Awful lot of whining & dissing XP going on!

[newclockr]

To those who are having probs with XP: Did you bother to check your boxes with the compatibility tool on the XP disk or at the MS site? Or did you just slap the disk in & install?

This handy tool will help you prepare or decide whether to upgrade or not. How much more could you ask of a software manuf?

I've been running XP for about 6 months, starting with RC2 Build 2550, with minimal problems. Installation was a snap, activation painless (both the beta and final XP Pro). It's faster on & off the internet, virtually uncrashable, easy to use, easy to customize, self-healing...AND possibly the best software support available.

After my mobo died & had to be replaced, I had to reactivate XP. A call to MS, with great customer support, and I was up & running in short order.

So, if you just jammed it into an old box and expected to run old wares, I say SUCK IT UP & STOP WHINING!

[tOtEM]

Right freaken on, Dam well said.

[muchmark]

I refuse to "SUCK IT UP & STOP WHINING"

[ngc457]

I agree with you newclockr. I think most of the whinning is because everyone loves to complain about Microsoft for no other reason then well I can't think of one. It is just popular to complain about windows. I you don't complain about windows then you are not a serious skillful computer user. I am sick of it. I am sick o people spelling things wrong such as windoze, winders, M$ and the like. It is MS Windows XP.

XP is great. I love it. Go use Linux or a few days and then come back to XP and it is like heaven. I can run top quality software that does something with windows XP but I can't with Linux. XP is the best desktop operatering system there is period.

[Comtech]

A common thread amongst the whiners is the "incompatibility" of some piece of hardware.
I find a lot of users who don't know the diff between a PC Chips mobo, and an Asus, between Kingston and Micron, between Rockwell and PCTel, ad infinitum.
Those who have some 2 year old **** from (insert big box store here) will have troubles. Those who built their own, quality machine have no troubles.
If you insist on being cheap about your hardware, don't ***** about XP not working.
Yes, there are issues with some higher end stuff, but not everyone runs it (it's the exception, not the rule), and they seem to expect MS to support EVERY piece of hardware ever built.

[earnie86]

I'm one of the people that built my own machine and have had no problems with XP. It rocks!:)

[SEALTEAMTHREE]

Most of the whining is for a good reason, mainly the fact that you have to REGISTER the OS. I put XP on my older system and I absolutely HATED it. Startup, and there in your face: "Would you like to register Microsoft Windows XP at this time?" EVERY TIME!!!!! After a while you can't run XP without registering. What a crock of BS!

[earnie86]

Take 10 seconds to register it and you won't see the screen again.

[SEALTEAMTHREE]

I don't want to register it and get more junk e-mail and telemarketing phone calls.

[Imperion1]

Here's some reading material about XP.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,68796,00.asp

I'm gonna get flamed for this.:D

[newclockr]

I haven't yet received unsolicited emails or calls from Microsoft. Besides, you don't have to register in order to activate XP.

[Explorer]

Generally I agree that a lot of blame is placed on Microsoft for things that aren't their fault.

But, a lot of the complaints are at least partly justified. Microsoft heavily promoted the idea in their advertising that Windows XP was the most stable operating system they've ever created (mostly true), and that almost nobody would have any problems with it. And that is true if you buy a brand new computer with only hardware and software specifically chosen to run with XP.

Of course, most of us don't own that kind of computer. If you have a computer more than a few months old, and/or are running any software not specifically designed for XP, you'll likely have some problems.

I now have a dual-boot configuration, with Win98SE on C: which is absolutely rock solid and never gives my any trouble. On D: (clean install on a new drive) is XP.

The sound card wouldn't work, had to change it. The printer (Epson) does not have all of it's functions available under XP. Excel (Microsoft Office 2000) refuses to print spreadsheets, reports, invoices in color, Adaptec Easy CD Creator 4.03 Deluxe wouldn't work, did an upgrade to Roxio 5.01, and worst of all a Microsoft Sidewinder 3D Pro joystick will not work in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator under Windows XP. My older Logitech WingMan Extreme joystick works just fine.

Imagine, a Microsoft hardware product that will not work in a Microsoft game on a Microsoft operating system !!!

There is some justification for the complaining.

[ngc457]

Only will work on computers a few months old.
I disagree. I have put XP on an AMD K6-2 400 on a motherboard with the crappy never ever get integrated video. XP installed perfect without a hitch. I have installed it on a 3 year old PII 350 and again the install was perfect and everysingle last part works.
Now from time to time there are parts or software that won't work. That has been the case with every windows update and has also been the case with the Mac OS as well. Most of the time there will be driver updates and software patches within a few months of release of the new OS. Also whenever there is an OS update it is normal for cd burning and virus protection not to work. It should be automatic when one buys an update for thier OS to buy an update for thier virus protect and or cd burning software as well.

[earnie86]

Originally posted by SEALTEAMTHREE
I don't want to register it and get more junk e-mail and telemarketing phone calls.

Do you have any proof of this? I have not had any of this happen as of yet, and I've had XP since it became available OEM.

[earnie86]

Originally posted by Imperion1
Here's some reading material about XP.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,68796,00.asp

I'm gonna get flamed for this.:D

Don't you find that patches and/or driver updates are inevitable with any software or hardware that needs high compatibility?

[earnie86]

Care for some cheese with that whine?

[jjkusaf]

SEALTEAMTHREE - Whatever. What you said is not true. It took maybe 2 seconds to *activate* XP. Also, if you do a fresh install (which you should do anyway), how will you receive unsolicited e-mail and phone calls? If you activate before you install anything (i.e. first boot), then your computer does not have any such info to send Microsoft. Geez man...lol. Funny, I receive zero spam. I guess your paranoia is unfounded and preposterous

Explorer - What kind of soundcard do you have?
As far as the printer, and the availability of *all functions*....now really, is that Microsoft’s fault or Epson’s? Maybe Epson should release updated software to provide *all functions*...duh.
Didn't they release a patch for Adaptec Easy CD Creator 4.03??
Funny, I do not have the same problems as you do with Excel 2000.
I have a sidewinder 3D Pro, and have ZERO problems with it (using it for FS 2002 and CFS)

Folks...for crying out loud...stop the tears!!

[Explorer]

This is in reply to jjkusaf's question regarding my sound card.

It's a Labway I found lying around and tried when my original card wouldn't work in XP. It uses a Yamaha OPL3-SAx 719 chipset. I had to get the driver from Yamaha as Labway didn't have an XP driver for it. The sound works fine, but not the Microsoft Sidewinder 3D Pro joystick. But, my Logitech WingMan Extreme works just fine with the native Windows XP drivers.

All in all, I've found XP very stable on the new systems I sell in the store, not so stable on older (2-3 years) systems. Some are OK, some aren't. Which brings me back to my original statement in my earlier post. Microsoft has led many to believe, with their advertising, that they've got to have it and it will work. My customers are surprised when I explain the problems they MAY run into.

As for Excel not printing color in my invoices. Excel's fault, Windows XP fault, Epson's? Who knows?

Microsoft did release a patch for Easy CD Creator 4.03. But, it's their patch, not Roxio's (formerly Adaptec) and it didn't work on my computer. Which admittedly is a three year old A-Bit BX6 Rev 2 motherboard, Creative Labs Banshee vid card, etc. A fairly typical mix of not brand new equipment similar to that which is still in use by most of my customers.

These people have 5 year old cars, 10 year old refrigerators, 7 year old TVs, etc and expect things to work properly for more than 2 years. The average user is just not all that computer savvy. I'm not talking about the types of users that visit this forum. Just Mom and Pop that believe the advertising.

This computer is a test bed. As a technical support provider and retailer, I felt it was important to see what problems my customer's might experience in upgrading their current operating systems.

Having said all of the above, I think Microsoft is on the right track. Quit trying to be all things to all people, resulting in code bloated operating systems that try to support all of the legacy hardware and software ever made. Doing that results in systems that are less stable than they could be and creates tech support nightmares.

Of course, their problem then becomes, where do you draw the line? Two year old hardware, 3 three years? There's an awful lot of 4 and 5 year old equipment still out there (and some even older) and abandoning those users is going to cause a severe consumer backlash from upset customers who find their computer's won't work all that well any more. Especially since Microsoft is adopting a policy of not providing support for operating systems over, I believe it was, 3 years old. Isn't support for Win98SE supposed to end in early or mid 2002?

I stick to my original statement. If they don't have near new equipment running hardware and software specifically made to work with XP, well, they'll almost certainly have some problems.

[dar1again]

i know this is way off the subject but i have a problem with xp, i have three accounts. on my other 2 accounts, i lost my "run as" command. i only have that command in the admin account. do you guys know how i can get it back because i can't install any programs on the other accounts.

[J.A.D]

This post is for microsoft fans to whine about people who whine about microsoft?

I think we are all happy for the XP users where everything works without a problem. I'm sure we all agree that because XP works fine for some, then anyone who has problems with XP must have done something wrong, the blame cannot be on not XP or microsoft.

[Explorer]

As I understand it, there are three types of accounts, Administrator, Limited, and Guest. The Administrator account has permission to do anything he/she wants. A Limited account generally does not have permission to install or remove hardware or software.

The following is from the WinXP Help and Support area:

Types of user accounts
There are two types of user accounts available on your computer: computer administrator and limited. The guest account is available by default for users with no assigned account on the computer.

Computer administrator account

The computer administrator account is intended for someone who can make systemwide changes to the computer, install software, and access all non-private files on the computer. Only a user with a computer administrator account has full access to other user accounts on the computer. A user with a computer administrator account:

Can create and delete user accounts on the computer.
Can change other users' account names, pictures, passwords, and account types.
Cannot change his or her own account type to limited unless there is at least one other user with a computer administrator account. This ensures that there is always at least one user with a computer administrator account on the computer.
Can manage his or her network passwords, create a reset password disk, and set up his or her account to use a .NET Passport.

Limited account

The limited account is intended for someone who should be prohibited from changing most computer settings and deleting important files. A user with a limited account:

Generally cannot install software or hardware, but can access programs that have already been installed on the computer.
Can change his or her account picture and can also create, change, or delete his or her password.
Cannot change his or her account name or account type. A user with a computer administrator account must make these kinds of changes.
Can manage his or her network passwords, create a reset password disk, and set up his or her account to use a .NET Passport

So, I would assume that if you went to Control Panel>User Accounts you can pick one or both of the other accounts and change them to Administrator accounts as well, giving them full control over the system, including installing software.

I haven't investigated whether you could, for one or both of the accounts, just give them permission to install software as I only have the 1 Admin account installed. I'm the sole user of this computer.

[earnie86]

dar1again; I have a similar problem with accounts, I have to give administrative rights to my kids, so they can install games. I think this is a problem that M$ is going to have to address. Maybe someone knows how to do it without admin. rights?

J.A.D.;
I think you are correct that many of the problems that people whine about are due to what they have done or installed, and not the fault of the OS.

[soulie2001]

Originally posted by SEALTEAMTHREE
Most of the whining is for a good reason, mainly the fact that you have to REGISTER the OS. I put XP on my older system and I absolutely HATED it. Startup, and there in your face: "Would you like to register Microsoft Windows XP at this time?" EVERY TIME!!!!! After a while you can't run XP without registering. What a crock of BS!

Depends on which version you have... I have the Professional OEM and I have not had to "register" it. Only had to put in a CD-Key like any windows version, and it has never asked me to register. All though what I hate is the auto sending **** to Microsoft when a proggie crashes. Other than that I can say it was the best piece of microsoft os I have ever seen since the days of MS-DOS! It is stable as all hell, saved my *** when I put on the latest detonators of nVidea 12/3 when they didn't work right and kept on making an endless refresh loop, so it went back to the 11/20something release. The only bug I have is when I installed I didn't install with my overclocking up, only the standard processor speed and when I wanted to overclock I needed to repair it to make it work right. As it is another small tiff I have with it, but I can deal. I like Linux and Windows equally now... Mandrake-Linux and Windows XP. My instability came from Windows 2000 SP2. I dunno about anyone else's whining but I am not.

[earnie86]

soulie2001;
You can disable error reporting in services, then it won't bother you again.:)

[wallie_x]

If the **** thing's sooo great, why does it fail to boot if you change the BIOS settings only slightly? Tempermental B_tch I'd say. Hates simple hardware changes, Do too many of them and you have to call the M$ Gestapo. M$ is so worried about losing a few bucks for Bill to squander that they screwed there best OS up. Oh well what'd you except from no competition cry baby M$. :mad:

[ngc457]

Fail to boot when you change some bios settings.

Here is the scoop. Every single last OS, Windows, Linux, BEOS, FreeBSD and even uncle bob's super groovy never crash do all OS will not boot if you make bios setting that your hardware can't handle.

[Bloodhawk89]

I have to agree with you newclockrnewclockr. I have the corporate enterprise edition of XP Pro on my Athlon system, and it rocks! I get connected at 53.2 bps on my dial up connection. That is at least 3k faster then with windows 2000 Pro. And everything works great with it! So like said here "suck it up and stop whining!" Quit being sissies people! XP kicks major ****! You'll kick yourself in the but forever when you get XP installed and realize how superior it is to any other windows OS! A friend of mine took my advice and a few days ago put XP Pro on his machine, and he says he doesn't know why he didn't do it sooner! (He was using that joke of upgrades on his HP: win ME!) He can't get over how impressive XP is. Take everyone's advice here on upgrading to XP! If you can, do the upgrade! Install is so easy, Grandma could do it!

[DMW]

LOVE XP, faster, smoother, prettier and more reliable than 98 or lower anyway! Only thing I hate, and I did not check before hand, is no support for 24bit Umax scanners. One would think a USB scanner would be supported by any OS out there! So I either go back to 2000 or buy another scanner, 36bit variety.
Always something to upgrade.

[llyr69]

Newclokr: ...."It's faster on & off the internet..."


Hmmmm, just how is this possible? Your OS has absolutely nothing to do with the type of Inet connect you have. Are you referring to how fast an app opens?

Congrats if it's working for you guy, but I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Product activation will do little or nothing to mitigate "casual copying" and nothing at all with the big time pirates that are costing M$ some admittedly major dollar damage.

The product activation "feature" alone has ruled out using XP for my home network OS....not that IMHO there's suffiently increased functionality in XP to justify M$'s price tag.

[wallie_x]

I've had XP since the first day it came out; and thanks to Staples, I got a free CD burner (Sony 12X8X32), free softare and free memory, retail $175 I also, just got the rebate checks!! However, ole Billy boy owed us one after bug heaven Win Me. He should of offered the upgrade for much cheaper to us poor slobs who had Mr. Freeze as a day to day companion. Xp has problems too. I chanded the boot sequence in my BIOS so I could boot from the floppy and what happens? The black screen of death. M$ is so worried about losin a few bucks because of abuse (loading the OS on multiple systems) that they screwed up their best effort yet.

[dabler37]

So, does anyone know how to troubleshoot XP? I have an Athlon 700 on an Abit KA7-100. I loaded XP a couple of weeks ago and worked fine for a while, much better than ME had been. However, one of the Microsoft updates has screwed it up. I get blue screen reboots all of the time while doing different things. The blue screen pops up and is gone so fast I do not have time to read it and figure out my problem. I would like to format my hard drive and start from scratch, but there seems to be no DOS format command that will work (I get "wrong version of DOS" error when I try copying from another machine). Also, it is having problems with a "Mass Storage Device", but between my CD-RW, DVD drive, and hard drive, I do not know which is causing the problem. Any ideas?:confused:

[PJR]

Went from 98SE to XP Pro; took a while to get used to it but have to say I'd never go back to 98. Anybody with fairly modern hardware should have no problems at all; just my 2pence worth!

Paul

[newclockr]

You may be able to remove the errantly downloaded patch. In the Control Panel, click ADD/REM Pgms. You'll find a list of the patches installed and their correponding "Q" number. To find out which, search the MS Knowledge Base using that number

An easier solution may be to use the System Restore tool after booting to Safe Mode.

With XP it's important to only apply the patches that apply to your hardware/software configuration. If you're not experiencing the specific problem that the patch is for, it will mess you up!

Check your Device manager and Event Viewer for insight into your hardware errors.

You need not format and start over.

[dabler37]

Thanks. I will try the event viewer to try and get some insight into what is happening.

[Apemantus]

This is a situation that keeps recurring every time a new OS is released by MS. And the same batch of people go out and buy it as soon as it's put on the shelf, and the same batch of people instantly start slating MS as soon as a single bug is found, or the thing doesn't run flawlessly.

It happened when people migrated from Win3.1 to Win95

It happened again when people migrated from Win95 to Win98

And it's happening again now people are moving to ME/2000 & XP.

The smart ones are the people who don't instantly splash their cash and wait for the other people mentioned above, to do the bug reporting for them, thus covering most of the issues before they even install it themselves.

Slating and dissing a piece of software when its only been on the shelf a few months is a bit stiff. I've got my reservations about the upgrade, having performed it twice for other people. BUT, I won't label it as rubbish until i've had chance to test it for at least 6 months and most of the early problems have been solved.

And before i'm labelled as an "MS-Lover", when was the last time YOU bought a piece of software either OS, or otherwise that worked flawlessly from the box and never needed so much as a whiff of a patch?

It seems to me that some people are forever destined to live their lives with their feet on the soapbox, but their heads in the sand.

Regards,

Ape

[Hammy1]

Good,fast cant beat it for speed.but every time i turn it on i get an error report,i cant even delete it.my pc still works fine though,to make matters worse ive now got the same error on my other pc.the first error is
C\win\minidump\mini 100601-06dmp
Does anyone have any answers,ive formatted and this has popped up again.
Hammy.

[suzuki1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soulie2001
[B]

Depends on which version you have... I have the Professional OEM and I have not had to "register" it. Only had to put in a CD-Key like any windows version, and it has never asked me to register.

I want to try XP but dont want registration.
Is this on all OEM copies of WinXP or certain copies?
Anything special I should look for???

Thanks for any input.

Suzuki1

[Josef K]

Originally posted by llyr69
Newclokr: ...."It's faster on & off the internet..."


Hmmmm, just how is this possible? Your OS has absolutely nothing to do with the type of Inet connect you have. Are you referring to how fast an app opens?

Yes, this is an interesting statement. If you go to Administrative Tools->Group Policy->Computer Configuration->Administrative Templates->Network->QoS Packet Scheduler->Limit Reservable Bandwidth you will see that XP by default reserves 20% of bandwidth for QoS reporting. To get that back you should not disable it but to leave it enabled and set the value to 0%. With this fact in mind, it should appear that your connection speed should actually be 20% slower.

Since I'm here in this thread anyway, I'll add my own horror story:

I like XP. What I don't like is that Microsoft have made themselves less prone to support calls than ever by enabling as many services as they can by default in order that new users do not try to do something and wonder why it just isn't happening. I already mentioned the QoS thing above but let's move onto the biggest progblem I encountered when I moved to XP:

I burn a lot of my own CDs. Before XP is released I hear it has its own incorporated CD burner. "Fine" I think to myself - I wouldn't be using it (I use my own preferred software) and I have enough disk space to not even worry about it for the rest of eternity. I know it's based on Roxio's horrendous EZCD Creator software so I remind myself to keep an eye out for it to disable it. I look through services and try to get rid of all the things that refer to anything sounding like it then I move on. However, when I go to burn a CD I find that the operations just will not complete without errors. Not with Nero, CDRWin, CloneCD... - nothing! Somehow I managed (with many, many changes and experimentation) to get them to work. So many changes, in fact, that I could not begin to explain how to do it again if I needed to install XP fresh.

The point of all this is that Microsoft have, in their wisdom, made it too easy on themselves. Instead of giving us the option of having one of their features made available to us, they deny us that right (we bought their software - I think we should have rights in how we use it). I would have much preferred a dialog box or even some kind of "Let's set a few preferences before you begin using XP" five minute wizard that you must complete before you can use XP. This one would be along the lines of: "Will you want to use XP's inbuilt CD Burning capabilities? If you answer "No" you can re-enable the service later by running this wizard again.". Think of all the people who don't have CD writers who lose all that RAM to this useless (for them) service!

Well anyway, rant over with. WEll, there's lots of hours of my life testing and wasting CDs that I can't have back...

[earnie86]

Quote "Yes, this is an interesting statement. If you go to Administrative Tools->Group Policy->Computer Configuration->Administrative Templates->Network->QoS Packet Scheduler->Limit Reservable Bandwidth you will see that XP by default reserves 20% of bandwidth for QoS reporting. To get that back you should not disable it but to leave it enabled and set the value to 0%. With this fact in mind, it should appear that your connection speed should actually be 20% slower"

This is incorrect;
Whether you leave this at 0% or 20%, you will not notice the difference. The reserve happens only for short periods of time, and does not affect bandwidth adversely. This is according to the people on The Screensavers show.

[Josef K]

Originally posted by earnie86
This is incorrect;
Whether you leave this at 0% or 20%, you will not notice the difference. The reserve happens only for short periods of time, and does not affect bandwidth adversely. This is according to the people on The Screensavers show.

From the WinXP newsletter from www.winxpnews.com (offshoot of Sunbelt Software at www.sunbelt-software.com)

Windows XP Professional has a feature built into it called QoS (Quality of Service). This feature allows the operating system to optimize bandwidth allocation for different services. While
books are filled with incomprehensible information on this subject, what you need to know is that this feature actually throttles back your available bandwidth. QoS reserves 20% of the
available bandwidth on any connection for itself. This means you can't use it for downloads and LAN connections! You can cut the QoS brick tied to the back of your network connection
by performing the following steps:
Click Start and then click the Run command.
In the Run dialog box, type gpedit.msc in the Open text box. Click OK.
In the Group Policy window, expand Computer Configuration, and then expand Administrative Templates. Expand Network and click on QoS Packet Scheduler.
Double click on the Limit reservable bandwidth entry in the right pane.
Select the Enabled option and then type 0 in the Bandwidth limit (%) text box. Click Apply and then click OK.
Close the Group Policy window and restart the computer (not sure if you need to restart the computer, but do it anyhow).QoS is enabled by default on all adapters. If you disabled it
for some reason, make sure it is enabled, or else it's possible that the 20% limitation will be enforced anyhow. There's not too much documentation of this feature, so if you find it
improves your bandwidth, let us know!

From my understanding, QoS demands 20% of the network bandwidth for its own use. I know that Windows help barely mentions QoS but I have found no evidence to say that the system uses anything other than the setting suggests, unless changed.

The description from the Policy Editor itself:

Determines the percentage of connection bandwidth that the system can reserve. This value limits the combined bandwidth reservations of all programs running on the system.

By default, the Packet Scheduler limits the system to 20 percent of the bandwidth of a connection, but you can use this setting to override the default.

If you enable this setting, you can use the "Bandwidth limit" box to adjust the amount of bandwidth the system can reserve.

If you disable this setting or do not configure it, the system uses the default value of 20 percent of the connection.

Important: If a bandwidth limit is set for a particular network adapter in the registry, this setting is ignored when configuring that network adapter.

Either way, QoS will at some point use some of your bandwidth. Why let it do that! I want that 20% back - I paid for my connection and I want all the speed I am entitled to, no matter how small. Think about this: If I played an online game and I was experiencing lag and then the 20% QoS thing kicked in... Should I be happy with that?

BTW: Who are the people at The Screensaver Show? I've never heard of them - URL? The only things I can find using different variations in the address are... screensaver sites of all things!

[earnie86]

Here is the url http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/ The person was referring to the article you show. She seems very technically advanced and she said that tweak was bogus. I didn't record the show, so I don't remember word for word what she said. I'm pretty sure her name is Morgan, so you can e-mail her to get her explanation of exactly why. :) But of course you're free to do what you want.

[newclockr]

Re: FASTER...With win98 I tried every tweak I could find to increase my internet bandwidth. Best I ever got was 32.2. With XP I consistently get at least 41.2 and usually 45.2. Can't say HOW this is , but it is.

As for burning cds, I prefer my Nero5.5 for most (esp. mixed audio) but I do use the built-in too. Since installing XP Beta RC2 and then the final XP Pro when it was released, I've only had 3 coasters (of 30+ burns) and I consider those 3 "user errors".

With the proper updates to XP and Nero, they seem to get along just fine and both are quite usable.

As for RIGHTS?? You have all the rights to use any software within the limits YOU AGREE TO by clicking the agree button in the EULA. If you don't like the terms, don't agree.

[Overkill[TBP]]

LoL any of you notice been watching the news at all? I knew XP was **** to begin with, There's major security flaws in it, And you know a patch will never fix a flaw like that, it just makes it a little harder for hackers to get around it. Once a flaw is there, it's there forever. XP = ****, Microsoft = The Devil

This coming from a WinME user, however if they made games for linux I wouldn't even have a Windows copy in my house, I hang the disks up on my christmas tree along with my many copies of AOL

[Apemantus]

By slating a windows product, and being a MS user your basically being a hypocrite, as you hinted to yourself.

Do you honestly think ME or Windows 98 3rd Edition as its sometimes called has any less flaws in it than XP?

As a user, the responsibility for the security of your system relies with one person. YOU.

There isn't an OS available that is 100% secure. Every OS out there has the means to be hacked into, otherwise hackers wouldn't exist in such great numbers as they do.

When you click the "I Agree" button you accept all responsibility for the performance of that product. But as any savvy computer user will tell you, there are ways and means of reducing such a risk.

A couple being that you make sure you have a good Antivirus & firewall combination, and that you keep yourself up to date, also making sure that you keep unsolicited emails to a minimum.

With the complexity of the Modern OS, doing one that would be 100% secure would cost thousands of man hours, alot of money and would have to be designed from the ground up, meaning no compatibility with older software, i doubt very much that an OS like this would get anywhere if people couldn't run at least some of their existing software on it.

And how you can honestly make an informed decision not even being a user of the said product is beyond me!

You've chosen not to buy it, fair enough, kudos to you but don't try and imply that other people are idiots just because they don't share your opinion.

Regards,

Ape.

[earnie86]

Overkill[TBP];

If you were watching the news at all, you would of seen that Linux had a gaping security hole about a month or so ago. It happens to them all. Like Apemantus said, you are responsible for the security of your system.

[newclockr]

Well said, Apemantus!

[earnie86]

Here is the link for the skinny on XP and bandwidth reserve, if anyone wants to know more.
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/windowstips/story/0,24330,3365585,00.html

[Overkill[TBP]]

Apemantus

I never said I never used WinXP. I said "this coming from a WinME user."

I use WinME for gaming. I tried all the Windows OSes except for NT4. So don't start on that.

I also think WinME is the most compatible for games. Sure it may not use memory efficiently but I'm not worried about that. All the OSes have their up's and down's. And to tell you the truth I liked XP, I only got rid of it because it was too buggy for the games I played. That security flaw is just another fact why Microsoft sucks so much *****.

Also did you know, that this flaw only effected "from what I heard" the Home edition of Windows XP? You do realize that the majority of normal users would buy the Home Edition, now all those people have to get this so called patch that can be worked around in a month or two. Can you really trust Microsoft?

Now their Sueing Lindows for trademark infringes. They can't even handle that they got competition.

Notice how XP lowers the need of 3rd Party Apps, They want everything Microsoft. Oh no their going to install WinZip, we better put a "good" zip program in there. Good ha, I only used that program once when I had XP, I didn't check what it could unzip like ACE or RAR or anything else for that matter. Probably just ZIP files, but yeah yeah you use it, it crashes. Crashes on simple Bios changes, crashes on overclocking. Crashes when you pick your nose. Microsoft Sucks.

I would never buy the Xbox either. But I want to see if it has a BSOD. I'd laugh my *** off so hard if I actually saw it.

"Oh wait, theres a problem with my Xbox, lets call Microsucks, be on hold for 2 hours, then talk to 5 tech support people that say we can not support your problem." LOL I've been through that before.... Not with the Xbox though. I had a problem IE5.5 and Win98 and they couldn't help me, and guess what? The very next day i fixed the problem. My mom was mad at me because of the phone bill. Support my ***.

Your right though the security is only as good as the user. I've never been affected by any trojan, virus, or hacker for that matter, ever. I once installed Backoriface on my computer though to see how it worked. Both my brothers have had trojans on their comp's though. I had to get rid of them, but do you see how simple it is to get one of these installed without you even noticing? Pretty easy.

Earnie86. You do know that there's hardly any viruses that do any harm to a linux machine or Mac machine? Yeah there or some, but nothing to do much damage. But There's over 58000 viruses for Windows "Latest NAV Update" 58000, my god. There are certainly alot of people out there that don't like Microsoft.

Your also right that yeah I hate Microsoft, but I use WinME. You know what though if Lindows breaks through I'll be using that next. I'm a gamer, it's what I do, gaming is my life, some people only wish they could just play games all the time like I do. Others think I should grow up. I say to hell with them. Win98Se and WinME are the best OSes for gaming period. So thats why I use WinME, I deal with it. I don't have your average computer problems though, any problems I have it because I caused the problem. Gaming isn't the only thing I do, I do alot of tweaking and hardware work, so if I never did any of that, my comp would be one of the most stable out there.

Anyways, it's not good to argue with me, I tend to be stubburn even if I wrong, which in this case though many times I'm right.

:)

[earnie86]

I took this quote from a newsletter.
"1. ==== NEWS AND VIEWS ====
(contributed by Paul Thurrott, News Editor, thurrott@winnetmag.com)

* LINUX DESKTOP USE STALLS AT 0.24 PERCENT
Linux might have become a sizable force in the server market, but on
the desktop, the open-source solution has been less than successful. In
fact, according to a recent survey from market-research firm Web Side
Story, Linux accounts for just 0.24 percent--that's point twenty-four
percent or less than one-quarter of one percent--of all desktop OS use.
According to the company, Windows and Macintosh users combined make up
about 98 percent of the desktop OS market. The vast majority of that
group, of course, uses Windows."

Overkill[TBP];
Linux accounts for less than 1/4 of 1% of all desktops. If you were writing viruses, would you target such a small group? Lindows is vaporware.

[Overkill[TBP]]

Yeah I wonder why Linux is hardly used as a Desktop OS

It's because Linux doesn't advertise. And linux doesn't force dealers to sell their products.

Besides companies write their programs for Windows, thats why It can't run windows apps on Linux "yet" I bet when you can though, the desktop market will change.

People that actually have linux as a desktop OS know how to use it, Ain't no average joe going to go in a store and pick a linux version off the shelf without knowing what he's doing with it first.

And I betcha that that small group is the one thats writing the viruses.

[astra12]

Seems we buy any old rubbish from Big Bill G. It's Ok putting fixes and updated files for security faults and non-working hardware on Microsofts site, but how many of us would buy a Fridge, Washing Machine, TV/Video, Car etc if we got ripped off every time, (which we do when a new version of Windows comes out). I don't think we'd stand for it. As long as we buy his rubbish he will make it, and until something better comes out we will keep buying it and whinging about it. This time with XP it's even better, he's got us all upgrading our hardware, even though we don't need to. Good luck to him, if he's astute enough to con us ALL out of our hard earned money, he deserves every last cent of it.


:D

[Overkill[TBP]]

Yeah good luck to you 3DFX users out there running WinXP. I tried it and had many problems. Then I went out and got a Asus Geforce 3 Deluxe Ti500, and went back to WinME, lol. I love 3DFX but lack of driver updates, and the fact that it's getting older now and new things are coming out, I decided to get a new card. I still have 3 Voodoo 3's and a Voodoo5 all put away safely. I saw a Voodoo5 6000 on ebay for over 2000 bucks heh.

[The Highlander]

I am using winxp and I have not had any mayor crashes... I have now XP pro and nothing wrong so far...

I have also the home ed and no problems here either...

Linux is hardly used bacause its difficult for instance to set up a $300 GF3 card on the system. And because its hard to do practically anything... I bought Red Hat 6.1 when it came out, around $19.99 at Sams. I installed twice and I went through so much pain and hassles that I gave it to my friend... The only good thing it had was PQBoot that came bundled with it...

There were no drivers... only 16 colors for my then savage 4 card... and nothing worked... No sound drivers no nothing!!! when I searched... you have to make your wown drivers... WHOA!!! :mad:

I installed again the old M$.

I have everything perfect and in fact... I love the program...

I do not find it wrong that winxp comes bundled with lots of software...

I paid for Winzip and getright... and no matter what I install them... But its nice that you have a built in CDR utility... Though I prefer nero.... I only have the Demo because I dont think its worht the money for the usage i give it... I remember that the first time I had internet that was around 1994 or so... that I bought a 28.8 modem... I had to spend $84.00 for a copy of Netscape Navigator, afterwards I found out that IE30 was free... **** it... $84.00 that took me about 3 months to get that kind of money at that time... (on my daily allowance $2.00 per school day...) I liked it better than 3.0 but, when the 5.0 came out, I loved it and I never ever used COmunicator again.

When you buy an OS it says it... OPERATING SYSTEM... you need to have everything to operate your Hardware such as your CDR printer... etc...

They do not offer all the feautures, but its a life saver... and easy to use...

I think its great, apart from the WPA. which may result in later times in a pay per use of your software... Like a montly bill of electricity, a montly bill of your OS!!!

If this is as good as it gets... I will stay here as long as I can
But if it gets better than this... I will always upgrade... to greedy bill and his M$ windows

[chris307uk]

i was running 98 then me, all things said both o/s work ok some crashes blue screens driver probs just the normal stuff. done a format and installed xp-pro booted into windows with no probs found all my hard ware, runs verry well quick,rock solid,looks nice . only prob was installing norton a/v 2002 it disabled it on a restart but give me a link for the patch, i patched it and it works fine .thought i would of had some probs with my system because home built with some old parts it surprised me. ref- mobo-gigabyte ga-71xeh amd 850 voodoo 3 2000 (now using geforce 2 mx 400 just removed the voodoo and pluged in the geforce card worked fine ) some old sound card and modem. all in all xp works great

[Crashman]

You, my friend, are a moron. For what reason would you want to use XP? Becaue it's faster? NO, IT"S SLOWER, up to 20% slower in games. Programs come up faster because more sturtup files are automtically cached to ram, but that does not affect the fact that they RUN slower.

So why then, because it can manage higher amounts or RAM (more than 512MB)? IF WEREN'T USING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDN'T NEED MORE THAN 512MB OF RAM! Half the problem is all those cached startup files needed to make it load programs faster (before they run slower).

So for what then, for cmpatability? IT CAN'T SUPPORT HALF MY HARDWARE!

Oh, maybe your stability fiasco? IF YOU BUILT A STABLE SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDN'T NEED INCREASED STABILITY, my system stays up for months at a time in 98SE!

[stevedee]

:) Hi , I run xp on a PII266 with 96MB of 66MHz RAM.....flawless install, flawless operation. I also run linux , pretty much the same. My preference, XP, for those who do not want to spend money and purchase software stick with Linux. Pretty simple recipe eh?
Oh and have a Xceptional new year


spd :-)

[mrhutch]

I use UNIX and MS.. My opinions

Server Side, UNIX/Linux rocks.. you don't need a sever to look pretty but page you five times a night because of a dumba$$ error... a server "serves"! - thats where a solid, really mature OS comes in handy - UNIX/Linux/W2K??

desktop.. XP wins hands down. all the stability that we (grew) to love with NT, the idea of true threading and a true kernel, plus it looks great and performs excellently! MS SQL2000 personal/MSDE Loves it. my desktop as work can outperform the production server on a one user level.. that's progress..

just my opinion..

BTW mine is OEM, activated but not registered, and I have not heard a peep from outside marketers/microsoft

[Apemantus]

Crashman, like i have siad before, and i am doing my best to remain impartial... Just because YOU personally aren't having much joy with it, doesn't mean to say it's ****e.

This is a vicious circle, every time MS release an OS, everyone rushes out and buys it straight away, without checking what will, and won't be supported, then whinge when they realise their mistake.

Do you know how much software & hardware there is in the world? don't you realise that in order to release the **** product at all there has to be a cutoff point with certain legacy stuff?

There probably ARE problems with XP, there WERE problems with 3.1, 95, 98, Me & 2000. There isn't a single OS or any piece of software in the world that works without problems. When a new OS is released, as a general rule you need to allow 6 months for all the problems that weren't found in testing to be discovered and fixed.

Those of you with savvy, know NOT to rush out and buy it straight away, and to wait till the dust settles.

Maybe this eXPerience (sic) will make make you learn your lesson for the next time.

Regards,

Ape.

[earnie86]

Originally posted by Crashman


Oh, maybe your stability fiasco? IF YOU BUILT A STABLE SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULDN'T NEED INCREASED STABILITY, my system stays up for months at a time in 98SE!

Have you seen anyone state that XP has instability problems?

Your win 98 kernel based system stays up for months at a time without a restart? Yeah right!:D