|
cjb0087
Knave
Australia
76 Posts |
 Posted - May 23 2004 : 01:54:17 AM
|
dosnt XP run games a little but faster than 2000 becaused its not as heavely based around NT
|
www.bugsplat.tk |
 |
|
|
Almar
Moderator
Netherlands
192 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 03:25:04 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sr. Guapo
The problem is, the massive user-friendly beast is going to become the minimum requirement for all new programs one day. So even if your favorite version is 2000, eventually it won't run the "brand new" programs(games mainly).
True. and any O.S that will have that digital Rights Management in it is not going to be on my computer. Bah, I don't need "someone elses permission" to launch a program. I'd better start learning C soon I guess, so I can use it in linux :)
|
|
|
|
cjb0087
Knave
Australia
76 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 06:30:33 AM
|
| no, dont learn c, learn c++ |
www.bugsplat.tk |
|
|
|
VBBR
Moderator
Brazil
617 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 07:58:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by cjb0087
dosnt XP run games a little but faster than 2000 becaused its not as heavely based around NT
As someone else stated here the 2000 and XP kernels are the same. |
Whatever. Who knows... |
|
|
|
Lachlan87
Moderator
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 09:11:44 AM
|
XP does have a fair number of advantages over 2000, but most people dismiss them out of hand because they find the dis-advantages so appalling. XP comes with a lot of drivers. This means it can automatically recognize a lot of hardware. However, it by no means has all the drivers in the world, and it does increase the amount of disk space you are required to have to install. XP is also far better at playing old dos age games. I had never dreamed I would be able to play games that were made when a 286 was considered a powerhouse on my 3Ghz computer. XP also has a lot of littler features I really appreciate, like fast user switching, hidden taskbar items, grouping items on the taskbar, etc. I won't go into all of XP features here.
A lot of people love to complain about XP's "cartoony" interface. Sometimes they even make up somewhat dubious arguments about performance, but really, you can switch back to win 2000's interface easier than you can change your desktop picture. Activation is the only real concern that comes to mind(not that there are no others). Yes, it is not at all difficult to activate, but a lot of people consider activation to be against their principles.
For those of us who already have XP, you might be interested in this tidbit I found on the net. Note that I have not actually tried this yet.
quote:
A contributor to the LangaList says that the way to get around Microsoft's pesky WPA after performing a full reinstall is to copy the C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\WPA.DBL file to a floppy disk or a safe place on your hard drive. Reinstall XP as you normally would. After you've reinstalled XP, either boot to a DOS floppy or start in XP's Safe Mode/Command Prompt (i.e. hit the F8 key when your system "beeps" during the boot process). Then copy your original WPA.DBL from its safe location back into the C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 folder, and then reboot. Because nothing on your system has changed -- it's the same BIOS, CPU, RAM, etc., and because you're installing the same copy of XP that was previously installed, the "old" WPA key should be accepted as valid, saving you the hassle of re-activating the software.
|
|
|
|
Peter
Administrator
Canada
67 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 09:53:48 AM
|
One cool thing about C++ and Linux is there is a very good free IDE thats almost as good as VC++. I forget what its called though ;)
|
Talos Studios - VoodooVB - VB Gamer
|
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 10:10:52 AM
|
| Kdevelop and Dev-C++? KDevelop is based around Qt though. |
|
|
|
Sr. Guapo
Swordmaster
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 11:55:41 AM
|
| I just don't like how hard it is to use c++ in windows. Anyone can make a DOS program in C++, but windows programming, ha. That is why I like C# so much better. |
|
|
|
VBBR
Moderator
Brazil
617 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 12:09:10 PM
|
Well I prefer VB then  |
Whatever. Who knows... |
|
|
|
Sr. Guapo
Swordmaster
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 12:18:58 PM
|
Well, yes. But I was comparing the other languages. I thought it went without saying.  |
Edited by - Sr. Guapo on May 23 2004 12:19:45 PM |
|
|
|
VBBR
Moderator
Brazil
617 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 1:26:25 PM
|
| I knew, I was just kidding |
Whatever. Who knows... |
|
|
|
Sr. Guapo
Swordmaster
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 10:39:48 PM
|
I have another question. Why is VB always slower than other languages - I could never understand it. In .NET, could you conseivably convert it to VC++, then compile it? Will it run faster then? I can understand it running slower in the IDE vs. other languages, but not after compilation (when its an exe file).
I just figured since this is the key complaint against VB programmers, I should understand why... |
Edited by - Sr. Guapo on May 24 2004 10:40:53 PM |
|
|
|
2dcoder
Knave
83 Posts |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 11:31:08 PM
|
Depends what you are doing. VB can be very fast, but alot of coders are lazy and don't declare thier variables correctly in VB. For instance...
Dim a,b,c,d,e,f as long
Guess which are longs and which get initialized as slow variants?
|
|
|
|
cjb0087
Knave
Australia
76 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 01:46:38 AM
|
| all the .NET laungaes are nearly the same except for the syntax |
www.bugsplat.tk |
|
|
|
Lachlan87
Moderator
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 07:24:59 AM
|
I admit I haven't used C# nearly as much as VB.Net or VB6, but as far I can tell so far the only practical difference between VB.Net and C# is that C# has pointers and a more idiotic syntax. I'm willing to bet that if VB.Net had pointers (after somthing I saw on the net, I not sure it doesn't), it would run at approximately the same speed as C#.
Generally most of VB's problems seem to be by design. . . but then, I'm no expert. |
Edited by - Lachlan87 on May 25 2004 07:26:14 AM |
|
|
Comparisons
