Wow XP Sucks...How to put win2k on a lappy?

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:02 pm

no OS since ME has had DOS in it last one was 98se...

Jim Z · Post by **Jim Z** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:23 pm

PRED: Oh I agree. Dunno what they do in XP that makes a difference but Win2K IS slow to boot by comparison.

XP overhauled the way services and devices are started on boot. 2k did this in a largely serial fashion (start one thing, then the next, then the next). XP does what tasks it can in parallel (while initializing the video driver, also renew DHCP address, for example). Thus, quicker boot.

I don't find XP and 2k to be all that different speed-wise, except for booting. They seem to have a similar memory footprint as well (~70 MB for a fresh install).

no OS since ME has had DOS in it last one was 98se...

ME was too, they just hid it as best they could.

Does it have anything to do with the fact that it doesn't rely on DOS to load the windows platform? Or is DOS still there?

No NT-based OS has had a shred of DOS in it, not NT 3.1, 3.5x, 4, 2000, or XP. They do have the capabiliy for DOS emulation through NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) but the core OS is thankfuly DOS-free.

Busby · Post by **Busby** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 9:05 am

Originally posted by Jim Z

ME was too, they just hid it as best they could.

Except that crashing b/c of DOS is hard to hide

No NT-based OS has had a shred of DOS in it, not NT 3.1, 3.5x, 4, 2000, or XP. They do have the capabiliy for DOS emulation through NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) but the core OS is thankfuly DOS-free.

Amen. Gotta love non-DOS kernels that are stable and run better and are genuine 32-bit code.

Saturn · Post by **Saturn** » Fri Nov 01, 2002 2:29 am

One problem I found with XP and IE closing was if you tried to run a java app without the JVM installed and recognized. Otherwise Xp has been more stable than 2k was but only XP PRO.