Teen Programmers Unite  
 

 

Return to forum top

Windows XP

Posted by jay_dee [send private reply] at June 05, 2002, 05:43:34 PM

Is win XP any good(as far as windows goes)? i'm looking to buy a new computer and there are two that it looks like i have enough $$ to get and one has XP. It has a big enough hard drive to run both win and Linux and i'm going to do that but i'm just wondering how XP compairs to other versions on windows? thanks,

jay

Posted by gian [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 12:39:25 AM

I would say it is the best version of windows to date, in terms of stability and reliability. I turned off the pretty [ugly] WinXP theme and switch it back to classic so it looks like Win2k...
Otherwise a dual (or sometimes more) boot configuration is useful...

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 01:03:38 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with gian's comments. I too think XP is THE BEST incarnation of the Windows operating system. It has some great features to make life easier, and it ranks high in stability. And, if one runs a decent firewall, you can prevent it from relaying back to Microsoft headquarters too much :-)

Posted by vikram_1982 [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 04:53:28 AM

"the pretty [ugly] WinXP theme"

eh. the Windows XP theme is the best thing that happened to windows since the makeover from 3.x to 95. So plz...

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 08:22:53 AM

...if you can dual boot Windows and GNU/Linux, why not just boot into GNU/Linux. I mean, just think about the reasons why you absoletely have to use Windows (what, MS Office? OpenOffice.org anyone? VC++? KDE Studio...etc). On the other hand, if you do have a reason that dual booting is a good idea (I only dual booted for a month or so before I ditched Windows almost three years ago). When you really think about it, there are almost no reasons to use Windows anymore (even games...WineX is supposed to do a good job with most games and important games like Doom 3 and NWN are coming with the GNU/Linux port on the disc).

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 09:14:24 AM

I was just waiting for unknown_lamer's post in this thread. The reason I use Windows for day to day usage over GNU/Linux is because I like it. Short and simple. It's constant, does what I expect it to, and suites my purposes. Not that I don't like Linux, I most certainly do, but I prefer Windows for 90% of the work I have to do.

The question was "is XP any good", not "please tell me why I shouldn't be using Windows" which seems to be the topic of most of your posts. I'm not trying to offend you, just stating the blatantly obvious which is that you're not answering anyone's question by forcefeeding free software.

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 02:36:48 PM

I had a problem with XP and ATA133 devices, my HDD benchmark scores were cut in half under WinXP when compared to what I was getting in 2k. Personally, I use win98se, if you know how to tweak it right you can either disable or completely remove all of it's annoying "features", as for stability, my uptime is just over 5 days now.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 04:32:16 PM

First of all, I prefer Win2k Pro personally, and I loathe the stupidity (IMO!) of WinXP. The standard interface sucks, and not even the so called "Standard Interface" looks like it should, so I gave up on it after about 15 minutes. Never come to hate anything that fast before, not even Perl, that took 2 weeks of messing around.

But, anyway, I agree completely with sphinX. The second I read the topic, I knew unknown_lamer would writing a comment, trying to get people to switch from a system they're comfortable with, to a system that may be able to do that same, but they have to spend between a couple of months to several years, getting really comfortable with it..

I dual boot, but spend most of my time in Windows. I program for Windows as a part of my work, and that would be rather stupid to do in Linux when Windows is so much better for that task (naturally).

Posted by Mycroft [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 04:59:26 PM

Win2k Pro is good but it doesn't have all the driver support that XP has. XP is basically a newer version of Win2k though and it looks like normal windows if you set the interface settings to "optimized for preformance." The biggest thing that bothers me about XP is that youn have to register online with Microsoft once you install and they can access your computer through a port they setup. Although its for technical support it still bothers me.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 05:34:42 PM

Never experienced any missing drivers in Win2k.. Those that didn't come natively can easily be downloaded online. Ofcourse there are probably exceptions, but I haven't had any problems personally. :)

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 06:07:59 PM

Mycroft: Thus my comment about a decent firewall earlier in the thread. I often catch XP trying to talk to Microsoft, the most prominent example being whenever I search for files ZoneAlarm pops up telling me that explorer.exe is trying to access the internet. Now, either Microsoft is checking what people are searching for on their own systems, or they're doing some stupid web-based search at the same time. Either way, it was a simple matter of permanently denying it access to the web.

As for the authorization, if you can manage to get a hold of an OEM copy, most don't require authorization.

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at June 06, 2002, 08:08:12 PM

Mycroft, You don't have to register with MS if you have the corporate edition ;)

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at June 07, 2002, 07:47:00 AM

How long do you think it would take to adjust to GNU/Linux after using Win2k or XP? How about when you use KDE. Not long at all. Jeez, if crazy old limo driving roblimo can convert, why can't you? Windows will only strangle you in the long run. GNU/Linux is simply a better system than Windows. If you think that GNU/Linux when using KDE for your desktop is difficult, you may want to consider shooting yourself.

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at June 07, 2002, 08:17:20 AM

even better, get a distro like Desktop LX (lycoris) it looks almost identical to Windows, but its linux. Or get mandrake, its esy on beginners. That's if you want Linux. Prob with XP is that if you buy it, (spend money for all you that don't know wha that means) the professional version (i have 2 CPU's) costs 249 and the home version 89. Even if the PC comes with windows (OEM) you are still playing for it.

