

very few people had windows 2000, that was a progessional operating system and it was the same technology as xp...to which vista is the same technology as 2000 as well, the link that "2000 doesn't count because it wasn't mainstream} is precisely correct

I don't know about that Perris

Many small businesses I went into as well as some large businesses and all the universities I went to were running windows 2000. Heck, I went from Windows 98SE to windows 2000 myself. I then proceeded to dual-boot Windows XP and Windows 2000 for several months because of driver incompatabilities and lack of support for XP with many products.

Also, that comment about 2000 not counting as mainstream is there for a reason. Publications were pushing for the adoption and continued use of Win2k as opposed to XP for precisely the same reasons they are now saying people should stick with XP instead of moving to Vista.

xp to vista is a completetly differant cenario then when xp was introduced, most people came off of 98 NOT 2000, and compared to 98, xp was clearly the better operating system, clearly, and that is dollars to dollars instead of dollars to donuts.

How so? There were driver incompatabilities and significantly increased specifications. Any system that can run XP decently will be able to run Vista decently. Any system that could run 98 decently would have to be significantly upgraded to run XP. Windows 2000 required a beefier system but not as much as XP's spec called for to run decently.

From a functionality standpoint, many businesses, even today, continue to use Windows 98.

in point of fact, if you had 2000 you had to be nuts to switch to xp until they worked out the kinks, you already had the superior technology, if you had 98 you had to be nuts not to get xp since 98 was flawed.

vista is to xp what mileniun was to 98, they are trying to do more with the same memory restrictions and it just does not hold water, all vista does is add interface over existing technology

the analogy concerning vista intro vs xp intro just does not hold

Perris, here is where you are wrong. There are numerous features within Vista that XP does not have or has been unable to copy and/or reproduce. The kernel is different. The o/s cannot be attacked like XP could and the improved memory management leaves the OS performing speedily even under high CPU usage whereas XP would have essentially shut-down till the task was completed.

There is nothing analogous about Vista and ME vis-a-vis functionality.

You can choose to disable said interface, if you dislike it, and you will still keep the added functionality. With ME, no such luck. It was a stop-gap OS that failed miserably.

**Electronic Punk** · February 26th, 2008

Vista is not anything like WinME.

_kC_ · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by Electronic Punk

Vista is not anything like WinME.

yep.. WinME is much more stable

**Mainframeguy** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by LeeJend

.... I got a great $700 laptop for $350 thanks to VISTA being on it. ...

nice move Lee - I coulda done with a piece of that action when I blew £1000 on my dual core Intel Lappie, with free Vista upgrade (now installed and no major issues AFTER I had to sort new keyboard and firmware for UK version issues and Webcam drivers, both of which were a minor nightmare as a result of ordering with XP preinstalled and VISTA free upgrade).

Point of my post? Early adoption, it costs, moneywise and effortwise; this will always skew people opinions esp. those that do not fully understand what they are doing.

My view is this leads to the opinions with the advent of every new OS, beit XP or Vista...

that said I have to come downwith Sazar and Lee (sorry Perris!) and their points are well made

As for WinME... c'mon be serious now folks :wink:

**Electronic Punk** · February 26th, 2008

I wouldn't have said Vista was unstable, its running a server kernal now with SP1.
While Windows Millenium added alot of applications that came with Windows, almost like the first home edition - we still have those apps today it wasn't build on something new and its kernal certainly wasn't the same as 2k server or even 2k pro... it did however break dos compatibility for the first time - hooray!

**BouncingSoul** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by _kC_

yep.. WinME is much more stable

OH BURN!!

Reps.

**Geffy** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by _kC_

yep.. WinME is much more stable

You had a stable WinME?!?! Must have been the only one.

Dark Atheist · February 26th, 2008

stable winME is a lie

**fitz** · February 26th, 2008

stable windows is a lie..

Dark Atheist · February 26th, 2008

before win2k yes

_kC_ · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by Geffy

You had a stable WinME?!?! Must have been the only one.

lol nope, i luckily skipped ME, just like i'll skip vista (see enough of it in our workshop)

although admittedly i have vista ona vmware image for learning its quirks

**Sazar** · February 26th, 2008

The Cake is a lie.

