XP-What do you think of it now?
#1
Posted 02 December 2001 - 02:04 AM
#2
Posted 02 December 2001 - 03:27 AM
#3
Posted 02 December 2001 - 06:40 AM
#4
Posted 02 December 2001 - 11:18 AM
#5
Posted 02 December 2001 - 01:33 PM
#6
Posted 02 December 2001 - 02:57 PM
I like most of it, and what I don't like I can turn off.. wicked
#8
Posted 02 December 2001 - 11:11 PM
#9
Posted 03 December 2001 - 03:01 AM
..also i've only had the inf loop problem one time, that's it...i guess i'm lucky, using the recent xp driver from Nvidia 21.83 on my Leadtek Geforce2mx SH Pro.
has anybody checked out the Remote Connection feature? It Kicks A$$, i like it alot better than VNC
#10
Posted 04 December 2001 - 07:55 AM
#11
Posted 05 December 2001 - 06:55 PM
OTHER THAN THAT, Nothing has managed to crash XP on me, and Im also impressed with the game performance. It is a little slower than 2k for 2D stuff though (dont argue with this - why do u think the requirements are greater? - If you have a very fast system you probably wont tell the difference)
But yes, over all I think its the best windows to use. It's a good balance of compatibility/speed/stability.
However, if I could get games performing well under 2K (like many people tell me it does) I would use that, because 2K is XP without the bloat and bugs.
#12
Posted 07 December 2001 - 02:43 AM
I used to run the 22.83's, am now running 23.11. Not a problem yet.
I'd love to know more about this...
#13
Posted 08 December 2001 - 08:53 PM
-The look of XP is great
-Multiusager is sameting of Mac OS 8/9??
-Microsoft is the Leader for OS, so it's better?
#14
Posted 10 December 2001 - 09:23 PM
But hey it does the job it was designed for and i would have to say well done MS as its actually an excellent OS.
#15
Posted 11 December 2001 - 02:41 AM
#16
Posted 11 December 2001 - 09:55 AM
XP=Win2000 for dummies.
XP=Win2k with new features that dummies can't figure out how to disable
Seriously, I don't really see that much of a difference from 2k now that I've tweaked it a little and turned off a bunch of unneeded services. However, most of those same services were enabled by default on Win2k just like they are on XP.
I just don't see why such a big deal has been made of XP. I mean, it's NT 5.1 which makes it the WinME of the NT world, only it actually works.
#17
Posted 11 December 2001 - 01:55 PM
Thing is that i have yet to see anything that i can run on XP that i cant on 2000, so not much point in me using it.
BTW stuff like remote desktop were already in win2000, just there were tucked away so they wernt so obvious. Remote desktop is in netmeeting for example.
[EDIT]
I just have to say that if transport tycoon deluxe worked on XP that would give me a reason to 'upgrade' cos that game 'rocks'.
#18
Posted 11 December 2001 - 06:28 PM
Is WinXP oversimplified? I thought Win2K was WAY oversimplified when coming from NT4 and Novell, but I got used to it and really liked the platform quite a bit. Almost all of the statements being made about WinXP now were being made about Win2K when it was released. Personally, I dig the new Start Menu and some of the other features (larger thumbnails for picture browsing, which was all I used ACDesee [sp] for anyway) along with the major performance increase on faster machines.
#19
Posted 11 December 2001 - 07:59 PM
Oh yeah, tonight I am gonna see if carmageddon 2 works on my Wxp Home ver pc.
/me crosses fingers.
#20
Posted 11 December 2001 - 08:30 PM
If it did then xp would totally 'rock', see now your just giving me an excuse to say 'rock'.

Help










