I was just wondering how folks who have decided (sometimes kicking and screaming) to make the upgrade to XP felt now that we are around six months out from release. I'm really not asking for opinions about Microsoft but how your experience has been with the OS. After intense resistance for months, I upgraded two months ago and...I like it. Not a crash yet and overall a very intuitive and customizable OS. I'm running the Pro version and would like to know what others think. I'm still the pesimist and believe there are problems around the corner. I've been so encouraged by it's operation that I decided to try loading it on two of my older systems (where I knew I would encounter problems.) Guess what? No problems! In fact, a K6-2 500 and a K6-2 400 system actually run better under XP than they did under 98se.
XP impressions
- Thread starter walleys
- Start date
- Status
Mictlantecuhtli
Posts: 4,049 +13
My experience with the OS was so great I installed Linux. 
Phantasm66
Posts: 4,909 +8
LOL Mickey.
I run it on my machine, but only as one of several operating systems.
I guess I use it a lot due to compatibility with a lot of todays apps, games, etc....
Bit in an ideal world it would not be my operating system of choice.
Its bloated, buggy and slow.
Personally, I feel that Microsoft's best effort in recent years has been Windows 2000.
I rolled my Enterprise partition back from Windows .Net Server Beta 2 to Windows 2000 Advanced Server, simply because XP tech is so buggy and slow.
I think it looks pretty, but by and large its eye candy.
Now, often is the day that I turn Linux off in disgust that something that is so simple in windows is just a complete pain in Linux. But in the end its a better OS by far, its just not supported as widely as a PC platform.
I'd say its better than Windows ME (but then that's not hard), but not as good as NT, 98 or Windows 2000.
I run it on my machine, but only as one of several operating systems.
I guess I use it a lot due to compatibility with a lot of todays apps, games, etc....
Bit in an ideal world it would not be my operating system of choice.
Its bloated, buggy and slow.
Personally, I feel that Microsoft's best effort in recent years has been Windows 2000.
I rolled my Enterprise partition back from Windows .Net Server Beta 2 to Windows 2000 Advanced Server, simply because XP tech is so buggy and slow.
I think it looks pretty, but by and large its eye candy.
Now, often is the day that I turn Linux off in disgust that something that is so simple in windows is just a complete pain in Linux. But in the end its a better OS by far, its just not supported as widely as a PC platform.
I'd say its better than Windows ME (but then that's not hard), but not as good as NT, 98 or Windows 2000.
StormBringer
Posts: 2,218 +0
To tell the truth, XP has given me very little trouble. Sure I've had my share of headaches, but nothing like previous Windows versions. I remember back when I upgraded from 3.11 to 95, it was horrible, If the system didn't crash at least twice a day I got worried. 98 was even worse, hardware would detect as the wrong thing(sound card was detected as a printer) the more RAM you threw at it the more it wanted, I think everyone has their own horrors with 9x. Anyway, XP is probably the best overall OS MS has ever produced. I've heard a lot of horror stories and constantly see things in newsgroups telling of the evils of XP but if you have a system that can handle it, XP is a good sound OS.
In my experiences I haven't seen many systems with less than 500MHz and 256MB RAM be able to run XP without problems. Most of the complaints I've seen with XP are from systems running the minimum requirements.
In my experiences I haven't seen many systems with less than 500MHz and 256MB RAM be able to run XP without problems. Most of the complaints I've seen with XP are from systems running the minimum requirements.
Didou
Posts: 4,190 +11
Running Win2K for over a year now with no complaints. The only thing I don't like the Refresh rate Issue.
Having to use a 3rd party program sucks if you ask me, especially since every new nVIDIA driver uses the registry differently, you have to wait for an update of the refresh rate fix in order to loose that 60hz.:dead:
Having to use a 3rd party program sucks if you ask me, especially since every new nVIDIA driver uses the registry differently, you have to wait for an update of the refresh rate fix in order to loose that 60hz.:dead:
SNGX1275
Posts: 10,615 +467
I like XP, I've been running it in various forms since build 2416 (I think thats right, I know I ran a build before 2426). The early ones (when it was still codename 'Whistler') crashed but always came back up and said the system has recovered from a serious error. Other than that and some minor cosmetic changes it is the same as now, I liked it then and I still like it now. One curious thing I've noticed though is that until I ran 2526 and 2600 I never had the infinite loop error....
