I....despise...XP

[Ammut]

I finally got myself a new machine with good specs but I've stumbled onto one major flaw - it runs windows Xp. Does anyone actually have & like this new crapload from Microsoft? I can't burn cds with my 2 usual burner programs, I can't correctly install my favorite pc game (freespace 2), and it just plain sucks ass a million more ways. I haven't found anything I like about it more than '98 other than it looks a bit spiffier. "New and improved" windows? More like "more power sucking with bonus holes!" Oh, and not to mention first time I connected after getting how I was greeted with, of course, the blaster worm. And now coming back to the boards I've discovered that when I hit post it posts but then decides to just sit there with the "post reply" button down making me think that it hasn't posted and forcing me to open a new window to check the topic to see if it has actually felt like doing what I told it to. :flamethrower: I'm installing either windows 98 or 2k by the end of the week.

In closing, windows xp gets a big giant :bs award from me.

---Ammut

 

[Cloud121]

Windows Machines as a whole = :bs :flamethrower:

Buy a REAL computer, iMac, eMac, Power Mac G4 or G5, PowerBook Titanium, iBook. Mac OS X owns all. :cheers :bow

 

[Pearl Jammzz]

I would HIGHLY recommend Win2k Pro...I switched a few motnhs ago (from 98SE) and I LOVE this beauty....runs great on my lower-end system (faster than 98 did actually) and I have not had 1 problem w/ anything, burning utils and games included. Maybe set it up dual boot if your stuff doesn't work when/if u try Win2k. Just make sure and get the pro edition, like anything microsoft does, the pro edition is the nly one worth gettin. Hope this helps and I am sure if anyone else here has 2k pro then can vouch that it is hella nice.

 

[MasterAkumaMatata]

:agree Windows 2000 Pro rules!

 

[racketboy]

2K Pro is very nice, but XP has some good support and has "some" nice features.

Once you turn of a lot of the crap, XP is pretty nice

I use 2K on most of my boxes, and XP on one.

I'll probably still go with XP for my new one coming up

 

[ExCyber]

XP is, as an OS, vastly superior to 9x/ME. NT/2K will share the primary drawbacks you mentioned, although 2K is better still for other reasons. The main problem with compatibility is that every previous Windows version (NT notwithstanding) was fundamentally broken from a modern OS design standpoint, not offering the basic stability and security features expected from a "real OS" and being inconsistent internally. Various programs took advantage of this - games in particular, because game developers need to wring out every bit of performance they can to widen their potential audience (anyone can code to the processor/GPU that came out two months ago, but game developers need to code to the ones that were out 2 years ago to have any hope of commercial success). For these reasons, you're going to have to accept a certain amount of breakage to get away from 9x at all.

 

[racketboy]

yeah XP doesn't like old stuff -- but 2K doesn't really either, so it's just something that you have to live with.

Once you go to 2K or XP and notice the stability, you'll never want to go back --- even on older hardware. I still upgrade old Pentiums, PIIs, and Celerons to 2K or XP as long as they have a decent amount of RAM

 

[Curtis]

I like XP. It runs just about everything I've ever thrown at it. DOS games are a problem - one easily solved with VDMSound (how I wish that little app would be updated). As BJammzz says, once you turn off all the "toy" features, it may as well be Win 2K with shiny bits.

People need to stop ragging on MS. XP is an amazing achievement in such a short development cycle. Sure it doesn't have the "stability" and "security" of linux, but given that Linux has been developed in one form or another over the past 30 years, I don't think there is too much to complain about with MS's offerings.

Remember...guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[antime]

Considering that Linus started working on Linux in 1991 you have a rather odd definition of thirty years. (I know what you mean, but Linux was implemented from scratch and it's not like Windows doesn't build on what came before, most importantly VMS which first appeared in 1978.)

 

[Curtis]

I'm glad you know what I mean antime - I was of course referirng to the numerous proof-of-concepts developed in UNIX since it's inception.

I was not aware that Windows was built upon VMS, though. Interesting. I would still regard NT and later as a completely new stream of OS- if we are saying Linux has been around for only 12 years, how old would that make NT technology?

 

[antime]

NT wasn't built on VMS, but Microsoft hired the VMS chief architect (David Cutler) from Digital to build their new OS. Not too surprisingly there are many similarities between the two. An article, if you're interested. Also, NT 3.1 was first released in 1993 but the project was started in 1989 (for IBM as OS/2) so it's not easy to give a clear answer to which of the two is older.

Certainly the Unix architecture is older than VMS but the Linux implementation could be said to be younger than NT. Anyways, both build on even earlier systems built in the 60's or before, nothing new has been invented in CS since then, this was all fields and the days were longer, the girls prettier etc. etc.

 

[IBarracudaI]

Ammut, try Win2k Pro

I had XP installed on my "new" P-4 2.4GHz, with 512MB of RAM, and yet XP was running _very_ slow, even slower (in graphic apps, photo shop etc.) than my P3 700 (also with 512mb) with win2kpro, I installed 2k on the p4 and then I could enjoy the a fast pc

I really don't know why it ran so slow, it looked like some prob with virtual mem or something, winXP has (don't know if SP1 fixed this) some issues in memory management

 

[ExCyber]

I'm just waiting for someone to build on Plan 9. Need to get a spare box to play with that on...

 

[actripxl]

Go with Linux, Mandrake is really good to use and easy to install. Xp on my mom's comp is nothing but one problem after another, thats just ONE reason why I went to the Mac OSX rules.

 

[Gallstaff]

The Mac machines and that mac os's are good but if you're a gamer they lack compatibility out the ass. They are good for more serious things but for the above-casual-yet-not-friggen-insane-computer-user I dont see any problem with windows. I use windows XP and have had very few problems with it. It's stable in my opnion and like someone said (I think curtis did) you gotta take the good with the bad.

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by IBarracudaI@Aug 29, 2003 @ 06:11 PM

Ammut, try Win2k Pro

I had XP installed on my "new" P-4 2.4GHz, with 512MB of RAM, and yet XP was running _very_ slow, even slower (in graphic apps, photo shop etc.) than my P3 700 (also with 512mb) with win2kpro, I installed 2k on the p4 and then I could enjoy the a fast pc

I really don't know why it ran so slow, it looked like some prob with virtual mem or something, winXP has (don't know if SP1 fixed this) some issues in memory management

BIOS update? Decent ram? I had issues with cheap ram before - I had 512 in there, removed the two offending 128 DIMMs, and it actually ran a helluva lot faster. Also, NTFS and a defraged drive makes a significant difference.

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by actripxl@Aug 29, 2003 @ 08:22 PM

Go with Linux, Mandrake is really good to use and easy to install. Xp on my mom's comp is nothing but one problem after another, thats just ONE reason why I went to the Mac OSX rules.

Red Hat is significantly better, having used Mandrake, Slackware, SuSe and Red Hat. Blue Curve is outstanding.

 

[Resident_Lurker]

Windows XP = best episode ever

XP is just as stable as 2k pro (or more). I ran it on a frequently used computer for ~70 days. Better for multiple users as well. I just like it. It's never given me any shit.

 

[stack99]

Win xp, is a sweet os and a sound one, (when patched...lol) but Linux (for right now) is in a better position, because their are less virii written for it although, supposedly thats next, but xp and 2000 are both great os' ... sometimes, its not the os thats faulty its the user..lol..

 

[Cloud121]

Originally posted by stack99@Aug 30, 2003 @ 10:56 PM

Win xp, is a sweet os and a sound one, (when patched...lol) but Linux (for right now) is in a better position, because their are less virii written for it although, supposedly thats next, but xp and 2000 are both great os' ... sometimes, its not the os thats faulty its the user..lol..

In Windows' case, it always the OS that's faulty. MS hasn't made a good OS since DOS 6.22. I love DOS (It's not utter absolute shit like Windows). Second, right behind Mac OS, as the greatest OS ever. What does NOT make it the greatest, is the simple fact this it's an MS OS (because of what happened AFTER DOS).

Apple & Mac OS

:bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow

Windows

:bs :flamethrower: