A
Even I use to blame microsoft for providing very incomepetent products such as windows me and 98. HOwever Windows XP is realy different.
Windows XP is much more robust and advanced. It is desgned to provide high performance on desktop as well as server systems and important thing is that it does it.
High performance is the most important goal of XP and they have achieved it through several benchmark technologies. I feel that Microsoft has learned to appreaciate the IQ of the users in an effictive manner than they did it earlier. The LCM of our IQ calculated by microsoft is almost equal to the real one.
Windows XP is designed for symmetrical multiprocessing; one multiprocessor computers.
It is difficult to manage sevral processes and thread while keeping deadlocks at bay especially on multipro systems.
The most important feature of XP is that the way it provided bug to bug support for it's previous versions without loosing the new features. XP is also capable of running 16 bit applications. This is acheievd by having something called environmental sub systems. These environmental subsytems emulate the several operating systems such as DOS 98 etc. also conforms to the POSIX standards as I heard I dont know more about that.
XP has got Hardware Abstarction Layer which in fact is an DLL that provides low level interface to make the OS processor independent.
Onother imporatnt feature is that Kernal of XP is Object oriented just like Windows 2000.
I have a reason to change my view point towards Microsoft.
Windows XP is much more robust and advanced. It is desgned to provide high performance on desktop as well as server systems and important thing is that it does it.
High performance is the most important goal of XP and they have achieved it through several benchmark technologies. I feel that Microsoft has learned to appreaciate the IQ of the users in an effictive manner than they did it earlier. The LCM of our IQ calculated by microsoft is almost equal to the real one.
Windows XP is designed for symmetrical multiprocessing; one multiprocessor computers.
It is difficult to manage sevral processes and thread while keeping deadlocks at bay especially on multipro systems.
The most important feature of XP is that the way it provided bug to bug support for it's previous versions without loosing the new features. XP is also capable of running 16 bit applications. This is acheievd by having something called environmental sub systems. These environmental subsytems emulate the several operating systems such as DOS 98 etc. also conforms to the POSIX standards as I heard I dont know more about that.
XP has got Hardware Abstarction Layer which in fact is an DLL that provides low level interface to make the OS processor independent.
Onother imporatnt feature is that Kernal of XP is Object oriented just like Windows 2000.
I have a reason to change my view point towards Microsoft.
