What Think You Of Windows Xp-95-98-2000

[gc472118 0]

I like XP, it's simple to use and it's great.But windows 98 and 95 runs much better on my system dan xp.I've rebuild my pc for xp and he's faster now.

Edited August 22, 2005 by microscopic^earthling (see edit history)

[qwijibow 0]

I like XP, it's simple to use and it's great.

But windows 98 and 95 runs much better on my system dan xp.

I've rebuild my pc for xp and he's faster now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol... speed is important to me too.. so i went overkill !

 

the problem with XP is its onl one Operating System.

and there are many many different processors in use by home users...

 

AMD K6 / Athlon / Duron / Athlon XP / Athlon-Tbird / Pentium 3 / Pentium 4 / Pentium XP

Some have HT (hyper threading) some dont.

 

and So windows is Compiled with Optimisations that allow it to run as best as possible on every porcessor.

 

However... there are better processor optimisations.. BUT, if for example you Optimised a program fully for an AMD Athlon-Tbird then it would run lighting fast on that porcessor, but it wouldn't work at all on a Duron, or pentium !

 

like i said, i went Overkill... i Re-compiled my Whole Operating System for my Athlon Processor.

i used the veery highest optimisation flags, so most of the programs on my computer will work on a pentium computer.

 

and i have to say, you can definatly tell the difference.

 

dont get me wrong, OPtimisation is not the only thing that affects performace, but it does help.. alot !

[Herbert1405241469 0]

I'll stick with Windows 2000 for now. It works for my purposes.

 

like i said, i went Overkill... i Re-compiled my Whole Operating System for my Athlon Processor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So wait. Are you saying you've recompiled Windows, or are you talking about Linux? Can you post information on how to do either, because this topic is very interesting to me.

[iGuest 3]

I'll stick with Windows 2000 for now. It works for my purposes.

So wait. Are you saying you've recompiled Windows, or are you talking about Linux? Can you post information on how to do either, because this topic is very interesting to me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Noway. Microsoft will never release compilable source code.

Appearently there were some leaked windows source code, but what experts say it probably is less than 10% of whole thing. Although I heard the leaked source code was a couple of hundred megs. No wonder windows is full of bug. 200MB for 10% code. More code more bugs

[iGuest 3]

I'm still stuck with w2k. You know XP liscencing sucks

[r3d1405241470 0]

win 2k runs faster than xp on my pcbut i use xpwhy?i tweak my xp and now it's faster as tweak win2kand about windows 9x i hate blue screen, it still exist on xp but i just saw it once when i try to use an old windows appz

[chronogamer28 0]

XP runs faster on my rig. Also peaks out performance too.

[currahee 0]

WinXP- The most stable Windows version ever. I can't believe after 11 years, they are still developing on top of the Windows NT core. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993 and today, Windows XP is built on top of that, as is Win2k and NT4.WinXP also runs games better and faster than Windows 2000. Its like Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 combined. Visually, its on par with Windows 2000. Win2000 just doesnt have that luna XP interface. I remember t he hype so much about XP Win2000- Not a bad OS, marginally less stable than XP but it still works fine. Visually its a cleaned up Windows NT4/Windows 98SE interface and some nice GUI effects added on. Kinda really bad for running games though. Its a business work OS, not a gaming hobbist OS.WinME- Worst OS ever! I think that's all there is to say about that.Win98SE- Microsoft did a good job with SE. They cleared up and well implemented the IE 4 integration (... is that right? Though at the cost of creating so many security holes....). It was more stable and had Plus! pack built in.Win98- Horrbile OS. Microsoft didn't integrate IE4 well, resulting in slowdowns and too many crashes to bear.

[Herbert1405241469 0]

You forgot Windows 95 I remember getting a Packard Bell, 66 mhz, with Win95... And having it blue screen the first time it booted :)I thought that if you even bumped the mouse when it was loading, it would crash the thing! 14.4 modem... a 1 meg file took a half hour... How did we live back then?!

[qwijibow 0]

Lol.. im using Linux :)you can re-compile any Linux Distro, but Gentoo (https://www.gentoo.org/) is especially geared towards home compiling.just make sure you set CFLAGS="-O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -march=athlon -mcpu=athlon"(or -O3 instead of -O2 fif you are feeling dareing and your machine is in perfect condition)replacing athlon with the name of your processor.... athlon-tbird athlon-xp pentium pentium-xpthat type of thing.But the best speed boos will prbably come from re-compiling the latest source code...http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ the latest kenrel, and after you unzip it...make menuconfigmake bzImagemake modulesmake modules installmake install

[iGuest 3]

WinXP- The most stable Windows version ever. I can't believe after 11 years, they are still developing on top of the Windows NT core. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993 and today, Windows XP is built on top of that, as is Win2k and NT4.

WinXP also runs games better and faster than Windows 2000. Its like Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 combined. Visually, its on par with Windows 2000. Win2000 just doesnt have that luna XP interface. I remember t he hype so much about XP

Win2000- Not a bad OS, marginally less stable than XP but it still works fine. Visually its a cleaned up Windows NT4/Windows 98SE interface and some nice GUI effects added on. Kinda really bad for running games though. Its a business work OS, not a gaming hobbist OS.

WinME- Worst OS ever! I think that's all there is to say about that.

Win98SE- Microsoft did a good job with SE. They cleared up and well implemented the IE 4 integration (... is that right? Though at the cost of creating so many security holes....). It was more stable and had Plus! pack built in.

Win98- Horrbile OS. Microsoft didn't integrate IE4 well, resulting in slowdowns and too many crashes to bear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Windows has been developing on itself since the beginning, rewriting from scratch is far from the truth. If they rewrote their OS, then a lot of their obsolete, since the prehistoric ages of DOS would not be left over, who here loads information off a cassette tape drive? There's more junk left over than just that.

 

There has not been much major changes, basically it's just been repackaged and labelled a new version/year and everyone flocks out to buy it, so they jazzed up the GUI a bit, is that a major change?, they added new functions, is that a major change? A major change would involve rewriting the Windows APIs and not adding functionality to it, that could work with their current APIs.

 

Why isn't it working with your older hardware? Well MS are known for breaking compatibility and not actually fixing things. It's usually a case with their patches, if it's patching against a worm, it's breaking the worms compatibility with their OS.

 

I do believe this whole Reverse Engineering their OS is a MS cover for what they did in the early days and that a lot of their code wasn't their own. I've still got little to believe that Bill Gates created the BASIC interpreter since it could have been stolen from an HP Calculator that existed around that time. Apart from that, everything else was either partially them helping out but them being the first to market before it's competitors. Note that I mentioned market and not created.

 

The story now will be somewhat different, they would not have to do so much now. OK maybe it's still the same.

 

 

MC

[qwijibow 0]

Windows....It started of its life as a cheap and quick hack of an OS for home computers.....and it was.... well it wasnt brilliant, buy you get what you pay for....then the price rose and rose and rose.... and now its an expensive cheap hack of an OS.

[antitoxic 0]

MAC rulezz... Microsoft products are all copied from other place ..Trust the original... I use Mac and I'm very pleased

[chronogamer28 0]

Down with Mac OS!!!

[almoo7 0]

Windows XP SP2Less Security FlawsBetter System ManagementMore user-friendly than ever!Nice interface.Good featuresPossibility of new security and hardware updates for free [Registered]... and works well for me.