I'm so sick of the idiots here who have never tried XP posting like they know all about it, saying it sucks and the hate the interface. Calling people f**s because they like it just shows how immature you are.

Well if you actually tried XP for any time you would know you can change the settings to make XP look EXACTLY like Windows 2000 in every single way.

Please stop spreading the lies.

My big concern is it's compatibility problems. I have used XP and it is bloated with it's 1.36gig install. What the hell, I dont see that many changes, except size. Microsoft's biggest problem is they NEVER complete an OS, they just add allot of crap to it. I wish they would sit down and release an OS similar to Unix, complete, secure, and 100% customizable. As for XP....BLOATED...I am not impressed.

How can we be sure you have ever used it? maybe your just blowing smoke out your a** too!!!!!!!!!!

There ya go, you just said it... You can make it look like windows 2000.... ****in dummy

UNIX is may be secure, and 100% customisable, but only if you spend a long time trawling how-to's and the such to figure out what the hell you're supposed to do.

I want an Operating System that looks good, is stable, runs quickly on my hardware (256MB RAM, 466 Celeron), and most importantly, lets me get my job done quickly, efficiently and in the way that I want, not a compramise I had to come to because I couldn't find the right How-TO file to explain the process.

UNIX is fine if you want to get your hands dirty all of the time, but that is not my desire.

Hmmm... it's only .99gb for me....

1 Gig still does seem to be a lot for just the OS alone!
It's not fair to compare it to the size that Win95 took up, but it does seem like there was a big rise from Win98SE/ME -> Win2K -> WinXP.

All *nix'es are NOT and I highly doubt ever will be *complete*. There are patches released for it all the time, there are new additions added in all the time and there are more devices to support. So I'm not sure where you get this idea of completness from.

And if you are actually talking about 'UNIX', then it's very expensive and not complete either.

Hey moron, ever heard of UNIX System V or so? thats what he's reffering too perhaps its easier to keep your big mouth shut sometimes rather then open it. As for his comment Bell Labs System V Unix is really expensive and isnt complete either. so there!

-Dave

First of all, Office XP is real nice.. Runs faster Looks better, and runs more stable..So it deserves the XP name Windows Xp on the other hand is a festering pile of gorilla s*** in the mist.. I tried the RC1 and it made me sick to my guts.. what an aweful interface, it's about as nice as gramma's snatch on a hot summer day!

Windows XP is for all them f**s that liked and actually paid money for windows ME!!
thanks freaks.

I think you have some major issues.

Since Office 2000 Microsoft has been touting the new "flat" interface (as is in OfficeXP) to be the best thing since sliced bread....

And look what they did with Windows XP???? Bubbly curvy 3d "in your face" interface with an extra ugly green Start button to truly make the eXPerience worthwhile.... NOT :p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear MS, make up your bloody mind about UI standards, mixing flat UI with bubbly 3d "in your face" UI is plain Bleh! :p~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every so often Microsoft releases an interim build that performs like what I'd expect from a Beta 2 release. There are more uneXPlained modules causing crashes and the great new revision of IE6 suffers from script processing errors even on web pages created with Microsoft's latest and best Frontpage 2002 product.
As well as all this I believe that Microsoft's new "Luna" interface will age quickly with users changing back to the "Classic" style, the "WOW" factor of the new UI lasts about 2 to 3 weeks IMHO and then I as well as my colleagues; find ourselves going back to classic.

:p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MS will be releasing more skins (or maybe just color schemes?) after the release of XP, either in the form of a Plus! Pack, or downloadable from the internet.

Look to my page concerning my experience w/ RC1
http://www.rlocone.com/winxp.htm

You have to be the sorriest looking mother ****er on the planet

it was the first post-RC1 interim build if you don't count 2509 and 2517.

...which were unsupported and unofficial leaks from Microsoft labs.

They have daily buils at the Office, what you IRC kidies get are just one of the daily builds that gets leaked by some MS employee that wants his/her friends to think they are l337.

Why spend a Billion in advertising... that's retarded. Like the dude said here, spend a couple grand and give us a break on the damn price!

Another stupid reasoning from M$ on why they over charge for their she-it!

Wow! Great Point.
I'd rather pay X% less for WinXP than have "feel good" advertising on TV telling me how great WXP is. :p~~~~~~~~~~~

I am happy to get my hand on RC1 for Windows XP, but for a software in release candidate stage, WinXP is still working like a alpha software as it's buggy (at least the big button bug not fixed yet, test it out at http://vichk.heha.net/buttontest.html if you're running XP), and slow (My box needs 30min to install Delphi 6 Ent. on a Athlon 1200, 256MB ram, OMG!).........

By the way, did all of ya noticed that the line for Microsoft Windows XP at the RELATED SITES part of this page (All WinXP-related page indeed) is wrong? Although there's a new best bets on 404 pages, but fix that would be better :)

With 256MB PC-133 DIMMs at about $40 theres not an excuse to not have 512 MB of ram. Windows XP will run a LOT smoother on systems with large ammounts of ram because all the new explorer effects, and colors have increased the ammount of ram explorer alone needs to run all the way to 18MB of ram.

You'd be better offer having a video card with decent 2D rendering speeds (ie, just about anything but nVidia).

