MetalManCPA
Papa Opeth
Originally posted by Opth_001
I have an answer for everyone . . . buy a Macintosh
I thought you could only eat an apple - you can compute with them also?
Windows XP
- Thread starter SentencedToBurn
- Start date
I thought you could only eat an apple - you can compute with them also?
Opth_001
Space the final frontier
Originally posted by metalmancpa
I thought you could only eat an apple - you can compute with them also?
YEAH and they come in may differnt colors
XP is slower than '98, but in most applications it is neck and neck with 2000. It is definitely more compatible with games and hardware than 2000, and you can change the interface to look like '98 or 2000. I also got a hacked copy. XP doesn't require activation if you have a volume license serial number, which are available on the net. They don't track your online activity unless you use Passport (connects Messenger, Hotmail, IE, etc together), and you can use windows update, it doesn't check your license number or anything. I can understand why people wouldn't like it, but for me it has been extremely stable, not any less responsive than '98, and I like some of the new features (driver rollback is damn sweet if you ever update drivers). It does require more time to configure properly (i.e. disabling unnecessary services, uninstalling Windows Messenger, resetting the Interface so it looks good, etc), but I'm definitely gonna stick with it. I've tried Linux, but it just isn't usable enough. They should try descriptive program names and easy driver installation (besides the fact there are hardly any games available for Linux and WINE isn't really a good answer). Never tried OS X, but I've hated previous Mac OS's. I wanted to try out BeOS, but it didn't work on my system for some reason (it installed, but when I booted to it, it said it couldn't find the install). Haven't tried SkyOS, AtheOS, or any of the hundreds of others.
Those are my opinions as a computer nut, professional programmer, and experienced hardware tech. As for the person with the p4, p4's are slower than p3's and athlons. A p4-1600 is about equivalent to a p3-1200 or an athlon-1100 in terms of real performance; that is more likely what is the problem than WinXP (which also contributes, but not as much as the processor). Also, if you're testing game performance, most p4 configs come with crappy video cards to offset the huge price of the p4 and RDRAM.
Those are my opinions as a computer nut, professional programmer, and experienced hardware tech. As for the person with the p4, p4's are slower than p3's and athlons. A p4-1600 is about equivalent to a p3-1200 or an athlon-1100 in terms of real performance; that is more likely what is the problem than WinXP (which also contributes, but not as much as the processor). Also, if you're testing game performance, most p4 configs come with crappy video cards to offset the huge price of the p4 and RDRAM.
