Got bored & thought up about something that I hear all the time, but only based on rumors. So I thought, why not ask about it?
Long question short... there are loads of rumors that WindowsXP is this huge resource hog that makes a PC impossible to work with... & that Windows 2000 is alot better. On the other hand, if you know enough about WindowsXP, you would know that it has alot of settings that improve performance, & most of them are set by default, to make Windows look better then it performs. So in the end, who is the real enemy here? WindowsXP? Or the people who are too lazy to give it a chance, or just like listening to rumors?
What is your opinion? Especially those of you who actually use WindowsXP...
In addition to that, Windows ME? Rumor does nothing but kick that OS in the ass, but is it really as bad as people say it is? My dad uses Windows ME on his PC, & it seems to run fine, but could it just be a fluke?
On those last two notes... Windows Vista? Over or under hype, & why? Are we looking at another Windows 95 here? Or will Microsoft actually do it right the first time here? Post your opinion.
ME's fine, as long as you don't want to run anything on it but Office. There was a machine in one of the computer labs at school running ME, and it was always screwed up. That was the one that ended up running Windows 1.1.
2k and XP are basically the same OS. Tweaking XP down will basically turn it into 2k. Still a little more resource hungry, but not too bad. The kernel's a somewhat more stable, but it means the system has to emulate older software. Which would be fine if it worked properly.
I dunno sometimes make too big a deal about Windows XP being crap and stuff. I've used Windows XP for a few years now and its works fine - does crash sometimes, but its only been slow for me when loading programs. The internet works fine, which is what I use it for. Games work fine for me, which is another thing I use it for. So when you say, which is best, there is no answer - because it would depend what you're using it for. Another reason I use XP is because some software I have can only run on XP/2000 - I can't run it on ME or below. So although it is sometimes a pain, I still use it and probably won't change it until the latest Windows is released.
I installed Windows XP on my machine which previously had Windows 98. Windows XP might be more stable than Windows 98, but I do miss it sometimes. Some non-Klik games even lag more on Windows XP than they did on 98. Oh well.
Soon as I get a PC I'm installing Windows 98 on it. Maybe it's just me but I've found XP to not run what it says it should. Quake 1 never worked, Sim City 3000, Duke 3D, Worms Armageddon crashed out at random times... They're all patched up to high heaven too.
Never had a problem with 98/ME. Maybe its because I didn't have the ineternet back then so viruses were a little less common. 98 worked smooth, ME did strange things that I can't remember now. But XP? For games? nah.
Vista is hypeware. That thing is not going to run as good as XP does on any of my current machines so I wont bother with it. Call me silly but if I had the choice between speed and reliability or to go play with the latest shiney toy I'd go for the speed.
size isn't really a problem, there are several 'cut down' XP's floating around the internet. about 150mb or something. Just really small with no extras.
I've never had any problems with Windows XP Service Pack 1, but after installing SP2 it crippled my machine. After system restoring back to SP1 everything's fine again - it's certainly more stable than any previous version of Windows.
There are legitimate reasons for disliking Windows, but sometimes it seems that Microsoft hate is just a trend. It's popular because it's easy to use and it works.
I've been running windows xp for a while now. When I upgraded from 98 i noticed a huge increase in fps on most of my games, most notably Halo, where my frame rate doubled! Thats because latest drivers (especially for graphics card drivers) which are now written and optimized for windows xp. I think that fact easily outweighs the little extra system resource xp takes up.
Its pretty stable, I've heard loads of people blame crashes on xp when infact they are down to the software people are running on it.
Yeh installing SP2 is a bad idea - that's when my internet started to lag, as well as my games.
Got rid of it and then my games were fine. And Jimmi, I have Sim City 3000 and Worms Armageddon and they work fine on XP Professional SP1 for me - so maybe it was something else that was the problem for you?
And I agree that hating Microsoft has become a trend - I don't necessarily like them a lot, but I hate people who go around saying how much they hate them and why they hate them. Firstly I've heard it all before and its getting boring, and secondly I don't care whether or not people hate Microsoft
I like the UI for Mac - although I've never really had more than an hour using one. Plus most of the stuff I have is only compatible with Windows - which is why I use it.
it's a pain if you downloaded all the updates and then installed them, otherwise, sp2 isn't that bad as long as it's slipstreamed into it. i use a different versoin of windows xp than most people - WindowsXP Pro SP2 Corporate Version 5.1 build 2600 (Stripped to the Bone Edition)
these are a few things that were removed from the installation
- Themes (Classic Theme is only available - plus i use style xp anyways)
- Wallpapers (i download or make my own wallpapers)
- Windows Media Player (i use vlc media player which is much more efficient)
- Windows Movie Maker (uhmm ... i have no need for this)
- Animated Character for Search (when i use the search optoin, i use it for searching, not for watching dingy animations)
- Windows XP Tour (i hate having to deal with this everytime i make a fresh installation)
- Screensavers (i always set this to none)
- Games (i never play any of these)
- Language Pack (the only language that i need for windwos is english)
- Help (the internet is always good for this)
- System Restore (i have no need for this because my os doesn't screw up anymore thanks to the zone labs suite)
- Windows Update (it's already update to sp2)
- indexing service (pointless)
- windows file protection (so that i could delete the stupid xerox folder inside the program files folder)
along with this i use
- zone labs suite (firewall/virus and spyware scanner)
- ccleaner (removes all that temporary junk)
- firefox (i cut off internet explorer's connection through the firewall and use a tweaked firefox instead)
- vlc media player (this player plays just about anything)
- ace mega codecs pack (just a whole bunch of codecs to go along with the vlc media player)
- style xp (better than the themes that come with xp)
- winrar coroporate edition (it not only integrates nicely but it's also a good archiving/unarchiving program)
this isn't a list of all my programs, but it's the programs that most would use if they knew about them
edit:
there really is no enemy actually ...
though it is true that xp is graphically more demanding than previous operating systems but it was also meant to run on higher performance PCs; therefore, it obviously can't run efficiently on much older hardware setups
Usually when ever games or programs refuse to work on WindowsXP, I just go into the programs compatibility, & change it to Windows 98/ME, & it almost always works for me, I'm not sure about other people though. The only game that I had a problem with on WindowsXP was Rayman 1. Other then that, all my games (old & new) work fine (before I got my new motherboard & everything runs like shit). I've never had a problem with WindowsXP, & I am currently using WindowsXP Professional SP2.
There's many bad things about SP2. If you have Limewire or Ares or Kazaa it stops them running (unless you find the option to turn that off), if you download .gifs from someone on MSN it won't let you open them directly, the internet is slower, it downloads loads of Microsoft add-ons I don't want and worst of all it adds a stupid virus-checker and a silly bloody firewall.
If you get XP, don't get SP2. Now I've had SP2 for that long that if I system restored I would lose half my stuff.
There's many bad things about SP2. If you have Limewire or Ares or Kazaa it stops them running (unless you find the option to turn that off), if you download .gifs from someone on MSN it won't let you open them directly, the internet is slower, it downloads loads of Microsoft add-ons I don't want and worst of all it adds a stupid virus-checker and a silly bloody firewall.
If you get XP, don't get SP2. Now I've had SP2 for that long that if I system restored I would lose half my stuff.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
5th January, 2006 at 19:42:25 -
SP2 contains a firewall which is just as good as the paid-for ones. That alone is reason enough to get it.
Vista will not be the next "Windows 95", at the moment it looks like nothing more than an upgrade for XP with 64-bit support, not to mention enough DRM software to make Jesus cry.
Vista, as far as I was told, was being designed from scratch. Leaving alot of room for problems, but in the other end, giving Microsoft the chance to prove they can do it right the first time, in a second time around chance to start from scratch.
As far as SP2 Noodle... Obviously SP2 isnt your problem, something is wrong on your computer, because I dont have any of those problems. LimeWire Standard & Pro both work perfectly fine for me (& all my security on SP2 is set on), as does MSN. I never get any of those Microsoft Ad-ons your mentioning you keep getting. The internet is fine, nice & fast, granted you have a good provider, and as far as the 'stupid virus-checker & silly firewall', I agree with Pete on the FireWall, and everyone should have a virus scanner anyway. In the end, SP2 is actually better then SP1, as long as your PC is running fine before you put it on, because the problems wont go away if you go from SP1 to SP2. That said, SP2 actually does make it safer for people who use there PC as a home computer that is only used for the basics, web browsing, maybe minor gamming, e-mail checking, research.. so on. Expecially if they have cable, because SP2 makes sure that all the secrity & such, is on by default, including the update check. That way people who dont want to be bothered with going into there PC & acting all that stuff, or people who dont know how to or dont feel safe going into there computer settings, can keep there PC safe, with the minimum knowledge about there PC. As much as I hate to say, there are still people out there who are either to lazy, or dont have enough confidence over themselfs to trust themselfs with a Windows based computer, & dont know anything about it other then.. double click means open program... GO buttons means search website. E-mail means mail that be faster then snail.
