Question for Sefy ?

[patsym1]

With regards to some of the posts you have replied to lately Sefy, especially in regards to Win XP, you obviously don't like it, so being a curious so and so I was wondering what OS you personally use yourself. I hope you don't think i'm being to nosey, its just that ever since I upgraded to XP some programmes just don't work properly notably Tmpgenc, I was wondering what your thoughts where on this. One of the reasons I changed to XP was the NTFS file system (supposed to be better than FAT 32) now I read on some of the XP Forums that this may be the cause of most of the problems.



Regards: Patsym1

[Sefy]

No, I think it's only fair to ask, personaly I don't like any of the poor excuse for an OS made by M$, but as we don't have much choice at the moment, i've decided I'd use Windows98 Second Edition, as it's the last decent and most compatible of all the OS's currently available, i'm also using OS/2 Warp 4.51 as it offers compatibility with the main Windows Applications I use, the only reason it's not my default system is because it does not support my modem.

I'd like to point out that according to a market search done by NPDTechworld, Windows XP (the much bloated OS ever created!) is even after 2 months, been sold LESS then Windows98! and the only reason some copies were sold, is alot due to the fact it was being sold with alot of hardware, cause no human with a brain would buy the OS by itself, and as I do tend to back what I say, you can read about it for yourself:
http://computerworld.com/nlt/1%2C3590%2CNAV47_STO66892_NLTOS%2C00.html

[eyeofbeholder]

Sefy, I agree with your statement about not having much else of a choice. But, I think simply comparing sales figures between XP and 98 doesn't tell the whole story.

Windows 98 was the successor to Windows 95, which had been out for several years. Most people running Windows 95 upgraded from Windows 3.1, and, as everybody knows, upgrades stink. Thus, people were hungry for a newer OS that was based on a new OS. That's why Windows 98 took off the way it did.

Now for Windows XP. It's only been a couple years since Windows 2000 was released, and Windows 2000 is a very stable OS. There isn't that much new in XP, either inside or outside. Thus, there isn't much need for it.

You're correct about OEM sales, but that's what's offered today. You're also right about it being a hog for disk space. Again, Microsoft position is that disk space is inexpensive.

I'm not saying you're biased or anything. Just that you need to compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges.

eyeofbeholder

[Sefy]

Actually when it comes to Microsoft, I think sales figures tell alot, take for example Windows ME, have you seen as much publicity on it as Windows98 or XP ? no, because even they know it was a crappy OS!

Windows XP is ment to replace Windows98 as the home OS of choice, and sales being as low as they are, shows that most people don't find it to be a good choice.

Windows2000 was NOT ment for home usage from the start, it is specificly designed for the Workstation/Server environment.

Windows98 took off cause it got ALOT of publicity, the exact same reason why Windows95 took off, only because of publicity tricks, if you recall 95 came out earlier, cause they were pressed for time to make it into 95 or it would have come at 96, which the 95 OSR2.1 did, and that was the first decent 95 that actually was worth it.

The only diffrence between 2K and XP, is the fact that 2K has more compatibility then XP, it actually works!, XP is nothing more then a McDonald's User Interface

I may be biased, and I propably am, but trust me, it's not for any of the other Microsoft OS's, they are all crap, and not worth the money spend on them, especialy when we consider Microsoft wonderful support (do you have any for 95/98/Me/NT)

IBM still supports to this day with their OS/2 Warp 3 and 4, and they are 6 years old! with Linux, you get more support and you don't even pay for it.