OK, let's set the ground rules here: no Microsoft bashing just because you hate them. But if you have something interesting to say -- positive or negative -- about Windows XP, let's hear it.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.

Showing messages 1 through 54 of 54.

• Try to convert to NTFS Table your XP
  2003-10-08 09:12:08  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Try XP with NTFS table instead of FAT32 and you wil have almost NO crashes is a more ¨robust ¨ software on this manner, and for my expertise is the ¨Right Way¨ to install Windows XP.
  Is the difference between Win9x and W2000 or Xp.
  Best Regards
  
  Rogelio Durán
  red96@prodigy.net.mx

• Not so sure about XP
  2003-07-17 19:31:58  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Yeah XP looks nice and "acts" like it's easy, but at a price. When you do have a problem, odds are you'll pull out all you're hair, hit somthing and in the end have just screwed it up worse. More importantly, read this article about some of the new XP "features". Microsoft is getting out of control!
  
  "http-www.hevanet.com-peace-microsoft.html"
  
  

• Windows XP
  2002-12-11 05:25:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Initially I was wary of Windows XP being a Win2k fan. However, I installed XP on my near silent liquid cooled FutureClient 1.8GHz P4 and after several months use I can truly say it surpasses Win2k in all respects.
  
  I've never had a crash although Dreamweaver & Photoshop still cause a few minor instabiliy problems (as it did with Win2k) but XP has dealt with thses just fine.
  
  All in all a fine OS with lots of features and usability. The only gripe is the MovieMaker application that crashes when trying to work with AVI files but that's it.
  
  The only thing I've changed is the theme from blue to silver - much easier on the eyes.
  
  XP lives upto it's hype and more. Go on give it a try. It's certainly is far better than Mac OS9 but that's not a fair comparison and allows me to work on dotNET web applications which the way to go.
  

• Mac and Windows
  2002-11-13 19:21:40  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi People, I am a Windows XP user and I managed to stumble on this page. I read your article about Windows XP from a Mac's perspective. I always wanted a Mac cause of the UNIX thing and its GUI. But I like Windows PCs too. Most apple people use comments and articles to bash Windows computers. Its so common especially on Apple.com/switch! But when you wrote your article it was really not offending to Windows users. Actually I see why you would like your Mac than your XP becasue it doesn't crash and all of those good things. Anyway your article was very nice even to Windows users like me!

• Helpful Review
  2002-10-06 06:26:06  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Thanks for a product review that isn't the all-too-common rehash of the vendor's own publicity. Nicely balanced, it has helped move me just a little further down the road to switch from Wintel to Apple. Even though WinXP is a massive advance on the awful Win98, I'm getting a consistent impression that OSX is even better (and configuring and using a WinXP PC in a networked environment is still painful...)

• XP and Older Programs
  2002-08-02 06:03:54  skylarburris [Reply | View]
  
  
  My main beef with XP is that it does not run my old software! Windows 1998 ran anything for Windows 1995, and so on...higher versions should always run software designed for lower versions. Not so with XP. Even using the compatability wizard, I was unable to run Corel Suite (which ran fine on Windows '98) on WIndows XP. (The "open" file command would not work--pretty important). One game wouldn't run at all. Two games could not be used with the mouse--only with the keyboard--when they worked fine on Windows '98. It's far too expensive to upgrade all your software. Sure, Windows XP is great, if you don't own any software you want to install! When 50% of your software is incompatable, that's a bad operating system, no matter how many bells and whistels it may have. Another problem--it is much more complicated now to organize your task bar, arranging icons into different folders, creating folders, moving things around, etc. This has something to do with the multiple users. The only way I could find to do it was in Windows Explorer, and even that took awhile to figure out.

• XP is ace
  2002-07-30 04:14:50  sweatycub [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have the coporate XP stuff that come with my PC, so I don't worry about the activation stuff. XP is excellent, I love the interface, it recognises my hardware. 10/10 M$soft on this one!a few tweaks and you are well on your way!
• Windows, get me outta here
  2005-03-07 00:12:18  torachan [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've been using windows all my computing life 10 years or more and having windows xp since it came out I have to say it's crap. Everyday it crashes or there is some kind of major dilemma. I have a compaq running a 1.4ghz celeron 256mb ram and a 20gb hard drive that is half full and I update windows constantly have good anti virus software, spyware software so I don't think I should be having problems if XP were a decent os. Run two or more programs and you've got serious speed problems. Simply running Office programs can be a dilemma when you type the goddam computer can't keep up. The gui is impractical and more often thant it isn't not straightfoward. The graphics on a mac appear to be so much more clear and as far as I'm concerned i'm ready to switch. The xp interface is an improvement however the mac osx does appear alot more user friendly. Microsoft has lost one customer.

• MS forgotten PC Users
  2002-03-01 07:31:24  djl [Reply | View]
  
  
  It seems that MS has forgotten those who can not connect to microsoft.com!!!
  OS is not used for Internet only!

