Do you hate Windows XP

[rbV5]

XP MCE 2005 is my new OS of choice.

 

[yelo333]

Originally posted by: VanillaH
theme service doesnt really take up that much resources really... hope you win2k lovers enjoy your extra long boot time and lack of PS/2 mouse sampling rate anything higher than 100Hz. <- the only glaring differences i can tell except for themes which is a nice bonus.

PS/2 mouse sampling rate is set to 200hz on all my boxes...The option is on one of the tabs of a related device, I *think* it's the ps2 port properties, but, it might be right there inside the farthest-to-the-right tab of the mouse control panel. This is on win2k.

And, win2k for me. I abhor winxp sp2's constantly asking me if I'm sure I want to start program X(b/c, for some reason, it's a security risk - but, more of a paranoid level of questions, IMHO), and I can't find a way to shut it off(help would be appreciated).

Actually, linux for me, but, that's a different story...when I absolutely must run some prog that needs windows, and won't run via WINE, I boot to win2k. The rest of the time, linux.

 

[konakona]

PS/2 mouse sampling rate is set to 200hz on all my boxes...The option is on one of the tabs of a related device, I *think* it's the ps2 port properties, but, it might be right there inside the farthest-to-the-right tab of the mouse control panel. This is on win2k.

And, win2k for me. I abhor winxp sp2's constantly asking me if I'm sure I want to start program X(b/c, for some reason, it's a security risk - but, more of a paranoid level of questions, IMHO), and I can't find a way to shut it off(help would be appreciated).

Actually, linux for me, but, that's a different story...when I NEED windows, I boot to win2k. The rest of the time, linux.

thx for the correction, mine would only go up to 100Hz max on win2k. come to think of it, that could have been one of older sp releases. the only program that asks if i want to run or not is nero... i could live with that

 

[yelo333]

Originally posted by: VanillaH


thx for the correction, mine would only go up to 100Hz max on win2k. come to think of it, that could have been one of older sp releases. the only program that asks if i want to run or not is nero... i could live with that

99% of the time, a cap around that HZ frequency is more of a motherboard/bios limitation than anything else. Now that you mention it, I do recall a motherboard of mine doing the same thing, but that was using ps2rate on win98se.

Back on topic, I believe I came down a bit hard on XP...really, either is fine, just that I prefer the more business-oriented defaults/candware-less-ness(Is that a word?) of 2k.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
MacOS 9 is THE BEST. XP crashes ALL THE TIME.

or. xp has never crashed for me. macos 9 crashes all the time.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: her209
OS X is superior to both.

WINNAR

unless you want to do something other than run photoshop, then you're out of luck. but for photoshop l33tness and the occasional game of warcraft 3, osx rocks.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: VanillaH
theme service doesnt really take up that much resources really... hope you win2k lovers enjoy your extra long boot time and lack of PS/2 mouse sampling rate anything higher than 100Hz. <- the only glaring differences i can tell except for themes which is a nice bonus.

Don't forgot XP's new feature, removal of support for non-PNP hardware. I was not to happy when I found out I couldn't use a perfectly good 3com ISA NIC that windows 2000 had automatically detected and installed, because Microsoft had decided that non PNP devices were no longer safe to use. But hey! Its a big blue little tykes start menu! Weeee! And you get to phone home everytime you swap a hard drive or a motherboard, possibly having to beg microsoft to let you use the software you purchased from them.

There is very little difference between XP and 2K. Frankly, I've never had any trouble getting any older applications, even windows 3.11 applications, to work under Windows 2K. I can't say that about XP.

2K's boot times are a little heavy...that is a beautiful thing in XP. But otherwise, I have seen no reason whatsoever to upgrade my home machine to 2K.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Windows XP is superior to 2k in almost every way. I would have no issues choosing between the two.

If you threw OSes I like even better into the mix, I still wouldn't have any issues (OpenBSD).

How is it superior in every way? They're almost the same damn operating system. I can think of a couple critical ways that XP in inferior (poor support of old hardware, messy activation system)...and one way its somewhat superior. (System restore is nice)

 

[airfoil]

Been using XP for a few years now - no, on the contrary, I like it quite a bit.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Trygve
I've been using XP on one of the computers on my desk for nearly a year now and I still can't think of anything I like about XP over 2K. Near as I can tell, Microsoft just did a study of everything people found irritating in 2K and added more of that to XP and then looked at anything someone might do often and made it take an extra step or three.

ROTFL. That's the best description of Windows XP that I've read ... ever!

Thanks for making my day.

(They should have called it "Windows - Maximum Annoyance Edition".)

Originally posted by: Trygve
Other than that, I've had a lot more trouble with driver issues and incompatibilities under XP than I've had under 2K, but I suppose it's an okay OS for someone who is mostly interested in animated puppies and doesn't need to get any work done or use any applications.

LOL. Kill the damn puppy already!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: RobCur
Did you know that ME,9x,and 2k does not need a patch for hd bigger then 120gb?

What the...?

First of all, there is no version of Win9x that supports 48bit LBA HDs, using the default MS ESDI_506.PDR driver, at least none that I am aware of. W2K supported 48-bit LBA with SP3 (quasi), and SP4 (officially, after they had shaken the bugs out), with the default MS IDE drivers.

If you use a HD controller driver that uses a SCSI port/miniport driver, like the Promise Ultra family PCI IDE controllers (which I use), they will support DOS/BIOS, Win9x, and any NT-based OS with 48-bit LBA just fine. In fact I'm using my 160GB WD JB HD as a single FAT32 partition, under those OSes, with nary a hiccup. According to the AT FAT32 FAQ, that's impossible. Clearly, the FAQ is wrong.

