Windows XP is Amazing!
Sep 28 '01
The Bottom Line This is not just another minor upgrade like Windows 98 and ME, this is a whole new different operating system.
This review is for the Professional versions of both build 2526, and 2600.
Pros: Stable, Performance compared to Windows 9x, Easy to install, Multiple user support.
Bad: Some what slower than Windows 2000. High hardware requirements.
Overview: when I first installed Windows 2000 January of this year, I was very impressed with its performance and stability. It ran faster even on my older Pentium 233 with 64 megabytes of RAM. Windows 2000 never crashed. People are so used to restarting Windows 9x at least 2 times a day, but with Windows 2000 I am able to leave the computer on for weeks at a time. The only time those long streaks stop is when I have to restart my computer because of software I installed. February of this year is the first time I heard about Whistler (codename for XP). I was very excited about it, since it is going to act like Windows 2000, and it has an updated look to the getting old gray theme of Microsoft’s Windows. Since Windows XP is based on Windows 2000, I would be referring to it a lot in this review, cause as I see it, Windows XP is very much alike Windows 2000 with a new look and tweaks for improvements. And these improvements are big!
Installation: This is the best Windows installation I have ever experienced. When I upgraded Windows 95 to 98, the installation had an error and the hard drive had to be reformatted. Windows 2000 was a little easier, but XP is the easiest. XP installed all the drivers for my laptop. The only things it didn’t detect is the Internet shortcut keys on my keyboard. This is because this is Compaq’s proprietary software. Windows 2000 detected most of my hardware, but it left out the graphic card, modem, sound card, and lan card. Even though it’s only in beta, build 2526 has surpassed all the previous Windows in ease of installation, performance and reliability.
Boot-up: On my P3 600, Windows 2000 boots up in about 1minute and 45 seconds. The first time I boot-up XP, I have noticed that it is considerably slower than Windows 2000. After a couple of days, I noticed that the boot up time of XP was reduced considerably. I decided to time it and I got 40 seconds. That is 40 seconds from the time I press the power button to the time the desktop fully loads. The improvement in the boot up time of XP after a couple of days did not make sense to me, so I decided to do some research. I found out that Microsoft claims that after you boot up the computer with the same hardware a couple of times, Windows put all the files necessary for boot up in a space in the hard drive where it is most efficient. This allows Windows to access these start up files more quickly. XP also starts up multiple programs at the same time further reducing the boot up time.
From hibernation, Windows starts up in only 25 seconds. Windows 2000 takes about the same time. That is 25 seconds from pressing the power button to desktop. But, in Windows 2000, after coming out of hibernation, there is about 10 seconds where the computer stutters, trying to recover from the deep sleep. In XP, this recovery is eliminated, meaning the computer is fully usable as soon as the desktop pops up.
XP is stable enough that I just hibernate the computer instead of shutting it down. This can not be done on a regular basis with Windows ME. The longest I ever had Windows ME on, before experiencing slow downs is only 3 days.
Performance, Reliability, and Compatibility: In comparison to previous versions of Windows 9x, Windows XP is a lot faster. I have noticed that it is a little bit slower than Windows 2000, but if you are upgrading from Windows 9x, you should be very impressed with the improved performance.
If you keep Windows 9x running for about 8 hours straight, it would either crash, or it would run very slow that you would be so frustrated and just restart it yourself. Basically, this is caused by Windows’ very inefficient memory manager. With Windows XP, you would be able to work on the computer continuously without any unscheduled restarts. The longest I ever had Windows 2000 on was about 2 weeks. During that second week, I did not experience any slow downs. It feels like the computer is always on fresh reboot.
I have seen the blue screen of death a couple of times in Windows 2000. This is because I was trying to find the right drivers that 2000 did not install. In XP, since all the drivers were installed automatically, I have not seen the blue screen of death in the four weeks that I have used it.
Microsoft put too much hype saying that Windows XP is going to be as backwards compatible as Windows 9x. This is not true. As I said before, Windows XP is basically Windows 2000. Anything that works with Windows 2000 would work in XP. And anything that does not work with Windows 2000 would MOST LIKELY, not work with XP. The way XP makes legacy software work is through its compatibility mode. When you right click on a program, you can choose to run it as any of the previous Microsoft operating systems, including DOS. Keep in mind that this is only a simulation. It is making the program think that it is running in the operating system you selected. This does not however work with most driver installations. You might have problems using compatibility mode with drivers that are specially designed for Windows 9x. I tried installing a Windows ME version of my mouse driver, and it said wrong operating system. I am thinking that most Windows 2000 drivers would work with XP, but I have run across one which also said wrong Windows version. I also tried installing a driver that was designed for Windows ME using XP’s compatibility mode. It did installed but I was getting errors after. (Although XP automatically installed all the drivers, I was trying to install some of Compaq’s proprietary drivers, like the mouse software, Internet buttons, and the BaySwap, for swapping the DVD drive and the floppy drive.) In my opinion, the compatibility mode is just used for running software, not for installing drivers. I am not holding it against Microsoft for not making XP backwards compatible. This is the reason why Windows 9x are so unstable. Because Microsoft wanted to make it backwards compatible, they had to build Windows on top of DOS. Putting a 32-bit operating system on top of a 16-bit operating system resulted in instability. If Microsoft tried to make all of their operating systems backwards compatible, we will be stuck with an unreliable operating system for a very long time. The only reason why I am disappointed about this issue is because they put way too much hype on it. If you are considering XP, just think Windows 2000. The two operating systems act very much alike.
