Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberxxx
It will kill XP even on a new hardware. The only reason I moved to XP is that Win2k is no longer supported. In all other cases Win2k is much better.
|
Which cases? Please explain in detail. Windows 2000 isn't "much better" than XP, it's pretty much the same fucking thing. XP was Microsoft's way of introducing the NT kernel to the masses after testing the waters with 2000 Professional.
I wouldn't be sitting here typing this in windows XP if windows 2000 was anything special, turn off all the fucking eye candy and XP and 2000 are pretty much indistinguishable from one and other. As far as kernel level things go, if anything has been slowed down in XP it's due to security additions/fixes, and we're talking a few hundred cps, not anything drastic like you are implying.
So please, I'm really interested in hearing what's so much faster/better in 2k than in XP. I want to know what I am missing.
Quote:
|
LOL, dude I was working as a senior developer during 5 years (low-level MS-DOS and Windows programming). I know much more than you think, and I know much more than I can say here. I was working on 3rd-party tools for m$ .NET when it was known to a limited group of developers as the "Lightning" project, and was under Microsoft NDA for years. I know very well how exactly all the Windows OS's work on a core level. You may disagree with my point of view, but you can't call me an ignorant person when we are talking about m$ operating systems
|
What languages? What kind of tools? Is there a lot of lowlevel MSDOS programming in Windows 2k? You're dropping this in here like a guy whipping his cock out to compare it to everyone elses, so why not spill the beans. I assume by low level you are talking assembler, I'm game, speak to me. Tell me how windows XP and 2000 differ on a "core level".