|
Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade
Microsoft (
25 October, 2001 )
Software |
| Our
Price |
: |
£
84.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prices
subject to change. |
usually dispatched within 24 hours. |
| |
|
| |
|
XP Xcellent  |
I ordered the XP Upgrade version at 22:30 on the 9th of May, and was very surprised to have the delivery guy knocking on my door at 08:40 on the 11th of May.I started installing it straight away, upgrading from Windows ME, and it took around 35-40 mins. Even though the expected installation time started as 75 minutes! All went well the first time round. No hiccups, no fuss. I was a little bit worried about compatibility issues beforehand, but that was only due to some of the reviews on here! All I needed to do was update a few drivers, like my scanner and Cam, and I havent had any problems at all. I would definitly reccomend XP to anybody that has a PC. Its the easiest operating system Ive used by far, very easy on the eye, and it get things done a lot quicker. Also, its a lot more manageable than the other versions of Windows, and if you do happen to get any error messages, you can send them to Microsoft for help on the matter. Get it, and get it fast, just like I did!!
|
Technically the worst operating system available to buy  |
This operating system fails in two key areas:1. Performance
The performance of Windows XP: Home Edition is extremely disappointing. It is slower than previous releases, requiring a faster computer in order to run it successfully. Could it be that Microsoft merely wants you to buy the latest Intel processor? I wonder why that would be. I also wonder why the word Intel is included in the Office XP dictionary. Also, Windows still seems unable to perform true multitasking. Examples of this are the operating system grinding to a halt when you copy a file to a floppy disk, when you send a job to a printer attached to a parallel port or when you burn files to a CD-R. Then theres the problem of installing software. Why must I stop everything Im doing in order to upgrade or install software and then reboot my computer? And why must I reboot my computer so often? As I write this, Internet Explorer 6 is using 15 megabytes of system RAM and Word XP is using a whopping 23 Megabytes! Its a word processor for goodness sake - I used to run Word 97 on computers that only had 8 megabytes of RAM in total! And when I close them down, they fail to release that memory back to the operating system, necessitating yet another reboot. 2. Compatibility
Microsoft has shortened their list of compatible devices with every successive release of Windows and this version is no exception. If this were how all operating systems were, I probably wouldnt have a problem, but when you compare Windows to Linux (which is free by the way), it looks extremely poor. By way of comparison, Linux supports more hardware and is faster on each successive release. In Linux, you can simultaneously:
copy a file to a floppy drive,
run several terminal connections to Unix servers,
run VMWare with Windows 2000 running on it,
rip files from a CD into mp3 format,
send a file to a printer,
have a web browser, a mail client and Star Office open (which is compatible with MS Office)
and be downloading and upgrading all the software you are running. You can do all of the above at the same time without any discernable effect on the operating system. Whats more, on Red Hat 7.1 and 7.2, you can perform live updates of your software without having to reboot. And Linux is completely free if you download it from the internet. It is also easier to install and with the release of the Ximian Desktop has become easier to use than Windows. There are still some DIY parts to Linux, but, to be honest, the only time I ever have to use Windows at work is to access a database front-end designed using Oracle Forms and oracle Jinitiator. And that necessity will disappear once Oracle 9i Forms is released, which includes a Jinitiator for Linux. If you think that Linux users suffer from lack of compatibility with Windows computers, think again. I know this sounds like an advert for Linux but, to be honest, when you look at it from that standpoint, Windows is an extremely shoddy piece of software. To summarise, Microsoft will lose the desktop market unless they get Windows working somewhere near the power of Linux. Sooner or later, ordinary users will wise up to Linux and overcome their fear of trying something different. This latest release of Windows is merely a lazy rehash of the previous versions, with some glitzy add-ons that are already available in Linux anyway. How can freeware software like Linux be so much better than Windows, which is produced by a huge corporation with millions of dollars at its disposal? It beggars belief. Complacency is the quickest route to failure and unless the next release of Windows actually includes some real performance enhancements (and dare I say it, some real multitasking) Microsoft will be left staring in the face of defeat.
|
|
Know what your talking about before you critise |
It sees to me that for the most part the people writing reviews below do not know what they are talking about. Before going straight to upgrading to XP you should prepare yourself. Some of you cannot get onto the net? Guess what - the Microsoft website recommends you search for drivers before upgrading which seems very sendible to me.
Also, I reccon that a lot of users will be using the FAT32 filing system instead of NTFS. You should not do that, NTFS is a much more stable system with better privacy and protection for files.
Another tip would be to do a clean install. It is actulay possible to reformat your hard drive and install the upgrade edition from scratch not over Windows, all you have to do is put the cd for your old edition of Windows in when it asks for proof. I actulay recommend a clean install like this in favour of installing over older versions of windows, it certainly has produced a much more stable system in all systems that I have installed.
You must realise that Windows XP is completly different to Windows 9x (95, 98, 98se and Me). It is based upon the much more stable Windows NT and Windows 2000. Windows NT is based upon a modern kernal and was completly written from scratch at the time of Windows 95s release. (Windows 95 and those in the 9x after it are based on Windows 3.1 and MS-DOSs old 16 bit librarys and so are not as stable).So my point it, dont rush in and condem, do some reaserch and find out about the system before updrading! Hope this helps.
|
|
