October 25, 2001

5:27 AM

Windows XP Launches"The most significant operating-system upgrade since Windows 95" - PCMag, but with such demanding hardware requirements, I think I shall hold off XP. Having played with Beta 2 it seems novel and easier for beginners.
Are you tempted/hooked on the Windows Experience?
posted by williamtry (61 comments total)

I wrote a book using Windows XP's last release candidate. It's the most Mac-like OS ever to come from Microsoft, and because it's based on Windows NT/2000 instead of 9x it ought to be less crash-prone.

More positives: The Start Menu has a prominent place for your most-used applications, the new versions of MSIE and Windows Media Player are great, and if you don't mind setting up a Passport it makes it easier to use some Web sites.

Negatives: XP sets a new standard for nagware, popping up word balloon dialogs from the system tray telling you to activate your software, register your software, set up a Passport account, set up Windows Messenger, and so on. Also, if you change your hardware substantially, you run the risk of deactivating XP, which requires a phone call to Microsoft (!) asking for permission to reinstall your own OS.

I'm probably going to upgrade for work-related reasons -- OfficeMax offers a bunch of deals to get people to buy it in the first week -- but I expect that many people will stay away from XP for a while.
posted by rcade at 5:38 AM on October 25, 2001

I can't wait to get my hands on XP (OS and Office). OS XP looks beautiful; colors, layout, etc. Sadly, my 64MB memory (quaint, isn't it?) isn't up to the task...so a-upgrading I will go soon. Guess what's on my holiday wishlist...?
posted by davidmsc at 5:42 AM on October 25, 2001

Nothing that I've heard about XP makes me want to purchase it. Higher basic system requirements, bundled "digital rights management", they heavy emphasis on all things Microsoft... no thank you. Win 98 is just fine, even if it does lock up quite a bit.
posted by skechada at 5:48 AM on October 25, 2001

I'm happily running Win2k and it seems a little unnecessary to upgrade just yet, beyond a testing scenario. I can't decide about the integration of MS utilities (Media Player, Firewalling, Settings-Transfer, CD Burning) - I believe it will stifle the market, at the expense of Real Networks, Norton/ZoneAlarm, AlohaBob & Nero for those said components, but then it's useful for beginners to have these utils to hand? Personally, I'd rather have no apps installed by WinXP and allow competition for components.

However, I see Product Activation (and associated 'nagging') as being the major deterrent to moving from my Win2k setup.
posted by williamtry at 6:02 AM on October 25, 2001

It reminds me of Teletubby land does WinXP - all rounded and kiddy friendly and green rolling hill background, I reckon once ICQ is installed (eh-oh!), you'll get the full experience - maybe a new office assistant in the form of a sun with a baby face in it gurgling at you? Beats that annoying clip from hell any day...
posted by Mossy at 6:08 AM on October 25, 2001

No.
posted by jlachapell at 6:14 AM on October 25, 2001

Speaking of teletubby land ... I grabbed an interview with Steve Ballmer off BBC Breakfast TV today and he's definitely living there (am going to write an article about it, so it's fair usage ... neener, neener).

45k Real Media 50k Windows Media

This is a self link of sorts, (I can hardly put it on someone elses webspace), but I thought it might add to the discussion. Who can tell?
posted by walrus at 6:23 AM on October 25, 2001

I will follow my office's IT position on installing a new OS: Not until service pack 1 is out.
posted by Qubit at 6:31 AM on October 25, 2001

In my opinion, Windows XP is a big brouhaha about not much at all. With the exception of the Fisher-Price interface, it doesn't do too much that Windows 2000 can't do. Plus you don't have to _tolerate_ Microsoft's bundling of software.

I will probably upgrade, eventually, just so as not to be left in the technological dust. But I don't like it.

PS The media player built into to Win XP (and ME) has a feature that lets you rip CDs. In a windows media (.WMA) format. That you _can't play on any other computer_ but your own, EG if you send it to someone it tells you to quit stealing music. This pisses me off because I don't use Napster, etc. but I do put my CD music in my computer and send some of it to my wife. So, for the love of God, even after you get XP, download a real ripping program and make good ol' MP3s.
posted by dr_emory at 6:35 AM on October 25, 2001

I thought win2K was a fine system. But winXP seems to come installed with all kinds of Big Brother Is Watching You features, and very little improvements over win2K... I see no reason why I would need it and I have an uncomfortable feeling about the product activation and 'smart tags' issues. It's the mentality in which they created these features that makes me wonder what else they are working on...
posted by Icestorm at 6:38 AM on October 25, 2001

walrus: If you think it'll add to the discussion, disclosed self-linking is perfectly appropriate within a thread. Just not on the front page.
posted by gd779 at 6:41 AM on October 25, 2001

It has to be said:

I'm enjoying my media-ready OS that doesn't nag me or install spyware: MacOSX.
posted by jragon at 6:42 AM on October 25, 2001

For those people utilizing Win2K, it's not a big jump. But for those of us using Win9x, it's a wonderful thing. Less crashing, integrated options for tasks such as photos and music, and I like the interface.

