gizmodo.com— This week marks the fifth anniversary of the beloved Windows XP operating system. And I think in honor of this birthday, we will spread the love towards the often-hated Windows XP operating system.
Oct 27, 2006View in Crawl 4
I tend to agree with copperkid. A lot of us have fond memories from W2K since it brought the stability from NT4 with the software compatibility from Windows 95/98. So for the first time _ever_ in the history of computing did we have a OS which ran almost every imaginable piece of software and hardware.While NT4 was great in many ways, it lacked support for some hardware and a few critical applications and API's, among those DirectX, which made it hard to fully leave Windows 95/98 behind.While I don't question that XP is better than W2K, I also believe that W2K was better for its time than what XP is today. No disrespect for XP though, it's a fine OS as well.
A few words on this Mac's-and-the-right-click-issue.It's true that Mac's support multiple mouse buttons. _BUT_ it's also important to notice that it's more like an after-thought and the context-menus is almost always much less refined than their XP counterpart. It's like putting four wheels on a bike and call it a car. A bike, two or four wheels aside, will never be a car since it's not designed from the ground up like a car.But the right-click is also a double-edged sword. It's a powerful tool for advanced users, but it also brings confusion to less advanced users since it's far from intuitive to right-click.
This is a much needed article that points out the very obvious, yet so often ignored, reasons why Windows XP is actually good and Microsoft knows what they are doing. While all the nerds continue to proclaim how buggy Windows is and how horrible Microsoft is, I'll just keep using all my applications and doing everything with maximum efficiency while everyone else can try to do the same thing in Linux or Mac in 3 times the time.
claydragonOct 28, 2006
There are versions of Solitaire, Freecell and Minesweeper for Linux too.
hakro807Oct 28, 2006
I tend to agree with copperkid. A lot of us have fond memories from W2K since it brought the stability from NT4 with the software compatibility from Windows 95/98. So for the first time _ever_ in the history of computing did we have a OS which ran almost every imaginable piece of software and hardware.While NT4 was great in many ways, it lacked support for some hardware and a few critical applications and API's, among those DirectX, which made it hard to fully leave Windows 95/98 behind.While I don't question that XP is better than W2K, I also believe that W2K was better for its time than what XP is today. No disrespect for XP though, it's a fine OS as well.
hakro807Oct 28, 2006
A few words on this Mac's-and-the-right-click-issue.It's true that Mac's support multiple mouse buttons. _BUT_ it's also important to notice that it's more like an after-thought and the context-menus is almost always much less refined than their XP counterpart. It's like putting four wheels on a bike and call it a car. A bike, two or four wheels aside, will never be a car since it's not designed from the ground up like a car.But the right-click is also a double-edged sword. It's a powerful tool for advanced users, but it also brings confusion to less advanced users since it's far from intuitive to right-click.
Closed AccountOct 28, 2006
This is a much needed article that points out the very obvious, yet so often ignored, reasons why Windows XP is actually good and Microsoft knows what they are doing. While all the nerds continue to proclaim how buggy Windows is and how horrible Microsoft is, I'll just keep using all my applications and doing everything with maximum efficiency while everyone else can try to do the same thing in Linux or Mac in 3 times the time.
greatcaffeineOct 29, 2006
@AgentAndersonThat doesn't even make sense, you just made XP look worse than it actually is.
badtzOct 30, 2006
X > XP
rockinroelMar 6, 2007
Did I say bi-yearly? I meant once every 6 months. Twice a year.