Anything Forums

I worked on a winblows XP laptop today, someone was trying to send some pictures and was having problems, I was the third person to try (and succedded ) the problem was that the connection was very slow so I had to split the emails to only send 2MB of pictures per email...

Anyway, from doing something simple like that,I have to say windows XP sucks. First off, I wanted to figure out what the problem with dial up connection was, so I go to click "my computer". What the hell, it's nowhere to be found! I was stumped. So I ended up finding control panel and internet options and going to the different dial up screen but never actually found a way to open up DUN so I can test it.

So I open IE instead which was actually on the desktop, and the dial up popped up, so as long as I could get to that, so played with it from there so I can solve the problem (bad password) so I put my own password and it dialed in.

Then I wanted to go through the pictures to see which one he wanted to send, what the heck, the whole folder layout was all weird and stuff, instead of showing icons where I can click on it once and get a thumbnail, I got this huge picture and only a small section of thumbnails and I had to be careful where I clicked since just clicking once would open it up where the big picture display was. So we went through them, I'd occasionally open one and we'd have to wait. Not to mention we could not just drag and drop in the email because it was not even icons. Anyway, turned out there was an option to set it to icons but then it was automaticly at "auto arange" so I had to tick that off and finally I was in a half decent interface, but I still had the problem where if I clicked it once, it opened so how am I suppost to select it only? lol

anyway, I managed to get everything done, but it was just much harder because it's more "fragile" at where I click. Windows 2K, 9x 3.x are much more robust in this matter where you don't have to watch too much how you click and stuff, and the interface is not overbloated and overwelming for even the most experienced.

I assume it's something I could get used to, but it's definatly not something I'd go with. Linux is actually much more easy to use then Windows XP. Linux looks as good as windows XP, but has the same "interface" as windows 2k and lower. I can click once, select, items, drag etc... windows xp just makes it that much harder with all this bloated crap in it!

The only thing I found kind of cool is the fact that it has a built in CD-R burning program so we can drag and drop the files on CD and burn them. But I think this would be a problem for new users because they would think it's like a floppy and start putting junk on it without realizing it's NOT like a floppy and you can't erase it. With a cd burning program you can organize and finalize the CD structure and there's plenty of warnings that once it's done it's done. (talking about CD-Rs here which is what most people use since they are readable everywhere)


That's just my opinion of course, but just thought I'd share my eXP erience.

I think Long Horn will be even worse.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14223

My experience with XP hasn't been too bad. I would prefer to have something like 2000 though. (If I had to choose between different Windows OSs, mind you.)


I do think XP has too much bloat and "hand-holding". For me, I should say. Good thing a lot of that stuff can be disabled. I don't mind having to use it as a primary OS, but FreeBSD looks much better.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14228

My experience with XP hasn't been too bad.  I would prefer to have something like 2000 though.  (If I had to choose between different Windows OSs, mind you.)


I do think XP has too much bloat and "hand-holding".  For me, I should say.  Good thing a lot of that stuff can be disabled.  I don't mind having to use it as a primary OS, but FreeBSD looks much better.  

Your
experience with XP hasn't been too bad?Oh. I would rather be driving a car. Do you really think you will have to?You believe that? Where did XP get too much bloat and hand-holding?Your purpose is him or her he or she should say. hanks for the compliment. What were we talking about again?
That is interesting:
Undefined said Undefined don't mind having to use it as a primary OS but FreeBSD looks much better.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14229

I used to use XP, the first thing I did was turn off all that crap. One of the good things microsoft has been doing since 98 I guess is that if you really want to, you can turn off all the fancy user friendly feature crap, and make your gui look pretty much like windows 95. And if they hadn't done that, I wouldn't touch XP with a 10 ft. pole. I switched back to 2k though when I got the chance . I can say it's nice to get away from all that crap in XP, but the main reason I switched back is simply stability.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14232

yeah def, it comes with crap, turn it off and get it back to windows 2000 stage and your good.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14240

oh, come on now. xp is the best os micro$haft ever put out.
red, the pictures were in filmstrip mode, just click view>list and that'll put it how you like it.
98 and 95 blow. me is a little better, and 2k is usable. but xp just slaps them all silly.


Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14244

I've had a few opportunities to use XP and Windows 2000, and while I"m getting used to 2000, I don't mind XP all that much. Red, for the Control Panel, you can access it through the Start Menu, as always, and you can have My Computer displayed on the desktop, but obviously the person didn't have thier laptop set up that way. Let's face it. Some of us are used to Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000 Pro and the newer generations will probably become more adept at using XP because that's what they've learnt on. If you look at the default setup on an XP Machine, it's geared more towards a newer user, but you can change it back to your old ways without a problem. AS for compatibility, which I've also heard complaints about in the past, you can bypass some issues with that by using Compatiblity Mode on XP. Personally, I don't mind XP, but that's because I've grown up using Microsoft operating systems (though I have dabbled in Linux on a few occasions) and I understand MS' need to realease new versions to help users and to add functionality, and yes, it is a shame that we can't stick with our "Old Faithfuls" forever, but MS did happen to allow us to make it all look like the old days.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14257

fishyfool wrote: oh, come on now. xp is the best os micro$haft ever put out.
red, the pictures were in filmstrip mode, just click view>list and that'll put it how you like it.
98 and 95 blow. me is a little better, and 2k is usable. but xp just slaps them all silly.

You had stability problems with 2k? I find it's the most stable OS I've ever used. I keep my computer on 24/7 and I probably actually make it without rebooting for weeks without problems. I've had a few crashes here and there but that's all.

But the problem I have with 2k is the way it handles program crashes (illegal operations). It does not give enough information on the crash. sometimes it does not give an error at all. I find programming has been hopeless on 2k because of this, I'm talking about C++ programming, stuff like php is different as I run and test it on a server and it's not the same type of programming.

I guess it depends on the hardware and stuff. I've heard XP is unstable but that's one thing I've never seen is XP crash, but I don't use it or see it often either.

Good to know all that crap can be turned off though.


Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14258

You had stability problems with 2k?  I find it's the most stable OS I've ever used.  I keep my computer on 24/7 and I probably actually make it without rebooting for weeks without problems.  I've had a few crashes here and there but that's all.

But the problem I have with 2k is the way it handles program crashes (illegal operations).  It does not give enough information on the crash.  sometimes it does not give an error at all.  I find programming has been hopeless on 2k because of this, I'm talking about C++ programming, stuff like php is different as I run and test it on a server and it's not the same type of programming.

I guess it depends on the hardware and stuff.  I've heard XP is unstable but that's one thing I've never seen is XP crash, but I don't use it or see it often either. 

Good to know all that crap can be turned off though.

What happened to stability problems with 2k. hanks for telling me your opinion. know what you mean, Red Squirrel. I've been there. I make robots and AI's. hat happened to it?
Umm.
I assume you mean our current problem. hat does give enough information on the crash ?What does give an error at all ?Thanks for telling me your opinion. he hardware and stuff is always an important factor. t goes without saying. Are they exactly the same?
Oh. Thanks for the compliment. That is a rather sweeping generalization.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14259

the bot is stalking me too... and it knows my name now.... what have I done? I have created a monster of evil NOooo!!!!!


Now back to Windows xp.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14260

Red Squirrel wrote: the bot is stalking me too...

Good. Maybe it will leave me alone for a while

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14275

i didn't say win2k was unstable, i said it was usable. win2k was extremely stable.
what win2k wasn't was a game os, sure, 99% of them play on it, they just don't play like xp does.
for error reporting, check out dr watson, it's a program in windows for just that, error reporting.
also, turn off the auto reboot on error.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14300

oops, my bad. I miss read

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14308

oops, my bad.  I miss read

Oh. Where did you get your
bad?:-) What do you miss most about read ?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14309

I have to agree with fishyfool on this, red.

reason you dont like it is because your a programmer. you dont need all the hand holding things.

i am not in need of them too much either but like the others just turn them back the way i want them.

winxp is just the upgrade from win2000 so going back to that is just going backwords in os's.

xp is stable the trouble is in using multiple users. that can screw up windows and does ever since they started it. this winxp just like win98 will let you use them but if you update anything you have to do it on all the users desktops. just like 98 did.

and some programs you will need to install on all the desktops just so their log can see that it is to be on that desktop also. or else it wont work.

i found that out with a few programs, and even now when i update this i have to go in to admin mode and make sure to defrag it in there or just run the registry cleaner to make sure it is proper in there.


and the images you got messed up on red that is normal for every newbie to xp since xp gives you the different choices for viewing them in the folders now.

the thing that crashes most in xp is the browser ie that will crash fast and seemingly for no reason.

other then that there are the same old troubles with the 32 bit programs made for win9x systems that me and everyone else added in to this xp system, most dont remember to make it compatiable for that system the program was made on so sooner or later they get an error.


and then there is the trouble of them not using all the virt memory they need. they stick tot he limit set up for win9x and dont increase it from the 400 mbs or so for the swap file.

going from 9x to Xp is strange at first because everyone has become set in their ways of the 9x systems and 9x and Xp do not work the same.

i like xp i do not think i am going to continue with the windows os if the next one long horn makes us buy all new hardware like the rumor says it will.

i might end up going to lindows or to one of the other distros of linx. but i will have to start over in learning that os. as it is not easy for the non programer.









Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:14690

Man does XP suck. Working with another XP computer... it is the worse networking os out there... everything is complicated for nothing and nothing works.... I make it go on a lan, it wants to use dialup... man it just plain sucks! All I'm trying to do is somehow connect to anything so I can transfer files and get out of it as fast as possible using fdisk and it's driving me up the wall. Every XP system out there should be upgraded (yes, upgraded) to windows 98. At least windows 98 works better and is straight foward with everything. You can be connected on a lan, and it will use the lan, and not complain about no dialup connection, you can share something, and easly connect to it... if this was not ntfs I'd be installing 98 pretty quick.

This is a dell and they went and did something to the partition to not allow it to be resized with 3rd party utilities, so I can't even do a local backup. I've pretty much tried everything and I work best at night so it's not like I'll get it working tomorow. I think I'll simply have to proceed with the format tomorow.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16753

XP is stable indeed, but I'm gonna stick with Win2k.

Red, upgrading from XP to 98 has got to be one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. There is absolutely no security in 98. I know people who can hack into a Windows98 computer with ease, but it is alot harder with Win2k or XP.

I didn't like XP, even when the eye candy was turned off. It didn't look enough like Win2k or 98.

There is also a compatibility mode in Windows 2000.

Anyway, I think 2000 is the best OS MS has ever made. It's ease of use, greater security than that of 9x/ME, stability, and it's familiarity to Windows 95/98 make it my OS of choice.

XP's networking isn't nearly as good as Win2k's.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16754

actually, with the bloatware in xp it's actually worse then 98, you can secure a 98 system pretty good. Not as good as linux or anything, but still pretty good. but in terms of usage, xp blows compared to 98. Of course, the real comparision would be 2k, which is way better then 98 in every angle, but if I had to choose between xp or 98 I'd go with 98. I was laughing since there was like 2 pages in add/remove programs and it was all xp fixes. it's pretty sad when you need to install all those patches and it still won't work properly.

Finally got it to use the right network interface, well I did not do it, it just decided on it's own. Now I'm doing the transfer. I wonder if the dell restore CDs will work, they usually don't do anything when it's a virus but I'll try them. The problem with manually installing an OS on a clone is that they never give the drivers so I'll have to open it up to find out what the hardware is.

Anyway glad I got the xp problem out of the way, at least until the transfer decides to fail So far so good though.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16755

Question: Are talking about XP Home or XP Pro?

XP Home only has basic networking.

XP Pro has all the networking ability of W2K plus additional abilities.

The quickest way to do a data transfer for backup purposes is the remove the drive and slave it into another system. The data transfer then proceeds much quicker with less chance of file corruption.

Instead of opening the system to determine what drivers are needed just go to device manager and write down what is there before formatting the drive.

Without third party software Win98 cannot be secured.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16759

Not sure what version it was. But I find xp is hard to get to work compared to 9x and 2k, and even Linux which I'm a total n00b at, and it does not always work right. It sometimes wanted to use the dialup connection, and sometimes it wanted to use the network, sometimes it tried to use both at the same time (dual internet? lol).

