• ### Announcements

#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# Win XP (off topic)

## Recommended Posts

from cfxweb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1284000/1284054.stm i am never going to install a product like that. renting an OS ????? or software???, i want to buy it, i don''t want to keep paying for a product on a monthly or yearly basis It will scan your systems hardware and send this information to microsoft. Did they ever hear about privacy????? what''s next??? access to my drive and read personal information (not as a bug, but as a so called "security feature", as they will probably going to call it) The big question, will XP be a good or a bad bet from MS?

##### Share on other sites
I''m sure hoping that people will realize it for the evil thing that it really is, and not buy it. I''ve been fairly mad about it for a while, incase you haven''t noticed already .

http://druidgames.cjb.net/

##### Share on other sites
it might come as a surprise to you but actually you dont even own win2000 or win98 even though youve brought them in the shop, ms still has ownership.

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

##### Share on other sites
You don''t ''own'' Linux either
But I''m still happy to use it

##### Share on other sites
Windows XP is the one thing that will destroy them (if we''re luckey). Then there''s more bad news for us developers. ZERO BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY!!!! win98 is a 32bit OS. XP is a 64 bit. You won''t be able to read ANY old files. Won''t be able to run ANY old software. All your old code, you''ll have to retype. I think you can''t even read a 98 txt file! Aaaargg! Soon the time shall come for all to switch to 3rd part os, one will become industry standard, and all will be well again. What the heck is ms thinking by giving zero compatability?!?! There go over 50 cd''s of mine. Even if I do get stuck with winXP, I''m keeping a 98 sysm no matter how old it is...

-Alex

##### Share on other sites
Um...not exactly...
Windows 98 is "basically" a 32 bit OS (with a little 16 bit code thrown in. Windows XP is also a 32 bit OS (a PURE 32 bits; no 16 bit code whatsoever). Yes, WinXP will be ported to the upcoming IA-64, but this means nothing for the hundreds of millions of people using 32 bit systems. Microsoft isn''t stupid enough to make a product which can''t run any existing software.

~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill

##### Share on other sites
A little side note: Your hardware will be scanned to generate an unique key together with the registration code, I don''t really believe they keep all your HW info in a huge database...

But there are enough other options..
I''ve finally installed Linux (Mandrake 8.0) since monday and I must say that it''s a very nice OS with MUCH free quality software on those 2 MDK CD''s (wich you can d/l for free )
Actually, I''ve deleted my 2 windows partitions because they were f*cked up (partiton magic, blah, blah) and I haven''t reinstalled windows yet because I like Linux more now
Linux does also need less memory than windows (XP)
Only bad thing about Linux is that those default skins for KDE and Gnome really suck

Oh, and you can even get HW acceleration for your 3D card (OpenGL only of course )
(for playing TuxRacer on my GeForce2 MX... :p)
Heck, M$doesn''t support OpenGL 1.2 in windows but Linux does, with help of Mesa and/or the official nVIDIA drivers! And if you really need to run a windows16/32 or DOS app you can use Wine wich is also included on those 2D MDK CD''s Last word: Don''t complain about WinXP if you don''t like it, just install Mandrake 8.0 and you''ll get all the good things for free :p (including KDevelop, wich is better than MSVC 6) #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Used to be stuck with windows becouse i had no compiler for linux (delphi user)...but now, Kylix is here.. so what is the best distro when developing GL stuff? #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Ekas78: If you don''t want to do all the configuring stuff I would say go for Mandrake 8 It''s all pre-configured and really easy to work with. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Zero backwards compatability is not a bad thing...every so often you just have to say ... look we no longer support it. If you want to advance you have to let things go. I bet if they took out all the backwards stuff the OS wouldn''t be so damn HUGE. Jenison "Take people out in an Impreza and folks say, "oooh". Take them out in a WRX and they say ''AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!''" - Subaru Salesmen who sold a WRX to me #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Generally, no, backwards zero bkwrds compatibility is not a bad thing. But for us developers, it is. Consider any work you have ever done, made useless upon it''s release. That would not be fun for me. I have a HUGE project in progress. If it finishes upon the release of XP, and not before, I''ll be pissed. And Martee, yes there is zero backwards compatibility. I live with an tech who has to learn and deal with xp. He, seeing as he''ll have to deal with it, has fairly extensively researched it. ZERO BACKWARDS COMPAIBILITY! If you don''t believe it, then I sure hope your right. But I personally believe that I''m right (of course). With any luck though, I''ll still be able to use my code and use my good old compiler (I hate switching compilers). -Alex #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites you guys can go to the windows xp website and read all about it. it will be backwards compatible, their designing it so their structures are 32 and 64 bit compatible. and i dont know where you got this crap on having to rent the os, it will be available for purchase just like any former os. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster i dont know where you got this crap on having to rent the os It''s a part of the .NET plan... #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Ask me, the anonn has no idea what he''s talking about. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites quote: Original post by ATronic ZERO BACKWARDS COMPAIBILITY! If you don''t believe it, then I sure hope your right. But I personally believe that I''m right (of course) Not only is XP completely compatible with all (ok, most) Win32 apps, but MS has added a new DOS compatibility layer, allowing use of VESA and DMA. Hence, XP is much more compatible than Windows 2000. Why would Microsoft suddenly decide to alienate hundreds of millions of users, and make every program in existence useless? Think about it. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites quote: Original post by ATronic ZERO BACKWARDS COMPAIBILITY! If you don't believe it, then I sure hope your right. But I personally believe that I'm right (of course) Not only is XP completely compatible with all (ok, most) Win32 apps, but MS has added a new DOS compatibility layer, allowing use of VESA and DMA. Hence, XP is much more compatible than Windows 2000. Why would Microsoft suddenly decide to alienate hundreds of millions of users, and make every program in existence useless? Think about it. Edit: Grr. Sorry, double post. ~~~~~~~~~~ Martee http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill Edited by - Martee on April 28, 2001 1:07:22 PM #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites I'm sitting here laughing my ass off right now. I've been watching all of this bull on Windows XP for so long and you folks are obviously misinformed. Windows XP is 64-bit only. Hahahahah. How stupid do you think the folks at Microsoft are? The Itanium (IA-64, Intel's 64-bit architecture) processor is for workstation systems, not consumers. Consumers won't be using 64-bit machines for some time to come. The home-edition of Windows XP isn't even available in the 64-bit edition. You can't buy Windows XP like previous products, you have to rent it on a monthly, quarterly, or yearly basis. Where the hell do you guys get this information? Windows XP is not based on .Net This is totally wrong. Infact, you cannot rent Windows XP, period. It will be sold in stores just like all other products. sidenote: Office XP on the other hand, can be rented - and If I weren't receiving a free copy, I'd rent it rather than buy it, why? Renting it is actually cheaper if you get a new version each time it comes out. The charge per month is relatively low, and it comes out to less than the full price you pay when you buy it, and then a new version comes out two years later. So in the end, renting the software actually helps the consumers that get the new software. However, just like all previous versions of Office, you WILL be able to purchase this version in the store and not have to pay any fees. Each time I replace my hardware, I'll have to buy another copy of Windows Are you guys pulling this out of your asses? Be realistic here. Microsoft isn't that money-hungry, and they don't want to go out of business. (And microsoft is a business, they're going to try to make as much money as they can, that's the way businesses work) Microsoft is not going to require you to buy a new copy each time you change your hardware. Infact, you won't even have to reactivate each time you replace your hardware. Windows XP builds an ID based on your hardware (They don't keep track of each peice of hardware you have). If you have ten peices of hardware, and replace one peice, it will not require you to reactivate. However, even if it does, who cares? Unless you pirate windows, this activation stuff will be harmless to you. And even if you do pirate it (If you do, you shouldn't be here on a game/software development site), there will be cracks - So what's all this idiotic "Resist Windows XP" crap? Activating Windows takes a matter of seconds on a 28.8 modem. You don't have to provide any personal information. Infact, before it even asks for personal information, it activates it. Giving them your information is the same as in the past - OPTIONAL . Windows XP isn't compatible with software written for Windows 98/etc WRONG. Windows XP runs Wolfenstien 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, Worms Armaggedon, Unreal Tournament, Quake3, Quake2, Quake1, Office2000, etc. Windows XP has plenty of support for old software, although in a way different than 9x, so that it doesn't make the system unstable. 16-bit applications never get control of the system in Windows 2000 or Windows XP (which is based on Windows 2000) If you think about it, Windows XP is the best thing Microsoft has ever done in the consumer line of windows. They're finally using the NT kernel in a consumer operating system, and tossing the 9x kernel in the trash. Now, someone is going to flame me for flaming all of this, but to be honest, I don't care. You guys have absolutely no proof of what's going to be in XP or what's not going to be in Windows XP. I'm using it right now, so theoretically, I ought to know more about it than any of you. Before you start attacking products, please, get the facts straight. -Dan Smith dans@3dgamedev.com Edited by - dan smith on April 28, 2001 1:29:24 PM #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites As I said before, I hope your right. As for why they would alienate so many people. Hell, it''s the microsoft way. Haven''t you noticed that they just get worse and worse?! Well, it''s kinda sad that biggest computer market is based on them... Soon the day for 3rd party OS'' will come... soon. -Alex #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Hey, I never said anything anyone was saying was correct, I''ve done my own research, and I do really believe it to be MS''s worst move. I''m not going to spend my time correcting people though, if you want to, have fun . http://druidgames.cjb.net/ #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Yes... Everyone has there own thing to say about it. -Alex #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites You tell ''em Dan. ------------------------------ ShiningKnightDX NovaStorm Games Project: More demos that you can shake a stick at #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites OK, I am sick of hearing people tell, yes this new OS is the best thing M$ could have done. I already heard this with ''95, NT, ''98, ''2000 and now XP. What is the point ?
I am sorry, but none of those OS''es are a ''best thing''. ALL of them are unstable, full of security holes, and IMHO (as a software engineer) UNUSABLE for professional work. Irix, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, OS/2: those are good OS''es. Why ? Not because they aren''t made by M$. Because they work. Because I can trust them. Because I can focus on my actual development work, instead on fighting with Windows bugs, crashes, API weirdness and other ''undocumented features''. About the XP compatibility questions: we''ll see that, when XP comes out. I think that 0 backwards compatibility is total crap. You can tell alot about M$, but definitely NOT that they are stupid. Damn, they wouldn''t control 95% of the OS Market, if they were. XP will be 90% backwards compatible. 90%, not 100%, it''s M$, there will be alot of bugs and ''new features'' that will cause problems. But there''s another point, that WILL be dangereous: The unique ID registration. OK, it _might_ be anonymous (we don''t know that yet !), but they will have a _unique_ ID of your machine. They will be able to identify you within zillions of other systems. Anonymous or not, this is a threat. How many of you have disabled cookies because of potential security problems and the fear of beeing tracked ? Remember the huge fight against Intel, when they decided to include a unique ID on the P3 ? Well, knowing M$ (very well), I am SURE that there will be a way of accessing this unique Windows identifier via Java or ActiveX. Here you go: the perfect, 100% working internet tracking system, and you cannot even disable it (or your Windows wouldn''t be registered anymore).

