Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 03:59:45 12/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2001 at 00:58:20, pavel wrote: >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. Either SuSE or Red Hat is much preferable to either Win2000 or WinXP. > >;) >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.