yeah except KDE just doesnt look half as good...
VISTA
XP
Windows7
you make a valid point, but i've just ripped the kernels apart, please see this post
Well of course they took the best of Vista and cranked up the performance. Saying 7 is Vista SP2 wasn't meant to be taken literally. I would say Vista->7 is similar to 2000->ME, maybe. But Vista->7 is no where near the change that happened with XP->Vista, which is what I was hinting at.
Glad someone here ripped apart the kernels though, I hadn't felt like going that deep though. I'd rather be able to tell my sales users now what differences they will experience than be unsure of my technical explanation to my solutions development team, lol.
I would really like my Thermaltake prizes...Thanks everyone for my wonderful prizes!
2000=>me is a bad comparison; 2000 used the NT kernal, me used win9x. A better comparison would be win95=>win98 or win98=>me.
i agree, windows 2000 was one of the best OS's ever made, its XP (Which everyone loves i might add) but without the flashy theme service and luna, oh and some nicer gfx,
but more stable in my view.
98 and XP were never the same architecture. XP was built off windows NT, therefore off windows 2000. Windows 2000 is a good OS, but it lacks support from so many software companies (including microsoft).I don't think we would call 98 to XP just a simple upgrade, and yet those two operating systems work on the same architecture.
Current Mod
AMD Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition 2.7GHz (Overclock Not Tested)
OCZ 2x2GB DDR2 800Mhz GOLD XTC Memory
Samsung HD502HI 500GB Hard Drive SATAII - Green Drive
Zotac 9800GT Synergy Edition 512MB DDR3
Artic Power 500W PSU
Gigabyte GA-M57 SLI-S4 Rev. 2.0