Windows XP from a Mac Perspective
by Derrick Story02/12/2002
Author's note: This is not an objective analysis of Windows XP. Instead, this article reflects a view of Microsoft's latest OS compared to my experiences with Mac OS X and Windows 98. Even though Mac OS X is my preferred operating system, I work in Windows too. Over the last few months I had grown really tired of Windows 98 and its oddities, so I placed my hopes in XP that it might deliver a better computing environment. Here's what happened.
I couldn't take it one day longer. Windows 98 was driving me out of my tree. It wouldn't boot, it wouldn't shut down, it wouldn't wake from sleep, and it wouldn't recognize new devices--even the simplest task turned into a big deal. I don't mind going on record saying, "I hate Windows 98." And having Mac OS X on my other computer just made me hate it more.
Because I'm in the Web publishing business, I use two computers. An IBM 600x ThinkPad and an Apple 667 TiBook. The TiBook has been my primary computer since I got it because I like Mac OS X (with its Unix underpinnings).
But I like the luxury of having Windows available to see how scripts run, Web pages look, photographs render, and a host of other Web-related things. It's part of my testing to make sure our pages and scripts look good on as many platform-and-browser combinations as possible.
Die-hard Macintosh users might recommend that I just run Virtual PC on my Mac. I do in fact; that's how I currently test Windows 98 stuff. But it's still a Mac monitor with Mac gamma, so things like photos are still more Mac than Windows, even in Virtual PC.
So, right alongside my TiBook I run the ThinkPad. Problem was, I had begun to hate it.
Take My OS, Please!
|
| |
One rainy morning, after my third attempt to start Windows 98, I decided enough was enough, I wanted to ditch my life disk repair and replace it with XP. My goal was to perform a total exorcism of my ThinkPad--reformat the drive, install a clean version of the new OS, and add updated applications as necessary. Maybe even burn sage next to it during this process just to make sure the demons were banished.
I put in a request to our IT department for this upgrade. Response: DENIED. "Windows 98 is our standard." I thought to myself, that's like walking around with a rock in your shoe because it's too much work to untie it and remove it. OK, how about this, what if I buy XP and load it myself? Response: DENIED. "We don't support XP either." Oh and by the way, "We don't support Mac OS X, either." Too late for that one buddy.
I'm reading this email on my TiBook while basking in the beautiful glow of a blue screen emitting from the ThinkPad next to me. Alright, now I'm getting upset.
Fortunately, my boss saved the day by smuggling in a brand new copy of XP Home Edition, and he said I could load it on my ThinkPad. Hooray! Let the games begin.
Load 'Em Up, Cowboy
|
|
Because I'm not exactly a Windows authority, I wanted the opinion of someone who was, so I could get his opinion while I made the transition from Windows 98 to XP. So I sought the help of a friend of mine, Brad Blanchard.
Brad's not a big XP fan, he's more of a Windows 2000 kind of guy. But he said he would help (insinuating through his tone of voice that I was installing a wussy OS on my ThinkPad). So he got started using the standard installation booting from the XP CD.
We used the built-in partition manager to wipe the hard drive and to create a single partition (FAT 32). The actual formatting was quick. Then we rebooted the computer and let the setup wizard do all the heavy lifting.
XP is very user friendly in this aspect. It's totally automated with no real prompts except for language choice, name, and CD Key. The modem is configured right away, followed by a stack of hardware drivers and network components. It wraps up by registering the DLLs and handling a few of the minor details such as configuring the Start Menu. The process took 35 minutes. Anyone with a little computer smarts can do it (at least a clean install).
The first thing new users will enjoy is that XP reboots much faster than Windows 98. I was already feeling better. The OS has a nice "get to know me" interactive tutorial, and setting up the Internet configurations and user accounts was a snap.
All in all, it was a pain-free installation. And what's most interesting, Brad said that the overall experience impressed him and elevated his opinion of XP.
Look and Feel of XP
XP is a whole new look for Microsoft. As one friend described it, "It's almost childlike in its appearance, as if Microsoft were trying to give the feeling that it's really easy to use."
The Start menu is completely redesigned, but you do have the option of using the older look if you want. The new version of Control Panels, for example, sports a "Category View" that gives you options such as "Appearance and Themes," "Network and Internet Connections," and "Printers and Other Hardware." I tried this new look for a few minutes, then quickly switched to the "Classic View" that actually shows all the Control Panels by name instead of me guessing which category they're in. I think the categories thing is silly.
The Task Bar is also redesigned and much prettier than before. It basically behaves the way experienced users would expect, except it has enhanced functionality that applications such as AIM have tapped, which allow better organization of multiple active windows.
My overall impression of XP's new look is that it is truly designed for the masses, not for power users. When compared to the Mac OS X GUI, XP does seem less sophisticated. Even though the Task Bar has some functional advantages over Mac OS X's Dock, I feel less in control. But, the icons and saturated colors are attractive, and I like them more than anything else I've seen on a Windows machine.
Networking with XP
I was hoping desperately that XP would be easier to use in a networked world, and so far I'm quite happy with it. The internal modem was properly configured from the get-go--not exactly rocket science, but much appreciated. And when I inserted my WaveLAN 802.11 card into the PCMCIA slot, XP properly identified it, loaded the correct driver, and acknowledged my home AirPort network. Oh my word! Within minutes I was browsing the Internet via AirPort with the WaveLAN card.
The next day I took the ThinkPad to work and inserted the Ethernet card and tapped the corporate Internet connection with equal ease. Seems to me that XP has made great improvements in its ability to identify networks and access them.
I still prefer having the built-in AirPort card in my TiBook, and I love Mac OS X's System Preferences control panel. But this isn't really about which OS I prefer more--it's more about remaining sane when using my Windows machine, and XP's networking improvements have brightened my attitude considerably.
Identifying Hardware Devices
One of my major complaints with Windows 98 was how it handled new hardware, or, I should say, how it didn't handle new hardware. We've all been there. You plug in a new USB device and all hell breaks loose.
Happily, XP is a giant step forward in this category. I've attached a variety of USB devices, and many times XP had a driver willing and ready. If it didn't have one handy, and if I were connected to the Internet, the computer uses its .NET services to display a Web page with the required driver information and a link to the site for downloading. Smart and convenient.
Stability
How do you spell relief? I've never crashed in Mac OS X, and in the ten days I've been using XP, I've only crashed once. But, oh man, when you do crash, be prepared to get some lunch while XP rights itself again.
Upon restart I had the dreaded info screen telling me it had to verify its files and folders. It found a bad cluster in \WINDOWS\FONTS\BOD_I.TIF and replaced it. Then it had to verify the free space. The process took 20 minutes in all.
![]() XP doesn't crash often, but when it does, go get a cup of coffee. It takes a while to clean up. |
On a brighter note, XP sleeps and wakes much better than Windows 98. I've had no problems waking from sleep as long as 36 hours. As good as that is, Mac OS X has it all over XP in this area. There's still nothing sweeter than my TiBook book waking instantly as I open its lid. But, much to my delight, XP has definitely improved the Windows waking experience.
Dealing with Big Brother
One of the reasons why XP won't be my main computer in the near future is because I'm still not ready to deal with Microsoft's handling of my personal information. In all fairness though, because of how I'm using the XP computer so far, that situation hasn't been troublesome.
For example, Microsoft does require you to verify your unique copy of XP with them online. You have the option to register while doing so. I chose not to register (thereby not providing any personal information), but to merely verify that my unique copy of XP is running on this one computer only. I believe if I wanted to install XP on a second computer, that it would not pass verification. If you don't initiate this process within a month, XP disables itself.
Also, I've ignored the messages to set up my Passport account. I'm not prepared to comment on Passport one way or another right now, but I do know that I'm not ready to participate.
I'm handling all of my email and other transactions on the Mac OS X TiBook. Quite honestly, I'm just more comfortable having "my stuff" there.
Final Thoughts
For the way I use a Windows computer, XP is a huge step forward. Not only am I pleased with the improved networking and hardware identification that I mentioned earlier, but I've noticed several other niceties.
For example, my ThinkPad battery now lasts twice as long as it did with Windows 98. In the past, when I was using the modem or the 802.11 card, the battery was barely lasting 30 minutes. Under XP I've gone well over an hour under those same conditions, and it still has juice to spare.
Also, the sound management is much better. The quality of the sound output is cleaner, and it's much louder than before.
IE 6 is fun to look at, but it still doesn't have the Scrapbook feature, which I just love in IE 5.1 for the Mac.
And despite what you may have heard, you don't have to upgrade every previous Windows application to run it on XP. I recommend that you check with the software manufacturer to see how a particular program performs on XP, and decide from there. For example, one of my favorite Windows applications, Ulead's PhotoImpact 6, runs just fine on XP. Other applications, however, may not fare so well.
As I said up front, this is not Mac versus Windows review. But if you're suffering with Windows 98 to accomplish part of your work, I recommend you stop the pain.
Check out your computer to see if it can run XP, look at your existing applications to determine how many will run as is, and seriously consider upgrading. In my computing life, XP has dramatically improved my attitude for Windows-centric activities.
Derrick Story is the author of The Photoshop CS4 Companion for Photographers, The Digital Photography Companion, and Digital Photography Hacks, and coauthor of iPhoto: The Missing Manual, with David Pogue. You can follow him on Twitter or visit www.thedigitalstory.com.
Return to the Mac DevCenter.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 23 of 23.
-
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!
-
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..."
-
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 :(
-
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
-
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............
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.










Is the difference between Win9x and W2000 or Xp.
Best Regards
Rogelio Durán
red96@prodigy.net.mx