WIN XP HOME EDITION ANYWAY IS ~~~ HYPE!!!!

I tried to use the classic version of Xp and it locks up.
The user interface does look like a Walt Disney cartoon. I 
defraged 5 times to group the files and it crashed.
XP takes for ever to shut down.
Clean inst~~~ed 3 times for it to run properly.
XP wont accept an updated driver for my ethernet card -Im still using my lynksys 
v4
It wont accept the driver for my monitor.
XP corrupted my norton antivirus2002 files.
(It addressed this on power-up).
There are so many complaints that Xp has an send error report when 
an error happens.
I FEEL LIKE MY COMPUTER IS A GUINEA PIG FOR WINXP TECHS TO SOLVE THE 
SCREWED UP ISSUES WITH XP BY GATHERING ~~~ ERRORS AND MAKING PATCHES AND 
UP DATES!!!
SHIT - GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a 950Mhz cpu with 512 mbs of ram
a savage pro 3 graphics card and sound max digital sound card so yea it aint my comp!!!!!!!!!!!
  
DISMAYED AND WANTING TO KICK SOME ASS,

KOAHEKILI

Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 9:11 pm Posted by Carl D (4162 messages posted) hmm... I'm waiting for the Second Edition - which shouldn't be too long after seeing all the problems with XP since it's release, some people have even said the beta versions were better than the final release! :-0 On Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 5:21 pm, Koahekili wrote: > >WIN XP HOME EDITION ANYWAY IS ~~~ HYPE!!!! > >I tried to use the classic version of Xp and it locks up. >The user interface does look like a Walt Disney cartoon. I >defraged 5 times to group the files and it crashed. >XP takes for ever to shut down. >Clean inst~~~ed 3 times for it to run properly. >XP wont accept an updated driver for my ethernet card -Im still using my lynksys >v4 >It wont accept the driver for my monitor. >XP corrupted my norton antivirus2002 files. >(It addressed this on power-up). >There are so many complaints that Xp has an send error report when >an error happens. >I FEEL LIKE MY COMPUTER IS A GUINEA PIG FOR WINXP TECHS TO SOLVE THE >SCREWED UP ISSUES WITH XP BY GATHERING ~~~ ERRORS AND MAKING PATCHES AND >UP DATES!!! >SHIT - GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I have a 950Mhz cpu with 512 mbs of ram >a savage pro 3 graphics card and sound max digital sound card so yea it aint my comp!!!!!!!!!!! > >DISMAYED AND WANTING TO KICK SOME ASS, > >KOAHEKILI > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 12:40 am Posted by Tom S (200 messages posted) ...So now you've come across just ONE of Microsoft's several dilemmas: If someone told you that there were hundreds of millions of computer users out there, and at least twenty-five million of them were hard-headed Koahekili's, each with a different computer with lots of various options and pieces that might or might not be stable enough to be certified up to today's current standards, would you still go ahead and build an operating system for them ALL? --Please give a fair answer. (Remember, this IS Planet Earth, after all.) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 5:20 pm Posted by Kane (181 messages posted) Yeah so ok microsoft cant build software compatible for every comp on this planet so they just test it on a pent 333 and say no crashes - better and more stable than win98se. come-on, why the send error report? On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 12:40 am, Tom S wrote: >...So now you've come across just ONE of Microsoft's several dilemmas: If someone >told you that there were hundreds of millions of computer users out there, and at >least twenty-five million of them were hard-headed Koahekili's, each with a different >computer with lots of various options and pieces that might or might not be stable >enough to be certified up to today's current standards, would you still go ahead >and build an operating system for them ~~~? --Please give a fair answer. (Remember, >this IS Planet Earth, after ~~~.) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Friday, February 8, 2002 at 10:39 pm Posted by neo (1 messages posted) On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 12:40 am, Tom S wrote: >...So now you've come across just ONE of Microsoft's several dilemmas: If someone >told you that there were hundreds of millions of computer users out there, and at >least twenty-five million of them were hard-headed Koahekili's, each with a different >computer with lots of various options and pieces that might or might not be stable >enough to be certified up to today's current standards, would you still go ahead >and build an operating system for them ALL? --Please give a fair answer. (Remember, >this IS Planet Earth, after all.) The whole concept of computing is to get OS that works on hardware (any hardware!!!) in order to get most out of it, this is why I am a linux user, and if there is something preventing linux to use my web-cam or other, what a heck I write my own driver for it using existing modules; and if my machine isn't "compatibale" with XP, you know what f... it, I am not buying "XP compatitable" system to run some cartoonish and crapy OS on it, if I want to use my network card to full extent and XP is telling me that a driver I am trying to install is not XP signed f... it again, there is no profit to Bill from me, even though I've never bought a single copy of MS OS's anyway. I am not here to flame windows and to say how linux is really wonderful, I am just here to say if the monopolistic company is trying to monopolize the whole computer industry it would sunk under its debris in a little while. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Sunday, July 7, 2002 at 8:29 pm Posted by john (7 messages posted) Was running XP pro and like you said blue screens daily and many reboots then it crashed hard now I am w2k server and all is good do miss some of the bells though but not the blue screens On Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 5:21 pm, Koahekili wrote: > >WIN XP HOME EDITION ANYWAY IS ~~~ HYPE!!!! > >I tried to use the classic version of Xp and it locks up. >The user interface does look like a Walt Disney cartoon. I >defraged 5 times to group the files and it crashed. >XP takes for ever to shut down. >Clean inst~~~ed 3 times for it to run properly. >XP wont accept an updated driver for my ethernet card -Im still using my lynksys >v4 >It wont accept the driver for my monitor. >XP corrupted my norton antivirus2002 files. >(It addressed this on power-up). >There are so many complaints that Xp has an send error report when >an error happens. >I FEEL LIKE MY COMPUTER IS A GUINEA PIG FOR WINXP TECHS TO SOLVE THE >SCREWED UP ISSUES WITH XP BY GATHERING ~~~ ERRORS AND MAKING PATCHES AND >UP DATES!!! >SHIT - GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I have a 950Mhz cpu with 512 mbs of ram >a savage pro 3 graphics card and sound max digital sound card so yea it aint my comp!!!!!!!!!!! > >DISMAYED AND WANTING TO KICK SOME ASS, > >KOAHEKILI > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 8:00 am Posted by Allan (2 messages posted) I bought a computer from HP (P4-1.8GHz) preloaded with WinXP. I've been using Win2000Pro for ages on a P1-MMX laptop, a P2 laptop, and a P3 desktop, (all worked properly, so i was terribly impressed with Microsoft) and the switch to WinXP seemed exciting at the time. It was exciting, if you consider Blue Screens of Death exciting. Wrong, if you consider working software without bugs, hardware compatible with the OS, software, and other hardware, and actual end results exciting. WinXP can't do any of this. Second Edition WinXP? Hmm. Worth a try. I agree - get it right the first time. WinXP is built on Win2000 / WinNT technology? Then why doesn't it work? Networking? Separating users (students rooming here need passwords, security, access only to their own files, etc.) doesn't seem possible with WinXP. How come? Firewall? It said i had to buy one after a "trial period" was over. That's not a firewall. That's a sample. MovieMaker? WinXP didn't recognize my TV card for video input. Antivirus? I was told it had one. Not sure. But it sure didn't like my Norton running. Sorry - just frustration here. I want reliability, not Tonka-Toy features that don't work. Speed is sacrificed to graphics, stability to new features, and security to connectivity. I reformatted my hard disks and put Win2000Pro on my new computer. Advice to anyone trying to decide - don't touch WinXP. It's utter crap. Allan allansplaceca@yahoo.ca On Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 5:21 pm, Koahekili wrote: > >WIN XP HOME EDITION ANYWAY IS ~~~ HYPE!!!! > >I tried to use the classic version of Xp and it locks up. >The user interface does look like a Walt Disney cartoon. I >defraged 5 times to group the files and it crashed. >XP takes for ever to shut down. >Clean inst~~~ed 3 times for it to run properly. >XP wont accept an updated driver for my ethernet card -Im still using my lynksys >v4 >It wont accept the driver for my monitor. >XP corrupted my norton antivirus2002 files. >(It addressed this on power-up). >There are so many complaints that Xp has an send error report when >an error happens. >I FEEL LIKE MY COMPUTER IS A GUINEA PIG FOR WINXP TECHS TO SOLVE THE >SCREWED UP ISSUES WITH XP BY GATHERING ~~~ ERRORS AND MAKING PATCHES AND >UP DATES!!! >SHIT - GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I have a 950Mhz cpu with 512 mbs of ram >a savage pro 3 graphics card and sound max digital sound card so yea it aint my comp!!!!!!!!!!! > >DISMAYED AND WANTING TO KICK SOME ASS, > >KOAHEKILI > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 3:08 pm Posted by Hoppy (19 messages posted) I do agree Win 2000 has to be the most stable Microsoft OS out there. However I recently splashed out and got XP Pro and have had no trouble. I downloaded all the latest hardware drivers from the manufacturers web sites and it is running sweet. 