Whimsy

I must nitpick on this one. Did you ever realize that you make unfair comparison: 2K run on P4 XP run on P4 yet you said it was like : Halo run on XBOX Halo4 run on XBOX-360 The point still stands: the hardware was a natural evolution of the platform, same as the kernel was a natural evolution of the platform. The kernel team doesn't stop building new functionality because another team is adding functions, nor should other teams preclude newer technologies introduced with that kernel in the name of backporting features. The hardware equivalent would be to nix MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNow and other support because 486's are also 32-bit processors. We've already talked about doubling minimum requirements, but often times the OS itself is the requirement because of the changes it introduced. Sure, people have projects that do enable some of these newer features on older systems, but getting Firefox 8 to run on Windows 98 is probably a support situation that's specific to the people who have done it. If you need Windows 98 support, there's always Virtual PC/Hyper-V, VirtualBox or VMWare Software projects typically have feature goals set for its release before any significant code is written, and then the software gets written to that spec. This prevents backporting of most features, but it ensures stability in professional environments. Bugs tend to slip in with new code and features. There's also the headache of writing to the older version's capabilities. Sure, you could re-implement everything every time, but it's expensive, and then you need to make sure that everyone running OS version 3 is using the correct version of OS version 3 (probably because you had to change a core feature that broke another core feature). The alternative - supporting DOS, Win16, and newer 32-bit software on a newer file system - did exist, by the way. Unfortunately OS/2 never took off (I still have my Warp 3 Connect CD!) ...Good ol' Comic Sans I see no points of contention , actually you seem to say (just like I do) that Windows 2000 was an excellent Operating System, the "rightful" evolution of NT 4.00. I see 2000 as a technical, or if you prefer "natural, logical" evolution of NT and XP as a (mostly) commercial evolution of 2K., in the sense that a large part (but of course not all) the "added" features of XP are "eye candy" or "bells and whistles". Personally I rate *any* NT based system far more "stable" than any comparable DOS based one, but the argument that most people raise when this kind of discussion starts is "but NT has the far better NTFS filesystem that you cannot have in 9x/Me and thus you are limited to files 4 Gb in size" (no I don't want to start the usual flamewar about FAT32 vs. NTFS), with the not-so-hidden understatement that a Dos based OS cannot have NTFS because of technical reasons (while it has been a simple, plain, commercial one). The great idea was evidently something like let's consolidate our two largely different Operating System branches, one dedicated to the "Professional" use and one to "Home" and let's make a one-size-fits-all OS. It is rather obvious how in order to do that you need to impose on "home" customers that have not any need for them a number of "features" only useful in a "professional" environment, on the other hand, in order to let the "home" users be actually able to run, install, and "like" it etc. you need to add some "bells and whistles" that the "profesionals" have no or very little use for. If you think about it, the following iteration of the "higher level" Server edition offers - strangely enough - a "Core" edition, from the mouth of the wolf: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd184075.aspx I will however re-state how pre-made machines (OEM) on sale during the very first period of XP, and expecially laptop/notebooks were largely underpowered, as well as later this happened AGAIN when Vista was launched. My personal rule of thumb has alway been that of taking the MS minimal requirements and at very least double them, whenever possible use a factor of 4x, example, XP minimal requirements: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865/en-us Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) <- please read this as 1 Ghz processor At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended) <- please read this as "512 Mbytes" if you want to actually run software on this OS jaclaz I think a large part of the challenge when creating a core OS was a lack of command line tools to effectively administrate the system. CMD.EXE is great, but not everything exists as a tool. PowerShell fixed that up while adding a little more flexibility to the system, but it took resources to build. Server Core drops desktop support too, by the way - hardly a good experience for the front-line worker who needs to run Office. XP ran pretty nicely on early machines with earlier software on 256MB RAM, and I also recall projects to coax it into running on 32MB. OEMS have had a long tradition of trying to sell out older hardware, and with Vista I think it's fair to say it blew up in everyone's face. Vista itself was fine, but immature driver support and the assumption that Program Files was fair game for data files harmed it. By Windows 7 everyone had their work in order and Windows 8 is designed to have the same system requirements as 7. Disclaimer: I am a Microsoft Employee.

