XP...Do you really like it?

[StrangeRanger]

Now that XP has been out for a "long" time what are your real thots on it? Is it really worth moving over from 2000 for? I'm setting up a dual boot to try it out for a while and was just wondeiring if any of you have any real bonuses about it worth mentioning??? Thanks,
j

 

[WobbleWobble]

Is it worth paying to upgrade... I don't think so.

But if you have it, I like how it has quicker boot times, system restore and themes! (Using StyleXP that is)

 

[Haden]

For home use, yes it's worth, "features" were mentioned many times and include faster boot, eye candy (alpha blended icon support to smooth edges as an example), built-in firewall etc.
As con, it comes with many stuff turned on which you probably don't want, but nothing which can't be switched off in quick post install configuration.

 

[ITJunkie]

I have to agree with Wobble...I do like the quicker boot times and especially the system restore. I know Win2K has it too but the XP version seems to be better thought out, IMHO.

 

[CQuinn]

As con, it comes with many stuff turned on which you probably don't want, but nothing which can't be switched off in quick post install configuration.

For a true nerd/power-user, tweaking it is half the fun.

 

[mikecel79]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie
I have to agree with Wobble...I do like the quicker boot times and especially the system restore. I know Win2K has it too but the XP version seems to be better thought out, IMHO.

Win2k does not come with System Restore. Nor is it available as an add-on.

 

[EeyoreX]

It depends on what you are doing. If you want to play older games or use some older software Windows XP is the way to go. Both OSes will be about the same in terms of standard business apps so there is no need to upgrade for this. Windows XP will be supported longer than 2000, but 2000 should be supported for a while yet (I am far too lazy to dig up the link @ Microsoft's site right now 😉). I love the faster boot time. I somewhat like the eyecandy for XP, but that is hardly a huge selling point. I don't use system restore.

\Dan

 

[Budman]

If it wasnt for Hyperthreading then I would not use it.

If MS would come out with a HT patch for win2k I would switch in a heartbeat.

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: Budman
If it wasnt for Hyperthreading then I would not use it.

If MS would come out with a HT patch for win2k I would switch in a heartbeat.

Are you running dual HT CPU's other wise you can use 2k and it will work fine.

 

[EeyoreX]

Are you running dual HT CPU's other wise you can use 2k and it will work fine.

No it won't. Regardless of how many HT CPUs in a system, Windows 2000 will not HT properly. HT may work under 2000, but it more than likely will hurt performance rather than help it. Both Intel and Microsoft say HT is not implemented and supported in Windows 2000. Personally, I think I will believe them. Windows 2000 simply is unable to make proper use of the virtual CPU that HT "creates".

\Dan

 

[mikeford]

XP doesn't thrill me. With a fairly generic P4 1.8 ghz system my boot time is more than 3 minutes, and many hours fussing and talking to ms tech support hasn't improved it. It is kind of nice that when something crashes it doesn't always take the OS with it. The layer of added fuzz so far is more of a pain when I need to do somethng than it ever has been a help.

I still run 98se whenever I can.

 

[drag]

Personally, if I use XP for too long it gives me a headache. Takes to long to do anything and you have to play the click and hunt games for a long time to find what your looking for. Plus all the little retarded cartoony things and the little things like advertisements for other microsoft products sprinkled through out it don't help any.

But I am biased. 😉

Otherwise XP is a world of improvement over older Microsoft OSes, but w2k comes in a close second. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend updating the OS if the person has a computer that can handle it well 1.5+ Ghz cpu/ 384+ megs of Ram. It's a toss up to upgrade if you have a computer of 1ghz/256megs of Ram performance potential. Anything less then that, I would stay away from XP.

But, personally, again, XP just isn't enough for me. 🙂

 

[lucky9]

I use a one gig celery with 384meg and a 120gig maxtor. It does great with this setup. Boots in way less time, I'll edit with the exact time later. I moved from 98SE and will never go back, even though I had a very stable system for over two years (took a while to get it there!) It didn't hold a candle to XP.:music:

57 seconds to password screen from a cold boot (power off)

22 seconds more to totally loaded desktop (from enter after putting in password)😀

 

Originally posted by: mikeford
XP doesn't thrill me. With a fairly generic P4 1.8 ghz system my boot time is more than 3 minutes, and many hours fussing and talking to ms tech support hasn't improved it. It is kind of nice that when something crashes it doesn't always take the OS with it. The layer of added fuzz so far is more of a pain when I need to do somethng than it ever has been a help.

I still run 98se whenever I can.

Win2k wasnt meant for constant reboots. It was made for stability. I do admit that the 3 minute boot time is annoying, but I think its worth the time I save in system crashes.

Why are you always on the phone with MS?

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: mikeford
XP doesn't thrill me. With a fairly generic P4 1.8 ghz system my boot time is more than 3 minutes, and many hours fussing and talking to ms tech support hasn't improved it. It is kind of nice that when something crashes it doesn't always take the OS with it. The layer of added fuzz so far is more of a pain when I need to do somethng than it ever has been a help.

I still run 98se whenever I can.

Wow thats truely pathetic. There is definatly something wrong there.

XP boots in about 30 seconds on my PII 400 with 256megs ram.

XP boots in about 20 seconds on my Celeron 700 with 256megs ram.

XP boots in about 12 seconds on my cousins XP Barton 3000+ with 512 PC2700 DDR. (biggest slowdown is DHCP)

 

[Mitzi]

I've been using XP for about 18 months, I've gotta say that I really like it though I really couldn't recommend it over Win2K (which my secondary machine runs). The biggest advantages XP has over Win2K are:

Much quicker boot times
Ability to log on as more than one user and quickly switch between them (good when my GF wants to check her mail etc and I am using the PC)

Overall if you have Win2K I'd stick with it...if you are buying an OS from stratch I see no reason not to go with XP.

 

[NEVERwinter]

I was on Win98 and I really like it
after using XP for months, know its problems and know how to encounter it... now I feel that WinXP deserves to replace my Win98, hehehehe....

 

[TMPadmin]

Originally posted by: Mitzi
I've been using XP for about 18 months, I've gotta say that I really like it though I really couldn't recommend it over Win2K (which my secondary machine runs). The biggest advantages XP has over Win2K are:

Much quicker boot times
Ability to log on as more than one user and quickly switch between them (good when my GF wants to check her mail etc and I am using the PC)

Overall if you have Win2K I'd stick with it...if you are buying an OS from stratch I see no reason not to go with XP.

Just wanted to touch on the bolded section of your reply. This only works if you are either running home version or you do not connect to a domain in Pro. (or at least I haven't found a way to turn it back on). I love that ability myself but since my home computer are on a domain it no longer exists. I'd like to get it back if there is a way.

Other reasons for XP pro. AutoCAD 2004 makes use of some features in XP not available in 2K. Don't know exactly what but AutoDesk is telling me that if I want to upgrade to 2004 I should move to XP on all desktops. We are upgrading but I have to see what exact advantages there are before I upgrade everyone to XP.
There are a lot of goodies with XP over 2k but mostly eye candy. HT support 😉 . I actually have XP running on an athlon 850 with 512MB ran with no issues, and it's still speedy.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: ITJunkie
I have to agree with Wobble...I do like the quicker boot times and especially the system restore. I know Win2K has it too but the XP version seems to be better thought out, IMHO.

Win2k does not come with System Restore. Nor is it available as an add-on.

Windows 2000 Pro does have System File Protection, which is not related to System Restore except in a vague sense.