I think WindowsXP looks lame

[mdntblu 0]

I think Windows XP looks lame. Like for children or something. I think they should have waited a while after Millennium came out to release another version. Just because one flops doesn't mean to release another one so soon. Windows 2000 still rocks and I am not going to switch to XP.

 

-------------------------------

Brad

sysop@w2kgamer.com

http://www.w2kgamer.com

[EddiE314 0]

have you actually used WinXP, or just browsed through some gay screenshots, i'm sure if you posted a pic of yourself we could all make snap judgements of you as well, if you don't like the way XP looks, you can change the taskbar and everything else to Windows Classic, no one cares if you switch to XP or not, just don't knock it til' you've tried it.

[jdulmage 0]

exactly, you know where this gaylord came from? probably from my affiliated BetaXtreme website, a lot of these people don't even know what they are talking about.

 

Secondly, this is an example of a lamer, his opinion means dick all, especially when he posted it in an unprofessional way.

 

Oops, your hipocritical aren't you? you say it's for children, yet your post made you sound like a child? ;(

 

By the way, my post may have sounded like a flame, but it was deserving enough, I would have done the same for anyone making fun of win2k the same way, but I don't mean to piss everyone off

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 19 March 2001).]

[EddiE314 0]

and this LaMer-fAG is promoting his site from that i can see:

 

http://www.ntcompatible.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001839.html

[jdulmage 0]

hmm, defintely not worth my time to have even posted the previous message then, he is just a nothing.

[EddiE314 0]

i hate these kind of people.

[EddiE314 0]

..

 

[This message has been edited by EddiE314 (edited 19 March 2001).]

[jdulmage 0]

now i'll be wondering what Eddie had said before he edited it, hehe

[Brian Frank 0]

I think XP LOOKS lame too, but Im not saying it IS lame. I cant justify the upgrade from Win2k, but from ME, Id say go to it ASAP!

Right now there's nothing motivating me to upgrade. And Im also waiting to see what bugs pop up in the final release. Im assuming MS has learned from the failure of Windows ME. ME sucked, but that does not mean that XP will.

If you dont like it, dont upgrade to it. Id like to test it out first. MS has some thing other than beta testers, like some pre-release deal...not sure exactly. I signed up for it, as it could be realtively cheap if its not the retail version, just for trying it out, Id probably jump at that. Ive got a machine ready to go with an extra partiton set for another OS.

BTW, can XP run under a FAT32 filesystem?

[Vampyr 0]

XP runs rather well under a fat32 filesystem

[Brian Frank 0]

Cool.

[jdulmage 0]

yea, this is a "someone with brains only" thread, except for the original post

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 19 March 2001).]

[mdntblu 0]

Not just because I've seen screen shots. It's lame cause I've used it. It's made to cover up Millennium. And secondly it's made to run on refridgerators and appliances. It's not an operating system to take over Win2k. Have you used it? Then how do you know what it's liked? Yeah the screen shots are hay too. If I change the taskbar and everything else back to classic then I might as well stick with Win2k? How dumb is it to load a new version of the same thing and switch it to look like what it is already??

 

Besides, it was only an opinion. I knew I could get other people talking about and wala it worked.

 

If I would have posted this in an all WinXP website then it would have been inappropriate. Like if I went to a honda civic website and said I think Honda Civics are lame. Whatever you get what I mean.

 

Basically none of you really said you liked Win XP. Just defended that I said it was lame.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by mdntblu (edited 19 March 2001).]

[felix 0]

Hello "mdntblu",

You really should do some more research before coming onto this site with members who been using XP/Whistler since Alpha 1 and spouting your uninformed opinions.

 

Are you even aware of the advances in compatibility that have been made with XP? Or perhaps the hot switch user feature.

 

Or perhaps it's the built in Terminal Services that make it so nice.

 

Anyway, I believe that you need some serious education because it appears that the only 2k/XP experience is that which you've picked up at school writing emails and surfing for pr0nz.

 

Good day.

 

[bug_666 0]

can you ppl read? mebbe you guys should reread the posts several times and have your family members reread them and then agree on the meaning because some of you ppl are in dire need of it(Forum jackass award goes to jdulmage of course). I agree that it looks gay (key word being LOOKS in case you haven't noticed). Before you get your panties in a twist, i used it myself. I do agree that some feature are pretty nice. the most notable of them is fast user switch. driver rollback sounds cool too. it's all cool but i don't want my os to look like a cross-breed between MacOS and Netscape 6. Computer and the OS are just tools, not barbie dolls.

As for the OS being made for children, i have to agree that it is significantly dumbed down compared to win2k.

check my new brown dog

 

http://a676.g.akamai.net/f/676/987/12h/p...ks/grab0006.JPG

 

here's what i mean by dumbed down:

 

http://a676.g.akamai.net/f/676/987/12h/p...bks/horror2.jpg

 

i agree that if xp is as stable as win2k then ME-->XP is a must for any loser stuck with that POS. WIN2K-->XP is not too significant. hmm, i don't really think that 'compatibility advances' would make all dos/win9x apps or games run w/o a hitch. The only real benefit is that there will be only a single windows platform instead of 2. Remote desktop is also pretty good but it needs a WORKING net hookup. if your system is hosed to the point where you can't even log on or your networking is messed up then RD is useless. I also wonder how secure it is given that it's up to the user to create passwords which are blank by default. i love waffles.

 

[This message has been edited by bug_666 (edited 19 March 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by bug_666 (edited 19 March 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by bug_666 (edited 19 March 2001).]

[elomire678 0]

One thing that makes it an enticing upgrade is the speed increase. It boots in 30 seconds on my machine, while 2000 would take 2 minutes. Speed increase is the major reason for 2000 lovers to upgrade to XP. Yes, it's a tiny upgrade. It's just like the upgrade from Windows 95B to Windows 98, or Windows NT 3.1 to Windows NT 3.5.

 

Personally I don't even see the reason they released Windows ME, just should've waited almost a year and gone with Windows XP instead.

[mdntblu 0]

"What does from that I can see" mean? The english language isn't that tough. Hey it's not even my site. I just think it's a cool site.

 

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by EddiE314:

and this LaMer-fAG is promoting his site from that i can see:

 

http://www.ntcompatible.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001839.html</font>

[clutch 1]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mdntblu:
Then how do you know what it's liked?

Yeah the screen shots are hay too.

How dumb is it to load a new version of the same thing and switch it to look like what it is already??

I knew I could get other people talking about and wala it worked.

[This message has been edited by mdntblu (edited 19 March 2001).]</font>

Yes, you obviously have a stranglehold on the finer points of the language yourself. And this was AFTER your attempt at editing it.



------------------
Regards,

clutch

[EddiE314 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mdntblu:
Not just because I've seen screen shots. It's lame cause I've used it. It's made to cover up Millennium. And secondly it's made to run on refridgerators and appliances. It's not an operating system to take over Win2k. Have you used it? Then how do you know what it's liked? Yeah the screen shots are hay too. If I change the taskbar and everything else back to classic then I might as well stick with Win2k? How dumb is it to load a new version of the same thing and switch it to look like what it is already??

Besides, it was only an opinion. I knew I could get other people talking about and wala it worked.

If I would have posted this in an all WinXP website then it would have been inappropriate. Like if I went to a honda civic website and said I think Honda Civics are lame. Whatever you get what I mean.

Basically none of you really said you liked Win XP. Just defended that I said it was lame.


[This message has been edited by mdntblu (edited 19 March 2001).]</font>

-----------------

Yes i AM using it D1ckhead, i may not be running the latest version (only running 2428), but the build is good enough to use as my main OS and not have to reinstall win2k again, don't get me wrong, i love win2k, but i'm starting to fall for windows xp as well. and what do you mean its to cover up WinME?! Lamer.

[EddiE314 0]

i'm also sorry that i had a typo in my post, sorry i don't please you with perfect grammar. Besides, you're still a lamer.

--------

 

jdulmage - in that blank reply of mine, it only said the same thing as the one above it, i'm on a dial-up and there must have been some breaking of the laws of physics, or just plain latency, because i don't remember clicking the Submit button twice....besides, do you think i would edit my own reply?? Hell no, thats SHS's job.

[DeadCats 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jdulmage:
exactly, you know where this gaylord came from?...this is an example of a lamer, his opinion means dick all, especially when he posted it in an unprofessional way...</font>

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jdulmage 09 March 2001:It ain't just me, but the past 3 months in this forum have shown unprofessional attitudes, pointless posts, rude and personal situations with damn near half to 3/4 of the posts made here...This forum is starting to suck.,,Counntless flame wars over OS's, processors, video card companies, hardware, software, the works....everything being flamed all the time, shows NO professional attitudes by ALL of us, including myself....But we should try doing it in a professional manner...</font>

Is it really necessary to go any further than this?

[ThC 129 0]

there are a lot of reasons i switched to XP over 2k. One of those is the boottime, the other is terminal services, skinning is nice too, also the new improvments they have made in making it easier for people to up/downgrade drivers easier. System restore is a nice feature for amateurs who like to fool around to learn and end up f-ing their system. Also integrated CD-burning and more multimedia funtionality helped move me to XP. Ive used a lot of MS operating systems but I have never found a better OS than XP, to me the jump from 2k to XP was like the jump from DOS to 9x. When all the cards are down MS is making a good step in thee right direction in aiming an OS promoting the three things home users and business users alike want. Stability, Speed, and Multimedia funtionality which includes support for the newest USB devices and the latest hardware architecture. If you read some of the White papers on XP then you will see there is A LOT more to it than what is on the surface of the OS. This OS will be M$'s sink or swim OS.

[Brian Frank 0]

I agree with TheC 129. MS has to really get this one right, after all ME wasnt the greatest OS theyve put out.

They're gonna have to make people really, really, really want to upgrade. The 9x line needs the stability jump more than anything, so that is definately a motivator on that end, but I think its going to be a little harder to convince the business world as easily. Windows costs big bucks, and not all businesses may upgrade just because, especially in the case of Win2K, it works like they like it to. Plus lets not forget time and guys that are paid to test the OS out for problems. Although I dont know why any huge business would run on Win9x, when you can run Win2k or even Linux.

MS is gonna crash and burn if XP doenst fly.

Sure there are a lot of features to motivate an upgrade, but I dont think everyone wants these features. I personally didnt like Media Player 7, the sound was horrible. I wasnt to fond of Movie Maker being installed. As for System Restore, good idea, but Im pretty sure that alot of people are a greedy miser when it comes to hard drive space. I sure am, and I wont use it if its just to big. I know you can limit the space it takes up, but still, if you have 40GB of stuff, thats a whole lot to restore.

XP seems to be aimed solely at newbies, not power users like alot of people here. I like to do a lot of stuff by myself, I CD-ROM autoplay, I dont like anything executing without me doing it.

Hopefully, this 9x/NT mix will be spectacular, but proceed with caution...and remember ME.

[jdulmage 0]

your right, but what made ME so crappy? uhh, it became very unstable with DOS taken out (I think they forgot to patch it up after cutting the hole) and NT has had emulated DOS, very stable.

 

Me is based off of 9x, 9x ain't very stable compared to NT

 

So, why worry about Me? something that has happened in a 9x environment? nothing in NT has gone wrong as far as an OS is concerned, they've all been great

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 19 March 2001).]

[Galilee 0]

I don't get this WinMe is unstable part. Its not unstable here. Maybe I'm doing something wrong