Windows XP

[DJOHNSON954]

Anyone have the new Windows XP? I just installed it on my puter this weekend. I have the professional version. I have not had much time to tinker with it but so far it's pretty cool. It makes things run faster from what I can see. Any one else have it and what are your thoughts and/or gripes about it.

One gripe I have is that with Windows 98 you could opt to shut down and it would automatically shut down and power off. With XP you opt to shut down and it comes up with a screen that says "It is now safe to turn off your comuter". Opinions are welcome.

[DelC]

I've been following the reviews on ZDNet about XP. (The on-line reports) From what I have read, you probably will have no problem if you purchase a new machine and it comes with XP. Overall it has very good reviews, but . . .

If you want to install XP on two computers, you must buy two copies of the OS. Three computers, three copies, etc.

Professional version is 100 bucks more than the Home version.

If the software sees too many changes in your hardware--and thinks you might have moved the OS to a new machine--it will force you to reactivate the system, which involves a telephone call to Microsoft.

If updating on your old machine you will need at least 256MB of RAM.

The video instant messaging and remote support (screen sharing) features won't make it though home firewalls.

Problems with wireless (802.11b) networking support with XP. Hardware manufacturers are yet to get caught up with XP. And that may take a while.

Microsoft tries to use XP to steamroll people into signing up for a .Net Passport. Passport has been the subject of much controversy concerning security issues.

No MP3 support. If you want to encode files in MP3 format, you must buy a third-party plug-in for Windows Media Player or some other third-party software.

The Microsoft provided firewall has complaints that it doesn't do a particularly good job of firewalling.

Microsoft has made available a free software application, Upgrade Advisor, that will check to see if your system can be upgraded to XP Pro, but only for the Professional version. It checks for incompatibilities, then returns a sometimes long list of them. You then get to decide which apps and devices need updating to run under XP Pro and which you are willing to do without. It’s available on-line for downloading, the download is large (approximately 50 megabytes), and is recommended only for download over a high-speed Internet connection, such as DSL or cable modem. Not offered for the home version.

If you don’t have Windows 98, 98SE or 98ME, you can’t update to any form of XP.

Windows NT Workstation 4.0 and Windows 2000 Pro will only update to XP Pro.

To be eligible for upgrade pricing, you must be a licensed user of an upgradeable version of Windows.

---------------------------

In my case, I have a lot of programs that won't run on XP without updating and some free programs that won't run on any type of Pro. I tried 2000 Pro a few months ago and what a mess. It wouldn't run my programs and then messed them up to where they wouldn't run on 98 when I went back to it. Only took about a month to get things back to normal.

What else you want to know about XP???

[Badge11]

Dan, where are you finding the leisure time while in the academy? lol

I just bought a new comp this weekend that had xp installed. So far so good, seems to run a lot smoother (time will tell). I haven't had much time to play with it yet and I cant figure out how to do some of the simple things like I could in windows 98.

[williamssd]

Well, I'm a Mac user (let the flaming begin!), but I have used WinXP. I do know that a large chunk of software written for Windows9x will not work with XP reliably, due to massive kernel code changes, and changes in the way XP handles devise drivers (or whatever they are calling them now).

In my opinion, and yes I'm biased, I would much rather have MacOS X 10.1 -- a nice and friendly user interface, with the power of UNIX underneath. Plus, you can run all versions of Windows (other than XP) on top of the Mac OS.

If you have a new, fast PC to run XP on (Pentium III/850mhz, AMD Athlon 850mhz or better), then it should be fine (at that point it's a matter of preference). If you have an older PC, give it a little time before making the switch. Just my recommendation given my opinion of XP's performance.

Happy surfin'!

- Steve

[Mongo]

Being an Information Security Consultant I have some issues with XP:

Since my exhaustive treatment of the issues surrounding Windows XP's provision for full raw sockets can be somewhat . . . exhausting, I have summarized my concerns here. Each of these points is fully developed and supported with real world evidence. Windows XP's new support of the full raw socket application programming Interface (API) allows for the creation of fraudulent and damaging Internet traffic. This has never been possible under Windows without first modifying the operating system with third-party device drivers — which has never been done by malicious programs.

- The security features built into all other raw socket capable operating systems (Windows 2000, Unix, Linux, etc.) deliberately restrict raw socket access to applications running with full "root" privilege. However, the Home Edition of Windows XP executes all applications with full administrative ("root") privilege. Thus, Windows XP eliminates the raw socket safety restrictions imposed by all other operating systems.

- For the first time ever, applications running under the Home Edition of Windows XP — whether deliberately executed or running as hidden "Trojan" programs — will be easily able, without modifying the operating system in any way, to generate the most damaging forms of Internet attacks.

- Internet attacks launched from security-compromised Windows systems are already common. (Because security-compromised Windows systems are common.) However, the previous Internet API built into Windows, prevented those attacks from being as damaging as those launched by Unix and Linux systems. The sole reason for this difference was Windows' previous lack of full raw socket support (which was a blessing).

- No previous version of Windows (9x, ME, or NT) had, or needed, full raw socket support. Those systems worked seamlessly on the Internet. While there are valid uses for advanced raw-IP packet generation by system level processes (NAT routing, IPsec support, etc.), there is no valid use for raw sockets by end-user software. The only applications are Internet Research or the exercise of malice. Therefore, this new danger is without justification.

- Windows XP's security model, which has been seriously compromised in order to accommodate the needs of Windows 9x legacy applications, will not prevent the wholesale hijacking of Windows XP machines. These compromised machines — with their needlessly potent full raw socket support — will be used to attack and damage any chosen Internet user or site.

[DJOHNSON954]

Thanks for the replies. I still have not had any real time to surf the puter and check out XP. It seems ok to me and that's all I need I guess. The only thing that will not work on my puter with XP is my web cam. Oh well, never used it anyways. Thanks for the info gang.

CopDog11,

Gotta take the time when you can. It's not really as bad as I thought it would be. I just make sure to look over my notes every night. takes about an hour and then I have some time to relax.

[Kojak]

Sorry I can't be of any help - still struggling with Windows 98!
Kojak

[five-oh]

The computer I bought six months ago came with ME. I hate it and I am considering installing 98 on it, especially after reading the above posts about XP.

[DelC]

I’ve got 98 SE and don’t really have any problem with it. Prior to that I had just 98, which sucks. I’ve heard a lot of horror stories about ME. I tried 2000, but it wasn’t compatible with a lot of my software, mostly because it’s a commercial grade OS. I think I will hold off another 6 months on XP and then get a new machine.

[Raven231]

I was talking to my father-in-law who has been a computer geek since their inception and he stated he was not going to put XP on his machines at work (Tax Programming business) or on his machines at home. He sent me this article and it shows some of the downfalls as well as scary points of XP.


BRIAN LIVINGSTON: "Window Manager" InfoWorld.com
>================================================== ======
>
>Monday, October 8, 2001
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>THERE'LL BE NO XP FOR ME
>
>Posted October 5, 2001 01:01 PM Pacific Time
>
>
>MANY READERS have written me with the question, "Faced
>with the choice of Windows 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, and
>now XP, which operating system is the best one to
>standardize on?"
>
>After looking at the changes Microsoft has made in its
>forthcoming Windows XP, I'm recommending that most
>companies and individuals avoid it. I won't be adding
>to my line of books a Windows XP Secrets (although
>someone else will inevitably write a work with that
>title, and if it's good I'll recommend it). Instead,
>I'm planning to keep Windows 2000 running on my office
>network indefinitely.
>
>The following are some of the reasons that XP feels to
>me like a downgrade rather than an upgrade.
>
>* You need a Passport. Despite the severe security
>weaknesses of Microsoft's Passport authentication
>system (see www.avirubin.com/passport.html for an AT&T
>Labs analysis), XP repeatedly requests the user's
>e-mail address and password to create a Passport
>e-commerce account. And Microsoft made Passport a
>requirement to use Windows Messenger and other features.
>
>* Spam I am. The Passport agreement, which you accept
>when you click OK, permits Microsoft and its partners
>to send you an unlimited number of commercial e-mail
>messages. Furthermore, you can't rescind Microsoft's
>permission to use your e-mail address. You must
>unsubscribe from every partner's e-mail list
>individually. One marketing study found that many
>well-known companies won't take you off their e-mail
>lists even after several requests (see brianlivingston.com/011008).
>
>* We don't need no stinkin' contract. The same
>agreement says that Microsoft can change the
>contract's terms at any time, merely by editing a Web
>page. Every time you use Passport, you're supposed to
>reread this page to see if you detect any changes.
>Right. I predict that one day the contract will read,
>"If you use Passport after the 1st of next month, a
>$4.95-per-month charge will be placed on the credit
>card number you registered."
>
>* Weak Java. Instead of including the latest version of
>Java support, as a recent Sun-Microsoft lawsuit
>settlement would suggest, XP will default to a
>4-year-old version. Users can get a new Java download,
>but its 5MB size will discourage many.
>
>* No plug-ins. Internet Explorer loses support for all
>Netscape-style plug-ins, including embedded QuickTime
>clips (unless you download a kludge from Apple). New
>users surfing the Web under XP will undoubtedly run
>into sites that IE will no longer handle properly.
>
>I haven't even gotten to XP's Product Activation
>scheme. I'll discuss this in a future column.
>
>What all these new XP "features" have in common is that
>they make Windows more convenient for Microsoft but
>less convenient for users. I think I'll stick with
>Windows 2000 for a few more years. And after that?
>Stay tuned.
>
>Brian Livingston's latest book is Windows Me Secrets.
>Send tips to tips@brianlivingston.com. Go to
>http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters to get Window
>Manager and E-Business Secrets free each week via e-mail.

[Samurai004]

Ahhhggghhh, I think I will go back to DOS!!!:eek: