Xp

GoneShootin

from microsoft.com

"Yes it’s true—Windows XP is ready to use an average of 34% faster than Windows 2000 and 27% faster than Windows 98 SE. That means no more agonizing wait for your computer to boot up when you want to start working or playing right away."

notice theres no mention of our buggy friend Windows ME

JustHalf

Just remember that's only boot times

From Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1501
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1505

GoneShootin

oh dear

looks like we'll be off to win98se again so

hell ill go linux while im at it....

JustHalf

Originally posted by Gone Shootin
hell ill go linux while im at it....

Oh, *there's* a good idea...

SickBoy

I'm using it and I like it ALOT!

Supercell

Ran Xp for several weeks here, not using it for another while..back to win2k for me, and win98se for video capure and occasional gaming.

It is a resource MONSTER, do not even dream of using it unless your pc is over 750mhz, with 512mb ram and a 7200rpm hdd. Yes it runs on slower pcs..but so does win98se on my ancient 486..get the picture..

So the pc boots faster..whoopie!!, all i do is reboot my pc every 5 mins...NOT, i sit at it for hours on end..boot times are irrelevant..just marketing crap imho.

That said, i did like its ease of use (especially networking) and the overall stability..and wmp8 is a pleasure to use (the voice stuff on the plus pack is pretty cool too) and do intend going back to it..when service pack two or higher is released and the pc i'm installing it on is considerably faster..probably around the 3ghz mark and hard drives are commonly running at todays scsi speeds.. on ide.

Stonemason

Ive been running 2k for the last week or so on a 1.2 t/bird and 256 pc 133 and i aint impressed so ill be giving XP a go at the end of the week hope its better.Ill also be upgrading to a MSI kt 266 with 512mb ddr 2100 and a 1.4 so with any luck it should work at a decent rate.



Stone

JustHalf

Originally posted by Stonemason
Ill also be upgrading to a MSI kt 266 with 512mb ddr 2100 and a 1.4 so with any luck it should work at a decent rate.

'lo again Stone.

You DO know that the KT266 sucks, yes? I hope you meant a KT266A based board.

strat

well i like XP i like it alot
ran build 2419 for a while and it sucked
put on build 2465 there about 3 months ago and its rock solid nyomery
put on build 2600 there recenrly and its not as good
2465 wil lbe goign back on

Cerberus

I dont see what all this fuss about fast startup times is about.
I'm running win2k on a P4 1.4 with a miserly 128 of rimm and it takes roughly 30-40 seconds to boot. Thats including logging in.
I do that once a day. Once! I have been running it now for a couple o months and I have had to reach for the power button only once to recover from a crash. And that wasn't really a crash. I loaded up a game that had no way of input except for a gamepad and i didn't have one. I would see that as a fault with the game and not the OS. I usually have 70 megs free after boot up which is plenty for anything I would be doing (Quake 3). So unless ur going to be rebooting once an hour I don't see how a quick reboot time would matter that much. Come on like, even if u had a slow machine and it took a minute to boot, it is only 1 minute out of the 1440 odd minutes in the day. How long does the avg. person spend on the jacks? (Sunday mornings excuded.)
Thats my two cents anyway.

R. Daneel Olivaw

Barely need to even reboot at all with Windows 2000.....do you do it to save electricity or something (it can stay on for days for me without crashing, memory leaks, etc., ).

Cerberus

nah it just annoys me when im sleeping.

Enygma

Takes my buddy about 5 minutes (literally) to shut down his copy. It's on a monster of a machine, something like 1G of RAM. Anyone else got this problem? I didn't notice any speed increase in the startup at all either.

Gerry

Not having installed it, I'll try not to judge it too much. However, by all non-microsoft reports, it seems much slower than win2k. I don't see how it can be much more stable than win2k, if anything it seems more complicated, with more to go wrong. I haven't had any stability issues with win2k, period. Since win2k is faster, and can use xp graphics drivers, I don't see the point in putting on xp. I reckon xp is put on purely out of boredom. People who hesitated to jump from win98 to win2k, are now believing the hype and jumping straight to xp. I think it would be wiser to try win2k first, and if it works fine for you, you don't need the fluff of xp.

astrofool

XP can use more devices than win2k, and can run alot more older software than 2k can. win2k is grand if you're not using alot of proprietory software/peripherals, add a few in, and it's worth crap as an OS

Gerry

You will have to explain "more devices", also the average user is not using much in the way of proprietory hardware or software.

Kegser

Gerry, I think you should lay off judging XP before trying it out for a few days at least. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, as I was.

I do agree that 2000 is a great OS, but XP has it's good points and so far has proven just as stable as 2000. I actually spent two hours doing my best to crash it a while back and could not do it.

Suck it and see, as the old addage goes.

Typedef

Gerry is right, why use Xp and be part of the muppet underklasse, especially when Xp is meant to be a resource hog like all end-user M$ products?

acous

what would you prefer to use?

98?.. unix? dont pretend that linux+X+kde is nice on resources, its worse than xp!

Kegser

As usual Typedef shows his limited brainpower and immense muppetry.... GOE TYPEDEF!1!1!!! POEWR TO TEH LINUCKS MASSIF!"2!!!!

EvilGeorge

We all said the same thing when 2000 came out but eventually we most of us will be using XP whether its because of some piece of h/w or s/w it always happens (exception being the ME muck that they produced)

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
Gerry is right, why use Xp and be part of the muppet underklasse, especially when Xp is meant to be a resource hog like all end-user M$ products?

As this is coming from a guy who warezed and uses Windows ME, it had me in stitches. Anyone else?

astrofool

things that don't work in win2k: HP 4100c scanner (despite them having a driver for it)

Kodak Digital Camera's connecting via the USB port (win2k gets muddled using it as a pcmcia device and crashes)

Older games, specifically the C&C series, Hexen 2 being another(all great games)

Game controller's, steering wheels, joypads etc. alot don't work in win2k.

It's perfect as a business pc, as they don't use alot of those parts (apart from the digital camera), and i'd use it on any pc I was building for a business, but for home users it's useless, they don't use their computers to microsoft's standards, which is why XP is out, being more 9x friendly than 2k ever will be. 2k is a step on from NT4, but it's not all the way there, XP is the step they should have gone to years ago.

Performance wise, mostly it'll be new pc's that will use XP, not many people care if their windows menu's take .05 second longer to open, or that in typing that word document, 2k could do it 20% faster if you were able to type 1000's of words per minute. Performance in stand alone games and applications is about the same as win2k, and the difference becoming negligible as time goes on and computer's getting faster.

XP is what 2k should have been. As for Me, it's just 98 SE with a few extra's, both are basically the same, haven't noticed any stability difference between Me or 98SE when been using them.

Stephen

I use win2k and am very happy with it. I have lots of peripherals and its never had a problem with any of them - USB webcam, parallel port printer, scanner and zip drive, gampads/joysticks (both USB and game/midi port) and so on.

The only game to give me trouble in win2k (so far) is Final Fantasy 7, which didn't have windows NT support in the first place, and is notoriously buggy in windows (any flavour).

I dual booted with win98 for a while and it played games just as fast - similar framerates and 3dmark 2000/2001 scores.

I have no plans to change it yet

Shad0r

I installed it on a removable here and played around with it for a while. My machine isnt a beast anymore and it ran fine. (PIII 733mhz, 512mg RAM)

Currently using Win2k but after the current much needed reinstall I will be lashing XP on as the main OS.

Stonemason

LO again yaself Dave


I was thinking of getting the above board ive read a few good reveiws on it though there were some warnings about earlier models they seem to fixed this problem.I phoned my suplier and this is the info he gave me

Its a K7T 266 Pro ver 1.0 (writen on the board)
it uses the VT8366 north bridge 552 Bga and the VT8233 south bridge 376 Bga.

Though the K7T 266 Pro 2 is out now (nice funky red un ) i may go for that one instead depends on benefits over cost ect ect

I be glad to hear your veiws


Stone

Ps is your site up yet ?

Typedef

Originally posted by JustHalf
As this is coming from a guy who warezed and uses Windows ME, it had me in stitches. Anyone else?

heheh
Warez

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
heheh
Warez

Hehe
Muppet

JustHalf

Originally posted by Stonemason
I was thinking of getting the above board ive read a few good reveiws on it though there were some warnings about earlier models they seem to fixed this problem.I phoned my suplier and this is the info he gave me

Its a K7T 266 Pro ver 1.0 (writen on the board)
it uses the VT8366 north bridge 552 Bga and the VT8233 south bridge 376 Bga.

It's a KT266 board. Don't get it.

Originally posted by Stonemason
Though the K7T 266 Pro 2 is out now (nice funky red un ) i may go for that one instead depends on benefits over cost ect ect

This board is a KT266A board... I think it's the one given out at the AMD XP roadshow. Seems pretty decent.

Also worth a look is the EPoX EP-8KHA+, and you might also want to hang on for the ABit KR7 board.

Here's some handy links (for information purposes only, that amd3d.com review has some quite laughable (read pointless) benchmarks in it).
http://accelenation.com/?doc=84
http://www.amd3d.com/review/k7t266pro2/
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=128
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=125
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1543 (Athlon XP's on the EPoX EP-8KHA+ board)

There's probably some more out there too.

Originally posted by Stonemason
Ps is your site up yet ?

Nope. Me and Phil (Gerry) have a lot of other work to do at the moment... might be up early November if we're lucky.

Stonemason

Cheers Dave

I kind of knew i was going for the pro 2 anyway just that niggling money saving voice in the back of your head (the missus ssshhhh)

Just installed XP pro there a couple of days ago and i think its well funky fast and reliable lots of options even though i installed it on my somewhat neglected system ill be going for a full format when i get the new parts and it will be going back on


Stone