U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2009, 06:37 AM
 
10,755 posts, read 18,015,770 times
Reputation: 10244

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by justalicious6989 View Post
Come on they need to drop support for this half crocked os.
Its cheap, annoying, lacks security, always the first to be exploited, im one of the few i bet that hate xp with a passion i much rather use vista, which i am.
What an insightful well thought out post

Xp is one of the best OS's Microsoft ever released, your hate shows your ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2009, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,228,741 times
Reputation: 4522
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHDave View Post
What an insightful well thought out post

Xp is one of the best OS's Microsoft ever released, your hate shows your ignorance.
Windows 95 was great in it's time too. Differences is XP has been standard for so long it has become virtually flawless and Vista is way ahead of it's time. I think at this point the only thing that is going to be able to kill XP is the mainstream need for more than 3GB of RAM. Most of the other features of Vista/7 are available for XP via third party addons.

I personally prefer Vista and don't plan on going back, but I understand why most people love XP. What we are seeing is the result of MS going six years between OS releases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 10:37 AM
 
3,451 posts, read 3,725,261 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
It seems that the general opinion is that Windows XP has become the best operating system that Microsoft has ever released. I was slow to start using it and stayed with Windows 2000 for a long time, but I've grown to like working with it quite a lot. Besides, it provides me with employment.

(Vista: Not so much. Maybe Windows 7 ..... )
XP is good, but I have to give my Best Microsoft OS award to Windows 2000.
I've had it at home for afew years and it hasn't let me down yet.
It can run on 256MB of RAM. It's very stable with SP4 installed. It boots quickly. I had one blue screen over a year ago. All I had to do was run chkdsk and it's was fixed. The only issue I have with it is that there is no iTunes support in Windows 2000, but that isn't the OSes fault.

I have played with the Windows 7 beta and I have to say it's a good OS. I have it running on an old Dell system with 512MB of RAM and it is very snappy. I may finally upgrade from 2000 to Win7 when it launches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,228,741 times
Reputation: 4522
Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lcas3 View Post
XP is good, but I have to give my Best Microsoft OS award to Windows 2000.
I've had it at home for afew years and it hasn't let me down yet.
It can run on 256MB of RAM. It's very stable with SP4 installed. It boots quickly. I had one blue screen over a year ago. All I had to do was run chkdsk and it's was fixed. The only issue I have with it is that there is no iTunes support in Windows 2000, but that isn't the OSes fault.

I have played with the Windows 7 beta and I have to say it's a good OS. I have it running on an old Dell system with 512MB of RAM and it is very snappy. I may finally upgrade from 2000 to Win7 when it launches.
People were using many of the same arguments they are using about Vista today about XP over 2000 when it was released. Yes, Vista doesn't run well with 512MB of RAM, but when XP came out many computers were shipping with 128MB, which could barely even start XP. If you are too cheap to go with anything higher than the $300 Compaq bundle at Wal-Mart you will always get what you pay for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 11:05 AM
 
16,308 posts, read 25,273,417 times
Reputation: 8302
Over the years I have installed, run, dealt with;
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0, 3.1 & 3.11
Windows 95 a, b, and c
Windows 98 & 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows NT3.5 Workstation
Windows NT4.0 Workstation and Server
Windows 2000, and Server
Windows XP
Windows 2003 Server
Windows Vista, Business & Ultimate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 12:38 PM
 
28,645 posts, read 40,622,302 times
Reputation: 37346
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
People were using many of the same arguments they are using about Vista today about XP over 2000 when it was released. Yes, Vista doesn't run well with 512MB of RAM, but when XP came out many computers were shipping with 128MB, which could barely even start XP. If you are too cheap to go with anything higher than the $300 Compaq bundle at Wal-Mart you will always get what you pay for.
Interesting observation about the RAM.

Anyone that's been around long enough to remember upgrading RAM on those PCs that came with XP and 128mb and have now upgraded Vista from 512mb to 4gb will know that the cost to do so has dropped dramatically, as has the cost of the computer itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,228,741 times
Reputation: 4522
One thing I will say though is no matter how much RAM you have, Vista is going to be slow and unstable when hijacked by the loads of crapware that comes pre-installed on most new PCs. No wonder XP runs so much better when you finish installing it because to downgrade from Vista you have to do a clean install. I can guarantee a clean install of Vista will run circles around what comes installed on anything from Office Depot. I remember when computers used to come with software you could actually use. Nowadays they come with so much trial junk they are nearly unusable right out of the box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 01:32 PM
 
28,645 posts, read 40,622,302 times
Reputation: 37346
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
One thing I will say though is no matter how much RAM you have, Vista is going to be slow and unstable when hijacked by the loads of crapware that comes pre-installed on most new PCs. No wonder XP runs so much better when you finish installing it because to downgrade from Vista you have to do a clean install. I can guarantee a clean install of Vista will run circles around what comes installed on anything from Office Depot. I remember when computers used to come with software you could actually use. Nowadays they come with so much trial junk they are nearly unusable right out of the box.
XP was the same when purchased from a BB store, or any place that had to add their junk. Bloatware galore.

Be very cautious when downgrading from Vista to XP. New computers can contain hardware for which there are no drivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 03:15 PM
 
3,451 posts, read 3,725,261 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
People were using many of the same arguments they are using about Vista today about XP over 2000 when it was released. Yes, Vista doesn't run well with 512MB of RAM, but when XP came out many computers were shipping with 128MB, which could barely even start XP. If you are too cheap to go with anything higher than the $300 Compaq bundle at Wal-Mart you will always get what you pay for.
I meant that a default install of Vista (with no OEM bloatware) needs at least 2GB or RAM to run. Yeah you can go in and turn off a lot of the "features" and it will run on less, but for a fresh install you need 2GB.

No OS should need 2GB just to boot to the desktop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 03:19 PM
 
16,308 posts, read 25,273,417 times
Reputation: 8302
Quote:
Originally Posted by st33lcas3 View Post
I meant that a default install of Vista (with no OEM bloatware) needs at least 2GB or RAM to run. Yeah you can go in and turn off a lot of the "features" and it will run on less, but for a fresh install you need 2GB.

No OS should need 2GB just to boot to the desktop.
And it whines like a 4 year old in the toy aisle of Wal-Mart if you don't have a $400 high end video card installed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:57 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top