Win XP Pro FINAL

[Makaveli]

Well After no response to my previous Thread I went ahead and installed Win XP PRO. AND OMG This is the best Microsoft OS I've ever had the pleasure of using. The Speed at which XP opens up programs is far superior to previous version of Windows. Heard alot of people saying that it slows down your system. I didn't find this to be true. But just in case I went to the settings and put XP back to the classic window defaults.

One thing I did up my system ram to 256mb before installing, Need to do it anyways so I figured now was the best time.

 

[mpjesse]

Yeah, I like XP a lot too. It's a lot faster in most things. ESP. boot up. The only problem I've had is trying to get windows to boot in reg. mode with a new BIOS i downloaded- i had to revert back to an old BIOS. Strange. Security is good too.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"

 

[flamethrower205]

Is XP faster than Win2k, or the same speed?

Your brain: PC
You brain on drugs: Mac

 

[dhlucke]

I just got the final yesterday and installed it. It seems ok so far, but it sure looks a lot like a mac. We'll see how it does in the next couple of weeks though in stability. I haven't really done anything with it yet. Still getting comfortable with it.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>

 

[mpjesse]

In boot up XP is faster- but as far as overall stability and performance in the OS they're about the same.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"

 

[markprz]

>But it sure looks a lot like a mac.

Microsoft's never been accused of THAT before. 😉

 

[upec]

How does it compare to Windows 2000?

 

[marty123]

I only had version 2526 of XP on my computer, there are some really good features with it, but i found it slowed down some things quite a bit. I did some really strange things with the CPU utilization, sometimes when there was nothing open, the CPU would sitt on 100% for a few minutes at a time, when you did try to open anything it would be slow. The most annoying thing with it was, when you drag across multiple files, eg to copy them, the would become unbearbaly slow, might be a bug with the version i had. The internet seemed incredibly slow too, some sites would take forever to open.

It also wouldn't let me put the latest divx codecs on the computer, the default media player wouldn't open any videos, the old media player which came with it would though. The new media player is crap anyway.
Oh, the drivers for a HP deskjet 640C which it installs are crap, but it won't let you put any better ones on, my HP scanner 4300C will not work with it at all, despite the fact that it picks it up as being plugged in, and with the drivers, nothing i could do would make it work.

I found 2000 to be better, i just reinstalled 2000 back on now everything works well again. I might XP back on when the retail version comes out.

BTW, my comp is
Athlon 750
Asus K7V
512M RAM
1 x 30G WD HDD, 1 x 20G WD HDD
TNT2 Ultra (my GTS is at the shop being replaced)

 

[Makaveli]

I'm using XP Pro Final and not BEta and have had no such problems. I also installed the Divx 4 codec and no issues.
And the New Media player is hella faster than previous versions!
For anyone using XP go download Tweak XP has alot of options for different systems. Installing XP was so Easy on my system. After installation I didn't have to install any drivers and my system was up and running immediately.


<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9802" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9802</A>

 

[mbetea]

no drivers were needed after isnstall? well gee, that does seem to be a trend with brand new OSes. frankly, winXP is a disappointment. win2000's release compared to winNT4 was a MAJOR improvement. where as xp i didn't see any improvements and actually caused problems i hadn't run into under w2k. as far as the interface goes. it's cheesy, it was cool for like the first 4 hours, but after that it was annoying and went back to the classic theme. and 3 days later i went back to w2k. i'm sure though anyone that uses their comp for work would plainly see that all XP is, is their attempt to compete with OSX. show me one substantial improvement and i will not only be surprised but i'll apologize. personally i say stick with w2k or upgrade to w2k until they release another new OS. which should be probably 2 years at the most, by then their might be some good improvements.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!

 

[marty123]

I will have to wait until the retail comes out then, i noticed on the HP site that the drivers aren't realsed yet for XP, but it says the hardware was supported. I tried to install the 2000 ones as the XP ones didin't work. I couldn't get it to work.

Installing XP is really good, it picked up all my hardware without any hassles, (even it it didn't work). I have to admit, i much prefer the "classic theme" especially with the start menu bar, i lasted about 1 day and the new look menu bar was driving me insane so i switched back to the classic.

 

[Makaveli]

Hmm you obviously had some major problems with XP. I'm sorry but I don't share your views on XP. I've not had any problems and i've had it on my system for the last 5 days.
I also went back to the classic theme cause that's what i'm use to. It's good that you are sticking with Win2k another good OS. But for me I Won't give up the Boot speed increase
and Game support XP has over Win2k.

 

[Guest]

Question, I have an MSI K7 Master, with an AMD 760 chipset.

Do I need to install the VIA 4-in-1 drivers and the AMD miniport drivers with XP?

Wayne

 

[Makaveli]

That's a good question, I suggest you try the AMD driver. But as for the Via drivers don't install them with XP. I asked the same question, and a friend of mine was brave enough to install them. And he said his system went unstable

Create system restore point and get ready for a driver roll back if your gonna try them!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9802" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9802</A>

 

[Guest]

Why is the driver needed at all? I don't understand cos I install it without any problem. I am using an Abit board with Duron 700(overclock to 800).

 

[wseaton]

>>win2000's release compared to winNT4 was a MAJOR improvement.<<

Why? Because it's plug and play and NT 4.0 wasn't? Or is Win2K "better" than NT 4.0 because you get higher Quake frame rates? In that case, please take your pimple medication and go to bed. Frankly I've seen little real difference in Win2K over NT 4.0 except for minor kernal improvements that allow Win2K to function better as a multi role server rather than specific role - that's it. I'm still doing heavy deployments of NT 4.0 servers because many companies could give a sh^t about Active Directory and aren't going to rewrite their entire legacy base of applications because Microsoft wants them to. Win2K has just enough additional registriy security to force developers to have to re-write thier product installs.

Lets make some REAL comparisons between NT 4.0 and Win2k/XP (the later are the same OS with minor tweaking). NT 4.0 isn't plug and play while Win2K is. This means NT 4.0 is more stable in a server role because glitchy peripherals that can't make up their mind which IRQ they are on can't throw the OS into a tailspin, like CD-ROMS. I don't even think Win2k and XP are as good at plug-n-pray device detection as even Win95 was. I do think that Win2K's annoying habit of locking up and BSODing with Winmodems is pretty cute. I like that shade of blue.

NT 4.0's GUI is also MUCH faster than Win2K/XP's. Just load up 40-50 people on NT 4.0 terminal server vs Win2K terminal server and you'll see just how sluggish Win2k's interface is. The reason that some apps appear faster in XP is because the OS reserves resources to be dedicated towards launching that executable ahead of others. Not a whole lotta good if you don't run Microsoft apps. There are many 3rd party written utilities all the way back to win 3.1 that can do the same trick.

Win2K takes 4x longer to install than NT 4.0, but Win2K does support Direct-X native. This means you can play more games on it, as well as lock up your user session on more web sites (thank you Active-X) and BSOD the server with Direct-X based screen savers. Thank your microsoft for moving the video subsystem to Ring (0) from it's more stable NT 3.51 configuration. The Reason? To make games faster..... NT 4.0 doesn't have USB support, so I guess I'll just have to keep using my obsolete SCSI devices while Win2K does, but gee, Win2K doesn't have ASPI support and essentially requires a hack to enable it.

I've run REAL benchmarks of Win2K vs NT 4.0, you know, like pounding the server with SQL transactions or firing multiple FTP transfer sessions and copying gigabit files using SMB. Things that grown-ups who go to work and run businesses actually do rather than say "wow, it runs quake faster". Guess what? No difference....Win2K is just as inefficient at IP transmission as NT 4.0. A Novell server with 1/3 the hardware/CPU and twice the load can still move data more efficiently than Win2K.

I love NT and have been one of the strongest proponents of this OS before the days of 3.51. However, I find little difference under the hood in terms of comapring NT 4.0 vs Win2k vs XP. NT 4.0 is still the cleanest and most flexible in terms of specific role modes while Win2K server can handle multi role services better. XP is nothing more than Win2K with a fancier GUI and RDP 5.0 built into the service stack (hackers are going to LOVE that). I admit that Win2K and XP are easier for the home user to install, but they aren't as easy as they should be and Win2K is hardly a revolution over Nt 4.0.