No. XP is a good OS, not as good as 2K for several aspects and far less suitable to "simple" home users EXACTLY because of the features that only professionals (and only in some given "corporate" environments) actually needed. This is probably the biggest point of contention I've got with your posts. First, the differences in experiences between NT and 2000 alone were *massive*. Basic things, like USB support and graphical differences, to Active Directory's reliance on Primary and Backup Domain Controllers, to File System and overall performance upgrades. Suggesting that MS would have been better to backport these features into NT4 would be like suggesting that Halo 4 should have been back ported to the original XBOX. It could be done, but not without some compromises, a lot of resources, and with the devotion of a team to make it all fit. Even for third parties, some things were simplified: one driver instead of two (or three), one target OS, one established platform for everybody. 9x and NT both run Win32, but by the time 2K was released Win32 had been extended, and I'd hazard a guess that they weren't going to run two teams to reinvent the wheel while leaving customers with an OS that's fundamentally flawed from a security perspective. The "commercial" decisions you're referring to are typically licensing conditions. Yes, NT is NT, and with a few registry hacks it may be possible to re-create the functionality of other "editions", but business environments usually want to stay in compliance. If they're not content with those options, they could look into other platforms of course! I plead ignorance - I didn't know people were running 9X with that kind of memory. I did know about the back-porting projects, but not that people had been tinkering with hacks. I'd need to know more about what MaxPhysPage does. Not that I don't doubt it's efficacy, but there were certainly ways to work around the 4GB limit in 32-bit OS, but they also introduced problems and few people are pining for the 32-bit Windows days. I also noticed that some of these configurations require certain conditions and configurations. Sure, you could program a few hacks and set a few system specific settings which setting up a team to backport functionality. Or you could just reuse that tested kernel that's in its third iteration and which has a host of other new functionality to boot. NTFSDos provided NTFS support for, well, DOS; I thought you were referring to streaming, hardlinks and other NTFS improvements, which are a file system feature and not necessarily a feature of the OS. There are installable file system drivers for MacOS and Linux file systems available for Windows. There was also a service pack for NT4 that gave it compatibility with NTFS3 (yep, you could even argue that at one point NT didn't support a version NTFS!) It was the dawn of the Pentium 4, and XP ran really well on P2's, P3's and the 1GHz Athlon's of that era (I'll leave out comments about first generation P4's...). The requirements were pretty similar to Windows 2000. If anyone put it on underpowered hardware, it was probably people who wanted to latest and greatest on their Pentium MMX's and K6's. That aside, many companies were putting out software that supported both platforms. Internet Explorer 6 and Office XP in particular both worked in Windows 98 and up. Nobody was forced, but people wanted on board because they thought it was pretty cool. My uncle wanted it on his Celeron 300a (I was smarter than to do it, but it would have "worked") Well, this doesn't necessarily mean that you are as blinfdfolded as your leaders . jaclaz I have to put that into my posts. It's a transparency thing, but I speak for myself. I was around during the 9x/ME transition and used Windows 2000/XP for years. I also did a lot of support during the Vista launch, though not under the MS banner, but which was still pretty fun and educational.

Windows XP, in all its forms, was a great OS. Home Edition and Professional Edition had overlapping featuresets limited by license levels because they had to support the same technologies. NTFS permissions and built-in accounts are supported in Home, even if the user is never directly exposed to them, and by default Home doesn't let a typical user create accounts with Backup Operators; Only standard users and local administrators. But it can also be upgraded to professional. Professional Edition was marketed to users who needed certain feature sets, including remote desktop and, yes, domain join features. It was heavily based on Windows 2000, which included plug-and-play, USB support, and far better support of Direct X. It was leaps and bounds beyond NT4. Incidentally, hard-links and junctions existed in Windows 2000 (strictly speaking, NTFS 3.0), but you needed the resource kit to use them. NTFS has a lot of features that get underutilized. XP wasn't merely a crappy attempt to unify OS's; it brought NT to the masses, and it made it cheap. NT brought stability and security. DOS-based systems, including Windows 9x/ME had severe limitations to how it could use memory, so the choices were to re-engineer a broken system (potentially at the cost of compatibility; I read recently that having classes.dat divide the registry up was a kludge!) while prolonging the life of DOS, or switch people to a system that already worked and which supported a host of other superior technologies - things like NTFS, better multitasking, and which already had some developer support (including Windows 2000 driver support. As for RT creating compatibility issues - it's true that it's a different platform. In the earlier days of modern smartphones, I seem to recall people talking about how at least one of them could run Photoshop ("it heard that it runs a modified version of MacOS!" was the word of the day) until they were educated about its features and, in some cases, disappointed. What RT offers developers is a unified platform for creating apps on a tablet and desktop OS at the same time. TL;DR: RT is a tablet OS that happens to resemble Windows in a lot of ways, but it's still a distinct OS separate from desktop/"Intel" Windows. Disclaimer: I am a Microsoft Employee.