3dMark 2001 shows some performance improvement, but not a lot. I reckon WinXP is basicaly an upgrade from Win2000, the same way millenium was from 98. The biggest positive for me with WinXP is the logon icons. Which is really good if you have Kids as security is easier to set up On Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 8:00 am, Allan wrote: >I bought a computer from HP (P4-1.8GHz) preloaded with WinXP. I've been using Win2000Pro >for ages on a P1-MMX laptop, a P2 laptop, and a P3 desktop, (all worked properly, >so i was terribly impressed with Microsoft) and the switch to WinXP seemed exciting >at the time. It was exciting, if you consider Blue Screens of Death exciting. Wrong, >if you consider working software without bugs, hardware compatible with the OS, software, >and other hardware, and actual end results exciting. WinXP can't do any of this. > >Second Edition WinXP? Hmm. Worth a try. I agree - get it right the first time. > WinXP is built on Win2000 / WinNT technology? Then why doesn't it work? > >Networking? Separating users (students rooming here need passwords, security, access >only to their own files, etc.) doesn't seem possible with WinXP. How come? > >Firewall? It said i had to buy one after a "trial period" was over. That's not >a firewall. That's a sample. > >MovieMaker? WinXP didn't recognize my TV card for video input. > >Antivirus? I was told it had one. Not sure. But it sure didn't like my Norton >running. > >Sorry - just frustration here. I want reliability, not Tonka-Toy features that don't >work. Speed is sacrificed to graphics, stability to new features, and security to >connectivity. I reformatted my hard disks and put Win2000Pro on my new computer. > Advice to anyone trying to decide - don't touch WinXP. It's utter crap. > >Allan >allansplaceca@yahoo.ca > > > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, February 19, 2003 at 12:26 pm Posted by Ronnie Thacker (1 messages posted) I have been using Win XP pro since before it was released to the general public, and have not had any problems with it. The only thing I have noticed about it that I don't like is the inability to run most of my favorite games, like Hitman!! Which irritates me. As far as stability, speed, and the ability to run some extremely large, and resource eating programs it is most awesome. Granted any Pro. version of the Windows operating system is not meant to run very many games or a whole lot of multimedia. That is what the home version is for, and it's probably not as robust. (not sure on that never used the home version) I think XP is a beautiful, stable, and easy to use OS. On Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 3:08 pm, Mark Hopkins wrote: >I do agree Win 2000 has to be the most stable Microsoft OS out there. However I recently >splashed out and got XP Pro and have had no trouble. I downloaded all the latest >hardware drivers from the manufacturers web sites and it is running sweet. 3dMark >2001 shows some performance improvement, but not a lot. I reckon WinXP is basicaly >an upgrade from Win2000, the same way millenium was from 98. >The biggest positive for me with WinXP is the logon icons. Which is really good if >you have Kids as security is easier to set up > > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Saturday, October 18, 2003 at 4:02 am Posted by andrew (2 messages posted) my other pc is 200mhz and has a 1mp video card. it runs pretty well.. no glitches.. no blue screens. or any other... just fine.. but i wud like to try win2000... [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 5:45 pm Posted by Svenne B (4 messages posted) Hi Alan !! You are damned right about xp instability, I have installed several xp macchines the latest months and its quite a scary business to make them run smoothly. I have been succesful on all my attempts but it requires expert knowledge to get it run on other than newly bought off the shelf machines. Even on such machines may the xp malfunction though they are brand new, forget the support agreement w the seller, they dont know shit not even a single bit ! I agree that w2000 is lot better, it has so many nice features like setting exact user rights on every exe. And its very stable to say the least. Xp has most of w2000 features but they are way out and very deeply hidden somewhere in the Marianer Trench in the South Pacific. First i think msoft has to get rid of the driver thinking. Its so messy with all these drivers for different hardware. Msoft must push much harder on the h-ware suppliers for "driverless" configs and h-ware. Only one generic super-driver for graphic one for sound etc. Msoft will kill themselves if they continue to make their os's larger and having an unacceptably complex inner structure. A normal installation of winxp lists almost 10 000 (!!!) files in the \Windows\ directory. Thats at least 100 times too much. The