Ok. I get the final copy of XP from work to install on my laptop, and decide that I'll run it since one day MS will find a way to force me to it anyhow.

I did a clean install figuring that would avoid problems. Well when I restore my data, I realise I forgot to backup "My Documents" from 2000. My mistake.

I get it up and running, and it seems to be ok. And some of the features grow on me, like the systray icon hiding and paint finally being decent enough for quick jobs (saving to PNG and such for screenshots).

Now onto another annoynance. My wireless card has no official driver support, and the 2000 install program won't work. So I find a way to manually install it, but I have 1 shot at setting my wireless settings. So much for being able to use it at work anymore, since encryption keys change. Again, not the fault of XP per say...

Then I start using my laptop as a laptop, thus unplugged from AC. And sound stops working 95% of the time. And anything multimedia related will bring the system to a crawl (flash, movies, etc...). Plugging it into AC dosen't resolve this problem until after a reboot.

Numlock. 2000 would remember how it was set across reboots and docking. XP won't properly (hell, it seems like at times it's turning it on just to piss me off).

And finally after 2 months of trying it, it gives me the last "screw you". It breaks the network. Running ipconfig results in an odd "Unknown Internal Error" for both the NIC and wireless card. Reinstalling the wired connection does nothing to fix it. TCP/IP cannot be uninstalled. The repair feature gave an obscure error.

And so I figure I'll boot off the XP cd and run a repair. Well, choosing repair dumps me to the worthless repair console. (2000 gave the choice between the console and an autorepair that copied files back). Reboot, ahh, they moved it. "Press F2 to run an automated repair". Pressing F2 gives me a prompt to insert a floppy that I never created. (Not called an ERD, of course they would have to change the terminology again, and who knows where it's created from now...). And if I try to install from booting off the CD, it says it will kill the existing XP install. So I boot back to the OS, and run setup there. I choose upgrade, and watch it go through the file copying and reboot. And I watch it reboot again and again... Seems to reboot right after I see my network link lights pop on. It's on it's 8th reboot like this, so I doubt it's coming back.

So now I have 2 choices to keep my data on it and do a clean reload. Either buy a 2.5 to 3.5 inch IDE converter, or do a parallel install and hope it works.

I'm definitly going back to 2000. It worked flawlessly on this same hardware for many months. Then in a few months, I'm moving to OS X on a Powerbook.

Was it Home or Pro? not that it matters Xp is the worst fiasco ive seen since ME first came out.. I know that Home is crippled so as not to allow you to do business associated things, no domain level security no client32 for novell ect...It aso has a built in firewall thats been causing problems, and if you accidentally enable internet connection sharing it will reset all your ip settings to generic and turn itself into a competeing DHCP server on ur network.

My biggest problem with it was that explorer.exe would just hang. So I try killing it in the taskmanager, and *boom*. It would kill explorer but not respawn it. Got seriously obnoxious when it went from doing that every 3 weeks or so to a few times a day, so I went back to FBSD

[edit]OK, so losing explorer and the fact that I never got it to connect to the empeg beyond the initial upgrade to 2.0b3 were the most annoying things. I did like how quickly it booted though.[/edit]

Why did you bother with XP? There really didn't seem to be many compelling reasons to switch from 2000 to XP. Now 98 to XP or Me to XP I can understand...

I use XP Pro and have no problems with it.. I agree that some of the network configuration "wizards" are dumb, but that hasn't changed from 95.. Stability wise, it's fine.. I occasionally get an explorer hang and killing it takes my desktop as well (nothing new) but that's only when I get impatient and kill the tasks.. The least attractive function is the window that pops up when you insert a CDR, asking you what you want to do whenever you insert that disk.

Tim, Got seriously obnoxious when it went from doing that every 3 weeks or so to a few times a day

It's interesting to read your comments a few months after some earlier discussion about XP (way back when)

Suffice it to say, my strategy will remain the same: keep Win2K on my one Windows machine until MSFT figures out a way to pry it from my fingers (it may become my next Wordstar!) and then: OS X.

I still have Explorer.exe croak on me under Win2K, but the condition has at least stabilized -- just once a month!

As one of those Infoworld articles implied, I often feel like the story of Windows upgrades is not a story about technology necessarily but is instead a story about human aspiration and the very human need to maintain hope in the face of adversity!

Yang I use XP Pro and have no problems with it.

Depending on hardware and application mix, I expect that there are many people (no way to really know how many) who are having a good experience with XP. Like an earlier discussiion regarding (OXYMORON ALERT!!) Digital River Customer Service, though, it would seems like a case where you have to bat much higher than .900 to get a passing grade from consumers.

Of course, some consumers have perhaps come to the conclusion that they don't have any choice -- that a crashing Explorer or <INSERT PROBLEM HERE> is just their lot in life.

That was something different I was talking about. Explorer chugging was only evident when playing videos, but explorer dying was where it would just go belly up, sometimes with no intervention. When it died on its own, I couldn't revive it. When I killed it to play a video, it would restart without a problem. That video chugging was annoying, but not enough to make me uninstall. Having to reboot because it rolled over dead was.

Tim,

I understood you were referring to a different phenomenon. I was just expressing my interest in comments (both yours and others) then and comments now (generally a bit more positive then and less positive now). I have had the same thing happen -- have stuff work pretty darn good and then watch it slowly go south. Honestly, too bad it went the way it did. I think the human race spends way too much time redoing computer stuff.

Yeah, its a typical Windows bug - 'reinstall about once a month and it should be fine'.

There was something goofy about the configuration of our drafting lab at school, I don't know what it was, but we were one of the first networks in the nation to run NT4.0 in that configuration. I was lucky enough to be the student admin 3 months after it was installed. We had a problem that we couldn't figure out. Our admin and I were on a phone call to Tech Support describing the situation and trying to find an answer. After about an hour and a half they go 'yeah, we've seen this before, but don't know the cause of it - reinstalling the entire network once a month seems to prevent the problem though'.

I guess I just didn't give XP enough time to break before deciding that I liked it

Couple of suggestions, XP runs fine on my lappie (Armada w K62+ 500 & 128MB) chugs a little, but decently. Not too much different than 2000 in stability (a good thing :P )

Perhaps you need to turn off all graphical effets (menu fadeout, translucency) and add a smidge more ram?

I used XP on both a P3 1000 and a P4 1.6 and absolutely HATED it. My system slowed down enormously (except for the faster boot time, I'll give it that)
Explorer or IE took more than 15 second to load. What the PC was doing in the meantime I don't know. It also locked up on occasion and I simply coudn't get used to the fact that I had now lost the ability to preview a movie in explorer.

Also, IE 6.0 that comes with XP is much worse than the one that came with win 2000. Only thing I liked about it was the feature to save a picture by moving my mouse over it. But that's it. Otherwise, nothing but troubles. Some sites simply refused to load. (anandtech.com) was one of them. There was always a windows popping up asking me if I wanted to save the page. If I said NO the page simply wouldn't load. Multiple clicking on the link sometimes solved the problem, but most of the times it wouldn't.

So I ended up reinstalling win2000 again. A (more or less - certainly by microsoft' standards) stable OS. Everything is peachy now. I haven't yet found a single thing that I find lacking in 2000. OTOH, when I was working with XP I also couldn't find one single feature that made it worth the upgrade from win 2000. Nah, 2000 is here to stay for me. At least until MS offers an alternative that's worth considering.

Fast boot times are great but if you have to reboot two or three times a day, you're really losing out. I rarely have to reboot my Win2K box, uptimes of two or three weeks are not uncommon... So I don't mind the ~90 second boot time at all.

Word.

Free copy with no "activation" needed (Site license from work, and a laptop owned by them), and the observation that MS will probably find a way to force users to it one day anyhow.

2000 should keep me happy until the OS X migration at this point anyhow.

2000 should keep me happy until the OS X migration at this point anyhow.

I see that as a perfectly valid upgrade path

The unfortunate thing is that despite numerous fixes in the 10.2 OS X release (a number of months away still), it doesn't offer everything some of the rumour sites are speculating. They have been making inroads with every beta build though.

I think in comparison to Win2K you're going to find some elements of OS X become quite annoying with extended use (namely Aqua interface elements of course). I hope that the shareware and patch/hack scene comes to the rescue of a lot of the Aqua deficiencies over the next little while (especially since Apple has been documenting numerous APIs that were not present on initial release).

Bruno

My brother is using XP on his 700MHz Duron right now. IE must be loading just as fast as IE5.5 on my Win2K machine (Athlon 850MHz). I have 512MB of RAM and I think he has 384 right now. I don't believe he feels its any slower than the ME he was running before. I haven't used his machine enough to compare to my installation of 2K overall though.

I plan to stick with 2K for a while longer mainly because I don't have the time to clean everything up that I need to for an upgrade right now. I'd like to move up to some new hardware as well, even though this setup is just over a year old (I'll definitely be staying away from anything Intel - AMD was a good choice a year ago and remains so for the near future). When doing that, I had full intentions of going with WinXP. Its enhancements will make my daily usage a bit more lively. I know of a few small things that tick me off already, like how they slightly messed up the functionality of desktop toolbars (when you vertically expand, if you have two of them next to each other, the one on the right jumps to the bottom - argh). But once I get them to line up the way I want, I don't need to touch them again.

I think the worst thing MS could do to keep me from an OS would be to remove the ability to move the START menu and main task bar (while keeping it at the bottom of the screen). That would be awful. Everyone knows the task bar and start menu belong at the TOP of the screen. I wouldn't want to have to hang myself from the ceiling, upside down, to use the computer.

Bruno

I have a stupid question. Will OS X work on intel/amd cpus?

Short answer: No. Long Answer: Ummm... No. Suppose you could get Darwin going, but none of the higher-level stuff has been ported, nor is the source available.

But on the bright side, there are enough unix-derived OSes to choose from. And enough GUI's to choose from that should prove more useful/intuitive than the current release of Aqua.

You wouldn't be able to run any of the commercial Mac apps even if you could get OS X running on x86 hardware either.

Bruno

This is what I thought, but ive read people in this thread stating they want to upgrade from w2k to OS X. That would seem like a costly proposition.

I have a stupid question. Will OS X work on intel/amd cpus?

Short answer: No. Long Answer: Ummm... No.
Suppose you could get Darwin going, but none of the higher-level stuff has been ported, nor is the source available.

Does anyone else think that this is the direct effect of Bill Gates investing in Apple a few years back? That is, that he said ``I'll give you money to stay afloat as long as you make your new OS not run on Intel CPUs.''? I have, ever since it happened.

I own an iMac right now that I basicially bought to see if I could make the transition. Overall, yes I can. There are a few quirks in the interface, but I find myself less put off then trying to work only in OS 9. Add to that a Unix layer right under my feet that will give me tons of things to do, and I'm happy. I've talked to so many Mac people who don't like OS X due to "issues" over 9, but I don't have that hindsight to worry about. I don't overly like Apple for some of their decisions over the years, but I despise MS even more. I haven't directly paid for an MS product (beyond one game) ever, and I figure ridding myself of the MS world as much as possible is a good thing. While I could go the Linux route, the interfaces to it still seem too clunky to me.

Terminator: This is what I thought, but ive read people in this thread stating they want to upgrade from w2k to OS X. That would seem like a costly proposition.

In my case, I run a Win2K machine that is my "multimedia" machine (vid cap, games, etc.). It does a fair (not great but fair) job. I've pretty much decided not to follow the XP route, so at the point that Win2K won't work anymore (lack of drivers/support, problems with key apps, whatever) then my plan is not to run OS X on that box (given that I can't) but to buy my first-ever Mac -- unless by that point Linux video capabilities are so much better that it presents a superior alternative.

Apple would die if they ported X to x86. They do not have enough of a software-centric business model to withstand an impact of that magnitude in lost hardware sales.

Bruno

Perhaps, but there are other ameliorating factors. First, I believe this all happened when Apple was still licensing hardware (to PowerComputing, etc.). Second, there are a number of people, I believe, that would want the additional support Apple would be likely to provide for running on an approved system. Third, I think a significant number of people would like to have a reasonable, supported alternative to Windows. And fourth, once that OS had become moderately successful for a period of time, hardware upgrades could become cross-upgrades. I don't think it would have been too difficult to develop a binary compatibilty layer (probably embedded in the OS's API) so that all (or most) applications could run on either architecture.

You may be right, anyway, but I've always thought that there was something there, even if it ended up being self-serving on Apple's part. Mr. Gates is not really known for his generosity, certainly not in business situations, and I can come up with little other reason for that investment. I doubt that sales of Office for Mac are keeping Microsoft afloat.

While I could go the Linux route, the interfaces to it still seem too clunky to me.

Have you tried Ximian's version of Gnome?

All the issues you mention are certainly valid, but they would still require that Apple change its current strategies and corporate model. There would be many (many) lost jobs.

The licensing deals between Apple and companies like Power Computing, Umax and Motorola were similar, but I believe each had their own specifics. All three of those companies had adopted Apple reference hardware designs, but they also had their own designs. All operating system installations and bundles had to be licence through Apple. It was felt however that this model was impacting Apple's own bottom line and doing more to harm the Mac OS product differentiation than help it. The rest is history.

I don't know what kind of ROI Microsoft has managed since the summer of 1997 (when Bill showed up for the keynote). MS remains Mac OS' largest ISV (I believe Adobe is currently #2, but they might have swapped). Their Mac OS projects are probably profitable. And even though people hate to admit it, they still make the best (bar none) browser for Mac OS (9 or X).

I do think OS X for x86 would sell quite a few copies. It would have to make a significant impact to be widely accepted by ISVs. Some type of emulation layer though possible (DEC Alpha-based WinNT for instance) might not make for a very compelling solution. If Apple were thinking about that strategy for their current OS, it's something I have not heard even whispers about (not anything truthful anyway).

Things have been headed down much different paths a few times before. Macs with a dual-boot menu to select between MacOS and NT (CHRP - Common Hardware Reference Platform machines), Rhapsody for x86... So who knows what roads we may see being paved tomorrow.

Bruno

wfaulk: and I can come up with little other reason for that investment

I always thought of the investment as a small defensive hedge against the (pre-GWB) DOJ along the lines of: "Look, there really IS (non-threatening) diversity and consumer choice."

Yep. Played around with it about a year ago with the "lynx -source http://go-gnome.com | bash" install, and a recent version on a RedHat box here at work. I admit is is getting better, but there were still odd times of slowdown for no reason, and the file browser was not impressive for all of it's crashes.

I'm watching the WINE related projects very carefully though in the hope that I can replace my desktop with Linux. (Biggest challenge there is the fact that my desktop is used for some web browsing from time to time, some web work, and tons of games.)