That's interesting. My 7900GS exploded a few weeks ago. I wasn't sure what it was at teh time, and my computer worked for some time before it finally went down for the count. It sounded just like a gunshot, but the system didn't crash until a few hours later. When it finally died, I took a peek and saw that an entire row of caps had busted open. Has anyone else had 7900gs-specific problems?

Fantastic job, guys!

Linux supports plug and play pretty good. Having no driver is another story This is not Linux' or the hardware's fault. It's the company's responsibility to create the driver, but they may not deem it "worth persuing", or else have a restrictive contract in enchange for a discount from their OS vendor. Linux is getting better for hardware compatibility, but it's still trapped in the dark ages. windows software is so much better.. When you get a crappy application just look for a new vendor that has program that works.. Too many to choice from..... An as far as windows goes learn how to lock it down so you will not get infected.......... I DO say LINUX OS sucks BUT I throw 99.9% of windows 3rd party vender's software that I test drive in the waste can cause it doesn't work............. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope no one sees me as a troll. So far, I've provided counter points based on whatever post I'm replying to (pro Linux Vs. Pro Windows). I'm just playing devils advocate in that sense. You seem to have a few misconceptions about software in general that I'd like to clear up. First, Windows and Linux have very good documentation available. None have good documentation made by the vendors of any software; Most users usually have to check out a series of third party sources before they have a clue about how to use them. What Windows has over Linux is consistancy of the Interface. Microsoft also has a consistant API, and stresses backwards compatibility. Ironic, since I could see someone using a Win64 port of WINE to run Win16 applications Another weakness that Linux suffers is one of distributions. I'll skip the arguement that Linux is a kernel, since I feel that, despite how legitamate it might seem, it usually ends up sounding like a method of avoiding the point - Which I feel is about hardware support. Windows Has the HCL, and Linux, to be frank, does not. Since the numerious distros that exist lack consistancy with hardware supprt, picking a distro does suck. Now you make two arguements that I'd like to address. First, you say this: Linux has many programs that perform the same things, and ironically, most have been ported to Windows. Here are a few programs that work in Linux AND windows: OpenOffice, AbiWord, Netscape, Firefox, Opera, NVu, BitTorrent, Gimp... And the list goes on. With Crossover Office, or other WINE varients, it's possible to run a lot more - Even now, people prefer to use Microsoft Office to Open Office in Linux. I have not included any Linux-only applications, because personally, I don't like most of them. Finally, you say (edited for formatting): There are virtually an unlimited number of third party Windows Software vendors, and MS Likes this. Heck, Microsoft likes Linux developers, too. This is why they nearly give away their developer kits, and try to lock people into MS.net's not-so-open APIs. You take an unlimited number of code monkeys with keyboards and compilers, and you will end up with the perfect software for your particular purpose. In the end, this is good for MS, and us, the end users (I mentioned before, and still maintain that I have an Ubuntu partition, but I don't use it half as often as Windows). There is a lot more to hating an OS besides making up arbitrary percentages about how much software is available for another OS; not knowing enough to hate a particular thing about is simply ignorant. I once said Linux sucked without any reasoning behind it. Now I look forward to the day I can erase my NTFS and FAT partitions, ideally for some kind of SQLFS (MS or Linux ). Also, I now declare that the thread is officially derailed, and claim it in the name of... NINJAS!

If only it were this easy. In my experience, Microsoft has disabled the Local Users and Groups in XP Home Edition, leaving most home users with only one way to configure users: Either as "Computer Administrator" or as "Guest". Most of the time Guest is worthless. I don't consider defective hardware an effect of the OS. A few years ago, Microsoft celebrated 99.99999% uptime. That came to about 5 minutes. While most of us don't care, MS did, because their customers (and their marketing department) do. I've seen servers take 5 minutes to boot up, and there are ISPs that offer insane guarantees about uptime. Trust me, this matters. The Ubuntu Linux guys sent me 35 Linux CD sets, and I didn't pay a dime. They have pledged support for up to 18 months per version. This means I could run 4.10 for another year or so before I need to worry about upgrading. And when I want to upgrade, I can either insert the newest CD, or download the upgrade package. That will effectively get me a legit, supported, and upgraded distro that will be supported for another 18 months. Since the entire package is made of smaller packages, I don't have to install, say, a "fixed" TCP/IP stack that limits connection requests, if I don't want to. Microsoft sent me a free copy of Windows XP Professional just for being a System Builder, but I refuse to install it, because I hate product activation. In fact, I am technically breaking the EULA by using a non-activable version, because I think activation passively accuses "System Builders" and Small OEMs of piracy. Pirated versions of Windows are not supported, and eventually may not even be elegable for updates. And sure, most "in" end users can get around the hardware requirement by buying a copy of Windows with hardware, but they can never legally transfer it to another PC ($250 retail copies can be transfered). Meanwhile, I still have 35 CDs (10 natively support 64-bit extended systems without an upgrade tax) which can be installed on any number of PCs without facing legal retribution.

I prefer the "drive letter" way. Call me "old fashion" but I do. I can find my way around on a windows-based system as well as a *nix-based system. I'd like Windows to have a journalised file system, such as ReiserFS4. I guess WinFS will be something like that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One of the arguements against Linux is that NTFS has been journalized longer than any Linux file systems. I've seen the grief caused by Drive Letters, especially in DOS (oh dear lord, the pain caused by FDISK and the stupid way DOS assigned letters based on disk/partititon type). Personally, I use Junctions on my Windows box because I can consistantly locate specific files. I like the idea of mount points because I can nearly redirect anything from one drive to another, and I could mount a backup copy of a directory if I need it for some reason from the command line. WinFS is supposed to be released later, possibly as a free add-on, for Windows XP and Longhorn, as developers said they woulden't commit to it unless it were supported in XP and Longhorn. As I understand it, it's basically an extention to NTFS.

This is the best thread in the history of the Internet!

By design, EFS is not feasably recovered. It is keyed to your user account and your Windows installation. Changing folder permissions will not make a difference. Reconstructing your data would take centuries. When you erased that hard disk, you erased any feasable way to restore it. Read this: Why your data is gone How to be safe in the future You have my condolences.

Just a clarification. You can get alpha channel support in IE with PNG. Pretty simple code . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just because you can add a stupid hack to a web site to enable transparent PNG support hardly makes IE standards-friendly. It's insluting to the W3C and web developers that such a hack is even required. Hell, I'd even say that it's insulting to Microsoft, considering that the Macintosh version of IE actually supports PNG properly. As much as I like Windows, I have to question what the hell their developers were thinking when they did that trick. I'm all for Firefox. With the exception of the memory leak in the current release, Firefox is generally leaner and functions great. My computer has been spotless since I started using it. The fact that it supports many platforms is even more incentive to use it - Effectively, the "firefox standard" stretches to most operating systems that firefox is available for, so what looks good on Firefox/Windows looks the same on Firefox/Linux and Firefox/MacOS. Oh, and just for fun... This is one of the hacks... Despite the hack's implimentation, it still claims that IE doesn't support 256 colour PNG alpha properly. A method using PHP Most webhosts support php, luckily. But it's still ridiculous that this hack is needed. Javascript PNG Hack Many users disable Javascript, and IE has had Javascript security flaws in the past. Why not have a properly functioning image library to begin with?

For this post, when I refer to linux, I'm refering to distributions, not the kernel. The arguement that linux is better because there is no registry editing is weird to me... Sure, there is no configuration manager called "regedit", and the configuration files aren't in a central database, but there is at least 1 configuration manager that functions very much like regedit. I also don't see how it's easier to track hundreds of files located in one monolithic directory. I hate the registry for it's 'eggs in one basket' functionality, but surely a simpler method could be concocted (ironically, I'd be just as happy with user-based INI-like files that stored themselves in directories that changed depending on the user, sort of like a full-on database filesystem, heh). I also recognize how a Linux Distribution can be fully customizable, as long as you are exclusively using GPL or LGPL software. But adding or editing this stuff is patching it, no? The kernel has hundreds of patches which add features or fix security flaws on occasion, and I've been lambasted by Linux support groups for not staying on top of updates, which enhance stability and security. I stay on top of updates now, thanks to the included update manager that Ubuntu uses (Ièm sure others include one, but Ièm not ashamed to admit my bias towards Ubuntu). It functions like Windows Update, warning me that there are as many as 15-30 apps each day that require some kind of updating. Of course, this depends on how you have it installed; If itès not a package that is managed by the package manager, then you are out of luck (this would be akin to unzipping and running an application on Windows, without using an installer that works with Add or Remove Programs). I`d like to again address the idea that linux requires almost no pathcihg. In fact, one of it`s strengths is in the patches available. By having many frequent updates, Linux has become strong and more compatible than windows in many respects. With the free development tools available to it, it`s actually helped windows and Linux users alike. So while on a usability scale, I`d say it`s about the same, I`d say linux can be better then windows, technologically. If you decide to try linux, remember that it`s just starting to get into desktop terroitory, and use it as such. Ask user groups for advice on migrating, and put an effort into it - If you don`t you`re likely to give up too soon. Sorry... Ièm just playing devils advocate today