burden of administration of all thes dlls and suspicios files and unwanted side effects willl drown any attempt to make a better os. A serious cleanup is a way out of it. The Linux approach to compile a specific kernel for a specific config is very good and straightforward. To sell such an complicated os like xp w-out a very good background defragmenter, built in antivirus support, w-out a write protected \sysroot\ ( = \WINDOWS\) directory, w-out a flawless and brickhard firewall, w-out the possibility to load a small, smoothly running tiny xp, except the lousy recovery console, thats long ago outdated, is horrific I think. And XP is way too expensive, cause the support arent of much use. Also a background backup utility thats turned on by default is needed. The os's backup is much too weak and glitchy. No ordinary program installation should be able to change anything in the sys directories. The layer thinking of building os's arent ideas adopted by msoft , its lots of spaghetti code and spaghetti structure of the whole os. Another example the Windows Update should be able to run as a standalone app on a target machine w-out netw access. Then download all necessary stuff on another protected machine, and the updates transferred as a single packed file to the target machine. I tried to use Windows Update 2 weeks ago getting patches and during downloading the blaster virus struck that newly installed machine, oh gosh what a crappy result it was !! What a mess !! Had to start from the beginning again.... 2 hours lost. So msoft have to figure out another way of acessing w update, why not open a single channel to the update site much like accessing an BBS in the old days through an analog modem ? Or using only encrypted transfer not accepting anything else during update. On a freshly installed machine, the firewall should be turned on by default, the machine logs on directly to windows update and get the patches immediately. The firewall should block anything but the windows update ip packets, encrypted of course. The large amount of small dlls cause the system to be slow, since it causes the memory handler to have to work harder than expected, swapping pages and defragmenting RAM memory. Get rid of most of the standard dlls and build a single much larger dll, or incorporate them in the os ! If they still want to use all the nitty gritty messy spaghetti structures then they have to create a virtual windows machine w a virtual \windows\ directory for each app, so each badly designed app can fool around as much around in the virtual machine it wants and screwing up the virtual \windows directory but not disturbing anything on the ground level. NT based systems such as xp is designed w a "virtual" windows machine in mind, but its only temporarly, not in the file system level. I see xp as a great waste of programming effort. From my point of view and my experiences w earlier windows os's I dont think the follower Longhorn will be much better, it will be even more complicated. Msoft have that problem, that they are more for doing new things and features and use to much effort on that than to reconstruct and rebuild the old stuff so it will run much better and safer. Remember that these os's are descendants of the 386 protected mode memory model, and they are still using it though its long ago outdated. At that time it was common that an 386 had not more than 8 mb of ram, and maybe an 200 MB hard drive. More efficient protection mechanisms than that model can be designed and adopted. We that are pros want os's that runs for weeks or months continously w-out ever going down or even any speed loss, or misuse of ram or resources. // Svenne B On Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 8:00 am, Allan wrote: >I bought a computer from HP (P4-1.8GHz) preloaded with WinXP. I've been using Win2000Pro >for ages on a P1-MMX laptop, a P2 laptop, and a P3 desktop, (all worked properly, >so i was terribly impressed with Microsoft) and the switch to WinXP seemed exciting >at the time. It was exciting, if you consider Blue Screens of Death exciting. Wrong, >if you consider working software without bugs, hardware compatible with the OS, software, >and other hardware, and actual end results exciting. WinXP can't do any of this. > >Second Edition WinXP? Hmm. Worth a try. I agree - get it right the first time. > WinXP is built on Win2000 / WinNT technology? Then why doesn't it work? > >Networking? Separating users (students rooming here need passwords, security, access >only to their own files, etc.) doesn't seem possible with WinXP. How come? > >Firewall? It said i had to buy one after a "trial period" was over. That's not >a firewall. That's a sample. > >MovieMaker? WinXP didn't recognize my TV card for video input. > >Antivirus? I was told it had one. Not sure. But it sure didn't like my Norton >running. > >Sorry - just frustration here. I want reliability, not Tonka-Toy