Hi I am hoping to purchase a new machine soon and have the option of getting either Win2K or XP Pro with the machine. I was wondering if there is anyone willing to give the pros and cons of both OS's here.
Thanks in Advance
Liamo
Thanks in Advance
Liamo
Personally I would prefer win2k. I am not going to waste my resources on making my desktop look nicer. Anyway I do not see much difference between xp and 2k, except perhaps that xp looks nicer.
Jusy my opinions.
Jusy my opinions.
I just can add that XP allows you to select 2K theme :)
Also many servises can be stopped to free up resources.
imho, 2k is more stable (2K have 4 service packs :grin: )
Also you can choose XP Home, if your computer have 1 CPU and you'll not use a tablet PC.
And one thing I noticed: if I have a bug in my prog it crashes on win9x, but sometimes it WORKS on XP :mad:
PS. XP is very smart: after a crash, when I manually restore regystry, then it loads and msgbox pops up like this "restoring of regystry is made successfully" (not sure for translation)
:tongue:
Also many servises can be stopped to free up resources.
imho, 2k is more stable (2K have 4 service packs :grin: )
Also you can choose XP Home, if your computer have 1 CPU and you'll not use a tablet PC.
And one thing I noticed: if I have a bug in my prog it crashes on win9x, but sometimes it WORKS on XP :mad:
PS. XP is very smart: after a crash, when I manually restore regystry, then it loads and msgbox pops up like this "restoring of regystry is made successfully" (not sure for translation)
:tongue:
I'd go for winXP for aforementioned reasons of support
I still run win2k, even with all the graphical stuff turned off, there's still a few things left. But mainly it's because of all the activation stuff (and I don't have the cash to buy a corporate version of XP).
XP has some advantages though... it supports HyperThreading on P4 CPUs, it has a somewhat faster boot sequence (it postpones some device initialization until the device is required), and it supports detaching debugger from a process without terminating the process...
XP has some advantages though... it supports HyperThreading on P4 CPUs, it has a somewhat faster boot sequence (it postpones some device initialization until the device is required), and it supports detaching debugger from a process without terminating the process...
PS. XP is very smart: after a crash, when I manually restore regystry, then it loads and msgbox pops up like this "restoring of regystry is made successfully" (not sure for translation)
:tongue:
I.e. restoring you old misstakes...
f0dder, I think windows is just hidhing the slow loading processes. Linux, onther other hand is faster to boot (and doesn't hide it), and when I've log on (I logon asap) and the GUI is ready, all is loaded, I just start the app I wan't to work with. With windows I have to wait for year before it has loaded everything and the app I launch after waitinf untill the GUI has been loaded for sometime (nothing happens if you double click the icons when it still loads....).
scientica - "Linux, onther other hand is faster to boot (and doesn't hide it)"
Don't want to start an argument and I'm no expert on Linux but I have tried a number of distros and not one of them booted faster than XP. And thats counting either; Power On -> Desktop or Power On -> 1st App. No doubt you can modify Linux to speed this but speaking as a newbie XP is better.
Don't want to start an argument and I'm no expert on Linux but I have tried a number of distros and not one of them booted faster than XP. And thats counting either; Power On -> Desktop or Power On -> 1st App. No doubt you can modify Linux to speed this but speaking as a newbie XP is better.
I have tried a number of distros and not one of them booted faster than XP.
Maybe your computer configuration runs better with XP, mine runs better with Linux anyways. (ok, let's acept i as one of those mysteries of life)
Just to clarify, I have't made any optimization of the start up sequence or the kernel (I'm currenly "just" adding the latest stable kernel (2.4.22), but keeping the old one as a kind of fail safe kernel). (I'm sure it would be possible to cut of some second(s) by removing the new hardware detection a startup, but I see no need for it).
Out of intrest which distro of linux are you using. I have slackware at the moment but once I get broadband I'll probably switch to gentoo.
heh. Linux was a bit faster to boot into console mode than win2k was to boot in graphics mode with all apps loaded... I don't think you can compare the two. Once the linux people have a full system running with all the support I need, we can start talking... but as it is now, it's just plain ugly.
Ohyeah, let's just take knoppix as an example, it's a "ready-to-boot-with-everything" CD that's sortof supposed to convince people to run linux. After spawning a k-shell or whatever, I have to wait around 5 seconds on my P4 2.53ghz before the shell appears - with no visible clue whatever that it's still loading. Sure, things are running out of a compressed filesystem, but how long does it take to run cmd.exe from a NTFS compressed filesystem? ;)
Ohyeah, let's just take knoppix as an example, it's a "ready-to-boot-with-everything" CD that's sortof supposed to convince people to run linux. After spawning a k-shell or whatever, I have to wait around 5 seconds on my P4 2.53ghz before the shell appears - with no visible clue whatever that it's still loading. Sure, things are running out of a compressed filesystem, but how long does it take to run cmd.exe from a NTFS compressed filesystem? ;)
well, you know what they say "linux is very userfriendly, it's just picky who its friends are" :grin:
that's gonna get them very popular, eh? Just like having only sucky OpenGL, and only on sucky nvidia hardware. The 'developers' really need to get their shit togher. Sigh. Wish the "alternative OS" would have been led by some more skilled people, so we wouldn't be stuck with microsoft.
I think f0dder knows better than just saying knoppix/k-shell is slow. This is just for those who take postings at face values.
I don't know what is k-shell, but, if knoppix is too slow loading something, it is your CD-ROM drive that slows things down. That is the prime suspect. And the second suspect is g++, which is not known for the performance. And, if k-shell is a part of KDE, it is Qt and KDE libraries which may be good in source form, but not in binary form (because of g++). (Oh, for the record, I don't use knoppix, nor linux in general. Just so you know that this post is not from religious reason.)
I don't know what is k-shell, but, if knoppix is too slow loading something, it is your CD-ROM drive that slows things down. That is the prime suspect. And the second suspect is g++, which is not known for the performance. And, if k-shell is a part of KDE, it is Qt and KDE libraries which may be good in source form, but not in binary form (because of g++). (Oh, for the record, I don't use knoppix, nor linux in general. Just so you know that this post is not from religious reason.)
well, you know what they say "linux is very userfriendly, it's just picky who its friends are" :grin:
Then, what is it? Is it how I look? :grin: Linux always hated me. Too ugly for linux?
k-shell (or whatever they call it) is a KDE shell... basically a cmd prompt. And my cd drive too slow? it's 52x and runs pretty well - and I even think linux managed not to be totally f***tarded and enabled DMA mode on it. Sure, it's the first-time hit that's the worst (loading from the CD and decompressing from the live-image), but the point was that there's _no_ indication whatsoever that the application is loading... no indication that your mouse-click actually did anything. And well, the loading speed is rather crappy all things considered. And even second/third/whatever time I'm starting a shell, when things are cached, the starting of the application is not as instantaneous as on windows.
Generally, gui-mode linux has a sluggish feel to it. Moving and resizing windows etc is pretty laggy. And that's even without optimized nvidia drivers and whatnot (poor souls, those who don't have nvidia cards).
Generally, gui-mode linux has a sluggish feel to it. Moving and resizing windows etc is pretty laggy. And that's even without optimized nvidia drivers and whatnot (poor souls, those who don't have nvidia cards).
You don't believe that 52x cdrom drive is capable of sustaining that speed all the time, do you? If your cdrom drive can, please tell me the product. I would like to buy one.
Each OS (or kernel in case of linux) employs different cache strategy. Windows is the laziest in flushing the cache among OSes I've tried, so people are likely to think that apps are loading much faster. Not a bad thing. Moreover, I believe that MS has put much more effort in speeding up display than anybody else (or, maybe second to Apple). So, Windows should be faster than many of other GUI implementations, or MS programmers should be fired for their incompetence.
I agree with f0dder about general resposiveness of GUI apps under X11. Then, again, that is mainly because of brain-damaged software since the linux boom in late 90's, whose main goal was to get Windows-like feel to non-windows platform - typically by I-installed--and-I-am-so-cool crowd. That's, IMO, when the things began getting out of control. X11 had perfectly fine interface-building toolkit, and some people who could not understand how they work reinvented the wheel over and over again (with low quality). That's most of what we see today, 'townhall model' software (using AC's words).
Each OS (or kernel in case of linux) employs different cache strategy. Windows is the laziest in flushing the cache among OSes I've tried, so people are likely to think that apps are loading much faster. Not a bad thing. Moreover, I believe that MS has put much more effort in speeding up display than anybody else (or, maybe second to Apple). So, Windows should be faster than many of other GUI implementations, or MS programmers should be fired for their incompetence.
I agree with f0dder about general resposiveness of GUI apps under X11. Then, again, that is mainly because of brain-damaged software since the linux boom in late 90's, whose main goal was to get Windows-like feel to non-windows platform - typically by I-installed--and-I-am-so-cool crowd. That's, IMO, when the things began getting out of control. X11 had perfectly fine interface-building toolkit, and some people who could not understand how they work reinvented the wheel over and over again (with low quality). That's most of what we see today, 'townhall model' software (using AC's words).
Out of intrest which distro of linux are you using. I have slackware at the moment but once I get broadband I'll probably switch to gentoo.
I use RedHat 8 at the moment, but I hope to learn enougth linux to make it "my own" (customizing it to suit my needs).
KDE is slower than GNOME, but KDE is sometimes more good looking than GNOME (unless you like me, like the plain,"optimum" style - not superfluous gfx).
btw:
>Linux is not user-friendly.
It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignoramus-friendly and idiot-friendly.
(Seen somewhere on the net.)
It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignoramus-friendly and idiot-friendly.
(Seen somewhere on the net.)
I read somewhere that spinning a disc at 52x can cause it to explode to shrapnell, at least when burning a disc at that speed...
You don't believe that 52x cdrom drive is capable of sustaining that speed all the time, do you? If your cdrom drive can, please tell me the product. I would like to buy one.
Of course it can't, and of course it can only achieve 52x near the outer edge of the disc. However, it's not like a command shell is a very large application. Hell, if they at least did a little thing like changing the mouse cursor to an hourglass, *anything*, just to indicate that something is happening...
Cache flusing... read cache shouldn't be 'flushed', contents should only be discarded when some application needs a _lot_ of memory... what's the point of a read cache if you discard it when you don't have to? ;)
KDE is slower than GNOME, but KDE is sometimes more good looking than GNOME (unless you like me, like the plain,"optimum" style - not superfluous gfx).
...And even XP with all the bells and whistles is faster and more responsive than either.
Linux user-friendly? I think not.
I read somewhere that spinning a disc at 52x can cause it to explode to shrapnell, at least when burning a disc at that speed...
Wrong. Burning is absolutely safe - the only problems are when you read a CD at 52x for a prolonged period of time, if the CD has stains or scratches. But yes, in that case, you _can_ risk exploding discs. You hardly see a usage pattern these days that would cause this - most of the time you only use your CD while installing, and that will hardly cause exploding discs.
I got a 52/24/52 lite-on drive btw - works like a charm.
Linux user-friendly? I think not.
Ok, then I guess that means we are of different oppinions. Or have different views on user-friendlyness. :)
I think linux is userfriendlier than the windows OSes I use, but then again it differs for each user but for me as a user currently it goes freebsd -> linux -> windows
the only thing windows has more is a somewhat better warez support >:)
but it depends on what you do with either systems.
BTW no lag on my system, maybe you should get a dual as well ;)
the only thing windows has more is a somewhat better warez support >:)
but it depends on what you do with either systems.
BTW no lag on my system, maybe you should get a dual as well ;)