I generally hate these threads. They are usually flame bait But for what it's worth... I'm going to aassume you are a home computer user who is comfortable with their current OS (likely Windows). The question is, doyou have a reason to change? If you can do everything you want to, why would you change? Linux has a far more complex shell, anyway, and odds are, unless you are totally disenfranchised with Windows, you`ll end up going back. If`you`d like to try Linux for the free, opensource goodness that comes with it, I`d recommend the Ubuntu Live CD, or the current Knoppix Live CD. Granted, I`ve not had a chance to try the current Knoppix, but the ubuntu live CD includes a Windows Autorun that will allow you to install several GPL`d applications, so you can get a preview of teh preview, so to speak. If you like it, you can boot with the CD, and dabble a bit. It also has fantastic update managment and a great support community. Personally, I maintain an Ubuntu installation, but I use windows far more.

If you want more speculation and anecdotes, I'd sooner blame the Dell. I's start with the memory, but I'd be afraid to test the power supply.

I have a client that had to stay with 98 because a program he used for a database did not function properly with XP or 2000. Random fields would blank out if changes were made. Also, the movement of his documents folder caused me a day worth of headaches. I offered to give him a discount on the software when we ended up upgrading (out of my pocket ). On older computers with 64 MB RAM (which would be in most computers off lease as of last year), a 98 license is generally included, and it runs a lot better, especially if those computers have 3-6 GB Hard disks and Celeron-P2 level processors. I had a few MMX 200's a while back, and set up XP on an AD for a test I was running - NEVER AGAIN! The AD Server took about 15 minutes to boot, and I never shut that baby off. I shead a tear the day I reformatted that sucker. Also, Soldier1st, I hope you don't mind me picking on you a bit. Most of your post is a perfect example of the confusion I've seen about Windows XP Vs 98, so don't take this personally, as it applies to many would-be users of XP. Actually, a large user base is not necessarily the biggest user base. XP has, by my server's count, surpassed 98. Most machines I've worked on are 98. THe point is, this is variable information, and there are no numbers that can proove this. Besides, if the people in North America drive on the right side of the road, does it make it a good idea in the UK? Windows 98 cannot properly support more than some high number of RAM on a new computer. And XP, with it's disk driver optimizations, improved disk cache, memory management, and other countless reasons, can theoretically run faster than 98. NTFS provides some overhead, however.Lets not forget that most computers have over 1GB of RAM, which causes 98 to crash on bootup This is the same as saying that WIndows 95 is better than 98 because 95 is 'cheaper'. The truth is, for the time frame, and the feature set, XP is far better than 98. How is it that having the ability to do less is considered a positive reason to use an older OS? Actually, I agree. WPA is a stupid "feature" that hampers legit users. So why not consider Windows 2000? Viruses effect all versions of Windows, and DOS. Windows 98 is actually partly effected by DOS viruses, being based essentually on DOS(In effect, you could argue that Windows 98 is a DOS Shell, but that's another debate). Granted, there are more documented ways for them to effect 98, they still effect them both heavily. I think that it's more accurate to state that 98 has more patched bugs. I can't forgive the fact that XP, being newer, is as full of holes. Actually, XP will not natively let you create a FAT32 partition over 32 GB because FAT32 is highly unreliable. You have the option to create a large partition with a boot disk if you want to, and XP will use it without a problem. If your complaint is that they hide that feature, I'd agree - It's irritating. You can also create NTFS Partitions of as big as you can imagine (as long as your imagination is under 2 TB or so ).