windows xp

[tomazane]

I was curious to know why so many people use windows xp
when it is more proned to crash than most other versions
of windows?

 

[David Robbins]

I was curious to know why so many people use windows xp
when it is more proned to crash than most other versions
of windows?

where did you get your statistics on crash proneness?? i have observed xp
to be much more stable than all previous windows versions under normal
office and home use as well as in developing and testing software.

 

[Marc Reynolds [MSFT]]

In my experience XP is much more stable that previous Windows Home operating
systems (95, 98, 98 SE, ME).
Are you having an issue with XP that we could help you with? PLease give us
details.

--

Thanks,
Marc Reynolds
Microsoft Technical Support

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[jazz]

i'm not sure what your definition of stable is but windows 2000 is the most
stable microsoft os as of yet. althoug all other operating systems with good
hardware, and proper setup will be verry stable. i have windows 95 boxes
still in use that go without a reboot for over a week at a time and no blue
screens or errors durring use.

as for the original post and a generalization windows xp is more stable to
the novice user than windows 95/98/me but not as far as windoes 2000 is
concerned. this might be because of the lack of multimedia support included
into win2000 by default. xp is more geared as an all around (even the pro
edition) were 2000 leaves alot of that junk out untill needed. the result
is a somewhat slower gaming experience but most people won't be able to
tell.

windows XP also hides crashes and error's from the general user. it will at
times reboot instead of displaying a usfull message that can indecate
problems elsewere like hardware going bad or set improperly.

 

[x]

i'm not sure what your definition of stable is but windows 2000 is the most
stable microsoft os as of yet. althoug all other operating systems with good
hardware, and proper setup will be verry stable. i have windows 95 boxes
still in use that go without a reboot for over a week at a time and no blue
screens or errors durring use.

I'm not sure what your definition of "most other versions of Windows" is,
but Windows 2000 is only one version. The original poster implies that at
least three of the following: Win 3.1, Win95, Win98 AND Win2K, are more
stable than WinXP, and this is simply not true.

as for the original post and a generalization windows xp is more stable to
the novice user than windows 95/98/me but not as far as windoes 2000 is
concerned.

Right, but as for the original post, it never once mentioned Windows 2000.
It simply mentioned "most other versions of Windows". Again, Windows 2000 is
definitely NOT "most other versions of Windows".


--
x

"being the smartest window-licker on the shortbus doesn't make you a genius"
By the way, I'm petty and snide.

Dumbass Dentistry -
it's all fun and games until vegetation starts growing in someone's
pulmonary valved conduit.

 

[jazz]

I'm not sure what your definition of "most other versions of Windows" is,
but Windows 2000 is only one version. The original poster implies that at
least three of the following: Win 3.1, Win95, Win98 AND Win2K, are more
stable than WinXP, and this is simply not true.

the responce i was replying to said ALL versions of windows. that is were
the point of attention was being called to. i'l quote from him.

"i have observed xp
to be much more stable than all previous windows versions under normal
office and home use as well as in developing and testing software"

you are correct in that it doesn't specifically say windows 2000 but it
definatly would be included in the word ALL.
then again i would like to point out that when using good hardware and
having the proper drivers installed with maybe some other setings. all the
previous versions of windows can be just as stable. instability tends to
come from cheap or poorly desinged hardware, lack of suficient memory, and
you get the point.

Right, but as for the original post, it never once mentioned Windows 2000.
It simply mentioned "most other versions of Windows". Again, Windows 2000 is
definitely NOT "most other versions of Windows".

once again you noticed that the original poster did not include the words
windows 2000 and you automatically asume that it doesn't include windows
2000 because the word most doesn't have the words windows 2000 in there.
when in fact i may have writen a confusing sentence, the

"as for the original post and a generalization, windows xp is more stable to
the novice user than windows 95/98/me but not as far as windows 2000 is
concerned."

is actually suppose to be a reference to windows xp is more stable than
windows 95/98/me. i'm not sure it is more stable than 3.1 because of the
linitations that 3.1 had wich would limit the functionality that causes most
of the stability problem seen today.

when you are refering to an os that has a kernel base primarily consisting
of the nt/2000 core then any reference to that os would need to have that
core in the list of "most other" when comparing, otherwise it would be like
comparing a car with a hourse and buggy. (2 different forms of
transportation but both will get the job done in thier own way.)

 

[x]

news:lVovb.1086$IC%[email protected]...

when you are refering to an os that has a kernel base primarily consisting
of the nt/2000 core then any reference to that os would need to have that
core in the list of "most other" when comparing, otherwise it would be like
comparing a car with a hourse and buggy. (2 different forms of
transportation but both will get the job done in thier own way.)

And if you think novice and/or even the average user will know or care about
the nt/200 core vs. the previous, you're giving them far too much credit.
The average user has no clue of the fundamental differences between the
versions of Windows. Except perhaps the huge leap in visuals from 3.1 to 95
and up. When I talk to the average joe, they generally don't know nor care
what version of Windows they are running. They just know it's Windows. So,
no to the average joe, it's nothing like comparing a horse and buggy. It's
more like comparing a poorly maintained, but visually pleasing (you know,
the fact that the floorboards are rusted through is covered by the floor
mats, and all the bondo is well hidden by that $250 MAACO paint job) 73
Stingray to a well maintained, and impeccibly clean 73 Stingray. They know
there's a difference, but they still basically look like the same car.


--
x

"being the smartest window-licker on the shortbus doesn't make you a genius"
By the way, I'm petty and snide.

Dumbass Dentistry -
it's all fun and games until vegetation starts growing in someone's
pulmonary valved conduit.

 

[jazz]

And if you think novice and/or even the average user will know or care about
the nt/200 core vs. the previous, you're giving them far too much credit.
The average user has no clue of the fundamental differences between the
versions of Windows. Except perhaps the huge leap in visuals from 3.1 to 95
and up. When I talk to the average joe, they generally don't know nor care
what version of Windows they are running. They just know it's Windows. So,

well i would definatly think the acerage user know what version of windowsx
they are running. and the average windows xp user would know that it is
built on 2000/nt technoligy. micrisift has iunvested some serious
advertising in making that fact know as well as several manufacturers. try
walking through a best buy or some other national retail store and they all
say windows xp (built on windows 2000/nt technoligy) in the features list.
microsoft has aired compercials on techtv about how much better windows xp
is because of their nt technoligy.


you know as far as nitpicking the analigy, well you can make the point
however you want but, the facts remain. the base is different, the
maintinence is diferent, the way they are serviced is diferent, the 2
products are totaly diferent but offer the same basic functions.

now analizing you basic argument (or point of discusion) your not
disagreeing that windows 2000 is the most stable os microsoft has offered.
you also seem to agree that windows xp apears to be more stable than windows
95/98/me. further your point is basically the people "you talk to" couln't
tell the diference in what version of windows they were running. i think the
last point needs little credence when you signiture contain remarks about
how knowlegable you are with the kids that ride the short bus. because you
hang out with a bunch of handycapped-mentaly challenged people doesn't mean
that everyone is. actually the averag person would know what they just spent
thier money on. they would know what was being advertised to them (wether or
not they uunderstood the advertiseing) and to this point i must say get away
from the short bus. open your eyes and see that not everyone is a mentaly
deprived fool with little chance of unsupervised existance in society. if
you do this corectly it shouldm't damage your image of self superiority that
much.

 

[Leythos]

I was curious to know why so many people use windows xp
when it is more proned to crash than most other versions
of windows?

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and hope this is not just
flame bait - Windows XP Prof has been more stable for all of our
workstations that Windows 2000 Prof - W2K was many, many, many times
more stable that Win NT or Win 98.

 

[x]

well i would definatly think the acerage user know what version of windowsx
they are running.

And you would be wrong. I could conduct a scientific poll, and prove it, but
I don't have to. The average computer user doesn't know nor care
specifically what operating system they are running, and I guarantee the
average user has no idea about the differences in the underlying
architecture between Windows versions.

and the average windows xp user would know that it is
built on 2000/nt technoligy.

No, they wouldn't.

micrisift has iunvested some serious
advertising in making that fact know as well as several manufacturers. try
walking through a best buy or some other national retail store and they all
say windows xp (built on windows 2000/nt technoligy) in the features

list.

Very few people read that, and/or care after they get the machine home.
Three months down the road they are not going to remember the specifics of
the features list that they may or may not have read in the store.

microsoft has aired compercials on techtv about how much better windows xp
is because of their nt technoligy.

And how many average people watch "TechTV"? It's a purely digital channel.

you know as far as nitpicking the analigy, well you can make the point
however you want but, the facts remain. the base is different, the
maintinence is diferent, the way they are serviced is diferent, the 2
products are totaly diferent but offer the same basic functions.

Nitpicking the analogy my ass. When you say "All versions of Windows", the
underlying architecture means shit.

That would be like saying "I think Red Hat Linux is the best OS there is,
and when someone says, well, I think Mac OS X is, you butt in and say,
"Well, I think you can tell that they MEANT to say i think Red Hat Linux is
the best open-source Unix-based operating System, and I agree."

now analizing you basic argument (or point of discusion) your not
disagreeing that windows 2000 is the most stable os microsoft has offered.
you also seem to agree that windows xp apears to be more stable than windows
95/98/me. further your point is basically the people "you talk to" couln't
tell the diference in what version of windows they were running. i think the
last point needs little credence when you signiture contain remarks about
how knowlegable you are with the kids that ride the short bus. because you
hang out with a bunch of handycapped-mentaly challenged people doesn't mean
that everyone is.

Right, and your misunderstanding of the sig shows just exactly how retarded
you really are.
I've been involve in tech support/Windows-based software development for
over 12 years, and over that time, I know what I've encountered when it
comes to the average user. How many "average users" do you speak to in a
day, and in what context. ANYONE WHO WATCHES TECHTV IS NOT AN AVERAGE USER.

actually the averag person would know what they just spent
thier money on.

No, they wouldn't.

they would know what was being advertised to them (wether or
not they uunderstood the advertiseing)

No, they wouldn't.

Case in point:

Extreme's song "More Than Words". Came out when I was in High School. Huge
hit, especially with the chicks, because it was such a lovely rock ballad.
Until i pointed out to them that the entire message of the song was, "Hey,
don't tell me you love me, F$#k me, then I'll know it for sure."

and to this point i must say get away
from the short bus. open your eyes and see that not everyone is a mentaly
deprived fool with little chance of unsupervised existance in society. if
you do this corectly it shouldm't damage your image of self superiority that
much.

I don't think there's any danger of damaging my self-image, especially if
you're the unarmed person I'm having the battle of wits with.

By the way, you really ought to get a news-reader with spellcheck. Or, if
you have one, you really ought to set it to check automatically. It might
help your cause when you're trying to come across as someone who knows what
they're talking about. Well, okay, it wouldn't, but you would look like less
of an idiot.


--
x

"being the smartest window-licker on the shortbus doesn't make you a genius"
By the way, I'm petty and snide.

Dumbass Dentistry -
it's all fun and games until vegetation starts growing in someone's
pulmonary valved conduit.