[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I doubt that if you run benchmark tests on XP on a PC and then run the same tests on Win2k that you would get better results from XP for run of the mill tests. I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if that was the case.

depends entirely on the machine. Win2k does not utilize a lot of modern hardware's speedier features. However, in terms of raw efficiency, and if it were updated to utilize modern hardware to the max, it would sink xp like an old battleship.

One OS back is almost always faster. Its generally speaking designed for slower hardware, but can still utilize most features. Its less bloated and faster. It has held true and makes sense. Win2k would show up poorer in a lot of benchmarks, because the hardware is from a different era, and is not really optimal for win2k. Memory handling is a spot where it would go to crap for instance.

However, everyone gave xp the same song and dance in 2001

[Bryan]

i had never thought about that before. and I remember the same song and dance, you could probably search the computers forum from way back then and find it some threads about it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Bryan

i had never thought about that before. and I remember the same song and dance, you could probably search the computers forum from way back then and find it some threads about it.

yeah, the older you get, the more history repeats itself... That said, I like Vista, a lot. IMO, much smoother and nicer to deal with than XP was originally. True, if I left that thing that asked me to approve everything 10 million times I think Id have blown up my laptop. But I turned it off, along with some unnecessary services and all is well and good. I even like Aero, I think it looks nice, and on my hardware, which is low grade but modern it runs without a hitch and I seldom ever get lag when I am doing normal things.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

One OS back is almost always faster. Its generally speaking designed for slower hardware, but can still utilize most features. Its less bloated and faster. It has held true and makes sense.

One exception. Linux.

I guess I get so used to the modularity of Linux that I forget how static other OS's are. I can swap my kernel out on a whim, or install and run another Desktop Environment with a few commands. And for old hardware? No need to drop versions -- just install light-weight software.

[+SEAL+]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

However, everyone gave xp the same song and dance in 2001

Indeed. But it's a crucial difference: this is truly the Internet era. There's tons more Internet buzz this time around, six years later. And that could be the deciding factor with regards to Vista.

Me, I'll just sit back and wait for the fixed version to come around.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by +SEAL+

Indeed. But it's a crucial difference: this is truly the Internet era. There's tons more Internet buzz this time around, six years later. And that could be the deciding factor with regards to Vista.

Me, I'll just sit back and wait for the fixed version to come around.

So long as Microsoft retains its hold on the people, they will upgrade sooner or later. Certainly, some people are still using '98, but you don't see anyone recommending it.

It's all just a drama that'll fade away. Could Vista have a bad legacy? Sure. Could it still have a good one? I don't see why not.

[Mathijs]

Originally Posted by tht00

One exception. Linux.

I guess I get so used to the modularity of Linux that I forget how static other OS's are. I can swap my kernel out on a whim, or install and run another Desktop Environment with a few commands. And for old hardware? No need to drop versions -- just install light-weight software.

Nah, linux gets more bloated too. There just is no whining about it.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by Mathijs

Nah, linux gets more bloated too. There just is no whining about it.

Care to back that up?

Newer kernels contain better hardware support (including legacy support) and occasionally contain optimizations (such as the new Completely Fair Scheduler).

If you're talking DE's, sure, there'll be some bloat. Gnome and KDE occasionally grow in size, but it's not like you have to use them. Xfce is a powerful desktop environment built for speed. Fluxbox/Openbox/etc are faster alternatives yet.

The argument I'm making is that there is no need to install a 10 year old OS on old hardware, especially when looking at Linux -- in all regards, the newest versions of Linux are bester suited for old hardware than old versions of Linux.

[Mathijs]

Originally Posted by tht00

Care to back that up?
If you're talking DE's, sure, there'll be some bloat. Gnome and KDE occasionally grow in size, but it's not like you have to use them.

Yeah, thats what I meant. For more novice computer-users you're pretty much stuck with those anyway.

Originally Posted by tht00

The argument I'm making is that there is no need to install a 10 year old OS on old hardware, especially when looking at Linux -- in all regards, the newest versions of Linux are bester suited for old hardware than old versions of Linux.

True, point taken. However, there is no such thing as a pure 'windows kernel' that gets updated. There is no real comparison.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by Mathijs

Yeah, thats what I meant. For more novice computer-users you're pretty much stuck with those anyway.

True. Linux is easiest to learn using KDE or Gnome. They just have many great tools at their disposal.. and you aren't exposed to Linux's framework so soon.

Originally Posted by Mathijs

True, point taken. However, there is no such thing as a pure 'windows kernel' that gets updated. There is no real comparison.

And thus, why I noted Linux as an exception.