Don't like it
I have run Win2k on my computer since it came out and love it. Always stable never had 1 crash. My parents had me upgrade them to XP. Hardware compatibility program turned up clean and I have all the latest drivers. Now they are begging me to findout what is wrong with their computer all the time. I have been working on it the past few days and it crashes atleast once per session. MS support has no clue whats wrong. Also, despite the my parents computer being newer and a few hundred MHZ faster than mine, it runs at about a third the speed ( and no they don't have tons of background programs sucking up memory). If you are thinking about upgrading from 98 or ME go with win2k if you can still find it. XP is nothing but bugs and eyecandy added to it.
I have run Win2k on my computer since it came out and love it. Always stable never had 1 crash. My parents had me upgrade them to XP. Hardware compatibility program turned up clean and I have all the latest drivers. Now they are begging me to findout what is wrong with their computer all the time. I have been working on it the past few days and it crashes atleast once per session. MS support has no clue whats wrong. Also, despite the my parents computer being newer and a few hundred MHZ faster than mine, it runs at about a third the speed ( and no they don't have tons of background programs sucking up memory). If you are thinking about upgrading from 98 or ME go with win2k if you can still find it. XP is nothing but bugs and eyecandy added to it.
StormBringer
Posts: 2,218 +0
That is the one variable that seems quite common with those who scream about XP being buggy. "upgraded to XP". That is the phrase that is almost always included with every complaint I have seen about the performance of XP.
I have had no real problems with this machine, which I built and XP was installed. I have also had little or no problems with any machines I have built for others with XP installed. I have seen many problems resulting from upgrades to XP. Most of these problems resulted from software(mostly device drivers) as well as many who barely met system requirements and couldn't figure out why nothing would run and the system was unstasble....hmm...wonder what the problem could have been<--(rhetorical question)
I have had no real problems with this machine, which I built and XP was installed. I have also had little or no problems with any machines I have built for others with XP installed. I have seen many problems resulting from upgrades to XP. Most of these problems resulted from software(mostly device drivers) as well as many who barely met system requirements and couldn't figure out why nothing would run and the system was unstasble....hmm...wonder what the problem could have been<--(rhetorical question)
TS | Thomas
Posts: 1,318 +2
Justin
Posts: 914 +0
XP using a fresh install has always tore it up in terms of raw performance in windows operating sytems including the entire 9x line and the entire NT line, save NT4 workstation. It runs smoother then win2k pro and win2k adv server, with all the proper tweaks it runs faster on a 233mhz box then I'd ever believe, and has crashed less then any other MS OS I've used (excluding DOS, which still crashed nonetheless). Of course, this is all "IMHO".
Most of the people I see who are complaining about XP are people who did an upgrade install from a previous OS. I did an upgrade once from 98 and it was horrid and clunky, and had tons of issues, esp. with my video card and my scanner.
In fact, WinXP ran equal to or close to Win98SE and Win2k Pro on a 75mhz machine, with the proper tweaks. No, I am not kidding. Other then much more virtual memory usage (which, with proper memory management and some other tweaks, was really not that big of an issue. Don't believe me? Although I don't have a specs sheet ( ) I do have a screenie showing that it was done:
http://www.web-ster.com/soul/xpold.jpg
Currently on my main box running XP, Win2k Adv Server, and Redhat. I used XP and redhat only now, I rarely ever use win2k.
I've had more good experiences with XP then bad, and almost all the issues I had were related to bad drivers (default drivers) which were corrected by simply finding updated or good 3rd party drivers. It runs like a dream right now, and I'm never going back to anything else.
Most of the people I see who are complaining about XP are people who did an upgrade install from a previous OS. I did an upgrade once from 98 and it was horrid and clunky, and had tons of issues, esp. with my video card and my scanner.
In fact, WinXP ran equal to or close to Win98SE and Win2k Pro on a 75mhz machine, with the proper tweaks. No, I am not kidding. Other then much more virtual memory usage (which, with proper memory management and some other tweaks, was really not that big of an issue. Don't believe me? Although I don't have a specs sheet (
) I do have a screenie showing that it was done:http://www.web-ster.com/soul/xpold.jpg
Currently on my main box running XP, Win2k Adv Server, and Redhat. I used XP and redhat only now, I rarely ever use win2k.
I've had more good experiences with XP then bad, and almost all the issues I had were related to bad drivers (default drivers) which were corrected by simply finding updated or good 3rd party drivers. It runs like a dream right now, and I'm never going back to anything else.
In fact, WinXP ran equal to or close to Win98SE and Win2k Pro on a 75mhz machine, with the proper tweaks. No, I am not kidding. Other then much more virtual memory usage (which, with proper memory management and some other tweaks, was really not that big of an issue. Don't believe me? Although I don't have a specs sheet ( ) I do have a screenie showing that it was done:
http://www.web-ster.com/soul/xpold.jpg
Wow! I would love to see how that was done if it really was. I'm not saying it wasn't, but a system info screenshot could have been created. Anyone hear of this being done...and on a P75?
http://www.web-ster.com/soul/xpold.jpg
Wow! I would love to see how that was done if it really was. I'm not saying it wasn't, but a system info screenshot could have been created. Anyone hear of this being done...and on a P75?
StormBringer
Posts: 2,218 +0
Nope, I had a customer earlier this year with a 266 PII and 128MB pc100 SDRAM who wanted XP on that machine. I was never able to get it to run stable. He got mad and took his business elsewhere. He came back a week later with the same machine, still no XP, and asked me to order him a new mobo/CPU.
Justin
Posts: 914 +0
Come to think of it, Win98 actually did run much much faster on XP, however once a program was loaded it ran just as fast. I never noticed any performance decrease once I had things loaded, including zsnes (in zsneswin I achieved ~20-40fps depending on game and filters used and screen res mode, much akin to win98.)
StormBringer
Posts: 2,218 +0
I question the stability of the others but I find the P75 very hard to believe. Not only because of the fact that when I have attempted to install XP on systems below XP's minimum requirements, the install would examine the system and wouldn't continue once it found it was below minimum requirements. The other reason is that I have tried various tweaks in order to get XP to run on machines that barely meet requirements and rarely succeed, when I do it is stripped down so much that it isn't worth having.
Justin
Posts: 914 +0
That's not true at all. XP installed on low class systems so long as they are pentium or above. I tried installing it on a 486DX4 @ 160mhz, however it refused saying it required a pentium-class processor. On the 75mhz pentium box, it began the install just fine. The install took an obscene amount of time (around 9 hours I believe) but it did install, and it did run, and I had it running for quite some time. I even have IRC logs of me using /stat (from moo.dll plugin) with it.
StormBringer
Posts: 2,218 +0
I find several holes in this scenerio. The biggest one slipped right past me until this morning, I have seen very few motherboards for the old Pentium CPU that supported more than 64MB RAM, your screenshot says that system has 96MB of RAM.
If, in fact you have somehow actually done this, I'm sure some of the hardcore gamers here would like to know the secrets. If you can manage the resources in such a way to make XP run on a P75, then imagine the system resources you could free up for other tasks such as gaming.
If, in fact you have somehow actually done this, I'm sure some of the hardcore gamers here would like to know the secrets. If you can manage the resources in such a way to make XP run on a P75, then imagine the system resources you could free up for other tasks such as gaming.
Didou
Posts: 4,190 +11
I'm also very skeptical about WinXP running on that Pentium 75 but you never know.
I've had an Asus P5A mainboard which supported up to 384mb of Ram & supported all Socket7 CPUs from the Pentium Pro to the K6-3 500 so it would be possible to have 96mb of ram on such a board.
PS. Thx for the link Thomas, I was looking for that one.
I've had an Asus P5A mainboard which supported up to 384mb of Ram & supported all Socket7 CPUs from the Pentium Pro to the K6-3 500 so it would be possible to have 96mb of ram on such a board.
PS. Thx for the link Thomas, I was looking for that one.
Justin
Posts: 914 +0
wth? Why is your first instinct to mistrust?
FYI, the board being used in question is the board from a Compaq Prolinea 575. It has six (6) simm slots and supports up to 192mb ram. It runs on either 50 or 60mhz FSB and has integrated video, but I was using a 2mb Matrox MGA Mystique at the time. Right now that same box is running Windows 2000 Pro, since XP was too dodgy and HDD hungry. (It has only 2 hdd, one 2 gig and another 1.2 gig).
And MANY older boards support copious amounts of RAM. I have running in my server box right now a pa-2005 socket 7 motherboard, go read the specs on that, up to 512mb ram and it only has 4 SIMM slots (72pin).
If I really had the time, I could put XP back on that box, but it takes obscene amounts of time to install.
Most of the tweaks were disabling services, making good use of TweakUI, and making good use of limited hdd space. For instance, I removed all the help files, all extra backgrounds, all the sounds, et cetera.
Why does everyone think ME is so bad?? I use it at the moment(although im gonna get XP) and i have NO Problems with it.....it Never crahses, there are no conflicts, and it boots up Very fast!!
Has anyone actually used it, or are u saying this from what people have said..because in my opinion it has been very good!
Hey, everyone has their opinions. I just think that Win 98 SE was the more stable of the 9x Windows and I did use ME for about 6 months. ME wasn't as responsive to tweaking and I experienced crashes almost daily. I find XP even more stable than 98SE and it tweaks very well. And I have yet to experience a crash or lockup in XP after three months of running it.
peepnklown
Posts: 125 +0
Stop Hating XP If You Don't Know...
Seriously...people who think windows xp is buggy and bloated need to keep studying.
all OS's are buggy when they first come out.
and windows is bloated if you don't know how to mess with it.
windows xp is really stable compared to 98.
windows also runs on a NT kernal.
XP is a good cross between 98 and NT.
if you up-date the OS, tweak it...it shall be a great OS.
Seriously...people who think windows xp is buggy and bloated need to keep studying.
all OS's are buggy when they first come out.
and windows is bloated if you don't know how to mess with it.
windows xp is really stable compared to 98.
windows also runs on a NT kernal.
XP is a good cross between 98 and NT.
if you up-date the OS, tweak it...it shall be a great OS.
Spliffmeister
Posts: 508 +0
1.
For What It's Worth, for those of you slagging Windows Me, I used it until I rebuilt my machine a week ago and it worked fine. It let me OC, tweak and do pretty much whatever I wanted (I remember at the time thinking that it was better than my install of 98SE).
2.
I've just installed XP, and FWIW, I like it. Its more customisable, It seems to be more stable, and you get lots of pretty colours on your start menu. Is it better than any of the others? I dont know, it seems much the same, I like some of the new stuff on Office XP if that counts, but hate some of the touchy feely graphical interfaces such as the new Control Panel. It does seem more resource intensive, but hey, thats just an excuse to buy more new kit!!?? .
not sure what all the fuss is about really....
For What It's Worth, for those of you slagging Windows Me, I used it until I rebuilt my machine a week ago and it worked fine. It let me OC, tweak and do pretty much whatever I wanted (I remember at the time thinking that it was better than my install of 98SE).
2.
I've just installed XP, and FWIW, I like it. Its more customisable, It seems to be more stable, and you get lots of pretty colours on your start menu
. Is it better than any of the others? I dont know, it seems much the same, I like some of the new stuff on Office XP if that counts, but hate some of the touchy feely graphical interfaces such as the new Control Panel. It does seem more resource intensive, but hey, thats just an excuse to buy more new kit!!?? .not sure what all the fuss is about really....
- Status
Similar threads