• IT Departments
  2002-02-18 08:24:49  deej [Reply | View]
  
  
  I know IT departments often sound like party poopers when they say tell you not to install the latest and greatest OS, or that if you do you won't be supported, but there are plenty of reasons for it.
  
  Tech-savvy users are few and far between - they're the exception rather than the rule. Unless people in your IT department know you personally, they don't know whether you're up to the task of installing an OS successfully or not, let alone whether you can handle what happens after the OS is on your computer. Even if you tell them you do know what you're doing, there is no way for them to really know that. It's probably is not the reason you were employed and it's not a job requirement. At the same time, I have seen plenty of end-users who are entirely capable of a 98/XP or 9/X upgrade, I've also seen plenty of departmental IT "experts" who I would not want to try an upgrade (these are people paid to be IT-savvy). Your IT department is well aware that if there is a problem, they are likely to be the ones who have to sort it out, particularly if they didn't say "no" when you asked in the first place. The "no" is as much a disclaimer as anything else - fixing a problem on a new OS, or going backwards from such an upgrade (eg: you find out that Application X which you depend on heavily doesn't run properly on the new OS) can take hours and hours; there is no Uninstall option for an OS.
  
  There are also issues relating to integration. These issues are similar for Windows 98 > XP and Mac OS 8/9 > Mac OS X: authentication, security, deployment, standard operating environment support, etc - issues which are not necessarily associated with "consumer" OSes like 98/OS9. Deployment is often pooh-poohed as it sounds easy - just run the installer over the top. But what happens 6 months from now when your IT department rolls out their fully developed XP deployment plan, and all these rogue machines don't fit into the environment? When you're told that to fit into the authentication system, your otherwise fully functional XP computer has to be completely re-formatted and re-imaged. AND that you have to pay to have a non-standard conversion from your XP to the corporate install? That there is a roll-over plan from 98 to XP, but not for XP to XP because you weren't supposed to have it in the first place.
  
  There's also the matter of training (both for users and those who provide the support), hardware support (how many machines need memory upgrades to handle the new OSes? how many companies provide updated drivers?), and a bunch of other issues.
  
  I'm the primary Mac engineer for a university, and am having to deal with these issues myself for Mac OS X deployment. We're probably a bit more giving on the "new OS" front than a company might be - I'm telling people who I know are technically capable that they can upgrade to OS X if they like, but only if they are capable of supporting themselves. I'm more than willing to help them out if I can, knowing that they have at least an intermediate skill-set, but they can't depend completely on me, since I'm basically only learning this stuff about 3 months ahead of them, not to mention that any support I give them is in my own time as I have responsibilities. Users who I know are not capable of supporting their own machines (and, lets be clear here, this includes some faculty IT staff - being able to solve a basic email configuration problem does not necessarily mean they're ready to do a complete ), or who I don't know the skill level of, they get a simple "no", on the threat of termination of support. Simply because I don't want to get that call from them that says "hi, I installed the XP/OSX upgrade and now I'm stuck with this problem..."
• IT Departments -- Yes, but ...
  2002-02-18 09:42:38  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  All of your points are well-taken. And believe me, I heard from my IT department after I published this article :)
  
  But you've made my point in your posting: all users are not the same. Those of us who are in R&D, editorial, and other cutting edge corners of the business, need to be able to do our jobs. And we have to work with our respective IT departments to help them understand our needs and to develop policies that accommodate the higher good of the company.
  
  After this article came out, I had a very productive meeting with our own IT group, and I think we left the table with a renewed spirit of cooperation. This has to happen.
  
  Because I know for a fact that you, or anyone else in the O'Reilly audience, doesn't want to read an article about the latest, greatest feature in Windows 98.

• NTFS
  2002-02-17 11:25:26  agtalpha [Reply | View]
  
  
  Yeah, it's been done and said, but do not run FAT32 unless you need write access to the partition from another OS. Most operating systems include NTFS read-only drivers (Linux, BeOS), but they don't support NTFS5's advanced features. And one thing I think nobody really mentions is that NTFS5 supports extended attributes. There's no interface for it, but it's there in the FS. You can add attributes for, say, each item there's an ID3 tag in your MP3s, and search for all MP3s in a certain genre, or after a certain year, etc. Very powerful if used properly.
  
  Microsoft built this functionality in to the system, but is leaving it up to third-party developers to bring the functionality to fruition. There was an MSDN article on it way back, I just can't seem to find it. But, it's just one more reason to move from FAT32 to NTFS.
  
  -- Rob

• PC/Mac Gamma
  2002-02-16 08:57:03  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've received a couple of notes about the ease of gamma switching on the Mac. I thought some of you might be interested in this, so I'm posting one of the letters with my response.
  
  --------------
  I just read your article on your migration from Win 98 to XP and your
  feelings about OS X. Nice article - less ill-informed bashing and a
  more realistic user angle.
  
