XP Article

G

Guest

Guest
After reading the article all I can say is "YIKES!". Looks like they basically did to windows 2000/me what they did to windows media player with version 7. Ugh more overhead, silly looking interface, extra garbage.... c'mon MS you were getting warmer with win2k and now THIS?! *sigh*
 

FatBurger

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
196
0
18,630
0
Do you really think the different interface is the only thing different? There are a lot of added features, like being able to make MP3s and burn CDs without third-party software. Of course, I'll probably still use AudioCatalyst and Nero, but it's a step forward.

And I seem to be the only one looking foward to being able to change how Windows looks. I kind of liked the desktop themes (although it was hard to find good ones), and I'd like to be able to tailor everything to my needs.

-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside
 

hammerhead

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2001
29
0
18,580
0
"There are a lot of added features, like being able to make MP3s and burn CDs without third-party software. Of course, I'll probably still use AudioCatalyst and Nero..."

So you're happy with inferior MS software you wont use filling your hdd?

Typical MS attempt to freeze out 3rd party developers.
 

FatBurger

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
196
0
18,630
0
Of course, I'll probably still use AudioCatalyst and Nero, but it's a step forward.


<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
"Typical MS attempt to freeze out 3rd party developers."

- Fact of the matter is, MS stands to gain absolutely nothing by "freezing out 3rd party developers." If you buy Windows and then Nero or if you just buy Windows, it doesn't make any difference to Microsoft.

In fact, I'd imagine they prefer the former arrangement since then they don't have to support the software or hire personnel to write/test it in the first place. The only reason MS would bundle CD burning, image viewing, and mp3 playing software with the OS is to make your life easier by offering you a free (and always accessible) alternative to the myriad shareware floating in the Internet cloud. (and by making your life easier, they hope to keep your business)

You don't like it, you don't have to use it. And please don't complain about having to store extra code on your HDD. I've got a typical 36 Gigs and Windows takes less than 2% of that. If you think it's such a big deal, just use Linux and stop whining.
 

FatBurger

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
196
0
18,630
0
Touchy? Not at all. He's absolutely right, most installations of 2000 use up less than a gig of space. Not many people still use 10gig or less hard drives as their main machines. When my parents first got their Dell, with WinME and all the pre-installed software, it had 5gig used already. Now THAT'S bloatware. Dell's fault, not MS.

Anyhow, most people aren't going to notice the 200meg difference that these programs bring (just a guess, no idea how much it really is). The most I've ever had being used on my computer is around 8gig. Not a whole heck of a lot.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 

Yahiko81

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2001
70
0
18,580
0
I have a hard time keeping my computer under 40 gig. What do you do with yours?

:cool: <b><font color=purple>Change the sig of the week!</font color=purple></b> :cool:
And where's my COOKIE!!
 

FatBurger

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
196
0
18,630
0
Typical stuff. Games, MP3s, whatever.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 

hammerhead

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2001
29
0
18,580
0
Fatburger, that wasn't the issue. I agree that even bloated MS O/S installations don't take up a significant portion of contemporary HDD's.

I wasn't too happy about being accused of 'whining', given that my post was only two sentences!

If MS has nothing to gain by freezing out 3rd party developers, they sure invest a lot of time and effort doing it.

Then I get the standard riposte to anti-MS postings, 'Use LINUX'. I'm a DirectX games programmer, so no joy there.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I wish MS would concentrate on just providing a solid, reliable O/S core. Most of us have to buy it anyway, so the lack of CD burning, Media Player, Defrag, IE, etc... doesn't matter.

3rd parties have always provided better solutions anyway.

Besides, it's not the HDD space that's the problem, but every additional component installed and registered with Windows contributes to reduced performance.

My argument isn't with you though :smile:
 

FatBurger

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
196
0
18,630
0
inferior MS software you wont use filling your hdd?
Wait, now you're saying this ISN'T the issue?

If MS has nothing to gain by freezing out 3rd party developers, they sure invest a lot of time and effort doing it.
I'd have to agree with that, but I don't think that Microsoft will ever be the only software company left on earth, so I think we're ok.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I wish MS would concentrate on just providing a solid, reliable O/S core. Most of us have to buy it anyway, so the lack of CD burning, Media Player, Defrag, IE, etc... doesn't matter.

3rd parties have always provided better solutions anyway.
Win2000 is pretty reliable, and XP looks to be even more so. They're getting there. It's hard to be stable when you're providing support for so much hardware, and developing so much of your own stuff. If Linux tried to do the amount MS does (not talking about CD burning and such), it'd possibly be unstable too. I said possibly, not probably :)

I personally would love to see good solutions integrated into the OS, whether Microsoft made it or not. They need to open up Windows more, so we can see some true 3rd-party integration.

And 3rd-party solutions have not always been the best. I've liked IE better than Netscape since v3 of both. IE 2 just had the lovely feature of not being able to download a large file and browse the web at the same time (it took up the window), and it didn't look as good.

Besides, it's not the HDD space that's the problem, but every additional component installed and registered with Windows contributes to reduced performance.
Which is why you have the option to uninstall stuff like this. Media player, IE, etc.


Sorry for the long post.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 

hammerhead

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2001
29
0
18,580
0
OK, you got me. That 'filling the hard drive' comment was just a throwaway phrase, exaggeration for the sake of effect.

It just had the wrong effect, that's all :smile:

You make your points well and I guess we should just agree to differ. I've always felt compact and efficient O/S software is preferable to 'feature-rich' bloatware, quite understand why others prefer more application functionality included with the O/S though.

You're quite right about Windows 2000, I use it too and it is surprisingly good. Unfortunately for me I have to develop for 9x platforms as well.
 

FatBurger

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2001
196
0
18,630
0
I agree. I'd rather have a trim OS that I can add to than one that's huge and has tons of stuff built-in.

But I'm speaking for the mindless masses here.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS