Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Mar 2009 20:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 351891
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[4]: "Tagets" hu? that is confusing ;)
by cmost on Thu 5th Mar 2009 23:07
in reply to "RE[3]: "Tagets" hu? that is confusing ;)"
What makes Windows XP's kernel worse than 2000? Please enlighten, because from where I sit, XP is a much better-looking target. It had (and still has) much better driver support than any other version of Windows, and thus I believe it would have been the best place to settle when targetting a specific kernel.
Keep in mind that the userland-side is an entirely different topic here - and I would agree that the Windows 2000 GUI was the last version I preferred using. But let's not mince this discussion by extending the very confusion that this article is about by talking about the UI/userland vs. the kernel.
Keep in mind that the userland-side is an entirely different topic here - and I would agree that the Windows 2000 GUI was the last version I preferred using. But let's not mince this discussion by extending the very confusion that this article is about by talking about the UI/userland vs. the kernel.
I agree with you. XP is a rock solid OS. But, I was speaking of Window 2000's userland / user experience (which I prefer even to this day over XP's, when I'm forced to use Windows - I'm a Linux guy.) :-)




Member since:
2006-01-26
Personally, I think only the kernel target matters in these debates...
Well, we all know now that Win98 would have been a pretty sorry kernel to support... Moving to NT4 was the only logical choice once that realization was met.
As pointed out, Server 2003 kernel is just an evolution of the NT5.x kernel (that Windows 2000 was also based on) - so they're really not all that far from the original goal...
What makes Windows XP's kernel worse than 2000? Please enlighten, because from where I sit, XP is a much better-looking target. It had (and still has) much better driver support than any other version of Windows, and thus I believe it would have been the best place to settle when targetting a specific kernel.
Keep in mind that the userland-side is an entirely different topic here - and I would agree that the Windows 2000 GUI was the last version I preferred using. But let's not mince this discussion by extending the very confusion that this article is about by talking about the UI/userland vs. the kernel.