I only sync once a week, I don't need to be _that_ up to date. That reminds me I need to set up a cron job to take care of that for me, I keep forgetting.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 5:34
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge sync all teh taim
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 7:18
>>28
Fag, because it's not bloated with useless shit therefore it runs faster and takes less RAM. And the Control Panel is nicer, as in "less stupidified".
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 7:31
>>31
Eh, what? The control panel is pretty much the same in XP as it is in 2K.
FAIL for not knowing how to optimise XP to run in a similar memory footprint to 2000.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 7:55
>>33
Uh-huh. Have you ever disabled all the useless services and removed all the cruft from XP, and then compared? On a limited machine?
I have.
It's night and day, mate. Anyone who claims otherwise is either full of shit or sniffing glue.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 7:59
The reason I ask why 2k is bettar is because I recently got a job which entailed maintaining windows workstations and the genius who had the job before me, who also thinks kix32.exe is the next best thing to ice cream and has aids, keeps telling me I should stick with 2k because it is so amazingly stable. I refuse to believe him, as far as I can see there is no difference between the two if you select the classic theme.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 8:04
2000 is faster, period.
There isn't much difference in stability on the same hardware.
Yes I have also. And the difference in performance was negligible.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 16:59
>>27
I've been running it for years and never modified a single game installer. You must be pretty dumb.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 16:59
>>36
No, 2000 isn't faster. You're a fucking idiot, that's the whole difference.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 17:18
You bet it is. I used to develop on 2000 box. It was a 400MHz PII with 64MB RAM. It ran quite comfortably. XP, with most services disabled, and stripped of the cruft, didn't run all that well on a 2GHz Athlon, 256MB of RAM. I'd like to see it run on that old PII box.
And before someone says that's due to XP needing a lot more RAM, I'd like to remind you that thrashing kills your performance.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your emotional attachment to XP. Just call people fucking idiots, and that'll make it all better, >>39!
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 18:24
>>35
If you can't see the difference, then get the fuck out of your job, you're not qualified as you don't even know how to open a process list.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 18:35 (sage)
If you want stability you shouldn't be using Windows in the first place. lololololol
Even more awesome how I cracked it to the point of no-login-to-kill through prolonged use of simple applications
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 21:11
>>38
Yea well I guess the years of using it didn't teach you much about problems you may encounter with it, did they? It's hard to run accross the problem I mentioned if you only ever install CS every few months. Want an example of a game that refuses to install on 2003? Melty Blood. Another? Vampire. I had no problem getting them to run, but initially they wouldn't. That "Every installer" was obviously an exageration also, obviously I did not mean every installer or even a majority of them, but I suppose you're too dense to notice something that obvious.
The point of my first post was that while win2003 is basically windows 2000 with windows xp stuff built into it, for some reason, shitty game developers single it out from installing their games much like they often do with Windows NT4 and sometimes 9x or even Win2k.
>>40
I am not 39 who you are argueing with, however I did manage to run WinXP on a Pentium MMX 166mhz, 128mb of RAM. The system was installed from a custom cd where all but the neccesary stuff were removed because of the 400mb hard drive limit. During idle running it took only 60mb of RAM and worked rather fast compared to windows 98 SE on the same computer. It's reasonably possible to get WinXP running on an old PII box, providing it has at least 128mb of RAM - less than that will be a performance hit for even win2k. I deleted old screenshots of that computer in action after posting them here months back, but if really neccesary I can try to make new ones. The computer has a broken motherboard so it's difficult to get it to work sometimes.