In today's Wall Street Journal, Walter Mossberg writes that you will have to buy a separate copy of Windows XP for each computer in your home. The complete story is available here:

http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html

but this section is worth quoting:

"For the first time, Microsoft plans to force families to buy a separate, full-price copy of Windows for each PC they upgrade. Each copy is expected to cost around $100. Not only that, but the company's method for enforcing this rule, a system called "product activation," requires you to let Microsoft create and store a profile of the configuration of every PC on which you install Windows XP -- even if only a single machine is involved. This profile allows Microsoft to "lock" each copy of Windows XP to one specific PC.

If you don't allow Microsoft to collect this information, your copy of Windows XP will simply stop working in 30 days. And even if you comply, your copy of Windows XP might still stop working at some point if you make a lot of changes to your PC's hardware.

I am not making this up. A similar activation system already exists in the latest version of Microsoft Office, called Office XP, which went on sale in May, though it allows you to install Office on two computers, not just one."

Yeah, Jason Cross was talking about the specifics of this earlier. You might look for it in the other thread.

I know, but Mossberg is not saying the same thing. He specifically says that if you change your hardware the OS may drop down to reduced functionality.

He also says you have to ask Microsoft to reactivate once your code has been flagged as illegal or whatever.

Didn't Jason say you could change your setup 500,000 times without a problem? Who is right dammit ?!?!?

This is just painfully stupid for all those people (like me!) who re-install Windows at least twice a year, and who change their hardware frequently.

Yeah -- Jason sure made it sound like he was really certain that it did not continually monitor your hardware. That just sounds dumb. There are simply too many people like us who upgrade something every couple of months. Surely Microsoft knows this!

Um, aren't you supposed to buy a copy of windows for each computer you have now?

Sure, but a lot of people don't.

Like the article says, most of them just don't know better.

What can I say - my Windows 2000/98SE and Office 97/2000 CD's are going to be extremely valuable over the next 5 years. :-)

Fuck Microsoft and their money grabbing ways !

"Um, aren't you supposed to buy a copy of windows for each computer you have now? "

Noooooo. I've bought 3 computers since Half Life came out. Does that mean I'd have to buy a whole new copy for each system? (I'm not talking about having 3 systems running at once I'm saying buyingh and then replacing the same system) This is really stupid and limiting.

I have heard the MSDN version of WinXP won't have the registration crap. So it might be worth signing up for a years subscription ($300-600 I think) to get it. Plus you get versions of every program Microsoft makes pretty much. Between Office and Windows it will pretty much pay for itself.

I do not want to pay $300-600 a year for MS products. I use Windows and Word and that's about it.

Microsoft's in a bit of a tough spot. They're running out of compelling reasons to get us to upgrade. Windows XP is probably a good step ahead with the new kernel and better stability, but Office XP just has some bells and whistles that are nice but not needed.

It's gotten to the point where there's no real case to be made for upgrading the Office suite every year other than Microsoft wants our money. That's what is behind that stupid subscription idea they want to foist off on us. The only entity that seems to benefit is Microsoft. The MSDN I can see, because developers need updated tools. But consumers don't need to pay every year for tweaks.

I think that GM should follow Microsoft's awe-inspiring ways, because as we all know, the automotive industry would be much better off having evolved like Microsoft.

Case in point, wouldn't it be much better to be able to tell my family to Sod Off when they want to use one of my car's? It's GM's policy, one car per person.

It'd make my life so much easier, to just tell my family to go buy another car, I mean, don't you think?

GM would be so much better if only they thought like Microsoft.

(note: if you don't catch the underlying sarcasm... seek help. =) )

I'll tell you what will make you upgrade to the new office suite, your employer (or in the case of us freelancers, the magazines we write for) upgrade their suite and demand you use Office XP file formats. What are you going to do? Buy Office.

Someday Microsoft will drop support for older versions of Word in their Office suite. If they do that, we're all SOL.

The bottom line though is that Microsoft has every right to try to get people to pay for their software. So many people casually pirate the OS and the Office apps that they had to do something. Some might say that the consumer brought this on themselves. In my experience in just about everything the old standard holds true, a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch.

BTW, as a freelancer I will upgrade to Windows XP before the end of the year (provided it ships on time) because if I didn't, I think a games review publication would have every right to tell me to go hang. It's part of my job.

--Dave

Heh. I feel left out of the converstaion... In Seattle it's a little different. I know plenty of people who can get me copies of MS stuff for a fraction of the cost at the MS store in Redmond.

Why should a freelancer have to have the latest version of Windows or Word in this day and age? How many gamers are running ME? 98? 2000? or even W95?

As to file formats, we writers don't really format the document. I'm sure I could send a plain text file that was readable by Word that would be acceptable. You'd also be surprised by how many publications are Mac-based still.

I understand that Microsoft has a right to get people to buy their software. However, they need to make a compelling case for me to upgrade my versions of their software other than their simply wanting my money. Is there really anything in Office XP that I have to have? No. Therefore, "No sale."

Windows XP might be a different story. Too bad that the most compelling reason for upgrading to XP is to basically fix the problems in previous versions of Windows, i.e., stability problems.

Actually Win2k is extremely stable and runs all the games I can throw at it with few exceptions. So I am not looking to upgrade anytime soon.

Rob(Xaroc), i can agree with that: it runs everything i want it to run, and then some (with some tweaking).

i'm not exactly certain when or how it showed up (i didn't notice it until SP2), but in the properties box for the shortcuts to programs, there's now a 'Compatibility' tab which allows the running of whatever the shortcut points to as if it were being run under WinNT4-SP5, Win98, or Win95.... it has helped me in a few cases with some older games and freaky weird apps i've tried.

Also vaguely of note, i recently re-loaded Total Annihilation onto one of the win2k machines here.. and while i can't vouch for it's network play (haven't tried that), all single-player stuff works very nicely. :)))

- mike - possibly a rabid T(&)A fan -

heh im still on windows 98 FIRST edition.. i have had no problems with it at all. plus i network with plain ole crappy ms networks... no dedicated servers for me. Though at my contracts I've been fiddling with all the new MS os's...up to an XP preview... I really see no reason for a gamer (yet) to upgrade from anything past windows 98 first edition.

etc

Win98 doesn't handle memory well so if there is a leak and you don't use a program like powerstrip or memturbo to defrag/reclaim your memory your system will eventually crash or have to be rebooted. Win2k is much better at reclaiming that lost memory automatically which makes it a ton more stable. Plus it runs every app or game in it's own memory space so if something hangs it doesn't take down the entire system when you kill it. So the bottom line is more stability with Win2k.

That being said sometimes you do have to tweak a little bit to get things to work like Mike mentioned (ntcompatible.com has a list of games and whether they work in NT/2000/XP or not and what you might have to do to make them work). So far my biggest problem was the IWar2 demo which turned out to be an issue with my mp3 acceleration on my Hercules Game Theater XP. I turned it off and no more problems.

I just talked with a MS product manager about this specifically and in great detail a couple weeks ago. Here's what I learned.

1. It DOES kinda sorta continually monitor hardware. That is, if you've already activated it and you make a sufficient change to your hardware, it might trip the activation and require you to re-activate. I'm not sure when it checks this or how...I assume it records your activation key and product ID key encrypted on the hard drive and confirms them upon boot, and if they've changed more than just a little, trips the activation. What a TOTAL pain in the ass! What's worse, as it stands right now, the OS does not function at ALL until you re-activate, and that's not likely to change before release.

2. They can, and probably will, adjust the specifics of how activation works after release. There are things they can do on the back-end and things that they can do on the client end through windows update. One example - they're looking into a scheme that examines changes in the context of time, so if all of a sudden all your hardware is different, the activation server might notice that it's been a few months since you last activated and it won't think your copy is pirated. On the client end, they might make it so that if your activation is tripped (through too much hardware change, whatever), Windows will warn you have give you a week to reactivate before it stops working. But again, this is all post-release if it happens at all.

3. Changing your video card or adding in a hard drive wouldn't be enough of a hardware change to trip activation, and if you have to re-install windows on a machine without chaning hardware, your old key should work fine.

4. The number that activation creates to send a unique machine ID to Microsoft is a complete hash, and does NOT let them know what kinda hardware you're using. Example: if I ordered the names of everyone at work alphabetically by last name, then I took just the first two letters of their first names and the 3rd and 4th letters of their last names, I'd have a weird nonsense string of letters. And no other business would have letters like that - it would uniquely identify my company. But nobody could look at that string of letters and reconstruct the names with any accuracy at all. In terms of product activation, if two or four (or maybe six, whatever) of those letters change, it doesn't care. If ten of them change, it does, and requires reactivation.

So product activation is still a total pain in the ass. I hate the idea, and while I can appreciate why Microsoft is doing it, I think it's a giant mistake. It's a shame, because from what I've seen and used, XP is more than just "2000 with better compatibility and a few GUI changes." It's an OS that I think a lot of people who aren't sold on it right now are REALLY gonna want.

As far as Mossberg's comments about having to buy a copy for every machine you have - that's true, and it's always BEEN true. It is ABSOLUTELY piracy to install one copy of a game, application, or operating system on mulitple machines at once unless they specifically say otherwise. The only Microsoft product ever to let you do so is Office, which speficially states in the EULA that you can install in on a desktop and laptop machine.

My advice at this point in time - get XP as soon as it comes out. It's almost certain to have equal or better performance than Windows 98/Me if you have at least 64MB, it's more stable, the GUI is better, and the compatibility should be better than any Windows yet (NT or 9x line). BUT, also grab the product activation hack that's sure to be out there within one week of release and burn it on a CD or something so you always have it in your back pocket, so to speak.

re: Windows 2000 - plenty of games still have big issues with it. Anachronox anyone? If it runs YOUR games, that's great, but it's far from running ALL games. And even when you get it to work by hacking around (pain in the ass) or patching (ditto), it's often unsupported by the publisher.

---

Quote:

re: Windows 2000 - plenty of games still have big issues with it. Anachronox anyone? If it runs YOUR games, that's great, but it's far from running ALL games. And even when you get it to work by hacking around (pain in the ass) or patching (ditto), it's often unsupported by the publisher.

---

Well, I'm running ME and it works fine. I doubt I'll be an initial upgrader to XP. I'll wait and see how the activation stuff goes through for a few months. It's all too murky for me right now.

Basically, an OS that attempts to check for piracy and disables itself if it thinks it's pirated is an OS that has the potential for disaster. I can't afford to boot up and not have my OS work, so I'll let other people field test it for me.

Jason, remember Anachronox was started 4 years ago before Win2k was even out. Besides they are patching it and the demo ran fine with no changes on my system. Most games these days have Win2k compatibility from the get go. Besides it is easy enough to dual boot Win98 if there are games that just refuse to run on Win2k. I have 98 still on my hard drive for that purpose I just haven't found a reason to use it in over a month now.

As for XP, I am going to grab the developer version if I bother to upgrade at all. There is no way in hell I am going to have some sort of half baked activation scheme in my OS. This is another classic example of how things done to stop piracy hurt the people who actually pay. I mean seriously, the pirates will crack this thing before it is out. Of course it will stop a family from running it on more than one machine but hey that is who you want to put the screws to right? For a non-business setup it *should* be one copy per household. Anything else is just gouging IMO.

>Well, I'm running ME and it works fine. I doubt I'll be an initial upgrader to XP.

I was sitting on 98SE since its release, and probably wouldn't have updated to ME if I hadn't have gotten a new system. I do find that both ME and 2000 speed my ADSL connection significantly, which is interesting, and the only reason I can think to explain it is that the O/S integrate better with Internet Explorer.

I also got Office XP with the new system - and I wouldn't have upgraded that either. I just went through the XP registration for it -- doesn't sound as bad as the Windows XP - you can install it up to 50 times without questions, and after that you have to telephone for verification.

