Windows XP

[Ahsan Saeed]

Hi all,

I'm planning to install Windows XP on my P4 computer. I use it for development. Windows XP has three or four variants. I'm not sure which one to install. I think it should be Windows XP Professional.

Any comments...

Ahsan

[Balaji Loganathan]

XP Professional is okay.

[Lasse Koskela]

Yep. XP Pro is probably your best option. The "Advanced Server" edition would also do but for most people it would be money spent for no extra benefit.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Friends don't let friends install Windows!

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
Friends don't let friends install Windows!

indeed, they install it for them.
Friends don't let friends install an operating system those friends wouldn't be comfortable with.
For most people that means NO Linux or BSD as those are crap for people who can't spend hours a day tweaking config files.
OS/2 is end of life, BeOS is dead and so is CP/M. I don't think you suggest people use Solaris on a PC.
Mac OS runs only on Macs.

Like it or not (and you seem religiously anti-Microsoft) but Windows is easy to use, reasonably stable and secure out of the box, and available at a decent price.

[Andrew Eccleston]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:


Windows is ... secure out of the box

Yep, Windows is secure right out of the box you buy it in. It's when you put it in that other box (you know, the one connected to the internet) that the security goes out the Window. Maybe the security got left in the first box?



andrew

[Andrew Eccleston]

In all fairness, though, Windows XP is indeed much better than any previous versions. Both in terms of stability and security. So if you're not pretty familiar with Unix/Linux (or willing to spend the time to be), and you're not willing to spend the money on new hardware for a Mac, XP Pro is indeed the way to go.

andrew

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Andrew Eccleston:


Yep, Windows is secure right out of the box you buy it in. It's when you put it in that other box (you know, the one connected to the internet) that the security goes out the Window. Maybe the security got left in the first box?



andrew

out of the box windows is a lot more secure than linux.
While linux may in theory be made more secure (spending a lot of effort) than can windows (though I have my doubts here) that requires such expertise and effort that most users (indeed including network administrators of major companies included) either can't or can't be bothered to do so.
As a result most linux boxes out there are wide open to any intruder willing to take a look.

Of course due to the far smaller number of such machines and the fact that the press doesn't think reporting on problems with linux is politically correct or economically feasible for them (it's far nicer to bash Microsoft and gets you a good rating on slashdot) such exploits get little coverage.

[Jesse Torres]

Originally posted by Ahsan Saeed:
Hi all,

I'm planning to install Windows XP on my P4 computer. I use it for development. Windows XP has three or four variants. I'm not sure which one to install. I think it should be Windows XP Professional.

Any comments...

Ahsan

What OS is currently installed on your PC?

XP Pro is a great improvement over Win 95/98/ME. However, I have used NT in the past and noticed that NT is more stable and robust when compared with XP Pro. For example, I used NT at work for more than a year and only encountered the blue screen of death once. Also, I only rebooted once every week when using NT. With XP Pro, I have to reboot once or twice everyday. This isn't even including the times that the system hangs. I belive that Win2000 is more similar to NT; as a result, I would also recommend that you consider Win 2000.

Good Luck!

[Andrew Eccleston]

Originally posted by Jesse Torres:


XP Pro is a great improvement over Win 95/98/ME. However, I have used NT in the past and noticed that NT is more stable and robust when compared with XP Pro. For example, I used NT at work for more than a year and only encountered the blue screen of death once. Also, I only rebooted once every week when using NT. With XP Pro, I have to reboot once or twice everyday. This isn't even including the times that the system hangs. I belive that Win2000 is more similar to NT; as a result, I would also recommend that you consider Win 2000.

Good Luck!

First, I'm not sure what you mean by 'robust', but I don't know anyone who would claim NT is MORE robust that XP.

Second, rebooting once or twice a day, plus having the system hangs, does not sound normal. It sounds like you have some other problem with the machine. Maybe a virus, software incompatibilites, or hardware issues? I say this because I've been using XP Pro for a good two years now, and have never had to reboot as frequently as you need to. Nor have any of the people I know that also use XP. Hopefully you can resolve the issue.

andrew

[Randall Twede]

Windows XP is indeed much better than any previous versions

i beg to differ. windows 2000 is much better than XP(at least on a network). XP tends to freeze up a lot more.

[Jesse Torres]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:

i beg to differ. windows 2000 is much better than XP(at least on a network). XP tends to freeze up a lot more.

I am not comparing XP to 2000. I am comparing XP to 95/98/ME. In that sense, XP is better.

[Jesse Torres]

Originally posted by Andrew Eccleston:



First, I'm not sure what you mean by 'robust', but I don't know anyone who would claim NT is MORE robust that XP.

Second, rebooting once or twice a day, plus having the system hangs, does not sound normal. It sounds like you have some other problem with the machine. Maybe a virus, software incompatibilites, or hardware issues? I say this because I've been using XP Pro for a good two years now, and have never had to reboot as frequently as you need to. Nor have any of the people I know that also use XP. Hopefully you can resolve the issue.

andrew

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions. However, don�t state baseless comments about my posts being false. I have a software development application that requires 1 gig of memory. As a result, the setup is more stable on NT than on XP. XP does lock from time to time.

[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]

[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]

[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]
[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]

[Andrew Eccleston]

*sigh*

This appears to have been one of those days where my written communications were not very good. My attempt to be helpful wasn't very well thought out, and as a result it ruffled some feathers. For that, Jesse, I apologize.

I probably should have just asked if you were just doing work that pushed the system harder than most. Or, better yet, just left it alone.

Any chance that we'll get a graemlin with it's foot in it's mouth?

andrew

[Jesse Torres]

Originally posted by Andrew Eccleston:
*sigh*

This appears to have been one of those days where my written communications were not very good. My attempt to be helpful wasn't very well thought out, and as a result it ruffled some feathers. For that, Jesse, I apologize.

I probably should have just asked if you were just doing work that pushed the system harder than most. Or, better yet, just left it alone.

Any chance that we'll get a graemlin with it's foot in it's mouth?

andrew

No Problem. Thanks for the apology. I also apologize for my overreaction.

May the Force be with you!