[geeks] Re: Windows XP?

[Kurt Huhn]

Shawn Wallbridge <swallbridge at franticfilms.com> wrote:

> I hear you brother. Everyone things I'm strange (partially ?) because I 
> think XP is evil. Unfortunately, they fixed one critical 'bug' [0] in 
> XP, it can now have one process that uses more than 1.5GB of ram (unlike 
> WinNT4/Win2K) which is kinda critical for us, so we are moving all 
> desktops to XP in the very near future.
> 

There's also the intangible reason - XP is "icky" for some reason.  I can't
quite place my finger on it, but there it is.  To me, 2000 is just the
addition of some multimedia support onto NT4 - an OS I actually *like*.  

> 
> [0] - it has been a known issue since Windows NT 4 was released (it's in 
> the knowledge base), but they have never fixed it. If you needed that 
> much memory, you had to run Enterprise or Advanced Server, which only 
> cost $4k. I am sure it was just a really nasty bug that they couldn't 
> find, and not that they just wanted more of your money.

I wonder why Enterprise and Advanced didn't have the same bug.  Different
memory manager?

-- 
Kurt                 " Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to flagellate 
kurt at k-huhn.com        myself with a soldering iron."
                                                   --Kris Kirby