I don't like XP. Is it just me? 1

[llefebure]

Greetings everyone.

Do you like XP?

I just thought I would collect the opinions of my peers to see what you all think. How do you like XP compared to 2000 and 98? Do you recommend it to your customers?


My opinion:
So, I'm 1 test away from being an MCSE and have half a dozen other misc certs. I've worked with about 50 machines running XP home and pro. I have yet to be impressed with XP. I have a strong dislike for XP. So strong that I have begun to recommend my customers NOT get XP and instead order 2000 Pro on all new PCs. It is my impression that XP flat out doubles the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) when compared to 2000 Pro. What I mean is that it takes double the time to setup/configure and double the time to do anything as a User running applications. I will speculate that it will be about a year before I recommend my customers buy XP over 2000. I think it will take Intel that long to get a processor fast enough to run XP the way it should be - without those nasty delays.

Your turn:
Is it just me being an old-school windows 2000 die-hard or do the rest of you see it the same way?


Why is it that Microsoft is always bragging about how XP is so much better than 98. I have yet to see Microsoft say XP is better than 2000. Why is that?

Note: I do expect a more biased opinion here than say on the Windows 2000 forum.

Please, I don't wish to start a flame war here. I just want your honest opinions.

 

[Thyezer]

I have to agree. Xp has had it's share of problems. I remember upgrading and finding out that there were no drivers available for the net cards we were using. So rather than complain about XP's slow reaction time...I went and bought new cards. Here's a little advice for all who are against XP....Just go spend some money. That's what I did! It made me feel so much better too.

XP...no looking back!

 

[enigma174]

>"I remember upgrading and finding out that there were no drivers available for the net cards we were using. So rather than complain about XP's slow reaction time...I went and bought new cards."

<rant>
?!?!??!!?!?!?!? WHAT THE HELL!!!???
When i buy a piece of hardware (lets say a 100Mb network card) i expect to beable to use that hardware for its intended purpose until something better comes along - not to have some two bit software company tell me its no longer supported. Newer OSes should have more features, not less!
And lets talk about speed then, my work computer (a P4 1.6 with 256MB ram) works fine in the morning, but after about 4hrours of data crunching (and don't get me started on microsoft database engines), the computer slows to a crawl - closer examination shows about 60,000-150,000 page faults per second - and this with windows reporting about 100Mb ram free. one &quot;quick&quot; reboot later and its back to normal but that sort of memory management problem is to me unacceptable, we were ment to have crossed the 640 barrier ten years ago, nowadays it seams that that barrier has mearly been moved, with 32Mb for win95, 64 for win98, about 128Mb for 2K and now only about 160-200Mb for XP. I mean when are microsoft going to get over these problems and start using the full power of a chip.
</rant>

Sombody earlier said that with XP, you either love it or hate it, personally i believe that you are either brainwashed or sane. But thats just my oppinion.

--cb

 

[CitrixEngineer]

I have noticed nothing but improvements (once I sorted out the horrible default graphics) on both my main machines; a PIII 600 with 640Mb RAM and an Athlon XP 1600+ with 512Mb DDR RAM.

Boot time is 25 seconds or so compared to the best part of a minute with Windows ME, and longer with Windows 2000. Everything but everything launches quickly, file transfers happen quickly and even connecting to network resources happens fast.

It is Windows NT 5.1, so it's .1 up from Windows 2000 - but it's quite an increment. I've been playing with the Beta of .NET server for a while now, and can report that it gives the same improvements to Windows 2000 server that Pro gives over W2k Pro. I've just received my copy of .NET Enterprise from Microsoft, so I'll be interested to see how that works on a 4-way box.

Yes, it consumes more resources. But as has been mentioned, both hard disks and RAM can be bought cheaply now. Even the Athlon XP chips are dropping in price like they're going out of fashion - but they're seriously fast processors for the money.

In answer to the earlier question &quot;Is the DOS prompt in XP?&quot;, yes, it sort of is. It's the cmd prompt, and behaves much like DOS. Microsoft have improved this many fold since its inception in Windows NT 3.5 (anyone rememeber that?), and many older programs can be run. Just don't expect any low-level or older graphically intensive programs to behave.

My $0.02 on this subject CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk

 

[wolluf]

hat (serious) improvements has XP got over 2K (it boots faster - so what). Its no more stable, doesn't run any quicker (slower on older machines), has a dumbed down interface and lots of twirly bits which slow it down.

Question (never never land): Wouldn't it be nice if certain software companies released an operating system designed to be stable and last for years (with regular - free/cheap? - upgrades). As has been pointed out - XP is NT 5.1 (2k NT5), but both sold as 'new' operating systems (ie, big money). Because they're new, MS feel some obligation to justify the price - so we get lots of rubbish we don't want.

Ok, before it becomes a rant - I'll shut up.

 

[bigjeff314159]

start rant-

you know, polling threads like this one really don't serve any constructive purpose. i see them on forums all over the net. they invariably degenerate into pity parties and/or pissing matches between users who like win xp and win 9x or linux users who tell them they don't. polls on these forums ought to be banned and posts redirected to

http://www.gripeandmoan/andmaybethat/willfixit.org

rant over.

 

[DigitalRolly]

Had XP home on my laptop and bought Pro for work reasons...
Troubles I had was with the onboard nic, video card and modem... Installing the right drivers supplied from the manufactorer fixed them all... Windows update is good, but not for drivers (either older versions or not the exact ones you need) Grew up from DOS 5.0 through the whole range of MS OS's since then... It has been the nicest so far... only crash I've had was on Counter Strike... but I think it was my fault

Only tip I can give with any MS OS... the newer, the more ram it needs... My laptop is a 1.2Celery with 256mb RAM... Love it!

 

[CitrixEngineer]

QUOTE/&quot;hat (serious) improvements has XP got over 2K (it boots faster - so what). Its no more stable, doesn't run any quicker (slower on older machines), has a dumbed down interface and lots of twirly bits which slow it down.&quot;/QUOTE.

I beg to differ. Booting faster is a huge plus for many people who would rather use the computer as an appliance. It's much more stable than its predecessor, and runs programs more quickly. It also runs a greater range of programs thanks to the compatibility modes. Depends how old the older machines are, and how much memory they have. 512Mb RAM is not expensive (in a historical perspective), and is the optimum for XP, IME. It runs really quickly on a Duron 500 - and it's not too bad on a Ppro 200.

I agree the interface is not to everyone's liking, but it can easily be switched off - in fact, if you switch off all the graphical &quot;twirly bits&quot;, then you will see significant improvements on older machines.

The reasons this forum has so many issues raised is that Windows XP is the latest and greatest, and there are a lot of people here that are new to computers, new to XP (it's totally different at core to any previous home operating system - I'm ignoring NT Workstation and W2k Pro deliberately), and those that have come from different O/Ses.

As for driver support, there are just too many hardware devices out there for any operating system to support them all. I've lost count of the number of Linux distros I've had to go through to find one that will work in my IBM servers and another that will work with my TV card, my DXR3 (which won't work with XP!) or some of the more obscure NICs like DEC205's.

MS are trying to make the operating system all things to all people, which is commendable. I agree that they also have many practices which are less commendable, however.

The point of threads like this is to collect opinions so that one can form a value judgement before investing in a product. If the overwhelming sense is that it's bad, members of that forum generally avoid the product, and so on. No-one has to read every post if they don't want to.

In short, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the facts about XP, its stability, speed and flexibility fly in the face of most of the anti arguments given here.

My last $0.02 on this CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk

 

[wolluf]

CitrixEngineer - I have to seriously disagree (again) with 2 claims you keep making:-

1. XP's much more stable than its predecessor. This is simply not true compared to 2k. The 2k machine I'm using now has not had a single system crash since I started using it 18 months ago. It runs without being rebooted for months at a time - with same level of performance. My machine at home is similarly stable (though don't run it for months at a time).

2. XP runs programs more quickly. Again, I have 2K and XP installed on same machine at home - XP does NOT run anything I use noticeably faster than 2k (ie, as far as my senses are concerned, they're equal).

I agree its good that MS have finally settled on a stable platform for their home operating system (I constantly advise anybody with 9x/ME to upgrade - generally to XP, sometimes to 2k).

PS. I have given up on Linux distributions as I never got one to work properly on any PC I've tried it on (I have no Unix/Linux background - so looking for alternative drivers - and installing them - for video/sound cards didn't thrill me) and can't see any alternative o/s system for Desktop PCs - we're stuck with windows. Beos looked nice - but never got finished or popular, OS/2 was better than windows but nobody bought it. QNX installs on my home PC in 5 minutes, and all the hardware works - very nice o/s, but not with overwhelming application support.

 

[jm565]

O no, It's not just you..

I'll give you a review:

I recently performed an upgrade from Home to Pro (1st experience,)to gain the domain/network access on a Dell 4400 Dimension with a 1.8GHz and 128MBRam. Brand new system.
What a pain in the A**.

I've been in the field for quite some time and have experience installing, upgrading, networking, etc all MS OSes.

What should have been a simple upgrade, has turned into a nightmare. Then I come to find out (after the fact), about Intel IAA and Intel chipset(845) compatibilty issues, etc.

It really shouldn't be like this. This system came factory installed with the Home edition installed and was fine except for network access problems here and there.

The system is slow booting into the domain, unstable, I lost access to my cdrom, which causes the system to hang up while trying to access it. I still haven't gotten it back to 100% yet. Not even 75%

My humble opinion thus far is: Aaaaaagggggghhhhhh!!! #-)

I'll keep you guys posted on my progress.


