View Poll Results: Are you getting WinXP?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 37.93%
  • No

    36 62.07%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47
  1. #21  
    I much prefer Win XP Pro over Win 2000 Pro on my relatively old (bought 3 years ago) Dell. I used to have occasional hangs on 2000 but XP has been great!
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by ernieba1
    AND NONE OF YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT WINDOWS XP IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT!!!
    I can because I AM USING IT! If you like XP, that's perfectly fine. I don't recall anyone saying it was wrong to like this new OS. It's just that so many of us have found less than desirable qualities that mar an otherwise great OS.
  3. #23  
    I've been using it for months on one of my work machines and XP is actually fast and stable.

    That said, I will never use it on any of my home system as long as MS forces activation. I frequently change my configuration. Different sound cards, removable hard disks and CD-ROM/DVD configurations. I add memory more often than I like, and i have even been known to change the processor a couple of times a year. I will not deal with reactivating the OS every time i change my hardware around.
  4. #24  
    I bought the Pro version yesterday, and I must day I am impressed! This was the easiest (fresh) install of Windows I've ever done. Once it was done, I went to Windows Update, and it found a newer driver for my Radeon and a driver for my soundcard; completely painless. The only thing that doesn't work so far is my Epson 610 scanner. Once the BIOS screen vanishes, I am at a useable desktop in 25 seconds. The features they added into My Pictures makes all other viewing software pretty much obsolete. I've never been a fan of Windows Media Player, so I doubt I would pay the extra $10 for the MP3 encoding. I can do it at 16-20x using RealJukebox Plus. I haven't tried the integrated CD burning yet. I use Nero 5.5 for data CD's and Feurio for audio CD's. It's a nice option, though.
    Anyone who is running a (fast enough) Windows 9x machine SHOULD upgrade to XP. Anyone running 2000 probably doesn't need to. BTW, anyone who doesn't like the interface (I love it) can change it to the boring old standard interface.
    "Life is what you experience between racing games"
    Galley
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by Galley_SimRacer
    Once the BIOS screen vanishes, I am at a useable desktop in 25 seconds. ...
    Anyone who is running a (fast enough) Windows 9x machine SHOULD upgrade to XP.
    What processor are you running? How much RAM? If this was a fresh install, I assume there was virtually nothing else on the hard drive, which could have alot to do with the speed you're enjoying, no?
    Just curious, as something I read this morning indicated that most anyone with a box 2+ yrs old would probably need to upgrade to "enjoy" WIN XP.
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    Do the new features outweigh the gotchas like product activation and digital rights management?
    Not sure what these terms mean. Can you point me somewhere?
    Thanks in advance,
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by Galley_SimRacer
    Once the BIOS screen vanishes, I am at a useable desktop in 25 seconds. ...
    Anyone who is running a (fast enough) Windows 9x machine SHOULD upgrade to XP.
    What processor are you running? How much RAM? If this was a fresh install, I assume there was virtually nothing else on the hard drive, which could have alot to do with the speed you're enjoying, no?
    Just curious, as something I read this morning indicated that most anyone with a box 2+ yrs old would probably need to upgrade to "enjoy" WIN XP.
  8. #28  
    To really get the most benefit from XP, you are going to need a 600mhz Pentium III/Celeron processor or better with at least 256mb Ram, and a 10gig+ hard drive. If you have a Pentium II, forget about it, you're better off just buying a new PC.
  9. #29  
    Wow, I haven't gotten that much critisism for a post in a while!

    This is my understanding:

    Windows 2k is stable but isn't good with devices and games or something.

    Windows ME isn't stable but is good with devices and stuff.

    Am I wrong? Can you put you're anti MS thoughts aside and think about the product?

    And finally, can you trust those people who write PCMagazine and PCWorld? That's not a rhetorical question like those other ones.
    -Bernie

    "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
    -Dan Quayle
  10.    #30  
    Originally posted by jazzlover


    Not sure what these terms mean. Can you point me somewhere?
    Thanks in advance,
    Product Activation is Microsoft's way of preventing casual copying of XP among computers. You must register your PC with Microsoft, who generates a registration code based upon your hardware components. Replacing enough components within a certain time period forces you to call Microsoft to get a replacement code. The code is mandatory as XP will not work without it. There are potential privacy implications PA, so many people are not upgrading based on that alone.

    Digital Rights Management it based on Windows Media technology that can prevent users from copying certain files or ripping cds to their machine. XP does not include MP3 support in order to steer users towards WMA files. If you don't like your PC telling you what you can and cannot copy then DRM will be a problem.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  11.    #31  
    Originally posted by ernieba1
    Wow, I haven't gotten that much critisism for a post in a while!

    This is my understanding:

    Windows 2k is stable but isn't good with devices and games or something.

    Windows ME isn't stable but is good with devices and stuff.

    Am I wrong? Can you put you're anti MS thoughts aside and think about the product?

    And finally, can you trust those people who write PCMagazine and PCWorld? That's not a rhetorical question like those other ones.
    2000 has been very stable for me and works with my USB components fine. People that I know that have Me wish they didn't because of trouble getting drivers to work and stability. I don't read those magazines so I cannot comment on them.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by jazzlover


    What processor are you running? How much RAM? If this was a fresh install, I assume there was virtually nothing else on the hard drive, which could have a lot to do with the speed you're enjoying, no?
    Just curious, as something I read this morning indicated that most anyone with a box 2+ yrs old would probably need to upgrade to "enjoy" WIN XP.
    Yes, it was a fresh install on a squeaky clan drive. Actually XP gets faster after about ten startups since it monitors your usage, and defrags while the computer is inactive. A useable desktop means that the hourglass has disappeared, although there may be a couple of things still loading in the notification area. The time starts once the BIOS screen disappears.

    My specs:
    • iWill KK266plus mobo
    • 1.4GHz Athlon T-Bird 266MHz FSB
    • IBM 40GB 60GXP Deskstar
    • 512MB PC133 Kingston Value RAM
    • Radeon 64MB DDR
    • other misc. crap
    "Life is what you experience between racing games"
    Galley
  13. #33  
    My apologies. I screwed this post up. Please see next post...
    In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    I won't be upgrading to Windows FP (Fisher-Price edition) any time soon. I've been running the OS since Beta 2, and the only kind words I can offer is that it is the most stable OS MS has developed thus far. Aside from that its garbage. Most of the new "features" are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to hook consumers into Microsoft/MSN services, and extend the company's dominance into other areas of computing...particularly Instant messaging, web audio & web services (.NET, Passport, Hailstorm). The interface is a cheap rip-off of Apple's Aqua GUI, and looks as though it were designed by Pippy Longstockings with Crayola crayons. There is only one visual style (LUNA) included, and it seems unlikely that there will be new ones in the future, so you're stuck with 3 ugly color schemes (blue, silver, and olive green).

    The only type of user(s) who will benefit from XP, are newbies and technophobes. Anyone using Win2k should stay put. WinME users may want to consider upgrading, but the $100 pricetag doesn't seem justifiable.

    XP won't save the PC industry, in my opinion. Sales will flop, and PC makers will topple. XBox will have more of an impact on the consumer electronics market than XP.
    Hey FF, what happened since your earlier post?

    EarlierPost

    Did you find something new that you hate, or you just change your mind?
    In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by GSR13
    Hey FF, what happened since your earlier post? Did you find something new that you hate, or you just change your mind?
    What do you mean exactly? I still believe XP is a great operating system for beginners and technically challenged users, even easier to use than a Macintosh. The interface is exceptionally easy to use and logically organized. It looks like crap to me, but I'm not the target market for this release. I want something more streamlined and elegant. And buddy..this ain't it.

    Much of what has been added to XP will benefit Microsoft and it's long term business strategy rather than consumers. There are too many hooks in this new OS that drag consumers over to MSN services. In fact, I see Windows becoming more of an MSN portal and less of a PC operating system. Again, that's perfectly fine for XP's target audience...but is of little value to experienced users. The only benefit that I can see for me, in XP, is that it will offer better gaming performance. Win2k works just fine for what I need: Speed and stability.

    In the end, it comes down to the user. If you want XP, and don't mind the dubious product activation scheme, passport, .NET services, and you find the interface attractive...then you will love Windows XP. As I said in past discussions, it's just an OS. Take it for what it is. If it suits your needs, then go for it. Retailers are certainly throwing in enough extras to make the upgrade attractive. Some are giving away free memory and digital cameras.

    Peace.
  16. #36  
    I am currently running a computer I built myself with WinMe and SuSE Linux LiveEval. I am personally going to upgrade a few hardware compnonents before I get a full XP version (Home Editon). Mainly a bigger HDD, a new video card, and a new sound card. Then I will save up for and get XP and dual boot with Linux of either the Mandrake or SuSE flavor.
  17. #37  
    My dad has had a Windows XP beta for about 3 months now and Thursday got the release version. I really like it. All my stuff works, even Palm Desktop (I know this was a subject of another thread, I don't know how my dad got it to work). But Windows XP is really neat. I haven' t seen it crash once! My Windows ME computer crashes at least once a week and the Windows 98 computer crashes at least once a month.

    Plus I got a cable modem today, yeah for me!!

    Jason
    Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?
  18. #38  
    I just installed XP tonight. I am running a 1.2 amd with 128mb of ram. The new GUI takes getting used to, but you also can make it look just like the old windows. So far no crashes like my old ME.

    Lee
    I need a new signature!
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    ...If you have a Pentium II, forget about it, you're better off just buying a new PC.
    Or buying a 667MHz tiMac with a 48gb hard drive, 16mb video RAM, and 512mb RAM -- for about $3299.

    As for Microsoft Office? Yup! It's available. (Well... almost.)

    Have had win3.1, win98, and winME; DOS 5 & 6; and general overall crappiness of Microsoft-based systems had me running back to a Mac environment (my first Mac was a 6100; my first Apple was an Apple IIe).

    Does my Mac ever crash? Only when running old programs designed for 7.5 to 8.5, and a few games, and that "preview Beta" of IE under OS X. And then, an option-command-ESC Force Quits the recalcitrant program without crashing the OS.
    Last edited by Aardvark; 10/27/2001 at 09:45 PM.
  20. #40  
    The sad truth is that we will all eventually run XP or or MS's next OS at some point, just as we will all eventually have PocketPCs. Product Activation will become the norm. The problem (if you wanna call it that) is that the generation of users currently in power are interested in easy installs and usage even if it means less performance or a possible loss of privacy. By the time the younger, computer literate generation comes to power MS will be all they know. It will be far too late. This is already happening now. Large companies buy IBN or Compaq or Dell machines because of support. These machines have MS on them. Home machines have MS on them because the user uses it at work and couldn't be bothered to learn a new, better OS.

    The PC industry is doomed. It will soon no longer be fun. I wish things were not turning out this way but unfortunately this is how it is panning out. Competition in this industry will be nothing but a memory and soon every app we run will have a splash screen advertisment type of spam on it. The funny part is, MS is not to blame. We are the only ones responsible for their success and dominance. They produce a new OS that infringes privacy or has some other undesirable property, we complain, then we buy it anyway. Kind of like when the gov raises taxes. We stomp our feet and put on a great show, then we say "oh...... Alright here ya go!" and it's forgotten.

    I sure hope I get proven wrong.

    Ark.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions