Microsoft doesn't want to sell XP

[Summo]

Take a look at this..

For a while now I've suspected that Windows XP could be the product that shakes Microsoft. Firstly it's released just as major corporations are beginning to roll out Win 2000 (they're not even thinking about XP yet), then Product Activation comes along, and now Driver Blocking.

Seems MS are really pushing their luck here. I can't think of any other manufacturor that has applied so many restrictions to a product. Even now, we're gonna be unable to install some of our most used apps (ZoneAlarm, ffs!)

I really think poor sales and slatings over XP is going to cost Microsoft. And a good thing too.

 

[]SK[]

I just got a copy of XP Pro RC1 with TechNet today.

I just want a more stable OS. As for product activation. That will be no problem...Ill fix that

 

[Summo]

So why not go Win2000? No Activation, no Driver Blocking. Download WindowBlinds for groovy new menu effects.

Viola! Windows XP.

Kind of.

Also that TechNet RC1 version disables itself after 180 days. I have it too.

 

[]SK[]

I have 2000 atm but im gonna take it off for 98 cause im having a few probs with my burning software.
Dont really wanna give 2000 up cause it dont fall over like 98.
Might consider dualboot.

 

[Embattle]

TBH since these are RC releases they can do what they want.

 

[(Shovel)]

It strikes me that Microsoft have had a lot of potentially good ideas for XP - but haven't gone about it the right way.

If I understand the concept of Driver blocking properly then it is a sensible idea. By only using drivers that MS have ok'd you will improve stability cause conflicts will be minimal.
Similar with the "error message of doom" I read about months ago - regarding what happens if you try to install an uncertified driver.

The fact the register article admits that ZA and BlackIce are working on versions that will work in XP does not really hold up your complaint about "our most used apps" not running.

At the end of the day, things have to move on technology wise and MS have to shut off some backwards compatibility so they can move on and use modern more stable software.

They have of course done something wrong - cause we are all talking about it as a bad thing.
I'm intrested to know what the impact on older, unsupported, software will be - and how this will tie in/contradict their proposed backward compatibility system for 9x software.

The product activation would also have seemed quite clever at the time. But at the end of the day, they need to realise that the only way they can reduce piracy is to lower prices - cause software can be hacked, dongles can be hacked - there is not way of coding something like that will actually stay working. Cause someone will just disable it.

I'm still intrested by XP, cause I would like stability, though WIn2k on student license would probably do me nicely too - given that my new PC will be a primarally "work" based machine. Doesnt mean I wont want some games though. ah well.

 

[Summo]

Good argument, well put. You've convinced me.

Also I've used Win2K for games for a year now and wouldn't dream of going back to 98SE or Me.

 

[old.Kurt_Angle]

Everybody has a different story and im no different. As long as i can carry on using ME i realy couldn't care less about XP as it stands Iv'e never had a more stable Os, dunno why as most seem to have problems, but not me. Record without a a reboot is 2 weeks and at the minute my computer has been on since saturday night without a reboot, games, burning, downloads, acting as a ftp server for the last couple of nights ect.. no probs at all

 

[~Lazarus~]

Must be me but mine seems to be memory hungry.

started with 128mb and added 256mb. Still get the message that there is not enough free memory when I try to open a new application

Windows ME
Duron 900 Mhz

Programs normally running :

Zonealarm
Getright trayicon
Macafee Virus Scan utility (not the actual scan)
MSN Messenger
Mcafee Download scanner.

Any one got any ideas on a solution

 

[Testin da Cable]

are you running with a fixed size swapfile?
if so, double it.

 

[Summo]

Here here. Make sure you have plenty of free disk space.

 

[Wij]

and b33r !

 

[gremlin]

Originally posted by Wij
and b33r !

Hehe
(sorry, someone's got to do the Moving Target styleee pointless post while he's away)

 

[Wij]

:sleeping:

 

[Testin da Cable]

 

[~Lazarus~]

Originally posted by testin_da_cable
are you running with a fixed size swapfile?
if so, double it.

Yup - fixed size swap file (256 mb i think - based on one of the tweak guides)

Ill enlarge it and see how it goes.

Thanks TDC

 

[bids]

Iirc - isn't it 2.5 x RAM for 128 or less, and 1.5 x RAM for above - seem to remember this from one of the tweak guides. (?)

 

[Embattle]

TBH most people reckon it makes little difference letting windows manage it

 

[(Shovel)]

Coming from someone running a 4.5 year old PC with 32 meg - and the tweak guides used to tell you to do 2.5x even back in this machines hey day I agree that it doesnt seem to make a huge difference. To be honest, as the machine got older and the programs were squeezing more resources out of it it got stupid trying to set it and it became more trouble than letting windows do it.
There is probably a risk of setting a swap file too big though - could cause confusion or something - maybe like early pentiums used to have with more than 96 MB of RAM.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

just upgraded my ram... now have 640Mb - what should meh swap file be for this you reckon?

 

[~Lazarus~]

boaster !!!

Now did I spell that right ?

 

[old.Anatoly]

Cant win 98 only address up to 512 mb of ram anyways?

So if you're still living i the dark ages (like me) then you can just set the total of ram plus swapfile to be 512MB

 

[Wazzerphuk]

<-- Win 2k

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Anatoly
Cant win 98 only address up to 512 mb of ram anyways?

So if you're still living i the dark ages (like me) then you can just set the total of ram plus swapfile to be 512MB

Nope.

 

[]SK[]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
Good argument, well put. You've convinced me.

Also I've used Win2K for games for a year now and wouldn't dream of going back to 98SE or Me.

Me too but in this case im gonna have to.

Hopefully not for long though.

PS

ME SUX!

 

[shabazz]

2k rox0rs!

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Wazzerphuk
just upgraded my ram... now have 640Mb - what should meh swap file be for this you reckon?

You still end up with a swapfile no matter how much ram you have

 

[Mr_Horus]

No. You can turn off Virtual Memory/Swapfile if you want, tho its hardly adviseable.

 

[DAN200]

640mb RAM??????? makes my 128mb duron850 look like a 486...

 

[Summo]

Christ, Waz! You could store a CD in RAM.

Careful, though. Now your PC has a bigger brain than you it might start plotting to overthrow your superiority.

(Incidentallu, we have a SQL server at work with 2GB RAM. No GeForce card though, so it blows goats for g4m0rz!)