XP: Why It sucks, why its good...
 

I Just wanted to post this to see if anyone here agrees with me.


Why XP Is good:
Transparency :D
Stablity (Not as much crashes)
Faster
Noob Friendly (May or may not be good)


Why it sucks:
Big as hell.
Compatability (counts as 3 reasons)
Removal of MS Dos
Anti ccom (for those of you who have AOL you will agree)

Well I had XP. Not only did it crash all the time but it was very unstable for me. My hardware is new so dont give me shit by saying old hardware problems. Ive had endless problems, slower than older os' to load slightly and is slow when it finally does load.

This is all of course compared to the very stable 2k with service pack 3. 2k is my favourite os and has never crashed in all the time ive used it (i used it for 6 months a while ago and now im back to it again)

The point is, do you want a fast reliable os that does what you want it to do, or do you want a stupid os for the sake that its newer which crashes and is shyte with a pixy luna theme and a couple of dainty pictures that brightens it up?

Im pleased with windows 2000 and i prefer to use an os which wasnt rushed to be made. xp was banged together for people who want to mess around with stuff. 2k originally wasnt popular as NT has compatibilty issues with many games etc so for most people ME was a great alternative.

Now XP is out its NT and games do work there with an occasional glitch. The point is though, i have service pack 3 of windows 2000 and it runs smmothly with new and old games and programs.

I am glad i saw the light after using XP...
:)

ps, a friend of mine that fixes computers in a pc shop constantly sees computers in all the time with problems with xp. She is pissed off with computers now and has got rid of hers :)

I blame greedy Bill Gates.

Re: XP: Why It sucks, why its good...
 

- - Big as hell.
Every modern operating system is big as hell. Mandrake has 3 disks.

- - Compatability (counts as 3 reasons)
Blarg.

- - Removal of MS Dos
MS-DOS is a security breach waiting to happen. Good riddance.

- - Anti ccom (for those of you who have AOL you will agree)
I don't know what ccom is. :)

People say it crashes but it doesnt. Atleast not for me. Its WAY more stable then 98se. And it doesnt freeze. At all. I want to find out about other peoples problems with xp. So KEEP REPLYING!!!

the difference between modern linux distros and winxp is the install. you can select each and everything to install. people can often complain about the bulk of distros just must not know that.
i download packages as i need them and do mininum and custom installs.

but anyways i never had one bsod with xp, a couple software related freezes is about all since i got it back in september or whatever.
people that have the problems, i dunno. even new hardware has it's problems when mixed with other components in certain os's. sometimes newer hardware can be worse if it not's officially supported by the os or needs firmware updates.

Re: XP: Why It sucks, why its good...
 

Im so glad someone brought this up!!!

I sooooooo know what you mean! I had 2 miserable weeks when AOL wasnt being accepted with my PC! AOL 7 was crashing and it was reaking of bill gates trying to block AOL off!

I was so annoyed as AOL is a lovely stable ISP that downloads faster than all the others ive tried and doesnt have an autodisconnect!

Now i have 2k i may get it again :)

MSDos was shit but at least it ran GTA1 properly

My reason for XP being crap: Its made by $atan$oft

my reason for XP being good: Erm.. well... no... er.. I carnt think of one

Re: XP: Why It sucks, why its good...
 

Apparantly hell is 1 gigabyte... maybe I should try finding a copy of hell on Kazaa ... :hang: ;) :p

Hell is not 1Gb, Ceberous' room is more than 1Gb:D

XP is good because it doesn't restart itself 6+ times a day like 98.

isn't ccom the dial-up method it uses or something like that? maybe
if AOL would switch to the standard that all other ISPs use we wouldnt
have this problem! I don't know if it more stable than 98SE but it's
a hell of lot more stable than ME!

it seems to me that the people who are educated about computers and OS's, like xp and like microsoft.
the other people who know nothing about computers and nothing about OS's and other such things dis it..

who would you believe??

Uh... thats debatable :hang:

win2k runs fine for me. I have no reason to upgrade.

not to mention that win2k will run on this low spec machine while XP will NOT.

alright i'll clarify my statement...

alot of people around here bash microsoft for no good reason...when the most likely reason there computer runs like crap is because they do not know how to keep it running good..

wow thats an excellant reason!!! dis an OS because its made by a company you dont like! pure genious, i wish i coulda thought of that!

I've got mine running "well" I love Bill Gates and Microsoft. I think XP is the best OS I've ever come across. Personally I plan on sticking to Microsoft. "Windows XP"! check "Sidewinder Strategy Commander"! check "X Box Home Entertaiment System" check.....Go Microsoft!!!

on my machine, XP is stable as all hell. it's was running non-stop for 3 weeks, but I unplugged it due to a nasty thunder storm. and 85% of the time it was running for those 3 weeks, it was playing songs via winamp. never crashed, never hiccuped, never had trouble ending tasks, never even locked up a program, not even breifly. as far as I'm concerned, the only problem with XP is the fact that it is too user friendly. you have to think in terms of lowest common denominator when posing a question to the help menu.

1. Let me clarify what a ccom is. A ccom is a program on aol or irc that is run by command. I.E: in the chat you type pr Winamp and it takes you to the private room called winamp. You press r and it plays a random song. You type bust Winamp and it will keep retrying non stop to get into winamp when its full. These are just examples ccoms have like 500+ commands. In short, ccoms make your life a hella of alot easier.

2. I like xp because it doesnt make you restart your comp 15 times a day. My comp is old, 2k. 500mhz, 128mb ram. And it runs like a p4 on xp. On 98se, it runs, like a 500mhz computer. Maybe people with VERY new hardware have problems. And games that wont work on xp can be MADE to work on xp. So keep em' coming cuz this is interesting.

P.S: I am afraid of xbox. I dont want that while im playing Halo it says xbox has commited fatal error: 100028425 and will have to shut down. Plus the big green glowing circle in the middle scares me.

Testify.

I am wondering, though, where those redhat stand next to xp?

can i have some tasty crisps?

Re: Re: XP: Why It sucks, why its good...
 

An OS is worthless in my books if you have to recompile the kernel just to get CD burning capabilities :hang:

After formatting my computer 5+ times and trying 4 O.S. last week, I'm currently using XP.

These are the ones I tried:

w98 S.E.: Good, but not stable enough for me. Also, it slows down a lot when doing tasks that may seem "common" with other O.S.

w2000: V. Good, and very stable, but for some strange reason, it would crash with OpenGL, and since I do some 3d modeling and game a lot, it's no use to me. (and yes, I had the latest drivers/patchs/etc)

Mandrake Linux 8.2: V. Good, but couldn't run Half Life on it. Also, I don't have enough time to learn all the obscure commands it uses, and to compile every app. I dled. Very Very Very stable. If I had the time to learn it, I may stick to it.

Win XP: V. Good, and V. Stable too. Easy to use (agree on the "maybe too easy" comments). I just must take care of not opening too many apps or it'll slow down, but this is fault of my computer, not Windows'. So far, the best MS product I've ever seen. and Probably the best O.S. I've seen.

The decision between Linux and XP was really close, but like I said, some tasks take more time to learn/do in Linux. Also, it's 10 times easier to find programs for Windows than for Linux.

That's just my humble opinion.

I like XP and 98. I dont like microsoft though. It crushes its oponents in sleazy ways. I.E AOL and Netscape. If linux was good, easier to make progs use and to just use then I would be on linux. But there are SOOOO little progs for linux. And people have told me that its easier to learn japanese in 72hrs then learn linux in a month.

ROTFL!!! that's true!!! I learned the basics of japanese in about 48 hours, and I never got to compile XChat on Linux... couldn't find all the GD libraries it needed, amongst other things.

my OLD computer had 95. crap. my new new computer had ME. CRAP-LOUSY!! i recently did a reformat and my first clean install of XP, and it is blazingly fast for my computer (P4 1300, 128 RAM). it runs almost 2x as fast as ME it seems. i have a 2k disc, but i dont know what service pack or whatever. never installed it though. never had 98se, either. but XP never crashes, reboots fast as hell, does everything i want it to, and even does some things automatically, like setting up internet connections ithout the ISP software. and whatever anybody says about XP not running on 128 is bullcrap.

Amen...

mandrake solves the install profanity exercise, where as gentoo solves the dependency problems that rpms and source compiling has.

hmm but if you install some known dependencies from mandrake's development or get some from rpmfind.net, compiling anything should be simple.

although i really cannot talk, i only compiled like ten or so things, another ten were rpms. i don't use much software, just a select few things to do all i need.

heh and edonkey2000 works so much better on linux, it's amazing, it actually Connects! :D

Re: XP: Why It sucks, why its good...
 

If by transparecy you mean alpha transparency well Win2k had that so thats nothing new.

Stability is the biggest plus for XP, however Win2k was just as stable.

Yes, it is faster, if you have beefy enough hardware.

n00b friendly, well just about every microsoft os is n00b friendly, i think microsoft overdid it a bit, with the cute puppy search thing, but that can always be changed back to standard.

And your resons for not liking it.

Big as hell, well take a look at the included software and tell me how they could make it smaller. SuSE linux professional comes on 6cd's and one DVD and a full install is over 6GB...Makes XP look small in comparison.

Compatability hasnt been an issue for me. The only program i couldnt get working was blackice defender, but i've switched to zone alarm which i've found is better anyway.

The aol stuff doesnt bother me...I dont use it.

I also completely disagree with your thinking removal of dos is a downside. Dos is old and nowdays its pretty much useless for the average consumer. It has a dos emulator for those programs that need dos but its not a fully functional dos like that in Win9x...So what???? Just install dos to another partition and boot to that if you need dos.

The only upside to XP over Win2k is its pretty skinnable interface and updated support for pnp hardware.

Well thats my thoughts on this anyways...

The only thing that really bothers me is the compatability with games and ccoms.

what have you had problems installing? every game i have works fine so far.

I havent had any problems with games either.

I just thought of a few things microsoft should have done with XP and i hope they do in the next version.

They are to make it default to the NTFS to the fat file system an give numerous warnings before allowing people to make it FAT32. Like 'are you really sure you want to do this'?

They should also have disabled the floppy drive as default. 3.5in floppys are a joke nowdays, just about everything comes on a cd, even driver disks. Theyre bootable on modern machines and burners are popular nowdays. The floppy is dead. My next system wont even have a floppy drive installed. Of course there are certain times where floppys are necessary, so they shoulnt have support removed completely, just disabled. So someone with admin priveleges has to enable it for each user. The reason im saying this is that floppys are just the right size for introducing a virus into a system.

Windows 2000 does everything XP does, and usually faster; it also takes up less system resources. The way I see it, there are two reasons to 'upgrade' to XP:

1. GUI. The new look of XP, worth an upgrade? I think not.
2. Compatibility. Windows 2000 supports all of my hardware(and there are always drivers available online). In my experience, all programs that work with XP work with 2000. Worth an upgrade? I think not.

I have windows XP and i hate it it keeps on crashing and it does not have a proper verson of dos on it :mad:

win2000 pro is the most stable microsoft operating system there is
xp is based on windows 2000, with added features, and a changed api to accept its new dress, thus taking up more resources, xp is a good os, but a ramhog, it is in essence, a dressed up version of 2k pro to introduce home users to the NT technology, as it is far superior ro 9x, however, if you have a decent pc with lots of ram, use xp, it'll serve you well.
if your pc isnt that fast, or you just dont want all the frilly chunkyness of xp, use win2000 pro.

as for compatibility problems, microsoft have done a grand job in putting as many drivers as possible onto the cd, just imagine how much hardware there is in this world, and for almost all of it to work in any configuration after install, without having to rebuild the kernel, it makes petty arguments over "my sound card doesnt work" seem silly, if you get decent new hardware, it'l work fine.
as for AOL not working, people should realise that the protocols changed, msn isnt trying to BLOCK aol, its trying to raise the standard of networking.

Amen to that! And I'm not blaming my soundcard problem on XP or 2000, I'm blaming it on myself for probably being to heavyhanded on the soundcard.

Nem, I agree with you about people who bash MS for no reason, but I think your info may be wrong here. I read recently that due to business differences that AOL 7.0 and WindowsXP weren't compatible. I can't remeber the details though and it's akmost 5 a.m. here and I 'm too tired to find them. Does anybody know about this? I know that AOL no longer ships with Windows.

XP also handles IRQ's much more effectivly. I was unable to rip CD's with 2k because it put 11 devices on one irq. What I ended up with was a lot of white noise. XP has fixed this and I can rip very hapily.

Yes it is havier on resources but if you buy a new machine with it on it'll run fine. If you put it on a 2 year old machine with some more memory it'll run fine.

I really don't know how people are having so much trouble with it. I sugest over tweaking and/or hardware issues in the system, soundcard-M/b confilcts etc. I have installed a hell of a lot of shit on my pc with XP on it and had several viruses but it is still running reasonably, perhaps in need of a format sooner or later for a regular clean out, but I could hapily go on for months before formatting. I can't say that of 9x/ME - I formatted on average twice a week on the same machine :down:

100% :up:

My computer is over 3.5 years old now, but the only hardware issue I had was the inability to use my second monitor output... because the manufacturer demands OEM drivers.. not because of Windows. Pretty spectacular support.