windows xp

[crash override]

what's new with windows xp?

------------------
-CRASH OVERRIDE-

[JM350]

I think you have answered your own question.

[brzilian]

Originally posted by JM350:
I think you have answered your own question.

LOL!! http://acapella.harmony-central.com/smile.gif I agree.

Just buy Windows 2000, its the same thing without all the hassles associated with the changes in XP.

[L5S]

Windows 2000 Professional is all one needs.

[Nunya Bidni]

Originally posted by brzilian:
LOL!! http://acapella.harmony-central.com/smile.gif I agree.

Just buy Windows 2000, its the same thing without all the hassles associated with the changes in XP.



And about 1/3 the hardware compatibility. Try doing a little research or actually using the OS.

[brzilian]

Originally posted by Nunya Bidni:
And about 1/3 the hardware compatibility. Try doing a little research or actually using the OS.

Dude, you gotta back up your statements!

Show me where I can find the native XP Multimedia Center Apps for my ATI All-in-Wonder 128 video card. What's that? No luck? Gee...

Oh yeah, get my parallel port Umax scanner working in XP! Here's a better one - how about an original Sound Blaster card!

Uh huh, thats what I thought...

[Nunya Bidni]

Originally posted by brzilian:
Dude, you gotta back up your statements!

Show me where I can find the native XP Multimedia Center Apps for my ATI All-in-Wonder 128 video card. What's that? No luck? Gee...

Oh yeah, get my parallel port Umax scanner working in XP! Here's a better one - how about an original Sound Blaster card!

Uh huh, thats what I thought...



Aren't you the same guy that took a month to get Windows 2000 running? Try using hardware that isn't 5 years old.

[brzilian]

Originally posted by Nunya Bidni:
Aren't you the same guy that took a month to get Windows 2000 running? Try using hardware that isn't 5 years old.

I make due with what I've got. Not everybody has money growing on trees in their back yard. Any OS manufacturer that thinks they can get away with pushing customers in that direction will not be in business much longer when "free" OS's that outperform the $300 ones require substantially less computing power.

Time to stop bowing down to Mr. Bill and raise your voice as a paying customer. Its people like you that think every lastest POS that comes out of Redmond is like a gift from god.


What kind of world would we live in if a 5 year old car was considered "obsolete" and you HAD to go out any buy a new one? On top of that, you had no guarantees from the manufacturer that the car would perfom to spec as promised. Don't forget the fact that there would be no recalls either is something was wrong...

[Nunya Bidni]

Originally posted by brzilian:
I make due with what I've got. Not everybody has money growing on trees in their back yard. Any OS manufacturer that thinks they can get away with pushing customers in that direction will not be in business much longer when "free" OS's that outperform the $300 ones require substantially less computing power.



Ah. So you're an open-source zealot. That explains a lot.


Time to stop bowing down to Mr. Bill and raise your voice as a paying customer. Its people like you that think every lastest POS that comes out of Redmond is like a gift from god.


"People like me" also administer roughly 150 POPs running Linux for my network. Quit foaming at the mouth.


What kind of world would we live in if a 5 year old car was considered "obsolete" and you HAD to go out any buy a new one? On top of that, you had no guarantees from the manufacturer that the car would perfom to spec as promised. Don't forget the fact that there would be no recalls either is something was wrong...

Another nice strawman. Are you capable of arguing on topic? If not, cease and desist, as this is getting boring and not accomplishing a damned thing WRT to the original inquiry.

[Nunya Bidni]

Originally posted by crash override:
what's new with windows xp?




To answer your question, no more of the inherent 30ms KMixer issue. Much greater OOB hardware compatibility. A new UI you can turn off if you don't like (I don't like). Real DirectX support. As stable as any 2K installation I've ever run. Haven't run across an app or peripheral yet that didn't work, including old games. IIS if you want it- don't install it if you don't. Built-in personal firewall (kind of like a lock on a filing cabinet- it isn't bulletproof, but it's more of a challenge than no firewall at all). Built in packet filtering.

[Six Black Roses]

Another thing to consider is that manufacturers are trying to get new drivers out for XP... and so far, it's working.

[qtuner]

Originally posted by brzilian:
I make due with what I've got. Not everybody has money growing on trees in their back yard. Any OS manufacturer that thinks they can get away with pushing customers in that direction will not be in business much longer when "free" OS's that outperform the $300 ones require substantially less computing power.

Time to stop bowing down to Mr. Bill and raise your voice as a paying customer. Its people like you that think every lastest POS that comes out of Redmond is like a gift from god.


What kind of world would we live in if a 5 year old car was considered "obsolete" and you HAD to go out any buy a new one? On top of that, you had no guarantees from the manufacturer that the car would perfom to spec as promised. Don't forget the fact that there would be no recalls either is something was wrong...


Ever heard of "Engineered Obsolesence?" Everyother industry has it. As a software developer I welcome it. Also, the world welcomes new technology, and it moves at a faster pace. Your arguement is invalid.
And who told you to upgrade? NO ONE.

[dannopelli]

Very nice arguments! I usually hang out in the Guitar site, but you guys are cool! Actual educated and well thought out responses.

HOW REFRESHING!

------------------
Sometimes the silence between the notes is more important...

[brzilian]

Originally posted by qtuner:

Ever heard of "Engineered Obsolesence?" Everyother industry has it. As a software developer I welcome it. Also, the world welcomes new technology, and it moves at a faster pace. Your arguement is invalid.
And who told you to upgrade? NO ONE.

Engineered Obsolesence or Bad Design? The software industry uses that too much as an excuse. I would accept tecnological advances as an argument if the original product were somewhat reliable, but Microsoft continues to put out new OS's while the previous is still flawed. How can that be a good thing?

Egineered Oblsolesence...hmmm...explain that one to Henry Dreyfuss and Honeywell. Ever seen the Honewell thermostat that is a hemispherical shape and is in almost every home in the US? Do you know when that design was introduced? Do you know why it still sells?

Boy, my life as an idustrial designer would be like a day in the park if I designed with Engineered Obsolesence in mind, I could do whatever I want and not have to worry that what I do actually serves some purpose.

Instead, I actually focus on doing thins right the first time so they will be around for a while and serve some good. If I didn't have a concience about what kind of future I am creating for this world, I could be rich like Mr. Gates...

---------------------------------------------------------
"History of the world in the Bill Gates Alternate Universe"


WTC Architect: "Mr. Gates, I really think it would be a good idea to construct these Twin Towers with a central core and reinforced steel columns to withstand any kind of unforseen events."

Hoover Dam Enginer: "Yes, and we should also run some more tests just to make sure this dam will withstand all the pressure created by the water!"

Bill Gates: "Gentlemen, haven't you heard the term Engineered Obsolecesence? We will be releasing WTC 1.1 and Hoover Dam XP in 5 years - we can try and fix any bugs then. All we are concerned with now is to get the product to market and establish dominace within the Architectural/Civil Engineering market sector"

---------------------------------------------------

Where do I sign up?????

[This message has been edited by brzilian (edited November 23, 2001).]

[L5S]

'Xtra Problems...

[zboy2854]

Originally posted by brzilian:
Engineered Obsolesence or Bad Design? The software industry uses that too much as an excuse. I would accept tecnological advances as an argument if the original product were somewhat reliable, but Microsoft continues to put out new OS's while the previous is still flawed. How can that be a good thing?

Egineered Oblsolesence...hmmm...explain that one to Henry Dreyfuss and Honeywell. Ever seen the Honewell thermostat that is a hemispherical shape and is in almost every home in the US? Do you know when that design was introduced? Do you know why it still sells?

Boy, my life as an idustrial designer would be like a day in the park if I designed with Engineered Obsolesence in mind, I could do whatever I want and not have to worry that what I do actually serves some purpose.

