Re: Early adopter retros


"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1214517994.222436@xxxxxxxxxx
philo wrote:
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1214337523.618768@xxxxxxxxxx
philo wrote:
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1214249892.105975@xxxxxxxxxx
philo wrote:
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1214213167.958605@xxxxxxxxxx
, just what "engine-room" differences
are there between the two?

Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
by setting if for best performance.

That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version
of
Windows ever produced.
It may very well be.

But there is a legacy version of XP (not avail in the USA) that is
good
for
low end machines


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_for_Legacy_PCs


Fascinating - I didn't know about that. Now how about a legacy
version
of Vista with all the eye candy removed, all the background activity,
and a folder tree structure that is the same as the previous one for
complete backwards compatibility. Hmmmm - sounds like W2K eh.
Although
I
realise it's not quite that simple. (smile)



I did give Vista a good, three month try out.
It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a
Win2k
look...
However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new
hardware...so
I am not going to be using it.


Yea, I kept it on my main machine for almost a year, and, like you,
ended up turning off all the "extra" bits & pieces. Funny thing is I
built the machine expressly for Vista, so the hardware specs were OK
for
it. But now it's running W2K, and I personally can't see what advantage
any later OS offers me. It must be really difficult for a software
company when their software reaches a point of maturity where any
further releases run into the law of diminishing returns. I quite like
an idea I saw written about somewhere a few months ago. The idea that
MS
need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer
modular "plugins" for added functionality. Then one could purchase the
level of functionality one wanted. The same writer commented that he
suspects Windows has become so massive and monolithic perhaps even MS
don't fully know how it works entirely any more. Certainly it's
difficult to see how their formula of constantly adding in more and
more
functionality can work beyond the massive package that Vista is.



I like the "modular" idea.

Basically just start with Win2k, then add whatever else is needed!


Love that idea. W2K would make a great basic starting point, but then
perhaps MS's bottom line might start slowing down. I don't mean to beat
the money drum (so many folk seem to), but in the end a philosophy of
continuous growth seems to be the necessary strategy now-a-days. Trouble
is you can't grow indefinitely, so I suppose one day something's gotta
give. Interesting to see if that happens to MS. On the other hand their
OS and software have made the remarkable standardisation we see now
actually possible. Sure would hate to go back to the old days of every
computer manufacturer having his own OS and apps.



Yep.
The world never sits still.
I'm sure Microsoft will be around for a long time...
but for some reason, nothing lasts forever! <G>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Early adopter retros
    ... When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy ... I did give Vista a good, ... It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k ... The idea that MS need to strip Windows right back to a very basic OS, and then offer modular "plugins" for added functionality. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Early adopter retros
    ... When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy ... I did give Vista a good, ... It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k ... modular "plugins" for added functionality. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Early adopter retros
    ... When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy ... It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k ... However to run Vista properly you really need some pretty new ... modular "plugins" for added functionality. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Early adopter retros
    ... When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy ... I did give Vista a good, ... It's possible to turn off the eye candy and set the GUI back to a Win2k ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: NNTP
    ... Things probably won't be any different for Vista... ... functionality when you'll settle for eye candy instead? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading