Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the oh-yeah-remember-that dept.
ruszka writes "CNN has a good article on the release of Windows XP in London and NYC.. The BBC has their own article." I find it amusing that I didn't really even notice until I saw this submission. I know this affects a fair number of users but for the life of me I just don't know why ;)
My First Impressions
by
Enonu
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The new look of Windows XP to me could be described as bubbly. With the default theme, it's Ficher Price and bubbly. I know that perhaps it's because I'm used to the old L&F that I don't like the new L&F, but it seems like a fair amount of people I've shown XP to can only ahhh and ooooh as well as say "I want that on my system." Just goes to show how right Steve Jobs was when the iMac and AQUA L&F came out.
XP handles crashses better on my system. It's like they didn't happen. However, they occur more often than in Windows 2000. So even though my system doesn't become any bit more unstable after a crash, I get to see that error report dialog box a bunch. This is really a pain for apps that don't seem to like XP entirely. For example, Real Player 8 gets a bit upset from time to time. My system shouldn't crash at all. I have brand name components (ASUS, Hercules, CAS2 Corsair, etc.) and Windows 2000 rarely if ever crashed.
The boot time for XP is freaking amazing. I think it's faster than ME even. I have a sub 10 second boot from pushing the power button. Another nice thing is that hibernation is transparent since there is only the option for Standby, Shutdown, and Restart when you go to Start/Turn off Computer. The only weird part is that it takes longer to turn off my system than it does to turn it on. I think it's because of the nVidia drivers I have installed, but I can't confirm that.
I like to have multiple folders open on my Desktop at the same time when doing file management. When there are > 5 or open, at a resolution of 1600 x 1200, the taskbar will group all these folders together in one button so that the taskbar doesn't get overly crouded. You can then close all these folders as a group, etc. This is one of my favorite features.
There's loads more to talk about, but it all boils down to one thing. My productivity has not increased one iota. If you have 2000, it's not worth upgrading to because of this. It's not like the upgrade I did from 98 SE to 2000 I did a while back, where all the sudden everything ran flawlessly.
Re:My First Impressions
by
cybrthng
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The fact it can boot up in 30 seconds on my dell laptop is sweet. When i come into work and have a tons of stuff to catch up on, having my pc booted by the time i get my coffee is worth it.
The task bar sorting is nice, grouping applications together cleans up the desk space alot.
VPN seems more stable, i don't have weird problems like i did in 2k. (IPsec)
Builtin PPoE is a godsend for verizon dsl customers, no more having to chase down 3rd party vendors for software. I have a linksys that does this for me, but for some people, this alone is worth the money for the upgrade.
Interface is "bubbly" but just goes to show you how much you can change these days.
Stability is nice. I have random complete reboots in 2k, doesn't happen under XP.
i work better, it has smoothed out the rough edges of 2k as far as compatibility and speed, and kept the stability as well as added support for DX8, better media support and whatever.net has to offer.
Plus Java 1.4 with the WinXP look and feel makes java look native as far as interface and you get the added benifits of the new release.. even if.net doesn't take off it is still a great java platform!
Marketing's all Bill's got left.
by
SgtChaireBourne
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Microsoft's revenue streams are in danger of drying up unless they can get a lock on people through MS-Passport. MS can leverage Hotmail and other online services by purchasing them and forcing migration to MS-Passport, but that can only happen on the desktop through upgrades to XP.
XP has improvements, but there's no exciting reason to upgrade. Plus, with all of the security concerns finally,the press release the other week coming down on publishing exploits is a tacit admisision that MS products can compete in a real world security environment.
Slashdot Mirror
The new look of Windows XP to me could be described as bubbly. With the default theme, it's Ficher Price and bubbly. I know that perhaps it's because I'm used to the old L&F that I don't like the new L&F, but it seems like a fair amount of people I've shown XP to can only ahhh and ooooh as well as say "I want that on my system." Just goes to show how right Steve Jobs was when the iMac and AQUA L&F came out.
XP handles crashses better on my system. It's like they didn't happen. However, they occur more often than in Windows 2000. So even though my system doesn't become any bit more unstable after a crash, I get to see that error report dialog box a bunch. This is really a pain for apps that don't seem to like XP entirely. For example, Real Player 8 gets a bit upset from time to time. My system shouldn't crash at all. I have brand name components (ASUS, Hercules, CAS2 Corsair, etc.) and Windows 2000 rarely if ever crashed.
The boot time for XP is freaking amazing. I think it's faster than ME even. I have a sub 10 second boot from pushing the power button. Another nice thing is that hibernation is transparent since there is only the option for Standby, Shutdown, and Restart when you go to Start/Turn off Computer. The only weird part is that it takes longer to turn off my system than it does to turn it on. I think it's because of the nVidia drivers I have installed, but I can't confirm that.
I like to have multiple folders open on my Desktop at the same time when doing file management. When there are > 5 or open, at a resolution of 1600 x 1200, the taskbar will group all these folders together in one button so that the taskbar doesn't get overly crouded. You can then close all these folders as a group, etc. This is one of my favorite features.
There's loads more to talk about, but it all boils down to one thing. My productivity has not increased one iota. If you have 2000, it's not worth upgrading to because of this. It's not like the upgrade I did from 98 SE to 2000 I did a while back, where all the sudden everything ran flawlessly.
XP has improvements, but there's no exciting reason to upgrade. Plus, with all of the security concerns finally ,the press release the other week coming down on publishing exploits is a tacit admisision that MS products can compete in a real world security environment.
So they have to compete through saturation advertising. The Register has had a few articles over the last few weeks. Here's last weeks warning about the salvo we're experiencing : Microsoft will kick off a $200 million marketing campaign on
Monday 15 October to create consumer awareness of upcoming Windows
XP.
They also explained how MS was able to insert a press release into Reuters.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
For the sake of clarification:
CHICAGO: Code name for Win95
CAIRO: Code name for NT 4.0
MEMPHIS: Code name for Win98
WHISTLER: Code name for WinXP
HTH.
dinner: it's what's for beer