# Installed XP



## Mark (Jan 14, 2003)

Well I finall did it after Win 98 CRASHED to 48756 time on me. I bought and installed Win XP and have been running it for 3 day now, with no crashes. 

I Hate to say it but it does run better that win 98 and the internet problem i was having with slow speeds at time seems to have stoped.. 

 

I still think Bill Gates is jerk though....


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

I have been very happy with WinXP. It is very stable. After how many years, Microsoft finally got an OS out that is showing signs of actually being a mature OS.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Windows 2000 was almost as good. The only reason it didn't get all these good comments XP is getting is because Microsoft marketed it as a business-only OS. 2000 was, however, almost as compatible and easy to use as XP, and far easier to use than 98 or Me.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Mark,

Glad you finally made the jump to XP. I installed mine the first month it was released and haven't looked back. The great thing is that installing new cards and peripherals is a breeze. XP recognizes almost everything.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

One of the Reasons XP and 2000 are more stable is that MS has left behind old compatibility requirements in favor for stability. My favorite game is from 1994 or so, it is DOS based "Steel Panthers". I never have a problem running it until 2000 and XP. They got rid of the old garanteed DOS compatibility in 95/98/ME, I have to use an "Emulator" to run the game. 

So those who were dragging along using 10 year old+ SW will have to upgrade. But as discussed here, the stability is worth it.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Windows 2000 was almost as good. The only reason it didn't get all these good comments XP is getting is because Microsoft marketed it as a business-only OS. 2000 was, however, almost as compatible and easy to use as XP, and far easier to use than 98 or Me. *


MS was afraid to remove the old DOS compatiblity for the Home user, so MS let ME take position instead of Win2000 "HOME". Whether that was a mistake is really based on how people were ready to give up their very old apps.

Luckily with XP they decided to move the home user to the more stable environment.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Yeah, gcutler, I know that. But seriously, I think most people would have prefered a 2000 Home Edition to Windows Me. And therefore, it would have been a better success, and made MS more money. Me was the OS, I'm sure you can admit, that never should have existed. It offered no features worthwhile, and because it had too much stuff in it that wasn't well done (and often doesn't even work properly with the 9x kernel in Me), it crashed all the time. EVERY person I know with Me complains of constant crashing, and those I've convinced to shell out the money and go to XP all report no more crashes. Me shouldn't have been made. It's that simple, really.


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

It's such a shame all the money MS has lost due to WinME. lol

I'm pretty sure they made more money the way they did it. What will they do now though since XP actually works ok? Although the updates don't seem to be helping too much lately. (shame on me, MS would never intentionally break something)


----------



## TimL (Apr 24, 2002)

Just wondering..(I have 98) Is it possible to run XP on a 32 MB system? I know it says at least 64 MB..


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *. EVERY person I know with Me complains of constant crashing, . *


My installation of ME is significantly more stable than 98. And that was an upgrade, not a clean install. So now you know someone.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Okay Rick, cool. That's amazing. I was beginning to think that there wasn't a person on this planet Me worked okay for. Now I know there's a single one


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Yeah, gcutler, I know that. But seriously, I think most people would have prefered a 2000 Home Edition to Windows Me. And therefore, it would have been a better success, and made MS more money. Me was the OS, I'm sure you can admit, that never should have existed... *


It was more a marketing decision than a technical one. At the time, the discussion of removing the old DOS compatibility support was quite controvertial. I believe that MS listened tooo much to the customer with ME and thus the OS was decided on by comittee more than those who want to direct technology toward the most stable world.

Or some might say that MS released ME as a way to publically put a final nail in the coffin of the Win9x code?!?! When they again said they would remove the DOS compatibility from XP, far few if any people complained.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by TimL _
> *Just wondering..(I have 98) Is it possible to run XP on a 32 MB system? I know it says at least 64 MB.. *


Don't do it!

I would not run XP on below 128MB. With a rather "Tight System" (only 5 applets running in system tray) and no file sharing turned on I am using around 130-140MB just to boot. If you could get it to work on 32MB (or even 64-96MB) you would be swapping to virutal memory on the hard drive much of the time.

Even with Windows 98, if you were to double your RAM to 64MB you would get an incredible improvment (I know that my Windows 98 took 48MB to boot)


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Yeah, XP won't even install without 64MB. If you want a more stable, faster, alternative to 98, get Windows 2000


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Yeah, XP won't even install without 64MB. If you want a more stable, faster, alternative to 98, get Windows 2000 *


I still wouldn't recommend 2000 below 128MB just from the swapping issue. I may have gotten spoiled in that most places I've worked we have been able to get the right amount of ram out to all the users. But I believe 128MB these days is realatively affordable these days (and achievable on any machine in the past 8+ years), I've seen 128MB SIMMs recently for $20, etc.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 24, 2002)

Are you XP people using the .net passport feature? I've been avoiding any upgrades to XP for a while because of that. I know you don't have to use the passport feature, but it was more of an idological stand rather than a technical one.

