Best OS ever? I don't think so. Microsoft dosen't even try to answer the questions about security concerns. Steve Gibson tells us about how easy for DoS to use with Win XP. Please go to grc.com web site and check it out.

simply put, it's the best OS M$ ever built. better than win2k? i could say so. i got the final Pro and i like it so far. the first thing i did was to turn off the new interface. i like the classic better. i think the new interface is way too bloated and too big. for me, i think it's a better version of Win2k. it didn't detect my AMR modem but i got the win2k drivers that fixed the problem. the rest is fine. way to go microsoft.

I've been using RC1 with no problems at all except for my non existant printer driver (Win 2K driver does the trick) the changes in the start menu are a bit annoying and it looks like they madt the damn control panel impossible to find things. Otherwise I like it. No problems upgrading from Win98SE. I am looking at from a users point and think it will be well recieved.

How is XP support of hardware such as CDRWs and Firewire? I know that i had a devil of a time getting my cdrw to work in win2k. Does XP have aspi support for this or will it be as it was with win2k?

Why does MS think, we the users want this kind of garbage staring at us at every turn?

http://chicagotribune.co...=chi%2Dtechnology%2Dnav

Don't believe everything you read, the writer is an idiot, basically... and really, you should NEVER even take into consideration an article that is so opinionated (like, all of it)

Reminds me of YOU!!

Everyone's had a go at everything else in XP - why not 'Advertising' now. If you need to print a story you don't usually have to look too hard to find one - unless you're going for something a little more credible of course. I find that story funny because there are no less than 6 advertisments surrounding that story!

I have been a microsoft engineer for almost seven years now. Not to suggest that I know all...but I have worked a lot systems over and i have to admit that this is by far...the biggest dissapointment with respect to the ammount of hype that has been propagated by the powers that be over at Microsoft. It is almost at a point now where the new technology is ahead of the operating systems, but way ahead!
I few changes in the look of the OS and a few conveniently placed short-cuts...etc. I am not sure that these all worthy of such praise. If i wanted a MAC I would have bought one.
However we all know that these are apples and oranges. Over all...security is better...NTFS is welcomed, better network stuff, nice pretty screen, media...etc... but dirver support is as usual...brutal. Does anyone remember how long it took before Win2K was finally...ok? It has never become so clear that Microsoft needs to open the channels of communications with out source development, and stop the global dominance approach.
I have tested this OS from the start. I know there are a lot of smart talented folks out there who may not agree...but in my view...Microsoft's marketing department has out done themselves once again! Give it 6 months to a year...then maybe...maybe...

To Win9x users, it's a HUGE step.

To Win2k users, some of the things make you more productive, like the new start menu, I think, is great, having Remote Desktop right there in the shell is also great.

True...true. I guess I am little critical because i have tested them all in the beta's. I beleive that M$ can do much better than this. Just wait till we start to download OS's everytime we boot up...and ofcourse...we will be getting it from Msn.com or something like that.
It's coming faster than we think.
I guess I can change my opinion to not bad...but still not to impressed..considering the resources they have...

I can't see the problem. I've had quite a few betas of XP over the past, and it's been excellent!

Now Windows Millennium - now *that* was a disappointing release with more bugs than progress. I really don't see how people can see XP as any worse than that!
WinXP vs. 2000 is an understandable argument (2000 is *totally* solid, and you know how the "if it ain't broke" prase goes...) But XP vs. the Win9x series? Give me XP any day.

I've tested them all too.

Never before have I been this disappointed with a Windows upgrade. It is truly a step backward in my eyes.

First, what's with the new 'blurry' icons? It seems as if every icon throughout XP was loaded up in an image editor and put through a "blur beyond recognition" cycle. This drives me nuts as many small icons are now virtually indistinguishable from one other unless you look closely, or they are just indecipherable blobs (e.g. the Start Menu icons for Notepad & Paint). What was wrong with the old crisp and clear icons?!

Second, and more important, is XP's performance. Yes, it boots faster, but once up the GUI is noticably slower than Windows 2000 was, even with the "Windows Classic" theme enabled. The same programs appear slower at drawing the same things on the screen. Programs like Internet Explorer and Outlook Express instantly flash on the screen with 2000, but in XP it's slow enough to where I can watch individual parts of the windows being painted. It feels like I undid my last CPU upgrade. At first I figured this was caused by a problematic video driver that shipped with XP [NVidia GeForce2], but I had the same result when I loaded the very same video driver I was using in 2000.

On a side note, why does the new default skin resemble Windows 3.1 in many ways? e.g. the white, shadowed, flat menus; the tall blue title bars; the non-3D blue window borders. For a supposedly forward-looking company this is disturbing..

I think you have a phux0red system.

I don't have a single problem with any of those things.

