I run XP and OS X side by side. I love OS X, and, XP is ok. Win 2000 was far better IMO. That pic doesn't happen in XP setup, but it does sum up Microsoft pretty well. The problem with XP is that everytime your machine farts it tries to connect to the internet and let "Billie Buttons" know what went wrong and why. Too many thinks going on there I think.
If you come from a Windows enviornment, as Jf has, it's difficult not to like XP; it's how a consumer version of Windows should have been years ago. All in all, it's a very competent OS.
If you come from a Mac envoirnment, you may eventually learn to live with it, but you probably will be frustrated until you invest the time it takes to know & run Windows. I would strongly suggest former Mac users invest in the Professional edition; the Home edition has some limitations you will probably find annoying.
If you've never had a computer before, you will be lost anyway at first, so you won't even know how it could be any different.
We purchases two licensed copies of Windows XP Office. It's been a nightmare. Every time we open the application (Word, PPT etc) I notice that the computer logs into the internet and then we are asked to verify our password. I have entered this in more than five times already. This slows down the app.
Sheesh. I know that software piracy is a major issue for companies, but this is getting ridiculous.
Consequently, kids have stopped using the programs.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well, certainly for a PC, it looks pretty, feels pretty. and has almost an OS X-ish feel to some of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could not disagree more. XP is gawdy and takes "tacky" to a whole new level. It is by far the ugliest OS they have ever put out. Big, stupid-looking buttons and a colour scheme that would make Crayola blush. The earlier analogy to Fisher-Price was bang-on the money.
I've been using XP for over a year and for the most part of it I've learned to live with the quirks of the OS, Micro$oft still has a long way to go to match the Mac OS but XP is one hell of a step in the right direction.
The look of the OS is trivial, especially when Apple choses to favour a brushed steel look on it's apps pioneered by Atari with their 2600. Who cares though? Yeah, XP is hideous, but you can chose a classic look, if you want.
I have my qualms with both OSX and 9 and Windows XP, but in the end, I find that I can function well with both.
If I had to chose, I'd stick with OSX, only because it has been much more stable in my (limited) experiences.
Aqua in OS X is nice, XP is like a bad Fisher-Price kock-off. That's just the looks.
XP and 2000 are very nice systems when they are configured and running properly. But once something goes wrong, oh boy watch out! Windows is a NIGHTMARE to troubleshoot.
Also, XP is not UNIX which is a real detriment. Finny how the everyone else is UNIX now and MS is the only one with a "proprietary OS" now. I know a good chunk of OS X is this way as well but you CAN run just Darwin if you like
I still find it funny that after all these years of MS hyping "long file names" that everything in the C:\windows\ directory is till 8.3 file-land. DLL HELL.
Nope, give me a Mac any day, the system is logically laid out (even better in OS X arguably)
minnes wrote: Does anyone here have anything positive to say about WinXP
I've been using Windows XP for a while now (about a year and a half) and so far it's been a reasonably enjoyable experience. It's fast, it's stable, and it runs most of the applications I want it to run (the notable exception being iTunes). There's the added bonus that the hardware is cheap and fast, which means you can get a current WinXP machine for a lot less than you can get a current OSX machine.
Of course Windows XP has its drawbacks and annoyances (the "My" naming convention, Passport integration, etc), but then again so does every operating system.