« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Windows NT 4  (Read 2406 times)

noob

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Kudos: 74
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #15 on: 15 August 2005, 01:29 »
M$ did sey they started practically again with xp, unless im wrong. but the ammount of stuff in xp that was coded for 2000 is stupid. its a copy and paste thing. when copied and pasted, it doesnt change at all, somthing M$ forgot. try that stuff i sed in that post. its true.
Logged
Windows XP Service Pack 2. Because we couldn't be arsed the first time.

Windows 98 Second Edition. Look, now you don't need that bloody CD to install new hardware.

Windows Vista. Even your computer knows you have a small penis.

Windows Blackcomb. We are planning the OS after Vista, which is allready a year late.

Windows ME, the Marmite Operating System.

XP Mobile. Take your errors with you.

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #16 on: 15 August 2005, 12:06 »
Windows XP's big leap was jumping from 9x to NT on the desktop, its that simple.

Windows XP used Windows 2000 code because it was more reliable. And longhorn uses code from XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT, etc. Just like Linux uses code from Linux.
Logged

MarathoN

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • Kudos: 168
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #17 on: 15 August 2005, 13:44 »
Windows XP is a bit broken though...

Windows 2000 is very stable for me :)
Logged

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #18 on: 15 August 2005, 14:23 »
Lots of people say that.

XP has better proformance with 3D games however.

Personally of all the Windows OS, I find Windows 2003 the most stable, useable, and secure.
Logged

MarathoN

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • Kudos: 168
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #19 on: 15 August 2005, 18:41 »
Hmm, 3D game performance is fine for me in Win2k. ;)

I'd agree, Windows 2003 is the most stable, but not that many games are supported.

I stick with Windows 2000 because it is stable for me, and it's a lot faster than XP. :)
Logged

noob

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Kudos: 74
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #20 on: 16 August 2005, 10:54 »
theres one good part to xp, the compatability mode. i have a few game demos that wont run under nt, so the compat helps a lot.
Logged
Windows XP Service Pack 2. Because we couldn't be arsed the first time.

Windows 98 Second Edition. Look, now you don't need that bloody CD to install new hardware.

Windows Vista. Even your computer knows you have a small penis.

Windows Blackcomb. We are planning the OS after Vista, which is allready a year late.

Windows ME, the Marmite Operating System.

XP Mobile. Take your errors with you.

MarathoN

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
  • Kudos: 168
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #21 on: 16 August 2005, 14:03 »
Quote from: noob
theres one good part to xp, the compatability mode. i have a few game demos that wont run under nt, so the compat helps a lot.

I don't understand, that used to be in Service Pack 4 on Windows 2000, but looks like they took it out, bastards. :thumbdwn:
Logged

Jenda

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 530
  • Kudos: 326
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #22 on: 20 August 2005, 15:47 »
Wow. Very good to know. So what should I recommend to those of my family members who stupidly insist on MS crap? Is win2k the best option or is it win2003?
Logged

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
Re: Windows NT 4
« Reply #23 on: 20 August 2005, 16:13 »
win2003, because it's faster and more stable than Windows XP and unlike win2k it's still supported.
Logged
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »