From: H C <hccebay_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:31:13 -0800 (PST)

--- roland <for_spam_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> but - some of those crashes resulted in XP
> recognizing the
> crash and automatically switching to standard vga at
> 640x480 !
> and that`s a point where even linux can`t compete -
> at least
> i have seen several linux boxes crashed completely
> (no ping
> from network anymore) due to buggy
> Xserver/videodriver.

Roland, When I had an incompatible video driver in my
Linux box, not only did it crash when I ran Xserver,
but it crashed in such a way as to totally trash the
filesystem! Even the "journaling" ext3 did not help.
It resulted in may permanently damaged files until a
reinstall of the OS was required after about the 4th
crash.

After many reinstalls and a complete inability to find
a compatible video driver, I gave up. I now use that
Linux box as a "headless" server.

Don't get me wrong... I like Linux much, and certainly
prefer the Open Source concept, but the stability
"benefits" of Linux depend on a highly delicate match
of hardware and drivers that is very complicated to
work out, and that the standard installers don't
necessarily get right.

Some time later, I tried to switch to Linux on my
HTPC, but found that the Linux drivers for ATI
graphics cards disable the TV-Out jack as soon as you
start Xwindows. What good is this on an HTPC?
Apparently, a few hackers had overcome this obstacle
in private builds of the driver, but no one offered a
patch or shared the solution on the mailing lists.

So, I switched back to XP. The box has never crashed
as far as I can remember. Win XP + Girder + J.River
Media Center + SnapStream Beyond TV (formerly PVS) +
an IR remote or cordless keyboard makes one awesome
HTPC!!

Soundman

> regards
> roland
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H C" <hccebay_at_yahoo.com>
> To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: XP vs. 2000 (was: Avos and strategy
> (was: avos))
>
>
> > Hi, All.
> >
> > To me, the Remote Desktop feature, that was added
> in
> > XP, is worth the upgrade alone. I use that
> feature
> > daily. It is faster, more stable, and better
> > integrated than any of the other remote-control
> apps I
> > have ever tested, and I have certainly tried most
> of
> > them. The speed really shines over a high-speed
> LAN,
> > where other solutions simply can't keep up.
> >
> > My only regret is that they left it out of the
> Home
> > edition.
> >
> > I did find that 2000 was slighly more stable than
> XP,
> > but only slightly. XP's improvements are worth
> it.
> >
> > Soundman
> >
> > --- roland <for_spam_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > I've used XP and 2000 extensively. I had 2000
> at
> > > home and moved to XP. At
> > > > work I still use 2000. I have found the
> stability
> > > and robustness of XP to
> > > > be superior to 2000. I have also found that
> it
> > > sports various improvements
> > > > including faster startup and shutdown and
> better
> > > compatibility with older
> > > > apps. I also appreciate some of the little
> > > touches, like the way that XP
> > > > has the ability to sync with time servers and
> its
> > > ability to natively handle
> > > > ZIP files. As soon as you go away from the
> hokey
> > > XP interface and go back
> > > > to "classic", everything is good.
> > > full ACK.
> > > don`t call Xp _that_ "worse" - it really _is_
> the
> > > "best" (or at least the "fewer buggy")
> > > Microsoft OS. i heard a colleague at work say:
> damn
> > > 2000/XP - NT4 is the best! that
> > > colleage is known to be someone, who really
> doesn`t
> > > like to dig into new things and
> > > he judges about things, he doesn`t really know.
> > > furthermore, i heard the brother of a girlfriend
> > > say: naaahh, XP is crap. i get worms
> > > from the internet, when i use it. so i better
> stay
> > > with win98 - i`m safe there :D *hahaha*
> > >
> > > sure - some things changed in XP, maybe some
> things
> > > are even worse than in 2000 - but
> > > all things considered......
> > > regards
> > > roland
> > >
> > > ps:
> > > ooooppps - this is offtopic. let`s stop :D
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Fred Maxwell" <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
> > > To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:32 PM
> > > Subject: XP vs. 2000 (was: Avos and strategy
> (was:
> > > avos))
> > >
> > >
> > > > Chris Holt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:29:39 -0500, Fred
> Maxwell
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In other words, if
> > > > > > you bought a peripheral that worked with
> > > Windows 2000, then the
> > > > > > drivers should have been updated at no
> > > additional charge to you so
> > > > > > that it would work with Windows XP.
> > > >
> > > > {snip}
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with you, except I can't figure out
> why
> > > someone would want to
> > > > > downgrade their OS like that. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I've used XP and 2000 extensively. I had 2000
> at
> > > home and moved to XP. At
> > > > work I still use 2000. I have found the
> stability
> > > and robustness of XP to
> > > > be superior to 2000. I have also found that
> it
> > > sports various improvements
> > > > including faster startup and shutdown and
> better
> > > compatibility with older
> > > > apps. I also appreciate some of the little
> > > touches, like the way that XP
> > > > has the ability to sync with time servers and
> its
> > > ability to natively handle
> > > > ZIP files. As soon as you go away from the
> hokey
> > > XP interface and go back
> > > > to "classic", everything is good.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Fred Maxwell
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail
> AddressGuard
> > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> >


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Received on 2003-12-16