XP?

I did not know that XP has some NT code in it. Thanks for the info! I
still run NT(no funds for a new PC to get XP). Guess it makes sense
though, NT was & still is a good operating system to run. It's not
perfect, but I don't think any operating system is.

Bob

Calvin <nospam.DeleteThis@spamcop.net> wrote:

>Crazybob wrote:
>> Thought this was an NT group.
>
>You are right - but XP IS derived from the original NT code base, so
>people asking XP questions are 'sorta right'
>
>I am sure there are XP specific newsgroups around however - I've never
>bothered to look however. I have no interest in the 'telli-tubbies
>operating system' and try studiously to avoid it !
>
>Calvin.

Crazybob wrote:
> I did not know that XP has some NT code in it. Thanks for the info!

XP is NT's direct successor. Windows 2000 (win2K) is NT V5.0, Windows XP
is NT V5.1 and Vista is (supposedly) NT V6.0

DO NOT believe the Microsoft marketing department spin. Win2k, XP etc...
have NO relationship to Win 95, Win98 etc... even though the 'Windows
2000' name makes that suggestion. That is merely Microsoft trying to
desperately convince the gullible public that Win985/98/ME were not the
unmitigated disasters they actually were, and that the entire codebase
for the 95/98/ME went into the dumpster where it belonged !

Unfortunately, after the win95/98/ME project closed, a lot of the
software writers (I use this term loosely !) from this area were moved
into win2k/XP development, hence the sudden rise in bloat and stability
issues evident from that time onwards.

BELIEVE ME - stick with NT4, it was the last product true to the
original NT vision as created by Dave Cutler and his team !

Calvin.

Is it true that Windows XP uses NTFS for it's file system?

Bob


Calvin <nospam.TakeThisOut@spamcop.net> wrote:

>Crazybob wrote:
>> I did not know that XP has some NT code in it. Thanks for the info!
>
>XP is NT's direct successor. Windows 2000 (win2K) is NT V5.0, Windows XP
>is NT V5.1 and Vista is (supposedly) NT V6.0
>
>DO NOT believe the Microsoft marketing department spin. Win2k, XP etc...
>have NO relationship to Win 95, Win98 etc... even though the 'Windows
>2000' name makes that suggestion. That is merely Microsoft trying to
>desperately convince the gullible public that Win985/98/ME were not the
>unmitigated disasters they actually were, and that the entire codebase
>for the 95/98/ME went into the dumpster where it belonged !
>
>Unfortunately, after the win95/98/ME project closed, a lot of the
>software writers (I use this term loosely !) from this area were moved
>into win2k/XP development, hence the sudden rise in bloat and stability
>issues evident from that time onwards.
>
>BELIEVE ME - stick with NT4, it was the last product true to the
>original NT vision as created by Dave Cutler and his team !
>
>Calvin.

Fat is also valid but NTFS is the native file system of Windows
NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista and is always recommended

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

<Crazybob> wrote:
| Is it true that Windows XP uses NTFS for it's file system?
|
| Bob

Crazybob wrote:
> Is it true that Windows XP uses NTFS for it's file system?

Yes - Win2k/XP use NTFS or FAT16 or FAT32 (depends on what you choose
during installation)

Win NT4 used either NTFS or FAT16. HPFS (OS/2 world) or FAT32 can be
supported with a few 'adjustments' to the system.

NTFS has been 'enhanced' over the years to add more features (eg: file
junctions and per-file security) NT4 doesn't support the full set of
NTFS features, but was upgraded by SP4 to enable it to read/write to the
later NTFS used by Win2k/XP.

Calvin.

OOPS:

Meant to say:

"NTFS has been 'enhanced' over the years to add more features (eg: file
junctions and per-file encryption)"

Calvin.