noyou are wrong, XP is a significant improvement on ME, which is nothing more than a skin for 98.
(
Pootle,
Thu 4 Sep 2003, 14:04,
archived)
it's not.i run 2k pro on my desktop, and just got a laptop that came with XP home edition on it - would have preferred pro (I like pages of settings, not sodding "wizards"), but after making the buttons smaller and changing the Teletubby Land background (you must know the one I'm on about), it's no worse than 2k.
note: not better, just.. not worse.
(,
Thu 4 Sep 2003, 14:11,
archived)
note: not better, just.. not worse.
XP has worked on my old 500 Celeronfar better than anything previously, including Win2k.
I've been surprisingly happy with it (apart from it bluetooth suport which is laughable)
(I've been surprisingly happy with it (apart from it bluetooth suport which is laughable)
Pootle,
Thu 4 Sep 2003, 14:13,
archived)
plussome seemingly minor, but actual major changes that just bork up.
(
Darkedge,
Thu 4 Sep 2003, 14:08,
archived)
ActuallyI got the impression that ME was significantly worse than 98.
Win XP is actually stable and usable (i.e. what Windows 95 should have been)
(,
Thu 4 Sep 2003, 14:14,
archived)
Win XP is actually stable and usable (i.e. what Windows 95 should have been)
just in case anyone here cares...ME was a botched attempt at 98 without DOS underneath. XP, on the other hand, is based on the 2k (and earlier NT) code, which was never designed to run on top of DOS in the first place.
hence it's much cleaner, yet the claims of very old games not running well are probably true - DOS is emulated nowadays (a VM type thing), I think.
(,
Thu 4 Sep 2003, 14:19,
archived)
hence it's much cleaner, yet the claims of very old games not running well are probably true - DOS is emulated nowadays (a VM type thing), I think.