• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Remembering Windows XP's early days

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#1
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: “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 :smoker:
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#2
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 :smoker:
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
 
Last edited:
#3
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

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#4
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.
 

Mainframeguy

Debiant by way of Ubuntu
#7
.... 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: :rolleyes::laugh::rolleyes::laugh:
 

Electronic Punk

willalwaysbewithyou
Staff member
Political User
#8
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!
 
#14
:eek::eek:

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):dead:
although admittedly i have vista ona vmware image for learning its quirks
 
Last edited:

emeritus

Beware the Monkeys!!!
#18
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

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#19
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 :D
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

willalwaysbewithyou
Staff member
Political User
#20
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,014
Latest member
sanoravies