Stefan

God help me if I have to reinstall any software product 50 times.

Have you tried the voice recognition with Office XP yet? That's one of the more intriguing features, but I couldn't find any accuracy rating for it, so I'm dubious. I'd need VR to be close to 100% accurate for it to be worth my while. It's insidious when VR makes mistakes too, because the spellchecker won't catch them.

I don't really have a problem with one pc per copy, actually -- it's the hardware monitoring that freaks me out.

A related question:

The opening shell seems to allow you to have separate logins for different users. Does that mean they can have separate installs of programs/separate desktops/etc.? How far do they take the separate user concept? It would be nice if each person could have a separate copy of, say, Eudora, a separate MyDocs folder, a separate desktop, separate Startup folder, etc.

Hmmm... I'm running 98SE right now. I'm wondering if I shouldn't pony up for ME before XP is on the QT, which sounds like it'll happen ASAP.

I'm not at all comfortable with this talk of XP. Would an upgrade to ME be worth the price at the moment?

-Andrew

"The opening shell seems to allow you to have separate logins for different users"

I haven't worked with XP at all, but you can have separate logins in W9x, with separate My Docs, Desktop, Startup folder, Start menu etc, right now. It's been a while since I set it up last, but I had my computer this way for the longest time back when we were a one computer household. Bah, nothing worse than having your wife poke through your files.

---

Quote:

Would an upgrade to ME be worth the price at the moment?

---

I only got ME because I was having computer problems and getting a lot of Windows error messages. So I decided to upgrade Windows rather than reinstall. I probably wasted my money since my problems were heat-related, but I didn't know that at the time.

ME's pretty nice though. It boots up in a fraction of the time 98SE takes.

WinME is a reasonable upgrade if you want the added speed of booting as Mark notes or you just want the latest Internet Explorer/Windows Media Player and the recovery options it adds. Otherwise, it's barely an upgrade from 98 or 98SE.

That said, if you can still find it, you can get the WinME Step-Up which is what I used to upgrade from 98. It's only $50 instead of the $90 for a normal upgrade. It only works for Win98 users and was a limited time thing if I'm not mistaken.

Personally, I think you're better off waiting and upgrading to Windows XP. I said it before...I think it's a mandatory upgrade to stay current with what you do (freelancing).

--Dave

I have ME simply because it came with my computer last year . Dunno if I would have bought it on my own. I like it though.

>Basically, an OS that attempts to check for piracy and disables itself if it thinks it's pirated is an OS that has the potential for disaster. I can't afford to boot up and not have my OS work

That's the kicker, definitely. In THEORY it shouldn't be a problem for people, but computers don't exactly operate that way. Activation is a big 'ol pile of crap and everybody knows it.

>Jason, remember Anachronox was started 4 years ago before Win2k was even out.

That's besides the point. The point is that it's a newly released game and had to be patched to even install on Win2k, and even after that, Win2k is totally unsupported by the publisher. The fact that that a site like ntcompatible.com even has to exist means that there are compatibility problems with Win2k. At least for games.

Mark, I'm told the voice recognition in Office XP is there mostly as an accessibility option (like the keyboard shortcuts and stuff for handicapped folks). It's not nearly accurate enough to be regularly usable unless you've got a disability that makes typing difficult. I haven't tried it myself, but that's my understanding of it.

>I haven't worked with XP at all, but you can have separate logins in W9x...

XP works more like Win2k with it's seperate logins, which seperates folders and settings even more than 98/Me does. But it goes quite a big step further than any Windows OS before, because you can log out and let someone else log in WITHOUT closing your programs. They'll keep running. So if you're downloading this 200 MB demo and grabing a zillion usenet headers or whatever and the wife wants to log on and check her email, you can log out and all your stuff will stay running while she logs in and checks her email, then logs out and you can log back in.

The login screen will display how many processes each user has running.

It's a RAM hog, of course, but this "fast user switching" is a pretty damn cool feature if you have a PC in a home with multiple users.

---

Quote:

That's besides the point. The point is that it's a newly released game and had to be patched to even install on Win2k, and even after that, Win2k is totally unsupported by the publisher. The fact that that a site like ntcompatible.com even has to exist means that there are compatibility problems with Win2k. At least for games.

---

---

Quote:

I have had my office machine up for a month at a time (been up since 6/22 even as I type this).

---

Dave wrote:

---

Quote:

Most people aren't going to notice this kind of stability or care in their home. They're probably up and running an hour or two a day. If you're using an office PC as a gaming PC, then your priority isn't really games.

---

"let someone else log in WITHOUT closing your programs"

Wow, that's cool. So I assume concurrent logins are supported?

I wonder if it would be cost effective to purchase one uber computer--maybe multiple procs, huge hdd--and setup multiple consoles with some sort of switch box, so the kids could just logon to one machine at the same time. It would probably be easier to maintain and maybe my wife, who never plays games, could use it too.

I, of course, would need time alone on the super computer to play my...er, optimize it...

;)

The thing I don't get about Win2000 is....I've never had a single problem getting a game to run on it. Ever. Am I just the luckiest bastard on earth?

Tim, you are describing Unix/Linux. In my brief exploits with Linux I found you can have multiple sessions going at the same time. I also found that when you use VNC on a Linux box it doesn't give direct access to the desktop like it does in a Windows OS. It give you a terminal on a seperate desktop, where you can run multiple programs but you wouldn't see the browser you opened on the main desktop from the machine itself. Granted I didn't spend much time with it so I could be missing something with VNC but it just seemed like a different way of thinking about things.

Jason, I would say you are semi lucky as I have had only a couple of OS specific issues I have had to deal with for games.

"never had a single problem getting a game to run on it."

Clearly you're not playing enough games. ;)

"you are describing Unix/Linux"

Yes, UNIX has that. I haven't spent much time with UNIX/LINUX either, but I think it would be cool if XP supports something like this. And it sounds like Jason is saying it does.

