[A83] Re: VoyageT_200 [OT]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: VoyageT_200 [OT]
Everyone who says this has a very fast computer (1ghz+) and has never used
NT or Windows 2000. Yes, XP is better than the Windows 95 series in most
cases, but nowhere near the quality of the previous NT products. My Windows
box is a Celeron 466 with 384 megs of RAM. It ran NT 4 and Windows 2000
just fine. XP was noticably slower. We're talking KDE slow here (heh).
Even after disabling the extra effects, and setting the theme to classic so
that it looks and behaves like Windows 2000, it is still noticably slow. If
it were as cool as OS X, then I could understand it. But if it looks
exactly the same, it shouldn't be slower.
Ignoring the performance issues, you'll notice a lot of obvious, annoying
bugs in the initial release. Even in classic mode, things don't always
render properly. An AIM chat window is a good example of this. The
bounding boxes for system tray icons is totally screwed up, making it very
difficult to use. The outside edges of the icons send a notification
message to both the application and Explorer when clicked, causing two menus
to pop up, one on top of each other. The operating system has serious
stability issues. Although it could have been due to upgrading from Windows
2000 and not doing a clean install, I could not get CD burning to work at
all. Every piece of software I tried would hang. Even worse, the
applications could not be killed! Task manager would not kill them, and
even programs that let you kill any process that worked on previous versions
of NT would not kill them. What kind of supposedly stable operating system
doesn't let you kill processes?
I'll apologize in advance for perpetuating this topic. As such, the thread
is marked OT.
> I don't want to start another XP discussion, but if your computer is
> powerful enough and if you are able to use it, XP works better than any
> other Windows version.
References: