What do you guys think of XP?

[Insidious]

I like it. was on 98SE, so am pleased about the stability of XP. (vast improvement)

I haven't had to get rid of any hardware of software due to the upgrade, but

did loose little things with some drivers (Bi-Directional communication on the printer,
some of the LiveWare3 stuff on the sound card, for example)

3DMark2001 benchmark decrease was so sllight as to be irrelevant.

/me hugs fire breather box thingy that makes games go.... 😀

 

[littlezipp]

Runs my laptop like a champ, and if you have a semi-decent laptop, then I recommend installing XP on it!

 

[Dofuss3000]

heh, so most of you guys love it or think it is good...

 

[SinNisTeR]

<< Stable but bloated


Ausm >>




definately agree... i ran winxp for 6 months.. went back to win2k. i dont like the fact that winxp has 4 svchosts running in the background.. wth is that all about?!

 

[BlitzRommel]

It works great for me, never had any issues with it. The GUI is rather bastardized, but I got used to it. No big deal for me.

 

[robisc]

IMO it's the best Microsoft OS out, even though I too have some HW issues yet to be resolved. But I still say BeOS is the best OS period!

 

[Athlon4all]

It is definately MS's best OS to date, and for the majority of users out there running Win Me and 98/95 hybrid's, it is definately worth the $100, but for the majority here at Anandtech Forums that runs Windows 2000, It isn't worth upgrading from 2000, but for 98/95/Me users, o yes!!!!😀😀😀

 

[Sunner]

The version number is just right, NT 5.1, a slight update to Win2K, aside from the useless Luna.

But still an upgrade, and a free one for me, so why not use it?

 

[965]

I've used 95/NT4.0/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP Pro
and IMHO

*ME(best benchmarks, all games run, looks better than 98)
*98SE(almost as good as ME)
*98
*XP Pro(customizable, needs to much tweaking, bad compability)
*2000(slow, bad compability)
*NT4.0(bad compability)
*95(too old, compability problems)

usually I make dualboot between ME/98SE and XP Pro

 

[Ram0]

*ME(best benchmarks, all games run, looks better than 98)

98SE has been proven to be about 5-10% faster than ME. ME is by far the worst OS MS has released.
As for XP, I gave it the nod over 98SE because it has better memory management. I still think 98SE is by far the fastest OS by microsoft with a little tweaking.

 

[Eug]

<< I've used 95/NT4.0/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP Pro
and IMHO

*ME(best benchmarks, all games run, looks better than 98)
*98SE(almost as good as ME)
*98
*XP Pro(customizable, needs to much tweaking, bad compability)
*2000(slow, bad compability)
*NT4.0(bad compability)
*95(too old, compability problems)

usually I make dualboot between ME/98SE and XP Pro >>


I've used all of the above except ME and IMHO

XP Pro (best of the bunch, true stability and all of my peripherals work with it, powerful features)
2000 (2nd best - stable, but had a few niggling issues with compatibility)
98SE (Relatively stable but aging, really only good for gaming)
98FE (Had to update galore to get it how I wanted it)
NT4 (Too old, doesn't support enough current hardware, including even USB)
95 (Too old, doesn't support anything adequately)

I also have Mac OS X too. That's one sweet OS.

 

[littlezipp]

I disagree with one of the last posts, ME is the worst yet!