Author: pavel
Date: 21:58:20 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2001 at 15:48:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On December 06, 2001 at 14:31:34, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: > >>http://www.rebel.nl/rc4.htm >> >>Fernando, >> >>I think that Bill Gates is at fault here. Ed is a nice guy. Win 2000 should be >>all you need till the year 2004 when Mr. Bill will introduce the 64 bit OS. >> >> >>Tim >> >>PS WindowsXP is based on Win2000 and is a step backward. > >This obviously means that XP is worse than 2k... how? >-Tom Its certainly not worse. But saying that, its better, is also debatable. After tranforming to winxp, you lose some features you had, and gain some feature you probably dont want. I think winxp came a bit too soon, it should have given us more time to get ready for it. If you are asking about stability, i didnt see any differance over windows2k. Mine didnt crash ever since I installed it. Moving to winxp is just a matter of choice of having the latest ms OS installed. Nothing More, Nothing Less, IMO. Upgrading to windows2k from NT4 or Windows98/me is a big jump. But Upgrading to winxp from windows2k, is like having SUSE over redhat. ;) pavs
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.