Originally posted by: RobCur
XP= NT,2K with some feature taken out. SP1 does not fix anything it just their to make piracy harder forcing people with 160gb hd or larger to patch it, SP2 is another fix stop piracy completely. Good for MS?

Product activation, which was intended to cut down on "casual piracy", has been present in all versions of XP. Other than the blacklisting of several well-known pirate install keys in the XP SP1 installer, I'm not aware of any additional anti-piracy changes that MS has made, although I'm sure that they probably did make some under-the-hood. The increasing amount of "phone-home" behavior that the OS displays, makes it much easier to "cloak" those data transmissions that are anti-piracy-related.

 

[htmlmasterdave]

Originally posted by: LeadFrog
Linux > *

That's by definition false *=anything, how is linux>linux x>x -> false

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Does the BSOD even happen with XP? I haven't seen it.

That's because MS sneakily hid it on you, so that you would never see it. The new default in XP is for the system to automatically restart, not sit there at the BSOD. It also unfortunately tends to cause people to blame their hardware for "suddenly rebooting", rather than Windows because of a BSOD. That's the first thing that you should disable, after installation, btw, for trouble-shooting purposes.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: yelo333

Originally posted by: VanillaH
thx for the correction, mine would only go up to 100Hz max on win2k. come to think of it, that could have been one of older sp releases. the only program that asks if i want to run or not is nero... i could live with that

99% of the time, a cap around that HZ frequency is more of a motherboard/bios limitation than anything else. Now that you mention it, I do recall a motherboard of mine doing the same thing, but that was using ps2rate on win98se.

Back on topic, I believe I came down a bit hard on XP...really, either is fine, just that I prefer the more business-oriented defaults/candware-less-ness(Is that a word?) of 2k.

The PS/2 port sample-rate limitation is with the native MS W2K 8042-port drivers. If you've installed Logitech MouseWare, you can choose a 200Hz sample-rate. I'm still on W2K SP2, possibly MS allowed increasing it in later SPs as well.

One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the USB mouse sample-rate issue. WinXP apparently locks it to 125Hz, whereas W2K properly allows it to be set to 500 or 1000Hz.

W2K is so much better for gaming, IMHO, and much smoother in overall operation as well. Not to mention, W2K doesn't suffer from the "punkbuster lag" issue, nor the "ATI large AGP aperture and large system cache data-corruption/delayed-write-failure" issue either.

XP has some very serious (IMHO) architectural issues that popped up from the low-level changes that MS made. As best I can determine, without looking at the source code, XP seems to use a delayed lazy-allocation of PTEs, whereas W2K pre-allocates them. One may seem faster, but the other is more stable. I suspect that this is one of the related issues with the "punkbuster lag".

 

[LilHen]

Yes. Too much bloat. Too dumbed down for any serious work. True, you can remove the bloat and change the menus back, but why bother?

Yes. The major drawback to Win2K is boot time. But then again, if it doesn't crash, how often do we boot anyway. Boot once everyday in the morning and then shut down at night. Uses less resources. More responsive. I don't care if I have 4Gigs of RAM. If it doesn't need to be using those resources, then it shouldn't.

 

[EmperorRob]

Can't you buy an OEM version of XP that does not have the product activation stuff?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: EmperorRob
Can't you buy an OEM version of XP that does not have the product activation stuff?

Dell's OEM copy does not require activation, IIRC. However, it will only install on Dell hardware.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Does the BSOD even happen with XP? I haven't seen it.

That's because MS sneakily hid it on you, so that you would never see it. The new default in XP is for the system to automatically restart, not sit there at the BSOD. It also unfortunately tends to cause people to blame their hardware for "suddenly rebooting", rather than Windows because of a BSOD. That's the first thing that you should disable, after installation, btw, for trouble-shooting purposes.

BSOD are usually the fault of hardware and/or drivers, not Windows

 

[SadisticOne]

OSX is a POS in large environments. Managing 1000 or more workstations, and dozens of OSX Server is unimaginably complex, and the TCO would be utterly unbearable.

Linux? Well its nice to run Apache/MySQL on.

Solaris is the best platform for Oracle.

and XP is the best platform for A.D. and N.D.S. which account for the largest installed base of P.C's. I've never seen an XP crash with HCL hardware, that wasn't related to a hardware fault. I've seen a few soft freezes, but thats not XP's fault.

Everything other than a corporate situation is mickey mouse anyway.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
MacOS 9 is THE BEST. XP crashes ALL THE TIME.

Stoprunning in in emulation mode on your Mac and it's not to bad.

So far my only problem with XP is that after about a month Media Player won't recognize half my codecs.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: EmperorRob
Can't you buy an OEM version of XP that does not have the product activation stuff?

You are refering to the corporate edition. You can't just buy that in the store usually. Even if you say you're a one man corporation.

 

[EmperorRob]

Well I was thinking there might be an OEM version over @ directdeals or something w/o the activation.

 

[grrl]

I used XP on my parents' computer last summer and was happy to get back to my 2K machine. I liked the fast boot up on XP, but that was about all. Plus, the fact that about $300 worth of my software doesn't run properly on XP.

 

[Splitfyre]

I've got a Windows 2003 box, a Windows 2000 Workstation (latest sp), and an XP box, and find that I like the 2000 box

 

[imported_Trippin315]

The only thing that I really hate about XP is that there are all the unneccessary steps to get certain thing to display by default (My Computer, My Network Places, the Quick Launch bar) XP assumes too many things in an small network like, I dont know, that I was too stupid to figure out how to network computers that are not XP. This is all moot because OSX is the best.