Do you hate Windows XP

[Phoenix86]

As for the replacing media question, single machine, no network let's do the math.

No math is necessary, My XP image is just shy of 2GB, I do not swap media to install. If you have some questions on how, that's probably left for another thread. RIS or network ghosted installs are you friends.

Why does Windows Update still keep finding critical updates for me ?

Oh, I'm sorry, your right. Support ends in 10 days. So wait 10 days and then apply this argument. Source.
(the above link doesn't always play nice with forums, if you can't get it to work google "windows product support" and follow the first link).
Product Lifecycle Dates - Windows Product Family
Windows NT 4.0 Server
Available: 29-Jul-1999 Mainstream support expired: 30-Jun-2002 Extended support expired: 31-Dec-2004

Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation
Available: 29-Jul-1999 Mainstream support expired: 30-Jun-2002 Extended support expired: 30-Jun-2004
Windows NT Server 4.0 incident and security related hotfix support is available through 31-Dec-2004. Non-security related hotfix support is available only through a custom support contract after 31-Dec-2003.

>WOW, you can get the same thing on any new windows install on an unsecure connection<

As I said there is NO connection. Alexa for example isn't in NT4. The DSO vulnerabilities aren't in NT4

It avoids SOME exploits, it's vulnerable to others, but that really doesn't matter. You example had a key flaw, no firewall. Let's not plat "what if" scenarios.

>Any manufacturer that wasn't able to patch their software/drivers to work with SP2 is their fault. <

I agee. MS's failure to fix their USB driver to work with USB2 after SP2 is their fault.

MS did not manufacture your mobo, Intel did.

Most enthusiasts would be aware that it's not a 3rd party driver. A 3rd party driver is , by definition, one available from a 3rd party. This driver is and never was available from Intel. USB drivers are MS's baby.

No, again it's NOT "MS' baby" They provide generic USB drivers, they do not guarantee compatibility. Every mobo I have ever installed came with USB drivers on the CD. They just aren't needed because MS provides their own.

Win9x was NOT 40% slower than NT, but this is POINTLESS. These are EXPIRING OSes (see link above). Who the fvck cares? At least W98/ME are supported until '06, NT is done. Stick a fork in it, like W95. Also, don't provide # w/o links. I can simple say XP is 188% better with 70% increased security and 20% faster boot times, but w/o verification who cares?

Honestly, sounds like you have several problems with your setup if XP is providing MORE problems than previous OSes. I have experienced a measurable drop in calls/person since XP replaced 98. If you old machines are doing those tasks, you don't need to upgrade to XP, so you won't have those issues. I know VERY few people that aren't in IT that have more than 3 machines. Have you conisdered your not a normal case? MS isn't writing their code for *you* they are doing it for millions of users.

Now you want to talke about XPH/XPP, again like WU2, provide LINKED information as we can get to talking.

You had a bad call with MS' call center. Again, whopee. You think your the first person to get a non-english speaking rep on the phone? It also doesn't make it the norm, although it could be. I don't reactivate much at all. I have not had issues like that when calling for reactivation. They don't even ask whyyou need a new key once I say I'm installing new hardware.

 

[batmang]

how many threads are going to be made about this subject?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: batmang
how many threads are going to be made about this subject?

Ad infinity ad nauseum.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: batmang
how many threads are going to be made about this subject?

Too many IMO.

Still, in a couple of years it'll change to 'Who prefers XP to Longhaul' threads.

Can't wait. 😉

 

[J S Jackson]

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

Odd, I've had the exact opposite experience. I've got two machines here running Windows XP, and one Mac with OS 9. In two years, neither XP machine has *ever* crashed. Not once. Sure I've had some programs crash (can count them on one hand), but never have they brought down the OS too.

The Mac, on the other hand, crashes all the freakin' time. It's a complete POS in my opinion. Haven't tried OS-X, so I can't comment as to whether it's an improvement. As a side note, the thing is LOUD, sounds like a vacuum cleaner is running in the office. I'd chuck the thing out of the window myself, but my wife needs it for work.

I always laugh in disbelief when Mac fans tell me how much more stable than windows it is. Back in 95/98 that was certainly true, but XP has pretty much put that idea to rest.

XP = Solid as a rock for me.

 

[drag]

OS 9 was crap, pure and simple. It drove many people away from Macs, but OS X makes up for it a little bit.


And the distinct lack of BSOD in WinXP is partially atributable to the fact that many errors that would cause a BSOD in earlier OSes simply causes XP to reboot. So if you ever get a unexpected reboot, that's WinXP's version of BSOD for a lot of problems. 😉

But it's a definate improvement over Win9x anyway you look at it.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
hell no. when win2k goes down it doesn't boot at all... quite easily done to boot.

that happens with both though.. they are both NT5...

I love 2000, but recently an all patched up XP works good too.

It's hard to say, for a work environment, I still think 2000 is a little better, but it's getting tough to call thesedays.

i prefer 2k pro in a work enviroment because it's a bit more spartan and employees are less likely to play around with settings and less likely to do multimedia stuff.

i know, it can all be prevented but not all the employers i do work for want to pay me to do all that stuff.

for home use, i think xppro or xp media center is better than 2kpro.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: JackNaylorPE
>Sorry, but XP is built off 2K but configured correctly is faster, more secure, and an overall better OS than it's older brother 2K.<

I have seen dozens of published comparisions to the contrary and our own in house tests back up the published ones....even on dual boot boxes. Only ganme sare running faster. The performance drop is not as big as from NT4 -> Win2k but it's still there. And you can reduce the drop by turning off a bunch of crap in XP but it still doesn't get down to match.

Again, as the industry trade mags have indicated, and I mean the business oriented ones, not the fluffy newstand variety, a win2k box with Zone Alarm offers superior protection to XP with firewall. For my Aunt Tillie who might go out and buy a machine and nevr think of security, XP with its default firewall is a plus. But for any reasonably knowledgeable user....a person who has been using one for at least a year, the windows firewall is just something I need to turn off when I replace it with something I actually trust. And an NT4 box, Zone Alarm / AV with no IE or OE on the machine is infintely more secure as it can't be attacked thru the myriad of vulnerabilities which these things expose one to.

>I've also had much more problems with hardware overall in 2K than XP. Even older hardware often times is found and configured to work natively in XP, but needs to have drivers installed and be configured in 2K<

Win2k doesn't have a list of 200 things published on MS's own site which were broken by SP2.

As AV is handled by 3rd party programs there's no difference between the two OS's except for the base level of vulnerability. Again, NT4 with no IE or OE is inherently more secure. December 17th announced spoofing vulnerability for example will not infect a NT4 box without IE.

Well, looks like Mr. Jackie has it all figured out for us: Everyone make the move back to NT or Win 3.1! Heck, DOS even better!

You don't like XP, that's apparent, but sorry, many of your points just don't hold up. You're not the only one around here with a lot of education and expierience on the subject.

First, so you say 2K is faster in your tested environment or someone elses, does this mean it will be in all or in mine particularly?

You state all the "200 things published" against SP2, but convieneintly forget all the thousands published against the 2K SP's or NT SP's.

You also skim right over the fact that XP can and will configure much more hardware during an install than 2K ever dreamt of.

You come up with some dreamt up numbers of an "ordinary" US household. Well, sorry, fact is over 80% of US households have 2 or less computers.

You also talk about the WU2 site. Well, I suppose if you have a problem with it, so be it. I personally don't have anything to hide on my systems so no worries and if it needs to be scanned for needed updates, so be it.

You hate activation that's eveident. Well, sorry to tell you but, you're going to find a LOT more of that very soon with all software including games. Also, you mention CAD. Well, some of these, including AutoCAD had anti-pirating registration/activation keys even before MS started so perhaps you're running an illegal version so that would explain your apprehension to anyone knowing what's actually on all those dozens of systems your dozens of employees use.

Lastly, this was really stupid because quite frankly, I don't give a rats, but, when I saw and read your repsonses and your high and mighty "I'm right/you're wrong" tone...I just couldn't resist.😉 Run NT, run whatever, I don't care and hope you're happy, but, if you truely were worried about security and solid running systems, you'd already be on any flavor of Linux/BSD since your odds of having security/snooping issues would plummet and you wouldn't have to worry about all that porn or illegal software everyday.😉 LOL!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Now I can't walk away from such an install, I gotta sit and swap media till its done

If you don't know about RIS or ghosted installs, I'm doubting your experience. I haven't had to swap media since DOS. Not one version of windows has EVER required swapping media.

At least for home machines, doing a "Fresh" install, using "Upgrade" media, you have to swap the media at least twice. So as an absolute, your statement is wrong. (Plus, you forgot about the floppy-based installation of Win95 Gold - media-swapping hell.)

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

And I did speak to the manufacturer who told me it is a known problem with the onboard Intel USB controller and WinXPSp2. Spoke to Intel and they said it is a known problem but that Microsoft is responsible for fixing the problem.

Since when is MS responsible for 3rd party drivers? I think no. They often make generic drivers, but not manufacturer specific ones. I'm wouldn't buy that line from Intel.

Actually, you would be wrong then, because the USB stack is from MS, licensed on restrictive terms to OEMs. That's why you had to get XP SP1 from MS to enable USB 2.0 support, and OEM makers were contractually prohibited from supplying the drivers to end-users. Btw, there really isn't "mfg specific drivers" when talking about host ports, they either follow the UHCI(USB1.1), OHCI(USB1.1), or EHCI (USB2.0) standards.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

So Autodesk / MS or whomever shuts down my machine and I now have an employee sitting at his desk for 2 weeks twiddling his thumbs before they write back and say "whoops, we made a mistake".

Lemme know when that happens, I'd like to see a case. OK? About the DRM licensing, I wholly agree. I'm not a fan of DRM at all.

Guess you missed that article that was written about the first version of MS Office to feature "activation" technology? A professional writer, had his version of Office, that he used as a professional tool to make a living with, "de-activate" the software on his laptop, while he was on a plane trip away from where his install discs were. That sort of thing does happen.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

That's 5.4 people per household. I have to shell out for a business OS for an 8 year old to use XP Pro cause XP-Home in a 6 machine household is the proverbial "mammaries on a bull".

What is it about a 6 machine network that screams "home" environment. Most homes do NOT have 6 computers, much less 6 new ones all running XP.

Well, if MS's marketing is to be believed, then that's not such an unusual scenario. I'm assuming that he is speaking of some sort of licensing limitation in terms of network connectivity with XP Home, although I've never installed Home myself. Considering this is AT, you might be surprised to find out how many PCs are residing and running in some people's homes here, not to mention if some families are running Windows MCE in a home-theater arrangement, and someone is home from school and has both their laptop and PC hooked up to the home LAN. Altogether a completely plausable scenario.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: EndGame
First, so you say 2K is faster in your tested environment or someone elses, does this mean it will be in all or in mine particularly?

Well, it is faster in my experience, when running on the exact same hardware. Ironically, due to changes made in XP, W2K actually offers lower latency for games, giving it a slight advantage there. (Not to mention, the "punkbuster lag issue", which affects XP and Server2003, but doesn't appear to affect W2K machines at all. Similarly for the ATI "large AGP window and LargeSystemCache enabled" data-corruption issue. XP does have some real problems that it created, that didn't exist in W2K.)

Originally posted by: EndGame
You also skim right over the fact that XP can and will configure much more hardware during an install than 2K ever dreamt of.

With a number of installations that I've done, on slightly older hardware, XP actually configured *less* hardware devices out-of-the-box, including not supporting what is perhaps the most base-level standard networking card, NE2000 and clones (including PCI clones). I'll admit that W2K seems to be a tad deficient in terms of stable USB device support though, especially printers. XP is much better with USB.

Originally posted by: EndGame
You also talk about the WU2 site. Well, I suppose if you have a problem with it, so be it. I personally don't have anything to hide on my systems so no worries and if it needs to be scanned for needed updates, so be it.

Do you let the police drive by every night to shine a spotlight into your window to see if your up to something? Why or why not? Especially if you have "nothing to hide". Responses like yours bother me, because I know that the people that make them, are either "just saying that", or they are truely missing something upstairs, if they don't believe that privacy rights are important for individuals. If you want to be treated as a prisoner in your own home, then fine, go right ahead, but don't try to entangle others into that web of fascism.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: EndGame
First, so you say 2K is faster in your tested environment or someone elses, does this mean it will be in all or in mine particularly?

Well, it is faster in my experience, when running on the exact same hardware. Ironically, due to changes made in XP, W2K actually offers lower latency for games, giving it a slight advantage there. (Not to mention, the "punkbuster lag issue", which affects XP and Server2003, but doesn't appear to affect W2K machines at all. Similarly for the ATI "large AGP window and LargeSystemCache enabled" data-corruption issue. XP does have some real problems that it created, that didn't exist in W2K.)

Originally posted by: EndGame
You also skim right over the fact that XP can and will configure much more hardware during an install than 2K ever dreamt of.

With a number of installations that I've done, on slightly older hardware, XP actually configured *less* hardware devices out-of-the-box, including not supporting what is perhaps the most base-level standard networking card, NE2000 and clones (including PCI clones). I'll admit that W2K seems to be a tad deficient in terms of stable USB device support though, especially printers. XP is much better with USB.

Originally posted by: EndGame
You also talk about the WU2 site. Well, I suppose if you have a problem with it, so be it. I personally don't have anything to hide on my systems so no worries and if it needs to be scanned for needed updates, so be it.

Do you let the police drive by every night to shine a spotlight into your window to see if your up to something? Why or why not? Especially if you have "nothing to hide". Responses like yours bother me, because I know that the people that make them, are either "just saying that", or they are truely missing something upstairs, if they don't believe that privacy rights are important for individuals. If you want to be treated as a prisoner in your own home, then fine, go right ahead, but don't try to entangle others into that web of fascism.

1) I suppose then that situations are quite different for everyone. My personal finding is that the games my kids use most actually work on XP and the games they play most run faster on XP than they did under 2K. My youngest still plays a lot of old games which would not even install under 2K at least up to SP3 (switched all systems here by then) but will install and run fine under XP. Also, the apps my wife uses and some I use run fine even after XP SP2 while a triple boot system (XP, Debian, 2K) shows 2K having conflicts with the software. Also, my brother owns and runs a small repair/build/service computer business locally and he will attest that XP cut down on his service calls greatly and that some of the more "eager" people are not even worried about reinstalling anymore with XP because "it will do everything for them and find all their hardware unlike 2K always did"

2) Well, I've no idea what you're running, but, can say from personal expierience that 2K will not find my nik drivers, my display adapter native drivers, nor my sound drivers or printer driver while a fresh install of XP will finish with drivers found for all of the above and display, sound, network and printer up immeadiately. (granted I will update my video card and sound card driver) but the fact remains that a similar new install of 2K leaves each without drivers and not functioning. This is on each of my systems and my brother and his customers apparently have similar expieriences.

3) As a matter of fact, the neighborhood police do drive through our neighborhood each night and check for anything out of the ordinary as do our neighbors participating in our neighborhoodd watch program. On several occasions a neighbor has called or rang our bell, and we have done the same, later at night because we/they have heard something or seen a light /lights on late at night. We had a rash of robberies about a year and a half ago and since have gotten to know each other and our police a lot better and trust each of us to watch and take care of each other.
I never said anything about "being a prisinor in your own home", those are your words. Apparently you're fairly young and don't recall when people actually trusted each other. Hell, growing up we never even bothered to lock our doors at night or even take our keys out of the car when we were in town. Times and people have changed I know, but, not for the good. Today people like you seem to think automaticly that anyone else is "out to get you".............sad really.
As it applies to what I actually said, if MS, Linux, whatever need to to scan my system to see if any updates or patches need to be applied to make their software run better/faster, so be it. I don't have anything on their I'm worried about them finding! Granted, I also run anti-spam/anti-virus software because I know there are threats out there and people whom write malicious code just for 'the fun of it" which would/could do harm to my system. No different than the fact that there are/were always people out there whom start sh1t for no other reason but to start it. You protect yourself the best you can from these people and go on. I trust the Linux community will not right malicious software which will harm my Linux installs, and I trust that MS, Adobe, Peachtree, Panda, etc will not harm my system when they probe my system for updates or take a "snapshot" of my system config. Neither bothers me in the least.

 

[Phoenix86]

At least for home machines, doing a "Fresh" install, using "Upgrade" media, you have to swap the media at least twice. So as an absolute, your statement is wrong. (Plus, you forgot about the floppy-based installation of Win95 Gold - media-swapping hell.)

The context was applied use. Sure there are scenarios that require swapping disks, but no OS since DOS has required it for *all* scenarios. His statement was "Now I can't walk away from such an install, I gotta sit and swap media till its done."

It's not required if you use a better method like RIS/Ghost.

Actually, you would be wrong then, because the USB stack is from MS, licensed on restrictive terms to OEMs. That's why you had to get XP SP1 from MS to enable USB 2.0 support, and OEM makers were contractually prohibited from supplying the drivers to end-users. Btw, there really isn't "mfg specific drivers" when talking about host ports, they either follow the UHCI(USB1.1), OHCI(USB1.1), or EHCI (USB2.0) standards.

I will look further into it. What are the USB drivers on mobo's CDs then?

Guess you missed that article that was written about the first version of MS Office to feature "activation" technology? A professional writer, had his version of Office, that he used as a professional tool to make a living with, "de-activate" the software on his laptop, while he was on a plane trip away from where his install discs were. That sort of thing does happen.

I guess so, got a link? How long ago was this? Got lawsuit? 😉

About the home/pro thing. I know people here run many more machines, but the average user (MSs target for a "home" product) doesn't. Those that do, should know to get pro. Also, if you have that many machines you also probably run a server, and would want Pro for the domain/GPO features for management. Again, 6+ PCs doesn't sound like the typical home to me. Maybe in 10 years, but not now.

 

[knightrider]

XP SP2 Great 🙂

 

[JackNaylorPE]

As for that new thread....in the stated example given of a single standing machine, how does one do a ghost install to a network machine when there is no network ? You keep coming up with solutions by changing the question as with the next instance.

My example never had a key flaw cause it never had no firewall. The question was how is XP with its firewall any more secure than NT4 or Win2k with Zone Alarm. XP's firewall is better than nothing but it is inferior to Zone Alarm's.

Er....no Intel didn't manufacture my MoBo, Asus did. But again, just look it up. There are no 3rd party USB drivers for Windows XP. Win9x yes, Win2k yes (well at least until SP1), WinXP no. MS 's own site says that USB drivers are provided by MS and there are no, nor will they certify ANY, 3rd party alternatives. It's the same thing with PostScript and SCSI.....In the early years, you used a 3rd party SCSI Management utility and you used a 3rd party Type Manager. Try installing them on a Win2k box or an XP box.....they don't let you. Do a web search on USB2 driver....let me know if you find one. The only hits I got were questions from users asking where to fnd one for their new USb device. The answer every time is " There is no driver required, do not install any driver manually."

And yes Win9x (the newer) was defintely slower than W4WGs (the older), and the proof is in published form. Look at the December 95 issue of PC Mag. They tested 100 machines 65 with Win95, 35 with W4WGs. Most major manufacturers submitted two machines. When you look at the benchmarks on the same machine from the vendors, the W4WGs machines avaeraged 37 % faster, look it up. Look at Bill O'Brien's tests on the same subject....he needed a Pentoum 90 with Win95 to match the perofrmance of a 486/66 with W4WGs.

We did an in house test using twin Toshiba laptops with a choice on initial bootup between Win95 and W4WGs. We selected Win95 on one and W4WGs on the other. Winstone on Win95 was 44, Winstone on W4WGs was 60. After a little tweaking, we were able to get the Win95 up to 45 and the W4WGs machine up to 63. That's 40%. Subsequent tests using NT (after SP3 came out) brought performance up to 68 using the same tests.

NT4 may be done with MS support soon but is it not still the only MS OS approved by the National Security Agency ? You don't use it, you don't do business with the government on any security sensitive matters. I last read that MS was pursuing Win2k approval but haven't seen anything since.

Again, I don't publish a web site listing 200 things that SP2 broke. In coprorate IT, our definition of a Beta OS from MS is "anything before SP3". NT4 became stable and useable by the masses with SP3.....Win2k got useable for corporate IT with SP2 but didn't really hit its stride, as expected, with SP3 and Xp with SP2 is obvioulsy problematic or MS wouldn't be warning us with web pages telling us all the things it breaks. When I want to look at what is stable, I look at what the Fortune 500 IT guys are doing and for the most part they still weren't doin XP as of earlier this year when the lst study was published. XP sales were so bad in the corporate sector that to keep wall street happy, MS redefined a Win2k sale as a purchase of a WinXP with a "free Win2k downgrade".

Again I am not basing tis on "a" setup....I am basing it on my experience with 54 of them. I would expect a severe drop in calls from any Win9x box as the Win9x was only exceeded in headaches by WinME. Fortunately, our experience with Win9x was limited to the test bench and we were smart or lucky enough to never put a Win9x machine on a workdesk. Everything went from W4WGs to NT4SP3.

As for MS support ending, I don't much care. At $180 a pop last time I called (NT4SP3 was the latest MS OS at the time) what MS supports is of little value to me. Last I checekd the web site, it was $235 to "start". And it wasn't the non english part of the activation experience that really annoyed me....it was the 20 minutes of arguing that I was entitled to it. I am not the first to experience this. as is well documented.

The fact remains if XP were faster / better / more secure than previous OS's (as actually deployed, not as it comes from MS), IT directors throughout the Fortune 1000 would be all done putting it in place by now. Why haven't they done so ? No, they haven't for the most part because they are doing what they have always done....waiting for the stable driver base that should arrive by SP3 and for when they upgrade hardware. The last market study of corporate IT installations that I have seen was done by a canadian company back in March. In that study, XP's share in Corporate IT was substantially less than 50%, if memory serves it was about 34% XP, 41% Win2k and 25% NT4....2/3 of corporate NT installations were NOT XP, almost 2.5 years after it was released. No one in a corporate environment asks the boss for budget increases to "upgrade" existing box to XP because it will have a positive ROI. The reason is ina work environment you have to priduce more than a subjective result, you gotta have facts and figures. They are goinna have to show a "facts and figures" return on that investment and it is obvious that such will not materialize. If it did, it would be being done wholesale across the country.

I should also mention that I have a NT4 P2P server right behind me that has run 24/7 since 1997 or so. It's BSOD'd twice. My son's XP machine has been running a week. It's BSOD'd twice already. It's simply a matter of fact that a more mature OS will have numerous advantages. Yes a new one might have some bells and whistles, some new features, a few of which might even be useful. But the things that have to be recognized and I will close my comments with these:

1. The more time a company has had to deal with fixing things, the more stable the platform will be. Anything and everything that could have conflicted with NT4 has happended already and the conflicts resolved. 99% of everything that coud possible conflict with Win2k has been resolved, 95 % of it was resolved by SP2. We'd be at the 95% with XPSP2 except for the fact that MS tried to address numerous long term security defects in their OS's and while increasings ecurity, it did so at the expense of compatability. Only once MS has had a chance to address the incompatabilities introduced by SP2, combined with those that would normally be washed out between SP2 and SP4, can it hope to be as compatable. It's simply a matter of how many lines of code you have to debug and how much time you have had to do it.

2. Computing is a zero sum game. You have a limited amount of memory. The more processes an OS runs in the background, the less is available to programs. The more memory each process consumes, the elss is available to programs. Therefore the OS that has the smallest memory load is in the best position to allocate memory to programs. This was readily evidenced by the PCLite folks when they developed their utility to rip IE out of the OS and saw (and published) performance improvements as high as 15%.

3. It's all "been done" . All the encessary or useful computing taks have already been developed. The strain put on development teams to come up with new features has them scaping the bottom of the barrel. I think it was Office 97 with the ad campaign that oushe dupgrades cause with Office 97 "you could put a pie chart inside a pie chart." As if it would ever make sense to do that. Our return on the investment of what we get with each new OS release gets snmaller withe ach new release.....for the most part, it's all been done. So what we get is more features that we have no desire for and that we have toi struggle to find time to turn off. Like the annoying pop ups that tell me my AV software may be outdated....after all the def files are only 3.4 hours old. So we have 100's of so called "features" that we don't use or turn off. The downside is that the more features we havem the more code we have....the more code we have the more chance of a conflict, the greater amount of stuff to debug, and the greater amount of stuff running in the background. The auto daylight savings time adjustment thing for example that messes up file dates.

Will I ever like XP as much as I do NT4.....sure, well probably.....but not until I buy new hardware and not until SP3 comes out. I will never upgrade existing hardware. I wouldn't use NT4 until SP3 came out, ccursed myself for early adopting Win2k at SP2 and, learning my lesson, will not do XP in the work environment until at least SP3 for XP.

 

[Phoenix86]

As for that new thread....in the stated example given of a single standing machine, how does one do a ghost install to a network machine when there is no network ? You keep coming up with solutions by changing the question as with the next instance.

Disk to disk. Oh, and now there's no network. :roll: You plainly stated you were on a network, should I quote it? I think yes.

I have a mix of NT4, NT5.0 (Win2k) and NT5.1 (XP) on a 9 machine network and I'd say this...

With NT4 I had made a bootable CD-ROM for every box on my network.

...behind the hardware firewall...

And you accuse ME of changing the scenario?!? OK, whatever. Anyways. Disk to disk is a non-network solution. You can also hook up a crossover cable to an existing machine with Ghost server on it. There, two fvcking solutions that work AFTER you change your scenario. I'm not a bitter guy, but you sure are driving me that way. Oh wait, I'm pretty sure Ghost supports USB as well, but that's a 3rd possible solution.

To the rest of your stuff. Fine, whatever. Run NT all you want. I'm not going to participate in a discussion where you quote numbers, but not sources. '95 PC mag. LMAO. Please. OK, lemme dig through my archives. I can show you at lest 6 times you quote numbers w/o sources. :roll:

WFWG... HAHAHAHAHA! I can't believe anyone would actually compare anything to WFWG in a discussion about current computing. You take the cake there.

Dude, wake up it's NOT the 90s (early).

 

[MrChad]

NT4 may be done with MS support soon but is it not still the only MS OS approved by the National Security Agency ? You don't use it, you don't do business with the government on any security sensitive matters. I last read that MS was pursuing Win2k approval but haven't seen anything since.

Source? I know for a fact that there are Windows 2000 machines used at NSA. I believe there are XP machines used as well.

2/3 of corporate NT installations were NOT XP, almost 2.5 years after it was released.

Since you didn't provide a link to your numbers, I can't verify them, but I can tell you that a big reason why corporations have not moved to XP is that many invested large amounts of money migrating to Windows 2000 environments just a few years (or months) prior to XP's release. Since 2000 -> XP was not the same leap that NT -> 2000 was, many corporations did not make the switch to XP immediately after it was released. Nonetheless, I can't imagine ANY corporation wanting to remain on an unsupported NT4 platform. Regardless of how fast NT4 may run on a 2+ GHz machine, a large deployment of an unsupported operating system does not make good business sense.

I should also mention that I have a NT4 P2P server right behind me that has run 24/7 since 1997 or so. It's BSOD'd twice.

P2P? 1997? Are you sure that date's right? I would expect that a server would crash far less often than a desktop PC. Server's usually have limited, specific uses. As long as the hardware and drivers are good (and you rarely update drivers on a server anyway), your server should never BSOD. Your son's PC problems are, like all 2000/XP BSODs, probably the result of faulty hardware or bad drivers. These can be easily diagnosed if you know what to look for.

We'd be at the 95% with XPSP2 except for the fact that MS tried to address numerous long term security defects in their OS's and while increasings ecurity, it did so at the expense of compatability. Only once MS has had a chance to address the incompatabilities introduced by SP2, combined with those that would normally be washed out between SP2 and SP4, can it hope to be as compatable.

What about the responsibility of 3rd party software vendors and hardware manufacturers? Microsoft had an EXTREMELY long beta period for SP2, hoping that software vendors would test their products PRIOR to the final release of SP2. When you make drastic changes to the underlying OS, you're going to lose some compatibility. Frankly, I think it's worth it for the added security features.

Computing is a zero sum game. You have a limited amount of memory. The more processes an OS runs in the background, the less is available to programs. The more memory each process consumes, the elss is available to programs. Therefore the OS that has the smallest memory load is in the best position to allocate memory to programs.

Except most modern operating systems will use available memory until it is needed by other programs. The memory management processes in 2000 and XP are far more sophisticated than NT4. You can't just compare "available memory" on an NT box and an XP box and conclude that less memory will be available to programs in XP. That's an overly simplistic measure of performance.

 

[stash]

NT4 may be done with MS support soon but is it not still the only MS OS approved by the National Security Agency ?

Windows 2000 is also approved for government use, and at a higher level than NT 4 (EAL4). XP embedded was submitted for EAL4 certification back in the Spring of 2004, and I'm pretty sure it got it. I say this because I work on a highly critical government network that is comprised entirely of XPe devices.

 

[drag]

For the USB driver stupidity there are only 2 or 3 variants that need to have drivers.

There is the Open Host Controller Interface. Most non-x86 hardware uses this controller interface, so that's a non-issue with WinXP since it's x86-only. Some x86 hardware does use this controller, normally you would need it if your not using a Via or Intel USB stuff, which most people use anyways. (and that probably includes nvidia or amd stuff, since they use Intel and other stuff sometimes. But I am not sure of it, I don't own a nvidia or AMD board.)

The second type is the Universal Host Controller Interface. This is used by Intel and Via and is probably the most common. Any relatively modern Intel or Via motherboard (say 430TX for Intel) will definately use this for it's USB needs, as many others.

The third type is Enhanced Host Controller Interface. This is to provide USB 2.0 high-speed stuff. It is used in combination with either UHCI or OHCI to provide support with the slower USB 1.1.

So in order to support the vast majority of interfaces out their you need about 3 drivers aviable. Which I suppose that WinXP has by default. It's called "standards", complaining about WinXP having built in drivers and them being "MS's baby" is like saying that your drivers for the ISA controller sucks. (and you do have a ISA controller if you use x86).

Geez.

 

[stash]

I should also mention that I have a NT4 P2P server right behind me that has run 24/7 since 1997 or so. It's BSOD'd twice.

Congratulations.

You are either:

a: A fantastic bull sh!tter.
b. An utterly incompetent sysadmin who hasn't patched his box in almost eight years.
c. All of the above.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Endgame:

You mistake my position when you say that I like previous versions more or less than XP. The fact is XP is an imature product. Again, in the corporate IT world, the saying goes that a MS OS is a considered a beta until SP3 is out. XPSP1 was better than Win2kSP1 and both were better than NT4SP2. An OS with SP6 however is going to have less conflicts than one at SP4 which will have less conflicts than one at SP1. The longer an OS is "out" the more conflicts will have chance of being resolved. And the more lines of code, the longer to get all the conflicts out.

MS, after ignoring security for all these years concentrating instead on more and more fluff finally succumbed to press pressure and decided to harden up their OS. But they rushed it out to meet a deadline and it is causing lots of problems. We don't have a OS with two sets of bug fixes, we have a OS with one bug fix but which was superceded by essentially a rand new OS as most of what they put in doid not receive widespread testing "in the wild".

Yes some new features are handy for the newb, like System restore, but when it comes down to it, Ia m gonan turn it off. 1) There's too little control over what it does and 2) 3rd party proiducts do it better. So having a feature like a build in firewall or system protection utility doesn't do me much good if I am going to turn them off and replace them. My main beef with XP, aside from the kinks not yet having been worked out is its annoyance factor. I have to spend too much time turning things off so that the setup of a new box is taking me much longer to accomplish.

I am not suggesting that anyone go back to anything. I am suggestion that "upgrading" a machine that was initially set up with one OS to a newer OS will NEVER, under any circumstances have a positive ROI.

I was not referring to my environment but to every enviroment that I have been exposed. As previously posted computing is a zero sum game. The more background tasks you have, the more memory your OS uses, the less is going to be available to other programs. If you have a program, lie AutoCAD, that uses ALL available memory, one OS takes 80 MB to run itself and one uses 160MB, my math says 1024 - 80 is bigger than 1024 - 160. The one with more memory to use will work faster. Of course it will make no difference when browsing or using common office apps unless you use big spreadsheets or huge databases which of course will run faster if they can use more meory.

As for the things 200 things published, we are talking STRICTLY about what MS has on their web site that says are broken by SP2. If you can point me to MS web site where **they** say that their SP for another of their OS's breaks things, I'd certainly be happy to read it.

I really don't care what an OS scans and finds. Though XPSP2 still can't find a SATA Hard Drive.....what's with that ? I am certainly capable of installing a driver if need be. But the point is never in recent history of MS have we seen so many hardware conflicts since XPSP2. I certainly have never had a piece of hardware that worked on one OS and doesn't work in the very next. I now have the Logitech Bluetooth Keyboard mouse and the Saitek Gamers keyboard that won't install correctly and I have only been at it a week. And these are keyboards, you can't get much simpler than that.

I will say that or the casual user like the proverbial Aunt Tillie, XP is a better option on a new purchase. But each OS has substantially crippled the knowledgeable user from diagnosing his own problems. And a call from tech support has gone from a 3 minute conversation editing an autoexec.bat file to the now standard TS 1-2-3.

1) Update your video card driver.
2) Uninstall / reinstall the program.
3) Ininstall / reinstall the OS.

I had a problem where a certain action would launch MSIE despite the fact that it was not the default browser. Heck I don't even want nor need a browser on all my office machines. Being concerend about MSIE's inumerable vulnerabilties, I wanted to disable it. So I renamed the iexplore.exe file to iexplore.OFF...within seconds the file reappeared. So I did the same in the drivercache directory and THEN did the change....same thing happened. I deleted the cab files, then the ones in driver cache and then changed the file name....it still reappeared. I had the same issue with a conflict with a tape backup program and a windows feature that I didn't use. In each case renaming the file....which always worked in NT4 and previous versions, always had it coming back. With enough time, effort and research I was eventually able to solve the problem but why was this necessary ? I don't mind this fixing being provided for newbs but let the knowledgeable user do what he wants to do.

Your statements on activation leave me kind of puzzled. First you say that CAD software has activation schemes well before windows did and then you say we must be using illegal installs of this software. Well how could we do that if the CAD software has its own activation ????

The fact is, I don't mind the activation process (that doesn't start out with the assumption of me being a criminal) at all as long as the vendors are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Your position is like a kid playing baseball who has been told to get away from nearby houses .... after he breaks a window he doesn't want to pay for it and runs away. You wanna shut me off go ahead....but if your wrong, YOU take responsibility for the financial damages for YOUR action.

Again a little research would avoided this faux pas but you did recognize and repeat that I am an AutoCAD user. Then you say, if I was really concerned about security I'd use Linux. Were it actually possible to be an AutoCAD user and a Linux user I would certainly have done that long ago. And no anothe rprogram is not an option as all government contracts require final documents be provided in AutoCAD.

 

[MrChad]

The misinformation just keeps sucking me back into this thread.

But they rushed it out to meet a deadline and it is causing lots of problems. We don't have a OS with two sets of bug fixes, we have a OS with one bug fix but which was superceded by essentially a rand new OS as most of what they put in doid not receive widespread testing "in the wild".

How did they "rush" this release? SP2 was available for months and months in beta form specifically so that it could be tested "in the wild." You have no basis for your statement.

As for the things 200 things published, we are talking STRICTLY about what MS has on their web site that says are broken by SP2. If you can point me to MS web site where **they** say that their SP for another of their OS's breaks things, I'd certainly be happy to read it.

I'm assuming you're referring to these two articles:

Some programs seem to stop working after you install Windows XP Service Pack 2
Programs that are known to experience a loss of functionality when they run on a Windows XP Service Pack 2-based computer

Go ahead and read those articles. First of all, Microsoft should be commended for being open about SP2 issues and helping its user community resolve them. Secondly, almost all SP2-related issues that I've heard of can be resolved by tweaking the Windows firewall or DEP settings.

I now have the Logitech Bluetooth Keyboard mouse and the Saitek Gamers keyboard that won't install correctly and I have only been at it a week. And these are keyboards, you can't get much simpler than that.

It's Microsoft's fault that Logitech and Saitek have products that are difficult to install? 😕 And I'd hardly call a bluetooth keyboard "as simple as you can get."

But each OS has substantially crippled the knowledgeable user from diagnosing his own problems. And a call from tech support has gone from a 3 minute conversation editing an autoexec.bat file to the now standard TS 1-2-3.

1) Update your video card driver.
2) Uninstall / reinstall the program.
3) Ininstall / reinstall the OS.

The computing world is a LOT more complicated than it was 10 years ago. Cars are no different. It's a matter of keeping up with the technology and understanding how to diagnose and fix problems. (and I wouldn't use AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS tweaking as an example of the "good ole days" of troubleshooting 😛)

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: JackNaylorPE
Endgame:

You mistake my position when you say that I like previous versions more or less than XP. The fact is XP is an imature product. Again, in the corporate IT world, the saying goes that a MS OS is a considered a beta until SP3 is out. XPSP1 was better than Win2kSP1 and both were better than NT4SP2. An OS with SP6 however is going to have less conflicts than one at SP4 which will have less conflicts than one at SP1. The longer an OS is "out" the more conflicts will have chance of being resolved. And the more lines of code, the longer to get all the conflicts out.

MS, after ignoring security for all these years concentrating instead on more and more fluff finally succumbed to press pressure and decided to harden up their OS. But they rushed it out to meet a deadline and it is causing lots of problems. We don't have a OS with two sets of bug fixes, we have a OS with one bug fix but which was superceded by essentially a rand new OS as most of what they put in doid not receive widespread testing "in the wild".

Yes some new features are handy for the newb, like System restore, but when it comes down to it, Ia m gonan turn it off. 1) There's too little control over what it does and 2) 3rd party proiducts do it better. So having a feature like a build in firewall or system protection utility doesn't do me much good if I am going to turn them off and replace them. My main beef with XP, aside from the kinks not yet having been worked out is its annoyance factor. I have to spend too much time turning things off so that the setup of a new box is taking me much longer to accomplish.

I am not suggesting that anyone go back to anything. I am suggestion that "upgrading" a machine that was initially set up with one OS to a newer OS will NEVER, under any circumstances have a positive ROI.

I was not referring to my environment but to every enviroment that I have been exposed. As previously posted computing is a zero sum game. The more background tasks you have, the more memory your OS uses, the less is going to be available to other programs. If you have a program, lie AutoCAD, that uses ALL available memory, one OS takes 80 MB to run itself and one uses 160MB, my math says 1024 - 80 is bigger than 1024 - 160. The one with more memory to use will work faster. Of course it will make no difference when browsing or using common office apps unless you use big spreadsheets or huge databases which of course will run faster if they can use more meory.

As for the things 200 things published, we are talking STRICTLY about what MS has on their web site that says are broken by SP2. If you can point me to MS web site where **they** say that their SP for another of their OS's breaks things, I'd certainly be happy to read it.

I really don't care what an OS scans and finds. Though XPSP2 still can't find a SATA Hard Drive.....what's with that ? I am certainly capable of installing a driver if need be. But the point is never in recent history of MS have we seen so many hardware conflicts since XPSP2. I certainly have never had a piece of hardware that worked on one OS and doesn't work in the very next. I now have the Logitech Bluetooth Keyboard mouse and the Saitek Gamers keyboard that won't install correctly and I have only been at it a week. And these are keyboards, you can't get much simpler than that.

I will say that or the casual user like the proverbial Aunt Tillie, XP is a better option on a new purchase. But each OS has substantially crippled the knowledgeable user from diagnosing his own problems. And a call from tech support has gone from a 3 minute conversation editing an autoexec.bat file to the now standard TS 1-2-3.

1) Update your video card driver.
2) Uninstall / reinstall the program.
3) Ininstall / reinstall the OS.

I had a problem where a certain action would launch MSIE despite the fact that it was not the default browser. Heck I don't even want nor need a browser on all my office machines. Being concerend about MSIE's inumerable vulnerabilties, I wanted to disable it. So I renamed the iexplore.exe file to iexplore.OFF...within seconds the file reappeared. So I did the same in the drivercache directory and THEN did the change....same thing happened. I deleted the cab files, then the ones in driver cache and then changed the file name....it still reappeared. I had the same issue with a conflict with a tape backup program and a windows feature that I didn't use. In each case renaming the file....which always worked in NT4 and previous versions, always had it coming back. With enough time, effort and research I was eventually able to solve the problem but why was this necessary ? I don't mind this fixing being provided for newbs but let the knowledgeable user do what he wants to do.

Your statements on activation leave me kind of puzzled. First you say that CAD software has activation schemes well before windows did and then you say we must be using illegal installs of this software. Well how could we do that if the CAD software has its own activation ????

The fact is, I don't mind the activation process (that doesn't start out with the assumption of me being a criminal) at all as long as the vendors are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Your position is like a kid playing baseball who has been told to get away from nearby houses .... after he breaks a window he doesn't want to pay for it and runs away. You wanna shut me off go ahead....but if your wrong, YOU take responsibility for the financial damages for YOUR action.

Again a little research would avoided this faux pas but you did recognize and repeat that I am an AutoCAD user. Then you say, if I was really concerned about security I'd use Linux. Were it actually possible to be an AutoCAD user and a Linux user I would certainly have done that long ago. And no anothe rprogram is not an option as all government contracts require final documents be provided in AutoCAD.

I really don't have the time or concern to address everything you posted, but, the one where you stated you ***MUST*** use NT4 to do business with the governement on ANY security matters was quite enough. That was all the Faux Paux I needed to read. I worked for several years as an aeronautics engineer for a civilian contractor in Hunstville AL. We worked DAILY with security sensitive material and frequently with NSA officials. Sorry to break it to you, but, they aren't on NT4 systems anymore and neither were we. When I left we were transitioning from 2K to XP and many of the gov. systems were already using XP. That was toward the end of '03.

As for the rest of whatever you wrote, first you say activation is a PITA basicly, then say you don't mind it. My statements were in general stating that if you have such a problem with it, many times it's because you're using software which is not exactly "legal". You're position is all over the board and really, that says a lot right there. Doesn't matter anyway, and I have to say, you're a damn good "talker" or "typer"! Ever consider becoming a salesman because I'm sure there are a lot of people whom wouldn't/couldn't see through it!😉

 

[Link19]

[q=Virtual Larry]Do you let the police drive by every night to shine a spotlight into your window to see if your up to something? Why or why not? Especially if you have "nothing to hide". Responses like yours bother me, because I know that the people that make them, are either "just saying that", or they are truely missing something upstairs, if they don't believe that privacy rights are important for individuals. If you want to be treated as a prisoner in your own home, then fine, go right ahead, but don't try to entangle others into that web of fascism. [/quote]

I totally agree with you on that. It's that kind of attitude EndGame has that ultimately is one of the biggest threats to our freedom and a global police state like in George Orwell's 1984 becoming a reality!!! That kind of statement bothers me a HELL of a lot too!!! People have a right to their privacy no matter what you may think!! If you are one to believe "I don't care if I'm watched by governments or corporations because I have nothing to hide and don't do anything wrong, you are just demonstarting the attitude that will make global FASCISM become a reality!! So no one should try and drag someone into that so called web of FASCISM by making such statements like that. People have a right to their privacy and a right to know before any special interest or party is going to collect some identifying information about them. I don't care what kind of information it may be. People have a right to their privacy no matter what and no one should have the right to just obtain idnetifying information about someone without their consent or a clear and proper court order for a very good reason.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Virtual Larry
Do you let the police drive by every night to shine a spotlight into your window to see if your up to something? Why or why not? Especially if you have "nothing to hide". Responses like yours bother me, because I know that the people that make them, are either "just saying that", or they are truely missing something upstairs, if they don't believe that privacy rights are important for individuals. If you want to be treated as a prisoner in your own home, then fine, go right ahead, but don't try to entangle others into that web of fascism.

I totally agree with you on that. It's that kind of attitude EndGame has that ultimately is one of the biggest threats to our freedom and a global police state like in George Orwell's 1984 becoming a reality!!! That kind of statement bothers me a HELL of a lot too!!! People have a right to their privacy no matter what you may think!! If you are one to believe "I don't care if I'm watched by governments or corporations because I have nothing to hide and don't do anything wrong, you are just demonstarting the attitude that will make global FASCISM become a reality!! So no one should try and drag someone into that so called web of FASCISM by making such statements like that. People have a right to their privacy and a right to know before any special interest or party is going to collect some identifying information about them. I don't care what kind of information it may be. People have a right to their privacy no matter what and no one should have the right to just obtain idnetifying information about someone without their consent or a clear and proper court order for a very good reason.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

HOW did we get from "I'm OK with Windows Update scanning my computer for updates" to "These kinds of attitudes will lead to a fascist police-state" ???

Let's not blow EndGame's comments out of proportion. In the age of the internet, a certain level of trust is required for all sorts of things. Trust in Windows Update, trust in sending error reports, trust in credit card transactions, even trust in digital rights management. As long as companies are honest and forthright in explaining what information the collect and how they use it, I'm usually comfortable trusting their word. Not in all cases but in many.

It is important that people have a right to their privacy. But remember that the casual computer user is often less trusting than many enthusiasts. Enthusiasts fear spyware because of the performance implications, while many casual users fear that cookies are tracking their every move on the web. Enthusiasts were quick to embrace online shopping, while casual users are just recently beginning to trust the online credit card form. Companies have a difficult time winning users trust for even the most trivial activities.

As with "offline" companies, software and online companies build trust on reputation. Microsoft may have used their corporate muscle to bully their way into markets and stifle competition, but I've never heard of them exploiting their monopoly to acquire private information secretly. It's interesting that people (enthusiasts especially) tend to be more paranoid about Microsoft than about "geek friendly" companies such as Google. How can you be afraid of Windows Update and not Gmail (which admittingly scans the content of your inbox) or Google Desktop Search (which indexes the entire contents of your hard drive)? What makes a company like Google immune to these fears and doubts?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It's not required if you use a better method like RIS/Ghost.

Yes, if you use an alternative method. But you said:

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Not one version of windows has EVER required swapping media.

Which is false. Perhaps you meant "always" instead of "EVER"? Granted, he wasn't completely correct either, implying that media-swapping was always required.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
I will look further into it. What are the USB drivers on mobo's CDs then?

For XP systems? Mostly .INF files, to allow PnP detection of those particular USB host ports, which are specialized by things like vendor IDs, and binding them to the in-box MS driver binaries. If you go to Via's site to download chipset USB2.0 drivers for XP, you'll find that they WILL NOT provide them, instead referring you to get the XP SP upgrade from MS for the drivers. The only thing that they offer is a USB1.1 filter-driver to workaround bugs in some of their older chipsets, and an .INF driver update to change the string displayed to the user in Device Manager for the USB2.0 EHCI from a generic one to a Via-named one. That's why there are also seperate "Lite" and "Full" Via USB driver packages, and the "Full" version (which does include the binary MS USB 2.0 drivers as part of the package), includes loads of legalese license restrictions on the distribution of those drivers. (I can't tell you where to download those though.)

As for Win9x, MS doesn't provide any official USB2.0 drivers, so chipset companies have to license 3rd-party drivers like Orange Micro's, and provide those instead. I think Intel does write their own Win9x USB2.0 drivers.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Again, 6+ PCs doesn't sound like the typical home to me. Maybe in 10 years, but not now.

I guess the key word here would be "typical", but if you look at the scenarios that MS promotes in their advertising literature, with devices running WinXP, XP Embedded, or PocketPC Windows, then it doesn't seem so atypical after all, if you believe their hype.

PS. Sorry, I failed to find the info about the de-activation of Office XP on that reporter on the airplane. I guess I'll keep looking. It had to have been an article from around 2000 or 2001.