|
Yeah so the release of XP is here and I can say that I am really not impressed I was on the trail comity testing XP before it hit stores. There are already big problems that I have noticed and will state below to see if anyone else agrees with me.
1) The media has it all wrong, XP is NOT a complete rewrite, it is based off of the NT technology like Windows 2000. If anyone cares to completely disagree with me you can do many things to prove this fact, one being as simple as listen to Bill Gates speech at the XP release party. There are other things you can do, which I will not get into but the simple fact is that it is NOT a complete rewrite.
2) My biggest problem is XP treats the user like they have never seen a computer before. With all of it's eye candy and annoying Microsoft quarks, where it wants to be your best friend and do everything for you. Well this may be OK for the person who knows very little about a computer and just wants to browse the Internet and use Word, this totally ignores the Power User. No power user wants all that extra crap, because it takes twice as long to do or find something.
3) It comes down to the fact that XP is Windows 2000 with a bunch of eye candy, and really isn't worth it for any novice computer user. It also doesn't seem like the best developing environment .I really don' care for all of those extra things that try to be helpful, but really make it worse.
I realize that this is just my opinion, and many may disagree with me... I respect you opinion so I ask the same about mine. I am not trying to start some "XP - NO XP" war, just using this forums for what it seems to be placed here for. So for me Windows 2000 is just fine, I think the biggest mistake on Microsoft's part is while they were making this new operating system to be easier than ever, they forgot about the people that actually know how to type more than 3 words per minute. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
1) The media has it all wrong, XP is NOT a complete rewrite, it is based off of the NT technology like Windows 2000. If anyone cares to completely disagree with me you can do many things to prove this fact, one being as simple as listen to Bill Gates speech at the XP release party. There are other things you can do, which I will not get into but the simple fact is that it is NOT a complete rewrite.
I was never under the impression that it was. Everything I read said that XP would be based off of the NT/2000 code base. Where did you hear/read this?
2) My biggest problem is XP treats the user like they have never seen a computer before. With all of it's eye candy and annoying Microsoft quarks, where it wants to be your best friend and do everything for you. Well this may be OK for the person who knows very little about a computer and just wants to browse the Internet and use Word, this totally ignores the Power User. No power user wants all that extra crap, because it takes twice as long to do or find something.
I think it's a safe bet that there are far fewer power users in the market than there are every day Joe Schmoes. Like everything else MS does, this is simply smart business - go after the largest market. I haven't actually used XP yet, but I understand you can revert to the "classic" Windows 2000 interface if you don't like all of that bubbly crap.
3) It comes down to the fact that XP is Windows 2000 with a bunch of eye candy,...
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
... and really isn't worth it for any novice computer user. It also doesn't seem like the best developing environment .I really don' care for all of those extra things that try to be helpful, but really make it worse.
Don't forget about the added stability of the NT code base! Sure, it's not crash proof, but nothing is. Compared to the 9x code base, it is pure bliss to use. Novices might not appreciate that as much as the pretty colors, but I'm sure they will enjoy not having to reboot every time they sneeze.
As for the development environment, my gut instinct is that it will be superior because they have had two years to refine features and add new ones, but I like I said earlier, I have yet to install and work with XP.
My $0.02.
Jon Sagara
|
|
|
|
|
I have searched for places where I have seen people state that XP is a complete rewrite but I can't find any at the moment. It's one of those things yo ucan't find whn you need it. But I have heard and seen people at Staples, Best Buy, say that is was a complete rewrite. Pretty much idiots who think that they know everything about computers because they know where the start menu is. But I will post something if I need.
As for changing the way it looks in XP, that's fine but that doesn't change the fact that it's XP. Little thing like the huge side window on explorer that wnats to be your best friend when all you wnat to do is search your dam hard drive. Little things like that where XP makes it so difficult to do something so easy. It really has nothing with the way XP looks, it's more how Microsoft intregrated everything to be so "user friendly"... just not worth it for me.
XP is a lot more stabile, so is Windows 2000...thanks to NT technology... that is one good thing XP offers that 95/98/ME etc. couldn't. I think that will help down the road. But I undertstand that Microsoft will go after the bigger market, which is people who are not power users. But I think it's crappy that they are ignoring them all together. NT, and 2000 were geared toward buss. and power users, but after this there is no real upgrade from NT. Which I hink is a really bad move in Mirosofts part. They shouldn't block them all out. But whatever... conform... commit... and enjoy... that should be the new Microsofts logo.
Cheers everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
But I think it's crappy that they are ignoring them all together. NT, and 2000 were geared toward buss. and power users, but after this there is no real upgrade from NT.
Though it's not really an <quote>upgrade</quote>, XP Pro is the next incarnation of Windows 2000 Pro. I don't know the beef on whether/when MS will release server editions, but I can only assume they will in the near future. They haven't forgotten about us poor power user types! 
Jon Sagara
|
|
|
|
|
>So for me Windows 2000 is just fine, I think the biggest mistake on Microsoft's part is while >they were making this new operating system to be easier than ever, they forgot about the people >that actually know how to type more than 3 words per minute. Cheers!
I thought that to start with. However after using XP for just over a week it feels like I've been using it for ever.
>2) My biggest problem is XP treats the user like they have never seen a computer before. With >all of it's eye candy and annoying Microsoft quarks, where it wants to be your best friend and >do everything for you. Well this may be OK for the person who knows very little about a computer >and just wants to browse the Internet and use Word, this totally ignores the Power User. No >power user wants all that extra crap, because it takes twice as long to do or find something.
You can always turn it back to the old shell interface which I was tempted to do, but the new interface has grown on me. What areas are you having problems with?
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
> What areas are you having problems with?
The fact that it's from Microsoft.
"...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I have searched for places where I have seen people state that XP is a complete rewrite but I can't find any at the moment. It's one of those things yo ucan't find whn you need it. But I have heard and seen people at Staples, Best Buy, say that is was a complete rewrite. Pretty much idiots who think that they know everything about computers because they know where the start menu is. But I will post something if I need.
As for changing the way it looks in XP, that's fine but that doesn't change the fact that it's XP. Little thing like the huge side window on explorer that wnats to be your best friend when all you wnat to do is search your dam hard drive. Little things like that where XP makes it so difficult to do something so easy. It really has nothing with the way XP looks, it's more how Microsoft intregrated everything to be so "user friendly"... just not worth it for me.
XP is a lot more stabile, so is Windows 2000...thanks to NT technology... that is one good thing XP offers that 95/98/ME etc. couldn't. I think that will help down the road. But I undertstand that Microsoft will go after the bigger market, which is people who are not power users. But I think it's crappy that they are ignoring them all together. NT, and 2000 were geared toward buss. and power users, but after this there is no real upgrade from NT. Which I hink is a really bad move in Mirosofts part. They shouldn't block them all out. But whatever... conform... commit... and enjoy... that should be the new Microsofts logo.
Cheers everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
What you need to consider is that the people who know how to use computers already are, M$ will grow their business by making it easy for more and more people to do so. I didn't realise anyone was claiming XP is a rewrite, I believe it identifies itself as NT 5.1.
I love XP, and moved from 2000 as my development environment because I find a lot of the new stuff makes the OS nicer to use, and ultimately, how is being a bit prettier a bad thing, I'm looking at VC either way. If it takes you twice as long to do anything then you're either not a power user ( because you're easily confused ) or you don't have a real development machine. I find when I do interact with the OS, it's quicker if anything with XP.
Christian
After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it strange that customers that have bought Windows XP must activate the software while others that uses an illegal copy (eg. from MSDN subscription) doesn't have to activate?
|
|
|
|
|
But they *do* have to activate the msdn version (at least, that's what I was told). Is this wrong?
"...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Thet's right, you have to activate the MSDN version, but you can do it from 10 different computers...
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using XP for about a month, and it is officially launched in the UK today. So it amused me somewhat to get an auto update message informing me that the first hotfixes are available for download today!
Surely that's a record - the first patch out on the day of release!
How is everybody finding XP anyway?
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
> How is everybody finding XP anyway?
I'd like to say "By lifting the lid on a garbage can, and wadayaknow - there it is!"
Unfortunately, Microsoft has found a whole flock of brown-nosing pseudo-techies who think they know the score, spouting off about how easy it is to use and how automatic everything is, and how pretty it is. The really funny part is when they get asked about the activation thing, the pseudo-techies skirt over it.
I hate shills...
XP = Xcrement Pile
To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know whether to update or not ...
|
|
|
|
|
You have until 2006 to make up your mind. By then, they will have dropped all support for Windows 2000, and nobody will be making drivers for it either.
To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say that I have been running XP since RC1, and have now been running the final code for about a month, and I just love it
But just keep talking, john, I have to laugh at bit, you don't even try it before you hate it.
Talk about hate things just because you want to hate them, not because there's any reason. 
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
I don't need to try it. It's Windows. It's always the same. I don't want all the frills they're selling. I don't want bundled half-ass versions of third-party applications. I don't need the OS to be "easier", prettier, or do things "automatically" for me. I don't want to have to consider my allocation of online activations every time I change something in the computer. I don't want to pay $300 for an OS that should only cost $50. I don't want to be forced to trash perfectly good hardware simply because the OS doesn't (and won't ever) have drivers available for it. I don't want to hate it, but Microsoft has forced me to do so.
Just in case you didn't already know - I voted for the "I'll never use it" option.
To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I don't need to try it. It's Windows. It's always the same.
You, that's why I love it. I have been using NT since NT 4.0 was released. I don't like the 9x/ME stuff, but NT rocks.
(WinXP == NT 5.1)
I don't want to be forced to trash perfectly good hardware simply because the OS doesn't (and won't ever) have drivers available for it.
Err, that's why you use Linux?
I mean, one of the biggest problems for Linux is lack of drivers for special hardware...
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest problems for Linux is getting any drivers written at all.
The beauty of it is that 20 years from now, you'll still be able to use a Rendition card (introduced in 1994-96) on Linux, but as of Windows 2000, you can't use that card with accelerated drivers.
I really don't understand why drivers become obsolete with every new version of Windows.
Beyond that, why can't we get a serious version of windows for the techies? Why can't I see file attributes in explorer anymore (ever since Win98SE was released)?
XP is crap.
To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Why can't I see file attributes in explorer anymore
I don't know about Win 9x, but I have always been able to see that in NT/2000/XP.
XP is crap
There it is again, you have not even tried it.
XP is soooo great.
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Starting with Win98SE (and including Win98ME, Win2K, and probably XP), you can't see the file attributes in the explorer window (the pane on the right side, when in "detail view" mode).
As far as I can tell, there's no way to turn it on either.
XP is crap.
"...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I had my Win2k explore to show file attributes, I just can't remember how I did it, and I don't have a machine rinning Win2k here at home...
In XP you just right click on the "header field", and select attributes.
XP is great.
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
Its the same with win2k
You can even add you own header fields. Wasnt there an article a couple of months ago that added the ID3 info to the header table for certain folders?
|
|
|
|
|
Why can't I see file attributes in explorer anymore (ever since Win98SE was released)?
Just right click on the column headers and tick 'Attributes'.
--
Andrew.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
=-
