Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (
More info?)
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:24:41 -0400, gopostal
<agutgopostal@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:07:30 +0100, "Vimes"
><amletford@blueyonder.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Got both xp and zip version (just the two maps) on my site abovce- found
>>them within minutes of atari releasing them as i was disgusted @ this
>>collusion. XP suks and is waaay 2 resource hungry for a serious gamer with
>>an average machine - most are spending money on ram and graphics cards just
>>to play 2k4 adequately - not xp!
>>
>>atari - that suks - game rocks tho
>>
>>Vimes
>>The City Watch
>>DiscWorld Themed ut and ut2k4 clan
>>[TCW] PUBLIC UT2004 ONSLAUGHT SERVER :: ut2k4://212.42.10.169:28476 ::
>>#tcw.2k4bot
>>
>
>Dude, I got to disagree with you there. I've found XP to be quite
>stable and solid as a platform. Of course I took the time to learn all
>the services and disable the ones I don't need/use. Once the "fat" is
>trimmed away, you are left with a great OS. Maybe not as good as the
>Linux guys like to think theirs is, but the learning curve is not
>nearly as steep.
gopostal,
re-read his post. He does not question the stability of xp, just the
performance, on an average computer. Case in point, a customer brings
me a Dell, runing P4 3Ghz, with XP Home. Had an old dos program, that
was mission critical to her daily business operations, wouldn't run,
so went back with 98SE. System load time, to an active desktop, ready
to run software dropped from 3 minutes 12 seconds, down to 22 seconds.
TechTV Screensavers did a side by side compare of XP and 2000, and
found that 80% of the core files in 2000 exist in XP. The eyecandy
and some new features, such as built in ppoe client, and firewall, imo
do not merit the size increase in hd space, or performance penalties.
Another bit of irony, my 2000 Pro will detect, and use the 64 bit
processors from Intel and AMD, but XP will not. Instead, Microshit
says you must wait on the 64 bit versions of XP to eploit the new
processors. XP will not allow motherboard upgrades either, as that
makes the hardware key that is generated from the original install
invalid, and causes the customer to have to call microshit to get
authorized again. I know this, as I have done motherboard upgrades of
older, slower systems, and had to deal with this issue. Interesting
to note, that the 2003 windows that is newly out, looks closer to 2000
out of the box, and does not have the eyecandy. Wonder why they got
rid of it? Of course, this is all my own thoughts, and should not be
regarded as an attack on anyone.
[Eagle]GreatWing
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram