quote:
Yes and its these technical differences that make NT better than Win95 to ME.
How is it better if it gets infected with the same viruses, spyware etc.... How is it better if the stability and security is the same as 9x?
Its the same thing over and over and over....
quote:
FUD!
Read my previous post again,the NT kernel was not made by MS, VMS developers were drafted
in, thus it contains some VMS code and is a lot better that Win95 to ME. VMS was an industrial strength
operating system that beat UNIX in someways.
TRUE!!!!
Again who gives a shit who did what! I really don't care if M$ windows is made with uber l33t Unix code. My point was that it does the same thing!
quote:
Win95 to ME was shit, the crappy FAT32 file system was unstable and more prone to corruption than NTFS.
WinNT for me was shit! The fact that it costs more and needs more hardware just to do the same thing is not very impressive.
quote:
FUD!
Win95 to ME used FAT/F32 which was shit and slowed things down.
True!!!!
Win NT to me was shit. At least with FAT some things did work abit not very well.
quote:
XP boots up a lot quicker than Win2k it features pre-emptive booting, meaning that for the first 3
boots XP aranges the File system so that the boot up files are in the correct boot order.
That may be. But then why is it when I booted XP it took for ever. Yes win2k boots slow but then so does XP. I do NOT CARE about the technical aspect of it. I'm intrested in it via the end user's point of view. I've used 2k and XP they are both crap!
quote:
FUD!
Its not unusual for hardware to work under Linux but be far from fully funtional, printer/scanners
often print but don't scan, sound cards often work but the 3D without enhancement and graphics cards often work but the 3D accelerator doesn't. In Windows most drivers work very well often the drivers aren't written by MS at all but funneyly enough by the hardware manufacturer.
TRUE!
I've used linux AND windows. I'm not someone who tries to install it and give up on its first instance. The problem you report can be the same with windows. What you are telling me is that the majority of linux drivers are shit?
No! Infact at least the majority of them works out of the box!
I'm running sound blaster with RH9 and it detected it! So its you thats spreading the FUD campain here!
quote:
For example my printer/scanner came with both Windows and Mac drivers,
Yes, so did mine. But when I install sead driver for windows (which was ment for that version) it fucks things up.
I pluged in my printer scanner (HP PSC) and kudzo detected it and installed it then carried on booting.
My point was that since M$ HAS been around for a long time its stupid that it STILL has bad driver support and no you can't blame hardware manufactures.
quote:
they were suplied by Leximark so the Windows driver is as good/bad as the Mac driver.
So? the MAC driver always work. How come this does not apply for windows? Both OS'es are closed source.
quote:
Linux with all the things it has compared with all the things windows needs, virus scanner, ad remover, firewall etc... boots a heck of a lot faster!
Bullshit. I run SuSE here on my laptop which dual boots with 2k! It has a p2 266mhz 96mb ram! Linux boots faster! That is what I have seen! Windows IS slow.
quote:
True.
I agree, you shouldn't need any of that shit, it should be built in to the OS, but never the less XP still boots faster than Win2K.
Again I've worked with both! They are the same with little difference between the too. What you are saying does not match what truly happens.
I find they are the same.
quote:
The open source argument doesn
