I signed up for the pre-release program and I hope to be trying it within the next couple of weeks. I have been hearing a lot of conflicting info from both sides on it. Do any dopers use it right now and what do you think?
It’s by Microsoft – therefore, it sucks. 
(Hey, somebody had to say it… 
)
According to this link, http://grc.com/dos/winxp.htm, WinXP will include “Full Raw Sockets”. Essentially, this will allow a user to arbitrarily create and send data over a network. The biggest problem, according to the article, is the ability for WinXP systems to conduct denial-of-service attacks with ease. Because the outgoing data bypasses the normal networking software, outgoing data doesn’t have to follow standard protocols, possibly making an attack hard or impossible to trace or filter out.
I might consider buying a copy once a decent crack is out to remove the copy protection/activation fiasco. I hear the core is really good and it has some neat stuff buried in amongst the scary M$ crap.
I started a thread on this topic in Great Debates awhile back. You might want to check it out. I have to admit that the thing degenerated into name calling fairly rapidly (and yes, somebody did end up going to the Pit over it), but excluding a certain poster, there’s generally some good information to be had about XP.
The biggest benefit of XP is that it’s, by far (if the Beta’s are any indication), the most stable form of Windows since… well… a long time (I don’t remember 3.x very well). Since 95, at least.
The biggest “drawback” (although, I think, most consumers won’t even notice this) is the copy-protection scheme. Why do I say most users won’t even notice it? Because few computer users actually open up their case for upgrades… they send it all back to the store to do that. So they won’t be faced with having to call MS Customer Service five times a month…
We should be getting the latest Beta version within the next few days.
I’m not so sure about that. Almost everybody I know either does thier own upgrades or bribes a knowledgable friend to do it for them.
Well I just installed it. Man, how easy. I was a little astounded by not having to install any drivers… every damn thing was recognized and installed themselves (well, except my Voodoo5, but I knew it wouldn’t. I had to use the Win2K drivers and it went without a hitch).
I am a little indifferent with the new desktop, it will take some getting used too. I have to play with it now and check out all the goodies. I think I will get more RAM and jump it up the 3/4GB of RAM since XP can use it.
I still can’t get over how painless it was to setup… boot from the CD and let 'er go.
Hey Bernse did it take up the 1 gig of hard drive space that its supposed to?
The only software I have installed is a DVD player (the one that comes with it is kinda cheesy)
Right now, my C: drive has 1.78GB used. I would guess the DVD player is maybe a 200MB or so (powerDVD).
I usually run a real lean windows setup (my 98 was just over 200MB) so I may try to trim some of the fat off of this one, but I am unsure as to how much I can. Probably not a whole hell of a lot.
I would say a good guess is bare minumum 1GB more than a typical Win98SE install. I guess another thing to remeber though, these downloads are for XP Professional and not XP Home. Home may indeed be a bit smaller, but I can’t see it being a lot smaller.
bernse from what I understand, XP forces you to keep 1 gig of it on your drive! Which to my mind, totally blows chunks. Because that means the next program you buy, is gonna be another gig’er, and so on, until you have to shell out the dough for a bigger drive. And truthfully, in most cases, I can’t see what the increase in program size trully accomplishes. An odd improvement here or there, but not enough to justify doubling or tripling the program size.
Isn’t it funny that people wow at the fixes Microsoft makes to their programs, somehow overlooking that they made the problem in the first place?
Well, I think it is.
If you want to see a computer that runs an incredible OS (I haven’t crashed since March(!!!)), stroll down to your favorite computer store and check out an Apple running Mac OS X. Now THAT is an incredible peice of software.
I’m just amused that bernse cites the ease of installation as the best aspect of Windows XP.
“Boot from the CD and let 'er go” … I mean, isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be?
Yup. It comes into your home, points a gun at your head, and says, “If you delete any more files, I’m a-gonna put a bullet in yer head, varmint. Then I’m gonna shoot yer pa, and yer ma, and your hamster, Chester.”
Why does it mean that the next program you buy will have to take up another gig? Windows XP is designed to run smoothly. In order to do this, it requires 1 gig of hard drive space. If you would rather have a glitchy operating system, you can always go back to 95.
It’s all part of Microsoft’s scheme to force you to buy Microsoft-brand hard drives.
Wait…
Which just goes to show you – people are used to expecting pain from Windows. What does that tell you?
I think the biggest issue will be the copy protection/activation stuff. I’ve already read news (from a mailing list I’m on) of somebody whose machine popped up and said he must login and re-activate his copy of Office XP or else it would go into Reduced Functionality Mode. At a very inconvenient time, no less – on the airplane on a business trip with the install CD back at home…
Spoofe
*The biggest benefit of XP is that it’s, by far (if the Beta’s are any indication), the most stable form of Windows since… well… a long time *
Of course, it wouldn’t have to reach far to achieve that milestone. 
My Windows machine (Win 98) is crashed rather frequently by… hold on, wait for it… third party software? Nope… Windows Media Player. You’d think their OS could avoid conflicting with their own sofwtare…
Sure. The problem with PCs is that there is litterly millions of different configs it could have been set up as. Unlike a Mac, which has, well, significantly fewer possible hardware combos.
I am just amazed how well it works is all.
I still think I may go back to Win98 though. It was always very stable for me. As a matter of fact, I can’t remember the last time it crashed on me.
This is kind of neat to try though.
SPOOFE, yer funny, pal. Let me rephrase myself, “From what I understand XP requires 1 gig of drive space.” Ya happy?
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure you will), but there are other OSs that don’t require 1 gig and aren’t described as “crash happy.” (Uh, Linux, perhaps? Mac OS any version? Ring any bells?)
And I would run Win 95 if I could (its a lot more stable than 98’s been on my machine), but even with downloading the USB patches for 95 I couldn’t get the USB ports to work on my machine, so I had to go for 98.
Want to know why Windows XP requires 1.5 MB of HDD space? Because it is more compatible with EVERYTHING than ANY Linux or Mac product. The more compatibility = The more required code = more required space.
MS has had OSes that aren’t “crash happy”, and the was the NT 4.0/2k line of products. They are entirely on par with MacOS and Linux.
Oh yeah, I forgot.
bernse, you might want to check The Windows Supersitefor tips and infor about Windows XP.
For example, it has a method for removing the “Shared documents” folders in My Computer so it doesn’t get all clunky as you add multiple users.
Since when has XP been described as “crash happy”?