I deleted the DUN file and it seems to have fixed the problem after going through the network wizard 3 times after. Hooking up the drive as slave was my last resort, usually via network it's fast enough unless it's transfering an entire partition, then I usually do a drive image.

Now I'm reinstalling it, I hope it does not require the activation thing, not sure how that works. I always thought you had to call Microsoft and read them a key then they give you another key that corresponds, but last time I tried reinstalling I never got to that point, it just said "invalid license" in the middle of the install process. This is a dell CD and not a normal retail/oem copy of xp so I'm assuming it's configured already to work right away.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16760

Dell cds do not normally ask for activation at least not recent ones. Activation is hard coded into the bios. For that reason Dell XP cds usually will not work with a clone pc.

If none of the hardware has been changed or very little has been changed the install should go through without activation being asked for. If a lot of hardware has been changed you may have to contact Microsoft to get them to release the old number for a new activation.

Most newer Dells also have a separate cd for drivers now which makes the install process much more pleasant. Software is also now kept separate. I guess enough users complained about the lack of flexibility with the software and recovery cds.

As for DUN. It goes corrupt frequently in all versions of windows. Especially lately, often when removing spyware you can corrupt DUN or Winsock. Browser hijacks and dialers also can cause damage.

As for the difficulty of networking XP... I am grateful. We used to see a lot of problems with people messing up their network settings (especially with encryptions, protocols and security settings) with XP the amount is less. The average user now uses the wizards and those who know what they are doing take the time to learn the new interface. I think part of the problem nowadays is the fact that people want improved operating systems but are annoyed when things look or are placed differently.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16763

you're right about the install, everything is going smooth. Dell is actually the best clone PC when it comes to this stuff. I always have problems with Packard Bhells and those other ones, but I never had problems with Dells.

The installation was virus infected and had lot of spyware, so it's most likely that which caused the problems, with the clean install, stuff seems to be much better. It was just the second time in a row I have problems with xp networking, but this time was in fact a virus, last time it was maybe just a coincidence. Now I'm finalizing the installation and I'll install stuff that will help prevent spyware such as ad-aware and mozilla. (no hijacks from Ie exploits)

One thing xp is good for though is detecting video hardware. I could set the res to 800*600 32-bit right away, usually I have to install video driver which are not provided by most clone PCs. Dell did provide them so I installed them.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16764

Laptops are annoying when it comes to xp unless your using a usb/ps2 mouse. I hate laptops cuz they are too slow.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16781

Yeah one of the xp computers I used (my uncles) is a laptop. So freaken slow!

The customer picked up the PC, he called me 20 minutes later, he just got a virus. I forgot to tell him to install zone alarm pro which I did not have with me, so he must of got hit with a worm. It was safe at my house since I'm on a router.

If you want to do like me and not install service packs and all that, you need to secure the way in.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16782

Laptops do not have to be slow when using XP. I've got a 600MHZ laptop that runs quite well. The problem with XP is after a default install many services are running that are not needed. You have to go through them and turn off the ones you are not using. That applies to all XP systems not just laptops.

If you do not believe in installing patches and updates that's fine but your customers deserve to have their systems patched with at bare minimum the RPC patch.

Of course people always argue about all the patches etc for a Windows based system but consider this. If Linux were the worlds most used operating system would hackers still go after MS Windows? I doubt it, hackers will always exploit that which has the most users. (by hackers I mean those who are malicious and also include those who write virii)

I've been in the computer business for a long time and in my opinion (note I said opinion) you have to be fair to your customers and not push your opinions on them. It's your job to make sure that their computer is running the best it can be. It needs to be fine tuned and secured. Patches are part of that process. Also in my opinion a good computer tech not only knows one OS but takes the time to learn as many as possible so he can best serve his customer including the MAC OS.

A true computer tech loves computers regardless of make, model or OS and does his best to make sure they are always working their best. Of course that doesn't mean you can't have your favourite, that's only human afterall.

Just my opinion



Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1663, old post ID:16989