Instead, I actually focus on doing thins right the first time so they will be around for a while and serve some good. If I didn't have a concience about what kind of future I am creating for this world, I could be rich like Mr. Gates...



Comparing physical, tangible products or architecture to non-tangible products like software is like trying to compare apples with desk furniture. The nature of the two are completely different. When you build a structure, it is static with little or no need for change or evolution. By the very nature of software and technology, there is a constant flow of change and evolution. If software were the same thing as buildings, we should all still be using Windows 3.1, right? Every day there are new computer/web/application implementations, and technologies being developed and integrated. Things like Java, instant messaging, MP3, Real Audio, Flash, Quicktime, ASIO, DirectX, ActiveX and tons of other developments have become ubiquitous and indispensible parts of PC operating systems and applications that were never conceived of when Windows' first versions were released. And while it's conceivable that Microsoft could have simply stayed with Windows 3.1 from the beginning and offered upgrades intergrating all these things, there are other considerations.

First, introducing add on code and new app implementation to an OS that was not originally conceived or coded for these things can make the OS less stable. Second, as programmers and techs develop better, more advanced code to run applications on, it makes the older versions obsolete or less attractive. That's why OS's based upon the NT kernel (XP, Win2K, NT) are more stable than the ones based on DOS (98, Me). Third, CPU processing power doubles every 18 months. RAM capacity has grown geometrically over the past couple of years, and motherboard and hard drive designs and capacities have grown exponentially. To take advantage of these quantum leaps forward in hardware capacity, you need newer, better OS design that can efficiently utilize all that hardware. For instance, did you know that Windows 98 does not efficiently handle more than 512 MB of RAM, and in fact more RAM can hinder performance on that OS? The reason is the architecture of the OS was not designed for that much power, as at the time of Win98 creation, 512 MB of RAM was prohibitively expensive and seemed massive at the time. Fourth, Microsoft is a business, and like every other business they are in business to make money (and that's not a terrible thing). If you create a piece of software that never needs upgrading or has no improvements made upon it, well then you've just pushed yourself out of that market and your revenue stream from that area just became finite. And as far as each OS they put out being "flawed" in your opinion, anyone who has ever done code programming knows that there are always variables from one system or application to another that can alter how the code works, and you're not just dealing with one software app, you're talking about an entire operating system that is the most complex collection of code to program. Sure, Microsoft could wait and "debug" everything they possibly could in their OS's, of course it would be five years later that it came out at which point it would be outdated and they'd have to start over.

The reason that XP is a quantum leap forward is that is combines the best of all Windows OS worlds. It is built upon the NT kernel like Win2K and NT, but is plug and play like 98 and Me. Every benchmark test and review shows it to be the most stable OS yet (it certainly has been for me thus far), and is optimized for today's hardware advancements. It supports dual processors, unlimited RAM (limited only by your motherboard) and handles automatic hard disk maintenance, removing the need to defragment. These are but a few of the many advancements in the new OS.

Whether it is engineered to be obsolete or not doesn't matter. Software by its very nature will become obsolete over time due to the inherent evolution of technologies, both software and hardware based. Sure, you can get a computer today with Windows 98 and be happy with that. But over time you'll end up being like a person who had one of the first computers that weighed 1 ton and occupied an entire room. It was state of the art at one time, but technology rendered it obsolete whether it was built to be or not.

[This message has been edited by zboy2854 (edited November 29, 2001).]

[MoreGuitars]

I can't get any of my external storage drives to work. It pisses me off!

[echo]

Unless you have the top-of-the-line PC and over 512MB of memory I'd skip XP for bandwidth-intensive tasks like music recording. The GUI features and threading functions of 2000 and in particular XP reserve processor cycles for other tasks even if they're not needed. Consequently, you're never running your recording or mixing app with the full attention of the processor.

Unless you need USB/Firewire Windows NT 4 is the best choice for multitrack playback and recording.