What's a point-counterpoint, without the counterpoint??

 

[Hungster]

I am sorry to say, you do not know what you are doing
since you mentioned you been in this business for long time, you should know better never to upgrade than a fresh install, Dell custom made the install and driver to fit your home edition.

i on the other hand only been in computer since 1998 and yet, i like XP, yes, xp has it's own issue, it was bad in Beta cuz not all drivers will work, nowaday, you can find almost any current hardware driver.

i also tried RedHat linux, fast stable, i find some of the driver issue with the older version on my Adaptec SCSI card, it looks nice on their x-windows, but there is nothing i can do on it for fun, the least i expect my computer to do is to play some games

i do not intend to be sitting in front a computer just work, that's boring life, in fact i called it NO LIFE

 

[prebeck]

Near as I can tell, XP is 2000 wit a new look and more game support.

 

[meastaugh1]

I think XP is fab.

I agree with Woluf, XP does seem to be a lot like 2000, just presented to the user in a different way.

Have been using XP home on my home PC for a while now, and it's all v stable.

Although I suppose I'll find out whether I still like it when I have to start supporting it at work come september.

 

[gazzamac]

Window ME is the biggest piece of CRAP I have ever encountered . I got to the point where I backed up my important data and blew away ME .
I loaded Windows XP Pro and never looked back. I have had it on my PC for about 2 months now . Not one crash or lockup.
I would recommend it to anyone.

 

[Snork]

Win98 would be fine if current drivers were availible. W2k was messed up on purpose (Disk ATA problems with SP2). WINXP is not good as much as any other MS OS -except boots quicker.

 

[Hungster]

What is crap is the user who setting it up, so don't go blame Microsoft for that

Linux is good, but i ran into a lot of problem with hardware compatiblilty, where half of my popular hardware were listed, plus i can't play my games on it, what good does it to for me, when you can't have little fun to relax

i been running Win2k pro, server, and XP as soon as it came out, from laptop to desktop to servers, i don't have any problems that i can't resolve, sometimes it requires a little talent, where people just blame on Microsoft, when you have open code, that's expected
you think Apple has no problem ? you are dead wrong

 

[jazzgirl]

XP has been about the easiest OS I've ever installed. Totally painless. I was running 2000 before XP Pro and you couldn't break my leg and force me to go backward.

 

[polymath5]

I agree with you jazzgirl. I've installed a couple of XP home and around a 100 XP pro. I had always been impressed by W2K's install (particularly compared to NT), but XP was pretty much start it and walk away.

So far I've been very pleased with it on my personal workstation (Pro). I just try to make sure whatever I install on it is XP compat.

 

[vgrice]

I run XP on my office desktop (P4 1.7 386MB RAM) and on 2 workstations at home (P3 800 512 Ram, P2 233 386 RAM) and I can say that XP runs faster on all three machines than did Windows 2000 especially on the P2. Yes you do need more RAM to run it, but RAM is cheap. I remember when 1 MB cost $125 and 50MB hd cost $500. XP is a step in the right direction for MS. It give a much more stable and consistant platform for home and enterprise users. Using the application compatability tool XP will run almost any software and as for hardware... the only problem I had was that the company that made my scanner went out of business and there were no drivers for Win2k or XP. So I bought a new one. Sure the old one worked great under 98, but the new one was cheaper and faster and better resolution.
In my office we will not be upgrading to XP except for us consultants, but then we are a Windows 2000 office and there is not a whole lot of justifcation to upgrade from Win2K to XP. I highly recommend anyone still using 9X, especially in a network environment to upgrade to XP.
If you are using your computer only for gaming you shouldn't be disappointed. I play AOE, TA and even old SSI games on XP with no problems.
Final thoughts. If you are on Windows 2000 stay there unless you are having hardware compatability problems. XP has many more built in drivers. If you are on 9X (including ME) upgrade to XP.
Vince Grice
vgrice@hotmail.com
MCSE Win2K, NT; MCSA; MCP+I

I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow.
- Woodrow Wilson

 

[SQLScholar]

Well my view on this its all what your used to and what has worked.

For instance my brother-in-law raves about ME. I dont see much between ME and 98, when a mate of mine hates it.

Its just my brother in law has had a good experience, i havent had a good/bad experience and my mate has had a bad experience.

Anyway just out of curoiusity... what spec would you run XP on.

I have a 400Mhz Laptop (with good graphics card) and i want to install XP. It only has a 4gig drive and 128mb ram. Will it work (and be bareable)!!

Dan

 

[Scotsdude]

You could run XP on that laptop, although it may run slow.
I ran it on a 500Mhz with a 128Mb RAM, and it worked fine. Best thing to do is run the compatibility checker on yopur laptop, and see if that throws up any errors.

Scotsdude
Life is nothing without beer
Help us help you - let us know when our insane scribblings help!!