But I'm noticing more .net passport software that I'm considering using. Like the MS Money web stuff. (The MS Money Deluxe was $20 after a rebate, so I went for it.)

I'm still not using the passport, but am I cutting off my nose to spite my face, here? Should I just give in and be assimilated?

We are going to be upgrading our office systems and going with XP-Pro on at least three units.

Thanks for your thoughts on the passport 'feature.'


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I never use the feature but don't let that hold you back from upgrading.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

It doesn't really work anyway.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Okay Rick, cool. That's amazing. I was beginning to think that there wasn't a person on this planet Me worked okay for. Now I know there's a single one  *


Zac, make that two (2) people you know who have found ME to be more stable than 98. I have five (5) computers that would be marginal at best with XP (two are still running WIN98 because they would be marginal with ME). I don't have the money to go out and replace all my boxes with all new ones, and I would rather get along with less stable systems than to have my family all sharing one computer.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

My wifes computer runs ME without a hitch. She's never had trouble with it.


----------



## Unthinkable (Sep 13, 2002)

I have ME on a laptop here that works with no problems at all. Chris Parillo is pretty harsh on Windows Millenium over on Tech Tv's Call For Help, but I've found it to be completely stable.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Wow, this is amazing. I know lots of people locally with Me, and all share one common complaint - CONSTANT crashes. Far more so than 98. I used Me myself at one point. I was literally gerring 4 or 5 crashes EVERY DAY. (no kidding).

Anyways Bogy, for your situation, did you consider using Windows 2000? It's a million and one times better than Windows Me. And it doesn't require as nice of hardware to run well.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Wow, this is amazing. I know lots of people locally with Me, and all share one common complaint - CONSTANT crashes. Far more so than 98. I used Me myself at one point. I was literally gerring 4 or 5 crashes EVERY DAY. (no kidding).
> *


Zac,

I'm kind of in the middle ground on the issue. I have seen ME be less stable than 98 on other peoples machines, but I'm not sure that ME is the only criminal in the situation. WinME took up more RAM to run than 98 and I saw alot of people running ME on new machnes where everything compared to their old machine got an increase except RAM (There was a period where 128MB was the magic # for several years). And in the same realm, many people went cable modem/DSL around the time ME became available so they were surfing more and loading more resident programs than they were in their 98 (pre cable modem/dsl) systems.

I don't have much evidence to counter your experiences, but the implementations of ME with 256MB RAM and with well policed system trays, ME was not as problematic to me as a 128MB system with out of control system tray.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Anyways Bogy, for your situation, did you consider using Windows 2000? It's a million and one times better than Windows Me. And it doesn't require as nice of hardware to run well. *


Only problem with that is the WinPro or XPPro sw costs around twice the amount of 98/ME/XPHome.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

" I don't have much evidence to counter your experiences, but the implementations of ME with 256MB RAM and with well policed system trays, ME was not as problematic to me as a 128MB system with out of control system tray."

Yeah, most computers are pretty messed up I've seen. But the NT kernel can handle that better (not that it should have to). But my own computer with Me was pretty much clean (I am VERY VERY selective about what gets on my computer), and definitely met the requirements. Me just liked to crash. 4-5 times a day was average, and there were times it was more often. Me just shouldn't have existed. 2000 Home should have.

"Only problem with that is the WinPro or XPPro sw costs around twice the amount of 98/ME/XPHome."

Yeah, which is crazy. There's no way XP Pro (or 2000 Pro) costs Microsoft twice as much (if a single penny more) to produce as XP Home (or WinMe). Microsoft is artifically inflating their prices to what they feel the market is willing to pay. Given they have a monopoly, that's not fair (in a free market it would be, because competition would prevent them from this activity)


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

What is more intereting is that you can get full winxp pro OEM addition for less than $140 (no prior version of windows needed). But, the upgrade costs more.


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mike123abc _
> *What is more intereting is that you can get full winxp pro OEM addition for less than $140 (no prior version of windows needed). But, the upgrade costs more. *


The retail price of the full, non-oem, Windows XP is higher than the wholesale price of a lot of computers.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well technically you have to buy the OEM version with a processor and motherboard so it does cost more in the long run.


----------