Well, my dad and I are really considering moving over to Linux. WinXP is better than Win98, but it still has some major flaws. Linux can run just about any program Windows can as long as you run WinE (Windows Emulator). I do like the Windows interface, but that may just be because I'm farmiliar with it. I find that many people do exagerate about how bad Windows is, WinXP really doesn't crash all that much, it is just very slow sometimes (even when you have a very fast computer). I'm not saying Windows is good, just that it's not quite as bad as some of you say.
As for Vista, I think that it will be better than XP, as long as you buy a much faster computer. I heard that Vista will require 1gb of memory, 25gb of hard drive space, and a 3ghz processor to run at all. I really don't know if Vista will crash less, or be faster (well, it should with all of that processing power that it requires). I think I will wait a few months after it comes out, just to see how people like it.
I haven't actually tried Win2000, but I have heard that it's just like XP, except it is much buggier and didn't look very nice; same thing with WinME. Win98 was ok (I still have it on my 5 year old laptop), but if one program crashed you had to restart; it also took a very long time to start up. Win95 was just awful, it was on the first computer I ever used and it almost caused me to hate all computers (I was only 3 and a half).
As for Mac's, I like OS10's UI, but it doesn't have a Windows Emulator, and it doesn't have many programs that run on it. The only place I have ever used a Mac is at school. Other Apple things are great tho, I use ITunes all the time, and Podcasts are awsome. I don't know why Mac's didn't catch on, it might be because Apple computers are more expensive then Windows computers, or that you can't buy Mac OS without an Apple computer.
I'm not sure when I will swith to Linux, but it might not be for a while (i'm too lazy to re-setup my network card, or any of my other computer accessories).
All this about macs being expensive is complete BS. I'd love to find a 12" laptop that can run Premier, Photoshop, Logic Pro 7, iTunes, Azureus, Mail, After Effects at the same time for under £1000.
You simply cant. I've never seen a geniuenly fast windows laptop without going into the IBM £2000+ series.
Show me a decent looking, ultra thin, ultra light but still very powerful 17" laptop for £1700. or perhaps a fully featured media centre style 20" desktop PC with an out-of-the-box 64bit CPU and compatible OS to match in a casing less than 2" thick for under £1000.
The way I see it, official Shuttle PC's cost the same as a Mac mini. An Alienware desktop costs the same as a PowerMac. There are no laptops that compare (speed wise, aesthetics and with the same level of portability) to the PowerBook, but are priced cheaper than Sony's laptops.
I'm all for windows. I use them an awful lot for gaming, I'm slowly building up a little gaming rig. nowt special. 3ghz CPU, Radeon 9800, maybe 1gb of RAM. just enough to run Lost Cost and whatever games come out that run that HD lighting thing. that seems to be the future. Dual boot between 98 and 2000.
The best OS I've seen is the developer x86 PowerMac my local PC shop have. It can run Windows, OSX x86 and OSX PPC (with Rosetta, PPC emulator), PPC or x86 Linux, 64 bit, 32 bit. extremely versatile. Technically speaking, if running any OS at full speed is anything to go by, its the best OS ever.
I HIGHLY doubt that Windows Vista will be even close to that restricting as far as system requirements. At first it was thought that it would be a 64bit only OS, but now they even have a 32bit version, meaning they are obviously thinking about people who have 1.0GHz processors in addition, so the rumor that it will need up to 3GHz is 1 I highly doubt. As far as hard drive space goes, another thing I highly doubt about Windows Vista. No matter how hard Microsoft tries, I'm pretty strong to believe that they will never make Windows past 10GB big, it’s an operating system, not a game or an application. Once you have everything you need, everything else just turns into add-ons that can be taken off. On that note, the 1GB of memory thing, WindowsXP works on less then 256MB, so the chances of Microsoft jumping up to 1GB required, is just something I don’t see happening, especially when there is no logical reason why an OS would need so much ram.
Basically what we are looking at with Windows Vista.. is an operating system being designed from scratch, not the next generation in computer system requirements? I strongly believe that if Microsoft has any common sense, they will not make that large of a jump, because business computers haven’t even reached the average system requirements that most of us here have already.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
