Windows XP?

1pump · 12-08-2002, 07:49 AM

I'm currently running Windows ME in my HP.
Is XP worth the $80 or so for the upgrade?
I'm constantly running scan disk, cleanup and defrag because my computer keeps jamming up every week or so. Would XP be less maintenance?
A lot of geeks don't like the ME, and I've heard a lot of positive comments on XP. Anybody else out there make a similar upgrade? :whazzup:

[ 12-08-2002, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

fishinfool · 12-08-2002, 10:01 AM

1pump
Well I didn't do the upgrade you are talking about but I am running XP on an HP system and absolutely love it. The maintenence is very little and XP seems to be rock solid. The only problem I have had is XP seems to think my burner and my scanner are both mass storage devices so it seems to have problems with USB ports and keeping stuff separated if you go with a HUB. Other than that I love XP. Hope this helps. Tim

Drachir · 12-08-2002, 10:05 AM

We upgraded from ME on our Gateway about 4 months ago. Windows XP has made our computer run one heck of a lot better. We don't have any of the freeze up problems any more. It would be a good thing to get ME off your system and upgrade to XP.

The Fishing Geek · 12-08-2002, 01:40 PM

If you have any peripherals that are older than a year or so (scanners, printers, etc) then you may have problems finding drivers for them for use under Windows XP. When I'm running Windows I use Windows 2000, which is extremely stable (for Windows) and has far better driver support than XP. Windows ME was horrible and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone.

If you are buying a brand new computer with all new peripherals then I'd say sure, go for XP. Otherwise, do the research and make sure that all of your equipment is supported before you buy XP. The safest choice would be Windows 2000.

ultralight · 12-08-2002, 03:44 PM

I echo what Geek said. But if you use your computer on any regular basis, an upgrade to an NT operating system is a no brainer. The statistics show that it's over 13 times more stable than WinME or Win98, and my own experience shows even greater stability. It will save you a ton of anxiety and time.

Although Win2000 Prof. is a rock solid platform and has greater compatibility with older software and peripherals, it's getting a little outdated since it's been out nearly four years. But if you can get a used one from someone who upgraded to an XP system, then I would definitely think it's a good move. In any case you need to proceed in a methoical fashion to minimize compatibility issues with software and peripherals. Good luck!

24 on/ 48 off · 12-09-2002, 12:14 PM

I got XP Pro a few months ago, and put it to its first "real" test a few days ago.

While doing some system maintenance, I accidently deleted my email, browser and several other important items.

I panicked. I looked all over the harddrive in attempt to find the lost stuff without luck.

Then I remembered the "system restore" feature on XP.

I ran the program and it asked what date I wanted it restore to. I clicked on the previous day and VOILA!

It was restored perfectly. Everything was fine.

XP is great. Well worth it.

--spud-- :smile:

[ 12-09-2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: 24 on/ 48 off ]

The Fishing Geek · 12-09-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gus Orviston:
I try to keep from chasing the revisions, but with XP I hear all is going well. and soon I will have to make the leap ....work is forcing it.

gus

Just curious...how is your employer forcing you to upgrade to Windows XP?

foxer · 12-09-2002, 12:45 PM

Something else to remember is that XP can be a memory hog. I would run no less than 256mb

ultralight · 12-09-2002, 12:58 PM

Good point Mtn Man, about the XP's graphics capabilities which is superior than the Win2000 Prof. Win 2000 lacked the Win Me's consumer graphics and audio software compatibility features, but the XPs have all of them and more.

The Fishing Geek · 12-09-2002, 01:31 PM

What sort of graphics compatibilities are you running into with Windows 2000 that WinXP doesn't have?

ultralight · 12-09-2002, 08:33 PM

I don't have Win XP, so I can't speak from experience - only from what I've read. Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows 2000. As you probably know, Windows 2000 didn't inherit most of the Windows 98 and ME's consumer graphics and audio capabilities which allowed it to play all the games. Thus the 98/ME OS got the vendors support while the Win2000 lacked most of them. And you probably recall that Win ME was an unanticipated OS which was hastily created to fill the gap until the XP was created for the consumer/home PC users. Anyways, the earlier Win2K had weak support for 3D graphics cards, sound cards and other multimedia devices. DirectX, while better supported than it was in Windows NT (which never got beyond support for DirectX 3, when Windows 98 was running DirectX 7.0) is still apparently problematic for graphics driver programmers, who typically don't support Windows 2000 at all with their drivers -- heck, most video capture cards and TV tuners don't even support Windows NT fully, and that product's been on the market for several years. But I think Windows XP changed all that.

Besides, Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.

Mtn Man · 12-09-2002, 11:25 PM

I would highly recommend it, I went from 98 SE to XP Pro a few months ago. I love XP!!!

I do a fair amount of graphics, drafting, etc. so I work the computer a bit and XP seems to handle it very well. I used to run NT, but it sucks for most graphics applications so I went back to 98....crash after crash. Now with XP it is very stable.

I built my system about 2 1/2 years ago and when I upgraded to XP i had to get a new modem, a pain but well worth it.

Alan

Gus Orviston · 12-09-2002, 11:55 PM

I try to keep from chasing the revisions, but with XP I hear all is going well. and soon I will have to make the leap ....work is forcing it.

gus

The Fishing Geek · 12-10-2002, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ultralight:
I don't have Win XP, so I can't speak from experience - only from what I've read. Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows 2000.

Just because Windows XP came with more games doesn't mean that it's a good thing. I doubt the games that XP came with will amount to much more than a hill of beans.

Quote:

As you probably know, Windows 2000 didn't inherit most of the Windows 98 and ME's consumer graphics and audio capabilities which allowed it to play all the games.

I'm going to disagree here. Windows 2000 is a great Windows OS multimedia platform. People do some very high-level audio and video editing on these machines with far better success than with Windows 98/ME. Heck, the NTFS file system allowing for greater than 2 gig file sizes was heaven sent for those of us who work with multi-gigabyte AVI fullframe captures. There are workarounds to the 2 gig limit on the FAT32 file system that did work, but in the end it was a huge hassle.

Quote:

Anyways, the earlier Win2K had weak support for 3D graphics cards, sound cards and other multimedia devices. DirectX, while better supported than it was in Windows NT (which never got beyond support for DirectX 3, when Windows 98 was running DirectX 7.0) is still apparently problematic for graphics driver programmers, who typically don't support Windows 2000 at all with their drivers

While good 3D-rendering drivers were lacking in some arenas at first, this was very short-lived. I was playing Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, and other games based on the same engines two years ago on both ATI and nVidia-based cards with NO problem. With solid Win2K support in both the ATI and nVidia camps, along with current DirectX support, which manufacturers "don't support Windows 2000 at all with their drivers"?

Some of the performance issues that Windows 2000 had in games was due to application priority settings within Windows 2000. It was really easy to create a batch file (or there were programs that did the same thing) that would up the game runtime priority that made the performance excellent.

Quote:

-- heck, most video capture cards and TV tuners don't even support Windows NT fully, and that product's been on the market for several years. But I think Windows XP changed all that.

Windows NT 4 had minimal support, but all of the TV tuner cards and most of the video capture cards (I say most because Pinnacle Systems didn't want to issue NT-based drivers for their DC10+ line of capture cards as it would take business from their DC30+ line) that I've come into contact with have Windows 2000 drivers that function just as well as Win9X/ME drivers.

Quote:

Besides, Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.

I'm not entirely sure that the additional "bells and whistles" that XP offers are necessarily a good thing. Windows Movie Maker is limited in the file export to Windows Media only and is very lacking in even intermediate features. Secondly, I would NEVER trust a firewall that comes pre-installed by Microsoft, as they've already shown in the past to disregard basic security principals (Windows 2000 service pack 3 gives Microsoft root access to your computer, for example). There is an EXCELLENT freeware firewall available that kicks Microsoft's to the curb. And remote desktop support can be easily handled by another freeware app that has been around since before Windows 95 and is far more secure. If you want to know the names of these freeware alternatives just drop me an email.

In short, just because it comes with Windows doesn't mean that it is a positive. Application integration into Windows only means that when it crashes it will likely take the whole OS down with it.

ultralight · 12-10-2002, 10:28 AM

Geek,

I feel like I was ambushed into a loaded question :depressed: Your analysis is very irrelevant and selective.

So, are you saying that Win 2000 is a better multimedia platform than Win XP for home PC users?

The Fishing Geek · 12-10-2002, 10:46 AM

It wasn't a loaded question at all, and I feel that my response to your statement was thorough and relevant. That is why I asked you where Win2K was lacking in its multimedia capabilities, as everything that I have experienced and everything that I have read about the OS lead me to believe otherwise.

The biggest two strikes against Windows XP are over-integration of applications and unavailability of drivers for peripheral hardware that is older than a year. If buying Windows XP means that a person has to spend another couple hundred dollars or so to replace otherwise-functioning hardware that suddenly doesn't work, then the value of said upgrade is highly questionable.

In no way do I want to seem argumentative; I just honestly have had enough experience with the multimedia capabilities of Windows 2000 to know that it is a very capable platform.

Kilgore · 12-10-2002, 02:49 PM

Some people have a pretty narrow Window of perspective, and just love to troll.

Fish mojo · 12-10-2002, 02:59 PM

Did my XP changeover last night after dropping in 2 256K memory chips. I'm happy, so far. Big improvements- like getting a brand new machine. Takes a little work finding old favorites and creating shortcuts. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

ultralight · 12-10-2002, 05:11 PM

Good for you mojo! What did you upgrade from, and which version of XP did you upgrade to?

The Fishing Geek · 12-10-2002, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kilgore:
Some people have a pretty narrow Window of perspective, and just love to troll.

I'm not sure as to who this is targeted at Kilgore. Please elaborate. Am I missing something in my part of the discussion?

sinker · 12-11-2002, 02:10 AM

As far as games on Win 2k here's the scoop.

It has nothing to do with the hardware.

Win 2k was NT based. Thats why it's so danged stable. Also why it's good for multi-media.

Win Me is 9x based which is what alot of the gaming companies supported.

It has nothing to do with support from the hardware companies, it's the software companies and whether they want to invest the money to develop a game to run on 2 platforms.

I run XP now, but before XP I ran a dual boot system, had Win2k and Me installed. this gave me the best of both worlds, but to be honest I rarely used Me. and I mean rarely. Most unstable piece of junk I've ever seen.

STGRule · 12-11-2002, 09:25 PM

Okay, bottom line. I have a clone built in early 1999. It has a AMD K6 400 3D CPU, 192 mg of RAM on a 100 MHZ board (I think that is how you say it). I run Office 97 pro as my major software (of which I use Excel most), I have Norton AntiVirus, and ZoneAlarm Firewall. I don't play games (except little kid stuff - Dig'-n-rigs, Mr. Potato Head, Freddy Fish stuff). I have a Soundblaster PCI card, a HP Deskjet 722C printer, a Microtek ScanMaker X6EL scanner, and a Broadband internet connection. MY OS is Windows 98 second edition. I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but I learn quick. I am SOOOOOO tired of my computer crashing. It has to crash as soon as I turn it on so I can have it on the rest of the day without a problem. Is it worth upgrading my OS, and to what? I am not interested in upgrading my scanner or printer as both work well without problems. Is it worth upgrading Windows without upgrading anything else? I am loathe to spend over $100.00 to upgrade Windows if I am not gaining anything. I keep thinking about a new computer except this one does everything I need (but it crashes). Any suggestions?

[ 12-11-2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

24 on/ 48 off · 12-11-2002, 09:37 PM

STG,

By no means am I a computer expert, but I can relate to your experience. Our systems are pretty close, and I also used Win 98. I had "crashes" about 3x weekly. Pretty dang annoying.

My brother convinced me to go get XP. I was VERY skeptical, but I did it anyway. I don't regret it.

Since installing it about 4 months ago, I have had only one crash. It is a very stable platform.

Win XP installed easily and it absorbed *most* of my already installed programs. I did have to tweak a tiny bit to get some lesser-used programs to work well. Your system looks pretty vanilla (for lack of better term) and should migrate over to XP rather well.

--spud-- :smile:

The Fishing Geek · 12-12-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by STGRule:
Okay, bottom line. I have a clone built in early 1999. It has a AMD K6 400 3D CPU, 192 mg of RAM on a 100 MHZ board (I think that is how you say it). I run Office 97 pro as my major software (of which I use Excel most), I have Norton AntiVirus, and ZoneAlarm Firewall. I don't play games (except little kid stuff - Dig'-n-rigs, Mr. Potato Head, Freddy Fish stuff). I have a Soundblaster PCI card, a HP Deskjet 722C printer, a Microtek ScanMaker X6EL scanner, and a Broadband internet connection. MY OS is Windows 98 second edition. I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but I learn quick. I am SOOOOOO tired of my computer crashing. It has to crash as soon as I turn it on so I can have it on the rest of the day without a problem. Is it worth upgrading my OS, and to what? I am not interested in upgrading my scanner or printer as both work well without problems. Is it worth upgrading Windows without upgrading anything else? I am loathe to spend over $100.00 to upgrade Windows if I am not gaining anything. I keep thinking about a new computer except this one does everything I need (but it crashes). Any suggestions?

I did a quick search at your printer and scanner manufacturer's websites and, while the printer drivers come with Windows XP, you'll need to download drivers for your scanner. Your sound card should work with the drivers in XP.

So in theory from what you have provided your system should run on Windows XP. I would strongly recommend buying at least another 128 megabytes of RAM (it's cheap, so go another 256 if possible), as it would help your system operation greatly. According to Microsoft Windows XP should run on at least a 300 MHz CPU, so you should be okay there.

The problem that you WILL run into is that Office 97 will not run on Windows XP, nor will they support it. That's part of the Microsoft upgrade cycle. Anyway, all hope is not lost. You could use an alternative office suite such as Open Office, which you can download for free from the website. It is an exceptional office suite, and for free you really cannot go wrong. It will both read and write in native Microsoft Office formats (Word and Excel), plus it will write in it's own format. If you want to test drive it before you buy XP go ahead and download it and run it in Windows 98. It's quite a strong product.

[ 12-12-2002, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

Busy · 12-13-2002, 05:44 PM

Hey Geek,
Seems like you seem to know your stuff! I can't compare my system to yours because I bought a new computer with XPhome edition already installed but on my older computer I upgraded from ME to XP - no comparison! Much more stable.
Now to my question: I don't care much for the office suite that is in XP - too used to the old Office Suite. Will this program that you are referring to work well on my system? Is there something that you know of that will translate from the new junk on XP to the old Office Suite and back? Would make sending documents from work to home much easier!

The Fishing Geek · 12-13-2002, 06:55 PM

Open Office will run on a Windows machine running from Windows 95 all the way up to Windows XP, and can save in the various Office formats for compatibility all over the place (along with more open formats like RTF). They've got a lot of good info on their website, so check it out and then download it and give it a test drive. I was pleasantly surprised as to how good it is.

HeavyMetal BankFisherman · 12-19-2002, 07:09 PM

Hey Geek.

Is Open Office Star Office? After reading your post I downloaded it to put on a bunch of old comps a company I consult for is giving away to their employees. Just a bunch of old P2s. No OS so I loaded Mandrake. At least with Open Office they can do something other than browse the internet. Seemed like an ok product. Still not ready for the corporate desktop. Should work fine for the home user that wants to save some cash. And it runs on Windows. A good Open Source app is few and far between.

Gizmo Man · 12-19-2002, 09:46 PM

so tonight on my way home from the dr. I stop by Comp USA to buy a new hard drive and burner for my PII, 233.

In stead, I ended up buying a factory reconditioned Sony VAIO. 1.3 g with 256 mb sdram, dvd, cd-rw dirive, Intel 815 internal graphics and Windows XP home edition.

I paid $499.oo. No monitor. I have an older hp 720c printer and scanner.

My current system is a windows 98, but I have many problems with it hanging up.

What type of problems will I have moving the files for wp and my address books and pictures I have stored on the hd.

Is this a good price for what I got?

Is the Sony VAIO a good system?

Any good computers users out there that want to trade a fishing trip to help me set up the new sytem?

Giz...

The Fishing Geek · 12-20-2002, 04:32 AM

HMBF:

Star Office and Open Office are different projects. Star Office was purchased by Sun a couple years ago and went from free at version 5.2 to a pay product with version 6.0. Remains to be seen whether they'll survive that one. Open Office is an excellent Word alternative which would do great in the application you suggested.

Giz:

Vaio's are nice little computers, and that one will do great for you at that price. Your pornog...er....image files should move over fine to the new system, as should most everything else. I'm not sure what your address book is in format-wise, as long as it's not Outlook 97 or earlier. Everything else should be fine.

I'd take you up on the setting up of the computer but I'm flying out of town in 7 hours for a week and I doubt that you'd want to wait for me. Enjoy that Vaio, though. Nice setups.