I’m going to stick with Win 98SE for now. It’s been really stable for me and I’ve read enough (on this board alone) to make me want to wait on XP.
A small reminder.
This is NOT the BBQ Pit or Great debates. This forum is for your opinions on the topic presented, not your opinions on each other’s opinions.
I think the single defining event that made me lose respect for Microsoft programming skill was when I noticed that win98se still has the windows 3.1 file manager program (type winfile at the run box to see it).
I highly doubt that 1.5 gb of hard drive space is for “compatibility” reasons. I think it’s just good old-fashioned software bloat. Contemptible.
slortar:
How exactly does the inclusion of winfile.exe reflect poorly on Microsoft’s programming skill? The OS in no way depends on it; it’s just included for those that prefer the old File Manager to Explorer.
Oh, I doubt all of it is software bloat. Some of it is probably monopoly-enforcing code, such as “distort MP3s so they sound crummy and encourage the user to use Windows Media Player instead” code, or the “Randomly screw up AOL Instant Messenger and encourage the user to use Microsoft Instant Messenger instead” code, or “Disable Kodak’s digital camera software and enable Microsoft’s photo-ordering software instead” code, or…
Do you honestly know anyone who prefers to use the old file manager? If you think about it, you will realize that it is just about completely useless on any system with long file names, which means all versions of Windows since 95. It is bloat in the sense that it is useless ballast that should have been dumped long ago. Right you are that the OS doesn’t depend on it. The OS doesn’t need a utility program that can’t even show complete file names. Neither do you. So what is it still doing in the installation routine of newer Windows versions?
As for XP requiring a gigabyte or more space on your hard drive, I expect that it is because MS copies basically the whole setup CD onto your hard disk. This is for the convenience of those users who install new hardware and don’t want to have to go find the original CD. You know, the same users who never install new hardware so that the copy protection isn’t a problem. Sheesh.
Good luck to all my PC-using colleagues on the board! Let’s see, XP is the first true consumer version of Windows NT / Windows 2000, is that correct? (as opposed to being yet another iteration of 95, 98, ME series)
Maybe I’ll pick up a copy and try it out in VPC to get a sense of what it’s like!
Prefers to? No. Has to? Yes.
I had to create an AppleTalk share recently in WinNT 4. I had to do so via the File Manager, not Explorer.
Actually, that functionality has come in really handy in troubleshooting various, usually virus-related problems in my experience. If you substitute “progman.exe” for “explorer.exe” on the SHELL= line of your system.ini, you boot up into what looks like win3.11. Not as lean as Safe Mode, not as nice as the Win98 interface, but it is a graphic interface with cd-rom support, which can make a huge difference when you need to, say, extract replacement files after a virus has wiped out some key portions of the OS.
Uh…I highly doubt that there is much software bloat so far.
XP is so disk space intensive because of several things. First is the Compatability Mode, which allows you to run older, previously incompatible files on XP. It does so by mimicking the Registries of their respective versions of Windows. Second, the kernel is based on 2000, which also had a large installation requirement (well, relative to other versions of Windows). The third reason is because Microsoft is including drivers for thousands and thousands of hardware devices. For example, it came with the latest Detonator 10 (beta) drivers that drastically increases the capabilities of any Nvidia graphics card (It increased the performance on my 64 MB GeForce 2 by %60).
Recently Windows 2000 has been giving me trouble, refusing to recognize by cdrom drives. Since I was facing a complete re-install, I figured, what the hell, I’ll try upgrading to XP. I snagged the CD image of the latest build, 2505, from a newsgroup. I loathed the thought of having to fool around with that whole Product Activation nonsense, but fortunately the ever-so-quick hacker community had come to my rescue, and I was able to patch the image file and remove it entirely. 15 minutes of CD burn time later and boom–hassle free WinXP.
When it was finally installed, my delight at seeing that it cleared up my CDROM problems was offset by the fact not a single program I had installed on Win2k had carried over to WinXP–all of the desktop icons, and all of the shortcuts in the Start Menu were gone. The programs were still there, but it was like I had just copied them off a drive. So I had no alternative but to laboriously re-install every single program I owned. Groan…
WinXP is undeniably pretty. I opted for the “Silver” theme, which gave all the windows and menus a pleasing white and grey cast. In fact, the form box I’m typing this in also looks great: the checkboxes below are shaded with a pale green check mark, while the buttons have rounded corners, a shaded, convex appearance that gets highlighted with a gentle orange outline.
Surprisingly, I’ve encountered very few compatibility problems. All of my hardware works fine, and my only software problem was with Macromedia Ultradev 4, which refused to run in XP. I changed its Compatibility mode to Windows 2000 and it suddenly worked again.
WinXP is definitely a space hog. The windows folder on my machine takes up 1.04 GB. It also eats up RAM like crazy–no big deal for me, as I got 512MB on this machine, but it’ll definitely impact users of older machines.
So far, I tentatively give WinXP a thumbs up, but I’ll have to use it for a couple more weeks before I have an informed opinion.
I should say inflammatory things more often. Interesting responses. 
I still maintain my position about software bloat, though. Microsoft’s newer releases remind me of the final days of Netscape. If you remember, Netscape kept releasing new versions of their browser that were essentially extended versions of their older core. After a while, what resulted was a program that took forever to load and wouldn’t run well for extended periods in a system with less than 32 mb of ram, and that’s being generous. Recently, icab released a browser that does exactly the same thing (admittedly minus e-mail, java and newsreader) with much better html 4.0 compliance and speed and runs within 4 mb of ram (on a mac).
For a Microsoft-oriented example, take the Macintosh OS version of Office 98. It’s basically a windows emulator with Office hardwired into it. From everything I hear about MS this is pretty typical. Take something old, update the GUI and chicken-wire whatever new programming it takes to add compatibility and hope nobody notices…I wish I could find some cites, but most of the stuff I remember hearing was in articles on legacy code dug up during the y2k scare.
IANAOU (I am not an Office user) but from the reviews in MacAddict and MacWorld and MacWeek and whatnot, I thought that while this was true for the version of Office that preceded it, Office 98 (and Office 2001) were touted as having been “rebuilt from the ground up with the Mac in mind”, and received a lot of good Mac press for speed and Mac-like interface and functionality.
So if I ever take leave of my senses and decide to chuck Nisus Writer, or decide that I really need an Office Assistant second-guessing what I’m doing as I type, I’ll look into it.
So what games are y’all running under XP? Anything blow up on you?
I’m particularly interested in hearing about Diablo II… it keeps crashing on my Windows ME POC.
I’m pretty sure it was a version of office after 95 but less than 2k and since 97 is win only, I assumed I was remembering '98.
In fact, I believe I got the information from a review of NisusWriter (lovely program, btw–makes me wish my primary writing platform was a mac at times).
Incidentally, I want to apologize for any drunken flailings I may commit on this thread–I’m sublimating anger from the delays in getting my DSL hookup. I assume when I get my broadband internet connection up and running, my hatred of Microsoft will subside.
Well, let’s see…I’ll check the games I have installed right now…
Fallout 2
Descent 3
Diablo II Expansion
Freespace
Freespace 2
Rebellion
Worms Armageddon
Brood War
Unreal Tournament
Half-Life and Opposing Forces
Warcraft II
Mechwarrior 2 and Ghost Bear’s Legacy
Mechwarrior 3
Gabriel Knight: Sins Of The Fathers
Well, that’s a pretty healthy mix of recent games and older games. Warcraft II, Gabriel Knight, and Mech2/GBL were the only games I had to run in compatibility mode. Diablo II Expansion also runs a little slow sometimes at 800x600 resolution.
I don’t play all those games, but what I did as soon as I got XP was to throw all the software I have at it. Most of it worked, too.
So we know that Bernse is running mondo RAM to use XP - what about other folks? Jeez, way back in January 256 megs sounded pretty vasty to me, but now I’m wondering. I’m not a happy user of Me, so I’ve rather been looking forward to XP (Bill’s monopomegalomaniacalistic tendencies notwithstanding). I really don’t want to have to buy more RAM, too.
Eh. Ram is cheap. Check Pricewatch.com–you should be able to double or triple your memory for pocket change (think less than 20 or 30 bucks).
Update
I re-installed Win98SE. WinXP does not support my V5500 under OpenGL. D3D games/sims worked fine, but since a lot of the software I am using now uses it and not D3D I switched back. I did like the OS a lot though.
As soon as I buy that GF3 its going back on the HD.
OxyMoron: I first started running XP with 192 MB of RAM. It ran fairly well, but there was a huge speed increase when I added more RAM.
bernse: You could always dual boot (if you have the HDD space). I dual booted with 98 SE, but eventually I stopped using 98 altogether.
I don’t know why OpenGL doesn’t work…then again, I’ve never liked Voodoo cards. 