As for VNC, I've been able to use it on Windows where I get an image of the entire desktop and operate the box remotely. Win2k has something like this called terminal services. It's great for working at home over a modem, especially if you have to check files in or out... Since you're just waitning for the GUI to update, it goes relatively fast.

Tim, I run VNC in Windows like that as well with full control of the main desktop. In Linux you get a different desktop and can't see what is on the main desktop.

Terminal Services is very cool. From what I understand it actually has many of the common Windows dialogs in the client so you don't have to receive as much data across your connection. I just wish you could run a Terminal Services Server on Win2k Pro. I would set it up on my office box in a second since our fool company has their VPN gateway in California (I am in MD) and the lag is horrible.

>Most people aren't going to notice this kind of stability or care in their home.

Right now, yeah. But Microsoft forsees a future of the "always on PC." With the fast user switching and much better built-in home networking stuff (where one XP machine would be the gateway/router/firewall) and so on, you might now turn your PC off. That's the idea anyway. You might just put it into "sleep mode" where it spins down everything and goes into low power mode then wakes up in like two seconds. If you've ever used a computer that has implemented sleep mode well, it's pretty cool. It's like turning off your PC and then having it turn on and boot up in just a couple seconds.

>So I assume concurrent logins are supported?

Well I guess that's what you'd call it. I mean, it only actually shows the desktop and options for the person logged in right now. But the other person (or people) didn't really log out, they just gave up control. Their programs keep running, and their windows and everything are just how they left them when they log back in. What you're describing with one computer and several dumb terminals logging in requires Terminal Services. XP Pro has a single-user version of that.

It's pretty cool--I could leave my XP Pro up at work and just log out with the sharing/terminal services running, then I could log in from home (with the name and password) and browse files on my hard drive at work or whatever. That could come in very handy.

>Am I just the luckiest bastard on earth?

I guess ntcompatible.com thinks so, or they wouldn't exist.

>I just wish you could run a Terminal Services Server on Win2k Pro.

WinXP Pro has what they call Remote Desktop, which is essentially a single-session version of Terminal Services. I READ that you can even access it from Windows 98 or any OS with Terminal Services support.

---

Quote:

Most people aren't going to notice this kind of stability or care in their home.

---

---

Quote:

In Linux you get a different desktop and can't see what is on the main desktop.

---

Those wondering about Windows Product Activation should check this out:

http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt

It's almost too thorough to be readable, but it's fascinating. If the information there is accurate, and it sure as hell looks like it would be, then WPA is actually pretty reasonable about hardware configuration changes and it's REALLY good about privacy.

Xaroc,

Try looking into Remote Administrator 2.0. Granted, it's not free like VNC, but it's much faster and a lot more functional (so much so our company will be buying a few licenses for it). You can try it out for a free 30 day trial.

http://www.radmin.com/

better yet, go here

http://www.monroeinstitute.com/

Learn how to do Remote Viewing.

Thanks for that link Gordon. It looks pretty interesting especially the 128-bit encryption.

MS is in trouble, alright. Three operating systems in three years, and the vast majority of software on the market wasn't designed to run properly on any of them. It must be pretty difficult to market a program that's supposed to fix all the problems of the previous version but in reality is still flawed enough to require a future upgrade. This is why consumers aren't buying them, and if consumers aren't buying them why should developers optimize code to run on them?

My fear is that MS will try to force all developers to start writing games that will only run on W2K and above. I'll probably quit buying computer games if that happens...

MS can't directly force developers to write for specific OSs because the programmers are just cranking out code for 32-bit Windows. That means that whatever they write could run on anything as far back as a fully-patched Win95 system.

However, if MS really wanted to indirectly force upgrades to their latest OS, they would make the newest versions of DirectX only available to the newest operating systems. Imagine them releasing DirectX 9 only for Win2k and WinXP! And then they manage to convince a developer to create some killer app (or create one in-house) that everyone has to have but it absolutely requires having DX9. How long would the typical hardcore gamer last in his "I'm not going to upgrade my OS" principles?

About a New York minute...

I run Win2k now because of stability issues in the Win9x series. I have only had one problem running modern games and there was a work around for that but I'm sure there are others that I won't notice until I want to play them again. I will upgrade to WinXP (Pro) as soon as it's released because it's supposed to offer me stability AND gaming advantages.

And as soon as there's a reliable crack for it, it's going on the rest of the systems in my house. ;)

-Biyobi

This article says that XP will destroy Internet security.

http://grc.com/dos/grcdos.htm

Is it true?

Steve Gibson is on crack cocaine.

Normally I enjoy his stuff, and he means well, but these histrionics are way over the top even by his standards.

Internet security starts with ISPs preventing their users from spoofing packets (eg, sending a packet through them that says "I came from somewhere else!"). Everything else is moot if we can't do that; WinXP simply is not the issue here. It's the ISPs enforcing some rudimentary rules.

Oh, that Steve Gibson "windows shouldn't allow users to do raw sockets" thing. Case example of a non-technical person with just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Unix has had raw sockets for, what, 2 or 3 decades now?

Biyobi, I can't even tell the difference between games that require DirectX 8 over DirectX 7, other than DirectX 8 hosing half a dozen other games on my system. I'm sure there's some technical reason for it, but for an average gamer like myself it may as well be greek. I'd personally consider a forced combo of DirectX 9 / XP a very poor incentive to upgrade. I'd wait at least a year for other users to report their problems and workarounds before I went anywhere near XP.

So, as I understand it XP is not much more than Win2K with some slick multi-user features and WPA. Win2K and XP even use the same drivers. So, what's to stop me from using Win2K pro with the latest upgrades when XP comes out? Beyond the UI would I really notice?

The UI is really kick ass, though. It's the first complete redesign of the Windows interface since 1995. That's a big deal.

"complete redesign"

Come on, cut it out. I don't have a copy, but I've seen the screen shots and I just don't get it. Things look a little different, but I'm still seeing file explorer, my computer, my documents... how can anyone call this a complete redesign of the UI? What UI element has completely gone away? What UI element have I never seen before.

Now Windows 3.11 to Win95 was complete redesign. WinMe to XP? I'm not convinced.

Yeah, the XP UI has a lot more chrome on it, but there's not much there that you couldn't bolt onto the previous UI with Stardock's WindowBlinds. Calling it a complete redesign is going a bit far, I would say.

>Calling it a complete redesign is going a bit far, I would say.

Probably the lamest UI changes were from 98 to ME. Uh, other than the faster loading times and a few more configuration options, can anyone tell me what's new in ME? It wouldn't even be a notable patch, other than the load time improvement.

I thought the changes from 95 to 98 were actually surprisingly significant, and wish I'd upgraded earlier (waited until 98 SE). Win 2000 from Win NT4.0 was a big improvement too. But, of course, the biggest change was from DOS 6.2 to Win95 (I don't know any gamer who actually ran the Win3.11 shell on a gaming machine).

So what are the improvements with XP? Can anyone direct me to some good articles discussing the improvements? It just finally marks the end of DOS compatibility, no?, bringing in the benefits of NT/2000.

Stefan

You guys sorely underestimate the appeal that graphics chrome has to people. Just visit your local newsstand and check out the magazine covers-- appearance sells.

And XP is more than skin deep. I'd appreciate it if people commenting would actually TRY the OS before spouting a lot of invective about how "it isn't different".

Granted, it's not _quite_ as big a difference as Win31-Win95, but it is the most dramatic change since then by far. It's significant.

"Granted, it's not _quite_ as big a difference as Win31-Win95, but it is the most dramatic change since then by far. It's significant."

All I care about is performance. How different is it in that regard?

The whole registration thing annoys me. It had better have some substantial improvements for me to swallow that.

"All I care about is performance. How different is it in that regard?"

Virtually the same as Win2k. Maybe 1 or 2 percentage points different in either direction. It does take a bit more muscle to produce the graphics flash and additional usability features.

"The whole registration thing annoys me. It had better have some substantial improvements for me to swallow that."

Substantial improvements in terms of UI and stability (coming from Win9x). The first major UI change since 1995 (sheesh, 6 years ago). Also, it's important as a milestone for the Next Big Thing in Windows. We are unifying all versions of Windows (win9x and WinNT) into a single version and ditching the old win9x core. Everyone will be running the same kernel after years of DOS, win9x, and winnt hybrids.

---

Quote:

And XP is more than skin deep. I'd appreciate it if people commenting would actually TRY the OS before spouting a lot of invective about how "it isn't different".

---

"Substantial improvements in terms of UI and stability (coming from Win9x)."

This is appealing, but I suspect it doesn't keep programs from crashing, just Windows itself.

"The first major UI change since 1995 (sheesh, 6 years ago)."

What's the big change with the UI? How do I interact differently now, and why is it better? UI changes aren't always a good thing.

"Also, it's important as a milestone for the Next Big Thing in Windows. We are unifying all versions of Windows (win9x and WinNT) into a single version and ditching the old win9x core. Everyone will be running the same kernel after years of DOS, win9x, and winnt hybrids."

Who cares about milestones? It's performance that matters to me. I use my computer for games, Internet access, maintaining this site, and writing. How does XP help me with those?

"but as someone who spends 90-plus percent of his computing time on Windows 2000, the differences aren't that great"

Here's the relevant link:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_beta2.asp


I consider it a comprehensive change. Sure, there's still a mouse, there's still windows. No telepathic interfaces or anything. But as "changes to Windows" go, this is a biggie-- features, UI, design, you name it.

I'm not saying you guys all need to run out and upgrade tomorrow, just because I will (though to be fair, I get most stuff through MSDN or other avenues, and I wouldn't buy it retail).

As always, take my advice and do as you please.

I'm just pointing out that this is an important, relevant OS in the evolution of computers-- where we are, where we've been, where we're going, that sort of crap. Of all the "next big thing" OSes Microsoft has pushed, this is the one that's closest to delivering the actual marketing hype since Windows 95.

"What's the big change with the UI?"

Exactly. This is my point. What in XP is something I've never seen before? Not much! Don't get me wrong, it is nice to have some of the new features, like support for CD burning or a personal firewall. But is there anything here that's going to make me sit up and wonder how I've done without it all these years. Not likely.

Ok, I looked at that link and my first reaction to the new Start menu is ACK! I'm used to Start -> Programs -> the app I want to run, all done with just the initial click and then mousing over.

XP seems to want to store everything in a bunch of "My" folders. Where are my programs?

The article also touts a new welcome screen. Sorry, that's hardly worth mentioning. It just makes logging on as a different user a bit easier.

The article also mentions that XP goes for a cleaner desktop. Well, I tend to work from my desktop. I keep it loaded with everything I like to use and am working on. I have over 80 icons on my desktop now. Why do I want a clean desktop? So I can see the wallpaper better?

"Visually, the big change is the new "Whistler" user interface, which is implemented through a feature called Visual Styles. This allows the OS (task bar, Start Menu, Control Panel, windows, Web views, and UI widgets like buttons, scrollbars, and toolbars) to take on a new look and feel, by changing from one style to another."

So my UI can take on different looks? Who cares?

Bah, XP may be a nice OS, but the UI doesn't excite me, at least as described in that article. I'd hardly even call it all that different. It just looks different.

If I upgrade to XP it will be for better stability. That looks to be the chief advantage of it right now. I just hate the idea of spending a chunk of change to fix what Microsoft should have fixed a long time ago.

>It just finally marks the end of DOS compatibility, no?

You can still run DOS programs, but through emulation as in Win2000. Though the emulation is supposedly vastly improved. If you mean there's no more DOS kernel in there, then you're right.

>Can anyone direct me to some good articles discussing the improvements?

If you can sift through the PR hyperbole, there's links to some articles on MS's site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/news/default.asp

and there's a comparison chart here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/guide/featurecomp.asp

>All I care about is performance. How different is it in that regard?

I find it very interesting that people say that all the time. I think that's what people want to think, but the bottom line is that they ARE interested in a lot more than performance. Case in point: Windows 98 offered very few tangible advantages over Windows 95 to gamers upon release, especially in the area of performance. But I've never met a single person who wouldn't rather run Win98 than 95. When 98 was coming out, the gamers said "but will it run my games faster? What does it do FOR GAMES?" and the answer was "not much."

But try to get someone using 98 to go back to 95. Hell no.

>Well, I tend to work from my desktop. I keep it loaded with everything I like to use and am working on. I have over 80 icons on my desktop now. Why do I want a clean desktop? So I can see the wallpaper better?

The reason not to put 80 icons on your desktop is so that you don't have to minimize everything to see the desktop just to launch an application.

That "not worth mentioning" welcome screen is nice. It's appealing. It's one of those qualities that normal non-computer-geeks like in the MacOS. Besides, if you're in a multiple-user household, you want to make it as simple and attractive to change users and their settings as possible. Because not everyone wants to look at an 80-icon desktop. =)

Ideally, the vast majority of your apps would lauch via file associations: instead of opening an application and then opening a file with it, you'd just go to the file and double-click it. In theory, there should be only about a dozen or fewer apps you regularly need to launch directly, which could easily be put in the left side of the start menu.

I'm not saying that anyone's way of using their computer is "wrong," but believe me when I tell you that Microsoft has measured the usability of different interface styles and the productivity of different methods of computer use. And by "measured" I mean "down to the fraction of a second with hundreds of thousands of hours worth of focus group testing."

Anyway, if you want a cluttered desktop full of icons, WinXP won't stop you. Every X days (default is 60) the Desktop Cleaning Wizard will run and ask you if you want to put the icons you hardly ever use into a folder so you can delete them if you want. I suspect that's a good way to find out what icons really need to be there and what doesn't. But turning that feature off is a single checkbox.

"But try to get someone using 98 to go back to 95. Hell no."

I went from 95 to 982R mostly to get a patched version of Windows. It seemed like the easiest way to make sure I had the latest fixes. I'm running ME now but I probably wasted my money. It doesn't do much that 98 didn't do.

"The reason not to put 80 icons on your desktop is so that you don't have to minimize everything to see the desktop just to launch an application."

What? The icons are already minimized. Instead of having to go to the Start menu, most of my apps and current files are right there on the desktop. I don't understand the point you're making. 90% of what I want to do is one click away if it's on the desktop.

"Ideally, the vast majority of your apps would lauch via file associations: instead of opening an application and then opening a file with it, you'd just go to the file and double-click it. In theory, there should be only about a dozen or fewer apps you regularly need to launch directly, which could easily be put in the left side of the start menu."

Windows already does this. Most files are associated with an app so you doubleclick on the file. Why is this being touted as a cool feature in XP?

The way I work is that I like to have all the files associated with a project in a single parent folder. I don't want to go to My Pictures to find a screen and My Documents to find the document. I like to have a Qt3 folder for qt3 stuff and a CGW folder for CGW stuff, etc. I don't want all my document files in one folder.

"That "not worth mentioning" welcome screen is nice. It's appealing."

It may be, but it's very minor when you weigh upgrading. It's mostly cosmetic, just like the Whistler interface stuff I quoted. It's meaningless to me. The interface changes in XP seem superficial. Is there anything new that we haven't seen before?

Also, how does the Start menu work in XP? Does one click open up a cascading menu? I like that in the current Windows.

"What? The icons are already minimized."

Heh. I think what he means is that when you have a bunch of files open, your desktop (and thus your icons) are hidden. I also keep lots of files and stuff on my desktop for easy access. If I have a bunch of other stuff open, there's an icon on the start bar that minimizes everything with one click. Click it again and it puts everything back the way it was.

I probably will get a copy of XP soon after it comes out, but only because I can get it cheap and it'll have all the bug fixes, security patches, etc.

You guys kill me, with the "six years in the making" stuff. Har, har, har...

"If I have a bunch of other stuff open, there's an icon on the start bar that minimizes everything with one click. Click it again and it puts everything back the way it was."

Exactly. That's how I work. If nothing's open, the desktop and my icons are in front of me. If I have apps open then the desktop button gets me a clean view of my desktop.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want their latest projects and most used apps on the desktop as icons for quick access. What else is the desktop good for otherwise?

If I can find an XP upgrade for $75 or less, I might grab it right away. I'm not interested in paying much more for it at this point, based on what I've read. I find it annoying that the most compelling feature is really tantamount to being a bug fix -- better stability.

I'm also one of those guys with a gazillion icons on my desktop (I love my Dell i8000 1600 x 1200 screen!) I turn off all the fancy options for folders, etc. - I like a nice, tight, clean interface that doesn't "help" me a lot. From the look I've had at XP at work, I just don't see that much that's truly better - different, yeah, but I haven't found the better. I'm glad to get back to my 98 and ME machines at home - it doesn't look as cartooney.

If we're talking about things like an easier way to launch a program as one of the more significant improvements, this isn't much of a true upgrade. The under the hood stability, if it as advertised, may be significant. Hell, I just want Windows to fully close 100% of the time I hit the "shut down" button.

---

Quote:

The reason not to put 80 icons on your desktop is so that you don't have to minimize everything to see the desktop just to launch an application.

---

"I like a nice, tight, clean interface that doesn't "help" me a lot."

That's how I feel. If it's trying to help me, it's guessing what I want to do and I want to make those decisions.

XP might be a better interface for novice computer users, but I don't see any innovations for experienced users.

>What? The icons are already minimized.

Not the icons, your windows. You know, the stuff you're working on.

>If I have apps open then the desktop button gets me a clean view of my desktop.

Click desktop button to show desktop. Move mouse to icon on desktop. Click icon on dekstop to launch app. Click desktop icon again to restore windows.

vs.

Click start button. Move mouse up to app. Click to launch app.

It's less steps. Really! If you have fourteen cascading menus in your start menu to navigate before you get to the app, it's certainly slower. But it's just as easy to put a shortcut in the root of your start menu as it is on your desktop. Particularly in XP.

>What else is the desktop good for otherwise?

It's not good for anything at all. It's meant to be hidden. More ideal, to me, than making the desktop useful is to make it useless - I'd rather never have to take even one step to see it,use it, and restore it, but rather to do the same thing directly from the quicklaunch or root of the start menu.

>If we're talking about things like an easier way to launch a program as one of the more significant improvements, this isn't much of a true upgrade.

That's a matter of opinion, though. I don't WANT to launch programs, go to the open menu, and find the file to open it. I just want to have my files open in an explorer window, click the file, and have all the things I could do with that file listed for me. Including opening it with said app. It makes more sense to ME to work file -> application than to work application -> file like I used to. It takes some time to get used to, because for two decades now there was no other way to do anything. Computers launched applications, and applications opened files. That was the way it worked. Truly taking advantage of file associations in a robust way isn't something previous Windows OSes were good at.

From watching regular non-computer-geeks like my mom and sister work with comptuers, I really think 90% of the world first struggles to find their files in a byzantine folder structure and then wonders how to do what they want with them. I've seen it a million times: people think "I want to open THIS file with Photoshop" and not "I want to photoshop something, so I'll launch it, then find the file."

I still see a lot of arguments in here saying that XP isn't better because "it's not MY way." Not because anyone has actually given both ways a real solid CHANCE (a couple weeks without changing everything) and decided one is better than the other. The real "best way" for everyone is probably a little of the XP task-oriented method and the 9x/2000 app-launching-shortcuts method mixed together.

Completely OT - I look at the "last day's posts" page and I see the following:

'Mark Asher-7/16, 05:21 pm-"I like a nice, tight, clean '

Note to self: check first 28 characters of posts for unintended messages.

"Click desktop button to show desktop. Move mouse to icon on desktop. Click icon on dekstop to launch app. Click desktop icon again to restore windows.

Click start button. Move mouse up to app. Click to launch app."

Three steps to my four unless I'm already at the desktop and then it's three. Also, chances are if I'm launching something I won't restore the desktop because what I'm launching is what I want to work with, so now it's two clicks. See, my way's better! Also, I often launch my documents directly from the desktop, which is handy.

"It makes more sense to ME to work file -> application than to work application -> file like I used to. It takes some time to get used to, because for two decades now there was no other way to do anything. Computers launched applications, and applications opened files. That was the way it worked."

Clicking on a file has launched the associated app for some time now. That's not new to XP. Why is this suddenly something cool in XP?

See, I don't really like to have to sift through My Documents for my document file, because I would have 300 Word files in there in short order. That's why I like to impose my own structure on the way my files are stored. I'll typically store my files by the publication, and then often store them in folders beneath that. The most recent file I'm working on I just access either by creating a shortcut on the desktop or just using Word's list of recent files it's had open.

"From watching regular non-computer-geeks like my mom and sister work with comptuers, I really think 90% of the world first struggles to find their files in a byzantine folder structure and then wonders how to do what they want with them. I've seen it a million times: people think "I want to open THIS file with Photoshop" and not "I want to photoshop something, so I'll launch it, then find the file."

My wife's just the opposite. She opens up the app and expects it to know where her file is. In a way, that makes more sense to me. I'd rather deal with three or four applications and expect them to know what I want to work on as opposed to having to look at dozens and dozens of files to find the one I want to work on.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how XP's interface does something new and exciting that hasn't been done before. I just don't see it. Nothing wrong with it being just a new iteration instead of a revolution, but forgive me if I fail to be as excited about it as Microsoft wants me to be.

>Clicking on a file has launched the associated app for some time now. That's not new to XP. Why is this suddenly something cool in XP?

The MAIN thing is that the dorky "web view" on the left has been replaced with a task area. So I click a file, say an MP3. On the left side there are now several small "areas" with relevant tasks listed. The top section is called "Music tasks" and includes stuff like "play all" "copy to audio CD" and "buy music online." The next section is "File and Folder Tasks" and had Rename this File, Move this File, Copy this File, Email this File, and Delete this File. Then the Other Places section, which includes relevant locations - network places, My Computer, and My Music in this case.

The thing is, all these task-sensitive areas change depending on what file you've got and what's installed on your system. So with images I get options like "print this picture" and "order prints from the web" and "publish to the web" and all that jazz, as well as the typical "burn this to CD" and copy/move/delete and whatnot.

So XP takes the idea of a single file association that happens when you double-click it and extends that to a range of tasks and the associated applications for them (which can be different from each other).

>I'd rather deal with three or four applications and expect them to know what I want to work on as opposed to having to look at dozens and dozens of files to find the one I want to work on.

But don't you put "dozens and dozens of files" on your desktop?

>I'm still waiting for someone to explain how XP's interface does something new and exciting that hasn't been done before. I just don't see it.

And how long have you used it, exactly? ;)

Geez Mark, I sure hope you don't treat games like you do Microsoft's OSes. You seem convinced it's nothing special and determined not to like it before even using it for awhile.

I didn't expect this board of all places to be full of such stodgy users. When change is presented, even if it seems dumb, you gotta give it a chance. You gotta keep an open mind about these things. Sometimes ESPECIALLY if it seems dumb - particularly when there's enormous R&D and focus group testing behind it.

Now, the interface certainly isn't a "revolution" like Win95 was over Win3.x, but this is a much bigger change than any version of Windows since 95. It's fair to say it's significantly different to the degree that screenshots alone don't get across.

>glad to get back to my 98 and ME machines at home - it doesn't look as cartooney.

Try the Olive Green or Silver color schemes. Or use the Classic Windows theme to make it look like 9x. You knew the GUI was skinnable, right?

And with that, I should probably just leave well enough alone and stick to my personal experiences thread in the Free For All forum. Before I make a bunch of enemies I don't need. =)

Well, I have over 80 objects on my desktop but probably only 40 are mine. Thing about the desktop is that most of the things I need are right there, one click away. Why bury them beneath the desktop? What advantage is that?

