Should I install windows XP??

[baker]

"santa" brought me windows xp and I was wondering should I install it? I have heard some bad rumors about it.

P.S. Could you answer soon as If I am going to put it in I need to do it soon...

Baker,

[sommersby]

run the program on the disk that checks your computer for XP compatabilty, when it auto stats it will ask you if you want to run it, after it runs print out all the details and go over them very carefully, there may be some programs and or hardware that XP say will not work. If there are go to the manufacturer or developer and see if they have updates, you will have some that say may not work, do the same thing, to do the install right it should take you a good 4-8 hours of preparing your computer for the install, If you can't find updates for the software that may not work or will not work and it is not that important to you, remove it, and if you get updates I would still remove it and reinstall after. Hardware is another story, if no new drivers are available you may have to wait till there are or you can buy a replacment, some devices will work even without new software, for instance, your scanner, if you have one, software will probubly not work, scanner manufacturers seem to be behind the loop as far as xp goes, however, XP comes with scanning software and recognizes most scanners. Just take your time and you should have no problems, if you have a full version concider doing a full install to. I know the seminar I went to about XP they said they do not really recommend an upgrade, your much better off doing a full install, but either way take your time and if you have any problems there are lots of forums to help, and yes, if your system is ready for it, INSTALL IT, it is the best operating system microsoft has prodused to date, I have been using it for over a month and would not even think about going back to ME or NT.

[zzyzzx]

I'd eBay the XP.

[buzz10]

I'm very happy with the speed and ease of use in using XP for doing video capture and editing. The nicest thing about it is that it does not have a 4 gig file size limit like Win98/Me did, and it does not limit your partition size to 32 gig like Win98/Me did. Just do it man.

[MustangGT]

Well, it matters what you want in the end, what you plan to do. If you're an avid gamer and want absolutely the best performance, do NOT go with XP. XP isn't all too great for games. Windows 98/98SE/ME play games very nicely. Win9x also has less compatibility problems.

If you want stability and you work a lot on the comp(word processing, graphics , etc) go with win2k or XP. Either are very stable. XP is simply a synthesis or mesh of the 9x and NT kernel. Theoretically, the idea behind this is that you would have less compatability problems and still retain stability. Did it work? For me, not really. I had bad experiences with games on XP but it's stable as a rock! Win9x, on the other hand is NOT very stable.

So you're asking what did I end up doing? Dual boot. Installed both. I use WinME for games and XP for work. Hope it helped..

[Kdiddy]

Yes you should install it.

[Martok]

Suggest Windows 2000 Pro. Rock solid...NO BLUE SCREENS...NO LOCKUPS. Will run almost anything (with a little tweaking). Make sure you have all your drivers and updates for software FIRST. Benchtests faster than XP.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Martok on 2001-12-25 16:51:35 ]</font>

[TIbrO]

Install it.

[PhArAoH]

I strongly recommend Windows XP. It is much faster than Windows 2000 and I have personally never experienced any problems with it. It is a stable OS.

I don't play games on my PC so I can't comment on that but a "must have" for all your Video Capture/Editing needs.

[sommersby]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-25 14:49:11, MustangGT wrote:
Well, it matters what you want in the end, what you plan to do. If you're an avid gamer and want absolutely the best performance, do NOT go with XP. XP isn't all too great for games. Windows 98/98SE/ME play games very nicely. Win9x also has less compatibility problems.

If you want stability and you work a lot on the comp(word processing, graphics , etc) go with win2k or XP. Either are very stable. XP is simply a synthesis or mesh of the 9x and NT kernel. Theoretically, the idea behind this is that you would have less compatability problems and still retain stability. Did it work? For me, not really. I had bad experiences with games on XP but it's stable as a rock! Win9x, on the other hand is NOT very stable.

So you're asking what did I end up doing? Dual boot. Installed both. I use WinME for games and XP for work. Hope it helped..
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

This is wrong, Maximum PC which is more of a gaming mag than anything else through everygame they could at XP for 6mo. not one failed to run and the game performance went up with most games, and on-line ping times were cut in half. Read it for yourself.

[sommersby]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-25 16:48:23, Martok wrote:
Suggest Windows 2000 Pro. Rock solid...NO BLUE SCREENS...NO LOCKUPS. Will run almost anything (with a little tweaking). Make sure you have all your drivers and updates for software FIRST. Benchtests faster than XP.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Martok on 2001-12-25 16:51:35 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
This is also wrong, windows XP has beat win2000 in every bench test done that I have read.

[spidey]

I'd go with Win 2000 if you have it on, or can. I just "down"graded from XP Prof. Too much fluff in the OS. Some of the "extra" improvements, are very nice (autorun of cd's, etc), but some in all honesty just slow you down and can be a nuisance. 2000 is lean, quick, and as stable as can be.

Just my opinion on the two OS'.

Happy Holidays everyone !!!!!!

[dumwaldo]

windows XP does not out perform other OSes in some amazing way. in some areas it performs better and in some areas it performs worse. i also read maximum PC and it is my favorite of all the computer magazines but they seem to have a very skewed view of XP for some reason. the ONLY thing XP does faster by a considerable margin is boot time and that very same feature could have been used in any OS but M$ held it out of win2k to make XP more attractive.

here are some benchmarks to show that win2k and windows XP are virtually identical in speed giving neither the advantage.

http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2808643,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2809147,00.html
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/index.x?pg=1

i would also like to add that in the few areas where XP outperforms win2k it is mostly because XP monitors your usage habits to rearange your harddrive to make your most often accessed programs and files closer to the center of the disc where it is read faster.

Baker
should you decide to install XP then i would highly reccomend you spend a day getting all the security patches (there are many), and learning the tweaks needed to make XP fully functional. things such as the default bandwith limiter that withold 20% of your available bandwith ( http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/23090.html ) and the inability to search for non M$ file formats ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22828.html ) are in my oppinion completely unacceptable and need to be fixed immediatley. there are other factors to take into consideration such as the windows XP firewall that does not monitor any outgoing communications, and the necesity to allow the OS permission to use raw data sockets (also a necesity for office XP) in order to install it also gives me reason to think M$ fishy plans for XP in the future. everything about XP screams that it is nothing more than win2k with several features implimented to advance M$ own interests.



personally i would rather run back orifice than windows XP but that is just me. if you see no problems with an OS that inventories your hardware, monitors your usage habits, and has the ability to send information to the internet regardless of what firewall you use then windows XP is great. if someone gave me XP for the holiday i would take it to the store and trade it in for something with less security concerns like maybe a copy of PC anywhere.

[DrDoak]

I havn't heard of this 32 gig partition limit for 9x...

FAT 32 has a limit of 2 TB...aka 2000 gigs...

I have a 40 gig at my other house...running 98se...it reads it as the full 40 gigs...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DrDoak on 2001-12-26 19:14:37 ]</font>

[speedy]

Hey dumwaldo, 4 of the 5 links you provided generate nothing but 404 errors. LOL! And wise up, don't buy all the bullshit you read in computer magazines. Clearly you know little or nothing about the finer points of fine tuning a operating system or you would not have said what you did.

I've used XP Pro for about two months now and by far it is the best operating system Microsoft has released so far. By the way, autorun is nothing new. Been around since Win98.

Here's a review of XP that's more balanced and from someone with a proven track record. The link actually works too.

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp.asp

Kindly explain what you mean by your inference that XP has incorporated "phone home" abilities. What's most funny about your comments is XP is by far the most secure version of Windows yet, discounting open sockets, which probably was a mistake. Jury is still out. Too early to say.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: speedy on 2001-12-26 20:47:44 ]</font>

[dumwaldo]

speedy try highlighting and pasting those links... LOL wise up man, its not about what you see its about all the things you don't see.

BTW tomorow i will find some links that explain raw data sockets and i will try to find something reliable like Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows (sounds completely unbiased and like they wouldnt favor windows at all) instead of those completely unreliable ZDnet links. oh yeah you didn't figure out how to work the link.

and speedy just wondering did you install this yet?
http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34951

_________________
peace out,
dumwaldo

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dumwaldo on 2001-12-26 21:05:44 ]</font>

[speedy]

Care to explain why only YOUR embedded links don't work form the forum?

Mine works, seems everyone else's links do also.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you. Just do some research before you bash something.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: speedy on 2001-12-26 21:22:15 ]</font>

[dumwaldo]

with regards to my links not working, 2 of the links have a comma in them and causes a problem with clickable links, i do suppose it was my fault for not pointing it out. i have no problems with the other 3 links so i will have to guess it is a bug in windows XP that prevents them from working for you.

sorry speedy i dont think i was bashing anything, i tried to give an informative post backed up with outside sources for information, and some practical advice. it was you that came in and laughed and told me to wise up so perhaps you should wise up and understand not to take things on face value. i have researched windows XP quite a bit as i think is shown in my post where as your post seems to be more along the lines of "i use it and its good" backed up by some kind of windows fan site.

now i hope i wasn't to hard on you but tact has never been one of my stronger suits. what i see here is me offering some opinions based on facts and you disagreeing with my opinion but failing to supply facts to back up yours.

and speedy still wondering did you install this yet?
http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34951
because you know if you dont get them right away M$ makes it a bitch to find them because they are afraid to have a page that clearly lists the multitude of patches that have come out in the short month since its launch. after all it wouldnt look to good if their premier OS had a page with 20 patches for a one month old program.

[speedy]

Clearly you have a bias against XP which is why I'm pulling your chain.

The links don't work because the portion right of the comma isn't considered a link by the forum software (guessing) which apparently accounts for the portion left of the comma being in red, with the remainder in black.

Just to be sure it isn't XP related I switched to WIN98SE. Guess what, your links with the comma STILL DON'T WORK, and everything right of the comma is still black. Hand typed into a browser the links work. Like I said, you should have tested. Maybe you're using a non Microsoft operating system. You wouldn't be a Microsoft basher by any chance?LOL!

Surely some people don't/won't like XP. Probably the same people that didn't like NT, ME, WIN98 and WIN95. The general consensus from pros and casual users alike is XP is a creditable OS... the best Microsoft released so far.

By the way, I never confuse lack of tact with someone clearly being pigheaded. Oh ya, almost forgot, of course I installed the patch you mentioned. Days ago. Thanks for caring.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: speedy on 2001-12-26 23:06:23 ]</font>

[Sefy]

XP is another piece of crap from Micro$luts which proves yet again they don't give a damn about the home user, or any user for that matter.

Compatibility went down, I think if you get to run anything, you should praise which ever god you worship (propably Bill).

The Security Problems, The file system, there isn't a single good thing about XP, it's basicly a Windows2000 with SP3 and a idiotic Kids Interface.

Because Micro$luts can't do anything new, they misplace all the icons in every new release, so it will take you longer to find it! that way you won't think it's exactly the same thing god knows how many programs don't work correctly if they work at all!

The day Micro$luts will actually make an Operating System is the day World War 3 will start.

[roach76]

Forget about Speedy Dumwaldo, all your links.....everyone of them worked for me and I found them to be interesting reading....thanx

[dumwaldo]

speedy i am not a microsoft basher. i use windows 2000 with service pack 2 myself. for a windows 9x or ME user i could see how XP would be viewed as such a vast improvment because it is over the 9x line. however at this time i think windows 200 is by far a better choice. perhaps down the road M$ will address some of the issues relating to XP and issue service packs that rectify things. untill then i will keep advising to stay away from XP.

[video567]

ive done in the last few days is download all the new drivers i can find for all my hardware and software before i install it. I keep reading that this or that software doesnt work right with win xp so i dont want to take chances. I want to have both windows installed. I know my digital camera wont run on win 2000 and it sucked to reformat my computer and start to install everything again. i want to avoid that. if anyone can offer advice on installin win xp and win me as dual boot up i would greatly appreciate it. thank you so much

[captain747]

Can someone please send me the files for a Win98 startup disc. I just installed XP and am having nothing but problems. I need a 98 startup disc so i can reformat and reloan my ME. Thanks a bunch

[dumwaldo]

http://www.bootdisk.com

[Sefy]

dumwaldo, great link there, thanks!

[speedy]

With regards to installing XP or any OS for that matter... some know how and others simply don't. Has nothing to do with luck, praying to "computer gods" or voodoo.

XP is more fussy about hardware drivers, which is why it is so much more stable. If you try to install unsigned drivers, you're asking for trouble. However lots of even the worst junk works with Win 2000 drivers. Check Microsoft Compatibilty list:

http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp

If you hardware as yet don't have XP drivers, complain to the company that made the hardware, it ain't Microsoft's fault if some companies are too stupid or lazy to release XP drivers.

Of course I always enjoy reading Sefy's totaly unbiased and completely impartial and fair appraisal. Actualy not. I can smell a Microsoft basher even an ocean away.

[dumwaldo]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-28 17:49:03, speedy wrote:
If you hardware as yet don't have XP drivers, complain to the company that made the hardware, it ain't Microsoft's fault if some companies are too stupid or lazy to release XP drivers.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

the logic here seems a little backwards here. if the hardware existed before windows XP did then the responsibility to provide driver support clearly lies with the maker of the OS. if it is piece of hardware that came out after october 25, 2001 then it would be the hardware mfg. responsibility to provide driver support.

if M$ is to stupid or lazy to support the hardware that is already on the market then it is not the hardware manufacturers fault if M$ fails to support their hardware. it is something called backward compatibility that M$ likes to ignore because it decreases their own development workload. however in just about every other area of development backwards compatibility is the feature that can kill or save a device. look at how the PS2 is out selling the xbox. xbox is without a doubt the superior hardware but the PS2 is out selling it because the PS2 has backwards compatibility for the PS1.

i will give you an example...
USB2.0 was introduced after firewire yet it is growing in popularity faster than firewire. why would this happen? it is simple, firewire has no compatibility with earlier products where USB2.0 will gladly accept any older USB1.1 devices. is this the fault of the hardware MFG's that the makers of firewire faled to support the diverse selection of products already available? no it is the fault of the makers of firewire for failing to support what is already out there and expecting the world to adapt to them.

M$ ran a beta market for over a year before the actual launch of windows XP. then knew full well that many hardware devices would not work with windows XP yet released it to the public anyway. when windows 2000 was released STRICT attention was given to supporting NT drivers because the business market is much more discerning than the private market. M$ was aware that removing compatibility for existing hardware would destroy windows 2000 in the business market. after all if your printer doesn't work you just go another printer for $200 but if a professional user with a large office network would never tolerate a sudden lack of support for their $15,000 printer.

M$ is the one to fault if something does not work in windows XP. they are the ones that changed the rules and they are the ones that had the responsibility to port drivers over to the new platform that they created without backwards compatibility.

by your logic it would be the gas stations fault for not having the righ fuel if chevy decided to make a car that runs on carrot juice. you cant just ignore the infrastructer of an industry and expect it to bend to your needs, you need to work inside that structure and that is something M$ did not do with windows XP.

[d4n13l]

It seems a lot of you have only ever ran M$ and so dont really know the traits of a good OS. Well, personally I multiboot Win98 SE, DOS, Linux, FreeBSD and BeOS. I also have experience with Win2000 and XP. True, I am not M$'s biggest fan, but I know a good OS when I use one so just because it is from M$ doesnt bother me. I am a die hard Linux fan anyday, but that is just my preference; I still recognise that XP is a good OS. If I were given the choice of XP or that crappy DOS based, antiquated dinosaur code that is 9x, I would choose XP anyday - Unless I had major hardware related problems, which in that case it would only be a matter of time before I installed XP. XP (and 2000) is a far greater OS than 9x ever pretended to be. It is a good desktop OS that is easy on the general public, I am not sure how it racks up as a server/workstation OS. Probably stinks compared to *NIX or *BSD . However, as it will mostly be used by the general public, therefore not a power user OS, I cant knock it: It is intuitive and first class in ease of use which is what the public want.
As far as drivers go, that by no means makes it a bad OS, or is even entirely M$'s 'fault'. M$ only have a finite amount of developers at their disposal, they devote their time to what they consider to be of most importance. It is unfair to say no immediate support for certain hardware devices is entirley M$'s fault, in 90% of cases 'fault' is the wrong word to use anyway. It is fairer to say that BOTH hardware manufacturers AND M$ each have a role to play in implementing support for hardware. I fully expect that any manufacturers of hardware that doesnt have drivers for XP will be on the case right now. You cant blame M$ for bringing out a brand new OS, I say good on them if it is better than 9x. Consumers want a good OS that doesnt crash every other day, or leak its memory all over the place after a few hours of heavy usage. But I dont expect that they should write every single driver for harware manufacturers, if that were true XP would not be out until another year or two. It is also unreasonable to say that M$ doesnt care, if they didnt care then there wouldnt be available an XP compatibility check utility. M$ have given the consumer a chance to see if XP will work for them, far from being secretive about devices that dont work. They are saying, "here check it out, if no then try again another day". M$ OS's have to be the BEST for hardware compatibility, seems like some of you have never had to install something like FreeBSD: Which incidentally is a better OS than XP at what it does, *BSD has the best TCP/IP control code there is. If you expect XP to be 100% compatible with every hardware device out, think again. XP is now the target that every hardware manufacturer has in it sights. Dont forget that XP is a relatively new OS, so support for everything is bound not to be there. It will take time for 100% support to come, but it will come eventually. I am sure that when 95 first hit the streets people were saying that their hardware wasnt supported either (also about the upgrades needed), now look where we are: XP is a FAR better OS, far more secure, far more stable, far more powerful, but it does have teething problems like all new OS's. XP is in a transitional period, full support is unrealistic at the moment and blaming either M$ or the hardware manufacturers is pointless. M$ have given PLENTY of warning to first check comaptibility. Like most things, it wont be nice to everybody at once. Consider just one good reason to install XP, it is safe from attack from most 'hackers' (read: Crackers). Most crackers are clueless kiddies but 9x is just so damn easy to hack into. It is childs play to scan a range of IP addresses for open Windoze 9x boxes (like 95% of 9x boxes are easy prey for crackers), I could get an IP of one in say, 10 seconds flat and be in within the next minute or two browsing their HD. Where as an XP box, it is not so easy; they require more skills and knowledge, of which most crackers are devoid of.
Linux still rules for me, but XP Pro (Cracked version ) will be included in my next mutilboot system for sure.

PS
"xbox is without a doubt the superior hardware but the PS2 is out selling it because the PS2 has backwards compatibility for the PS1."
Care to explain exactly why the xbox is without a doubt far more superior to the PS2? Dont believe that M$ BS that it is far more powerful, it is far from it. In fact, the PS2 and the Xbox are pretty evenly matched. A comparison based purly on the CPU reads like this:

The XBox has a Intel Pentium processor which runs at a clockspeed of 733MHz. That's a lot higher than the 300MHz at which the PS2 CPU is running. But does that make the CPU better? Nope.
Here's why the PS2 CPU (Emotion Engine) is more powerful:
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bits on the PS2 CPU while the
XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-The 32MB of Direct Rambus DRAM are implemented on the CPU itself.
-It has a maximum performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
-I dont think a tweaked Celeron can boast the above.
-The PS2 CPU is a RISC based CPU whilst the Xbox is a CISC based CPU, that alone makes an apples for apples comparison a moot point. It is like comparing the Mhz of a Sun Sparc with a P4 - meaningless.
The GPUs for each machine go along the lines of how the CPUs compare.
Okay now what does this mean? It means that the PS2 can handle heavier physics and 3D engines (and can do more accurate realistic visual effects like splashing water and
explosions). It also means that the PS2 can handle more sophisticated Artificial Intelligence programming so that you have intelligent human-like opponents. The CPU also
has direct access to the main memory which speeds everything up quite a bit. And with a floating point calculation performance of 6.2GFLOPS/second, the overall calculation
performance of this new CPU matches that of a super computer. This is a completely new CPU architecture especially designed for sophisticated graphics and physics while the architecture of the XBox CPU is pretty old and simple. The Xboxs limits will be reached a lot sooner than that of the PS2. I think the Xbox beats the PS2 in sound and Polygons, but that by no means makes it superior. Take the Dream Cast for example, Sony woulod have you beleive the PS2 was 10 times more powerful, reality was far from it. Now M$ have the upper hand in the laymens power rating of Mhz, people think it is more powerful. Imagine Sony trying to exlain to Joe Public about the PS2 having 2 64bit IU's and the like! That is why M$ has an easy job to market the Xbox.
It is a sad the the real facts about each console can be smeared with marketing BS to fool most of the buying public into believing they are getting something that is a far more pwoerful mahcine, when it is not: That is the power of marketing. Just look at the state of the Intel Vs AMD war, you would think that Intel CPUs would whip AMD CPUs, but in reality it is quite the opposite.

Sorry to babble on.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-29 12:14:27 ]</font>

[dumwaldo]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-29 07:40:54, d4n13l wrote:
Consider just one good reason to install XP, it is safe from attack from most 'hackers' (read: Crackers). Most crackers are clueless kiddies but 9x is just so damn easy to hack into. It is childs play to scan a range of IP addresses for open Windoze 9x boxes (like 95% of 9x boxes are easy prey for crackers), I could get an IP of one in say, 10 seconds flat and be in within the next minute or two browsing their HD.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

with all due respect this is completely wrong. in fact a windows XP box is THE most attractive target for a hacker/cracker/script kiddies. because M$ decided to allow full access to raw data sockets in windows XP it has the ability to spoof its ip address and a malicious trojan can exploit that to conceal the source of the compromised systems. incidentally the windows XP firewall will not stop any trojans because it does not monitor any outgoing transmission. someone could distribute a time release trojan via e-mail and because the vulnerabilities in windows XP the trojan could annonomously shut down any site on the internet by acting in concert with hundreds of other "unaware" xp systems.

you dont have to believe me, you can read about this from steve gibson, a well respected voice in the internet security community.
http://grc.com/dos/intro.htm
take special note of point #4 "Why Windows XP will be the DoS Exploitation Tool of Choice for Internet Hackers Everywhere".

M$ lacks the comprehension to even understand internet security. i think the fact that one of the biggest security vulnerabilities in internet history was just discovered in M$'s "most secure system ever" is adequate evidence of that fact. windows XP was launched and touted as the most secure windows OS ever and less than 30 days later are facing the biggest security loophole ever, what does that tell you? i would also like to point out that the UPnP problem also affects windows ME/98se machines. now think about how long ME has been around and the patch for this just came out days ago so i would say it is safe to assume that M$ allowed millions of users to operate for years with this gaping hole and never noticed it untill windows XP came out and it was pointed out to them. clearly M$ is not concerned about end user security and in general only patch things if they feel a threat of bad press and public relations. again you dont have to take my word for it you can read about it here...
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,5100941,00.html
(sorry you have to copy and paste this link. i wish zdnet didn't use commas)
i have provided a single link in support of each of the points i have outlined above but there is tons of other information available. my opinions dont come from those single web pages, they come from extensive web surfing and other reading. i invite anybody that is interested in these issues to open a search engine and read several sites and formulate their own opinions.

an educated user will make the right decisions for themself and sometimes what i decide is best for me might not be what you decide what is best for you. i use the rule of 3 s's. thats Support, Stability, and Security. thats why i choose win2k as the OS to use. i use a windows OS over a UNIX based OS for the support (i.e. drivers). i use win2k over other windows OS's for the stability. i use win2k over windows whistler/XP for the security.


BTW
your comparison of the xbox and PS2 makes good points about flat out comparisons of Mhz. and dependancies on architecture but i do have to wonder why you did not mention the NVIDIA graphics processing unit that is used in the xbox. from what i understand the GPU in the xbox is more powerfull that even the best GeForce 3 available for a PC so i would assume that the GPU does the vast majority of the video work so even if the PS2 architecture allows for more process per second than the xbox it is again a moot point based on the extra load the GPU in the xbox can carry that the PS2 can not. regardless, i was just trying to draw an example not open a debate over xbox vs. PS2 or AMD vs. Intel.

_________________
peace out,
dumwaldo

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dumwaldo on 2001-12-29 09:48:23 ]</font>