Well, its the time that I should spend some $$ and upgrade my PC (again) :p

Hey save you hard earned $$, how does WinXP make you more productive or able to achieve more? Well it can't and it doesn't. I don't personally see a fade effect or 16squillion color icons making me more productive. :p~~~~~~~~~~~

It has a lot of stuff, like integrated CD and DVD (via formatnig the DVD as FAT)recording, and it also has other things like having the ability to select certain photos and send them out to be printed professionally, and lots of stuff like that, make it very good for the home user.

For business, it has things like Remode Desktop (an old feature if you've used, and payed, for Terminal Services, but this is a little better), Remote Assistance (benefits the administrator, and actually the consumer).

Passport integration (if they get it to work right!) will be very nice.

And I believe the new start menu is fabulous, seeing where as it stores all your most frequently used apps on the menu (you can have as much as 30 apps there), and it has all your stuff that used to be on the desktop there (that takes time to get used it, but once you do, it's a lot better)

And not to mention the fact that this will be a HUGE benefit to Win9x users, since it is built on the NT kernel.
Win9x users really have NO idea what they are missing when they use the 9x kernel.

There is a lot of other nice things in the OS that just make using it more pleasant, in my opinion.

If productivity is all that matters, why are you here wasting time instead of producing something useful? GET TO WORK!

;-)

I can tell you that I am awaiting WinXP with great anticipation... I have seen what this OS can do and I am sincerely impressed by the effort put into this OS.
I can say without a doubt, that this will surely be the beginning of the end for WIN98 and WIN ME.
Funny that they spend so much money on advertising... I would rather see 1/2 Billion spend in Advertising and a Lower Retail Price Instead.
Microsoft might find out that they would Outsell their product much faster this way, and still make the same profits.
All in all, this one time that I will be looking forward to the Cold days of Autumns.

First of all,
both upgrade from W2K and clean install "impressed me" with a number of VERY SERIOUS bugs.
Starting with inability to convert a Disk D partition properly both times, or non-recognition of a Zip drive(unless it is physically pulled out first and than added to hardware config.),
more... wrong video drivers listed as available for upgrade.
In my case dual Matrox video card was requesting a totally erroneous drivers from another card manufacturer.
I had to go manually to Matrox and request the latest right drivers for dual monitor mode to set up max resolution.

Now about the looks...
How much uglier can you make the cons.
And this is for Pro version.
Resetting to a Classic look does not revert to old W2K look completely, which will turn off a lot of W2K pros.
What real professional would like that gaudiness?
May be it is OK for a home user... but for business environment, I doubt it...
Resetting to a Classic look does not revert to old W2K look completely, which will turn off a lot of W2K pros.
Installation guides are plain awful and extremely simplistic.
May be redesign of text and graphics is in order, but I won't bet on that either...

As a serios user it is a no-go for me, at least the way it looks and feels right now.
I have no need for it, as long as, at least, BUGS ARE FIXED!

I'll bet that if you wrote Microsoft and told them of all the mistakes they made designing the user interface, they'll hire you to come out there and redesign the next version of windows!

The way the world works is you can't satisfy everyone. Use it or don't.

New UI is Bleh! to say the least. I don't like the bubbly look, MS says "sleek"? Bwahahahahha Yah right. The only thing IMHO that MS got right in the new UI is the start menu, I like it. But the rest, well, time to go back to the old drawing board. :p~~~~~~~~~~``

Like I've said, there will be more skins.

Second, Stardock is working on Windowblinds XP, which integrates with WindowsXP, and allows you to run any Windowblinds skin that you want (or create your own, for that matter). Unfortunatly, MS isn't releasing to us how to skin the new parts of the OS, like the new start menu, and the side bars on Explorer windows.

you obviously don't know how to use the system well enough or you would easily be able to get back to the old win2k gui by going into system properties and turn off visual enhancements. there are other things you could do. i didn't see you talk about any real issues like stability and compatibility, just how you can't get the gui to look like the old win2k. also, you are doing somethign wrong in setup if you had problems converting your partitions as i have installed this on at least 15 pc's to testing at our location and each scenario i ran went without a hitch.

"As a serios user it is a no-go for me, at least the way it looks and feels right now."
a serious user wouldn't say that. and the installation guides are simplistic because it doesn't take a genious to install xp.

"May be redesign of text and graphics is in order, but I won't bet on that either... "
again with graphics. this leads me to believe all your issues are with you hate for the desgins microsoft has chosen for xp.

as far as desgins went, they were goign to use a flat interface as in the microsoft professional theme but decided to kick it the way they do any of their other good ideas. why? because of customer feedback. thats why they made most of the changes they made to xp that dealt with the gui. i for one am glad that the win9x kernel is dying and they found a decent way to "force" everyone to use the nt kernel which is in fact a much better and more stable kernel. getting programs to run that way on it are programmer issues that will have to be fixed before the product goes gold. once and awhile, a new beta will sacrifice certain features or compatibility "temporarily" to get another piece of the os to work properly. but later releases should also fix the previous problems that had not existed before the build the problem showed up in. xp will be more stable than win2k was as well as attract more users by offering more features. i am very pleased whith the work they've done so far. microsoft has more developers putting in more hours on the production of xp than any os they have done previously.

as far as build 2509 goes, that is an internal microsoft build not meant for public beta testers. how or why you are using it is beyond me as 2520 is the first public interim build since rc1. if you feel it doesn't meet your needs it's because that build wasn't meant to be used by you.
i completely agree with the wow factor and ui standards comments.

my 2 cents.

XPensive,XPendable and on and on. can't wait for service pack3 of windows 2000, then i'll probally have to activate that to.