"And how long have you used it, exactly? ;)

Geez Mark, I sure hope you don't treat games like you do Microsoft's OSes. You seem convinced it's nothing special and determined not to like it before even using it for awhile."

I haven't. I read about it to mainly see why the UI was being proclaimed a huge leap ahead by Wumpus. From what I read about the UI, it's not a big jump ahead. In fact it's arguably no better depending on how you like to work, as far as I can discern from what I read.

I'm trying to stay neutral about it, but Microsoft wants my money so I'm guarded. I just upgraded to ME a few months ago so I really don't want to upgrade again so soon. Is it good enough to warrant me spending money on it? Will I be more productive with XP? I don't burn CDs. I don't fool around with MP3s. The only graphics I mess with are screenshots. I use my computer for Internet access, email, games, updating this website, and writing. How does XP help me with those? It's my money, so Microsoft needs to show me how XP will help me better use my computer for what I like to use it for. More robust file associations are just a frill as far as I'm concerned.

This part does bother me:

"top section is called "Music tasks" and includes stuff like "play all" "copy to audio CD" and "buy music online."

Man, I do not like Microsoft pushing users towards online vendors. I don't like them having the power to suggest places for users to purchase things online. How do they determine which vendors get on the list?

I'm not trying to be a stodgy user, but look at it from this perspective. We've had 98, 982R, 2000, and ME all in the last three years. Now we're getting another OS that Microsoft is telling us we should buy despite having perhaps already paid to upgrade a couple of times over the last three years like I've done. I've spent over $200 on Windows over the last couple of years. I'm getting a bit tired of Microsoft rolling out a new version of the OS every year. Will they want us to upgrade to XP2 next year, or will XP be it for quite some time?

Just for the record, I'm dead set against entering into a subscription plan for regular updates. So if that's part of Microsoft's ultimate goal for XP, you can count me out.

"Well, I have over 80 objects on my desktop but probably only 40 are mine. Thing about the desktop is that most of the things I need are right there, one click away. Why bury them beneath the desktop? What advantage is that?"

Hi, casual reader, frequent poster...

Holy crap! You have 80 icons on your desktop and you consider that "easy?"

I shudder to think of your at home filing system! Do you just have everything lying on the ground in piles?

-Andrew

"I didn't expect this board of all places to be full of such stodgy users. When change is presented, even if it seems dumb, you gotta give it a chance. You gotta keep an open mind about these things. Sometimes ESPECIALLY if it seems dumb - particularly when there's enormous R&D and focus group testing behind it."

Well, this stodgy old user has been using XP for a while as part of a test group in my day job. And I'm not surprised that the experienced users here are underwhelmed. We have a saying at work, started by a guy from Louisiana, that there's "help", which is true help that you need and want, and there's "hep" - as in "I'm gonna hep you out", which is help that you don't want. XP gives me a lot of "hep". But admittedly, I want an interface to be as transparent as possible - I'm interested in running programs and utilities on my system, and I want those to be the focus of my computing experience, not the operating system. XP just seems to constantly scream "Look at me!" I've used XP every day for at least a couple of weeks at work, then I come home and work on my home PCs and I feel no need to upgrade from SE and ME.

"And with that, I should probably just leave well enough alone and stick to my personal experiences thread in the Free For All forum. Before I make a bunch of enemies I don't need. =) "

Jason, I hope and believe this is a place where we can freely argue with each other, even enter into heated disagreements, and still be respectful enough and mature enough to share a beer at the end of the day. ;)

Jeff

>We've had 98, 982R, 2000, and ME all in the last three years.

2000 is an update to the Windows NT line. You might as well count NT 4.0 in there if you count that. Anyway, 98 shipped in, well, 98, and it's 2001. So that's four years.

It's not more updating that Apple does to MacOS or Linux distributions have.

You have to admit 2000 was MS intentionally misleading though. 2000 isn't for home users, yet the home user series has traditionally been "years" and the business series has always been X.0

Since most computer software buyers aren't paying close attention to us geeks in the know, I wonder how many copies were sold to home users? I know a few local computer builders were bundling 2000 for home systems.

Anyway, MS does have a hard sell with XP simply because they've updated too much, too recently I think. Maybe they've got legal bills or something...

-Andrew

"2000 is an update to the Windows NT line. You might as well count NT 4.0 in there if you count that. Anyway, 98 shipped in, well, 98, and it's 2001. So that's four years."

Not to be picky, but if 98 shipped midyear in '98 than it's only been three years. I don't remember when it shipped.

Microsoft can come out with a new OS every three months if they want. My position is that when I've already spent over $200 in the last two years on different versions of Windows, they are going to have to demonstrate real value with XP *to me* and the way I work for me to consider buying it. The new kernel and better stability is a strong argument for it, but I haven't read anything else about it that seems compelling. If the new UI would make me more productive, I'd probably go for it. Nothing in the UI seems to indicate that, however.

At the rate they've been pushing out new versions, it's almost as if I wait a year then I can grab XP v2 and save some money. Of course Microsoft wants us all to switch to a subscription plan and just pay them continually. Whee!

IMHO the *only* real Microsoft GUI innovation, ever, was the right click contextual menu. I WILL bow down to the person who came up with that, as it's made my life much easier.

So it sounds like some bright bulb at MS came to the same conclusion and decided to put the right click menu (and then some... need a little hep?) off to the left so you don't have to right click anymore. Hmmm... so insted of right clicking and just moving the mouse a bit you get to the command you need, in XP you left click and move your mouse all the way to the left side of the screen? Is that it?

Also, is that left window menu editable? Or do I have to look at the "buy music on the web" choice every time I click on an MP3?

Thanks.

DeanCo--

deanco,

that "innovation" was stolen from the Amiga, which had it many, many years beforehand- it's a given that it wasn't quite as refined as it is in microsoft's offerings, but it was still there. and who knows, even the Amiga guys might have stolen it from someone before that.

- mike - what's an omega? -