PDA

View Full Version : Windows XP?


Gilgamesh
02-10-2002, 12:57 PM
Hey all. It seems like someone must have asked this question at some point in time, but I haven't been able to find anything about it. So I'll ask. How do you people feel about Windows XP for computer graphics? Specifically 3D Graphics? It seems like everyone is running Windows 2000 Pro. I'm still on 98, so I'm wondering what would be the best upgrade. Aside from Linux, because I know someone is going to say that. :D

animalunae
02-16-2002, 04:07 PM
Win2K RULEZ, besides NT 4.0 the fastest OS in from Microsoft AND THE most stable. XP sucks: is 20% slower than 2K, and personally I find very shitty with all the "rookie aspects"... Get 2K that's all I can say, I've tried them all

disdain
02-16-2002, 08:16 PM
I work for a computer hardware shop where we do quite a few network installations. We do not install XP, we did one and there were very bad network problems. Once you access the machine it would lock the computer you accessed it from and then remove itself from the network. It was tracked down to the virus scanner, however even the ones they say XP supports caused the same behavior.

I was not impressed with the disk performance since I found my 1ghz XP box more sluggish than a 750duron running 2000. There was a good article a while back that went into disk/memory performance between XP/2000. (donít have the link, think it was IBM) The article summed up Ė 2000 beats the pants of XP.

We also had a few clients go ahead on their own and upgrade their machines to XP; they were down for 2 weeks working out all the compatibility issues.

I'd give it a service pack and about 6 months for the vendors to release XP drivers for all their old hardware before seriously thinking about using it.


- dis

rendermonkey23
02-16-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by derbyqsalano
Win2K RULEZ, besides NT 4.0 the fastest OS in from Microsoft AND THE most stable. XP sucks: is 20% slower than 2K

Get Win ME :D :D No seriously I have XP and my machine is like 30% faster than 2k. Stable as hail too :) 2k is a great os so dont get me wrong but I love XP. The only compatibility prob I had was my HP cd burner software but Roxio fixed that pretty quick.

I like 2k a lot but my whole thing is why go backwards (unless your talking about cars ;) )

Gilgamesh
02-17-2002, 02:24 AM
Well thanks for the advice guys. I think that I'm going to go with win2k pro. Not that I don't trust your advice, rendermonkey, but I would be upgrading from 98, so I wouldn't be going backward. :) :)

animalunae
02-17-2002, 01:07 PM
Believe me all that microsoft does is go backwards! Win95 was the fastest in the 9.x series...Win98 SE used to be pretty good compared to 95 and was more stable than the others but Win98 and Win ME really suck in performance. Now the good thing about the NT's is that they are more stable. MS saw this and dropped the 9.x series and went on to do the same with the NT series. Believe me, I know 2K is 20% faster than XP. NT4 is also 20% faster then 2K, but this used on older machines. XP is never going to make ik to the top

Fuzer
04-03-2002, 03:02 AM
There was a thread back in Dec that was mostly in favor of XP over 2000. This one seems mostly in favor of 2000. hmmm.....

I am hoping to get a new system from Boxx within the next week or so. The quote I got from them listed Win2000 instead of XP. Maybe with good reason. I was going to ask them if they could put XP on instead, but that would be a bad idea according to this thread.

Is there anyone that would recommend XP??
If I'm going to get it, I would like to get it now. FWIW: I have only used NT4sp6 - and with no problems at all.

Thanks for any input :)

epatnor
04-04-2002, 03:41 PM
A few thougts:


:thumbsup: I run XP on all machines with excellent preformance, perfect compability and stable as swedish granite rock. Had NO problems so far except for driver issues with my Miro DC30 video card, but Pinnacle have always been slow with driver updates.

:thumbsup: Still I have a partition on my workstation with W2000, which is my production environment. How about that...!


Well I to have fallen for the buzz about letting the production apps reside in the W2000 OS environment, as the application manufacturers have recommended this.

But my experience with Windows XP on the other hand, has been nothing but flawless!

I guess this wasn't much help... :grin:

animalunae
04-04-2002, 03:51 PM
In 4 cases, two OS's, by 2 different people, is only one failing, XP...I have used XP on 3 PC's here, in one casse, not able to be installed, in another case, very slow (not enough RAM, when I filled it up with 256, it was ok, but still slower then 2K), in the last case, crashes every 5 mins...you can tell this doesn't motivate me to use xp...

Sieb
04-07-2002, 05:22 AM
I've installed XP about 40 times now on lots of system, some new, some upgraded. I've only had problems a few times with older systems, but after drivers are patched or updated, all is fine. I have yet to have any major problems. Any problems were just because we were using XP right after release in new systems. And bitching about it when its brand new isn't fair. For those upgrading, you have no room to complain unless you read the HCL. Or make sure you can get upgraded drivers. I currently run Maya4 on here and have had no problems with speed. Granted, win2k is rock solid and fast as hell, and I love it to death, I like XP since I can install it and it gets everything running by itself. I cant remember how many times I have had problems with my scanner and other such things just deciding not to work because it was a half moon when I booted my computer. These are all the same Issues people compained about when win2k came out and they all wanted to keep their win9x or NT4...

I dont pay much attention to benchmarks on OSs.. OO!! 20% faster blah blah blah.. Hey, If it runs my progies and they dont crash constantly, I'm happy. A few extra clock ticks isnt going to put me into a total revolt against an OS and damn it to the pits of hell. XP is fast and convinient for me, I love it. But I would take win2k over NT4 any day. Win2k over XP is a different story. Win9x and ME can burn in hell. But its all personal preference in the end.

_a_
04-10-2002, 02:29 AM
XP is a good system, I run XP Pro. Very stable and very compatible. smart too. The only time i get any problems with it is when i start messing around with system and BIOS settings (blew up my last vid card doing that :hmm: ) Only concession is, it uses slightly more resources than 2000 or NT4, but every new system uses more resources than the last, its the nature of technology. Do you want speed, or stability?

MadMax
04-10-2002, 09:27 AM
I decided to try XP out due to one of the new Athlon nForce boards from MSI was advertised as XP only.

I set up a test system to run it on, with 1gb ram and Athlon XP 1900+, GeForce3 Video card.

Same system had been previously used for a W2K system.

This was a fresh from shrink wrap install. I installed XP and allowed it to reformat the previous partition.

XP installed, all items registered etc. it seemed to have gone flawlessly. My mistake. After installing all correct drivers, patches etc. I decided to take it for a spin.

Not being an Internet Explorer fan, I decide to download and install Opera 6.01 web browser. First problem was the dozens of pop up ads I was spammed with, mostly FROM Microsoft. I installed Opera 6.01 and shut down IE. In Opera I disabled pop ups and was fine.

I need to point out that Opera 6.01 is rock solid in W2K, I beat the hell out of it for 3 weeks before I made it my default browser. Under XP, Opera would just disappear without warning, sometimes I would open it again, only to have to blink out of existance. This happens so much that it is intolerable.

Startup and Shut down is S-L-O-W compared to W2K. To the extreme. I click shut down and then walk away, several minutes later it actually shuts down.

Graphics programs seem very sluggish in XP compared to W2K, noticeably so.

I installed Zone Alarm Pro, not realizing that the version i had was incompatible with XP. A pop up box informed me of this after the installation was complete. Instead of protecting me from "poorly behaving programs" like M$ claims, I was treated to the horror of infinite reboots with no way to get out of it. I had to reformat and re-install the OS again.

The massive variety of horror stories I have read in various spots on the web and in forums has sworn me off of this POS until a few Service packs have been released.

And before anyone wants to dismiss my comments as operator error, I have been building hardware since some of you were still on formula..... :)

I used to service, upgrade, build and install Sun Microsystems servers. I know how to build hardware, look for drivers etc.

From what I have seen, XP is crap. I won't even go into how insecure it is on the internet.........

_a_
04-10-2002, 10:19 AM
hmm, that makes me think a lot. You've put the seed of doubt in my mind. Might have to take 2000 for another spin.

Jean Eric
04-10-2002, 10:20 AM
I run XP on my old clunky PII 350 and it runs just fine. I almost cried of joy when during the original installation, it automatically installed my firewire card and automatically installed all the USB devices without any flaws.

To me my computer is everything. This is the machine I use to run CG Channel, sometimes play with a few 3D apps or even Combustion 2. I rarelly turn off my machine. I probably reboot no more than once every 2 weeks. (Computers last longer if they are always on).

Anyway, I love XP because it's super stable and runs pretty well. But of course, I had a few really good friends to help me do a proper install. My bios on my old machine had to be completelly updated and stuff. Make sure you have someone that knows what he or she is doing when installing a new version of Windows...

Hey, MadMax, what is it you don't like with Internet Explorer? I find its integration with the whole Office suite rather remarkable... Very sophisticated piece of software...

MadMax
04-10-2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Jean Eric

Hey, MadMax, what is it you don't like with Internet Explorer? I find its integration with the whole Office suite rather remarkable... Very sophisticated piece of software...



Generally I tend to have a lot of sites open at once. With IE I have to open a new instance for every site. I like Opera because it has a tabbed view, so I can open a dozen websites within a single instance of Opera.

Also, Opera has an option to block pop up ads. IE does not.

In general, Opera has more features than IE, it's smaller and it is faster. I find Opera to be a far more elegant work of software than IE is by a long shot.

_a_
04-10-2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by MadMax




Generally I tend to have a lot of sites open at once. With IE I have to open a new instance for every site. I like Opera because it has a tabbed view, so I can open a dozen websites within a single instance of Opera.

Also, Opera has an option to block pop up ads. IE does not.

In general, Opera has more features than IE, it's smaller and it is faster. I find Opera to be a far more elegant work of software than IE is by a long shot.

If you are running XP, then all you need is TweakXP (http://www.totalidea.de/), it gives you pop-up and ad blockers.

Chewey
04-10-2002, 09:27 PM
Hey Max, thanks for the detailed post. It seemed like a compiled list of the many posts I've come across that tell of the shortcomings of the XP OS.

I suspect that many users who are pleased with XP have migrated from W98 or even (shudder) ME and perhaps they never tried W2K. But I think the best advice one can give about XP is to wait for the first service pack to appear with bug fixes before wasting your time. Anyone recall the big story a few months back about the huge security problem that XP provides? I suppose exposed ports doesn't sound like much of a problem to some folks.

Heh, just the cosmetics of XP with the dumbed down Fisher Price look is enough to keep me from wasting the effort.
;>

MadMax
04-10-2002, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by _a_


If you are running XP, then all you need is TweakXP (http://www.totalidea.de/), it gives you pop-up and ad blockers.


I have that.

However, pop ups were not my only criteria. As I said previously, I think Opera is a superior product. It certainly has more features, and tabbed windows is by far more useful than anythign IE has.

_a_
04-11-2002, 11:33 AM
how does it handle HTML pages though? I dont have it installed at the moment, but if it behaves anything like Netscape, forget it! That browser is shash....pitty too, 'cause it looks so good. I have so much hassle getting web pages to look verbatim on all browsers. Nestscape is definatley the worst.

MadMax
04-11-2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by _a_
how does it handle HTML pages though? I dont have it installed at the moment, but if it behaves anything like Netscape, forget it! That browser is shash....pitty too, 'cause it looks so good. I have so much hassle getting web pages to look verbatim on all browsers. Nestscape is definatley the worst.


Well I would have presumed that my saying it is a superior product answers the question of how it handles HTML, but......

It handles HTML just fine. I'm not going to use a browser that sucks because I can open a dozen windows that all suck.

The one irritant I have found, which is no fault of Opera is javascript that is sloppy and doesn't follow the rules. Fortunately, it is not a big enough of a problem to be concerned with.

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 12:39 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.