Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Sep 2005 11:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 34031
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Re: here we go again
by Who is That on Tue 20th Sep 2005 15:55
in reply to "RE[2]: Re: here we go again"
RE[3]: Re: here we go again
by captain_knobjockey on Tue 20th Sep 2005 15:57
in reply to "RE[2]: Re: here we go again"
the point he was making was this....
2k is far more stable on the SAME HARDWARE as other versions of windows. so yes, it is more tolerant...
but the myth was that WHITE-BOX x86 machines are all too unstable
it is not the hardware, it is the OS
BTW - I have had more lock-ups with OSx Tiger than I have had with windows XP.
RE[4]: Re: here we go again
by Who is That on Tue 20th Sep 2005 18:15
in reply to "RE[3]: Re: here we go again"
RE[4]: Re: here we go again
by lucas on Tue 20th Sep 2005 23:33
in reply to "RE[3]: Re: here we go again"
if you're happy to deal with corrupt memory/audio/video because the os will tolerate it, go ahead, be my guest. I'd rather be aware my shit was dodgy and go about fixing it.
you're running a goddamn beta on different hardware than was intended and comparing it to xp? thats a laugh







Member since:
2005-07-08
win2000 is the most stable, hardly ever crashing... but the same machines always crash with XP and ME...
...and what do you think that indicates? windows2k is more tolerant of bad hardware/drivers. myth my ass