Should I install windows XP??

[d4n13l]

LOL!
Good point, but please, you dont need to explain M$'s "security" issues to me as I know of most.
But, with all due respect, you misunderstood me.
My point was that XP is more secure "out of the box" than 9x is - In that you can easliy gain access to the HD of most 9x boxes (the old NET xxxx commands etc), not so with XP. XP is a lot more secure than 9x ever was or could be. Slating XP's "Firewall" is fine AND warrented, but remember that 9x never even had such a thing. I think that it is a well known fact that 9x is far more insecure than XP, I know XP has issues, but as many as 9x? Thats all I meant. I was NO WAY saying that XP is a totally secure OS, ROTFLMAO, rather it is relatively "secure" compared to 9x.
So, nothing I said was incorrect - XP is more secure than 9x. The issues you pointed out could have serious consequences to the integrity of the internet, but to the HOME USER not as serious as someone browsing their HD with RW permissions is it?
<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>
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>
OK, maybe "safe from attack" was the wrong phrase to use there, allow me to say "safer from more deadly attacks". I mean, God help you if you store financial information on your 9x box.
I can name a stack of security faults of 9x asides from it's wonderful use of a shell and its file sharing inclusions. I didnt mean it was a secure OS, just more secure than 9x. Also, 2000 is hardly Fort Knox: It too has a multitude of issues, dont negate them. What I also note is that open sockets is only an issue with XP Home, which leads me to believe that with later issues and SP's the problem will be dealt with (Even if M$ dont publicly see it as a problem): Strange that it only effects the XP Home edition. But by no means is it a reason not to ever buy XP.
It hardly makes XP less secure than 9x at any rate, which was my point in the first place. I would rather that my XP box was used in a DoS attack over some kid getting full R/W access to my HD! Which as far as 9x goes, is a simple attack.
I am very aware of M$'s "security" (Read: back door) policy, it is one of the reasons I use FreeBSD.

I understand what you mean about 2000 Vs XP, but I will not be getting 2000 because I expect that 2000 will be dropped before XP will be, thats all. Plus, I am getting XP for free - which helps a little. It makes logical sense to me that XP has more of a future... Mind you, this is M$ we are talking about, so I could be wrong, LOL. However I still think that 2000 will be shown the door by M$ pretty soon.
I couldnt give a crap about M$ OS's really, like I said, I am a Linux zealot. XP is a lot better than 9x, which is all I am saying. XP compared to 2000 is a fine line, one I couldnt care less about at the end of the day as it doesnt have any implications for me. I just hope that they fix the open sockets issue in XP Home.
PS
I did want to mention the GPUs but I didnt want to post too much at once, so here:

The Graphics Chip and VRAM

The XBox uses an Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit running at 250MHz and the PS2 uses the Graphics Synthesizer running at 150MHz.
Again, judging by these specs the XBox looks better.
The XBox GPU has a few advantages over the PS2 GS, for example:

-The XBox GPU can do 125 million polygons while the PS2 GS can only do 75million polygons
-The XBox GPU has a max. resolution of 1920x1080 and the PS2 GS can do 1280x1024
The rest of the graphics chip will be comparable to NV-20 chip.

But, the catch is that these advantages don't make a lot of difference on a TV screen, even on an HDTV screen the difference would be barely noticeable (when the console's hardware is used properly).
So, is the XBox Graphics Processing Unit better than the PS2 GS? It doesn't look like it, the architecture of the PS2 GS looks more advanced. For example, PS2 has a parallel
rendering engine that contains a 2,560 bit wide data bus that is 20 times the size of leading PC-based graphics accelerators. The Graphics Synthesizer architecture can
execute recursive multi-pass rendering processing and filter operations at a very fast speed without the assistance of the main CPU or main bus access. In the past, this level of real-time performance was only achieved when using very expensive, high performance, dedicated graphics workstations. There is a 48-Gigabyte memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip. The quality of the resulting screen image is comparable to high quality pre-rendered 3D graphics. (that is once the game developers have learned how to use it properly). There has also been a misunderstanding about the VideoRAM on the PS2. The VRAM is included in the 32MB of main RAM on the CPU (the developer chooses how much of it he wants to dedicate to VRAM). Everyone thought the 4MB of memory on the GS was the VRAM while that is just a buffer in which all the rendering is done so no external bandwidth is needed (only for texture streaming). Another rumour that's been spread by several gaming sites is that the XBox is capable of texture compression and full scene anti-aliasing while the PS2 isn't. This is simply not true. The PS2 can compress/decompress textures and do full scene anti-aliasing without causing as much slow-down as on the XBox. And although the XBox GPU can do alot of effects that are
not 'built-in' in the PS2 GS, the PS2 can do all these effects and more in software mode (but atleast at the same quality) through the Emotion Engine.

It comes down to this: when developers have learned how to use the power of the PS2 GS properly they'll get more out of it than XBox developers will get out of the XBox GPU. The PS2 GS can't do as many polygons as the XBox but this difference is negligable when viewed on a TV screen. The PS2 GS can do more advanced visual effects than the XBox GPU.
In short, the PS2 is revolutionary whereas the Xbox looks more like a Frankenstein made of PC parts.


Sorry, to have brought it up but I just hate it when M$ market something that is based on BS and people believe it.: Like they said that XP is the most 'secure' M$ OS ever. I think NT/2000 gets that award... but it does have to be dissconnected from the network.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-29 11:42:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-29 12:30:17 ]</font>

[Sefy]

Speedy, of course i'm biased, and always will be, when you pay around 300$ for an OS which is a rip off of a older OS with nothing more then a fancy interface

And it IS Microsoft's fault for all support involved regarding hardware, and please don't tell me they don't have the money

Windows XP is an all around piece of crap not worthy to insult your PC with it's installation.

Of course the only thing that will beat Windows XP will be Windows.Net, now that would be a walking commercial

[Terr0r]

Geeeeez guys....he asked a simple q and it turned into an XP vs. prior M$ version confilct.

Being a system administrator and engineer for a major corporation here in the midwest, running LANE and WAN links across the United States and Europe to our satalite offices, with an access of 30,000 nodes in headquarters, which version of Winblows do you think we run??

Easy...2k Pro for our workstations, Adv. Server for our Servers, with the exception of Novell and Unix servers for "applicaions" that will not serve from Winblows servers.

Now, the real question is this...with M$ pushing XP like they are, and the fact that they will STOP updating security and OS problems on prior versions of Winblows in 3 years. This is going to leave EVERYONE with no other way to go but XP. This is a fact. 2k will be out, on fact they are already trying to push out 2k along with all 9x versions, and they will.

As far as the P&P problem with XP...Give me a break. 9x and 2k has had its fixes in the past, and are still being patched. With XP being just released, yes, there are those that will exploit it, just like everything else. So those who say 2k is better or that 9x is better...and being in the biz of network engineering, they may be...for now. But you will all have no choice in the matter within 3 years. When that time comes, only OS tha M$ will give their full attention to is XP. All others will hit the garbage can.

With a 2 million dollar upgrade to XP coming later this year at my corporation, and the rest of the world's biz's that use anything other than XP, they will be upgrading also..simply for the fact the m$ IS FORCING us to do it. Because of the fact that they will stop offering updates, security fixes, and technical support for all other OS's.

As far as compatibility issues with XP...LMAO, 2k had the same problem when it was released, and much worse than XP's problem is now. ALL hardware manufacturers will be making their hardware for XP within the next 6 months. They know what all the industry knows, M$ is forcing us to switch. If they don't make XP compatible hardware, thier outta biz.

To the original thread starter, keep your XP cd...you will install it one day, I promise.

WL
Systems Adminisrator/Engineer

[d4n13l]

That is what I was talking about when I said "future considerations". Seeing as Win2000 is really NT 5 - XP is meant to succeed NT AND the 9x OS's. It is obvious that XP will be around for longer than 2000, therefore will gain more attention as time goes on. Soon, 2000 will just be seen as a "gene donor" to XP.

BTW,
Terr0r, which would you say is the most secure out of 2000 and XP Pro (When configured properly)?
My personal thought is that they are about equal, maybe 2000 if it had to go one way or the other.
What is your view on it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-29 12:04:53 ]</font>

[Sefy]

Terr0r, out of curiasity, if you DID have a choice, which OS would YOU install ? not just from M$ but from all choices out there!

I'm going for OS/2 Warp, for an extinct OS which came out when Windows95 came out, it is STILL being supported, not to mention being upgraded and fixed, and IBM (that misreable pieace of crap of a company) has swore to support it till 2010, which is far longer then anything Microsoft could ever support

[speedy]

What Linux lovers and Mac manics can't admit to themselves is one simple fact: It IS a Windows world. You don't have to like it, but please try to accept reality.

Anyone saying XP is just NT with a pretty face isn't very informed, and as a certain "certifed computer technician" freely admits, his views are biased. No kidding Sefy!

Not to wave the Microsoft flag too brisky, but the fact is even the most embittered Microsoft basher must admit more people world wide use Windows in one form or another and for some biased Micosoft hater to bad mouth a product, simply because he happens to hate Microsoft serves no purpose.

The original question was does it make sense to upgrade to XP, the answer is if you are already using a earlier version of Windows a qualified yes. If you have no BSOD's or hardware/software problems, never run low on system resources or suffer lock ups, then don't upgrade. However if those problems are common to you, you'll find XP is far more stable. Not just my opinion. That's the opinion of just about any Windows "expert" either accredited or self anointed. The one caution is be sure any legacy hardware is supported BEFORE upgrading by checking the Compatibility List and visiting hardware vendor sites.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: speedy on 2001-12-29 14:41:39 ]</font>

[baker]

OH god,
I ran the install program today and it said it would probably not work with the following Stuff:
Bleem!,modem(!!!!),Tv card, etc.... and I shit a brick!! What use is a brilliant operating system if nothing will run on it!!! Wasn't all bad though as all my dvd2vcd programs will work on it. By the way the estimated time to install was 70 mins on a 450mhz pentium, 300 and something ram .

An xp??,
Baker

[d4n13l]

Baker,
have you gone to the web sites of the hardware makers for your system and looked for XP drivers? I mean, I doubt that a TV card would work with any Windoze if you didnt install the drivers off the CDROM that came with it.

Sefy,
It depends what the system would be used for though doesnt it. I mean, you have got desktops, laptops, servers, workstations... On top of that you have to consider what the system will be doing most of its life, what software it will run, what you need it to do etc. There are so many different situations that you can have. Also, Windoze is really only x86 architecture (asides from the NT for Alpha etc), what about OS X? That is better than any similar desktop Windoze.

For my desktop, it would be Linux. But I use it for development amongst other things and I like fiddling with my system, but other people may like BeOS for its multimedia capabilities whereas others may like Win 98 for... er... games(!)

Speedy, who are the people pushing OS X and Linux? Not me, in fact I said nice things about XP and I know that Sefy is no Linux or Mac fan. I know it is a Windoze world (that's why I said I will include XP in my next system), but you cant slate users of anything other than Windoze. In fact, I get far more work done under Linux than under Windoze: But thats just me. I couldnt really care much for Windoze, It is something that is just there. I dont care if 95% of other people use it; that's fair enough to me. I would even go as far as to say that Windoze suits most users(!) :0. So far, the only people here bad mouthing Windoze are... Windoze users themselves! Sure, I said 9x is lame, but thats because it is. I havent said a bad thing about XP or 2000. AOL is the #1 "I"SP; does that make AOL good? Or is choice better? You may not like Linux users as they have seen the light (sorry, Linux zealot talking here ), but please try to accept there is an alternative for some.

Its sad but true that Windoze has gotten where it has only through marketing and bully tactics, not through good coding. If only the technically superior OS/2 could have been more successful.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-29 15:19:17 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-29 15:20:51 ]</font>

[d4n13l]

<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>
The original question was does it make sense to upgrade to XP, the answer is if you are already using a earlier version of Windows a qualified yes. If you have no BSOD's or hardware/software problems, never run low on system resources or suffer lock ups, then don't upgrade. However if those problems are common to you, you'll find XP is far more stable. Not just my opinion. That's the opinion of just about any Windows "expert" either accredited or self anointed. The one caution is be sure any legacy hardware is supported BEFORE upgrading by checking the Compatibility List and visiting hardware vendor sites.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Now, THAT makes sense.
QED

[baker]

I just installed Windows xp and it is fast,brilliant and hasn't crashed once!!! It is also compliant with the programs I use even the ones it said it wouldn't be!! I love windows xp and think it's the best thing since sliced bread!!!

Quote:
"Windows XP is an all around piece of crap not worthy to insult your PC with it's installation. "

LOL , I will take in everones comment as there own preference but you must never have used it before !!

Question:
What is the best res to use?? I always used 800x600 but now that XP is so bulky this looks small so what do you guys recommened?

An xp lovin,
Baker

[Sefy]

speedy, yes, i am biased, and not ashamed of it, but have you thought why am I biased ? maybe because there is a reason to it ? after all, i'm not biased because i'm a Linux or Mac or even OS/2 user, although gives a choice, i'd take any of those on any Windows product.

Lets deal with facts: No one complains more then Windows users, No other system is as unsuppported as Windows, No other system has compatibility issues like Windows.

Of course those are just minor faults, you can always UPGRADE and spend MORE money even though your current system works absolutly amazing and fast, but after installing a new Windows for some reason it goes caput and no longer satifies.

baker, as being a Certified Technician, my personal preference doesn't mean I have not installed that piece of crap you call an OS, of course that is your choice, and what you do is non of my business, but please, you just installed it, so you got the "thrills" of a new OS, lets see you dare report all the **** ups you will have with it once you actually START using it for serious business.

It may be a Windoze world, but only because you let it be so, believe me, you are just buring yourself deeper in the grave by not trying other OS's and trying to get rid of Windoze as soon as possible, cause soon you will be paying through the nose and get jack in return, cause THAT is the future of PC's when it comes to Microsoft! and that is a FACT!

[alfalfa]

Hey Baker, are you sure it wasn't Satan who bought you XP instead of Santa? Easy mistake to make, same letters in name, both wear red suits ...

[baker]

sefy:
I will probably always have to use a windows system as thats what me and all my friends use so if i did use a better system like linux then itwould be no good for me!! What good is a surpeiriour operating system if Ican't share stuff with my friends????!!!

Alfalfa:
LOL

[dumwaldo]

d4n13l
thanks for all the xbox/PS2 info. i dont own either one because i am waiting to see some onlin game support before i spend money on either one but i learned some things i did not know from your posts.

[d4n13l]

Dont get me wrong though, the Xbox IS a powerful system, but so is the PS2. In my opinion, they are nearly equal in processing power, altough I think that the Xbox has the edge. It is just not as wide a gap as people think, each system has its own advantages. I think that the PS2 has more potential in it; the games will evolve like PSX games did. Whereas I just dont think the Xbox games will evolve as much, however... it will still have kick ass games .
I just hate the fact that M$ try to fool everybody with their marketing crap. I own a PS2 (got it a week ago for £199) - the Xbox STILL isnt even on the shelves here in the UK! I havent stopped playing GTA3 yet, it is one of the best games that I have ever played.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-12-30 10:28:21 ]</font>

[Sefy]

Baker, who said you can't share ?
There are plenty of Linux Flavours out there, there is even a new one coming out (which microsoft will sue of course) which is called LindowsOS, which will run Windows applications out of the box

[mrtubbles]

I'm going to have to go with speedy on this one. Even though the compatibility isn't the greatest, Windows XP is rock solid. I've been running it for about 3 months now and gotten about two errors that forced me to reboot (It was really the program that was being run that was the problem). Before, it was almost a requirement to reboot the computer everyday. Those days are now gone. And about the incompatibility issues, if your hardware or software won't work with XP, and no new drivers are being made, it's probably time to upgrade.

In answer to the original question (Which we seemed to have gotten off of): Yes, upgrade

[treedog]

Baker,
Did any of these replys help? LOL.

It's a shame cuz bout a year back or so VCDhelp.com provided really good assistance.

From what I could see nobody really addressed your question or even asked what you were looking to do with your OS.

Good luck.

[Sefy]

mrtubbles, you are sorta contradicting yourself there, compatibility isn't great, but it's rock solid ? rock solid by what ? not loading anything ?

Look, I got a shiny new OS, it doesn't work, but it doesn't crash either! amazing!!

You've been running it for 3 months and already you have errors on this rock solid system ? and they even forced you to reboot? but of course, it's the program fault, not the OS, after all, M$ is known for their Rock Solid systems! god forbid we should actually blame who it really is

And if everything worked perfectly find with your hardware, and then you got a new OS, ditch everything you got, and upgrade, why ? cause Micro$lut's said so! your system is no good! we don't make business with those who make your hardware now, and you have to upgrade!

Baker, find the deepest hole in the ground, ditch XP in there and bury it! burn it! through it in the Lava! it's not worth insulting your PC with, sure, it may be "Rock Solid" when you install it, but when you start using OTHER programs on it, you may discover it's not so "Rock Solid" more like Water

[tjdmobile]

I go with those who say scrap the XP. I just got XP pro and loaded it a couple weeks ago. I installed a clean copy over 2000 pro, and I tell you what - I get blue screens constantly from Tmpgenc and anything that burns VCD's.

Tonight I spend my new-year's eve doing "FDISK - FORMAT - REINSTALL" with a fresh install of 2000.

For the record, in the last year that I have been using 2000, not one single blue screen. I am going with what works (until first service release of XP is out)

-TJDmobile

[TheInformer]

Hmm, maybe a potential solution is to set up a dual boot system?
Win98SE (ME is crap, IMHO) in one partition and WinXP in the other?
That way, you have the 'best' of both worlds at present.

Just my two cents...

[Sefy]

TheInformer, I agree 95% with your theory, defenetly go for a dual boot, Windows98SE as the last best DOS based, and 2000 for the last "best" NT based.

[mrtubbles]

Sefy,

You seem to have a severe problem with anything made by Microsoft. Maybe you should think about what Rock solid means and get a life. Rock solid means it won't crash, not imcompatible. What programs are you guys using that are so incompatible anyways? I've only had two incompatibilities with XP sp far, and that is with AviChop (big loss) and a three year old webcam(time to upgrade). Maybe you should look at all the pros and cons.

[mrtubbles]

One more thing Sefy, If a program works great, I don't care who makes it, keep it.

[Sefy]

mrtubbles, I have a severe problem with monopolists which give you the same software with a diffrent makeup and call it new!, and if it's so Rock Solid, how come you said yourself it crashed that you needed to reboot twice ? that's not Rock Solid and thankfully I do have a life, I don't invest in Micro$oft products like you seem to do.

Oh and yes, if a program works great, I don't care who makes it and I keep it! good one there, pity you don't follow it yourself.

[mrtubbles]

Sefy,

I was just wondering how often your OS crashes, and forces you to reboot. I can't imagine that you have never had to reboot. I was just wondering since you are so satisfied with your OS. (I do believe you are running 2000 prof, right? I can't believe that you would even think about supporting such a monopolist company as M$) You need to start following your own preaching. Of course what do I know, your the certified computer technician, you are definitly the smartest person here.

mrtubbles

[Sefy]

Interesting how a person can be wrong on ALL accounts, mrtubbles, i'm running Windows98SE which i didn't pay for, I got it from Micro$luts themselfs trying to convince me to use it, and I don't have to reboot at all unless someone hacks my PC, which as you propably know doesn't just happen to 98.

So that's what ? 3 down ? oh yeah almost forgot, i'm using OS/2 for most of my uses except net cause i've got a WinModem, but as soon as I get Cable Net, well, I won't be using 98 anymore, cause quite frankly I can run just about all 9x program I need ON my OS/2.

Lastly, for a year now since i'm using my EPoX 8KTA3 board, I haven't needed to boot up Windows98SE for a year, the only times i shut it down where due to power failures and hackers.

So mrtubbles, what do you say to that ? I do follow my own preaching, how about you ? except a little flaming I don't see you are saying anything smart, and no i'm not the smartest guy around here, i'm sure there are many who are smarter then me in alot of things, but atleast unlike you, they got some manners.

[mrtubbles]

Well, Sefy

Besides the fact that this arguement has gotten way off the original question, I'm going to give you some credit. I see far too many people say how much M$ sucks, and they are a monopoly, etc. etc. Yet, most of these people are happily running many M$ programs and their OS is M$. I seem to be mistaken with your OS. You are one of the few people that actually take action when they say M$ sucks. For that, you deserve praise. I on the other hand, believe that it's a Micrsoft wold out their, and it is easier and cheaper to just go with the flow. Anyways, hopefully we can end this with a difference of opinions now, and let me just say this, for me Windows XP, has done everything I need it to do and more.

mrtubbles

[Sefy]

mrtubbles, I do respect your opinions, and i'm glad you have come to respect mine, I am a very stubborn person, but unlike most, I follow what I say.

alot of people seem to forget the "little" problems their new OS gives them cause they are so excited by going "look" I got Windows QY!! isn't that wonderful, it doesn't load anything, but it's great!

And I do agree with you, it is a Microsoft world out there, but can you be 100% sure it will stay that way ? about 5 years ago I said to some friends that in 10 years, Microsoft will either vanish or be reduced to scrap, it's been 5 years, Microsoft is in a SERIOUS jam with the law, and this time, they are not getting away with it! will just wait and see in 5 years time from now , that should be 2007

Anyway, take care mrtubbles and all of you here have a Happy New Year! no need to fight over an OS, defenetly not M$'s

[speedy]

What I find so funny about Sefy's bombastic anti-Microsoft commments is his instance in signing his post with "certified computer technician" which I'm guessing is suppose to add some creditability to his factless comments. You don't present facts, you just widly rant. Maybe you could share with us the reason you so hate Microsoft. Of course you're not alone. There are lots of people and a few corporations that truly hate Microsoft too. My guess is the oldest reason in the book; envy. Windows isn't the best OS out there. Heck no, but for sure it is top dog and because of that there will always be people throwing stones.

Some actual facts for you. IBM poured tens of millions into the development of OS/2. They couldn't give it way. Literaly. When they were selling PC's with their logo they too switched to installing Windows. Why? Customers demanded it.

What kind of an endorsement of a OS is it if the company the size of Big Blue installs a competitor's OS on the boxes they make when they have an OS they developed on their own? The simple answer, parden my French, is people don't give a shit if there are better operating systems than Windows.

Linux will never go anywhere. A cult following at best. Last year, they made some progress in awareness to the public. Again the public didn't give a shit. Returns of Linux were astronomical, I'm guessing because of the crapy install process common to most flavors and the difficulty in install hardware or that you need a "real" modem and most people use a winmodem. LOL!

I just see lots of sour graps. Is Linux better, Beos, UNIX, maybe, for sure, damn straight. One more time, people don't give a shit. Like I said its a Windows world. Hope Sefy feels better when he whails away against the evil empire the rest of us just call Microsoft. ROTFLMAO!