It's like that b/c that is actually the new "style" for user interfaces.... look at Encarta, or Office. The 3d-style is going out of style, for lack of a better term.

I don't think it's my system. Microsoft has admitted that XP's UI code is slower than previous Windows versions, and that they were optimizing memory management and disk I/O efficiency to supposedly offset it. It doesn't appear that they did a very good job at it.

All I can say is, I don't see the things you are seeing at all. I turn full effects on, not a single skip, or problems with re-drawing the windows, and certainly not any fuziness in the icons.

Well, I'm not getting any skips or video _problems_... It's just slower. Approximately twice as slow I'd estimate. Not unusably slow but slow enough to be annoying, to me at least.

JR, there's something else going on here. If you're noticing the screen being painted WinXP isn't the issue. Granted you didn't have the problem until you installed XP, but I'm not seeing any complaints of this problem on the XP newsgroups.

What build of XP are you using? Was it an upgrade or a fresh install? How about vidoe card and drivers? Do menus openm slowly as well when inside an app, how about right-click on the desktop, is there a delay there?

Aren't you one of Betanews's Linux zealots though? Unless I'm getting you mixed up with the others, which is actually quite likely.
(I dual boot myself, but still see the rivalry between the systems as silly.)

The blurry icons do seem silly at first, but believe me they grow on you :) I hated them at first, but now I even use a WinXP IconPackager theme on Win2000 (how sad is that!)
That said, I just unloaded IconPackager and Windowblinds, and I'm starting to rather like the "clean" old view. Ho hum, circle time.

As for the theme... well, I can't really comment since I don't have the release of XP. But I had one of the more recent betas, and it was actually *faster* in some cases with the "classic" theme, though about the same speed most of the time. If it's actually slower, then I think there's something wrong with your system really...

Win 3.1? With those high colour titlebars? Nah, looks more primitive than that - it looks like kid's plastic toy (yet I still like the theme. How sad.)
The menus were more of a brownish-grayish-reddish colour when I last saw them.

Am I a Linux "zealot"? Absolutely not. I use Windows 2000 mainly and love it. But I also use Linux pretty extensively.

As for the speed of the GUI, I don't think it's fair to say it's a problem with my system. Again, Microsoft has said that the new skinned interface adds processing overhead (which comes as no surprise). And no, switching to the Classic theme does not eliminate this processing overhead since it's actually a skin too. I think it all comes down to whether or not you are the type that *notices* such relatively subtle speed differences. I am that type :)

I had the chance to try windows xp on a friend's machine. I was particularly interested in the built-in firewall I've read about.

When the firewall is activated, e-mail (outlook express) takes a very long time to check e-mail. Connecting to ftp servers also takes a very long time. On many occasions, the requests time out.

Is this a bug or misconfiguration? I had used the default settings and also tried various options with no resolution.

On top of that, this OS looks very pleasing...its actually far more than I expected.

Thanks

Maybe the Betanews community has gone straight ;) All these messages, and not a single one asking where to download it.

Needless to say, it's already cracked and circulating the warez scene (I'm not saying where). That's some fast work...
Hate to say "I told you so", but it *is* to Microsoft! I, like most others, knew Activation was pointless. Did they listen? No. They probably poured more money into developing "activation" than they would have saved on piracy if it had actually worked. This pretty much proves it. Just a couple of days after RTM (not even released yet!) and they've found ways around it already :) Classic.

Do you listen? Apparently not.

Activation isn't made to stop warez, it's made to stop casual copying (like if I give my CD to a friend so he can install it on his computer).

Activation has not been cracked. Circumvented, yes, but not cracked.

I don't think some people will ever get it, CPUGuy.

Well, aint you nice!

Oh wait, I remember you from last time...
Why not just say so? That does actually make sense - but nooo you had to get that little flame in.

Makes sense actually. The average Joe User with neat black hair and round glasses who normally shares programs with his neighbor, would have no chance against this. It'd be interesting to see if this makes any kind of impact on "piracy" - since it'd tell if most pirates are clueless or professional.
(Somehow I suspect the former, in which case MS were right after all)

deryk, if you read his post, you will see that he said "Did they listen? No." And I was making reference to that, thank you very much.

First, 'he' = me, so yes I read his post :) I also read your reply and agreed with it.

I just couldn't understand why you decided to take that comment personally (unless you work for Microsoft, who are the ones I figured "didn't listen" to people saying Activation would only be hassle and not actually combat piracy as it was meant to.)

I got it, build 2600RTM...Nice OS.
As usual, some games don't work, some music apps that I use don't work such as GigaStudio. But the rest is just great.

OK, I've seen the screen shots, and I know you can remove the new GUI. But what about the icons, not just the ones for files, also the ones on toolbars. Why do they have so much colour, can you set them back to the old gray style ?

Why would you want them like that?

2 points:

If this person is colorblind, then that might account for his preference. There is no good rason someone with normal eyesight would want to go "retro" on the icon color depth.

Otherwise, file this one under "nabob of negativity".

Its this little thing called "choice". Some people like different colors to others. Some people like the old look better than the new look. To me, XP's GUI looks terrible. To others, it might be the best thing they've ever used. So is there an option in XP to change the look as you wish?

You've always been able to change the icons.

You can easily switch back to the "old" windows Start Menu and look and feel if you'd like. You can customize as before, change fonts sizes, colors, all that good stuff. :-)

Will the boxed set come with a free subscription or a free issue of the magazine? Or perhaps DeCSS?

Someone should have looked this word up in the dictionary before they used it in the headline. Where are the broken beer bottles and how many people went to the emergency room? What's described here is more fanfare than brouhaha.

Hey, I'm just impressed that they could spell Brouhaha. I mean, fanfare is just way too easy.

According to dictionary.com a Brouhaha is:
1: loud confused noise from many sources
2: a confused disturbance far greater than its cause merits

We would all like to think that the lound noise being eminated from Micrsoft is no more than a confused disturbance wouldn't we?

After trying out RC1, I really can't see what all the hype is about.
As a long-time NT and Win 2K pro user, I really was looking forward to at last ditching Win 98/ME (I do lots of audio stuff). However, the bad news is .. NO DICE.
Whether a 'clean' or 'upgrade' install is used, NONE of the audio products/drivers are supported. And please don't tell me (like M$) to 'contact the vendor'. In case you didn't realise it, this product, as fantastically stable and pretty as it may be, is just NT 6, and Win 98/ME has been totally disowned.

NT 5.1 not 6.

Have you tried build 2600 with your audio products? Checked incase the vendor happens to have any patches that might be needed? e.g. Symantec brought out a patch so you could run NAV 2001 on XP.

Sound Forge runs under Win2000, I would have thought it would be fine under XP. Cakewalk SONAR also runs under Win2000. What audio tools do you use?

Don't go by RC1, my machine would not even get through the RC1 install without blue screening (dual P3 955 Asus m/b w/VIA chipset) but RC2 works like a charm and Turtle Beach already had WinXP sound drivers available for my Santa Cruz card.

Good ones.

You'd hate to be specific. "Good Ones" such as? Or are you just spreading FUD around about Windows XP?

I'm not spreading FUD, chris, I have no reason to do that. I had trouble taking your first reply seriously I'm afraid; did you read what I said initially ? Something like "don't tell me to contact the vendor" and yet that's exactly what you did.
How does Logic Audio Platinum, latest version, sound for starters?
Yes I know that version 5 is supposed to be XP-compatible, but the more important issue here is soundcard driver support. The drivers have to be WDM or you don't stand a chance.

You had trouble taking my reply seriously...interesting..was I supposed to take 'good ones' seriously? Nevermind it's not important.

Yes I realise you said "don't tell me to contact the vendor", but like with the example I gave regarding Symantec, it is possible for your vendors to have released an XP patch for the testers.

Logic Audio Platinum - I haven't used it myself hence why I didn't note it, but as you said, your latest version is supposedly XP-compatible. For the examples I gave I'm not sure if they definetely are or are not compatible - but it's worth giving them a go on the final release of Win XP.

As for Audio Drivers - that's something only a vendor can supply, unless you can write your own! So you're fairly much 'screwed' there, so to speak. I know I'm stuck using Win9X for my video capture card as Pinnacle will not write drivers for Win2K let alone XP! What can you do!

Its so funny how so many people complain that this doesn't work and that doesn't work when the OS isn't even out publicly yet and you have to give vendors time to produce the RIGHT drivers. MS drivers are usually very general anyway. I'd say wait till November to start really dogging it out. The only big problem I've seen is that my sblive software doesn't work as well but I'm not gonna sweat that till later on. I'm sure creative will fix that pretty quick. Anyhow, its still too early to tell at this point. Like with any new os..if its linux,windows,etc there are always going to be driver/software updates. Thats just how it works. With software you can't expect it all at once. To think that would just be ignorant.

Not work as well? Lol, they screw up the system.

What's really bad is those Live!Ware drivers+software are all signed for Win2k.

I just noticed after i installed build 2600 that when i goto do my online banking and some ezboard sites that ie6 craps out on me. It doesn't crash but for banding it says my browser is not sufficient to login and this is at wellsfargo.com too. The other ezboard site i goto keep having me login over and over like there's a problem with the cookies or something and i checked. They are of course enabled. Wierd. Any suggestions? I alread removed IE6 and reinstalled. No go on that too. Thanks in advance. Hey Cpuguy what do you think?

Haven't installed it... probably won't until after the .net Server versions are done.

It is a problem with how Wells Fargo has their servers configured. They won't "work" with "beta" browsers. If however, you write this key to the registry, you can pretend to be running IE5.5, and you won't have any problems.

[HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent]
"Version"="MSIE 5.5"

Of course, usual disclaimers apply.

XP is the best os yet.. but the Product activation should have made the PRICE LOWER than typical 98/ME sales on Home Edition, but it did not it's higher.. so as far as i see.. i'll wait and buy a PC with it.. and i better not have to activate it when i use the system restore CD

So, you are saying that something that is FAR superior such as the NT kernel compared to the 9x kernel, should be cheaper?

I don't know the exact figure, but Microsoft loses an extremely large amount of money to piracy, so with the Product Activation you would think they would lower the price because they should not lose as much to pirates.

This raise in price makes me think that M$ doesn't have a lot of failth in Product Activation's success.

the loses money from piracy is a load of cr@p.

if people couldnt get the software pirated, they would just learn to live without it. linux would be a LOT more popular if pirated versions of MS OSs werent available.

The only large amount of money microsoft loses through piracy is from their own spending on marketing and "audits" etc.

Windows XP will cost $9 less than Windows Me and Windows 2000 did upon release. (Read the article.)

I would like to point out that a Microsoft internal memo made public several years ago actually acknowledged the role software piracy plays in increasing sales in the long term. An increase in sales of about 20% can be attributed to software pirates reccomending software to their non pirating counterparts. MS knows it and hence their half hearted efforts to fight it

LOL! Yeah, right.

Pirate: "Hey man, I just installed a cracked OS on my computer, it roolz! I recommend that you purchase it from your local vendor."

Friend: "Thank you, I will do so."

Happens all the time...

LOL very funny!

Actually, its not as much to do with increasing sales as with increasing user base. If Windows 95 was totally uncopyable and unpiratable (lets assume for the sake of argument that those things are possible) then would the people who copyed it and installed it for free still want to pay for it? I guess that the free operating systems would have been considered first, and so reduced MS's userbase, therefore reducing the power MS has over the desktop market.

I think WPA is a big mistake. I am aware of lots of companies who will not upgrade to XP because of WPA and the whole subscription model MS is trying to bring in.

I like it.

I love it how MS had a mass army of testers and in the end screwed them over. I was a tester from the get go and go on to windowsbeta.microsoft.com to find that we only get a evaluation copy of build 2600 for 180 days. That is so pathetic its not even funny. Basically they rape you for finding bugs for them and then slap you in the face in the end. So i deliver a nice **** you to bill gates. Thanks alot.

You are incorrect...

Testers get to download Evalualtion versions, early, as a courtesy.

There is no way Microsoft can mail out its 'traditional' complimentary copies, when the CDs haven't even been made yet. Do you expect the CD fairly to magically put a copy under your pillow before they are even made? Geesh...

If you were a real beta tester, you would have read this in the MS newsgroups.

I find your disdain very silly considering, it is based upon ignorance.

The Net Avenger

Not only that, but MS tells you to not expect anything at the end of the beta. They don't HAVE to give you a single thing.

If you are beta testing just to get the final version, then, well, I hope you either get thrown off, or you quit.

My apologies on my original post I didn't see the post on the newsgroups about the final. But hey expect or don't expect whatever. I've tested 98,2000 as well and always submitted alot of bug reports, tried to help out and get a preview of the next latest and greatest thing from MS. But I would say it would be "courtious" to get a final copy. I have with all the others so I thought that would be the normal procedure. Oh well nuff said guess i better get the wallet ready for the retail release hehe

I wasn't implying a cd but just the iso image. Anyway read my bottom post. I said i was sorry. Miscommunication on my part

If you've be active from RC1 til now (active meaning either sent in bug reports or filled out install survey's), you will get the final with 5 licenses.

Cpuguy,

Thanks for this info. Yes I was on since day one so i will be looking forward to that. Sorry for all the fuss. I have had quite a bit of difficulty getting onto the newgroups thanks to aka sprint broadband lol. Anyhow thanks again

Let me point out some things... Windows 98/Memphis beta - final build was not avaliable for download, MS would be stupid to do this (one leak, and its out to a million people months in advance), instead they let us download RC5 while we waited for out final cds... Windows 98 Second Edition - same way... Windows 2000 - the trial version was sent to us and was avaliable for download. Boxed copies were sent to us AFTER the store release. Windows Me - same as 9x betas... Windows XP - same as Windows 2000... you see a pattern here? BTW - if you actually expect a final copy, don't expect to see one. Those who say "where's my final copy" don't get one. :-P

When will XP RTM appear on MSDN downloads? Anyone know? I can't wait to grab it from MSDN as soon as its up there ...

Also, does anyone know whether MSDN Professional users get an activation key for 10 machines as in the beta, or if they get only one, or if they get a corporate or volume licensing key ala the Windows 2000 download on MSDN?

If anyone knows the answer to any of these can they please post a reply here? Thanks.

Reports have it that MSDN developers will get access around September 21st... Even though this is still a few weeks away, it is a full month before the original planned date.

The Net Avenger

Damn ... you'd think after paying the high rates for MSDN Microsoft would do a quicker job than that, considering they don't need to press CDs and all. I was hoping they'd do it quicker. If they're using CD Key generation as an excuse, its a pretty lousy one considering it could easily have been done in advance.

All dislike for Microsoft's business practices aside, and that their products are full of security holes... Windows XP Home finally supports any EA Sports product I've thrown at it.. Makes my beta time worthwhile it seems.

The Geforce driver does NOT support OpenGL though.. However, installing 12.41 Det3 for Win2000 does fix this problem..

Needless to say, I'm waiting for XP/.NET server to come out... I hope Microsoft realizes that someone will leak one of those '5 licenses or more' self-activating keys, just like what happened in Office XP.. I wonder if Product Activation is so worthwhile then, if it can be circumvented just by 1 Open License code being leaked?

Either way though, the move to using the Win2000 core for a personal OS was a good move.. We'll see what happens with things like "Uncertified drivers" and such nonsense later in time..

Go into the registry and yank the Run for Windows Messenger though, otherwise you'll get nagged about logging in with your Passport until you do.

--D

That's because nVidia's drivers are so stinkin buggy that they can't ship a fully featured driver with the OS, since it isn't signed.

maybe they dont like like paying MS for that privilege. Thier no bugger than windows. Besides, That logo just means that they will suck in preformance and not have the full feature set that the cards can support.

Also, nvidia fully support's the new Opengl 1.3 spec's. MS doesnt want that support on thier OS, because it competes with directx.
Do you ever read anything that's not from a MS source? I dont think so.

It doesn't support the full feature set of the card because they can't support all of it without having a multitude of bugs.

what's this crap about me and 2000 costing more than xp?
am i reading it wrong or did betanews screw up as usual?

FUll link http://www.msnbc.com/news/618915.asp?0si=-

The Professional Edition will cost around $199 as an upgrade or $299 for the full version, which in both instances is about a $20 increase over Windows 2000. But compared to a special $120 promotional offer for Windows 2000 Professional, the commercial XP version will cost nearly $80 more.

On Thursday, Amazon had started taking preorders for the new operating system, which doesn’t go on sale until Oct. 25, but pulled the offer after several hours.
Microsoft officially got the launch under way Friday, the first step in what will be an industrywide, billion-dollar promotional blitz—in which Microsoft itself will spend $200 million—leading up Windows XP’s retail launch in October. The company released final code to PC makers, which they’ll use to install Windows XP on new computers. New Windows XP PCs unofficially

so betanews screwed up as usual.

Actually, Windows 2000 came out with a suggested retail of $219 for upgrades and $319 for full versions (www.microsoft.com/window...sional/howtobuy/pricing/), however most stores initially sold copies for about 10 dollars less. Windows Me came out (www.microsoft.com/PressP...ug00/PromoPricingPR.asp) at $109 for upgrades and $209 for full versions, which is $9 more than XP Personal will run.

Unfortunately many news sites (CNET, MSNBC, etc) compared recent prices, a year after inital release. Windows XP pricing will undoubtedly drop in the next year as well, and probably will sell for even cheaper intially because of the falling PC market.

It's better to check the facts before jumping to conclusions. A simple search of Google can turn up a wealth of knowledge - try it out sometime.

MS is making another mistake by releasing this piece of s***.......

huhhhhh?? u obviously arnt talking about Win XP.

yeah actually I am talking about XP

hmmm strange how you seem to have the totally opposite opinion to people who have REALLY tested it...

I HAVE tested it

well, either:

a) you have a s*** computer
b) you are a mac user (eew)
c) you just plain suck ass

Care to elaborate on your original statement? i.e. Why is it that you think that Win XP is 'a piece of s***'? and why is Microsoft 'making another mistake'?

Dude. Please don't dis macs. I love macs. I am a Video, and sound editor, and my jon is mmuch easier because of macs....

Also I have a slow 500Mhz PC, and the RC2 runs fine on it, so the slow PC option of yours doesn't seem to matter much either..

I'm riddled with excitment!

ZZzzzZZzZZzZZZZzzzzZzzZzzzzZzzzzz Is it over yet?

I was one of the thousands that were running xp rc-2, and it had way more than 3 bugs left in it. Figures that in a mad rush to beat the courts, Microsoft would neglect to finalize their software and prepare it properly. Anyone know when Service Pack 1 is coming out? ;)
Drew

You need to understand that a lot of bugs aren't in the software (in this case Windows), but in the hardware... or in the driver software.

With the 63,000 bugs within the code of Windows 2000 as it states here: http://www.zdnet.com/zdn...0,00.html?chkpt=zdnntop that still leaves a s***load of code errors even if 50% of them are hardware based...

In that article some M$ dork is quoted as saying: "Our customers do not want us to sell them products with over 63,000 potential known defects. They want these defects corrected," stated one of Microsoft's Windows development leaders, Marc Lucovsky, in the memo. "How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of software with over 63,000 potential known defects?"

So...if they KNOW their customers don't want s*** like that, yet they ship it anyway and decide to fix it later, what does that tell you? It tells me customers come #2 but the money of the customers comes #1!

And being the manufacturer of an operating system, errors in hardware can be corrected with clever coding. Perhaps I could use the F0/0F Pentium bug as a good example. A bug in an instruction in the cpu itself, easily corrected through software.
Microsoft could blame everyone else, or they could work with them to create ingenius solutions to repair the problems.
But I guess that's how large corporations work...

You simply just can't work with every single hardware manufacturer, there are two many pieces of hardware, and two many different possible combonations.

Basically, you are saying it's MS's fault that the hardware has bugs in it.

You can STFU now, OK? Have you even looked at those bugs?? There are kinda like "There is a misplaces pixel on the MMC console when you load this snap-in then load this on two days afterwards."

s*** like that DOESN'T MATTER. Not to mention that no matter how damn buggy it is it will NEVER EVER compare to Win9x, WHICH IT IS MEANT TO REPLACE

most of the 63,000 were [possible] performance issues, or code that just needed to be cleaned up, some were even little things like the code not quite working how the developer had planned it to etc. MOST were not "bugs" that would effect stability or the end user in any real way.

oh hell no...I am not saying that at all dude. Just saying that with 63,000 (and it admittedly being an old article etc) there is bound to be at hundreds of bugs that are M$'s fault...yet they ship anyway.

nm...i thought you were talkin' to me hehe

I'm certainly not saying that is's MS's fault.
I'm saying that they should do their absolute best to circumvent the problems in software.
But I suppose for Microsoft, system stability is secondary to ease of use.

no, with microsoft money is the main issue. They plan for a release of windows/office etc once every time frame in their accounts. Time came where they were at the end of that time frame, all major bugs that they knew about at the time (after a HUGE beta test period remember) so they just had to release and let it go out with quite a few (ok 63,000) minor bugs that didnt cause issues for 99% of the potential users.

Where as they could have just waited and waited and waited until every single line of code was exactly how the developers wanted it to be - problem would be that it might have taken another year and their accounts would be pretty messed up.

Microsoft exists to make money. no one can blame anyone for having the number 1 priority being to make money.

You're right, money does play into it, but not everyone realizes that in "fixing" some bugs, with a large project like this, you can introduce several other bugs. It is next to impossible (if not entirely impossible) to eliminate every bug. The cost of trying to eliminate those bugs does not out weigh the cost of further development. That is when the product is deemed gold.

Dude. it's not "two many" it's TOO MANY

Ok, so kill me because I don't proof-read my posts.

Lets compare Microsoft to a car company for a minute.
With every car that Ford releases, there is almost guaranteed to be some kind of recall. Nobody makes a big stink about it, it is completely unrealistic to expect Ford to be able to get everything right on the first try.
The same thing applies to Microsoft. They release software that for the most part seems complete. If a bug turns up later on, they release a bug fix, or patch, which is essentially like a recall, except you can fix it yourself in this case, simply by installing the patch.
You should be thankful that Microsoft problems and recalls (bug fixes) wont result in exploding tires though! ;)

I find this very amusing about the so called 63,000 bugs in win2k. Yet look at redhat linux for instance. They release their os with bugs also. Basically release it knowing that and deal with it accordingly just like MS. Infact Linux has far more many versions than windows because of that. They even charge for the newer versions where ms just has service packs (excluding win98 se). So I don't understand why this is new to anyone. There will always be bugs in software that need to be fixed. Thats just part of the software development. So don't go blowing your horns so much. Nothing is perfect...especially the first release. Why do you think alot of businesses wait a while before considering the upgrade. Thats been the case for years. No matter if its MS,Redhat,Sun,etc. Just the others aren't as publicized as MS.

I was one of the thousands that were running xp rc-2, and it had way more than 3 bugs left in it. Figures that in a mad rush to beat the courts, Microsoft would neglect to finalize their software and prepare it properly. Anyone know when Service Pack 1 is coming out? ;)
Drew

Yes. You have WinXP RC 2526. Not WinXP 2600. A LOT has been fixed between 2526 and 2600. Even beta testers like you and me have not been receiving some of the most recent builds between 2526 and 2600. Reportedly, a lot of bugs have been resolved. Think about it. The difference between 2505 and 2526 was BIG in terms of bug fixes and stability. Stop whining about something you haven't even used yet.

Build numbers are imaginary anyway. There may have been some bugs fixed between 2505 and 2526, and there may have been some bugs fixed between 2526 and 2600. I am willing to bet that there were more bugs fixed between 2505 and 2526 than between 2526 and 2600, even though there is a greater difference in build numbers. Only because that would be so late in the build cycle.

You seem to be skipping 2542.... but anyway...

Each "build" of the OS is when they compile the master build (each team has it's own copy that it makes changes to, and the master build gets past around the teams, where each team makes it's own additions, revisions, and subtractions that they have been working on)... now, in the 9x OS team, they manipulated the numbers a LOT more, the NT OS team really doesn't manipulate the numbers, although, now, I think they probably changed it by about 40 or 50 build numbers between the last build, and what was deemed gold code.

will the RTM code differ at all from the retail copies? Specifically in the activation area? anyone have a clue?

the rtm is it. no more changes. the retail cd's are made using the rtm that was distributed to the manufactures today.

Details of Product Activation like how many computers you can activate with a single license, or how much hardware you may change before Microsoft thinks you're using a different computer, are not coded into windows itself and may be changed by microsoft at any time.

While that is true, the RTM code is exactly the same as one will purchase.

It was on this day six years ago -- August 24, 1995 -- that Windows 95 went on sale.

Any idea if the RTM will be available on winbeta to beta testers?

I would also like to know when build 2600 will be available to beta testers on windowsbeta. I want my copy. I earned it. Spending all that time installing,upgrading builds reporting bugs. Anyone heard a time frame at all?

Well... if you do like you are SUPPOSED to, and at LEAST read the annoncements news group, you would see it's available for download.

Ya know, you ALWAYS come off as a self-righteous prick...you coulda just pointed them in the right direction but you try to belittle them by suggesting they didn't do anything at all.

You must have absolutely no friends irl if you are like that when you aren't in front of your computer.

Tell me about it. Cpuguy you are way outta line coming off with such a bad attitude. It was a simple polite question and you turn into a episode of general hospital. Maybe you need a book on anger management like fred durst.

Excuse me? Angry? I don't think so.

You have to realize that these forms don't support HTML, so capital letters are the best means of putting emphasis on words.... Now, maybe you both just need to calm down a bit, and not take things so seriously sometimes.

Cpuguy,

Anyway I don't want to argue or fight. Lets put this behind us. I thank you for the info and its very much appreciated. Now my next goal is actually gettin on the site as it is obviously getting raped right now by floods of people loggging in to download their copy of the final release. Again thanks for the info. I'll try to get on later. Right now its like punching a concrete wall trying to log into the server. Lol.

Caps have nothing to do with it for me (I can make out the EMPHASIS)...you just seem to be very self righteous imo. Where everything you say/do is right and honourable and everyone else is a lazy, freeloading, thieving sloth.

I can read beyond caps...but I can only go so far with the words you present.

Well another good note for me haha. I have my beta id on my package i got but i can't find my pw. I emailed smowcat so i hope that works. I really wanted to upgrade my win2k machine. Oh well i guess will have to wait. Unless any of you know another way to retrieve your original password. Any help here? Damn i'm really pissed i deleted that email i got from ms now. Oh well live and learn i guess.

Also if might ask..which ms newsgroup has this info as there are many groups. Thaks in advance.

The announcements group is where they put all the important stuff.

Also, if you are able to ever get into the site (I couldn't get in til this morning), there are some great new power toys... one of which is a GREAT new calculator.

cpuguy did you get to download the full pro edition? They only are allowing me to get the home edition. The pro is evaluation only. That really sucks as the pro is the one i wanted.

Eval, for now.

You can put * around words to *emphasise* them. Some programs (i think word 2000, doesn't seem to work in xp) even automatically convert words placed between asterisks into bold.

I have been running XP RC2 for a while, it seems to be stable and I havent had any problems with it, but though it seems to be faster, is it really worth the $299? All it really has is a better looking GUI, until the price comes down, im just happy with 2K Pro.

If you have Win2k now, two points:

The upgrade version of XP will be $199 (still not chump change). The full XP Pro will be $299. As long as I'm at it: XP Home upgrade $99, full XP Home $199. Prices are roughly 5-10% higher than the Win98 and Win2k pricing was.

If you're running Win2k and happy you may not have a major need to upgrade to XP. the move from Win9x would be more substantial for upgraders.

one thing i never liked (although i can understand why they do it) is that the upgrade is not a full install. yes, i bought Win98 and Win2K, both full versions, because I was not going to let MS upgrade my OS. i've seen upgrades from 95 to 98 go okay, and i've seen them screw things up, as well. there's no way in hell that i would upgrade from 98 to 2K because I wanted NTFS drives and the drive convertor program that comes with NT doesn't do the best job (fragments the MBR.) so that means that i have to shell out an extra $100 to "upgrade" my system because i don't want their wizard to do it for me. yeah, i know they can't sell the full version at update prices on the shelves, but i would like the ability to wave my Win2K authenticity certificate at someone and then get the discount price.

Of course the upgrade is a full install; you can use it to either upgrade an existing version of Windows, or you can install it on a freshly formatted drive. The only difference is the upgrade version will ask to see your previous Windows CD or setup files as proof that you own it and are qualified for the upgrade. Other than that they are identical.

really? damn. when we did the 95 to 98 upgrade but ran it as a fresh install it didn't ask for any media. i didn't even bother with 2K but i'll give it a try with XP. thanks

Wrong. You cannot do a full install with an upgrade version. There must already be an existing version on the drive so a clean install is not possible.

uhm...actually he is right...

Actually you are wrong and he is right. I think the confusion comes in with the OEM versions of the operating systems. The Upgrade version will allow you to install fresh if you have the origional cd from the qualified product. The OEM versions (versions of Microsoft's Windows distributed with new PCs) will only allow a fresh install. I have used an upgrade version of Windows 95, 98, ME, and 2000 to do a fresh install and all you have to do is insert the requested media from a previous version of windows to begin the installation of the new operating system.

XP activation:

All versions of windows XP will require activation with the exception of the "corporate" versions. These versions of Windows XP which are purchased under Microsoft's open license agreement will not require activation since they are designed for corporate deployment (there are more details but that basically sums it up).

Sincerely,

hrd2k

No, there doesn't have to be an existing version on the drive first. All you need is the disk for your previous copy of Windows. If you are installing on a clean drive the setup program will do an upgrade compliancy check and ask for the location of your previous version's setup files. You can just put in your old CD and after it is verified the install will then continue and it will be just like installing the full version of Windows from that point on.

how long until a few copies of the "activation free" versions are avaliable? everybody and his mate john will have copies, and selling them on for $5 to make a quick buck! if i want to i can get hold of serial free copies of all versions of windows (including Windows 2000 DataCenter, which as everyone knows is only supplied with a system and cant be bought). WPA is usless

Oh, good grief. YES, you can do a fresh install of an upgrade version of a Windows OS. During the install process you will be prompted to validate that you have qualifying media (i.e., copy of previous version) by inserting it in the appropriate drive. I have long used my Win98 upgrade CD, for example, to reinstall an OS after an fdsik/reformat. surprise, surprise! It works every dang time!

The only difference between an upgrade version and full version is exactly that. The check/requirement of qualifying product.

You're cool dood!

Just for the record: I was agreeing with the fact that you can do a fresh install with the upgrade...

WPA should be illegally...It allowes M$ to discriminate against home users.

hehe thanks

just to point out tho i think if you can afford to buy a copy of Windows legally then you should (i bought windows 2000 pro legally), however i can understand with some people that it is a financial strugle to pay for a new OS. my friend has recently had twins and he uses his computer to do all of his work. he needed office 2000 as the features he needed most for a new job were not in the 97 version, however he could not afford it (at the time) so he got a pirated version. i know this is wrong but personally i think what he did was not that bad, and btw he bought a legal copy of office 2000 when he was able to a few months later :) i think of it as an non expiring evaluation copy :)

LOL You were talking about the "other" he. My apologies.

Are "home users" somehow protected against "discrimination" by a law I haven't heard of? Perhaps you could site that "equal opportunity" law for me?

I've heard of it being unlawful to discriminate based on race, sex, age, etc. Have they recently added that is unlawful to discriminate based on abode? And perhaps based upon employment status?

Hmm.

Me too... Thought that was hell-arious!

I have been using XP RC2 for a bit now, and I do think it's great. Stable, quick, yada yada yada...but wouldn't you think they would have release Win2K SP3 first? Then after a bit say, "Here's XP"???

Just a thought...

If Microsoft waited for everything to be fixed in Win2K:

1. They'd have to wait forever
2. A fixed, stable 2K would be a disincentive for moving to a new OS

Holier than thou,

Cyberia

The OS actually costs about $29.00 for home, and $49.00 for professional. The remaining $70.00 is for the fuel that the helicopters consumed, and the gold briefcases...

LOL

HAHA Probably true :)

The OS actually costs about $29.00 for home, and $49.00 for professional. The remaining $70.00 is for the fuel that the helicopters consumed, and the gold briefcases...

you can say that again!

LoL.... he .. he ..

I think he did... :)