Re: [WWOT] XP??? (xp vs. 2k)

["Allyn" <amalventano1@home.com>]

Lloyd,
    I agree with everything you have to say. I ran windows 2000 final code
before it was out in stores (beta test) and had to live through companies
being sluggish to support it, even after release. Thats what pissed me off
about it. Is it stable as hell? of course. Is it fast? hell yes. (that 10
second boot time is, of course, after post :). Im just saying that for me,
all those bugs i listed pissed me off enough to switch over to xp. Right now
xp has the most up to date fixes to its core, and you're right, its probably
in fact slower. You never know, i may go back to 2k when sp3 comes out, but
for now, im running the most up-to-date, bug fixed 2k-based kernel. Also,
i'm a little shady, so i didnt b-b-buy xp (eek, i said the b-word). If i had
to spend the $$, i'd still be running 2k.
OK, now can we end this thing already??? (heh). I dont want some strange guy
coming after me at the next cincy event :P
Al

Allyn Malventano, ETC(SS), USN
87 Rieger GTO Scirocco 16v (daily driver, 170k, rocco #6) running - for now
87 Jetta 8v Wolfsburg 2dr (daily driver, 260k, 0 rattles, original clutch,
driveshafts, wheels :)


----- Original Message -----
From: "L. M. Lloyd" <ubik@austin.rr.com>
To: "Allyn" <amalventano1@home.com>; <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WWOT] XP??? (xp vs. 2k)


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > [mailto:owner-scirocco-l@scirocco.org]On Behalf Of Allyn
> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:26 PM
> > To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > Subject: Re: [WWOT] XP??? (xp vs. 2k)
> >
> >
> > Dont take this wrong, but have you actually run xp yourself? I
> > dont mean for
> > 5 minutes, i mean full time.
> >
>
>
> No, I don't run XP full time, we just had it here on a test machine.
> Of course, I don't drive a VR6 full time either, yet I could still
> notice a speed difference after just a test drive.
>
>
> >     I dunno what to tell you, from my standpoint (not office
> > benchmark numbers), its faster, and also got rid of alot of
> > annoying problems. These are all things i have experienced first
> > hand, some are documented  in my own
> > personal bug list, and have been submitted (by me) to microsoft via
> > bug reports to the ms beta test newsgroup, not read from anywhere
> > else:
> >
> > First, the general stuff:
> > - Boot time on mine is less than 10 seconds with xp, where it was
> > >1 minute
> > with 2k.
>
>
> Wow, what MB do you have? My MBs practically take more than 10sec to
> get through POST.
>
>
> > - Compressing divx movies occurs at the same speed it did with
> > 2k. This is a
> > true demonstration of raw thread processing ability.
>
> It is no surprise they are both using the same core.
>
>
> > - From a ui 'feel', it just feels like its running faster. Windows
> > appear faster, etc. Might be just me, but who knows.
> >
>
>
> If you go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER:Control Panel:Desktop In the registry,
> you can change the settings to make window performance instantaneous.
>
>
> > Now for some bugs with 2k:
> > - Windows 2000 had problems with its ntvdm implementation. This
> > would lead to waiting 3-4 minutes for a 16 bit installshield to
> > initialize in some cases (something that should take a second or
> > 2). XP doesnt do this. (this happened to me on 2 seperate clean
> > installs of 2k-sp2). This bug is recognized and it was determined
> > that it was beyond the scope of a service pack for win2k.
>
>
> I have never actually done a 16 bit install in NT2K, but I believe
> this is a known issue with InstallShield. However, the only reason XP
> solves this problem, is because all XP installs must call MSI for
> installation. Now, I am sure this is a debatable point, but I for one
> do not think it is an improvement when MS solves a problem by saying
> "well, you can only use our installer, and that's that!"
>
>
> > - 2k had problems with severe hard drive thrashing upon boot after
> > a crash that corrupted the swap file, this meant 2k had to rebuild
> > it after boot. This would cause a 1-2 minute lag (after boot)
> > before the os was usable (explorer wouldnt open until it was done).
> > This also doesnt happen in xp. (this happened on my system as well
> > as to a friend of mine). I got no response on this one, may be
> > fixed in sp3.
>
> I can't really comment on this one, because I only use SCSI hard
> drives, and this is something that is reportedly a problem with
> non-RAID IDE. I have never seen NT2K do this personally. However, I
> think it is a bit early to assume that this problem has completely
> gone away, just because MS says it has with XP.
>
>
>
> > - 2k had a problem where it would 'forget' which hardware
> > configuration was
> > correct if you used the 'use last known good configuration'. This
> > would put
> > it in a loop where it would boot with one set of registry
> > settings, but save
> > them to an alternate set upon shutdown. This meant that until you
> > could 'snap it out of it', any windows settings that were altered
> > simply went away
> > the next time you booted. (this happened to me on 2 separate
> > clean installs
> > of 2k-sp2). This is supposed to be fixed in sp3.
> >
>
>
> I have never seen this problem on any of the 11 NT2K systems I have
> on my WAN so I can only assume it is an intermittent or rare problem,
> to which I can only say that just because MS claims it is fixed, does
> not mean it is really fixed. Why don't you give XP a little time to
> prove itself before you just accept MS's word that it fixes every
> problem any MS OS has ever had.
>
>
> > Now for the really annoying things that put a thorn in my side:
> > - Windows 2000 had severe problems with driver support:
>
> Here is a short list of hardware I personally have never seen any
> problem getting to work with NT2K:
>
> Wacom Intous or Graphire digitizer tablet
> DPS PVR professional video capture board
> Spaceball 2002 six axis 3D controller
> StarTrack wireless motion capture controller
> Plextor CDR
> HP scanner
> Roland MDX-15 3D CNC milling machine
> Dex Drive Playstation memory card reader
> Lexmark Z42 color inkjet printer
> Roland Hi-Fi Jet Pro museum quality large format printer
> SGI flat panel 16X10 aspect ratio display
> all Nvidia graphic cards
> Truevision Targa display card
> Soundblaster Live and Live Platinum
> Panasonic DVDR
> Optibase MPEG2 real-time capture card.
>
>
> Here is all the hardware I have had problems getting to work in NT2K:
>
> Kensington Mouse
> Bottom of the line Lexmark Printers
> Handspring Visor
>
> Now, this seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say that NT2K has
> SERIOUS problems with driver support. I have seen some pretty quirky
> equipment that works just fine with NT2K.
>
>
> > -- First example being a diamond modem: i emailed diamond asking
> > when drivers for win2k will come out, all i got back was 'our modem
> > is a home product, and windows 2000 support will not be recognized
> > by us'.
>
>
> So are you trying to say that every device that has ever been made,
> or any device that will ever be made, is automatically supported by
> XP? Because I don't really see how the functioning of one particular
> modem by one rather unknown (in the modem market) company is
> particularly indicative of any major improvement in the OS itself.
>
>
> > -- Second is an even better example: it only took creative labs 2-3
> > months to release drivers for windows 2000, and only 1 year or so
> > before those drivers were updated to ones that worked properly. The
> > early drivers didnt even support the game oriented surround
> > features of the card. This very thing is the reason i no longer use
> > a sound blaster live.
>
> What are you talking about? The week NT2K came out I had my
> SoundBlaster live working properly. I simply do not know what
> problems you are complaining about that supposedly stuck around for
> an entire year!
>
>
> > -- Third: This applies to many other manufacturers who have 'blown
> > off' making windows 2000 drivers. Now they must, as they have no
> > choice. XP is coming on most new pcs. If these hardware guys are to
> > stay affloat, they must finally support drivers for the 2000/xp
> > kernel.
>
> And this is a reason to run XP?
>
>
> > - Win2k also had severe problems with game support. Now granted
> > that many games would run under 2k, some didnt work properly, and
> > some others werent supported under 2k even if they did work. The
> > fact that new pcs are coming with xp will force these jokers to
> > support the kernel as well.
> >
>
> I would never question that MS's "support our product or else"
> tactics are effective, but this is hardly an affirmation of XP's
> superiority over NT2K, it is just a statement of MS business tactics.
> What is your point?
>
>
>
> > XP may be slower in some office-benchmark, but i'll gladly exchange
> > the fixes/improvements done with windows xp for microsoft word
> > taking  %13 longer
> > to put the word "The" on my screen.
> >
>
> I am not really basing my estimation of speed on office benchmarks, I
> am basing it on render logs from Alias|Wavefront Maya render farms.
> You might well not mind waiting an extra 13% longer to have the word
> "The" put on your screen, but I do mind waiting 13% longer for a 20
> minute animation to render when $30,000 is on the line if we don't
> get it finished this weekend. The difference between 10 minutes a
> frame and 11.3 minutes a frame can really add up when you are
> rendering 28,800 frames! That is a difference of 20 machine days!
>
>
> I have been working professionally with MS OSs since before Windows
> ever came out, and every time they release a new OS I see this same
> thing. I am glad you are happy with XP. I just know from long hard
> experience that soon enough the honeymoon will end and people will go
> right back to hating it just like every other MS OS. I am glad that
> you are satisfied with paying $100 for what amounts to a GUI update
> for NT2K, but please don't try to pass off this attitude that I just
> don't know what I am talking about if I don't admit the obvious
> superiority of XP. I am not a kid playing games here, I am running
> very serious apps with very serious hardware, on very tight
> deadlines, in a multiplatform environment, having to trade files
> between NT and IRIX, and utilize specialty, if not custom made
> hardware. I cannot afford to switch OSs because someone says that XP
> "feels" faster. I have to go by the numbers, and the numbers quite
> frankly aren't there.
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBO/CYqgO3tw2TqB1hEQJnTACeIr6oZSTugTnwlEVHq+h7bae7eAEAnRB/
> mAoGUZHvKeIF7T4wS0YdDbY+
> =D+WT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
> To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to
majordomo@scirocco.org
>


--
Email LIST problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org.
To unsubscibe send "unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to majordomo@scirocco.org