Well, duh... a lot of things don't seem innovative, *once you know how they work*. We can look back at a lot of inventions and discoveries and say to ourselves "well that was obvious". But was it, really? Easy to understand != easy to come up with.
You know the UI is skinnable, right? A Windows 2000 skin is included, if that's your preference.
The sluggishness you mention is due to the XP skin having more eye candy than the 2000 skin, and also some of the new visual effects that are possible (with any skin). You can turn all of this off and the UI is suddenly as fast as 2000. And other aspects of XP are as fast or faster than 2000. A good example is boot time, which has been cut dramatically.
DRM crap? Not sure what you are complaining about. Whatever they've added into the OS and/or WMP, it hasn't stopped me or even inconvenienced me from ripping music from CDs and downloading and playing illegal MP3s like I used to. Do you see this "DRM crap" actually affecting you in some way, or are you just objecting on moral grounds?
It tells you the first five times you log in that you can associate your account with MS Passport. After you do so, or after five logins, it stops. You're telling me this is a reason to avoid XP?
Don't know what auto-reminders specifically you mean, but yes, it does do a little more hand-holding for new accounts. It all goes away very quickly. Again, this is a reason to avoid XP?
So, you really haven't given any good reasons. Half of your reasons are misunderstood, and the other half are just trivial. I think improved reliability, security, performance, and compatibility are pretty good reasons to prefer XP. Anyway, if you aren't convinced, it's no skin off my back. If you stick with 2000 over XP, you are simply losing out.
I would say 2000, but I feel [XP is] still a superior OS
I've never understood this opinion. XP is the next version of Windows 2000. It offers a superset of Windows 2000's features plus better security, better performance, and better application compatibility. Seriously, what is the basis for this opinion? I just want to understand.
Hate to burst your bubble, but 64-bit versions of Windows go back at least as far back as 1996. NT 4.0 was available for 64-bit Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. Windows 2000, XP, and 2003 are available for 64-bit Itanium. What this article talks about is a port of XP to x86-64. MS calls this architecture "64-bit extended" since it is an extension to the existing x86 instruction set.
So no, it is not a dramatic "jump" for Microsoft; it's merely a port. It should actually be much easier for MS than for Sun, because MS designed Windows with support for many platforms in mind (think HAL).
What ads? There are no ads *at all* on the main page. Not one. When you click on an article title, it takes you to the actual article on the originating webserver, so there might be ads there; but it's beyond MSNBC's control at that point.
The internet browser and filesystem browser have not been integrated at all. IE is capable of browsing local directories and files, which is a useful feature (and one which all other browsers I know of have). It makes sense for the shell to just invoke IE to do file browsing, to avoid duplicating code. This in no way means that they're integrated. It's just code reuse.
If you want an analogy, think of using Elm/Mutt/whatever for your mail client. When you write a new mail, it launches Vi (say) to do the editing for you. Would you expect every app to have its own built-in text editor?
I see no problem calling IE to do local file browsing. It definitely doesn't preclude you from using any other browser for web browsing. It would be nice if you could specify a default application that the shell would call for file browsing though. That really wouldn't be too hard. It would default to IE, but the use could change it to Mozilla, or even some application that only does file browsing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, duh... a lot of things don't seem innovative, *once you know how they work*. We can look back at a lot of inventions and discoveries and say to ourselves "well that was obvious". But was it, really? Easy to understand != easy to come up with.
The sluggishness you mention is due to the XP skin having more eye candy than the 2000 skin, and also some of the new visual effects that are possible (with any skin). You can turn all of this off and the UI is suddenly as fast as 2000. And other aspects of XP are as fast or faster than 2000. A good example is boot time, which has been cut dramatically.
DRM crap? Not sure what you are complaining about. Whatever they've added into the OS and/or WMP, it hasn't stopped me or even inconvenienced me from ripping music from CDs and downloading and playing illegal MP3s like I used to. Do you see this "DRM crap" actually affecting you in some way, or are you just objecting on moral grounds?
It tells you the first five times you log in that you can associate your account with MS Passport. After you do so, or after five logins, it stops. You're telling me this is a reason to avoid XP?
Don't know what auto-reminders specifically you mean, but yes, it does do a little more hand-holding for new accounts. It all goes away very quickly. Again, this is a reason to avoid XP?
So, you really haven't given any good reasons. Half of your reasons are misunderstood, and the other half are just trivial. I think improved reliability, security, performance, and compatibility are pretty good reasons to prefer XP. Anyway, if you aren't convinced, it's no skin off my back. If you stick with 2000 over XP, you are simply losing out.
I've never understood this opinion. XP is the next version of Windows 2000. It offers a superset of Windows 2000's features plus better security, better performance, and better application compatibility. Seriously, what is the basis for this opinion? I just want to understand.
Is "wash the cat" a euphemism for "masturbate"?
Hate to burst your bubble, but 64-bit versions of Windows go back at least as far back as 1996. NT 4.0 was available for 64-bit Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. Windows 2000, XP, and 2003 are available for 64-bit Itanium. What this article talks about is a port of XP to x86-64. MS calls this architecture "64-bit extended" since it is an extension to the existing x86 instruction set. So no, it is not a dramatic "jump" for Microsoft; it's merely a port. It should actually be much easier for MS than for Sun, because MS designed Windows with support for many platforms in mind (think HAL).
What ads? There are no ads *at all* on the main page. Not one. When you click on an article title, it takes you to the actual article on the originating webserver, so there might be ads there; but it's beyond MSNBC's control at that point.
The internet browser and filesystem browser have not been integrated at all. IE is capable of browsing local directories and files, which is a useful feature (and one which all other browsers I know of have). It makes sense for the shell to just invoke IE to do file browsing, to avoid duplicating code. This in no way means that they're integrated. It's just code reuse. If you want an analogy, think of using Elm/Mutt/whatever for your mail client. When you write a new mail, it launches Vi (say) to do the editing for you. Would you expect every app to have its own built-in text editor? I see no problem calling IE to do local file browsing. It definitely doesn't preclude you from using any other browser for web browsing. It would be nice if you could specify a default application that the shell would call for file browsing though. That really wouldn't be too hard. It would default to IE, but the use could change it to Mozilla, or even some application that only does file browsing.
Don't forget 97. Why shout all the time?
Allow me to parody... Me: "type 'dir C colon backslash ...'"
Them: "Which one?"
Me: "C colon backslash ..."
Them: "Which colon?"
Me: "Colon"
Them: "Which one?"
Me: "Colon"
Them: "Semi-colon?"
Me: "Colon!" ;)