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 ;)
No more blue screen of death?
by
opusbuddy
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I dunnaknow. I've kind of gotten used to the blue screen of death. Tells me when it's time to go to the bathroom.
-- If this were easy, they wouldn't need us to do it!
Re:No more blue screen of death?
by
swordboy
·
· Score: 5, Funny
No more BSOD?
Does XP come with some sort of a utility to chage the color of the screen of death?
I could go for a nice mauve or perhaps a pale green (easy on the eyes).
--
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Surprisingly, a lot of negative press
by
Masem
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sure, I'm going out tonight to buy XP, but only because my gaming machine is 98, and I'd like a bit more stability in it.
But I've been listening to reports and reading articles, and while the industry seems hyped up about it, most pundents (that are not typical MS fanboys) appear to be believe that for most businesses, already in the Win2000 migration, XP is not a good choice, and for those on home machines, you have to have some oomph in your box to be able to take advantage of it.
Most of these critics think that the stability is a great point, but other aspects, including look, integration of WMP and other programs, and the *amount* of blatent advertizing for MS on the default install is put-offs for them. They definitely feel that the engine behind XP is worthwhile being built on 2000, but they could do without all the glitz.
And many people expect very slow sales of XP. There's no lines-around-the-corner as with 95, but they do expect a modest amount of sales today. But they don't believe that XP is going to be a big economic burst into the market as Microsoft tried to make it out as; again, since most seats of the OS are sold to business, and most appear to be sticking to 2000 until necessary, there's going to be very few sales from that market.
The short story from what I've read: it's great that MS finally has a NT-based, stable OS for the home user, as it's been 5 years that it's been needed, but it appears to carry a lot of extra weight that is unnecessary and possible questionable in light of several legal cases.
--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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.
Gates on Regis yesterday said ...
by
zummit
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yesterday morning, Bill Gates was on the Regis show and I would like to share a direct quote which he said in reference to the idea that WinXP doesn't crash as much as other windoze OS's.
"The average user will save about a week a year."
[When I shared this with a friend, he replied, "Someone should file a lawsuit alleging that Windows was defective and that the licensing was an ineffective waiver of rights because of M$'s monopoly and their collusion with hardware manufacturers to force their product on consumers. I figure that since 1996, Biull G. & Co. have waster about $8,000 of my time."]
Re:why it affects us
by
micromoog
·
· Score: 4, Funny
...many people who work it IT have to come in to contact with windows...
Except for those who work in the server room. Sunlight messes up the air-conditioning.
Re:What does XP stand for? Emoticon.
by
TeknoHog
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Users' impressions of different operating systems, expressed as emoticons:
Linux::)
Windows: XP
-- Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Slashdot Mirror
If this were easy, they wouldn't need us to do it!
But I've been listening to reports and reading articles, and while the industry seems hyped up about it, most pundents (that are not typical MS fanboys) appear to be believe that for most businesses, already in the Win2000 migration, XP is not a good choice, and for those on home machines, you have to have some oomph in your box to be able to take advantage of it.
Most of these critics think that the stability is a great point, but other aspects, including look, integration of WMP and other programs, and the *amount* of blatent advertizing for MS on the default install is put-offs for them. They definitely feel that the engine behind XP is worthwhile being built on 2000, but they could do without all the glitz.
And many people expect very slow sales of XP. There's no lines-around-the-corner as with 95, but they do expect a modest amount of sales today. But they don't believe that XP is going to be a big economic burst into the market as Microsoft tried to make it out as; again, since most seats of the OS are sold to business, and most appear to be sticking to 2000 until necessary, there's going to be very few sales from that market.
The short story from what I've read: it's great that MS finally has a NT-based, stable OS for the home user, as it's been 5 years that it's been needed, but it appears to carry a lot of extra weight that is unnecessary and possible questionable in light of several legal cases.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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.
Yesterday morning, Bill Gates was on the Regis show and I would like to share a direct quote which he said in reference to the idea that WinXP doesn't crash as much as other windoze OS's.
"The average user will save about a week a year."
[When I shared this with a friend, he replied, "Someone should file a lawsuit alleging that Windows was defective and that the licensing was an ineffective waiver of rights because of M$'s monopoly and their collusion with hardware manufacturers to force their product on consumers. I figure that since 1996, Biull G. & Co. have waster about $8,000 of my time."]
Except for those who work in the server room. Sunlight messes up the air-conditioning.
Linux: :)
Windows: XP
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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
...it unlocks the full power of the PC and enables them to enjoy the best of what the digital world has to offer.
Didn't they say the same thing about Win9x?
When will my PC's potential be fully unlocked?
Edith Keeler Must Die