Pics for WinXP

[BD2003]

Personally I like it. Skinnable interface is definitely cool. The pics are NOT going to be the only skin for it, theyd have to be crazy. The newer one looks a little kiddie, but the older one I think is a definite improvement. I even have it as my windowblinds skin. Some people dont like skins, I guess I'm not one of them.

For those that dont know, you can already skin your interface using a program called windowblinds, from www.stardock.net. I havent seen many good skins for it, but the whistler one is definitely one of the best. Looks exactly like it. It slows everything down, but with a 1ghz you have speed to spare.

 

[MGMorden]

BigDee I agree and I like the skins, but as I'm sure you've seen Windowblinds doesn't quite make the pc feel like it's really the way it looks. It's kinda like putting seat covers in your car. The seats look better and you might think that's what they really look like at first glance, but after looking at it for a while it looks (and feels) like just what it is: only a cover. That's what I hope MS avoids. If they can make this technology work as well (and as transparently) as the hard-coded interface then I'm all for it.

 

[randomlinh]

if it's good skinnin' and doesn't slug the system anymore than XP most likely will.. then it's ok Themes were horrible in 98... or 95 or whatever.. ate the system alive.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< It is based on Windows 2000's design so games will run just as they do on there. >>

Actually XP supposedly has enhanced game support. That's one of the big marketing dots for folks looking to upgrade from 9x.

BigDee2003,

But how do skins make XP a better os? Sure, it needs to look perty to attract general consumers (that's partly why they made it over). But skins offer nothing but a look. Guess as long as I can still customize everything I won't holler much.

 

[urbantechie]

<< what a bunch of sniveling whiners, when it comes out you will buy it and use it so just shut up, if u pirate it theres probably things embedded into the code to track you. >>




Not if you get MSDN or get OEM software.

 

[urbantechie]

Oh yea, with newest build, you can turn all that fluffy sh!t off.

 

[emjem]

I did read somewhere about copy protection that MS was using with XP. What I read wasn't detailed enough to understand what they're doing. I'm not buying anything that I can't make a backup copy of and/or install 100 times on MY computer.

Anyone know the specifics on this?

 

[JellyBaby]

emjem,

It's tied to your hardware (probably hard drive and NIC). You can install and reuse the registration code thingy unless you reformat or make other &quot;substantial&quot; system changes. Then you gotta contact M$ again for a fresh code (pray their servers are up, their company still exists, and they're open when you want that code).

 

[emjem]

Thanx Jelly, that sure is suck. Like I'm going to be in a really good mood for calling them when I'm having to reformat, lol.

And I suppose their going to give you 20 question quiz.

Hmmmmm, I don't think I want to buy this product.

 

[thegreatjeff]

I think it looks cool, they at least sold one person here!

 

[thegreatjeff]

Yeah I like WindowBlinds too, but it slows my computer down way too much (I'm running 750mhz, 128mb ram, Win2K, but it's still terrible) and besides like BigDee said after a while of using you see all the stuff that isn't good about it, like some programs don't work, it locks up your computer a ton, etc... And besides WB doesn't have that many good skins anyway...the best are Whistler and Apple OS X. =)


Oh and also it will be based on Win2k's kernel but will have Win9x/Me's support for games and user-friendliness. (User-friendliness? At Microsoft? What am I talking about?!?!? )

 

[MGMorden]

AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Sorry. Had to let that out. To reiterate just one more time XP ain't gonna have 9x's support for games. New games will just be written for XP. What does that mean? It means that all the newest and greatest games are gonna run on XP and 2000 fine. Why? Not because XP was written to support games, but because those frickin' games are designed for XP(and hence 2000). XP's structure is that of win2k, not 9x. The only thing that's gonna make XP have better &quot;game support&quot; is that MS says to the developers: &quot;Guys, we're gonna use this now ok.&quot;.

 

[BD2003]

Jellybaby:

If looks are nothing, go play doom while I play quake 3. Its the future. If computers can handle looking nice, why not? Its one thing to say you dont like a skin, but it seems kinda dumb to say you hate skins from a looks perspective only. Technically the plain windows scheme is just like a skin, albeit a very plain one. What makes it superior? The performance perspecitve I can understand, but we'll see how that comes out.

And I havent had any significant problems with windowblinds. Menus are a tad slower to come up, but it just looks real good when they do. I can barely look at plain windows now. The only significant performance loss I have is when I open up like 50 pics in psp, and each window winthin the window is skinned. Also, a few strange gaps in instant messenger. But nothing radical like crashes or anything. Just make sure you turn off skinning for those problem apps, and get the newest version.

BTW, I'm thinking you might be wrong there. Earlier benchmarks of whistler/xp showed it having a substantial (5-10%) faster benchmark in quake 3 and 3dmark2000 over win2k, using the same drivers. They might be invalid now because it was taken from an earlier beta, but its not hard to believe theres some improvement is there? Win2k was never positioned as a gaming OS, so they had no need to optimize it, but XP is, so they definitely have reason.

 

[Noriaki]

<< BTW, I'm thinking you might be wrong there. Earlier benchmarks of whistler/xp showed it having a substantial (5-10%) faster benchmark in quake 3 and 3dmark2000 over win2k, using the same drivers. They might be invalid now because it was taken from an earlier beta, but its not hard to believe theres some improvement is there? Win2k was never positioned as a gaming OS, so they had no need to optimize it, but XP is, so they definitely have reason. >>

That is most likely because Whistler personal has a lot of stuff cut out. No SMP support, far fewer system services, that sort of thing. Win XP Pro and Win 2k Pro should be very close in gaming performance. The only difference from a gaming perspective is that the apcompat tool from Win2k is installed by default, and is probably upgraded somewhat.

But i haven't had any issues running any older apps under Win2k so I don't see what difference it makes. Even Win3.11 games run fine on my Win2k machine.

 

[BD2003]

Well, the less useless system services the better. Who really uses remote registry and the like? Cutting out services that the common person would never think of using, let alone even knowing that theyre there or what they do is optimizing in my book. Too much bloat as there is.

 

[robisc]

That sux, I guess I'll stick with Win2k and BeOS

 

[MGMorden]

You mean XP isn't gonna support dual CPU's? *#@^%@$*^)@$^ (wishes many unpleasantries to the idiot at MS who did this) Why the heck would they remove dual CPU support? Doesn't cost them any more and wouldn't have hurt their marketing one bit. Crap, crap, crap, crap, crap. (guess I'll be going with XP Pro since I'm going to be going to dual T-Birds and DDR over the summer).

BTW, BigDee, I'm not agruing about XP's speed vs 2k in games. 2k does have a lot of services and other stuff that can slow it down (those fading menus slow it down quite a bit. I turned mine off though). I'm just saying that compatibility wise XP will be the same as 2k. When the new crop of games (read: around the time of XP) start coming out then you will start to see Win98/Me start having problems with them just as 2k has problems with current games.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< To reiterate just one more time XP ain't gonna have 9x's support for games. >>

MGMorden, I heard differently and I'm holding M$ to their promise. I fully expect games designed without the NT/2K kernel in mind to run and/or run better under XP.

<< If looks are nothing, go play doom while I play quake 3. >>

BigDee2003,

The difference is I expect games to look pretty. It's required. OSes exist only to run the pretty games. And you're putting words in my mouth. I don't &quot;hate&quot; skins I just find them superfluous. So if M$ forces a certain style on me I'll be quite angry. Looks like they won't so it's a &quot;win&quot; for everyone.

 

[Poof]

OMG! :Q

At least based on the shots from M$'s site, it looks like they ripped some of the fonts from the default skin for Mozilla!

 

[fkloster]

There will be two XP's. One pro version based on NT that supports SMP &amp; one consumer version based on Win9x that won't. No? That is the two types of beta's our office gets...

 

[Auric]

Not really following it but that does not make sense. Win9x is due to be scrapped. Both XP versions must be based on NT.

 

[fkloster]

...not what I understand Auric. I am understanding that WinXP consumer is based on ME. WinXP profeshional is baxed on NT. Come back! I need to know for sure...

 

[Noriaki]

BigDee2003: I agree, the less services the better. And in your average untweaked state I expect XP Personal to have some edge over XP Pro/2k Pro in gaming becuase of that. I think that XP Pro/2k Pro will be fairly similar though.

And I think that XP has an improved old app compatibility tool, but I've always found Win2k's backwards compatibility (on the software level) to be adequate.

fkloster: There will be XP Pro and XP Personal, but personal is not Win9x based. WinME is the last we will see of Win9x. XP is an NT5 based Kernel consolidated for all user levels. Consumer Space (personal), Business/Workstation space (Professional), and the various degrees of server-dom (Server, Adv.Server, DataCenter Server). All 5 version of XP will be based on the NT5 Kernel. The Win9x kernel is no more.

MGMorden: XP Personal is a horrid OS. No dual CPUs, no IIS, no joining Domains...there is alot cut out of XP Personal. For me my next OS is a toss up of XP Pro vs 2k Pro. XP Personal is completely out of the running. As I said before becuase of the cut down services it will probably be slightly faster in games, but for a machine that isn't strictly gaming, I consider XP Personal to stripped down.

 

[MGMorden]

Floklster: I've tried the general Whistler Beta 2416 (before it was XP) and it definatley had no trace of 9x in it. All the press sites have also said XP (all versions) will be based on Windows 2000 technology. They're changing everything around (so people will expect some older programs not to work), and hence using this opportunity to ditch 9x completely. Even MS knows that the 9x code base has grown into a a spaghetti bridge held together by bubbglegum.

 

[fkloster]

Thanks Noriaki, my dude just confirmed what you told us. So let me ask this question...does software still have to ask &quot;permission&quot; to talk to hardware in these new XP's?