features that don't >work. Speed is sacrificed to graphics, stability to new features, and security to >connectivity. I reformatted my hard disks and put Win2000Pro on my new computer. > Advice to anyone trying to decide - don't touch WinXP. It's utter crap. > >Allan >allansplaceca@yahoo.ca [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 4:48 am Posted by NR (1 messages posted) Oddly enough, I've never had a SINGLE problem w/ WinXP. No crashes, no hardware conflicts, no instability, EVER, because - as you SHOULD do when installing a new OS - I formatted my system drive and did a CLEAN install. Installing over a previous version of the OS, such as 95, 98 or 2000, will cause nothing but problems - and Windows isn't the only OS that has problems when doing this, I've had the same issues w/ MacOS (including OSX...had to do a format and clean install of THAT) & Linux (RedHat & Caldera). Using multiple small libraries (.dlls) is the most efficient way to develop a product such as an OS. This way, 3rd-party developers only have to call the libraries needed by their app, giving them a much lower memory footprint when running. Same w/ the OS: having a big 50MB library of code to access essential features means 50 more MB of RAM the OS is using to run - memory better used by programs. Plus, having multiple smaller libraries (as MacOS, OSX, Linux, WinNT, BeOS, NeXT, Sun, Unix, Irix, etc.) does makes it easier to update the OS between versions and when issuing service or bug patches. I can't believe a "Pro" computer user would claim having one big library, or rolling it all directly into the OS - a total nightmare - is a GOOD thing. Hell, even applications have gone the rough of dynamic linked libraries; apps such as Photoshop used to be more central-repository oriented, and in recent years have split off this code into multiple, well thought-out, related libraries for the reasons listed above. Tsk Tsk. You have old hardware? Upgrade. OS developers shouldn't be forced to deal w/ 5yr-old, or even older, hardware forever. Legacy support can only go so far and stil allow innovations & updates without creating what the previous poster dubbing "spaghetti code." [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 6:47 pm Posted by Svenne B (4 messages posted) On Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 4:48 am, NR wrote: >Oddly enough, I've never had a SINGLE problem w/ WinXP. No crashes, no hardware >conflicts, no instability..... Thanks for your thoughts. Well, some pcs do perform well with win xp, some doesnt do it, though they are quite new or brand new. I like the win xp rollback and saving of existing configurations and that you can go back to that previous system configuration in a rather easy way. Also i like the win xp nice handling of several network connections at the same time, and nice handling of usb devices. Also its a useful feature that you dont need to reboot the machine so often. My purpose with my ideas is to iniiate discussions about msofts os design policy. Winxp has undoubtedly serious disadvantages too, if it crashes, it crashes really bad, and the result is sometimes really nasty, and difficulty of retrieving files, especially if you have a portable pc. You often have to remove the hard drive and mount in another ntfs capable machine to be able to extract and retrieve files that you need. Modular design of an os arent bad, its a good way of building an os. But many of the used dlls and other system files havent changed for years and could be better put into a single large dll instead. 50mb RAM or so arent much in todays machines, most have 256 mb. The large number of system important files needed for the system to run arent beneficial for administrative purposes. Its difficult to keep track of all different versions of these files. I see it as an growing source of potential conflicts within a system. Try the following on an xp machine: Use the mouse to do a copy of a large ~3-4gb folder onto another drive in your xp system. Before it has finished, start another copying of a large folder onto another drive. Maybe you can start a third copying of a large folder. These though copying jobs causes many xp machines to perform very sluggish to user inputs, they get too high priority. It can even cause the xp to hang if you on the same time put in a cd in the cd reader. Most win2000 machines doesnt do that, and Linux do such tasks very nice, lowering the priority of the copying processes so that user input is still in favor. Also i disklike that some xp machines misses in copying files correctly, sometimes they are copied wrongly, when checking with crc or md5 hashes f large ~1gb files. For though file copying jobs i use xxcopy ( www.xxcopy.com ) commandline, that can be used with several different switches. // Svenne [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 7:41 pm Posted by Svenne B (4 messages posted) My experience of win2000 pro