Should I run WinXP?

[BeBMan]

Yeah, my turn for a computer/OS thread, something totally new

Ok, I run Win2k on an Athlon 1 GHz/768mb RAM. I´m absolutely happy with it, it is the most stable system I ever had.

But I like XP´s cool outfit(s). Are there other significant advantages over Win2k? And how much resources do all these new graphical improvements need? Thing is, I often run a lot of CPU/RAM-intensive stuff at the same time (mainly image processing software and 3d renderer), not to mention the normal stuff (text processor, internet browser).

Would I be able with my current system to use XP´s cool stuff without losing much power for applications? And btw, how big are usual XP installations on the HD?

[alva]

That should be enough for XP
-
I just checked it, I have XP on a designated partition (C-drive) and although nothing else is supposed to be there, something always kreeps in ; currently it's 5G ( virtual memory disabled).

[Harovan]

The core of WinXP is almost the same as in Win2000, just that it has some neat but unnecessary features, and a "cool outfit" added. This is (among other things) visible in the internal version number (5.0 for 2000, 5.1 for XP). If you think, some marginal changes are worth the money, go for it.

[Captain Crunch]

No way. Use Linux.

[Adalbertus]

I didn't use Win 2000, only Win98. With XP I got the impression that a lot of configurability is lost (i.e. you have to like what M$ presents you, or you'll have to dig deep into the system). I have to switch the calculator to scientific every time I use it. Older versions remembered the old state.

More annoying to me is that it pretends to be a multi-user system but in this respect it performs poorly. Most non-Microsoft programs cannot be installed in a way that every user accesses their own workspace. Windows XP is 30 years behind Unix. As a single-user system I didn't see major problems, but the network setup at work forces me to a multi-user setup. On the other hand: Why slow down your computer? Aren't there theme packs for Win2000 if you just want to have a different look and feel?

[Asher]

*sigh*

Originally posted by Adalbertus
I didn't use Win 2000, only Win98. With XP I got the impression that a lot of configurability is lost (i.e. you have to like what M$ presents you, or you'll have to dig deep into the system). I have to switch the calculator to scientific every time I use it. Older versions remembered the old state.

This is patently untrue, at least for the Pro version I use. WinXP Pro has all of the features of Win2K Pro plus some new stuff, and Win2K Pro had considerably more features than Win98 (by a longshot). And for the record, my calculator starts up in Scientific mode.

More annoying to me is that it pretends to be a multi-user system but in this respect it performs poorly. Most non-Microsoft programs cannot be installed in a way that every user accesses their own workspace.

All programs can be installed in a way that every use access their own workspace, the reason most don't is because they were designed for Win98 or older Windows OSes where there was one workspace...

WinXP fully supports the concept of multiple users and multiple workspaces -- why don't you try using it on a huge network and see how it works.

Windows XP is 30 years behind Unix.

It's the other way around -- UNIX is the antiquated design for large mainframes and servers and people don't understand that such a design doesn't work well on the desktop.

As a single-user system I didn't see major problems, but the network setup at work forces me to a multi-user setup.

I still don't see your problem -- WinXP's multiuser system is fine. You can do fast switching between users logged in at the same time, an idiot-proof welcome/login screen, etc.

[JohnT]

I think that if you're happy, there's no need to shift.

[Lefty Scaevola]

"Should I run WinXP? "
Don't do it!!
It will make you impotent, poison you children, make you wife unfaithful,reduce you IQ, and make you dog hate you.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
It will make you impotent, poison you children, make you wife unfaithful,reduce you IQ, and make you dog hate you.

Sounds ok for us polytubbies....

Adalbertus: by cool gfx I mean those fancy (and customizable) XP style taskbar, windows, buttons, icons, etc. Of course I can have different icons or wallpapers for Win2k too, but not the other stuff. There are some solutions for skins available on the web for pre-XP versions, but those I tried didn´t run stable and/or slowed down the system.

Of course, I can live without all that, it just would be nice

[Skanky Burns]

Not really worth spending money on though.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BeBro
Adalbertus: by cool gfx I mean those fancy (and customizable) XP style taskbar, windows, buttons, icons, etc. Of course I can have different icons or wallpapers for Win2k too, but not the other stuff. There are some solutions for skins available on the web for pre-XP versions, but those I tried didn´t run stable and/or slowed down the system.

Have you tried Windowblinds? It works well enough for me on the NT-esque systems

[Victor Galis]

Microsoft software costs money?

[Cruddy]

Hmm... my own argument is that until I NEED XP, I'm sticking with old 98.

It's not as expandable, it's not as pretty, but it does what I need it to, so why change? Until I want to run some NT applications together with some Windows, I don't really see the point.

[Worthingtons]

Windows XP will allow the government to control your mind, BeBro

[Urban Ranger]

Agreed. As a matter of fact, XP's look is not professional enough for the business environment, anyway.