FYI
There are several different versions of WinXP, primarily XP Home (replaces
Win9x/WinMe), XP Professional (replaces NT4/Win2K Pro), and various XP
Server variants (replaces Server, Advanced Server, 64bit Datacenter etc). I
think Stuart was referring to the Home version. XP Pro is very likely an
improvement over Win2K Pro (XP Home misses out on several features such as
real security, so is of little use to anyone these days).
As an aside we only just received WinXP RC1 this week as part of MSDN.
Obviously we're none too pleased to find out our $1200/year MSDN
subscription is a full release behind what the general public can get for
$99.
Regards,
--
Simon
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^
Simon Cope, : e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO - Internet Technologies, : WWW:
http://www.ermapper.com
Earth Resource Mapping Pty Ltd, : Int'l Phone: +61 8 9388 2900
Level 2, 87 Colin St, West Perth. : Int'l Fax: +61 8 9388 2901
Western Australia 6005 : Australia Phone: (08) 9388 2900
: Australia Fax: (08) 9388 2901
Q: 190GB Image over the Internet?
A: Image Web Server!
http://www.earthetc.com
> -----Original Message----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lance Crumbliss
> Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2001 9:49 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Windows XP RC1 breaks ER Mapper (and other applications?)
>
>
> >>As an aside, Windows 2000 is likely to continue to be a better operating
> system for high end applications like ER Mapper. Although XP is built on
> the NT/2000 kernel, it is tuned more for consumer applications rather than
> applications such as ER Mapper that make heavy use of light
> weight threads,
> multi-processors, and large memory usage.<<
>
>
> I have XP RC2 installed as a dual boot with windows 2000. I've actually
> noticed that ER Mapper on XP Professional RC2 definitely seems more
> responsive. It opens datasets faster, displays the file chooser faster,
> displays files in a directory faster, even seems to process faster than
> Windows 2000. XP Professional supports multiple processors (2)
> and supports
> as much memory as Windows 2000, I think. Not to mention I can't seem to
> crash XP even if I try. (Windows 2000 is pretty stable, as well)
> Unless I
> misunderstood your post (which is highly possible), XP seems like
> a step up.
> I don't have the technical knowledge to debate your post, but my user
> experience seems to go very much against what you have said.
>
> Lance
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To make changes to your subscription, please visit our website,
> http://www.ermapper.com/technicl/ermapperl/index.htm
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
To make changes to your subscription, please visit our website,
http://www.ermapper.com/technicl/ermapperl/index.htm