I moved to Linux a long time ago. WinXP will make alot more people take this step. And that''s the only good thing about it.

- AH

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
ALL of them are unstable

That''s nice. My Win2k box hasn''t crashed in over a year.

~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
http://www.csc.uvic.ca/~mdill

##### Share on other sites
I''ve been able to crash Win2K a lot of times, but it doesn''t crash with normal usage and/or development. Once was when I tried to sort a 10,000,000 element array (it wasn''t pretty, my RAM/Virtual Mem. usage skyrocketed, then it all stopped... ), another was when I changed the priority of a thread using the task manager, and all the rest that I can remember were due to faulty drivers that I had for a short while after installing Win2K.

But, for the most part Win2K is the only thing MS has done correctly (OS-wise).

http://druidgames.cjb.net/

##### Share on other sites
Martee:

Then you never worked with it. With work I mean compiling a multi-million lines of code project, using gigabytes of RAM. Or testing a prototype hardware parallel rendering pipeline with a device driver under development. Or trying to render a 3D scene using 3dsmax and a 64-system render cluster under W2k. Yes, I did those things. And yes, W2k crashed nonstop. Productivity went down to zero, since technicians spent more time getting w2k up than doing actual development. Now we use Irix. We never had a single crash.

- AH

• ## Partner Spotlight

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
627689
• Total Posts
2978648

• 13
• 14
• 12
• 10
• 12