or server is the same as yours. Its much stabler than xp. It seldoms goes down or crashes, the differnece is light years away. But winxp does run most programs faster on the very same physical machine. It seems to take more advantage of faster machines than w2000 does. And xp has nicier handling of new usb devices and smoothness of handling the netw connection (when you do a connect of the lan cable, xp does a smoother connect than w2000 does). But for many the xp has been a nightmare much the same as those who "upgraded" from w98 to Millenium. The millenium edition was really a piece of pure shit. For those who wants to test and run xp i recommend to do a clean install, not over a previous windows version. But on a clean unformatted harddrive. If you cant start the pc from the cd, you better choose to start from the xp floppies instead. Most often you can fulfill an installation. But dont do an install while you have access to the internet. Sometimes the pc installation locks up if internet is available. Then after succesful install you need the xp service pack. Dont do an express install instead you d-load the network install for it pros, ca 125mb. You often need another machine to be able to download patches and transfer them to the new machine, if you have a tricky machine that f***s up if you have network connection. Its hard work to do a full install of all patches and be able then to safely connect to the net. Explorer 6 arent of much use i think, i use Mozilla instead which is much nicer, not installing suspicious malware like the explorer 6 does when surfing around. And mozilla is very stable to say the least. / s [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Monday, April 5, 2004 at 7:05 am Posted by Jay-man (1 messages posted) I suppose nobody reading here really needs to listen to a Linux evangelist, but what would you give for an OS that runs on hardware all the way from 386 to the latest and greatest, is rock-solid, virtually never crashes, and requires a ridiculously small amount of memory and disk -- and it's free! Seriously guys, getting past the linux learning curve can't be that hard if you have so many problems fixing broken windows installations. Give it a try sometime. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 12:17 pm Posted by Gordon Banks (1 messages posted) I have to differ. I just bought an HP Pavillion with Athlon 2800 XP+ processor for a very good price. XP Home was included. This wasn't installed over an old OS, but from the first boot up there have been problems. It is almost daily sending MS messages about why some program didn't work (of course, I never get any fixes back from them). It won't shut down (I have to manually turn the computer off). I've upgraded with all the latest patches, and it is still nothing but trouble. I'm planning on starting over and installing Windows 2000, which isn't nearly as good as Linux, but I have software I have to run on a Windows machine. Avoid XP is my advice. On Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 4:48 am, NR wrote: >Oddly enough, I've never had a SINGLE problem w/ WinXP. No crashes, no hardware >conflicts, no instability, EVER, because - as you SHOULD do when installing a new >OS - I formatted my system drive and did a CLEAN install. Installing over a previous >version of the OS, such as 95, 98 or 2000, will cause nothing but problems - and >Windows isn't the only OS that has problems when doing this, I've had the same issues >w/ MacOS (including OSX...had to do a format and clean install of THAT) & Linux (RedHat >& Caldera). > >Using multiple small libraries (.dlls) is the most efficient way to develop a product >such as an OS. This way, 3rd-party developers only have to call the libraries needed >by their app, giving them a much lower memory footprint when running. Same w/ the >OS: having a big 50MB library of code to access essential features means 50 more >MB of RAM the OS is using to run - memory better used by programs. Plus, having >multiple smaller libraries (as MacOS, OSX, Linux, WinNT, BeOS, NeXT, Sun, Unix, Irix, >etc.) does makes it easier to update the OS between versions and when issuing service >or bug patches. I can't believe a "Pro" computer user would claim having one big >library, or rolling it all directly into the OS - a total nightmare - is a GOOD thing. > Hell, even applications have gone the rough of dynamic linked libraries; apps such >as Photoshop used to be more central-repository oriented, and in recent years have >split off this code into multiple, well thought-out, related libraries for the reasons >listed above. Tsk Tsk. > >You have old hardware? Upgrade. OS developers shouldn't be forced to deal w/ 5yr-old, >or even older, hardware forever. Legacy support can only go so far and stil allow >innovations & updates without creating what the previous poster dubbing "spaghetti >code." [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 