Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (
More info?)
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:11:50 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony writes:
>
>> Why would you want XP at all then?
>
>XP was on the shelf at the computer store when I built my PC. My only
>requirement was that I have a version of Windows based on NT (i.e.,
>not Windows 9x or any of that junk), and since XP was what they were
>selling, that's what I bought. The machine it replaced also had a
>pre-installed version of XP Home on it (which I again received by
>default, because all machines were shipping with that), so it only
>made sense to keep the same OS.
Let me restate what I wrote- I meant XP Pro, when I had
assumed OP had XP Home, or 2K, some Windows OS already. I
wasn't trying to make some kind of reject-Windows argument.
>
>> Different between 2K and XP is bound to be less than between
>> either and Vista.
>
>Maybe, although I don't see the significance of this since I've never
>run Windows 2000 at home.
.... only that whatever OP is already using, the benefit must
be weighed against cost, and/or, what alternate benefit
could be had for same expense since ultimately there is
usually a budget of some kind.
>
>> True, there's the original issue of SMP support, BUT many apps
>> don't even benefit much from that... particularly when
>> performance issues are offset by other potential upgrades
>> possible by spending purchase price of XP on more (or
>> faster) hardware.
>
>The individual applications don't benefit from it, but sometimes the
>system as a whole does. In particular, it keeps most individual
>applications from locking up the system.
??
That should not happen on a single NT CPU system either, one
should replace the app if this problem is seen.
>
>> True, and yet it can only be seen in a limited context since
>> people do buy new systems and even going to XP Pro is in
>> itself an upgrade.
>
>They only install new operating systems when they buy new systems
>because the old operating systems are no longer sold.
Agreed, but in this case we have insufficient info to
determine the OP's future plans.
>
>Make no mistake: the sole purpose of Microsoft Vista is to maintain
>Microsoft's revenue flow, because its business model (like that of
>almost every other microcomputer software company) depends heavily on
>selling new perpetual licenses at regular, frequent intervals. You
>should not assume that Vista brings anything to the end user at all.
I don't assume XP brings much to the end user either, but
even so, I do expect Vista to still be more different than
XP, than XP was to 2K... so to that extent it would depend
more on whether Vista turns out to be desirable at all...
and how buggy initially... that's one thing XP certainly has
going for it as it has matured, at least relative to an OS
not even released yet.