tonyvdb wrote:
ME was a disaster and 2000 did very little for improvement
Win2K actually did a great deal for improvement. It was Microsoft's first working attempt at combining the plug 'n' play and DirectX functionality from the Win9x line with the stability of the NT line. End result = an OS that's not much different to XP but is far more efficient with resource usage.
JJ wrote:
...have tried to use linux, but to be honest I have got much better things to do with my life, than trying to install and set-up linux. I want to be able to use a computer for work and playing games, surfing etc... not setting the fing thing up.
windows just install with miniaml fuss, and is ready to use.
This really does depend on your hardware and/or the Linux distro you're using.
In Ubuntu Linux, an installation from scratch is usually simply a case of booting from the CD, choosing the install option, answering a few straightforward questions (time zone, location, user name, etc - basic stuff) and letting it just do its stuff. And at the end of the installation, it all just works (at least on my hardware). Updates are then managed by the excellent package manager and associated software repositories.
Installation of Windows XP from scratch again requires booting from the CD, answering some basic questions, etc. But at the end of the install, the user is left with a basic 800x600 (or 640x480 if they're really unlucky!) desktop running in standard VGA mode, no sound, sometimes no networking, no other drivers, and a massive heap of updates to install (SP2, IE7, DirectX, and tonnes of security fixes/patches).
And yes, for practical use, Windows still has more of the applications (and certainly games) that people at large want to use. I run a mixture of Linux and Windows... And of course, good old AmigaOS!
Just my 2c worth!
- Ali