  You mentioned gamma inconsistencies between Mac operating systems and
  Windows. I have to mention that I develop web pages primarily on a
  Mac and have been using Colorsync to switch between print (1.8 gamma
  - the Mac default) and web (2.2 gamma - PCs and TVs). Apple provides
  a pretty nice "soft" calibration "wizard" in the Monitors Control
  Panel in OS 9 and in the System Preferences under OS X.
  
  I work on print and web jobs throughout a given day and switch
  between gamma settings all the time (scriptable - sort of). My sites
  usually look better on PC monitors than some of my PC developer
  friends work because I use Colorsync to maintain proper gamma
  calibration. It takes seconds to run through the Colorsync
  calibration guide. The advanced mode would probably require some
  background to understand (I've been through an intensive ICC color
  workflow class), but if you follow the steps you will reduce you're
  issues with having a Mac for web development - really.
  
  While it's basically impossible to provide consistent color over a
  single display device, Apple has had good support for working around
  some of this back as far as Mac OS 8. I work also as the IT guy so I
  have a whole bunch of Macs and PCs of varying monitor quality to have
  tested all this on. It does help immensely. I see this technology
  completely ignored by most of the folks I work with, but they are
  pretty much doing only print. For you I would guess that you could
  set up a 2.2 gamma setting and forget about it unless you do actually
  do prepress work. Maybe you know all this already, but I figured I'd
  mention it.
  
  Eric Peacock
  
  --------------
  My Response:
  
  You're absolutely right Eric, and I should have mentioned the Mac's ability to easily switch between gamma settings. You're also right that it does a pretty good job of emulating PC rendering.
  
  When I'm on the road, I take only my TiBook. Between Virtual PC and a few other tricks like the gamma switching, I'm able to do my work quite nicely :-)
  
  When I'm at home, I do like having access to the Windows machine too. For one reason, I can just leave my work in progress on the Mac, my main machine, but I can swing over to the PC and pull up the page real quick and take a peek.
  
  I realize we're talking about excessive convenience here ;-) But it's a luxury I enjoy, and it helps me through the long days associated with Web publishing.
  

• Mistake #1 with your install
  2002-02-14 17:24:56  acidbrnd [Reply | View]
  
  
  USE NTFS not FAT32. NTFS will allow you to reboot after a crash without having to do a scan disk. The default defrag software that comes with 2k/XP is a striped down version of Diskeeper. If you want some good stuff get Diskeeper 7.0 full version it has boot time defrag and set it and forget it defrag as well. As well as the interface is just alot better. also NTFS will defrag alot faster then fat32 and it is more stable.
  
  CHKDSK is the NT version of scandisk diskeeper's boottime defrag will allow you to do a chkdsk on the harddrive during a boot up. Also NT just runs alot smoother on NTFS :(
• Mistake #1 with your install
  2002-02-14 21:51:24  bucktaylor [Reply | View]
  
  
  If you read the article you'd see he installed the Windows XP Home Edition. XP Home does not support NTFS. NTFS support is only included in Windows XP Professional. His only choice was to use fat32.
• Mistake #1 with your install
  2002-04-09 16:14:19  stormdev [Reply | View]
  
  
  You don't know what you are talking about.
  
  Windows XP Home Edition supports the NTFS file system. This is being written from a Windows XP Home Edition machine running the NTFS file system, as a matter of fact.
• Mistake #1 with your install
  2002-02-15 03:37:50  oleerror [Reply | View]
  
  
  You're mistaken, bucktaylor. Windows XP Home Edition does support NTFS. The only reason to use FAT32 is if you plan to dual-boot with an OS that cannot read NTFS5.
• bucktaylor
  2002-02-15 11:08:11  acidbrnd [Reply | View]
  
  
  read the msg above. XP Home edition DOES support NTFS5. Sorry bud but you are wrong.
• bucktaylor
  2002-02-18 13:43:55  bucktaylor [Reply | View]
  
  
  This was taken right from the Microsoft website. It says one of the advantages of Windows XP Professional is the support for NTFS. Now if you'd like to take the issue up with Microsoft go right ahead.
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/overviews/filesystem.asp
  
  Sorry but no one beats me in the computer field.
• bucktaylor
  2002-04-09 16:31:36  stormdev [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/overviews/filesystem.asp
  
  This article on the MS site isn't contrasting that XP Pro supports NTFS while XP Home Edition doesn't--you are not comprehending what is being written. It is simply promoting the features of XP Pro.
  
  Windows XP Home Edition--exactly like the Professional version--offers the choice of using the NTFS or FAT32 file system during installation.
  
  This is referenced on the installation instructions for Windows XP Home Edition found on the Microsoft website:
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/home/using/howto/gettingstarted/guide/newinstallation.asp
  
  "Sorry but no one beats me in the computer field."
  