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at June 07, 2002, 12:44:56 PM

The price issue is a big one too (unless you call up mike (real-world-mike-not-tpu-mike) ...). If I had to pay for Windows I wouldn't have been able to build my machine--all of my money (ALL of it) would have been for my 200 buck copy of Windows. Using Debian allowed to be to get a new machine.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at June 08, 2002, 08:27:12 AM

unknown_lamer.. You really *are* a lamer from time to time. You like Debian Linux, which is fine by me, but you do not respect the individuality and the freedom to choose. People who like Windows will use it. People who like Linux will use that. People who like both will dual boot.. Not to mention the tons of other OS out there.

Linux may be better in many ways, it may have an easy interface and what not, but it remains a fact that Windows still has the repository of tools that most people are used to. So people wouldn't just have to learn how to use a new system, they would also need to learn how to use all the various software.

To take one big issue for me personally.. I haven't seen a proper image-editing tool for Linux, one that comes even *close* to be as good as Photoshop. And don't talk to me about Gimp.. I tried it, and it doesn't work for me.

The tools I use normally are all Windows tools, and I do not wish to spend the time learning how to use new tools, when I can make a living using these tools (which are all paid for btw).

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at June 10, 2002, 01:56:00 PM

Unknown... What good is a brand new blazing fast machine that you can't play games on? I know I'd love to buy a new GeForce 4 TI4600 and only have linux on my machine, what good would it be? The only decent game you can play under linux is quake 3 (Don't even talk about emulators, they cut your framerate in half, and as 3DMark2001 says, framerate is life)

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at June 10, 2002, 01:59:11 PM

GIMP is just as good as Photoshop. You just have to get used to its interface first.

CodeRed: people use their machines for things other than game playing.
And you can still play games on a GNU/Linux machine. I recently learned
about pyDDR and frozen-bubble (goes away to play bubble-bobble clone).

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at June 10, 2002, 03:48:39 PM

I can't stop playing pingus ;)

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at June 10, 2002, 07:46:53 PM

I mean real games. If an OS can't run Need for Speed 5, Unreal Tournament, or Half Life/Counter Strike I don't want it.

Posted by taubz [send private reply] at June 10, 2002, 09:24:16 PM

WinXP completely died on me after about a week (it was a cracked version in all fairness), and so I've given up on it. I'd happily install Win2K though.

WinXP's failure was from the corruption of one single file. I don't understand how they design an OS to be stable and at the same time make it completely dependent on particular registry files....

- taubz

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at June 11, 2002, 03:04:08 AM

If Linux's kernel became corupt I assume it would stop working as well. It would be impossible to make an OS that didn't rely on at least one file.

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at June 11, 2002, 04:49:42 AM

The Linux kernel comprises of many files, and it still does not rely on it to run once the os has loaded, also most linux distros now come with either GRUB or LiLo installed that allows you to boot to a backup kernel should your current one not work. Linux also does not have a registry, so it is not dependant on that either. If you do have a boot loader installed, it is however dependnt on that for booting. Although many people install the boot loader to /boot as a seperate partition so that its extreamly unlikley that it needs changing

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at June 11, 2002, 08:03:42 AM

I have a copy of unreal tournament...You just buy the Windows GOTY (or normal) CD and then download the unreal installer from loki (you can still get the files at their mirrors like tucows).

As for corruption...the kernel generally doesn't get corrupted because you never write to it. Unless you are using GRUB, it doesn't matter if the fs it is on gets b0rked because lilo just loads the kernel image from a hard coded location of disk (which is why you have to re-run lilo everytime you install lilo). The Debian make-kpkg system also makes a link to your old kernel as /vmlinuz.old so if you use the default Debian lilo config you can boot either Linux or LinuxOLD to get your current or old kernel (in case you compiled a b0rked kernel...).

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at June 11, 2002, 11:56:37 AM

so codered, your statment "It would be impossible to make an OS that didn't rely on at least one file." is incorrect. Parts of the OS are dependant on a single file (parts of the X GUI server), but even if tha gets damaged (unlikly) you will still have command line to use.

Posted by unknown_lamer [send private reply] at June 11, 2002, 12:34:01 PM

Well, the OS still relies on the kernel being on disk, as well as having a suitable program that can be used as init. Which means that your root fs has to be in a state that you can at least mount it read only and run fsck on it. Then again, you can always boot from your rescue disk (everyone has one, right ? :) and save your system that way. Basically every OS relies on a complex mixture of different programs and files to keep it running. No system is immune to occasional failure, because the universe is chaotic...

Posted by metamorphic [send private reply] at June 12, 2002, 06:14:07 AM

ah chaos theory! Although as far as perfect OS's go, did anyone ever see the OS thinkgeek were offering as an april fool's joke? Thats an OS!

Posted by AnyoneEB [send private reply] at June 18, 2002, 06:59:58 PM

"WinXP's failure was from the corruption of one single file. I don't understand how they design an OS to be stable and at the same time make it completely dependent on particular registry files.... "

What file? Depending on what file it could be rather easy to fix.

Posted by taubz [send private reply] at June 18, 2002, 08:25:43 PM

One of the master registry files. I forget which.

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at June 19, 2002, 12:26:54 AM

Would be system.dat or user.dat (or the XP counterparts thereof)

You must be logged in to post messages and see which you have already read.

Log on
Username:
Password:
Save for later automatic logon

Register as a new user
 
Copyright TPU 2002. See the Credits and About TPU for more information.