F**k XP | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
Monoid
...and 260 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2613477
Today 3
Topics 127503
  
 
Messageboard index
F**k XP
 

offline jand from Braintree (United Kingdom) on 2002-04-22 10:25 [#00188667]
Points: 5975 Status: Moderator | Followup to urb: #00188276 | Show recordbag



I'd forgotten about this thread...geez! I sound a bit
fierce...sorry...:)...

true they did employ the DEC VMS people...but they didn't
"buy" them as such....(ever noticed that WNT (windows New
Technology) is VMS back a letter..not many people know that
or that NT is a updated version of VMS..)...

As for "Good Design decision"...we could probably argue all
week over this but I think it's a difficult thing to judge
as we simply don't know the full details of whatever
compromises MS had to make to get Windows to work at all...

The main problem they had (and continue to have) is the
large userbase they have to keep compatible with...if they
could do away with this and simply start from scratch then
they could come up with a solution as nice as QNX or
whatever...But they don't have this option and so we get
Windows how it is today....

Theres a really good book about the development of WIN
NT3.51 that follows the whole process from inital idea to
eventual delivery - I can't recall the name at the mo but
I'll dig it out when I get home. & let you know....it's a
great read & not at all dry/technical....Theres quite a bit
of background into some of the design decisions that the
team had to make....


 

offline urb from Trondheim (Norway) on 2002-04-22 17:38 [#00189321]
Points: 568 Status: Regular | Followup to jand: #00188667



hehe :) well, NT is way ahead of the legacy windows versions
in driver handling and such. I'm just still a bit miffed
that xp needs 512mb to do anything sensible..


 

offline jand from Braintree (United Kingdom) on 2002-04-22 18:09 [#00189359]
Points: 5975 Status: Moderator | Followup to urb: #00189321 | Show recordbag



well, I'm only on 256MB and ain't having any problems and
I'm running all sort of intensive stuff all day & night...

Was running on 128Mb for a while on XP but it was a little
sluggish...256 seems fine tho...

(These are stupid amounts of memory BTW...the first machine
I programmed for professionally only had 64K and you
couldn't use half of that....the only good thing about being
in computers for a long time is that it gives you a lot of
perspective on these sort of things...1MB still seems like a
lot of memory to me...)...


 

offline Xanatos from New York City (United States) on 2002-04-22 20:32 [#00189583]
Points: 3316 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



XP is no worse than '98, no DOS though..


 

offline Asche XL on 2002-08-15 14:49 [#00350842]
Points: 4241 Status: Lurker



I'm happy to report Im downgrading today from XP to Windows
ME. Im reformating my harddrive and it's about time for a
change.


 

offline Spikee Dragon from Newcastle (United Kingdom) on 2002-08-15 14:55 [#00350848]
Points: 4176 Status: Regular



I use NT5/2000 or Workbench. I hate 95, I dont mind 98 but
it's a pain at times, I hate ME to death, XP looks ok but no
thanks.

Windows 2000 suits me best.


 

offline flim-flam from In a cupboard, in the kitchen. (United Kingdom) on 2002-08-15 15:05 [#00350855]
Points: 751 Status: Lurker



The only major probs XP hs are:

1) Inability to ckeck system resources.
2) Problems locating driver files on it's own - usually
needs you to browse to them, point them out, then rub the
fuckers face in em!
3) Compatability with older software.
4) No fucking DOS.....I hate that!
5) Has probs with a number of 3rd party hardwares.

Part from that.....it's sweet! 8op


 


Messageboard index