  A lofty claim requiring you to have omniscience regarding every facet of computing. A very doubtful claim in and of itself, and even more so since you don't even possess basic knowledge of the applicable files systems supported with Windows XP.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• bucktaylor
  2002-02-19 17:16:06  acidbrnd [Reply | View]
  
  
  No one beats you in the computer feild? Wow funny I'll argue with the MS site since I was a Windows XP Home/Pro beta tester thanks for the insite though. Sadly I just installed XP Home on a NTFS Harddrive. So Mr. no one beats me in the comp feild care to try and explain WHY I was able to do that?
• bucktaylor
  2002-02-18 23:25:51  rnishimura [Reply | View]
  
  
  Sir,
  
  I believe you are wrong. Here is the installation guide for Windows XP Home Edition:
  http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/home/using/howto/gettingstarted/guide/newinstallation.asp
  
  It clearly states that the option exists to use NTFS as the file system in Windows XP Home Edition.
  
  You may have misread the statement "One of the key benefits you’ll enjoy with Windows XP Professional is support for the NTFS file system." on the link you supplied as inference of a benefit the Professional version provides in comparision to the Home version. In fact, both editions provide support for NTFS- the statement refers to a comparison of Windows XP to the Windows 9X operating environments.

• XP Review from 2k user
  2002-02-14 15:53:45  beef [Reply | View]
  
  
  I was trying out windows XP pro on a different machine i have and personally, all it is, is windows 2000 with a makeover. the network thing is nice ... but thats about it. It seems kinda like "dumbed-down" with the gui compared to mac os X or kde. Its better than win9x tho. Note to all win9x users, upgrade now. Windows 2k pro & advanced server users stay. XP is sort of a win2k for the mass of people.
  
  
  
  thats just my personal opinion, dont mind it.
  
  Moe Ali
  Win2k Advanced Server & Professional User & Slackware Linux 8
• XP Review from 2k user
  2002-02-14 15:56:09  beef [Reply | View]
  
  
  Also, i forgot to mention the activation thing. every like 3rd thing i add into my machine, i need to get it reactivated. Thats really annoying. And windows xp can only be installed on one machine... if you need more than one machine w/ an os get *nix. Linux, Unix, BSD, hell anything free. Or you can choose XP is you wanna fork over $500 for each new box.
• XP Review from 2k user
  2002-02-14 16:03:03  nfiniti9 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Activitation is required after every 6th device per MS. Lets face it, people need dumed-up guis like Mac OS X, most people cant do the simplest of tasks. I have had many phone support calls to people that have trouble doing simple stuff, very simple stuff. Or people will see some window pop up think its not what they want close it then say to you no I don't see a thing. Amazes me.
  
  i9

• Bosses copy of XP
  2002-02-14 07:51:53  kamend [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh yeah something I forgot to ask yesterday. Are you aware of the consequences of loading that "home" copy of XP on your "company" PC?. Could cost your company a bundle possibly to the tune of 5 zeros. But, hey you could just say my IT guy never told me.
  Microsoft would buy that............
• Bosses copy of XP
  2002-02-14 15:09:02  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Wait a second, let me get this straight.
  
  I have a clean, never been loaded on any other computer version of XP, it even had the shrinkwarp on it, that I load on a laptop that I use at work, and you're telling me that I am in violation? Is that what you're saying?
• Bosses copy of XP
  2002-02-15 09:34:03  kamend [Reply | View]
  
  
  sorry, missed the whole "new, outa-the-box, shrink wrapped" part. I assumed (doh) that it had been previously loaded on a box belonging to your boss. In that case,Domain or not, your company would be in violation.
• Bosses copy of XP
  2002-02-14 15:50:21  nfiniti9 [Reply | View]
  
  
  No that guys doesnt know what hes talkin about. The site license is only if you are on a domain logging into a Windows Network on a Server based OS. I didn't see any metion of this in your article so I assumed no. However if you are on a domain (which you wouldnt be if you had a real domain server, because the sys admn keeps all the permissions so the ITs would know ;) ) you must pay a liscense fee for every machine that logs into a domain of a Windows Network and a liscense fee for each copy of the OS on each machine and the server.
  
  BTW the crash you had prob wasn't XP's fault, bad sectors are usually caused from heat issued with HD's. And I noticed it was an IBM who has the worst history lately with HD's heat and bad sectors, but is known to make some of the best laptops. And your friend couldn't haved used XP much if he had changed his opinion after only one install. I'm on my 200-300th and still it impresses me on how easy to install and use it is. I actually think I do something wrong now if the install fails for any reason. ;)
  
  i9
• Bosses copy of XP
  2002-02-15 03:40:19  oleerror [Reply | View]
  
  
  Since you installed Home Edition, you can't attach to a Domain anyway. So it really isn't an issue.

• Refreshing & Informative Article
  2002-02-14 04:11:51  calliex [Reply | View]
  
  
  I am I die hard Mac and Solaris user. I am forced to use Windows at work. I appreciate your article for not being the ususal Mac vrs Windows bashing thread. Over the years the two OS's have become more alike. Like the fact that the Mac is based on Unix it will make it easier for it to be accepted by the business world.
  Your article make me wish we were running XP here at work. My windows machine crashes every other day. The Windows support people do not have any idea why.
  
  Calliex

• Is it time?
  2002-02-13 19:52:28  boussh [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hello All,
  I have been using Mac hardware for about 8 years as a graphic designer, There is no software I need that isn't avalible on the platform and have had a great run with the gear.
  
  I do however find that a large number of freelance contracts are asking me to perform my duties on a PC, as much as I try and resist this this and continue to show up with my Ti Powerbook, there are many occasions that just plain time constraints would make it easier to use the PC on site rather than design and then try to transfer files, or worse network the Mac!
  
  I have needed to learn more about the windows enviornment for a long time, but
• Is it time?
  2002-02-13 20:18:52  boussh [Reply | View]
  
  
  Sorry,
  posted early due to a sloppy click!
  
  Cont... but have been unwilling to, If XP is indeed as easy to install and use as the article suggests it may be time to start.
  
  I am also sick of having to justify my Mac and explain to the vast amount of PC users I encounter, why I continue to use one. Miss information abounds on both sides of the fence, but making an argument based on fear or lack of info is not my thing.
  
  Thank you for this thread, untainted responses are hard to find!
• Is it time?
  2002-02-13 23:14:30  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is a good question.
  
  In my mind, the issue has never been do I choose a Mac *or* a PC (or Linux!!!). If I were forced to choose, then I say Mac OS X, hands down.
  
  I think the question for many of us is: Can I have a Mac *and* a PC? As computer prices lower, and as USB and FireWire devices become increasingly cross-platform, I think many professionals should consider having access to one of each.
  
  It's still a Windows-centric world (although OS X may have some impact on that), but let's face it, Mac OS X will soon become the OS we've been waiting for. And if you could see the talent in our open source community already pushing the envelope on the Mac, you might agree that we haven't seen anything yet.
  
  (Oops, sorry for the digression :)
  
  I'm a Web professional, and I like having the various platform/browser combinations to make sure my stuff looks good everywhere. So for the time being, I vote for both.
  
  PS: Guess which laptop I take home each night and which one stays at the office?
  
  PS2: XP installs easily *if* you start with a clean drive. Beware trying to upgrade over an existing Windows OS ...
• Is it time?
  2002-02-14 15:56:41  nfiniti9 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Mac OS X would have been a good os if htey would have developed it on the x86 architecture. However due to Apple's greedy nature they won't let anyone develop good hardware for the Mac without huge royalties or not at all if in direct competition. The software guys at Mac are great but the hardware is sadly fallin way behind due to the 1/10000th size of RnD cash as the x86 stuff.
  
  i9
  
• Sheesh...
  2002-02-17 16:38:22  simx [Reply | View]
  
  
  nfiniti9:
  
  Mac OS X is a great OS, and does not need to be developed on the x86 architecture. Motorola's 1 GHz chip got rated with higher marks in all 5 standard benchmark areas for processors, which just goes to show that Motorola can still make great chips. The G4 and the Velocity engine still have a big advantage over other processors– the argument that x86 processors are better is just false. Plus, Classic applications would most likely not be able to run on the x86 architecture.
  
  But that's not the point. Mac OS X is still the best operating system by a long shot. If you want to continue using a mediocre operating system just because you don't want to "switch processors", then do so. I guess you'll just be missing out, but it's your own fault.

• Tech vs the rest
  2002-02-13 13:51:28  kamend [Reply | View]
  
  
  First I will definately agree that XP is a major improvement over all other MSWindows products, other than the whole invasion of privacy thingy. But, as a techie, I have to agree with your tech staff guy. The number one response I have to a user that wants to use a different operating system, application, game, WHATEVER, is, "hey no problemo, as long as YOU support it, and, that it doesnt break the network or other applications". The response I usually get is. "what do you mean support?". Well TO ALL OF THE WORLD that means, if YOU have a problem YOU fix it. And if whatever you run breaks the network or causes damage to any applications or anything else, find another email system to talk to your cousin in New Mexico with; 'cause you wont have a physical connection to the network anymore. That usually holds the requests down to a low roar. We as techies understand the need for faster, better, cheaper, yadda yadda yadda. Heck most of our time is spent, looking for them at your request. But WHO'S GONNA SUPPORT IT?. We cant know everything. And ya know, most stuff dont run so well together, ie..MS, Unix, Linux, Mac, OS2, Novell. You get them to work well together and we might have a little less probelms. But, then again you have your CPA's, Front desk clerks, and mailroom guys writing little MSAccess, Postgresql, Mysql, Clipper (ouch), Foxpro,,,, DB's that could just about keep us underwater forever, when THEY break and WE have to fix them. Am I getting anywhere here?

• From 3.11 to XP - my experiences
  2002-02-13 12:47:43  sanjef [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've been a Windows user ever since the 3.11 days. Each Windows succession promises that this version will be better than before - I think MS is referring to its feature-set and not its quality.
  
  95 was a visual remake of 3.11. 98 saw a stability enhancement and IE integration. 98SE continued the progression on both of these tracks. WinME? I have no idea why it was released and never bought into it. 2000 was NT's version of the 95-98 succession. Now we have XP - basically, it's 2000 with a new GUI (and a few other under-the-hood enhancements).
  
  How do I feel about it? Well, I didn't have the ease of upgrade experience from 98SE this author claims. Several times during the installation (and in the subsequent weeks) I found myself wishing I had done the reformat and clean install. I should know better than to think I could simply "upgrade".
  
  What did I find? MS had completely taken over my hardware - substituting my name brand drivers (downloaded with care over time from hardware web sites) with MS drivers! Naturally, my monitor's settings were all wrong and 3D acceleration suffered. Luckilly, I still had all the downloaded drivers ready on the hard drive for the reinstall of each one (printer, scanner, sound card, video card, and even the monitor - which now shows as a "plug-n-play" monitor).
  
  What's it like after the dust has settled? Well, XP has been on my PIII 500 (256 RAM) machine since a week after the OS made it's debut. I've seen the browser (IE6) actually lock up the system about half a dozen times. I've noticed that "Winword.exe" hangs the system and hogs 100% of its resources until I manually kill the process. Why Winword.exe even pops up (while using the browser) I can only attribute to the MS theology that almost everything is now embedded into the OS. Just last night I found it necessary to reinstall the printer drivers and occassionally, I have to reboot if I want to scan and have previously used the shared LP1 port for printing.
  
  What are my plans? Well, each time I've decided to upgrade my hardware, I would peer over the fence at the Apple camp. Each time, I would settle for another PC. I'm getting close to that time again and the new flat iMac with OSX is looking pretty good. OSX still has some maturing to do though - I need to be able to sync my Palm and I need to share out the printer (two problems I've read OSX has problems with at present).
  
  All in all, I'd say my Windows days are numbered. Windows' bugs and bloat is strike one. Product Activation is strike two. The ".Net" initiative (and the ongoing Passport security issues) may be the final blow to this long-time Windows user.
• From 3.11 to XP - my experiences
  2002-02-21 12:27:50  nkuvu [Reply | View]
  
  
  This could be something that I posted -- except that I haven't had the "joy" of working with XP at all. I'm running Win2K on my home PC, and it crashes almost daily. Simple things, like opening and closing the CD-ROM, can crash the system. My roommate has an iMac (December of last year, so not flat-panel) with OS X on it. It's amazing how nice it is to use a computer that actually does what you tell it to do... As soon as I can afford it I'll be on the Mac side of the fence.
  
  One other thing to note, while I'm posting. I am pleasantly surprised to see that this has not degraded into a "My OS is better than yours" flame war. Thanks to all.
• From 3.11 to XP - my experiences
  2003-11-15 18:40:22  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well. First, I'm sorry because my english is horrible. I had to post in spanish...
  
  Yo tengo que decir que mi experiencia es justo la contraria. Empecé en los 90's siendo usuario de Mac y evangelista convencido. Ni entendía ni podía sufrir a Windows 3.1 y los PCs me parecían máquinas feas e incómodas.
  Pero un día en un cursillo me enseñaron a utilizar MS-DOS y Windows 3.11.
  Comprendí que no se trataba de comparar con el Mac e intentar usarlo igual. El PC tiene otra filosofía, y Windows se usa de un modo diferente, aunque también tenga iconos.
  El caso es que probé cada vez más PCs y me fui aficionando.
  Casi lloro cuando apareció Windows 95, porque al fin se parecía al Macintosh.
  Pero cuando me compré mi primer PC soñaba con poder instalar y utilizar algo que entonces era un lujo: Windows NT.
  El caso es que mi escáner Agfa me lo impedía, pero cuando llegó Windows 2000 de repente pude disfrutar realmente de la pequeña maravilla tecnológica que supone un PC: una máquina totalmente modular, abierta a las ideas más extravagantes de montaje.
  
  Ahora uso XP Profesional, y debo decir que este ordenador mío va como la seda, a pesar de tener enchufadas tarjetas, módem, dos discos duros, grabadora, DVD-ROM, disquetera, impresora, tableta digitalizadora, teclado multimedia...
  No se me cuelga nunca, es robusto y fiable...
  
  Por supuesto no puedo decir que NO tenga problemas. Soy un usuario avanzado, exijo mucho de mi máquina y utilizo muchos programas al mismo tiempo siempre. Pero mis problemas son exclusivamente por "personalizar" (customize) todos los parámetros que puedo, desde los iconos del escritorio hasta los drivers de dispositivos.
  
  Cualquier usuario avanzado de Mac sabe de lo que hablo, porque querer hacer esto mismo que yo hago en un sistema Mac trae exactamente los mismos problemas (yo creo que más).
  
  Sigo muy de cerca la evolución de Apple, mi propio hermano es usuario de Mac, y usuario avanzado. Cada uno tiene su forma de pensar. Pero yo JAMÁS me volvería al mundo Mac, principalmente por estas razones:
  
  1. Soy feliz con mi PC, tanto en trabajo como en entretenimiento.
  
  2. Soy feliz porque el precio de actualización de mi equipo de hace 5 años (AMD K6-2/350MHz) al actual (Athlon XP 2200+) ha sido sólo de 450 €. He ido cambiando piezas poco a poco y actualmente tengo dos equipos con elementos de primera calidad. Mi hermano en el mismo tiempo ha gastado 3 veces más y tiene un equipo todavía anticuado (G3).
  
