|
03 Dec 01 - 01:30 AM (#602549) Subject: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker I've been reading everything I can get my hands on about this new operating system. Most of what I've read sounds promising and intriguing. But there are still a shortage of drivers, especially for older legacy devices and hardware. I'm also curious as to how it handles games, made for Windows 98, and other compatibility issues with 16 bit programs. How much of my Windows 98 software will run on it, and how much new stuff am I going to need, software wise? And, at the end of the day, is it worth the time, money, learning curve and overall hassle to upgrade to it over Windows 98? Anyone who's currently got it, tell me what you think of it and how you find it compared to Win98? Thanks. |
|
03 Dec 01 - 01:35 AM (#602551) Subject: RE: BS: Windows XP - Comments From: Clinton Hammond well, me and our fiddle player were yacking about this at last nights gig... he's wise in the ways, but inarticulate at the best of times! Boils down to this... Microsoft may have finally made a damn good os... even if it is typically bloated... it eats 2 gigs of hard drive space all on it's own... and it requires 128 megs of ram (I think that's what he said) DOS is gone gone gone, but yer win 98 stuff SHOULD be fine... learning curve? It's WINDOZE, so it's curve is really shallow a the best of times... Like Macs... for people who don't WANT to learn what their computers do... ;-) |
|
03 Dec 01 - 01:37 AM (#602552) Subject: RE: BS: Windows XP - Comments From: Sorcha Sorry, no opinion. Got Windows ME, and wish I had 95 or 98. You are much more computer savvy than I am..........I am just an eejit. I need help from people like you. |
|
03 Dec 01 - 01:46 AM (#602556) Subject: RE: BS: Windows XP - Comments From: Clinton Hammond Sorry... my mistake... Frank and I -were- talking about WinME Which I hear rocks! I'd rather have -no- computer than win95... and 98 wasn't that much better... O.S.2, where are you when we need you?!?!?!?! LOL!!!!! |
|
03 Dec 01 - 03:19 AM (#602583) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Joe Offer I'm wondering how the DOS and windows versions of the Digital Tradition will run on Windows XP. Will XP run DOS programs at all? -Joe Offer- |
|
03 Dec 01 - 09:41 AM (#602645) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: MMario The word I've been getting is that XP does well if you buy it new on the machine - but upgrades can be real hassles. I did spend a couple days last week messing around with an XP system - and it appears the folk at WinDoze have once again downgraded their opinion of the public's intelligence. |
|
03 Dec 01 - 10:16 AM (#602667) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Uncle_DaveO The technician/repairman whom I use, who custom-built my computer, and to whose knowledgeability I always defer, warned me to keep away from XP. "Full of bugs" was about the kindest thing he said. "Be thankful you've got 98, and stick with it." Dave Oesterreich |
|
03 Dec 01 - 10:27 AM (#602673) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: mooman I have yet to hear a good report about it... mooman |
|
03 Dec 01 - 10:30 AM (#602677) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Uncle_DaveO Lest anyone think that in that last post I was singing the praises of 98, disabuse yourself of such a thought. I used to be on OS2, and it was STABLE, STABLE, STABLE! But on the rare occasions I had any problems, say with a printer or some software, the support people for those organizations said one or both of the following: "We don't support OS2, don't know anything about it." or "That must be OS2 causing that." Finally, just to get support from other organizations, I had to hold my nose and go to WIN 95, succeeded later by 98. I just have to put up with the quirky errors and dumps. Dave Oesterreich |
|
03 Dec 01 - 10:32 AM (#602680) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Jon Freeman No DOS would worry me. I've yet use a version of Windows where I haven't been grateful for DOS to fix things when Windows screws up... Jon |
|
03 Dec 01 - 11:17 AM (#602705) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Willie-O View from the ISP help desk:
|
|
03 Dec 01 - 11:40 AM (#602714) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: JohnInKansas The registration thing is probably the biggest downer I see to XP. When you register, the system makes a record of what is on your machine. If you make "too many" changes, the OS assumes it has been moved to another machine and quits working. Add a soundcard? Replace a hard drive? Hook up a couple of printers? Theoretically, the record is on your machine, so you don't have to worry too much about Mickey$oft knowing too much about you. Reports on just how much you can tweak your own system before it shuts down are still pretty much "urban legend gossip." Especially in recent years, I have avoided any "version 1.0" software, especially for critical things like the OS. It is important to consider that buying a new machine with a new OS installed basically gets you a "Beta" version. In order to get the software to mfrs in time for the "big release," Mfrs are given "prerelease" copies that they get to finish designing. Some vendors are a lot better than others about following the rules, and some deliberately do strange things to keep their customers "in house." (Some may not be aware that Mickey$oft will not generally provide support if you have an OEM version of their software. And sellers are frequently "shallow" in the support department.) My personal choice for a new machine now would be Win2000 Professional. My S.O. has it on her machine, and it's generally good. I'm getting by pretty well with Win98 for now and for the near future. Maybe in a year or two ---(?) John |
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:04 PM (#602727) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Jon Freeman I don't like the sound of this registration bit. What about the many people like myself who do make chages like motherboards and processors? Jon |
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:06 PM (#602729) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Mark Clark As an experienced and knowledgeable technologist who first began writing programs for a living nearly 35 years ago I have no special love for Microsoft nor any special animosity. They're just another&msash;albeit very large—software house doing the best they can, which usually isn't too bad. What's in a name? Windows XP is really NT version 6. Windows 2000 is really NT version 5. These operating systems aren't radically new technology, they're just the next rev in the evolution of Microsoft's flagship OS. If you really need a stable OS, run one of the open-source UNIX clones (FreeBSD, Linux, etc.). But if you aren't a computer whiz and just want to surf the Net and run a few office type programs, you'll be better off sticking with Windows. If you're system is very unstable, consider adding memory (RAM). You shouldn't really be trying to do serious work on Windows 98 with less than 128 MB—256 MB for NT, 2K or XP. Also, don't let your hard disk become more than 80% full including the swap space needed for memory paging. At our office, we've been puting XP through it's paces for nearly a year and have found it to be the best OS yet from Microsoft. The plan is to begin loading it onto all new PCs as they are deployed rather than spend the time necessary to upgrade the OS on 15,000 separate PCs. I'd say, if you're buying a new PC, you should get it with XP. If you're considering loading XP on an existing machine, you should ask yourself what new benefit you hope to get. If you're still going to be running the same versions of the same applications you now run, I'd say wait until you decide to replace your current system. Upgrading the OS in place can cause problems that you may not be equipped to solve. - Mark
|
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:09 PM (#602731) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker Appreciate the comments so far. Yep, I have a problem with the "activation" thing, and nope I'm not going to buy 2 copies for the 2 computers in my office. I tried Windows ME. It lasted all of a half an hour on my system (which is a very fast system with tons of ram, etc.) and it made my computer run twice as slow especially on bootup, compared to Win98 so it was toasted, hardrive reformatted, and I tried a copy of Win2K a friend loaned me to "test drive", and I found it too cumbersome to tweak because I was so used to the Win 95/98 interface and didn't have the patience to re-learn it's nuances and idiosyncracies. Came back to Win98. Looks like I'm stuck with Win98, which is stable enough as long as I reboot 2 or 3 times a day. :-) |
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:38 PM (#602754) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST,Spike Having used ALL Mr Gates systems (good AND bad) to record music on a pc for what feels like centuries, I can say its bleeding marvelous BUT........................... Only if you know what your doing!! I wanted to use Windows NT for years on my PC, but couldn't for music recording because of latency probs. But XP addreses this prob, while still having all the cant kill, self fix greatness of NT. HOWEVER, unless you know what your doing, be very careful, cos this bitch bites those who try to meddle beyond their station, if you are comfortable with no dos commands, can format drives the NT way and understand that it doesn't work like ANY other "home" type windows system then ok. But PLEASE dont use it unless you can mess with drivers from win 2000,NT4 etc with aplomb, or dont mind having to sort drivers yourself from strange sources. A quick example is:- dont format your hard drive in NTFS format as suggested unless you intend NEVER to want to use any other Win operating system again - See what I mean. However, its a gem for those of us who have had to suffer through years of crap and buggy other systems, except for the Luna interface which is crap! But you can turn it back to the classic look dead easy. Hope it helps cheers
Spike |
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:44 PM (#602757) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST,Spike P.S. to my last message about XP.
|
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:48 PM (#602758) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST,Spike OOps sorry bout that, but XP will SIMULATE DOS faster than 98se can run it normally!!! Its true!! So you can run it in compatabillity mode for specific progs. Like I said , great but be careful, and I havent found any bugs in three months of Beta versions or he pro version I use now to worry about to much, and as for product reg, for legitimate users, its no biggie. |
|
03 Dec 01 - 12:51 PM (#602759) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Bert My experience of different versions of Windows is that it's marginally usable for playing games and using proprietory software but for serious programming You really need an operating system. I don't consider anything without a command line and a usable JCL an operating system. I've got Win98 on my home machine and it's piss poor. As soon as I can afford another disc drive I'm installing Linux. |
|
04 Dec 01 - 08:55 AM (#603289) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST,Guest - The Innocent Illegal I have used XP Professional for a few months now.
Let me be the first to say, (I think) that I am really happy with XP. If you are going to install it, make sure you get the full install, pay the xtra hundred bucks or so. NEVER get an upgrade model.
One previous user was right. XP is basically the merging of the two WINDOWS software lines. One line was the NT and 2000 software, (business) while 95/98/ME was the other line. (personal) The basic difference was that the 95/98/ME Windows were written in old MSDOS, while NT was built from the ground up as its own specifically programmed operating system.
So in the past, most software written for the 95 line, would not work in NT. XP is the continuation of the NT line, with the ability (somewhat) of running 95/98/ME programs. Hope you're still following.
Talking amongst programmers, XP is not a real buggy system. The only problem when I recieved the system, was that no driver files had been issued for XP yet. (My copy came a couple months before the release date. Let's leave it at that, shall we?) The NT format has been around for years. XP is really stable compared to 95/98/ME. No more blue screens of death. If something crashes in windows, you can recover. (I have had only one reboot for hanging, in over 4 months of usage, and my computer is always on.)
One of the big improvements I like, is downloading. With a DSL connection on 98SE, I could only max out dloading at about 70 Kbps. (17 Kbps is about a meg a minute) With XP, I can now max dload at 120-140 Kbps. A major improvement.
User interface is a little different, that takes time getting used to. Startup is very quick compared to 98, at least twice as quick to get up and running.
I will recommend XP to anyone. I have had no major problems installing or running it. It doesn't crash like 98, and downloading is faster.
Now its weak side. The compatability wizard, which allows users to tell programs to run in 98 mode, for instance, has not always worked for me. Its hit and miss if certain programs will work. Most business software will work, cause most have been written with NT in mind. Some games will work, some wont. (Madden 2001 for me)
One final note on that registration thing, I have heard, and would explain my system, that XP Professional might not have to be registered. Only XP Home. Don't quote me, but I have never had to register my copy of Pro. Just something to think about. |
|
04 Dec 01 - 09:00 AM (#603291) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST,The Innocent Illegal And just for your info, I am a regular mudcat user, just going as a guest and under an assumed name, to protect something near and dear to me. My cash flow. Cheers |
|
04 Dec 01 - 09:04 AM (#603295) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Mike Byers My take is that XP is, in fact, more stable than 98 or ME. But just about anything is... It's a very complex program and installing it yourself takes some knowledge. By default, XP installs all the bells and whistles; you may not want all of this and you will need to know how to do a custom installation to get things the way you want them. As was mentioned before, you will also need to be comfortable with finding and installing drivers and you may find that some devices don't yet have drivers that will support them in XP. You will probably find problems with some games, for instance OpenGL games may have problems with XP's ActiveX version (I believe this is 8.1). For me the bottom line is XP isn't worth it. Learning Linux is just as easy as learning everything you need to know about XP, and Linux, in the long run, will give you a more stable system. |
|
04 Dec 01 - 09:45 AM (#603315) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Steve in Idaho Wow - We used Windows 95 forever and when we started having problems with the Paltalk interface we decided to have some work done on the old system. It's a 300mhz IBM clone that was upgraded from a 200 blah blah blah - Anyway we upgraded to Win98 and put about 300 MB of RAM in. WOW!! But then all we use it for is writing letters, tracking a very small private business spreadsheet, e-mail, surfing the net, and Paltalk. So that works fine for us. With memory being so cheap, I think we paid 50 bucks for the 260 MB chip, it was pointless for us to try to do anything else. So for $250 we added a CD/RW, had the hard drive reformatted, upgraded to Win98, added 260 MB of RAM, and had the system tuned up. Really flies for what we do. And I can tolerate the occasional reboot - with Win95 it was how many times an hour we rebooted! Steve - the completely illiterate computer non-guru. |
|
04 Dec 01 - 11:26 AM (#603396) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker Okay here's the big "duh" question. If I were to install the latest version of Linux on one of my computers, can I load Win98 programs and drivers on it?, or do I have to have programs/software/drivers written expressly for Linux? |
|
04 Dec 01 - 11:42 AM (#603410) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Jon Freeman JP, you need the Linux stuff. I seem to remember there being something called WINE that was supposed to allow Windows programs to run on Linux but I'd need to check up on that. Drifting a little... I may go back to a dual boot system on my PC when I get another hard disk. I didn't have the patience for Linux before and I have a lot of Windows software... Now I have started playing with some internet stuff, my interest in Linux is starting to increase. Jon |
|
04 Dec 01 - 11:54 AM (#603419) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: JohnInKansas Justa You can "dual-boot" if you set up for it. There is no real(??) difficulty in having your machine set up so that you can run either Win or Linux, depending on which you need for what you're doing at the time. Normally, you have to restart the machine to change systems - although I've heard urban rumors about "on-the-fly" switching. It may be workable. If you have the "tech-smarts" to run Linux, it should be a snap. If you already have WinXX, it's probably good enough for anything you might keep that you'd need it for, so just (try to) buy all your new software in Linux versions. John |
|
04 Dec 01 - 04:22 PM (#603597) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Joe Offer Copied from another thread. -Joe Offer- The Mudcat Café TM Thread #41746 Message #603587 Posted By: davebhoy 04-Dec-01 Thread Name: BS: Windows XP - To buy or not to buy Subject: Windows XP - To buy or not to buy I am thinking of upgrading to Windows XP. Does anyone have it installed already? What are the differences between 2000(ME) and XP? I have been told XP improves download times and internet connection speed which I could do with. I mainly do wordprocessing, spreadsheets and other boring stuff for work wonder if XP will give me any advantage over the 2000 ME I am running at present. Thanks in advance Davebhoy |
|
17 Dec 01 - 09:57 AM (#611532) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Devilmaster refresh for davebhoy |
|
17 Dec 01 - 01:38 PM (#611720) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: mousethief I run Windows 98 SE, and find that the memory tends to get filled up with tag-ends of programs that have already closed, so that by the time it's been up for a day or two, you can't open any web pages because the download time is so slow that your browser times out. Then you reboot and it's all faster than fast again. Very annoying. Has XP fixed this? Alex |
|
17 Dec 01 - 02:06 PM (#611734) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker Well I'm in the process of setting up a "dual-boot" system with Win98 already installed and running peachy on the primary c drive/active partition, and I am using the latest version of Partition Magic along with Boot Magic so that I can install XP onto a separate partition/drive of my hardrive, and then have a boot menu at startup allowing me to choose which operating system to boot to. This way, I don't disturb my Win98 configuration, and I can play around with XP and see if I want to keep it or lose it. Have spent the better part of the day reading everything I can get my hands on and download drivers for my hardware and XP. Seems that if you want to keep Win98, you need to have that o.s. installed first, and then load XP onto a new/separate partition not vice versa, and apparently XP is self configuring and will recognize another existing O.S. and help configure the dual boot process. We'll see. I'll let you know how it all goes. |
|
17 Dec 01 - 02:34 PM (#611758) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Joe Offer Is that definitive, that there's no DOS connected to XP, which means that the Digital Tradition and MIDITEXT won't run on XP? Is that the case? -Joe Offer- |
|
17 Dec 01 - 07:48 PM (#612006) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Snuffy XP is descended from NT, Joe, which doesn't has DOS as the underlying system, but it has a DOS emulator which will run any DOS programs you throw at it. I run DOS programs OK on my NT box at work, but I haven't tried them on XP yet. WassaiL! V |
|
18 Dec 01 - 11:41 AM (#612361) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Rex Digitrad works just fine with the DOS emulator on XP. I'd return it if it didn't! Rex |
|
18 Dec 01 - 03:26 PM (#612491) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Devilmaster Just to respond to MT's question. XP has an addition in the task manager box. Not only do you have the ability to stop applications, like 98, but you now also have the ability to look at processes, and stop them if you so choose. The processes show everything, (TSR's. Bkgrnd, etc) and shows how much memory each is using, continually updating. I've used it a couple times to see what is going on, and to see if there is two copies of something running. I run XP constantly, never turn my computer off. I have never rebooted cause it gets sluggish, unlike 98SE. Hope it helps. Steve
|
|
18 Dec 01 - 05:53 PM (#612584) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker Okay....it's not very often that I ask a tekkie question, but this XP operating system has more of a learning curve to it, than when I migrated from Win95 to Win98. This also might seem like a really dumb, obvious question but I gotta ask it anyway. Here's the sitchy-ation. I have two computers in my office. We'll call the second one Node 2, and we'll call my primary one Node 1. Node 1 is directly connected to a cable modem and runs only Win98SE. It contains 2 network cards. One of which is connected to the cable modem, and the other which is connected/networked to Node 2. On Node 2, I've set up a dual boot system with Win98 on drive C which was installed ahead of Win XP. XP is installed now on its own partition which is now Drive D. I did this dual boot setup so that I could monkey around with XP without affecting the currently working network setup, between both Nodes, each respectively running Win 98. I haven't been able to make a successful network connective between Node 2 running XP and Node 1 running Win98 SE. I have to input specific TCP/IP, gateway, DNS, Wins Res., etc. settings on the XP network card. Those settings are NOT being retained by XP and it keeps defaulting to "detect automatic IP setting", rather than allowing me to specify the IP and other settings, and wanting to save those. Here is my question. On Node 1 (Win98SE), it would appear that if you are networked and connecting to different computers or operating systems, you have to have a separate Identification (contained within Network Neighbourhood-Properties) to make this work. I have an existing Identification name that works fine when I connect to Node 2 running Win98SE. But XP running on Node 2 requires a different computer identification name from Node 1. How do I create more than 1 useable computer identification name on Node 1 running Win98SE? And another question. How do I share the Internet connection between the 2 computers? (I've been using Sygate between the 2 Win98 systems, and it works fine.) Do I need a more current version of Sygate that will run on the host (Node 1 - Win98) but that will also support XP on Node 2...or, can I scrap Sygate altogether with respect to Win 98 connecting to XP only, and share the Internet connection using XP's built in software, and running the network install disk it generates for other computers on the network? If anyone can enlighten me as to the work around to these questions, I'd be very appreciative. |
|
18 Dec 01 - 06:01 PM (#612586) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST Justa Picker, With due respect, would you not be better asking such a question on a more specialised forum or usenet group? I'm sure you'd get more informed answers that way. If you do insist on using Mudcat, a new thread might give better results than burying your question in a thread of this length. Justa thought |
|
18 Dec 01 - 06:02 PM (#612587) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Joe Offer Rex - the Digital Tradition is set up to play on the computer's internal speaker, not through the sound card. My computer doesn't have an internal speaker. Any chance that XP remedies that by channeling beeps through the sound card? In Windows 98, I have Digital Tradition on my "Start" button, and I can run the program with two keystrokes. Can I do the same with XP? -Joe Offer- |
|
18 Dec 01 - 06:13 PM (#612599) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Devilmaster Joe - XP is software. Your internal speaker runs from a connection on the motherboard to the speaker. Now, most sound cards have a connection so you can run a wire from the motherboard to the speaker.
Justa - It can be done, but I have an idea that might make it a little easier. Look for Linksys Cable/Dsl router with a 4 port hub. They're about 130 bucks or so, right now. This handy piece of kit acts as your network hub and internet shares your computers. Very easy to use and also acts as a firewall. |
|
18 Dec 01 - 08:16 PM (#612720) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker I solved the problem as far as networking the computers. It was a matter of giving the Node 2 cpu running XP a different workgroup name, then the workgroup name assigned to it by Win98 when it runs that because that works in tandem with Node 1 running Win98. Now, it's just a matter of getting the shared internet working, and I think an updated version of Sygate that supports XP networking will do the trick. Yes Guest, it was a highly technical question and I considered throwing it on the Usenet...but based on my time spent here, surprisingly you can get answers to just about anything from the knowledge base of the collective membership here. If I hadn't have solved it, I'm 100% certain another more technically savvy Mudcat member would have solved it for me. I have faith. *G* Cheers, JP |
|
19 Dec 01 - 11:29 AM (#613091) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Rex To answer Joe, I don't really know the innards of this 'puter so I'll just say what it does. When playing the song files, it plays through the internal speaker as with other systems. I don't know how to make it run through the sound card. As far as starting it, yup, it's still as easy. You just click on "folksong" and the beastie starts a DOS window opens it. Rex |
|
20 Dec 01 - 07:47 PM (#613952) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Justa Picker Well I've had XP running now for 48 hours on my main system. Not single "blue screen of death" or any system hangs, etc. After figuring out how to tweak it (including the use of some "powertoys" and "tweak programs"), and making it look visually, like Windows 98 (which is a more familiar interface for me), I must say I really really like it. I especially like the compatibility mode options for running older Windows programs. I do find the XP interface too colorful and busy and prefer a leaner, meat and potatoes look (hence the Win 98 look.) Seems to be an o.s. more designed for tweakers and power users, since there are so many more things you can get in and fine tune. At first I was a little intimidated by it, but after spending many hours with it, as well as visiting XP sites with tips on the internet, it feels totally cool. I also really like the built it firewall and the built in internet connection sharing. No more Zone Alarm or Sygate. Went to the Shields Upwebsite and had it probe the ports and test the shields and everything came up "stealth", yet it isn't interfering with the other networked computer here and its ability to access the internet through mine. Cool. Gotta like it. It's going to take me a while to get used to not rebooting 3-5 times a day and just leaving it for days on end before doing a reboot. Funny thing though. One of Microsoft's big marketing points with this o.s is the "added security" XP brings. Then today all over the net, major news on big security flaw found in XP whereby a person could take over your computer exploiting some vulnerability in the USB config, and all you have to do is be connected to the internet. In any event Microsoft released a downloadable patch to plug the hole. They will never ever release a bug free operating system. To easy to issue service packs after the fact. |
|
20 Dec 01 - 09:35 PM (#613989) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: GUEST,Bo I think the bottom line is as someone said, new machines with new hardware should probably get Windows XP if you need windows. I think the licensing getting more expensive, especially when _everything_ else has gotten cheaper in computers is the pits, but if you need windows. Alternately, esp. if you live int he US, complain to your government\consumer organization about their monopoly pricing\tactics. Its something of a hard sell to show absolute improvements between NT and\or Win98, and XP but I think the stability and general evolution support XP. The hard thing is that for most users, applications make the decisions of which operating system to use. If everything you use runs well on Win98 on the machine you have or can get most cheaply there's little absolute incentive to change. For anyone wanting a clear technical voice against Microsoft I can recommend http://www.aaxnet.com Bo |
|
21 Dec 01 - 05:22 AM (#614104) Subject: RE: Tech: Windows XP - Comments From: Cappuccino From the British Press, Friday 21st:- MICROSOFT ADMITS TO FLAW IN XP Microsoft admitted yesterday that its latest operating software, Windows XP, has a serious flaw. According to the Times, a security loophole - part of the "universal plug and play" feature - allows hackers to take control of all XP software if the user is connected to the internet. 7m copies have already been sold. A free patch is available from Microsoft's website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,623459,00.html http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001590809,00.html - Ian B |