Preserved Topic: Your thoughts on WinXP as opposed to Win2000 and Mac OS X? (Page 1 of 1)

I'm writing an "evaluation" paper on Windows XP for my writing class, and I need to compare it to other operating systems. The other two popular candidates for OS's right now seem to be Win2000 and Mac OS X, so I chose to compare it to those two. (I ignored linux since... well, I doubt my writing teacher even knows what it is.)

I'd appreciate it if anyone could give me their opinions on these operating systems. I'm not asking any specific questions, just for your opinions. Babble on and on about them. Complain about the one you hate and tell me what you like about the one you do. What problems have you had with them? What do you enjoy about them?

The paper is primarily on WinXP but I need some info on the other two also. I'm trying to get a consumer's point of view here.

Thanks for any help =)

It's simple.

Win XP > Win 98/2000/ME

See, at first I thought the new blue taskbar would own... ~puke~ it sucked. But luckily I have classic mode, which is what I set it too. And to be honest with you I like it a lot better than the new XP tool bar . I like the knew icons, and the fade when u bring a menu down. I like several features in includes.

But Mac has its purposes too, I am sure anyone will tell you that Mac is most commonly used for graphics. And I am sure you know that too.

I like XP's auto align, alignment is best!

I can't tell you much right now but good luck with your paper!


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Windows XP is actually Windows 2000 with a new interface. And as we know Windows 2000 is successor to Windows NT, so they are all built on the proven NT kernel, which is *very* stable and has very good memory management. Now, the differences between Windows XP and Windows 2000 (excluding GUI) are minor and that even prove their version numbers - Windows 2000 = Windows 5.0 and Windows XP = Windows 5.01 (some applications incorrectly report 5.1 as version number). Also, in order to make Windows XP more compatible with previous Windows 9x versions, Microsoft loosened requirements for drivers, so that you can use so called untested drivers, which can sometimes lead to computer crashes (but that is driver's fault, and not the fault of NT kernel). Windows 2000 was more restrictive as far as drivers are concerned.

As far as Mac OS X is concerned, it's just a FreeBSD (BSD UNIX) with a very pretty interface...

What would the asylum be without you Max?

~Air Hug~

From a useability standpoint:

I was looking forward to the new GUI in XP but after several days I found that I'd eventually tweaked all the settings back to how it was in Windows 98. The only thing that stuck for a little while was the grouping of similar programs on the task bar but I soon switched this off as well; an extra click of the mouse in order to switch applications was really getting to me.

I was hpoing for more. A simpler or quicker way to move around between applications. Making better use of the keyboard for this would have been nice. After all, many games have started adapting Key & Mouse combo's in order to make complicated tasks easier for ages. I thought that OS's would have at least started doing this by now. Hell, I would have been happy with tabs in IE6 (A Tab for each web page you have open, like Opera or Mozilla) but I didn't even get that.

Instead I got a slightly perttier OS which annoyed me. Sadly nothing new in trems of useability since 1998 and no major changes since the early Mac GUI's. We're still using file/folder metaphores, still using layers 2D desktop models to work in. I mean come on, it's been nearly 8 years! Do we still need to make people confortabul by making OS's that work like a pen and paper desk?... we should have moved on ages ago. Not that I'm a little sore about the matter but I paid a hansom sum of approx. $250 AU for XP and I got nothing but recycled ideas wearing trendy clothing.

I don't use mac's much but I do like OSX quite a lot. I find OSX much easier to manage then OS9. OSX compared to XP?... I'd still have to say that I'd like XP/2000 better bacause I grew into windows from it's early versions. A classic case of what your comfortabul with I suppose. But given time I could grow to love OSX too. The thing that really annoys me about macs is how it manages windows. I love the fact that there's a standard menu mar that changes depending on what application your using but I think it fails in trems of effectively using screen space. When I work wint windows I'll always have my apps maxamised and flick between then using the task bar or the alt-tab shotrcut. I always seem to loos apps / windows when working on a MAC and have to refer to the finder so I can well.. find the right app, then to the menu bar to get the right window for that app.

eh, my 2.0c

Unfortunately, I don't use any of the above...so I can't really comment on them. I'm still patiently waiting for Linux to come out with a 100% windows compatible 'shell'...until then, I'll stick to Win98me. I've given some thought to upgrading to Win2000, but haven't yet...

Should Linux come out with said shell, then I'll change, and never, ever look back...I can't stand microsoft...and can't really afford a Mac *weeps*

Microsoft is just full of buggy code, instability, and security holes...on the plus side, it's 'easier' to install software, and use the GUI.

People are generally lazy, and don't want to spend months of time, learning Linux. Or complicated proceedures to install software, or switch. And, we are creatures of routine, as well...windows makes it easy...but there is a 'price' for that 'easiness'...

Why hasn't Linux made such a shell? *puzzled and confused*

*shrugs*

From a consumers view (re - mine), I have microsoft...and Linux. Would just love to be able to run Photoshop and Co. in Linux...but, because I can't (and because a Mac is a bit out of my price range), I have microsoft...

This is great guys. Please keep it coming. =)

A good intro paragraph can include some comparisons of windows 98 and OS 9.2. I use Mac OS 9.2 at school, and the simularities are shocking. Instead of the task bar being on the top like mac, windows put it on the bottom. Umm I think the differnces end there. Well I guess that wasn't so good

I've used Windows 98 for as long back as I can remember... no, wait, I remember 95. I think.

Though pretty much every computer (minus 1) at my father's agency used 2K, and I've gotten the chance to play with it and use it and what have you... yeah, 2K is much more stable. I've only once or twice come to a situation, while working on the OS, where I had to manually reboot the computer or use the three fingered salute and solve something, whereas that's a pretty common thing for when I'm working on 98. But that's not here nor there, is it?

The fact that XP is just 2K with a nicer interface to it kinda shocks me, I've put XP down without so much as a consideration as of late... I guess I never gave it a chance, so to speak, because of the big colorful 'Fisher Price' look to it. *shrugs*

Now, I haven't had the chance to yet use OS X, and I'm not an avid Mac-head, but damn the interface looks nice. If that's all I could judge it on, it'd be my best choice. I'm a sucker for nice shiney, alpha-transparencies with smooth gems for buttons. Hehe...

But looking back on my post, I'm kind of an ass for making such assumptions, seeing as how I've only knocked on OS's due to flair and presentation. Have I used XP? Sure have, a few times at least. I guess among my biggest regrets about it and 2K/Me is that I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it overrides any kind of DOS boot up. Meaning, in short, there goes my safety net.

So Windows 2000 would be my best choice... what can I say? I'm a sheep. Baah.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

I've used both Mac and Win based. Though, I haven't tried the newest Win OS out.
Mac OSX: A very solid OS. I've tried every possible way to crash it and can't. I'm not kidding. The new interface takes some getting used to and I can't say that I like where they've moved everything, but that's just cause I spent 8 years on the old interface. It's taking some time for all the software to switch over...Quark still hasn't caught on. BUT being able to open up OS 9 inside of X and run whatever I want, makes up for that.

Windows:Ug. I've never used a windows machine for more then 5 minutes that didn't crash hard (requiring a restart). That I don't like. The GUI itself isn't bad...and it probably runs the hell out of some games and text programs...but it's far from stable IMO. Plus, it seems like every time you upgrade the OS, you have to get new drivers for everything attached to the machine. And lets hope that manufacturers are still supporting the model of whatever device it is you have, otherwise SOL.

Win2000 is, IMO, exponentially better than WindowsXP. Although XP has the 2000 kernel with a pretty GUI wrapper, all of the "user friendly" features of XP are what really, really turn me off. Case in point is dial-up-networking. This worked beautifully in Windows2000 and the Windows98/ME line, but in XP they decided, for some reason, to include a crappy firewall that, more often than not, hinders rather than helps. In fact, as firewalls go it is on the extreme low end of the spectrum. In order to even use it and be able to browse the internet, you have to configure it. And 9 times out of 10, the average user (which XP is supposedly aimed at) has no idea how to do this.

The other thing that really irks me is the way XP is structured. Access to system configurations takes longer to get to, even with the classic interface.

Look at it this way, WindowsXP is Windows2000 for dummies. And I detest the damn thing.

Now, second only to windows2000 is windows98. Although far less stable, you can't beat the software compatibility of 98. Currently, I run a windows 2000 advanced server box and a windows98 box because you can't beat that setup.

As for Macs, I haven't really used them and couldn't give you an unbiased opinion.

You know what? All this talking about Windows XP vs. 2000 really got me thinking why I like XP as much better than 2k as I imagine I do. In fact I think that the only reason I switched to XP when I got the chance was the new and oh-so-pretty user interface. But now that I am used to it for almost a year I wonder what is so much better about it... the classical Win2k interface surely acted faster on my 600MHz machine.

So as a result of all this thinking I'm not going to re-install Windows XP during the weekend as I planned due to the strage slowing-down and vanishing disk space I noticed lately, but go for Win2000 instead and see which of them really is the better choice for me and tell you which of XP's features I miss in 2k.

kuckus (cell #282)

heh, the guys covered it pretty well. i have to agree with silence, winxp sucks big time.
the only thing i haven't seen been mentioned in this thread is how spyware winxp is compared to win2k. and also, micro$oft will stop supporting win2k sometime this year to force people to switch to xp.
i guess that's another issue you could write about

Yes, thanks, everyone. I have to write up a rough draft of the body by Tuesday. This should make it easier. =)

Yeah, laca, good point. Also, the registration program for XP seriously bites. Everytime you change your hardware configuration or have to reinstall the system you need to use your key. Once you've used your key five times, you have to get a new one from Microsoft. Now, this may take anywhere from an hour to a few days or weeks.

Also, dial up networking on XP boxes just doesn't work like it used to. Here at our ISP, I regularly get calls from XP users who's DUN has just stopped working for no apparent reason. Usually it's little things like disabling the firewall options, but other times, DUN has to be reinstalled completely, including modem drivers. *sigh* Then again, maybe it'll get better in a few years.

Oh, slime, go ahead and use everything I've posted. If you have to reference your sources, or if you have any more questions, then you can email me for my personal info: nospam@bluesky.as

haven't had the chance to explore XP yet, all the PCs in my LAN classes are running 2000 or NT with the occasional Redhat Linux thrown in to keep every one honest. From what the system admins around here tell me, XP is sort of an unpleasently mutated form of 2000. Easier to use for Windows newbies(like myself), but kinda frustrating to configure anything advanced. So much for the hearsay evidence. I 'm a bit nervous about any OS that makes me ask Big Brother for permission if I want to reinstall my OS.

Mac OS-X? Now there is an OS!!! Rock solid-never crashes, beautiful GUI that allows you to work without jumping through to many hoops, And if you open up the terminal, you can dive right into the wonderful world of Unix (....and after being assimilated, he was never again seen in any form, other than binary). Apache, PHP, Sendmail, what more could you ask for? I've been running OS-X since Dec., no complaints yet. Just started messing about w/ OS-X Server, so far it is a very impressive(almost intuitive) NOS.

when I know everything, will my brain
stop hurting so much when I code?