Evangelion said:
Plenty of people ran NT on their desktops.
Admission of your mistakes is a good step in becoming a better person.
Key word being DESKTOPS.
MP machines were server based long before they were included in desktops. I'd like to see where people had dual Xeon based DESKTOPS 'cause I've never seen it. It's not impossible but it's also not a good cost-based answer either.
😛
drsmithy said:
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
I never said otherwise.
The hardware they run on is where it differentiates.
Most people/corporations run server-based OS on servers and workstation-based OS on desktops (or "workstations" in the business world). It's not impossible to run a server OS on a desktop or a workstation OS on a server but it is incredibly stupid.
drsmithy said:
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
JeffDM said:
Bad dual core support? Citations please. I think this is a case where a Mac fan is simply speaking out of ignorance of their "enemy" platform.
I erronously bundled in "dual core" with "sketchy 64-bit support". Don't know why. From what I hear, 64-bit support in XP64 is sketchy because of device driver issues (and drivers not being natively 64-bit). I don't have any true 'dual core' systems myself but my P4 3.0C HT works fine in XP Pro. I apologize for lumping in "dual core" in.
drsmithy said:
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
User Account Protection is a big change. I've seen the list of "new features" and it doesn't do anything for me. UAP is nice...it's just really late. I'm sure there's changes "under the hood" like the ones implemented in XP sp2 to prevent buffer/stack overflows, etc. and I'm sure that's what you're referring to.
brianus said:
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to
hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.
Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems
do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.