1:49 am Posted by michael (1 messages posted) 1.Differencens between win 2000 and win xp 2. i want to know how to install a loal area network, maintenance,configuration and troubleshooting On Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 5:21 pm, Kane wrote: > > >WIN XP HOME EDITION ANYWAY IS ~~~ HYPE!!!! > >I tried to use the classic version of Xp and it locks up. >The user interface does look like a Walt Disney cartoon. I >defraged 5 times to group the files and it crashed. >XP takes for ever to shut down. >Clean inst~~~ed 3 times for it to run properly. >XP wont accept an updated driver for my ethernet card -Im still using my lynksys >v4 >It wont accept the driver for my monitor. >XP corrupted my norton antivirus2002 files. >(It addressed this on power-up). >There are so many complaints that Xp has an send error report when >an error happens. >I FEEL LIKE MY COMPUTER IS A GUINEA PIG FOR WINXP TECHS TO SOLVE THE >SCREWED UP ISSUES WITH XP BY GATHERING ~~~ ERRORS AND MAKING PATCHES AND >UP DATES!!! >SHIT - GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I have a 950Mhz cpu with 512 mbs of ram >a savage pro 3 graphics card and sound max digital sound card so yea it aint my comp!!!!!!!!!!! > >DISMAYED AND WANTING TO KICK SOME ASS, > >KOAHEKILI [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 12:31 am Posted by Arivoli (1 messages posted) For me Windows XP pro is working just fine enough, only thing being that the user must know how to keep the system free from clutter. The downside with XP is that it cannot fix or maintain itself. It has to be cared for. For those who need to run XP free from problems, dont forget to take care of it by regularly removing the temporary files and cleaning/compacting the registry with all the freewares available on the Internet. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 5:29 pm Posted by seeker (7 messages posted) it's nice to see this thread continue to run. The experience to be shared is that, on my home-built machine, I loaded XPpro over WIN2000pro Had no problems running over the old OS, 2000pro, HOWEVER, became very unhappy with support from MS when I taught my son to build his machine then my grandson same thing. After a nightmare of trying to network these three machines at the same physical location I finally gave up and reloaded these machines with WIN2000 pro from my original machine. This solved all our problems. Also had a great deal of difficulty with MS over the issue of changing hardware once a week. We are all tinkerers and like to play inside the machine. This attitude screams out for learning a linux distro but the ones I've tried have been difficult for me to adapt to. I did not come to the puter world till after DOS was passe. Also, on behalf of those who may not want to tinker and believe that what they pay for should be close to flawless out of the box I must concur. A lot of money is being made by aftermarket techs dealing with XP. If it was a new car the government would be all over it. For now my 2000Pro is working flawlessly as it has for three years on my machines and it does not care how often I change my hardware. On Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 12:31 am, Arivoli wrote: >For me Windows XP pro is working just fine enough, only thing being that the user >must know how to keep the system free from clutter. The downside with XP is that >it cannot fix or maintain itself. It has to be cared for. For those who need to run >XP free from problems, dont forget to take care of it by regularly removing the temporary >files and cleaning/compacting the registry with all the freewares available on the >Internet. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 4:49 pm Posted by UNKNOWN (1 messages posted) GET A NEW COMPUTER RETARD!! On Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 5:21 pm, Kane wrote: > > >WIN XP HOME EDITION ANYWAY IS ~~~ HYPE!!!! > >I tried to use the classic version of Xp and it locks up. >The user interface does look like a Walt Disney cartoon. I >defraged 5 times to group the files and it crashed. >XP takes for ever to shut down. >Clean inst~~~ed 3 times for it to run properly. >XP wont accept an updated driver for my ethernet card -Im still using my lynksys >v4 >It wont accept the driver for my monitor. >XP corrupted my norton antivirus2002 files. >(It addressed this on power-up). >There are so many complaints that Xp has an send error report when >an error happens. >I FEEL LIKE MY COMPUTER IS A GUINEA PIG FOR WINXP TECHS TO SOLVE THE >SCREWED UP ISSUES WITH XP BY GATHERING ~~~ ERRORS AND MAKING PATCHES AND >UP DATES!!! >SHIT - GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >I have a 950Mhz cpu with 512 mbs of ram >a savage pro 3 graphics card and sound max digital sound card so yea it aint my comp!!!!!!!!!!! > >DISMAYED AND WANTING TO KICK SOME ASS, > >KOAHEKILI [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum