From Newsgroup: comp.os.ms-windows.misc

I have heard that XP is
bloated, memory-hungry, and 'buggie'. But since I have NO experience
using

I have used XP Home for almost a year - It is none of the above. It is
very stable, recovers from GPF's if you remember that name - i.e. BSOD -
and offers to send CPU info/stack dumps to uSoft so that the fault can
be traced - you dont have too of course. Its not memory hungry as far as
I can tell.
There is the issue of registration - I believe if you modify the
hardware too much and try to re-install XP it can refuse! The
registration sent to uSoft initially contains a snapshot of the PC
hardware and if this changes too much - it thinks you are trying to
install on another machine!!! SCARY or what.... I dont have the full
facts or experience with this as I havent come across it yet!

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.os.ms-windows.misc

Ovid wrote:

I probably should have asked which do you prefer and why? I'm buying a new computer in the next month or so and would like some feedback as to which
o/s I should install. I use w2k pro at work and find that it works consistently without any bluescreen errors - ever. I have heard that XP is bloated, memory-hungry, and 'buggie'. But since I have NO experience using it, I would like to get some feedback before I make a purchase. ANY
comments are appreciated.
TIA
-O

Some background you're probably aware of: WinXP *is* the next
version of 2K, which was the next version of NT, so there's not
a huge difference. The good news is that they've finally driven
a stake through the heart of the horror that was DOS/Win/Win9x/ME.

I use both WinXP and 2K extensively both at work and at home.
Windows 2K is, IMHO, an excellent product all around, and certainly
the finest thing Microsoft ever put out. I have never, ever,
crashed Win2K - even doing pretty dumb things. I've also used
all other flavors of Windows, but have repressed most of the
memories because they were traumatic.

I *have* managed to crash XP (the OS as opposed to individual
processes) exactly once (I don't recall what I was doing).
I still think it's very good and certainly head
and shoulders above non-NT flavors of Windows. For comparison,
I finally got to the point with ME that I would just reboot
it every time I started a new task because it *slightly* reduced
the probability that it would crash while I was working.

WinXP is definitely a bit more bloated than 2K. Whatever
the specs say, I would choose 2K for anything slower than
1 GHz. For example. I have a 1.4 GHz at home running
XP and a 533 Celeron running 2K. For most things, the
response times (launching applications, navigating directories, etc)
are about the same. Of course, once applications are launched,
the two perform according to their processor speeds since the
kernels are very similar. I am quite happy with
XP on my faster machine and haven't ever really
considered switching it to 2K.

Personally, I find the new default look and feel of XP annoying,
but this is largely a matter of taste. Luckily, it's
very easy to set it up to look like almost indistinguishable
from 2K by selecting the "classic" interface wherever possible.

If you're buying a new (and presumably pretty fast) PC, I'd
recommend XP. The processor speed will eat up any bloat
during launch and navigation. Since Microsoft has finally
chosen one path, there is a much broader committment to support
XP than 2K. *Almost* everything will run under 2K, but
a surprizing amount is not "officially" supported. That
means if it doesn't run, and you try to contact the company,
they will say "we don't support 2K" and hang up. On the
other hand, a software company that doesn't support XP will
not be in business much longer. How important this
is to you depends on how many different types of software
you run and what they are. If you run games, for example, I'd
*definitely* choose XP.

Also, some of the new features are genuinely nice to have.
For example, I was setting up home
networking and found the setup wizard extremely useful.

-Eric






--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.os.ms-windows.misc

Damn! Just when I had decided on w2k... :-)
Now, even more to consider.
-O


"Eric Prebys" <prebys@fnal.gov> wrote in message news:3F1830A5.9000500@fnal.gov...

Ovid wrote:

I probably should have asked which do you prefer and why? I'm buying a

new

computer in the next month or so and would like some feedback as to

which

o/s I should install. I use w2k pro at work and find that it works consistently without any bluescreen errors - ever. I have heard that XP

is

bloated, memory-hungry, and 'buggie'. But since I have NO experience

using

it, I would like to get some feedback before I make a purchase. ANY comments are appreciated.
TIA
-O

Some background you're probably aware of: WinXP *is* the next
version of 2K, which was the next version of NT, so there's not
a huge difference. The good news is that they've finally driven
a stake through the heart of the horror that was DOS/Win/Win9x/ME.

I use both WinXP and 2K extensively both at work and at home.
Windows 2K is, IMHO, an excellent product all around, and certainly
the finest thing Microsoft ever put out. I have never, ever,
crashed Win2K - even doing pretty dumb things. I've also used
all other flavors of Windows, but have repressed most of the
memories because they were traumatic.

I *have* managed to crash XP (the OS as opposed to individual
processes) exactly once (I don't recall what I was doing).
I still think it's very good and certainly head
and shoulders above non-NT flavors of Windows. For comparison,
I finally got to the point with ME that I would just reboot
it every time I started a new task because it *slightly* reduced
the probability that it would crash while I was working.

WinXP is definitely a bit more bloated than 2K. Whatever
the specs say, I would choose 2K for anything slower than
1 GHz. For example. I have a 1.4 GHz at home running
XP and a 533 Celeron running 2K. For most things, the
response times (launching applications, navigating directories, etc)
are about the same. Of course, once applications are launched,
the two perform according to their processor speeds since the
kernels are very similar. I am quite happy with
XP on my faster machine and haven't ever really
considered switching it to 2K.

Personally, I find the new default look and feel of XP annoying,
but this is largely a matter of taste. Luckily, it's
very easy to set it up to look like almost indistinguishable
from 2K by selecting the "classic" interface wherever possible.

If you're buying a new (and presumably pretty fast) PC, I'd
recommend XP. The processor speed will eat up any bloat
during launch and navigation. Since Microsoft has finally
chosen one path, there is a much broader committment to support
XP than 2K. *Almost* everything will run under 2K, but
a surprizing amount is not "officially" supported. That
means if it doesn't run, and you try to contact the company,
they will say "we don't support 2K" and hang up. On the
other hand, a software company that doesn't support XP will
not be in business much longer. How important this
is to you depends on how many different types of software
you run and what they are. If you run games, for example, I'd
*definitely* choose XP.

Also, some of the new features are genuinely nice to have.
For example, I was setting up home
networking and found the setup wizard extremely useful.

-Eric

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.os.ms-windows.misc

QuickHare wrote:

Like Ovid, I am too considering Windows 2000 or Windows XP as my next OS to upgrade to. However, my needs are slightly different.

This point was raised by Eric Prebys:

Some background you're probably aware of: WinXP *is* the next
version of 2K, which was the next version of NT, so there's not
a huge difference. The good news is that they've finally driven
a stake through the heart of the horror that was DOS/Win/Win9x/ME.

The entire post was a great advert to WinXP, and helped a lot. However,
doing away with DOS is bad news for me.
I am studying at university, and many programs I need for my course are written in DOS. There are no Windows counterparts or upgrades. Also, many great games I have use DOS in some way.
This means that XP is a bad move for me.
Win2000 does have limited DOS support, and I know all of my DOS programs
work in it.
However, I don't want to change to Win2000 for a great cost when XP is obviously overtaking. This would mean I would not be able to use half my programs anymore.

Therefore, do I get any form of guarantee that some programs will work? Is there any way to 're-enable' DOS temporarily until I don't need them, or
only under one user profile?

There is no DOS to 're-enable' in either Win2000 or WinXP.

The answer to this question will make or break my decision to change to
WinXP or Win2000. Any help?

--
QuickHare
(QuickHareREMOVE@Hotmail.com)
Remove the REMOVE to E-Mail direct.
Enleve la REMOVE á E-Mail moi directement.

--
Phil Robyn
Univ. of California, Berkeley

u n z i p m y a d d r e s s t o s e n d e - m a i l

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113