Sign in to follow this  
jehh

Windows XP - My thoughts after the first two weeks

Recommended Posts

Ok, it has now been almost two weeks since Windows 2000 finally gave up the ghost after a year of flawless operation...

I've beeing running Windows XP since then, figured since I had to do a clean install, might as well make the switch now...

Here are my thoughts, in no specific order...

1. Easiest clean setup ever - I've installed every version of Windows (WinME excepted) since 3.0, and this has to be the easiest so far... Boot right from the CD, no driver warnings, everything worked from the first minute, only one break during the install to type in my name and enter my time zone...

2. All my software ran just fine on it - I have yet to run across a program that doesn't work on XP that did work under Win2K. This was actually my biggest concern, but no problems to report.

3. Windows Update is better than ever - Windows Update has always been nice, but it never did anything special other than downloading Windows patches. This time, it now finds patches to software, and updated drivers for my third party hardware, something it didn't do under Win2K. It found a new driver for my scanner, my sound card, & my network card. I really like the idea of a single place doing all the updates...

4. Stable - This is what we want first from any OS, and expect... Not a single OS crash since installing... I've had a few programs crash, but XP actually handles them better than Win2K did. Star Trek Armada II crashes just as much under XP as it did under Win2K, but now it comes up with a friendly error message and doesn't damage the system. I can reopen the program and start again... Under Win2K, I would have to reboot before running the program again. This is a VERY welcome change.

5. Better interface - I like most of the enhancements made... The way the program bar at the bottom is handled, grouping windows by type, keeping all IE windows next to each other, etc. The other nice thing is if too many windows are opened, it stacks them to keep their sizes reasonable. This is not a massive change, but a welcome one (from someone who often has 12 things open). I also like the autohiding tool tray items, and the date shows up better. I use the quick launch bar, so it shows three lines of text, time/day/date, really nice...

6. Simple stupid networking - This was just amazing... For whatever reason, trying to get my pair of machines networked together while having a second network card in one machine with a broadband net connection was a bitch under Win2K, but it worked without even trying under XP. Of course, this is probably a security hole, but whatever... Dammit if I didn't make a single change, adjustment, anything. From the very first bootup, it saw the other machine, not a single setting needed to be changed (the other machine got a clean install of XP at the same time, neither machine needed any changes, they just automaticly found each other and worked together from day one). In addition, the built in Internet Connection Sharing is also simple stupid, setup my connection to Verizon (my DSL requires a connection using a username and password), it asked me if I wanted to share the connection, I said yes... Boom, it worked... The other machine was online, just like that... Kudos to Microsoft, they really hit it out of the part on this one... I've been doing these kinds of networks since the Windows 3.1 days, and never, ever has it been this easy...

7. Product Activation - ok, I cheated here... I don't know what this is like, since I am using the corporate version. Damm thing didn't even ask for a product key, just installed and worked without asking me to register or anything... Nice... :) If they all were like this, I'd like it even more. Most people probably don't care about Product Activation given that most people never make more than one change to their computer, if that... I make a complete change 2 or 3 times a year, with a half dozen minor changes as well, so it really helps for me to have this version...

8. Media Player - Didn't even know about this one, but it is much better than the version that is in Win2K. This version has full screen controls, making my video server much more useful. I also like the changes in Windows Explorer, nice minor changes...

Well, that is about it for now, I'm sure I'll think of something else... I'm happy with XP, and glad I made the switch... I could of course live without it, 2000 was stable and lasted a year without problems, which is good considering the harsh treatment I give my computers... That being said, XP is better, it has many things 2000 didn't, and as far as I can tell, isn't missing anything.

Microsoft gets a lot of flak for some of the things they do. IMHO they deserve some of it, but other things said about them are unfair. One thing is that Windows sucks, or is unstable... That used to be true, but it hasn't been for awhile now...

My advice... If you're still running Windows 95/98/ME, now is a good time to make the switch. I would do a clean install, rather than an upgrade. I've upgraded systems before and gotten mixed results... You probably have heard people who have had no problems upgrading, then others who bitch and moan about problems right and left. Doing a clean install ensures you don't need to worry about such things...

Just have at least 256MB of RAM in your system, this thing is a memory hog... I've only got 3 programs open and 4 things in the task tray, and XP is using 414MB of RAM. Granted, 127MB of that is Morpheus, but even taking that out XP is using 287MB of RAM. This is about 80MB more than Win2K used, so be sure to have 256MB, with 512MB being a better choice. I cannot comment about CPU speed, my slowest machine is a 1.2GHz T-Bird, but I'll be installing this on my Mom's Celeron 500 MHz system next week, and I'll report back about how it runs there (that system has 256MB, the most it will take).

I'd like to hear what you guys think...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using XP on this Athlon4 laptop@ 1GHz, and whilst there are some nice things, such as improved picture viewer, etc, I found the performance to be sluggish.Yesterday I finally set the appearance to classic Windows, and things are much improved (I had already set the Start button to classic when I first installed. Definitely a memory hog, which is not good when I have only 256MB (and 32mb going to video). Yes the networking wizard is very simple, but I hate the assumption that XP makes that I am a simple tard (no offense) that wants all the tricky options hidden from me. Also network thruput was pathetic till I reduced the default 20% that the QoS protocol reserves to 0% (just disabling QoS doesn't change this!)

To me it really seems that it is directed more for 98/ME users to upgrade to, for them the stability is a nice change no doubt. But I will be installing win2k on this as soon as I have backed my files up. Back to that snappy feeling! not to mention the reassurance of SP2 (though there are still many things to fix....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not for people like you in public on line forums bragging about Windows XP and how you are now going to install the same program on your moms computer that you just installed on your own, well lets just say that you need to go buy your mom's computer a copy of the program instead of stealing from Microsoft.

Every machine you copy that program to just causes the price of software to go up because of your stealing it to load it onto several machines.

Where did you buy a corporate version of Windows XP anyway, I bet it is a cracked version and pirated as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you buy when you pay for Windows, is a license to use that product. Now if you posess an XP Pro license, I see nothing wrong with installing Corporate Edition instead. You don't have to put up with product activation bullcrap, and Uncle Bill gets his money. Of course going and installing it at all your friends houses is another matter.

For example, this Compaq laptop came with a license for XP Home. I believe it is quite legal to "downgrade" to an "older" OS such as win2k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows XP uses clear type to make the on screen text much better.

Go in and turn off the clear type and you will see program really pick up speed.

You won't like the degraded type on screen.

I keep the clear type turn on so the I have to live with the longer loading of files and programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been using XP on this Athlon4 laptop@ 1GHz, and whilst there are some nice things, such as improved picture viewer, etc, I found the performance to be sluggish.Yesterday I finally set the appearance to classic Windows, and things are much improved (I had already set the Start button to classic when I first installed. Definitely a memory hog, which is not good when I have only 256MB (and 32mb going to video). Yes the networking wizard is very simple, but I hate the assumption that XP makes that I am a simple tard (no offense) that wants all the tricky options hidden from me. Also network thruput was pathetic till I reduced the default 20% that the QoS protocol reserves to 0% (just disabling QoS doesn't change this!)

Where is this QoS setting? I'd like to turn that off too. :)

To me it really seems that it is directed more for 98/ME users to upgrade to, for them the stability is a nice change no doubt. But I will be installing win2k on this as soon as I have backed my files up. Back to that snappy feeling! not to mention the reassurance of SP2 (though there are still many things to fix....)

Yep, there is an upside to having an OS with so many patches out already... That being said, XP seems very much to be Win2K with new features, sort of like 98SE was a patch to 98 with a few new features...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If not for people like you in public on line forums bragging about Windows XP and how you are now going to install the same program on your moms computer that you just installed on your own, well lets just say that you need to go buy your mom's computer a copy of the program instead of stealing from Microsoft.

I bought a copy of Windows XP Home Upgrade from CompUSA, but I'm using the Corporate Version because of all the system changes I make...

Technically it is illegal since I've actually got XP Pro instead of XP Home, but really, who cares? :)

Every machine you copy that program to just causes the price of software to go up because of your stealing it to load it onto several machines.

Well, look on the bright side, I did at least buy one copy. :) My brother cannot afford it, he just had his second child in two years and he makes very little money. I'll ask my Mom to buy a copy of XP Home Upgrade herself since she can afford it, but I'll still install the Corp version because it is so much easier...

Where did you buy a corporate version of Windows XP anyway, I bet it is a cracked version and pirated as well.

I didn't buy it, you cannot do that actually... I downloaded an ISO image off Usenet about two months ago... It isn't cracked, it comes this way. MS provides a clean install version for large companies to us without any hassles. All upgrade checking, product key, and product activation is removed to make IT guys jobs easier...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you buy when you pay for Windows, is a license to use that product. Now if you posess an XP Pro license, I see nothing wrong with installing Corporate Edition instead. You don't have to put up with product activation bullcrap, and Uncle Bill gets his money. Of course going and installing it at all your friends houses is another matter.

I agree, but what about buying the home edition and then installing the corp version? The only major change is the ability to have more than one CPU (which I don't anyway, and that is a silly restriction anyway), and... well I think that is about it...

True, installing it on more than one machine is not great... My brother really cannot afford it, so that doesn't bother me... My Mom will buy a copy of XP Home Upgrade however...

For example, this Compaq laptop came with a license for XP Home. I believe it is quite legal to "downgrade" to an "older" OS such as win2k?

Actually, it isn't... You can buy a copy of XP Pro and use 2000 Pro, but there is no "Home" version of 2000. You can only legally downgrade to Windows ME, 98, or 95 from XP Home... Of course, you can do whatever you want, but that is what it legal...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this reminds me...

Since I'm not running Windows 2000 Pro anymore, does anyone want to buy my legal copy of it?

I have the original user manul, COA, CD, etc... (see, I really do buy my software)

Anyone want to buy it? If so, make me an offer... :)

I've got a copy of Office 2000 SBE as well, if someone wants to make me an offer on that, I'll consider selling it and upgrading to Office XP...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks...

Just did that, will see how it works out...

Don't want to reboot just this second while getting a good download in Morpheus. :P

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acutally you may see some network slowdown till you restart. Actually all I did was shutdown and restart Explorer, that seemed to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another difference is that the home edition of XP can't join a domain/AD. Also, not a big deal for home users.

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another difference is that the home edition of XP can't join a domain/AD. Also, not a big deal for home users.

-Chris

:) Oh well, gosh... That is just a killer, now isn't it. :D

Seriouslly, this is why I'm not bothered by running the Pro version when I only paid for the home version. It isn't like I'm using any of the Pro features anyway...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reports I've seen this change may have no impact at all.

"http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,1882882~root=news,12974~mode=flat"

Technically (AFAIK), this setting would only come into play in the first place if you are on a network that applies QoS provisioning for network

services. IOW, the setting is only a limit on how much bandwith QoS would try to allocate if a request for networking service came to it from

the application server. Since most home networks have no such setup,

it seems logical that the Packet Scheduler has no need to allocate any

bandwidth to start with.

I've been trying to find a site that actually tested this setting in a

more consistent environment to determine if there is actually an

objective change in performance from before to after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone here payed attention to the security holes that come free with windows xp ?

Yes, stable, why wouldn't it be it is just NT5(w2000) with minor modifications to the kernel and a new slow GUI added on the top.

Sure, it is far better than the DOS based w9x/me and I too recommend to move to nt5 from those.

Why, MS removed the features that were in nt5 by default ?

Many users will welcome this new OS.

Can anyone suggest why I need 256MB RAM to run an OS only ?

If you are using nt5 I wouldn't worry about it, most nt5 users think of winxp as a downgrade.

If you are happy with it, of course use it.

I'll wait for Windows JumpUpJoeToBuyMeNow version.

OS-X is a far better OS and has all + more that win has ever offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From reports I've seen this change may have no impact at all. 

"http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,1882882~root=news,12974~mode=flat"

Technically (AFAIK), this setting would only come into play in the first place if you are on a network that applies QoS provisioning for network

services.  IOW, the setting is only a limit on how much bandwith QoS would try to allocate if a request for networking service came to it from

the application server.  Since most home networks have no such setup,

it seems logical that the Packet Scheduler has no need to allocate any

bandwidth to start with. 

I've been trying to find a site that actually tested this setting in a 

more consistent environment to determine if there is actually an

objective change in performance from before to after.

Well all I can talk about is my personal experience. Copying a 1GB .vob file from my win2k box to my XP laptop, I could not get over 42%. Disabling QoS altogether got me upto 47%. Once I performed the steps to reserve 0% for QoS, and reenabled it in network bindings, I was up over 75%. That to me is a significant difference. Now will you notice this difference if you only use your NIC for a broadband connection? Highly doubtful as not many connection exceed 3-4 Mbit/sec. But I want maximum performance from all my components. The problem is that the packet scheduler appears to take that 20% (or more?) regardless of whether it is ticked in network bindings or not. Perhaps another beta bug to be fixed thru windows update? If you run a network, why not try it yourself? You can always switch back if you don't notice a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone here payed attention to the security holes that come free with windows xp ?

Yep, that was not lost on me, but 2000 has almost as many...

The problem is the basic design of the OS, but Microsoft is now going to change that, in the next version of course. :)

Many users will welcome this new OS.

Can anyone suggest why I need 256MB RAM to run an OS only ?

Sure, it has a prettier Start menu, that has to be loaded into RAM. :)

I'll wait for Windows JumpUpJoeToBuyMeNow version.

No kidding... Microsoft owns the rights to the term, "we'll get it right in the next version".

OS-X is a far better OS and has all + more that win has ever offered.

Perhaps, but it doesn't run on an Athlon based system, so what good is it?

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Easiest clean setup ever - I've installed every version of Windows (WinME excepted) since 3.0, and this has to be the easiest so far... Boot right from the CD, no driver warnings, everything worked from the first minute, only one break during the install to type in my name and enter my time zone...

I'm happy to hear that your setup was so flawless. I've encountered easy, clean installs and downright nasty, long drawn-out installs. The worst was on a Tyan Tiger MP system. The easiest (but slow) was on a Asus P5A-B Socket 7 system.

2. All my software ran just fine on it - I have yet to run across a program that doesn't work on XP that did work under Win2K. This was actually my biggest concern, but no problems to report.

No software incompatibilities yet.

3. Windows Update is better than ever - Windows Update has always been nice, but it never did anything special other than downloading Windows patches. This time, it now finds patches to software, and updated drivers for my third party hardware, something it didn't do under Win2K. It found a new driver for my scanner, my sound card, & my network card. I really like the idea of a single place doing all the updates...

The Windows Update feature is nice. Unfortunately, if your system requires the updates for stable performance, the download and installation time of the patches can be a bit nasty.

4. Stable - This is what we want first from any OS, and expect... Not a single OS crash since installing... I've had a few programs crash, but XP actually handles them better than Win2K did. Star Trek Armada II crashes just as much under XP as it did under Win2K, but now it comes up with a friendly error message and doesn't damage the system. I can reopen the program and start again... Under Win2K, I would have to reboot before running the program again. This is a VERY welcome change.

See above. Additionally, changing the memory on the Tyan Tiger MP system from 256 MB to 512 MB (1 stick to 2 sticks) caused an unrecoverable dark-blue screen of death.

5. Better interface - I like most of the enhancements made... The way the program bar at the bottom is handled, grouping windows by type, keeping all IE windows next to each other, etc. The other nice thing is if too many windows are opened, it stacks them to keep their sizes reasonable. This is not a massive change, but a welcome one (from someone who often has 12 things open). I also like the autohiding tool tray items, and the date shows up better. I use the quick launch bar, so it shows three lines of text, time/day/date, really nice...

The GUI is the best improvement. MAC is still better.

6. Simple stupid networking - This was just amazing... For whatever reason, trying to get my pair of machines networked together while having a second network card in one machine with a broadband net connection was a bitch under Win2K, but it worked without even trying under XP. Of course, this is probably a security hole, but whatever... Dammit if I didn't make a single change, adjustment, anything. From the very first bootup, it saw the other machine, not a single setting needed to be changed (the other machine got a clean install of XP at the same time, neither machine needed any changes, they just automaticly found each other and worked together from day one). In addition, the built in Internet Connection Sharing is also simple stupid, setup my connection to Verizon (my DSL requires a connection using a username and password), it asked me if I wanted to share the connection, I said yes... Boom, it worked... The other machine was online, just like that... Kudos to Microsoft, they really hit it out of the part on this one... I've been doing these kinds of networks since the Windows 3.1 days, and never, ever has it been this easy...

Had some issues here. I swapped the initial 3Com card out for a LinkSys. Windows XP Pro stores the previous cards information and keeps the previously assigned IP attached to it.

7. Product Activation - ok, I cheated here... I don't know what this is like, since I am using the corporate version. Damm thing didn't even ask for a product key, just installed and worked without asking me to register or anything... Nice... If they all were like this, I'd like it even more. Most people probably don't care about Product Activation given that most people never make more than one change to their computer, if that... I make a complete change 2 or 3 times a year, with a half dozen minor changes as well, so it really helps for me to have this version...

No cheating here, and still no big problems.

8. Media Player - Didn't even know about this one, but it is much better than the version that is in Win2K. This version has full screen controls, making my video server much more useful. I also like the changes in Windows Explorer, nice minor changes...

User friendly interface.

The aforementioned are just the extremes. For the most part it is not any worse than Windows2000, with a few perks such as a broader driver database. Most of the systems I build get XP now (instead of 98 or 2000) and things seem pretty decent. Even a Japanese version of XP installed flawlessly on 900mhz Athlon system.

BR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Points 4,5,6 are indeed great! Microsoft has done a great job in this aspects...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest russofris
The GUI is the best improvement. MAC is still better. 

Ummm.... Which MAC GUI? Where do you put the dock in OSX (T_B_L_R)?

Not nagging, just wondering,

Frank Russo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm happy to hear that your setup was so flawless.  I've encountered easy, clean installs and downright nasty, long drawn-out installs.  The worst was on a Tyan Tiger MP system.  The easiest (but slow) was on a Asus P5A-B Socket 7 system.

I cannot imagine any Socket 7 system that should have XP installed... Even a K6-2 500 would be on the slow side I'm thinking...

The Windows Update feature is nice.  Unfortunately, if your system requires the updates for stable performance, the download and installation time of the patches can be a bit nasty.

True enough, get broadband. :) But your point is a valid one... 17MB of patches is absurd on 56k modems, but on a 1.5mb DSL line, it is no big deal...

See above.  Additionally, changing the memory on the Tyan Tiger MP system from 256 MB to 512 MB (1 stick to 2 sticks) caused an unrecoverable dark-blue screen of death.

Well, the darndest things happen... You sure that isn't a problem with that specific board? I've had weird Windows problems before that were really odd hardware problems...

To this day, my ASUS A7V133 board in this system will not take 3 DIMMS. Runs great on 2 DIMMs, put in a third and you're in trouble... Don't know why, and I live with it since 512MB is enough for now... I'll have a new motherboard before I need more RAM.

The GUI is the best improvement.  MAC is still better.

I've used Macs, they are nice, but user interface is a personal taste issue. I personally like XP more than the Mac. The single mouse button drives me nuts, and the way it handles seperate windows is insane... I like the bar at the bottom of XP, and I'd be lost without my 4 mouse buttons on my trackball... :) (my third controls auto scroll and my 4th is set to "Internet Back" command, it is the same as clicking on the back button...

Had some issues here.  I swapped the initial 3Com card out for a LinkSys.  Windows XP Pro stores the previous cards information and keeps the previously assigned IP attached to it.

I have D-Link cards in my three machines, cost me $11 each, work perfectly...

I used to use 3Com under Win9x, for good reason, but lately the cheap cards work just fine... I remember major problems with early LinkSys cards under 95... :( The new cards work fine however...

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. All my software ran just fine on it - I have yet to run across a program that doesn't work on XP that did work under Win2K.  This was actually my biggest concern, but no problems to report.

5. Better interface - I like most of the enhancements made...  The way the program bar at the bottom is handled, grouping windows by type, keeping all IE windows next to each other, etc.  The other nice thing is if too many windows are opened, it stacks them to keep their sizes reasonable.  This is not a massive change, but a welcome one (from someone who often has 12 things open).  I also like the autohiding tool tray items, and the date shows up better.  I use the quick launch bar, so it shows three lines of text, time/day/date, really nice...

7. Product Activation - ok, I cheated here...  I don't know what this is like, since I am using the corporate version.  Damm thing didn't even ask for a product key, just installed and worked without asking me to register or anything...  Nice...  :)  If they all were like this, I'd like it even more.  Most people probably don't care about Product Activation given that most people never make more than one change to their computer, if that...  I make a complete change 2 or 3 times a year, with a half dozen minor changes as well, so it really helps for me to have this version...

8. Media Player - Didn't even know about this one, but it is much better than the version that is in Win2K.  This version has full screen controls, making my video server much more useful.  I also like the changes in Windows Explorer, nice minor changes...

2. I bet you haven't tried running anything other than the latest version of Adaptec/Roxio Easy CD Creator, Nortons or McAfee have you? Adaptec/Roxio had to release patches that fixed problems relating to version less than 5.0 and I think they recommended to go out and buy Roxio 5 Platinum. As for Nortons, the only version that will work with XP is 2002 and I do believe McAfee is the same way. I think XP is far from friendly to older application as far as utilities go. Games are ok for the most part but even Win98 didn't have much problems with Win95 based games.

5. The interface is ok if you turn off all the gay new stuff and switch it to the more classic windows view. The little pictures by your name on the start menu are less than to be desired. I will give them the grouping of windows is a good idea and the task tray icons hiding is pretty nice. The only thing about hiding the task tray icons is that if it hides alot of them, the end users won't realize that they have a lot of crap loadin on startup and that is why the system runs slow.

7. Product activation is a waste of time. For all the people it was supposed to stop from getting XP for free, they are all going out and getting the Corporate version from the usenet or whatever and getting right around it. That is alot of product design down the toilet. The only ones that are actually using the activation are the people who go buy their system at a retail chain which is funny cause they actually paid for it. The ones who get it for free aren't even have to worry about registration/activation as you have just prooved. At least you said you actually purchased a copy just not the one you are using.

8. I think you can download/update your Media Player in 2000 to the same version you have installed with XP. The media player like that got its start in WinMe. The reason Win2000 probably didn't have it cause it isn't really meant for all the little things like a nice enhanced Media Player but MS was nice enough to release the update though.

As far as everything goes, my take on XP is this: for simple homes users it is nice cause for the most part it is easier to use and more fail safe; the NTFS formatting should have been left out on the Home version but the support for reading and viewing NTFS should have stayed (this cause lots of problems when clients do actually mess their system up and you have to format and reload it); and they should have probably worked a little on program crossfunctionality between Win2000 and WinXP since they are sisters. Oh well, I like most people will stick to Win2000 SP2. JZT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. I bet you haven't tried running anything other than the latest version of Adaptec/Roxio Easy CD Creator, Nortons or McAfee have you? Adaptec/Roxio had to release patches that fixed problems relating to version less than 5.0 and I think they recommended to go out and buy Roxio 5 Platinum. As for Nortons, the only version that will work with XP is 2002 and I do believe McAfee is the same way. I think XP is far from friendly to older application as far as utilities go. Games are ok for the most part but even Win98 didn't have much problems with Win95 based games.

Never, ever expect utilities older than the current version (if that) to run on a brand new OS release... Other software is fine, but utilities are often writen for specific OS releases. :)

Games and other stuff tends to run ok, but any games older than about 3 years old start to have problems under either 2000 or XP. Some 5 year old games work just fine, some 2 year old games have trouble, but 3 years seems to be the average...

5. The interface is ok if you turn off all the gay new stuff and switch it to the more classic windows view. The little pictures by your name on the start menu are less than to be desired. I will give them the grouping of windows is a good idea and the task tray icons hiding is pretty nice. The only thing about hiding the task tray icons is that if it hides alot of them, the end users won't realize that they have a lot of crap loadin on startup and that is why the system runs slow.

Now, now... This is very subjective... I like most of the new stuff... :)

7. Product activation is a waste of time. For all the people it was supposed to stop from getting XP for free, they are all going out and getting the Corporate version from the usenet or whatever and getting right around it. That is alot of product design down the toilet. The only ones that are actually using the activation are the people who go buy their system at a retail chain which is funny cause they actually paid for it. The ones who get it for free aren't even have to worry about registration/activation as you have just prooved. At least you said you actually purchased a copy just not the one you are using.

Actually, it is working for what they said it was for. I know a business owner who has two machines in his 3 person company. He did in fact buy a pair of XP Home Upgrades to upgrade his two work machines. :)

But your point is well taken, people like us know how to get around it...

8. I think you can download/update your Media Player in 2000 to the same version you have installed with XP. The media player like that got its start in WinMe. The reason Win2000 probably didn't have it cause it isn't really meant for all the little things like a nice enhanced Media Player but MS was nice enough to release the update though.

Nope, the newest version in 2000 is 7.1, it doesn't let you download 8.0. :)

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this