XP to Win2k is what ME was to Win98, junk...anybody agree?

[oldspice 0]

I have read a lot of positive posts in regard to Whistler but I have to say that after trying a couple versions for kicks and giggles I find it to be an over-weight version of Win2k which actually slowed down my games. I know it is in beta stages but for someone who is still running a P2-350 it really was glitchy.

I am, however, really pleased with how Win2k is coming around and once the driver's evolve I believe that Win2k will be the one to last.

I know I do need to upgrade, and I will, but has anyone else experienced this same kind of reaction to Whistler or is it just me?

Maybe, a lot of people have 1G processors and they don't notice the poor performance of Whistler. Just wanted to see if I'm alone in this thinking...

[ThC 129 0]

I have a PII 400 and 256 megs of RAM. I find whistler to be the best operating system ive ever used. Why simply put it has everything i want in an OS Speed, Stability, Compatiability, Easy Administration. It is the perfect Workstation Operating system. It is designed to help the average user learn how to manipulate the things they want (screen size desktop ect) without trashing their OS. It is also made so people can find things easier and is designed to have a tighter multi-media integration from MediaPlayer to Built in CD Burning. Yes whistler is not going to run on systems with 128megs or less of RAM because of the intense GUI and multimedia requirements, all that based on top of the NT Architecture won't make it run very smooth unless you have a midrange to high end box. As for gaming whistler is designed for it with DX 8 integrated into it and games like FreeCell and Minesweeper and Spades in it where do you get off saying it sucks for gaming! Hell I even scored a 1million in pinball last night When whistler comes out i will be jumping to get my hands on a copy IIS 6, IE 6 Mediaplayer 8, built in CD-R Burning, Skinable, Speedier than 2k. IMO I find whistler to be a very good step in the right direction of a more internet and multimedia integrated OS.

[Brian Frank 0]

My biggest gripe about Whistler/WinXP is the way MS wants to move it to a total net based/subscription based OS. Since the computer is mine, I SHOULD BE THE ONE WHO DECIDES HOW I WILL USE IT. I dont want MS patching up things automatically. While the ability to get my files from anywhere I want would be nice, think about the security problems! Ive heard that MS ultimate goal with the .NET strategy is to have everything web based. You think weve got privacy problems now...just wait till youve got to get everything off the web, including the OS. How the hell are you supposed to do a clean install if you have to download it. And even then, broadband is gonna have to get really quick, even using DSL or cable its gonna take a few HOURS to download the OS, before you install it. And thats provided something doesnt go wrong during the download... if something does go wrong, like a power outage...whoops! And what about laptops: now and for the forseeable future, onboard broaband connections are probably going to be a problem.

I also dont like the fact that MS forced the movie maker program down our throats. Let me say again since it is my computer, I want to be the one calling the shots concerning it. Plus, I think Media Player 7 sucked in comparison with Winamp. MP7 sounded terrible, worse than real player. Skinnable programs are okay, but they could mess up some people when theyre working with a skin that really changes things or makes them difficult to see. After my fiasco with ME, Im gonna wait until I see how many problems surface in the first 3 months for XP, if I decide to make the jump to it. Another thing is that there is no reason why you should have a decrease in performance when you upgrade. I find it irritating to have to buy an insane amount of ram or other parts just to have a relatively quick OS. MS media based programs are bloated POS.

If MS thinks its "anticipating consumers needs." it wont be with me.

[Questionnaire 0]

>>"Maybe, a lot of people have 1G processors and they don't notice the poor performance of Whistler. Just wanted to see if I'm alone in this thinking..."<<

 

Well, in my two fastest systems, one with a PIII @ 1050MHz and the other, a PIV @ 1600MHz I can clearly say that the slower performance is noticable, even on a fast system.

 

 

>>"As for gaming whistler is designed for it with DX 8 integrated into it and games like FreeCell and Minesweeper and Spades in it where do you get off saying it sucks for gaming! Hell I even scored a 1million in pinball last night"<<

 

Now the truth comes out with the guys here that claim Xp is as fast as WinMe in games. Look at WTF their playing for god sakes! Well of course you're not gonna see the performance hit playing little baby games! How about firing up QIII at 1600x1200 with maxxed out graphics settings? Still as fast as Win98/Me?? I don't want my farkin 1600MHz cpu feeling like god damn a 800 after all the tweaking I did!! Um, I think i'll stick with the fast stuff.

 

 

>>"My biggest gripe about Whistler/WinXP is the way MS wants to move it to a total net based/subscription based OS. Since the computer is mine, I SHOULD BE THE ONE WHO DECIDES HOW I WILL USE IT. I dont want MS patching up things automatically."<<

 

Hhhhmm... Every day I read something else that turns me away from XP.

 

 

>>"I also dont like the fact that MS forced the movie maker program down our throats."<<

 

100% Agreed! You should be able to select the EXACT components you want during the install! Which now reminds me, how many people complain about not being able to uninstall direct x and/or go back to a previous generation of direct x? How many people complain about the latest versions of Media Player? They get bulkier, slower loading, etc.etc. The very reason why I use Winamp over it!

 

And about all this NET intergration crap, is everyone expected to be on the NET?? What about the people without a NET connection?? What will they do??

 

The Questionnaire

 

[This message has been edited by Questionnaire (edited 01 March 2001).]

[EddiE314 0]

i can't totally agree on the grounds that i have not used 2428 yet, but i'm guessing it'll turn out like that.

[ThC 129 0]

The .net approach MS and many other companies are looking at right now is in very infant stages and wouldnt be a viable option in the next 2-5 years. As for everyone being on the internet yes in order for the world to communicate effectively you must have some broad means of communication that is effective and reliable thus the internet.

 

As for 9x/ME always being faster than an NT OS that is pure crap because 9x is based on an OLD 16-bit architecture that was obsolete over 3 years ago.

 

As for not being able to select what components you want to install that is because the install program right now is much like NT and it is expected to be run script based without any user input so you know what is going on the OS and don't have programs like movie maker and WMP7 installed.

 

As for benchmarks and speed why are you benchmarking a beta OS?? Not even an RC OS nonetheless but a beta one with drivers written for windows 2000 on it.

 

In my opinion WindowsXP and the whole NT line are like the Pro's and Windows 98/ME are like the Single or Double A farm team.

 

Im not an avid gameplayer because i dont have the cash to get a GF2 ultra and a Pentium 3 800 @ whatever you overclock it to. But from what games ive played i notice no difference from when i was using 2k or 9x minus a few quirks with playing a game built for a different os they run fine.

[Brian Frank 0]

Let me be blunt: Everytime MS comes out with the latest and greatest OS, the system requirements become heftier and that is unacceptable. Just because you can load up your board to 1.5GB of ram and have a 1.5GHz P4, doesn't mean that the OS your running has to be so bloated that it hinders the true performance of the system. I do think that ME is the worst of the 9x line. The NT code is bigger than the 9x code,but it doesnt have to expand with each release. How are you gonna get a streamlined OS if you have to stock up on ram everytime you upgrade.

[clutch 1]

Well, I have worked with subscription based software, and I don't think that the OS will virtually run off the web. That is a lot of infrastructure to dedicate to customers getting online just to validate their OS at boot up or whatever. Plus, there will still be the vast majority of people on analog modems, so the online performance for browsing is barely acceptable as it is, let alone have an OS getting everything it *thinks* it needs. Win98 has been getting its patches in "Windows Update" for the last 3 years with no real issues. I would imagine that XP would go to a system like that.

 

As far as performance goes, a few of the testers on the Windows XP forum seem to like it, and I imagine it will be fine. I haven't tested it, but from what I have read of the OS it will have a lot of features that I don't need (personal firewall, built-in burner software, etc). I bet it will be awesome when it comes out (you know, after SP1 or 2...), but I am not holding my breath for it.

 

Oh, and as far as using old equipment with the newer MS OSs, I have an old Compaq Prosignia 233 here that I just put Win2K server on. It runs Exchange 5.5 *faster* in Win2K Server than it did in NT4. Something to think about.

 

[Questionnaire 0]

>>"As for benchmarks and speed why are you benchmarking a beta OS??"<<

 

Because people keep saying it's as fast as Win9x in games, RIGHT NOW IN THE BETA FORM!! And i'm just clearly givin my POV from a hardcore gamers aspect, not someone who's comparing barbie dolls to hercules! So that why im benching the beta! Stop saying it's as fast in games, and i'll stop benching it!

 

The Questionnaire

 

[This message has been edited by Questionnaire (edited 01 March 2001).]

[Questionnaire 0]

>>"Let me be blunt: Everytime MS comes out with the latest and greatest OS, the system requirements become heftier and that is unacceptable. Just because you can load up your board to 1.5GB of ram and have a 1.5GHz P4, doesn't mean that the OS your running has to be so bloated that it hinders the true performance of the system."<<

 

Exactly! Like I said before, I don't want my 1600MHz system feeling like a damn 800 after all the money and tweaking I put into it! *Sigh* Atleast one person sees it the way it realy is! I thought technology was supposed to get more efficient instead of less? Same reason why the Voodoo 5 never did well and the Geforce did, mwaahhahahahahaa!

 

The Questionnaire

[RattDawg 0]

100% agreed. Plus the security features that force me to buy 3 copies for my 3 home systems have me a little more than put off

[ThC 129 0]

i never said it was as fast as 9x games IN THE CURRENT STATE, not only will it be faster by time the OS is released but it will be better. I dont care one way or another if you use XP or not Im just saying that due to many current limitations with the current 9x architecture you will only end up hurting yourself running 9x. Also I completely agree with jdulmage your EULA is valid for only your workstation and 1 other box usually a laptop. Do people abuse this yes, is this a gay tactic to get more money sure as hell it is but one way or another i will find a crack for it and continue to use XP until Blackcomb comes out then i will use that. XP is a lot faster than 2k and once it is more refined it will only be better.

 

Bottom line is if you don't like it don't use it and quit *****ing.

[Galilee 0]

WinMe owns Win98

and Win XP will own Win2k

[Son_Gohan 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">XP is a lot faster than 2k and once it is more refined it will only be better. </font>

with more than 256 MB RAM, i presume?
Or does it run at least as good as win2k with only 128 MB RAM?

[ThC 129 0]

it runs good on 128 but i would recommend more than that i would say at least 256 to optimize performance. Hell might as well buy RAM now while it is cheap.

[whoisurdaddy 0]

I ran XP the other day on my Thunderbird 800 system w/ 256 mb PC-133 RAM and it wasn't running as fast as Win2k. I don't like XP based on that beta version (2428) so far. But I have not given up on XP yet. I will see the final version of XP before I make any judgements on XP. For now, I like Win2k better than XP. I haven't ran any games on XP yet so I don't know how much slower it is than Win2k. From my general usage, I am guessing it will be slower than Win2k. In case if you are wondering the full system spec that I installed XP on here it is:

 

Abit KT7A

Thunderbird 800

Crucial 256mb PC-133

Viper 770 Ultra 32mb

IBM 30GB Ultra ATA-100

3Com 10 Mbit

[Sparkhard 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Galilee:

WinMe owns Win98
</font>

LOL

[jdulmage 0]

wow, another gay lame post??? gee, original poster must have no life.

 

1) This has nothing to do with games, it's in the wrong spot

 

2) Give up on your useless battle for the "great" OS. People will use what they want to, you don't like it, don't install it. Because, I read every one of your guy's posts, all of you are still clueless on MS's activation crap, it's funny really.

 

losers

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 08 March 2001).]

[Brian Frank 0]

ME SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going to wait a few months after XP comes out, just to make sure important things like drivers, apps, and just about everything else works properly-minus the few bugs that werent caught, before and if I go to XP. Hopefully, MS has learned something from ME--dont put out a half-*** POS operating system full of bugs and incompatability.

XP had better be more stable than ME, and MS should not include crap like the Movie Maker which cant be unselected by the user, or the Media Player 7 which is no match for WinAmp.

XP should be better, but after seeing ME, I will wait after XP comes out just to make sure they didnt screw up anything.

The NT core should prove to be much more stable than anything dreamed about by the 9x core.

[jdulmage 0]

hahaha, dumb fag.

 

It includes WMP 8 (winamp sucks compared to that, infact, winamp just sucks cuz it makes my bass sound like a lawnmower).

 

It comes with Movie Maker (lots of people I know use that).

 

so get over it, MS better this and MS better that? why? they are suppose to please you so taht you can just turn around and illegal obtain the final release? you make me sick to my stomach.

 

The only thing I want to see in XP is a application chooser like 98/Me has where you can check off what stuff you want installed ahead of time.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 08 March 2001).]

[miku 0]

Well for those who dont know..

 

in win2k, you can select components you want to install and leave the rest out by using an automated install with a setup file.

 

read the unattend.doc

 

ARC

[qwerty01 0]

I guess every post of jdulmage's in this thread are a part of his non-helpful 20%.

 

I guess Winamp would suck on a pair of $5 Yamaha 4 watt speakers huh? I know that Winamp ROCKS on Klipsch Pro Media 4.1's.

 

I don't care if you and your friends make little movies on movie maker whacking each other off, it is not necessary for an OS to MAKE you install it.

[ThC 129 0]

lol, this is funny. I run XP and ME (only to play Tiger Woods 2k1 the ONLY thing i run ME for f*cking EA) and I find XP to be a shi*ton faster than ME and a LOT faster than 2k. Not to mention the better D3d and OpenGL support 2446 has but since you aren't beta testers just w*rez fags that do nothing but get OSes to play around with them so you can make movies of your friend whacking off instead of testing the OS for compatibility issues, looking for bugs, and other things BETA TESTERS are supposed to do not sit here and whine about how this OS isnt as good as that one when you got the f-in thing for free anyway.

[Brian Frank 0]

Jdulmage:

SHUT THE F*CK UP!!!!!!

You are beginning to p*ss everyone off!

Media Player 7 had compatability problems with Win2k. When I ran it under ME, the sound sucked, so I used Winamp.

AND I AM NOT LOOKING FOR ANYTHING TO DO ILLEGAL REGARDING MICROSOFT.

I find that Movie Maker is nothing but a space hog on my hard drive.

I will pay for ONE copy of XP.

And right now, I dont need to upgrade to XP.

Just because you think XP is the greatest OS thus far, doesnt mean that everyone else has to think so.

[Brian Frank 0]

And another thing, Jdulmage:

 

You are getting about as irritating as the "Why is my system so dope" fag.