  3. En conclusión, mi grado alto de satisfacción junto con el terror a tener que deshechar todo mi software y datos para adaptarlos a una plataforma diferente, hacen que NI SE ME OCURRA hacer el patéticamente anunciado "switch".
  
  4. Utilizar PC con Windows XP Pro o Linux supone utilizar estándares de la industria informática, y esto es una ventaja real. Todo (hasta los virus, es cierto) se produce casi en exclusiva para PC. Uno sabe que en el mundo PC siempre estará arropado, y que si Microsoft nos diera una patada, seguro que otro fabricante lo sustituiría. No es, pese a lo que se dice, un monopolio, porque existen siempre muchas alternativas para cualquier cosa que uno quiera hacer con su PC.
  
  Creo que el problema mayor que tienen los usuarios de Windows es no comprender lo que utilizan, y puedo jurar que también en otras plataformas ocurre.
  Elegir PC o MAC en nuestros tiempos es una cuestión personal, pero mi mundo está en los PCs.

• Networking simplicity? Not.
  2002-02-13 09:34:54  dogbert [Reply | View]
  
  
  I know you think that XP has improved networking capabilities, but this isn't anything new over what windows 2000 had. Don't forget, windows 2000 and windows XP are pretty much the same at heart. The major difference between xp and windows 2000 is that xp has a "pretty" (if you can call it that) interface and a bunch of wizards.
  
  If you don't believe me about networking being simple, try this: set up a network connection using a static ip address for your home. Go to work and set up a network connection using dhcp. go back and forth between home and work and tell me how fun it is to constantly reconfigure your network settings from static ip to dhcp every time you change locations.
  
  OSX definitely has it over on XP for networking capabilities as well.
  
  Also, I'd like to point out that XP has serious compatibility issues with things like sql server 2000 enterprise manager ( a ms app) and other development tools.
  
  SO take it as you will, but xp is more of a toy operating system than a serious one. Your friend was right to poo poo about the xp. He uses 2000 which in my tests has proven far more stable and reliable (not to mention compatible) than xp. Sad since they're the same kernel and core.
• Networking simplicity? Not.
  2003-09-03 17:12:18  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  In XP you can set up differing network profiles for exactly that situation, you can do similar in W2K using hardware profiles. Read the help files.
• Networking simplicity? Not.
  2002-02-13 10:27:57  mchiang [Reply | View]
  
  
  W2K has the netsh command line tool to configure networks without rebooting. I have a ThinkPad that I use at home with a hardware VPN (static) and on the work network (DHCP). I have a couple batch scripts that use netsh to configure for each network.
  
  Still, this pales in comparison to the Mac OS X location manager. Dang simple.
• Try Netswitcher
  2002-02-13 16:52:46  banji [Reply | View]
  
  
  I am not a Windows user at heart, but like many, I have to use it.
  I have found that a shareware app called "Netswitcher" makes life a lot easier when switching between network settings in 2000. It works a lot like "location manager."
  
  Find it at <www.netswitcher.com>
  
  
  Banji
• Networking simplicity? Not.
  2002-02-13 11:04:12  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think the points in this "networking" thread are well-taken, and I'd like to hear more about XP connectivity from other readers -- pro or con.
  
  As for the Mac OS X Network Control Panel, I can sum up my feelings about it this way: I love it!
  
  With OS X I feel comfortable taking my PowerBook into any networking situation and being able to connect quickly and easily.
  
  There's only one situation where current OS X technology seems to come up short networking-wise. There isn't a PPTP client yet that allows us to use Point to Point Tunneling Protocol on a specific type of secure network. Even then, sometimes we can use ssh via the Terminal Application to get the job done. But a better solution would be straight-up PPTP access.
  
  Hopefully we'll see that soon ...

• DOJ needs to do
  2002-02-13 08:53:58  mav1701 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Greetings all!!,
  I think what the DOJ should do to microsoft, since it is not being split into two companies. The DOJ should punish MS by first having there OS be open source for XP and any other new OS that they create for about 15 to 20 years. By doing this this allows other OSs, like OS X to write the source coding into the OS and allow all current apps to work with there OS. Plus, the $2 billion dollars fine.
  I think this should level the playing field for all the other OSs. As for XP, it looks great and I'm just waiting for all the major patches to come out for all the horror stories to end also. Will all the blue screen go away ?

• Use NTFS
  2002-02-13 03:10:17  wudbaer [Reply | View]
  
  
  To get rid of the annoying and long file system checks after a crash (and to get other great advantages, like better use of your disk space) you should use XP's NTFS file system instead of FAT32 which is IMO only there for reasons of backwards compatibility. NTFS is in my eyes one of the key advantages all OS'ses of the NT line had over the Win95/98/ME line and it always makes my heart bleed to see NT/W2K/XP installed using FAT32 or even the aged FAT.
  With NT/W2K there used to be a tool to convert FAT/FAT32 to NTFS without data loss (convert.exe), I'm not sure if it's still there with XP, but it's worth trying. As far as I understand, XP Home also does support only a subset of NTFS's capabilities (e.g. no encryption and only reduced means for security settings) but it should be there (I have only tried XP Professional) and is in any case worth using.
  
• Use NTFS -- Thanks for this
  2002-02-13 11:08:34  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  That's a terrific explanation. Does anyone have anything to add to this? And, where the heck were you two weeks ago when I was setting up XP? ;)
• Use NTFS -- Thanks for this
  2002-02-14 17:27:07  acidbrnd [Reply | View]
  
  
  cvt is the convert tool but it's best to do a clean install with formatting the HD to NTFS and not a convert. From what I've noticed you will lose some speed in a converation to NTFS instead of a full blown format and reinstall.

• XP Me 2
  2002-02-12 19:09:15  sandifop [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've been using both OSX and XP for the last few weeks and have also been impressed with the new Windows offering. For me, it has been more stabile, likely because the Windows apps have had more time to mature. I don't care for the GUI's appearance, but otherwise the only reason I'm sticking with OSX is simply because I prefer it. It has migrated so close to the structured bucket of code of the business OS (and away from the simple chaos of "Macintosh") that the differences are a matter of personal taste.

• XP ambivalence
  2002-02-12 18:32:39  gostong [Reply | View]
  
  
  I too recently installed Windows XP and, although I am quite satisfied with its performance (an unspeakably vast improvement over the nightmarishly bad Windows Me), Microsoft has ironically convinced me, once and for all, to purchase only Linux or Mac software in the future. The simple reason: their draconian anti-piracy system, allowing the OS to be installed on only one computer. I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with some poor schmuck like me wanting to re-install the OS if I get one or two extra PC's for my home. If I want to have an experimental second PC, or one for my kid, I'll need to fork over another $500 for Windows XP. While I fully understand Microsoft's desire to crack down on large-scale piracy, treating your innocent home users as the Enemy is certainly no way to win adherents to your cause. I will never buy another Microsoft OS again.
• XP ambivalence
  2002-02-12 20:03:53  davidcl [Reply | View]
  
  
  gostong, Windows XP Home Edition is $200, and Professional is $300. They are less if you get them with a new PC (I charge $100 for Home and $150 for Professional based on my OEM prices). So I'm not clear where the $500 figure is coming from.
  
  Derrick, thanks for this article. I've been going through similar situations. I'm currently using, on my various computers, Mac OS 9, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. In this context, Mac OS 9, which crashes a few times a day, starts to feel like Windows 98 did for you! But I can't upgrade to OS X yet because my printers are not compatible.
  
  Oh well, at least I don't have a corporate IT department telling me what to do.
• XP ambivalence -- Cost of Upgrade
  2002-02-12 22:04:57  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Good previous comments in this thread.
  
  I think it's important to be clear about the pricing issues for both XP and OS X.
  
  For XP, if you are upgrading an existing PC, you have to buy a copy of XP, Home ($200) or Pro ($300), for each machine. Microsoft makes sure you follow the rules on this. The upside is that I think MS holds up their end of the deal by delivering a solid Windows OS.
  
  For Mac OS X, the retail price is $129, but I'm seeing it for $99 more and more. Even though Apple asks that you buy a copy for each Mac in your household, the truth is you can buy one copy and use it on your laptop and your desktop without Apple busting your chops. In general, I feel that Apple stays out of your business better than Microsoft.
  
  If you buy a new Mac or a new PC, you get the OS as part of the deal, so it's a wash there in terms of OS cost.
  
  As for pure value, Mac OS X is a better deal. It includes the OS, Apache Web server, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, and iTools, which is an under rated Apple value-added benefit.
  
  If you're currently running Mac OS 9, I recommend that you partition your drive and load Mac OS X on one partition and your old OS 9 environment on the other. OS X is much more stable than OS 9, and I wouldn't want to go back to 9 anymore than I would Win 98.
  
  Life is just too short ...
• XP ambivalence -- Cost of Upgrade
  2002-02-19 00:01:26  rnishimura [Reply | View]
  
  
  If you have any more problems with XP on the Thinkpad 600X refer to this link:
  http://www-1.ibm.com/support/manager.wss?rs=0&rt=0&org=psg&doc=MIGR-39961
  
  The site has some useful information, unfortunately it is "organized" terribly.
  
  I've had issues with Windows XP on the 600X and recently the bank I work for upgraded all of our machines to T22's. Works like a dream now- no BSOD's or unexplained shutdowns. I think some of the problems you encountered were related to the 600X and not XP. That said, you should ask your boss for a new IBM or Toshiba notebook to do a "fair" comparison of XP ;)
  
  Great article, and I hope to read more of your work soon.