Now that it has been out a while...

[Lotus 0]

How do you like XP as an OS? I have heard so many mixed reports on it. What type of system specs do you need to make it efficient? Any major bugs still in it?

 

Any comments appreciated!

[thatsteveguy 0]

Personally I prefer win2k.

I don't need all the purty colors and stuff and I really find no major difference between the two other than 2k isn't as much as a resource hog.

S

[mezron 0]

I like it a lot myself. It handles compatability with older stuff, especially games a bit more gracefully than Win2k does. I like that it boots a lot faster than 2k does also. As far as the Fisher-Price theme thats used by default in XP that can be changed back to classic explorer in like 3 mouseclicks. I like the way the Start menu has been changed. It takes all the icons from the desktop except for the Recycle bin and puts it on the Start button. It's another one of those things you can change back to the old way in under 3 mouse clicks if you don't like it. All in all, it's everything Win2k is plus it adds some really nice little things.

 

As far as system requirements go, if you're using anything over about 500 Mhz with 256 MB RAM you'll be good. The last time I saw a blue screen on my system was over a year ago. That was on my old motherboard, which I suspect as flaky. My video card fit loosely in the agp slot. No probs since new motherboard.

 

I still have problems with the whole product activation thing though. It's kinda funny, I bought XP Pro but I actually use the corporate disk that you can download from the shadows of the Internet.

 

Jim

[ViolentGreen 0]

Quote:

Quote:

How do you like XP as an OS?

It's quite excellent!

It's stable & capable & probably the EASIEST for compatibilty with legacy games & apps out of the box without major tweaking like using the Application Compatibility Toolkit & other 3rd party programs.

MY personal case-in-point is the Williams Arcade pack running WITH SOUND & running fast here on XP where it would not on 2k with sound... XP just seems more capable with emulators like this old Win9x program (allows me to play a few OLD CLASSIC favorites of mine in Defender, StarGate, & Robotron 2084 which I like very much using this particular program as just a single example I run into!)

Quote:

I have heard so many mixed reports on it. What type of system specs do you need to make it efficient?

You'd have to see MS' recommendations for the EXTREME low-end, & I wager it'd run on lower than that, IF you could get it to install on lower end machines than MS' spec for it (because it's SO tuneable internally for performance)... It does checking @ installation for various things like HDD space, CPU type, & other things that limit your options here.

(NOTE - I'd bet this is adjusteable though possibly, by altering the .inf or .ini files used to initiate the installation on the Cd-Rom itself... I have seen other folks alter that to make installs do various things...)

ANYHOW, back on track - The reason I say this?

Well, I could run NT 3.51 on a 486 Dx/4 133mhz w/32mb RAM on it, 424mb of diskspace in total between 2 disks of 212mb size each, & it ran acceptably... 2k/XP are just members/descendants of that ancestor NT 3.51 & I'd wager, if you tuned XP or 2k right, they might run on Pentium I systems of 100mhz or better w/64mb of RAM even pretty well, slow, but useable on a guess! Diskspace limits could be hopefully gotten around by slimming-down how many options you choose to install from the basic std. installation type.

Another work-around for this, to test it? Use PLUG-N-PLAY to your advantage potentially! What do I mean? Well... I had a system that would NOT let me install XP (but it allowed NT & 9x just fine, old VIA mobo based machine)... how did I fool it? I installed it onto that systems bootdisk on another VIA based system (newer one) first by transplanting the bootdrive briefly from the older machine to the newer one, installing the Os, removing the disk again & putting it back in the OLDER one, & then upon reboot... PLUG & PLAY oddly picked up the differences & changed equipment & ran it perfectly!

Quote:

Any major bugs still in it?

Well, those are ALWAYS going to pop-up, especially in the arena of security... but MS is good patching it quick usually. Major Bugs? None I see that are "major", just some silly useability things usually is what I see, stuff like MMC.exe .msc snapins for Microsoft Management Console not saving the last Windows Size & position for each snap in (the disk defrag one does though, proving it's doable, but the rest don't), Explorer.exe periodically loses its view settings on some folders (seems to only use last instance view from last use of Explorer.exe only), but nothing HUGE on my end @ least that I see as a major bug.

There ARE some things in the NTFS filesystem that need correction though...

For instance:

Zero byte length files take up NO space... right?

WRONG!

In NTFS, the MFT$ (Master File Table, like FAT table in Fat16/32 filesystems) keeps attributes of even 0 byte sized files... if a virus were to sit in memory creating LOADS of zero-byte files @ highspeed, eventually you would flood your disk & NOT know why by bloating the MFT$ up to the limits of freedisk space.

(Crazy, eh?)

Another one is the feature of Alternate Data Streams... where you can hide a file of ANY size inside the filestream of another file & make it TOTALLY invisible (NTFS only)... this is VERY easy to do in fact (was included in NTFS due to compatibility iirc, with Apple computers), look it up online sometime on how to do it.

A virus could, theoretically, create GIGANTIC files via copy (faster than writing out data which would give away its activity too quickly if you ask me, use existing data instead), & insert them into the stream of another file thus hiding it COMPLETELY!

This could eventually flood your disk totally out as well or creating other types of filesystem errors, like cross-links & such.

MS includes NO tools for the detection of this afaik... Thank Goodness, that there are FREE 3rd party ones that check for this, but this is something that should be native to the OS itself...

Why?

Well, not even the Operating System &/or filesystem are aware of these types of files believe it or not once they are hidden... you as the user have to be. If a virus does this, it WILL get you, & you'd be none the wiser, as you would have NO idea this alternate datastream was created.

Heh, be glad I don't create virus... I'd come up with some wild ones just based on these NTFS caveats.

One question I've always had is HOW do defraggers deal with Alternate Data Streams in files on NTFS Filesystems & is this accounted for PROPERLY by them??

Quote:

Any comments appreciated!

* You got them above!



APK

...Dude... Do you have a job?

[clutch 1]

Quote:

...Dude... Do you have a job?

LOL, not the answer you thought you would get, eh? Oh, and he's notorious for incredibly long posts. It takes a bit to get used to (and many here still haven't).

Also, there was another thread on comparing XP and 2K, but it got buried somewhere when APK decided to dig up a ton of old posts and bumped them all up to the top (some of which were 3 years old). Maybe if APK was industrious enough, he could dig that one up as well...

[ViolentGreen 0]

Not exactly.

 

It was meant as more of a joke.

 

But anyway, He seems to be very sharp and I doubt his unemployment will be long.

[clutch 1]

Yeah, he's a programmer by nature, and I believe acting as a consultant right now.