The Look: Most people say that they don’t like the way XP looks. They say that there is too much blue in it. Personally, I kind of like the new look. Of course, blue being my favorite color makes me sort of biased. You can change the theme color of Windows other than the default blue. Blue, green and silver are the ones that came with the system. If you do not like the whole new look of XP at all, there is a classic mode option that would make your XP look like a previous Windows.
Multiple Users: One reason why I do not like letting other people use my computer is because most of them mess up my settings. Windows XP is very good at separating user accounts. There are two options of logging out of an account. The first option is a complete log out, and the second option is a quick log out, which basically locks the account but leaves all the programs in that account running. You can have AIM open in one account, “quick log” out of that account, log in another account, and you can open another instance of AIM. You can even send a message to the AIM in the other account. And no, these are not two separate installations of AIM.
Quirks of Build 2526: This version of XP is the Release Candidate 2. This means that Microsoft pre released the software so that people can test it and give them their feedbacks back to Microsoft so the software can be improved accordingly. Release Candidates are very close to the finished product. Between RC (Release Candidate) and the Gold (final) product, the only changes are a little bit of tweaks to fix bugs. One of the most annoying things I have come across with in the RC2 version is in the start menu. When you click on the start, the programs folder is locate at the very bottom of the menu. When you have to click on an icon above, you will have to pass your mouse over the programs menu. This causes the programs menu to expand even when you don’t mean to. They fixed this in the final version. It takes more time before the programs menu expands. Another thing is I could not get System Restore to work in RC2. For some reason, it just kept saying could not restore. However, this feature worked flawlessly in the final version.
DVD playback using Windows Media Player is not good in RC2. Even on a non-full screen view, there is way too much flickering. This is however fixed in build 2600 (final version).
These quirks are not too much of a big deal since it is still in beta. I have not noticed anything weird in build 2600 yet.
Small Things: It is very easy to tell that Microsoft has paid attention to the small details. For example, the default image viewer allows you to rotate pictures that were taken vertically. The rotation process is instant, meaning that once you rotate a picture, you don’t have to “save” or “save as”. Before Windows XP, I have been using ACDSee as my default picture viewer. It does allow you to rotate images as easily but you do have to “save” the rotated image.
You can view your pictures as thumbnails. This is a nice feature when you are looking for a particular photo. Again, ACDSee does this too, but you have to actually open the program. In Windows XP, photo thumbnails are done within the Explorer itself.
One of the features that I really like is the Clear Type. When this option is checked, all the text are darkened and the edges are made smooth. Just to give you an idea, open up Microsoft Word and put the text size to 72, and type something. Notice that on a curve, the edges of the letters are jagged. This is dramatically reduced with Clear Type. Microsoft claims that this feature is for use with laptop and LCD screens, but it looks good on a flat CRT monitor too.
In previous versions of Windows, you can only change the icon of a shortcut. XP allows you to change the icon of a folder too. The icon I chose for my MP3 folder is a music note, and my picture folder shows a little picture icon.
Another nice feature is, after installing a program, XP highlights the newly created shortcuts in the programs menu making it so much easier to find.
Multi monitor support is back! This feature was in Windows ME, but was noticeably missing in Windows 2000.
I can go on and on about the small things. Microsoft put a lot of small stuff in the new operating system, that it will be very hard to notice each of them individually. It is very easy to take them for granted. I have been using Windows since 3.1, and I notice that Windows XP seems to be the most user-friendly. It is a weird feeling, but it really does feel like this operating system is fool-proof. I think this is the result of all the small details working together. I did not even get this “feeling” with Windows ME, which in my opinion is the most user-friendly before XP.
Conclusion: Overall, Windows XP is a worthy upgrade. It has enough new changes that would make it very easy for new comers to use, but it does not change the basic foundation of Windows, so as not to frustrate the more experienced users. Although performance lags a little bit behind Windows 2000, XP is still a major upgrade for users of Windows 9x/ME, and should please everyone with its ease of use, customizability, stability, and a fresh new look.
Any questions: ohsnap@gmx.net
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
flipteg
|
|
Reviews written: 8
Trusted by: 2 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.