Should I run WinXP?

BeBro · May 22, 2003, 07:36

Yeah, my turn for a computer/OS thread, something totally new

Ok, I run Win2k on an Athlon 1 GHz/768mb RAM. I´m absolutely happy with it, it is the most stable system I ever had.

But I like XP´s cool outfit(s). Are there other significant advantages over Win2k? And how much resources do all these new graphical improvements need? Thing is, I often run a lot of CPU/RAM-intensive stuff at the same time (mainly image processing software and 3d renderer), not to mention the normal stuff (text processor, internet browser).

Would I be able with my current system to use XP´s cool stuff without losing much power for applications? And btw, how big are usual XP installations on the HD?

alva · May 22, 2003, 07:40

That should be enough for XP

-
I just checked it, I have XP on a designated partition (C-drive) and although nothing else is supposed to be there, something always kreeps in

; currently it's 5G ( virtual memory disabled).

Harovan · May 22, 2003, 07:46

The core of WinXP is almost the same as in Win2000, just that it has some neat but unnecessary features, and a "cool outfit" added. This is (among other things) visible in the internal version number (5.0 for 2000, 5.1 for XP). If you think, some marginal changes are worth the money, go for it.

Captain Crunch · May 22, 2003, 07:47

No way. Use Linux.

Adalbertus · May 22, 2003, 08:25

I didn't use Win 2000, only Win98. With XP I got the impression that a lot of configurability is lost (i.e. you have to like what M$ presents you, or you'll have to dig deep into the system). I have to switch the calculator to scientific every time I use it. Older versions remembered the old state.

More annoying to me is that it pretends to be a multi-user system but in this respect it performs poorly. Most non-Microsoft programs cannot be installed in a way that every user accesses their own workspace. Windows XP is 30 years behind Unix. As a single-user system I didn't see major problems, but the network setup at work forces me to a multi-user setup. On the other hand: Why slow down your computer? Aren't there theme packs for Win2000 if you just want to have a different look and feel?

Asher · May 22, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Adalbertus
I didn't use Win 2000, only Win98. With XP I got the impression that a lot of configurability is lost (i.e. you have to like what M$ presents you, or you'll have to dig deep into the system). I have to switch the calculator to scientific every time I use it. Older versions remembered the old state.

This is patently untrue, at least for the Pro version I use. WinXP Pro has all of the features of Win2K Pro plus some new stuff, and Win2K Pro had considerably more features than Win98 (by a longshot). And for the record, my calculator starts up in Scientific mode.

Quote:

More annoying to me is that it pretends to be a multi-user system but in this respect it performs poorly. Most non-Microsoft programs cannot be installed in a way that every user accesses their own workspace.

All programs can be installed in a way that every use access their own workspace, the reason most don't is because they were designed for Win98 or older Windows OSes where there was one workspace...

WinXP fully supports the concept of multiple users and multiple workspaces -- why don't you try using it on a huge network and see how it works.

Quote:

Windows XP is 30 years behind Unix.

It's the other way around -- UNIX is the antiquated design for large mainframes and servers and people don't understand that such a design doesn't work well on the desktop.

Quote:

As a single-user system I didn't see major problems, but the network setup at work forces me to a multi-user setup.

I still don't see your problem -- WinXP's multiuser system is fine. You can do fast switching between users logged in at the same time, an idiot-proof welcome/login screen, etc.

JohnT · May 22, 2003, 09:06

I think that if you're happy, there's no need to shift.

Lefty Scaevola · May 22, 2003, 09:10

"Should I run WinXP? "
Don't do it!!
It will make you impotent, poison you children, make you wife unfaithful,reduce you IQ, and make you dog hate you.

BeBro · May 22, 2003, 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
It will make you impotent, poison you children, make you wife unfaithful,reduce you IQ, and make you dog hate you.

Sounds ok for us polytubbies....

Adalbertus: by cool gfx I mean those fancy (and customizable) XP style taskbar, windows, buttons, icons, etc. Of course I can have different icons or wallpapers for Win2k too, but not the other stuff. There are some solutions for skins available on the web for pre-XP versions, but those I tried didn´t run stable and/or slowed down the system.

Of course, I can live without all that, it just would be nice

Skanky Burns · May 22, 2003, 09:39

Not really worth spending money on though.

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
Adalbertus: by cool gfx I mean those fancy (and customizable) XP style taskbar, windows, buttons, icons, etc. Of course I can have different icons or wallpapers for Win2k too, but not the other stuff. There are some solutions for skins available on the web for pre-XP versions, but those I tried didn´t run stable and/or slowed down the system.

Have you tried Windowblinds? It works well enough for me on the NT-esque systems

Victor Galis · May 23, 2003, 00:31

Microsoft software costs money?

Cruddy · May 23, 2003, 00:40

Hmm... my own argument is that until I NEED XP, I'm sticking with old 98.

It's not as expandable, it's not as pretty, but it does what I need it to, so why change? Until I want to run some NT applications together with some Windows, I don't really see the point.

Worthingtons · May 23, 2003, 00:42

Windows XP will allow the government to control your mind, BeBro

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2003, 00:42

Agreed. As a matter of fact, XP's look is not professional enough for the business environment, anyway.

Asher · May 23, 2003, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Agreed.

He was joking.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, XP's look is not professional enough for the business environment, anyway.

XP's new look was designed around Fitts' Law to make it more functional.

Businesses know how to turn it back to the Windows Classic theme in less than 2 seconds, too.

Imran Siddiqui · May 23, 2003, 00:50

Should you run XP?

Why not? I love it. It runs perfectly on every system I've installed it on.

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2003, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
XP's new look was designed around Fitts' Law to make it more functional.

Since Fitt's Law is a subjective measure, each and every opinion is eqaually valid. Or, in other words, nobody gives a hoot.

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Businesses know how to turn it back to the Windows Classic theme in less than 2 seconds, too.

I was referring to the "Classic" theme.

Nubclear · May 23, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Businesses know how to turn it back to the Windows Classic theme in less than 2 seconds, too.

Where I work, all computers have Windows XP, and the company decided to keep it in the "Fisher-Price" mode cause more employees like it that way.

And its stable enough that you can leave it on for weeks and itll still do what you want it to do

Asher · May 23, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Since Fitt's Law is a subjective measure, each and every opinion is eqaually valid. Or, in other words, nobody gives a hoot.

Fitts' law is not subjective.

It simply states that the lower the distance and the bigger the target area, the less time is required. That's why the Luna interface has bigger buttons. Less distance and bigger area.

Quote:

I was referring to the "Classic" theme.

Huh?
What's wrong with the "Classic" theme that's unsuitable for businesses?

Cruddy · May 23, 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
Windows XP will allow the government to control your mind, BeBro

I thought all Microsoft products and mobile phones did that. Do you mean I've been wearing a steel helmet for the past 3 years for no reason at all?

EDIT: This Fitts Law stuff is all very well, but if you use a trackball it becoms rather meaningless

Adalbertus · May 23, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

All programs can be installed in a way that every use access their own workspace, the reason most don't is because they were designed for Win98 or older Windows OSes where there was one workspace...

WinXP fully supports the concept of multiple users and multiple workspaces -- why don't you try using it on a huge network and see how it works.

You point out the problem: Older applications created for a single workspace. If M$ wants to transform a single- into a multi-user system, they has to take care of such things. You can't change the old application, thus it has to be that the change of the user is transparent to the application. M$ failed here. I had to install Origin (quite recent version) in my user directory to be able to call it as user.
After all, again it looks as another attempt to block off competitors.

Asher · May 23, 2003, 08:54

Programs are designed that way for a reason, if MS forced all programs which was designed to be used across all users rather than individually, it'd cause more problems than it'd solve. It's not MS' problem if you use old software which didn't follow MS' Guide to Windows Programming because the developers were lazy.

Harovan · May 23, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
why don't you try using it on a huge network and see how it works.

Networking abilities are exactly one of the biggest weaknesses of Windows. I have seen WinXP in quite a few (usually 2000-powered) networks, and all of them were a clumsy and unperformant mess, needing full-time service, which alone costs a fortune. Nothing about the "Set up a server and forget about it" charm of the various Unices.

BeBro · May 23, 2003, 09:10

UR, yes I tried Windowblinds long ago, but it didn´t run well. Maybe it was an older version? I also asked for XP here to find out if there are real strong pros (compared to Win2k) except the graphics.

As it looks now, I´ll probably stay with 2k for a while....

Willem · May 23, 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
And btw, how big are usual XP installations on the HD?

I have a 5 gig system partition and I still have about 1.5 left over, using the Home edition.

Willem · May 23, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

It's not as expandable, it's not as pretty, but it does what I need it to, so why change?

Because it's a hell of alot more stable than 98 for one. I haven't had a single problem in a year now, except for my own error, but with 98 it seemed I had a system crash every 3-4 months.

Willem · May 23, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
Do you mean I've been wearing a steel helmet for the past 3 years for no reason at all?

That's right. It was supposed to be aluminum.

Harry Seldon · May 23, 2003, 10:44

XP is the devil's workshop. Stick with 2000; it'll do anything XP can do and it won't send all your info to M$.

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Fitts' law is not subjective.

It simply states that the lower the distance and the bigger the target area, the less time is required. That's why the Luna interface has bigger buttons. Less distance and bigger area.

Hm, the complexity of HCI cannot be covered by any single design principle, esp. one so brief and imprecise.

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Huh?
What's wrong with the "Classic" theme that's unsuitable for businesses?

Still looks too much like a kid's toy.