Dark Atheist · February 26th, 2008

no the cake has been eaten - was stale but was ate anyway

**Erbmaster** · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by Sazar

The Cake is a lie.

Luckily there are cookies. My sig confirms this as truth.

At least we know if there was any cake anywhere ever at any time, Carpo probably ate it anyway

emeritus · February 26th, 2008

Like Highlander 2, WinME just doesn't exist...

I dual boot XP and Vista, right now. At this point, I don't see any real advantage to using Vista soley over XP. All of my applicatons, and yes games, just run better under XP. The graphic differences between DirectX 9 and 10 are not enough, face it, if you take time to look at the pretty rocks on the beach, you're dead, in almost any particular game you play, or you are running off the road, etc...

I will stick with XP for now. If something drastic occurs with Vista, that makes it really worth the change, then maybe I will.

As for comparing experiences, you can't. Everyone's system is different, down to what drivers people are using to the patches people have installed.

BTW, my Vista install is stable, its just slower than XP.

Dark Atheist · February 26th, 2008

Originally Posted by Erbmaster

Luckily there are cookies. My sig confirms this as truth.

At least we know if there was any cake anywhere ever at any time, Carpo probably ate it anyway

depends on the cake, and how you now i not recycle them into cookies - we all have to do our bit to save the planet

**Electronic Punk** · February 27th, 2008

Technically the end of the highlander movies exist either - he always becomes the one, until he obviously finds out there are more of them around. It must be the big placebo effect of decapitating someone - I must try it.

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #1
Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Joined: April 2002 Location: Between Austin and Tampa Posts: 14,880 Reputation: 4110 Power: 309	Remembering Windows XP's early days All credit to this link. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 I found it amusing and relatively accurate I am amused by the current lovefest going on with Windows XP. It’s the greatest operating system ever, in the minds of some, especially compared to the allegedly bloated, slow Windows Vista. In fact, InfoWorld has gone so far as to kick off a “Save XP” petition drive. Vista bashers really hate it when you point out that the same criticisms being leveled at Vista today were commonly aimed at XP after its launch. Fortunately, I’ve found a near-perfect example of this trend. It’s illuminating, and ironically, it comes from InfoWorld blogger Randall Kennedy, who has been bashing Vista and hyping the “Save XP” campaign relentlessly on his Enterprise Desktop blog. His latest entry dismisses any comparison between Vista now and XP then: This is followed by several comments from 2001 and 2007, with comparisons between Win2k and XP, and then XP and Vista. On Windows 2000: 2001: “IT departments should take advantage of license downgrade provisions and continue to press forward with Windows 2000 deployments until the installed hardware base catches up with XP.” 2007: “Windows 2000 doesn’t count since it was never a mainstream product.” On why your old OS was better: 2001: “Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version.” 2007: “[E]xhaustive testing confirms that Windows Vista is at least twice as slow as Windows XP when running on the same hardware.” On hardware: 2001: “[U]ntil 2GHz desktop PCs become commonplace, we have a hard time recommending widespread adoption of Windows XP at all.” 2007: “Windows XP SP3 … absolutely screams on today’s high-end, multi-core desktops.” On “bloated” new features: 2001: “Shops lured by XP features should weigh their options carefully. In many cases, these features may not be compelling enough to justify saddling your end-users with a slower OS.” 2007: “Vista, which is basically Windows XP with more “stuff” heaped on top, and you begin to see why so many users are balking at the upgrade message. There’s simply not enough “meat” to justify the pain involved.” Oh sweetness. Why art facts so funneh Help to find cures for Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers. Folding@Home, is it in you?

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #2
perris OSNN Godlike Veteran Joined: January 2002 Location: new york Posts: 12,231 Reputation: 4333 Power: 288	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by Sazar All credit to this link. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382 I found it amusing and relatively accurate This is followed by several comments from 2001 and 2007, with comparisons between Win2k and XP, and then XP and Vista. Oh sweetness. Why art facts so funneh huh? my memory is clearly differant then this link, it's taking a scenario that is not the same sazar; very few people had windows 2000, that was a professional operating system and it was the same technology as xp...to which vista is the same technology as 2000 as well, the link that "2000 doesn't count because it wasn't mainstream} is precisely correct xp to vista is a completetly differant cenario then when xp was introduced, most people came off of 98 NOT 2000, and compared to 98, xp was clearly the better operating system, clearly, and that is dollars to dollars instead of dollars to donuts in point of fact, if you had 2000 you had to be nuts to switch to xp until they worked out the kinks, you already had the superior technology, if you had 98 you had to be nuts not to get xp since 98 was flawed vista is to xp what mileniun was to 98, they are trying to do more with the same memory restrictions and it just does not hold water, all vista does is add interface over existing technology the analogy concerning vista intro vs xp intro just does not hold IT'S NOT WHAT YOU'VE DONE IT'S WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #3
LeeJend OSNN Veteran Addict Joined: January 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 5,255 Reputation: 3386 Power: 196	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by perris huh? vista is to xp what mileniun was to 98, they are trying to do more with the same memory restrictions and it just does not hold water, all vista does is add interface over existing technology Good analogy. Putting it that way fits. When every machine is a dual core, 3 gig, 4 GB RAM then VISTA's drawbacks go away. But I resent the comment about using 2000, I installed it for about 6 months until switching to XP. 2000 was supposed to be unsupported for drivers and useless for gaming but I never had a problem with it in either regard. 2000 Benchmarked out 25% faster on my system than 98SE which is why I switched to it. I went ot XP becasue the P;ug and Play functionality was a thing of beauty. I transitioned to XP when that came out and initial install and use was flawless. It should have been since 2000 was already running fine for me. XP also benched out 25% faster than 98SE. NOTE This was in a mid range gaming machine. Every game and application worked with XP/2000. My experience with Vista has been pathetic. I had to install XP on my new laptop because VISTA does not run any of my expensive software and the laptop ran so piss poor slow with VISTA it was unusable. I installed VISTA SP1 RC1 because it was supposed to be god's gift to VISTA performance. After install I got a system crash every time within 40 seconds of VISTA loading. I could barely get it off my machine due to the instability it introduced. Granted there have been some real looser XP updates (the great XP slow down patch a few years ago comes to mind). But eveyone was raving about RC1. VISTA's good points: 1) It was so slow on the mainstream hardware available last spring that they were discounting computers with VISTA installed by 50% to get rid of them. I got a great $700 laptop for $350 thanks to VISTA being on it. Note there are several class action lawsuits in process over how over blown "VISTA Ready" was at launch. 2) It makes me really appreciate 2000/XP and the fine job MS did considering what an antiquated kernel they had inherited. Thought for the new millenium: In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates? - Open Office - Firefox - Thunderbird - Gimp -Ubuntu - Red Hat -

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #4
Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Joined: April 2002 Location: Between Austin and Tampa Posts: 14,880 Reputation: 4110 Power: 309	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by perris huh? my memory is clearly differant then this link, it's taking a scenario that is not the same sazar; very few people had windows 2000, that was a progessional operating system and it was the same technology as xp...to which vista is the same technology as 2000 as well, the link that "2000 doesn't count because it wasn't mainstream} is precisely correct I don't know about that Perris Many small businesses I went into as well as some large businesses and all the universities I went to were running windows 2000. Heck, I went from Windows 98SE to windows 2000 myself. I then proceeded to dual-boot Windows XP and Windows 2000 for several months because of driver incompatabilities and lack of support for XP with many products. Also, that comment about 2000 not counting as mainstream is there for a reason. Publications were pushing for the adoption and continued use of Win2k as opposed to XP for precisely the same reasons they are now saying people should stick with XP instead of moving to Vista. xp to vista is a completetly differant cenario then when xp was introduced, most people came off of 98 NOT 2000, and compared to 98, xp was clearly the better operating system, clearly, and that is dollars to dollars instead of dollars to donuts. How so? There were driver incompatabilities and significantly increased specifications. Any system that can run XP decently will be able to run Vista decently. Any system that could run 98 decently would have to be significantly upgraded to run XP. Windows 2000 required a beefier system but not as much as XP's spec called for to run decently. From a functionality standpoint, many businesses, even today, continue to use Windows 98. in point of fact, if you had 2000 you had to be nuts to switch to xp until they worked out the kinks, you already had the superior technology, if you had 98 you had to be nuts not to get xp since 98 was flawed. vista is to xp what mileniun was to 98, they are trying to do more with the same memory restrictions and it just does not hold water, all vista does is add interface over existing technology the analogy concerning vista intro vs xp intro just does not hold Perris, here is where you are wrong. There are numerous features within Vista that XP does not have or has been unable to copy and/or reproduce. The kernel is different. The o/s cannot be attacked like XP could and the improved memory management leaves the OS performing speedily even under high CPU usage whereas XP would have essentially shut-down till the task was completed. There is nothing analogous about Vista and ME vis-a-vis functionality. You can choose to disable said interface, if you dislike it, and you will still keep the added functionality. With ME, no such luck. It was a stop-gap OS that failed miserably. Help to find cures for Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers. Folding@Home, is it in you?

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #5
Electronic Punk The Last High Joined: December 2001 Location: London Posts: 18,506 Blog Entries: 51 Reputation: 3652 Power: 346	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Vista is not anything like WinME.

Latest News Posts

Latest Forum Posts

Latest Member Blogs

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #6
_kC_ OSNN Senior Addict Joined: January 2004 Posts: 514 Reputation: 270 Power: 106	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by Electronic Punk Vista is not anything like WinME. yep.. WinME is much more stable

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #7
Mainframeguy Debiant by way of Ubuntu Joined: August 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,763 Blog Entries: 5 Reputation: 1390 Power: 166	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by LeeJend .... I got a great $700 laptop for $350 thanks to VISTA being on it. ... nice move Lee - I coulda done with a piece of that action when I blew £1000 on my dual core Intel Lappie, with free Vista upgrade (now installed and no major issues AFTER I had to sort new keyboard and firmware for UK version issues and Webcam drivers, both of which were a minor nightmare as a result of ordering with XP preinstalled and VISTA free upgrade). Point of my post? Early adoption, it costs, moneywise and effortwise; this will always skew people opinions esp. those that do not fully understand what they are doing. My view is this leads to the opinions with the advent of every new OS, beit XP or Vista... that said I have to come downwith Sazar and Lee (sorry Perris!) and their points are well made As for WinME... c'mon be serious now folks :wink: hosted by Lord

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #8
Electronic Punk The Last High Joined: December 2001 Location: London Posts: 18,506 Blog Entries: 51 Reputation: 3652 Power: 346	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days I wouldn't have said Vista was unstable, its running a server kernal now with SP1. While Windows Millenium added alot of applications that came with Windows, almost like the first home edition - we still have those apps today it wasn't build on something new and its kernal certainly wasn't the same as 2k server or even 2k pro... it did however break dos compatibility for the first time - hooray!

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #9
BouncingSoul Stranger Than Fiction Joined: January 2004 Location: Sioux Falls, SD Posts: 1,289 Reputation: 877 Power: 118	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by _kC_ yep.. WinME is much more stable OH BURN!! Reps.

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #10
Geffy OSNN Veteran Addict Joined: March 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 7,805 Reputation: 1490 Power: 213	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by _kC_ yep.. WinME is much more stable You had a stable WinME?!?! Must have been the only one.  • blog • tumblog • lastfm • flickr • #rubyonrails • @twitter "I could be replaced with a very small shell script"

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #11
Dark Atheist I never said I was nice Joined: April 2003 Location: In The Void Posts: 6,346 Blog Entries: 8 Reputation: 1877 Power: 0	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days stable winME is a lie

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #12
fitz *XPista7eopardix Joined: April 2004 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 4,014 Reputation: 2947 Power: 164**	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days stable windows is a lie.. Hee-hee! Evil makes my buttocks tingle.

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #13
Dark Atheist I never said I was nice Joined: April 2003 Location: In The Void Posts: 6,346 Blog Entries: 8 Reputation: 1877 Power: 0	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days before win2k yes

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #14
_kC_ OSNN Senior Addict Joined: January 2004 Posts: 514 Reputation: 270 Power: 106	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by Geffy You had a stable WinME?!?! Must have been the only one. lol nope, i luckily skipped ME, just like i'll skip vista (see enough of it in our workshop) although admittedly i have vista ona vmware image for learning its quirks

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #15
Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Joined: April 2002 Location: Between Austin and Tampa Posts: 14,880 Reputation: 4110 Power: 309	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days The Cake is a lie. Help to find cures for Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers. Folding@Home, is it in you?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Remembering Pearl Harbor	Sazar	Green Room	2	December 8th, 2006 1:12am
Remembering ...	Cosmin	Entertainment & Sports	0	January 2nd, 2006 10:33pm
Any good HD defrag alternatives to XP's?	LeeJend	Windows Desktop Systems	14	April 12th, 2004 4:25am
Windows XP's speed of changing themes	Magnum	Desktop Customisation	2	March 4th, 2004 11:28pm
Programs Not remembering setting?	kc0eks	Windows Desktop Systems	2	December 25th, 2001 6:07pm

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #16
Dark Atheist I never said I was nice Joined: April 2003 Location: In The Void Posts: 6,346 Blog Entries: 8 Reputation: 1877 Power: 0	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days no the cake has been eaten - was stale but was ate anyway

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #17
Erbmaster OSNN Veteran Addict Joined: March 2003 Location: Middle Of Nowhere - UK Posts: 1,195 Reputation: 270 Power: 122	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by Sazar The Cake is a lie. Luckily there are cookies. My sig confirms this as truth. At least we know if there was any cake anywhere ever at any time, Carpo probably ate it anyway The Cake Is A Lie? - Well There'd Better Be Cookies!

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #18
emeritus Beware the Monkeys!!! Joined: January 2004 Location: Oakdale, CT Posts: 326 Reputation: 200 Power: 104	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Like Highlander 2, WinME just doesn't exist... I dual boot XP and Vista, right now. At this point, I don't see any real advantage to using Vista soley over XP. All of my applicatons, and yes games, just run better under XP. The graphic differences between DirectX 9 and 10 are not enough, face it, if you take time to look at the pretty rocks on the beach, you're dead, in almost any particular game you play, or you are running off the road, etc... I will stick with XP for now. If something drastic occurs with Vista, that makes it really worth the change, then maybe I will. As for comparing experiences, you can't. Everyone's system is different, down to what drivers people are using to the patches people have installed. BTW, my Vista install is stable, its just slower than XP. eVGA 780i (nForce v15.17) Intel Q9450 Quad-Core (Running @ 3.2Ghz w/1600Mhz FSB) Zalman CNPS9700 LED CPU Cooler OCZ Platinum PC2-8500 4Gb DDR2 RAM (4x1GB, Dual Channel) eVGA 8800GTS(G92) 512 x2 SLI (GeForce v177.79) Samsung 750Gb SATAII HD x2 LG GSA-H55N/L DVD+/-RW x2 Thermaltake Armor VA8003BWS Black Case Ultra X3 1000W PS Windows XP:Pro SP3 Gateway FHD2400 24" 1920 x 1200 LCD

February 26th, 2008	Top \| #19
Dark Atheist I never said I was nice Joined: April 2003 Location: In The Void Posts: 6,346 Blog Entries: 8 Reputation: 1877 Power: 0	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Originally Posted by Erbmaster Luckily there are cookies. My sig confirms this as truth. At least we know if there was any cake anywhere ever at any time, Carpo probably ate it anyway depends on the cake, and how you now i not recycle them into cookies - we all have to do our bit to save the planet

February 27th, 2008	Top \| #20
Electronic Punk The Last High Joined: December 2001 Location: London Posts: 18,506 Blog Entries: 51 Reputation: 3652 Power: 346	Re: Remembering Windows XP's early days Technically the end of the highlander movies exist either - he always becomes the one, until he obviously finds out there are more of them around. It must be the big placebo effect of decapitating someone - I must try it.