Re: Was XP as bad as this when it came out?
- From: "jameshanley39@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jameshanley39@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Oct 2007 00:34:38 GMT
Gaz wrote:
When XP first came out, i saw it as a breath of fresh air, it was
stable, it played games, it looked nice, it had system restore etc,
it seemed to be everything that WinMe wanted to be, but couldnt
manage.
That is because you are obviously an idiot, or you were an idiot and
magically obtained some logic and sense.
stability-
Stability is debateable. I had Windows 98 running stably, but it took
some messing around to et Win XP running stably (event viewer, you ever
heard of it?) . Win ME was well known to be unstable for many people.
Besides the fact that I think you couldn`t do F8 and get Command prompt
only. I don`t know where you were that you couldn`t Google and find
out that ME was rubbish. Or that you never used win 98. Or maybe you
were a mug that "upgraded" from 98 to ME.
Nevertheless, if you had googled, you would probably have seen many
people saying Win XP was more stable. I`m sure many here will say it is.
So that is forgivable. But it is rather stupid to compare win xp to
"its predecessor win me".
playing games- !!!
you`re obviously like a child. And i`m sure win 98 played games.
Games players weren`t sitting there crying in the corner over the fact
that they couldn`t play games. Why don`t you get a game system like
any other smarter 12 year old does to take his mind off the boredom of
his 9-5 schoolday, or of windows.
win xp looked nice!!!
you`re obviously a bit effeminate. I don`t know what you are doing
fixing computers with that attitude.
I never heard of anybody going from that to seeing reality. What did
you do? have sex change AND grow a brain?
"breath of fresh air" !!
even if you never went out of the house you wouldn`t call a new windows
version a breath of fresh air. A new windows version comes out, it
isn`T needed, but eventually the world moves forward in such a way that
people tend to move to the newer windows version.
Drivers in the beginning where a bit rough, but because of W2k,
development was pretty advanced, and it didnt take long for all but
the most obscure and old devices not working.
I never had any reservations about XP, but then i was pretty new to
the game, I saw it as a clear advantage over win98. I never looked
back. But, i remember at the time, lots of old sages ranting about
how it wasnt a patch on windows98, buggy unreliable, dodgy
networking, activation etc.
Now, a generation on, I look at Vista, not the way I looked at XP,
but how those people in the past looked at XP.
maybe you just had a bad experiene with win ME. Never got it working
right, and got lucky first time round with win xp.
I go to a customers house, i see vista, and i shudder, yes it looks
pretty, but it has shown itself to be just as liable to virus and
malware as XP it seems to be buggy with very demanding technical
specifications for it to run at a reasonable rate.
The new start menu in XP was a revelation, at the beginning it felt a
bit awkward, but the vista start menu is most certainly a step
backwards.
It just doesnt seem to offer anything.
What is it that MS get from a new operating system?
The development costs are huge, yet most sales come from oems, which
wouldnt make a difference to MS as the cost of xp is the same as
vista.
XP is an excellent operating system, but has serious weaknesses,
which, could be addressed by service packs.
So, is Vista been pretty dreadful, merely a case of us all getting
used to it and a couple of service packs? Or is it a real step
backwards?
I suppose, the lack of competition means that vista will conquer and
give it three years the majority of PCs will have vista.
Gaz
2 reasons why I eventually got win xp after staying with win98 as long
as I did.
As a techie I should know the OS that users are using. And the best way
is have it at home, try all the common things, installing it, using it,
experiment with it. Just like I had with win98. This is more the case
if getting a job with a company that expects you to know it.
Win XP is Win NT. And Win NT is not Win 9X. I mean this in terms of
compatibility. There are programs written for 9X and programs written
for NT. I think 9X cannot run all programs written for NT. So
eventually, if I want to try some little utility, I have to search
around for a 9X version that may or may not exist. It`s just not
flexible from that viewpoint.
End users always get the latest garbage, and techies tend to too, to
support them. Or to try it out.
Dell computers nowadays come with Vista. End users are not getting any
smarter. Don`t be fooled by the fact that more people are building
computers, I don`t think it has any effect on this.
Peoples` computers will break. And they will most likely buy a Dell,
not ask somebody to build them one. That`s how it works. I think Dell
sets the market.. Or other big computer companies. WHy wouldn`t Dell
sell computers with win 98? Well, An end user would not BUY a computer
running windows 98. He`d think it is from 1998. He`d think it is like
his old computer.
End users don`t buy the computer to help them, because they do not know
what they want anyway. They buy the latest "most up to date" thing, it
does something for them.
I don`t know about Vista, I have fixed it for people but I still have
not installed it myself.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Was XP as bad as this when it came out?
- From: Gaz
- Was XP as bad as this when it came out?
- Prev by Date: Re: XP pro CHKDSK errors after defrag!
- Next by Date: Re: Was XP as bad as this when it came out?
- Previous by thread: Re: Was XP as bad as this when it came out?
- Next by thread: Re: Was XP as bad as this when it came out?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
