Win XP - Good or Bad?

Splodginator · Post by **Splodginator** » Thu May 08, 2003 2:39 am

Why XP is the worst OS EVER!
1. Incompatible with DOS
2. 1GHz with XP is slower than Windows 98 with a 233MHz
3. Windows XP Style has ONLY THREE colour themes
4. Its riddled with bugs
5. Its "program compatibility" should be called "program incompatibility"
6. XP Home is almost Shareware-like - it shows XP Professional Features that cannot be used
7. It removes some functionality from previous versions of Windows

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Thu May 08, 2003 8:55 am

Why XP is underrated:

With the right tweaking, it's DAMN fast.
I've gotten more games to run better under XP than other Windows.
Used correctly, there are few games that it cannot run.
You almost NEVER get errors.
Multiple users are a breeze.
The themes are easily made and changed.
Any moron can use it.
It keeps system reasources low.
It's Ctrl-Alt-Delete menu is beyond descriptive and excellent.
Program compatibility allows me to run games I had trouble running on the actual OS, like Win95.

Sounds to me like you haven't used XP, only heard some people's gripes.

Post by **wardrich** » Thu May 08, 2003 10:03 am

John The Ax wrote:Multiple users are a breeze.

and still just as useless as before.

as for the task manager, it is really good, but it was around with w2k.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Thu May 08, 2003 1:42 pm

I thjought my pII MMX went unusualy fast in ME and 98SE, but I was amazed at its speed in XP. Its even faster. I havent had any errors that I can remember with this OS at all, and the only game I cant get to run is GTA2.

I use multiple users on here. That way, my little brother and sister cant see my files, delete, or download anything. And they don't change the background to anything, since everyone gets their own. And they can't install, so my pc isn't loaded with crap.

Zerox12 · Post by **Zerox12** » Thu May 08, 2003 5:02 pm

I am actually going to have to go anti XP here.

*takes a drink*

[rant]

1. Yes multiple users are easy, but they are rather pointless.
2. Ever try to install a starcraft mod on XP? Don't. I had the hardest time installing a few mods on my dad's computer when i was on vacation. It does not like it at all. Way to many errors. With ME I had no errors at all.
3. System Resource Slayer, atleast from what I remember. Sure it looks nice, but beauty comes at a price, and that's speed.
4. I find it alot more annoying to navigate. More annoying than 95 through ME.

[/rant]

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Thu May 08, 2003 5:43 pm

2. Ever try to install a starcraft mod on XP? Don't. I had the hardest time installing a few mods on my dad's computer when i was on vacation. It does not like it at all. Way to many errors. With ME I had no errors at all.

It works fine for me....

3. System Resource Slayer, atleast from what I remember. Sure it looks nice, but beauty comes at a price, and that's speed.

Dead wrong. XP is the fastest thing I've ever seen......if you use the classic windows theme.

4. I find it alot more annoying to navigate. More annoying than 95 through ME.

There is an option which let's you use a classic Windows theme and start menu. I have it set as such, and it feels just lik 98.

Splodginator · Post by **Splodginator** » Thu May 08, 2003 5:49 pm

I use XP with a 1.1GHz Celeron Processor and 128MB RAM. With Multiple accounts, its slower than 98 with 233MHz with multiple accounts. It is always freezing. Theme Park World crashes immediatly when I run it with Compatibility Mode. And XP thinks some of my CD's are blank, when 98 will read them easily.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Thu May 08, 2003 6:32 pm

I dunno... my XP is the family computer and it usually takes 2-3 minutes to boot up... this is compared to a 20-sec boot-up from scratch (turn it on) with my 98SE. As you can understand... I have little tolerence for slow things.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Thu May 08, 2003 7:39 pm

win2k is the only version of NT I use, and its not too slow either. You just have to make sure a NT machine has more memory then a win 9x machine since it really needs more memory.

If you play any games I recommend windows 98SE.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Thu May 08, 2003 7:51 pm

It takes you three minutes to boot XP? Takes me about 10-20 seconds. It's so much faster than my 95.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Thu May 08, 2003 7:57 pm

John The Ax wrote:It takes you three minutes to boot XP? Takes me about 10-20 seconds. It's so much faster than my 95.

Maybe he has the present day equivalent of what packard bell used to load on their pc. So much crap that even a clean install using their install cd would bog down loading on first starup. Most likely he is very low on ram.

nastypoisonspikes · Post by **nastypoisonspikes** » Fri May 09, 2003 4:48 am

I've got XP Home, even if it is just a little restrictive, I quite like it. My boot up time is also something like 10-20 seconds ... Dogbreath's computer might be weird.

I also have to pleasure of being dual booted with Win98, although I've got no idea about how it install Windows on it; it's in MSDOS. Rather than asking you here and spoil this topic, I'll make a new one.

Post by **wardrich** » Fri May 09, 2003 7:42 am

Zerox12 wrote:I am actually going to have to go anti XP here.

*takes a drink*

[rant]

1. Yes multiple users are easy, but they are rather pointless.
2. Ever try to install a starcraft mod on XP? Don't. I had the hardest time installing a few mods on my dad's computer when i was on vacation. It does not like it at all. Way to many errors. With ME I had no errors at all.
3. System Resource Slayer, atleast from what I remember. Sure it looks nice, but beauty comes at a price, and that's speed.
4. I find it alot more annoying to navigate. More annoying than 95 through ME.

[/rant]

i agree (more or less) If XP is eating up your memmory, i suggest you reformat, and add another partition (so that you have a C drive and a E drive) Put XP on the C drive, and install everything else on the E. Make each partition equal to 20 gigs. I wouldn't reccomend installing XP on anything less than a 40 gig harddrive.

-Richard-

Post by **Dogbreath** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:01 pm

It's my mom's computer, not mine so I don't have control over the layout.

Actually, it's Pentium 4 processer, 3 GH, 512 MB ram, 100 GB HDD. It's just that XP has so much crap installed by Microsoft that it takes forever to do anything.

In addition to this, it doesn't have DOS and refuses to play half of all DOS games... so it's worthless IMO.

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Fri May 09, 2003 2:00 pm

DB, did you buy it brand name, or did you build it yourself?

>split from other topic<

Post by **Dogbreath** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:05 pm

This is the 3rd time I'm gunna say this...

IT'S NOT MINE! I couldn't have built it. But yes, my mom went to the store and bought a Dell of all things... despite my frantic pleas.

As far as my Win98SE: yes, I built that one myself and installed it from a format disk.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:35 pm

Whaddya mean? Mine's a Dell, and it's fast as hell. Don't know what your problem is.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:40 pm

Ooooooooooohhhh boy.

Maybe you were lucky enough to get a good one, but Dells usually are, for the most part, horrid. The hardware is packed together too tightly in the computer, sometimes it's damaged, and usually you get a shitload of unwanted software. How could you call them *fast*?

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Fri May 09, 2003 4:04 pm

My dad ordered his as a company computer. Probably better-made. I mean, GE is one company you don't want to sell shit computers to.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sat May 10, 2003 1:16 pm

Yeah, but their home computers are atrocious... maybe because they believe they can trick computer-illiterate people into believing that they are getting a good one...

DOS Games Discussion

Win XP - Good or Bad?

Microsoft Bashing