Question that betrays the unexperienced

[Voideco]

Why is everybody so keen on XP drivers? I've seen Windows XP and it looks to me as an exaggeratedly extended OS. I mean, the icon for 'my computer', or 'this computer' is put in the start menu, which is clumsy designed (to my taste, because I have got used to the layout of W95, W98 & WME which IMO is functional and logical enough).
Further it looks to me that WXP has only a few more bells and whistles and is only more difficult to overview than W98 or WME. I mean, an explanation popping up on each silly item that you point at appears to me just as overdone as the Office Assistant in Excell, Powerpoint etc.
Of course there's something (probly much) that I don't know. I was told that WXP has got netwotk facilities that you must buy additional software for if it were WME or previous. WXP is told to me to be a combination of ME and W2000 (I might be wrong). Then again, wouldn't it be preferable to have W2000 support instead of XP support, for the same reason as why people wanna have as little software on one pc as possible? Don't wanna offend anyone (except for sir Gates perhaps), but the disadvantages of such (in my eyes) overblown OS as XP must outweigh its benefits by far.
What mistake am I making? What is it that makes Windows XP desirable? images/icons/smile.gif
Voideco

[Voideco]

This question is not meant to hiddenly state any disgust for WXP, or to start bugging XP in the form of a question. But my knowledge, little as it is about WXP is coloured. I really wanna know....

[agent fu]

the reason people are waiting for XP is because it has a noteworthy performance increase to certain previous OSs.
while windows 98 might be perferctly stable for some people (it wasn't for me), the fact is that it's dated and not optimal for modern hardware. windows ME is much newer but unfortunately it doesn't often work very well. it's actually the worst OS ever made in my opinion. it's unstable and has very little going it.

XP markedly increases the performance of athlons and P4s, and is usually extremely stable. also, some new software is going to be eventually available for XP only.

As for aesthetics and interface, you don't seem to ahve looked very extensively through the options. you can configure everything to look almost exactly like the previous builds of windows.

[Voideco]

Thanks agent Fu. So I can give WXP the same traditional outlook as W98. Can I expect any performance benefits for my -younger- PIII? I have a PIII 933 MHz on a CUSL2-c main board. Will XP do the same good (or less, but some) for my system as for the P4/Athlon generation?
Voideco

[Swaphappy]

I am all for Windows 2000 Pro myself.

Here is the run down:
XP Pro is an upgrade to W2k Pro
XP Home is an upgrade to 9x kernel
No upgrade yet for W2k Server Flavors
but Windows.NET is coming.

If you do a "winver" at a command prompt on Windows NT, Windows 2000, and
Windows XP, you get the following:
WinNT = version 4.0
W2k = version 5.0
WinXP = version 5.1

Yes, WinXP was intended as an upgrade to W2k
but some say it isn't much of an upgrade
in fact it is no better at all.
Like having W2k with a 98 desktop.

I like W2k because it is more seasoned,
has two service packs under it's belt
and has been very reliable for me.

[Voideco]

Ok Swaphappy,
so the line is: WNT->W2000->WXP.
Then there is W95->W98->WME.
W2k Pro is then, if I understand it correctly, best for networking and server applications, and W2k only for networking (+ dual CPU support, I was told). What do you use W2k for? For running a server, and networking, or also for music? Is that actually possible, running PTLE on a W2k machine? Cause I would prefer W2k (Pro) instead of WXP, intuïtively. Tnx in advance,
Voideco

[JPS]

Originally posted by voideco:
So I can give WXP the same traditional outlook as W98. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">When I first installed XP I looked at the interface and thought "What have I done?" I couldn't find hardly anything. I managed to switch the "look and feel" to the classic windows view and it felt a lot better to me, and I could navigate around a lot better.

To switch your view, find "control panel" then click "display". Under the "themes" tab you can chose "Classic Windows". This helped me adjust faster. You can then experiment at your own pace with different settings and themes.

A few things are in different places, including device manager. But I really like XP. It is definately better on my computer than 98se or ME. For me, XP does not crash, period. I leave my computer on all the time and I get no freezes or lockups.

If you are thinking of switching, I would probably go with the "dual boot" option initially until everything is installed and working properly in XP. It also gives the option of checking out perforance of your favorite applications in both XP and 98se. The more I do this, the more I favor XP.

[Swaphappy]

Originally posted by voideco:
Ok Swaphappy,
so the line is: WNT->W2000->WXP.
Then there is W95->W98->WME.
W2k Pro is then, if I understand it correctly, best for networking and server applications, and W2k only for networking (+ dual CPU support, I was told). What do you use W2k for?
Voideco<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think there is some confusion here.
There is no such thing a plain W2k.
There is W2k Pro wich is pretty much like WinXP Pro,
then there is W2k Sever which will be matched
by Windows.NET later.
There is no W2k version that is a reduced as
Win XP home edition.

Digi is saying Win XP HE for music
but some say XP Pro will work may be.
But I prefer W2k Pro to XP Pro

[yavuzj]

Originally posted by Swaphappy:
Here is the run down:
XP Pro is an upgrade to W2k Pro
XP Home is an upgrade to 9x kernel<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is one point that i want to make.
Even XP home has the same kernel and memory protection as the XP Pro and Win2K. The only difference is that XP Home does NOT have Dual CPU support. However, It has not inherited anything form Win98/ME. XP Home is a coninuation of WinNT/2K series without the Dual CPU support.

The other thing is Win2K is lacking some Audio MIDI features that XP has. Win2K was incomplete for Digital Audio and MIDI. XP implemented all these. XP also has a much better ACPI and APIC implementation. If you install ACPI under Win2K your IRQs woill bundle up to IRQ 9 which is NOT good. That is why you have to choose Standard PC rather than ACPI PC for your system. THis is NTO necessary for XP.

[Swaphappy]

Of course we don't want to mislead anyone.
Neither Win XP nor W2kP will work right now.
Still wainting on PTLE upgrade!

[Voideco]

Thanks for the input, Yavuz, JMS & Swaphappy.
So there definately IS benefit in upgrading to XP, as I suspected but did not understand why. If I'll ever upgrade to XP I don't know, so far W98 (Internet Explorer removed) works ok for me, but I could start to like the performance increasement. I'll dig out the info here later on for better comprehension of this stuff. Tnx,
Voideco images/icons/smile.gif

[crs117]

Originally posted by Swaphappy:
I am all for Windows 2000 Pro myself.

Here is the run down:
XP Pro is an upgrade to W2k Pro
XP Home is an upgrade to 9x kernel
No upgrade yet for W2k Server Flavors
but Windows.NET is coming.

If you do a "winver" at a command prompt on Windows NT, Windows 2000, and
Windows XP, you get the following:
WinNT = version 4.0
W2k = version 5.0
WinXP = version 5.1

Yes, WinXP was intended as an upgrade to W2k
but some say it isn't much of an upgrade
in fact it is no better at all.
Like having W2k with a 98 desktop.

I like W2k because it is more seasoned,
has two service packs under it's belt
and has been very reliable for me.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The bottem line of this post is the only line that might serve to have any merit whatsoever. We went around in circles about 20 times the other day on this issue, and apperently none of what was atated (or verified with ms website) has sunk in.

xp home edition's kernal has absolutely nothing in common with win 98/me's kernal, and everything to do with w2k's kernal. It is not simply an upgrade from win 98/me, it is an entirely new operating system that brings w2k's performance, security, and stability (in addition to true 32 bit processing) to the home user. It has stricter piracy protection agent, and lacks dual processor support (or should i say dual processor support was ripped out of it), but other then that it is the same as XP pro.

Anything stated otherwise is not accurate, and misrepresents what xp or xp home addition really is.

Voideco,

you will find that you can configure xp's looks to your liking, and yes it will actually improve performance (do you really need windows fading in and out, constant redraw as you drag a window, or a mouse shadow???). not only that but you can even configure you desktop to have whatever icons you want on it. I think over a little time you will agree that the interface is actually more effecient then previous windows builds, and you may actually come to like the looks of it. My first thought is they got their gui ideas from eating too many bowls of fruit loops (it has a tropical fruit look to it).

Anyway, XP is the best thing to come out from MS in a long time. The best thing about it is that all of ms's efforts will now go into working on a single kernal, which should result in faster, and better service pack releases.

Christian

[saxbill]

Originally posted by Swaphappy:
[QB]
Here is the run down:
XP Pro is an upgrade to W2k Pro
XP Home is an upgrade to 9x kernel
No upgrade yet for W2k Server Flavors
but Windows.NET is coming.

[QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XP Home is NOT an upgrade to the 9x kernel. Both versions of XP are based on the NT kernel, the 'home' version of XP is just a slightly stripped down version of XP Pro. Just like PTLE is a stripped down version of PT (TDM).

Programs written for 98/ME wouldn't usually work on 2000 with out some re-working, however this isn't the case with XP. 99% of applications written for XP work on both versions because the core is nearly identical. It's just the bells and whistles that are different.

[yavuzj]

Originally posted by crs117:
you will find that you can configure xp's looks to your liking, and yes it will actually improve performance (do you really need windows fading in and out, constant redraw as you drag a window, or a mouse shadow???). <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Christian,

My tests show a very minimal improvement (less than even 5%)in performance when i choose best performance option under the GUI choice. THen it looks almost like Win2K. So i just stick with default GUI and just turned off the Fade in EFX of the menus. I still could not find a way to turn off tool tips but my system is very fast so i do not mind. images/icons/smile.gif

[QuikDraw]

Originally posted by crs117:

The best thing about it is that all of ms's efforts will now go into working on a single kernal, which should result in faster, and better service pack releases.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Correct me if I'm wrong here but, isn't one of the improvements in WinXP over WinNTx or Win2k that the OS no longer needs those pain-in-the-arse Service Packs? M$ wanted to make XP as easy to update as Win9x with the simple "Windows Update" applet. Service Packs would have been too complicated for the average user. I don't think we need Service Packs anymore. I've installed dozens of "updates" to XP without ever seeing a "service pack".

Also, in my opinion supporting Win2K or anything other than XP would be silly. WinXP is the most current OS. All the other M$ OSes are outdated. There will never be an updated version of 9x. I would say there will never be an updated version of 2k, but that would be wrong since that's exactly what XP is!

XP ain't perfect, but it's the best OS I've ever seen.

Mike

[Swaphappy]

images/icons/smile.gif
Hey, calm down, I might go to XP Pro,
if the upgrade ever gets here.
I like to keep my options open.
Still, since I already have W2kP,
I will probably give it a shot if
the PTLE 5.3.1 installer will allow it.
I will let you know... some day soon???????

Peace be with you.

[Mark_Knecht]

Agent Fu,
This statement is unfortunately not ALWAYS true. My rusults running Athlons under ME, and then the same machine under XP, show a 2-7% slowdown on Seti@Home data units.

I do believe that XP is faster than NT 4.0. No question about that. I also agree that it's as least as stable of NT with much better hardware and update support.

If you can provide some written info that documents 'XP markedly increases the performance of athlons and P4s', please do. I'd very much like to see it.

It has NOT been true in my case.

Thanks,
Mark

Originally posted by agent fu:
XP markedly increases the performance of athlons and P4s, and is usually extremely stable. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

[Swaphappy]

Found these performance test results:
XP PRO is slower on some stuff.
XP PRO versus W2k Pro Performance (http://www.cc.vt.edu/cc/us/docs/faqlib/ask4help/desktop/vtkb1491.htm)

[oslpchris]

I'm ducking for cover while I'm saying this but I don't see the problems w/ ME that everyone talks about. It's been quite stable for me (more stable than Win98 was on my Athlon) whether running PTLE or Flight Simulator... no problems. I still plan on upgrading to XP but I'm one of those guys that likes the newest and greatest at least when it comes to computers... guitars are another story altogether. I'm running NT 4.0 at work and it's super stable. Is XP Home this good really? I mean when you lock (not that it happens often at all for me w/ ME, but it does happen every blue moon or so) up can you CTRL+ALT+DEL and actually get a task manager find the offending program and kill it?? like you can in NT? Win9X/ME never would allow that really. sometimes it would work but not like NT. What I'm asking all you XP guys is... Is XP (Home ver. is what I'll probably get) REALLY the next NT? Or is it just ME w/ a facelift?

chris

[Okion]

W98 and WME will eventualy leave the realm of support. 98 VERY SOON. MS will no longer be supporting them. Which means that hardware drivers will not support the old OS either.

For thoes of us who run other apps and want to run the latest versions we have to reboot in XP to use them (read anoying!!!!).

[crs117]

Originally posted by QuikDraw:
Correct me if I'm wrong here but, isn't one of the improvements in WinXP over WinNTx or Win2k that the OS no longer needs those pain-in-the-arse Service Packs? M$ wanted to make XP as easy to update as Win9x with the simple "Windows Update" applet. Service Packs would have been too complicated for the average user. I don't think we need Service Packs anymore. I've installed dozens of "updates" to XP without ever seeing a "service pack".
[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mike, you are correct, i simply wanted a way to say corrections/added features. It was the thing that came out of my fingers when typing.

I have seen a slight performance increase in my seti testing in xp using an amd 800. Of course i have turned of many of the lame features. i would expect to see slightly less performance in XP (in pure number crunching) if its not configured for optimal performance. imediately after installation it does require more resources but some tweaks can improve performance.

Christian

[agent fu]

mark, seti @ home seems like an odd test for system performance. im sure that some things are going to be slower between any two OSs for various reasons.
what i was trying to say though in a nutshell was when comparing XP to 98/ME for anything multimedia related you will see an increase in performance. i don't know where this might be documented but it has been my experience as well as with several people i know.
i dont know about the comaparisons with w2k, ive never used it.