********************How do you like WINDOWS XP?********************

From me ^ | 27 Oct 01 | Democrats are liars

[Democrats are liars]

Well, I just finished installing Windows XP on my computer. It did not go nice and smooth. I ended up reformatting my hard drive and starting from scratch. I know Windows XP sure does not like AOL 6.0. I am in the process of downloading AOL 7.0. I am still installing all my old software. Yes Windows XP locked up on me many times today and last night. Well, I guess I just would like to know how every one else is doing with Windows XP.

[Redcloak]

It is a lot faster!

Given the body of your post, one has to wonder: "Faster at what?!"

[Glenn]

XP sure does not like AOL 6.0.

AOL. Wow. Is that as cool as everyone says it is?

[Democrats are liars]

I agree with you. I think Windows XP is going to turn out to be a great OS. It sure can not be worse than Windows ME. The more I mess around with this new OS, the more I like it!

[Jolly Green]

My computer wholesaler tried XP on several machines for about 2 hours. At this moment, he is flashing the bios to get rid of the copy protection, F-Disking, and reinstalling W2K. No machines he sells will have XP. XP is a dog that won't hunt.

Ya, and I've got some swamp land for sale in Florida. Any computer wholesaler doing such a thing won't be a computer wholesaler for long. The market is the market.

[Ben Bolt]

Exactly Carol, And it is also something that Mr. Gates states from his own words . I also like .. Ah dang it , forgive the brain lock . I think I work with windows way to much ! I really wish I could recall the show now , because between FReepers and those 2 men , I learned a great deal . Y'all have a dandy of a day!

[Bill Rice]

How's he been de-bunked? That's news to me. I think if you can have 13 yr. olds using your system remotely to launch denial of service attacks, that's a pretty good reason to worry about open sockets, especially if there's no firewall.

13 yr. old launches Denial of service attacks remotely

The first thing I hated about XP is not being able to pop up my computer or startup by right-clicking on the start button. That was a stupid feature to lose, and enough to totally turn me off on XP.

[Jolly Green]

I would put my computer man up against anyone in this forum. He DID install it. It just isn't worth a shit.

Gee, it sure sounds like you have an agenda.

Also, please note the profanity guidelines.

[jammer]

He USED it for 2 hours, Wiley. USED it. He was a beta-tester for God's sakes. He has had the gold for two weeks. He USED it. It isn't good, in his opinion. Your posts show who the moron is.

[ibme]

Absolutely great so far! I was running ME and had to reboot several times everyday. I haven't had to reboot at all except when required while installing software.

Try Powertoys For Windows XP, free from MS. It will give you 4 different desktops to work on. Click a button and the whole screen zooms down to 4 windows. Click on the window you want to switch to and it zooms up to full screen.

It doesn't have Java installed and I'm glad, Java has caused many crashes. Sun is using the Sep 11 tragedy to promote their software for a national Java ID card. Just say NO to Java.

[birbear]

I don't begrudge Bill Gates his money, but I do figure that he really could afford his own guinea pigs.

One of the biggest disadvantages of having the most popular "platform" is that you can't possibly account for all of the various hardware combinations that are possible.

I just did a search for video cards at bestbuy.com, they currently stock 6 different ones. And there's at least 10 different variations of processors (probably more like 20), and at least 4 different versions of Office (95, 97, 2000, and XP) that people would try to run... so, once you do the math on just those 3 issues alone, you're looking at 240 possible configurations. And the more software and devices you add on, the configurations grow expotentially.

Gates and Co. can spend two years, allow two hundred people each day, testing every "reasonable" combination of hardware and software, and still miss something that you or I have and work with on an "every day" level.

That's one of the reasons why Jobs eliminated the licensing agreements that Gil Amellio had set up with the Mac Clones. Jobs knew that in the PR war, Apple wins because they don't have so much conflicting hardware/software problems. But once the Mac Clones were introduced people started running into the same problems that Windows had -- too many different things could go wrong that Apple couldn't control.

Linux will have the same problems if/when its market share increases to a certain level.

[for-q-clinton]

I'll need to find the article, and I'll post it. Basically, the article mentions that if you use the XP firewall, no one will get into your system UNLESS you let him in.

Then just read the guys page. He's changed his tune since he first started his rant. And then he even tries to speak for Microsoft. Just read what he posts...like "We coined the term stealth port". Who really cares who came up with that term? But he's so into himself he just wants to get name recognition. He reminds me of a thirteen year old.

[Cultural Jihad]

Windows XP installed easily. I chose to format the hard drive and do a fresh install. By the time it was all done 40 minutes later there was nothing left to do, so efficiently did it install everything.

XP is a great OS.

[Ben Bolt]

You nailed it Carol . It seems like that is the r&d trend they decided on . that's why when I do upgrade , I'll leave 98 and go with 2000 . The leap frog marketing is great , if you own the company :).

[jammer]

Sorry to offend you, Jolly Green. Yes, the market is the market. As experts much smarter than you, me, my supplier, and certainly Wiley, such as Jerry Pournelle and many others have said, that market is, at best shaky. .NET may be really good, but, from my reading of unbiased observers--people who don't sell it--the product is bad. Really, really bad.

[BibChr]

4. 2000 was a huge, major change from the 95 base.

Forgive the quibble, Carol, but 2000 was unrelated to 95, so 95 was not its base. I'm not generally into the MS-bashing trend, but their naming conventions were terrible in this case. The successor to 95 was 98, and the successor to 98 was (not 2000 but) ME, now replaced (not by ME 2 or Windows 2001 but) by XP.

Windows 2000 was built on the Windows NT 4.0, a completely different OS than Windows 98. 98 et al were DOS-based; NT and 2000 (which is really NT 5) are not.

Whew! Get all that?

Dan

[for-q-clinton]

Wow he used it for a full 2 hours. He must be a super experienced XP god. Can he give me some lessons on XP? After all he has used it for a full 2 hours.

[Jolly Green]

Gee, yet another agenda!!!

[jammer]

As a matter of fact, the case can be made that Dos 6.2 IS better than ME. Not 95, Not SE, not W2K, but ME is pretty bad.