As for MP3s, the reason it is not included, more than anything, is that Microsoft would have to pay Thomson for every license of MP3 ripping. You can buy an add-on for MP3 ripping, it's 10 bux, and they have them from various vendors available.

For me, product activation isn't a big deal. And I've already got a passport for my msn messenger. It's installed on my home PC now, and I really like it so far.
posted by benjh at 6:52 AM on October 25, 2001

I just upgraded to 2000 at work and use 2000, 98SE and SuSE Linux at home. They do everything I need them to do, and I see no need for another upgrade. The more I read about XP, the more convinced I am that my next upgrade will be a permanent move sideways into either Linux or Mac. If I absolutely have to run Microsoft applications, they both have Windows emulation software.

Jen
posted by NsJen at 6:56 AM on October 25, 2001

Qubit: so in about two weeks then?
posted by donkeymon at 7:09 AM on October 25, 2001

I've used the Betas, and the RCs, and I've got the RTM edition of XP running as my "OS that I get paid to write about". So far: one blue screen when I did something silly, which actually shocked me when it appeared. One driver conflict that forced a reinstall: PGP 7.0's VPN drivers do nasty things to a network running on XP. Otherwise, it's pretty cool, and a compelling upgrade from the Win9x series if you've got sufficient hardware oomph.

From a UI perspective, it's the "why couldn't they have done this in 95" Windows. And if you use the Classic theme, or download WindowBlinds and install "Watercolor", it's not too Tellytubby.

Like rcade, I don't like the .NETification nagware. (There's already an update to add even more of those bloody services to the OS.) And I'm steadily convincing myself that The Next Computer, to replace my creaking but still spry 1996 PPro desktop machine, will be a Mac running OS X.
posted by holgate at 7:21 AM on October 25, 2001

dr emory wrote:
I will probably upgrade, eventually, just so as not to be left in the technological dust. But I don't like it.

That is the most telling statement of all...
posted by pedantic at 7:25 AM on October 25, 2001

XP is making me finally jump/escape to Linux. Or rather, a dual-boot with Win98 for the rare situations where I need to run a Win application.
posted by fleener at 7:26 AM on October 25, 2001

I'll not be upgrading to XP, or its descendents, ever. An operating system is an environment in which application software can run, keeping the programmer from having to reimplement common tasks and keeping the user from having to manage most aspects of computer operation manually...hence the name "operating system". An operating system's purpose is not to force users to use bundled services and software they don't need or already have competing software for the same function. I seem to remember an upheld circuit court ruling to that effect, not that Ashcroft's Justice Department is prosecuting the case with the same zeal that Reno's did, but I'm flirting with a thread-hijack here so I'll stop. :)

I do run 98 occasionally, for games not yet available on Linux (my primary OS) and for Office. I'd like to upgrade at some point, but not to XP. Anyone have experience with Win2K for gaming?
posted by Vetinari at 7:32 AM on October 25, 2001

holgate: i'm with you on that one. my athlon 500 will turn two very soon, so it's not even close to time for me to upgrade. but when i do, i've decided to go mac, and keep my existing computer for a linux box.
posted by lescour at 7:35 AM on October 25, 2001

Vetinari: Diablo II and the XPack run wonderfully on Win2000.

Jen
posted by NsJen at 7:50 AM on October 25, 2001

i'm with most of you guys in thinking that w2k might be my last Microsoft OS. Too many offending elements in XP, notification being primary among them. I spent a few minutes yesterday ogling screen shots of OS X. Pretty cool.


However, as a developer, I find that MS Development tools are far and away the most productive. It's the major reason I haven't already made a switch. Has anyone played with the development toolkit for OS X. How does it compare to Visual Studio?
posted by prodigal at 7:53 AM on October 25, 2001

It seems microsoft took some time to rethink their GUI, which is always a good thing. I reckon that will be the _only_ reason for me to upgrade.
If I upgrade at all -- i'm quite happy with win2000, thank you.

But can anyone tell me what the "comments" does in the top right corner of this screenshot? Immediate feedback to MS, or?


Vetinari: so does Age of empires.
posted by sans at 7:56 AM on October 25, 2001

Jen, sans: thanks. How'd you know Diablo II and AOE are all I've been playing for the past six months? :)
posted by Vetinari at 8:00 AM on October 25, 2001

There are ways around activation and the naging pop-ups...

I've already said too much
posted by Mick at 8:03 AM on October 25, 2001

windows XP has convinced me to buy macintosh, quite honestly. i may buy windows machines if certain games force me to, but hopefully not. if i can simply keep my win98 machine for the purpose of games, that would be the best solution.
posted by moz at 8:05 AM on October 25, 2001

I just came from the launch in Philadelphia at the F.U. Center (yeah, the fuck you center, or first union)...had to go for work, and am home already. The had the little Clippy guy running around and I swear I wanted to fight him. I see no reason to upgrade. The Home version is a downgrade from 2000, which works fine. The Pro version looks cool with the remote desktop and remote control, but I can get the same thing with PCAnywhere, which I already have, and the Pro version is too expensive. I could really care less, and want to see if Lindows takes off. Ok, I doubt it will take off, but a version of Linux that can run Windows apps does seem very appealing to me, anyway. Due out next year, I hope it looks alright.
posted by adampsyche at 8:12 AM on October 25, 2001

Not a chance.

1) I've tried a late beta version and was under whelmed. It's just Windows. More stable than 98, but not more than Win2K. It doesn't do anything new.

2) And with tons of crap that gets in the way. If you loved the Office "paper clip" you'll love XP.

3) Win98 SE will be almost as stable on any system powerful enough to run XP. I run 98 on a P3 500 with 256 RAM and it very rarely crashes.

4) Win2K upgrades are getting cheaper on eBay. This is a highly stable OS that just does the work without the Big Brother ick.

5) XP has the Passport taint all over it. And Passport scares the hell out of me. If Von's knows what vegetables I buy that's one thing, but Microsoft keeping a database on all my online activities is bad. Call it what you want, but I don't trust Microsoft's motives.

6) I just don't need any of this. It doesn't do anything Win95 doesn't do. The bundled apps are of no use since I already have software that does all that stuff.

7) I tend to play with my computer quite a bit. The idea that I'll have to call Microsoft a couple times a year and have them reactivate the OS just sounds stupid.

8) The Microsoft monopoly really gets to me. Having used Linux quite a bit, it seems clear to me that Microsoft's success is mainly due to unfair market practices. The justice department has already said what they did with Win98 was illegal, and XP is even more blatent.

9) At some point we, as consumer, need to send the message that enough is enough. The jump in system requirements for XP keeps us on the path of needing to buy new computers every couple years. We need to start rejecting the bloat. Microsoft is making our computers obsolete and not giving us much in return.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:15 AM on October 25, 2001

If you're careful w/ what you install, and know what everything on your system does, then win95 runs fine. I ran it till last year w/ nary a crash (except for one or two offending gimp filters :) In fact, for most home users, there has been no reason to upgrade since then. And there is no reason now.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:15 AM on October 25, 2001

And I'm steadily convincing myself that The Next Computer, to replace my creaking but still spry 1996 PPro desktop machine, will be a Mac running OS X.

Reading Bugtraq lately has made me pine less for an OS X box. I'm already running a Linux box on the Internet to serve Web sites, so I'm thinking about using it as my main desktop OS at some point.

Holgate: What/who do you cover Windows for?
posted by rcade at 8:15 AM on October 25, 2001

and want to see if Lindows takes off. Ok, I doubt it will take off, but a version of Linux that can run Windows

It certainly will be interesting to see what happens with this OS - aside from the dorky name, it is a good idea. And if anyone can pull it off, it'll be Michael Robertson - hell, he came out relatively unscathed from his scrap with the record labels...
posted by Haveed at 8:29 AM on October 25, 2001

sans: the "Comments?" thing in the menubar is from the evaluation/beta/RC versions of XP. It was there for beta testers to send feedback reports if things didn't work: I'm pretty sure that it was taken out of the release, but I tweaked the registry to take it out of the betas, so can't be certain. (There's still a dialog box in the full version to inform MS after an application crashes.)

rcade: mainly a few UK print magazines. But I've never been known to turn down other offers of work ;)
posted by holgate at 8:54 AM on October 25, 2001

When my Windows PC dies, I will be replacing it with a second Linux and a Mac. No more Windows for me...
posted by fooljay at 9:06 AM on October 25, 2001

I've been using XP Professional at both home and work (upgraded from 98SE), and generally I'm satisfied. The home networking/firewall system was both easy to set up and works properly, although aside from that, I can't think of any other new feature that I really use and appreciate. However, I haven't seen a bluescreen since I installed XP, which makes me very, very happy.
posted by jess at 9:12 AM on October 25, 2001

I've been running the final XP release on my desktop for the past month. It's a dual 333 pentium II w/ 384mb of ram and it runs admirably. It's as stable and fast as win2k, and it's got nice digital media support (digicams, webcams, dv cams, etc)..the interface is fine, i don't really prefer it that much over win2k, and you can make it look like win2k if you want. I happened to get a copy that doesn't require activation *whistles innocently* and it isn't too hard to avoid the passport stuff. It's not a crucial upgrade from win2k, but if you do a lot of gaming/etc, there are going to be a lot more games/devices supported by XP than ever ran in 2k.

As far as linux goes, I used to run it, at times nearly exclusively..but with the cygwin tools, and the fact that 2k/XP _never_ crash for me (apps crash, but i can't remember the last time the OS crashed), and the benefits of IE over ns/mozilla, there's just so little compelling me to run linux.
posted by chacal at 9:14 AM on October 25, 2001

the benefits of IE over mozilla are, these days, few in number i must say.
posted by moz at 9:18 AM on October 25, 2001

kick. his. ass.
posted by adampsyche at 9:35 AM on October 25, 2001

Imagine going home from work after a day as Clippy.

Kids laughing at you, chihuahuas urinating on you...
posted by websavvy at 9:54 AM on October 25, 2001

I wore a Skeletor suit for an afternoon at the Texas State Fair in the '80s. Kids figure out very quickly that you (a) aren't allowed to talk, and (b) aren't allowed to retaliate. It's a tough gig.

the "Comments?" thing in the menubar is from the evaluation/beta/RC versions of XP. It was there for beta testers to send feedback reports if things didn't work: I'm pretty sure that it was taken out of the release ...

It was removed as of Release Candidate 2.
posted by rcade at 10:01 AM on October 25, 2001

I've got a '98 Dell which has 333Mhz and 64MB RAM. Prior to installing RC2 I bought 256MB RAM. I had been using the same install of 98 SE for a little over two years (long story) but it was quite well maintained, so I didn't really have any problems with 98SE, it was fairly stable. Before I continue I should add that I am a power user. so having the same install of an OS for more than say six months is a little odd.

I performed a clean install of XP (Pro), and promptly converted all my drives to NTFS. It recognized all my hardware during the install process and installed their drivers on it's own, which I thought was very cool. Adding my digital camera, printer and scanner to XP was a breeze. A month after using XP, I bought 40gb of HD space. After installation I did not need to reactivate my copy of XP.

I've crashed once in the past 3 months, and that too was because I was trying out some hacked up Voodoo 3 drivers. Driver rollback was handy in solving the problem. All my games except F1 2001 work, the reason F1 2001 doesn't work is because my 3DFX Voodoo 3 video card is not well supported.

As for the .Net I don't have Messenger load on startup and changed the options in Outlook Express so that it's not on when I run OE either. By just changing a setting in one file, you can even uninstall Windows Messenger.

I am no Microsoft Zealot, but as someone who's been using their products since Win 3.1, I have to say that XP is by far the best OS they've made.
posted by riffola at 10:08 AM on October 25, 2001

Win2K upgrades are getting cheaper on eBay.

This may be a strange place to ask this question, (hoping it's not too thread-drifty) but you folks all seem more experinced at this than I. Seeing the above comment, I realized I'd never thought of looking on EBay for Windows, since I know I need to upgrade to either Win2K or XP. I notice some folks selling "OEM" editions of Win2K pretty cheap and apparently Ebay makes them sell bits of hardware with them for some reason? Is there any disadvantage to buying such an edition? I would probably prefer the non-bloat, non-nag 2K over XP, but the difference in price is kinda a sticking point..
posted by dnash at 10:10 AM on October 25, 2001

What I love about this release is the reaction of the Linux/Mac crowd: nothing new to see in XP, move on.

Well, let me disagree: XP is the first windows release (including W2K) that brings to the forefront Windows' files-as-objects concept: file attributes/context commands are shown in the explorer sidebar. Context menus get even better. This is the last step before MSDE (the SQL server data engine) starts running the OS all-out. It's Cairo (the never-released NT 4), aka OS Nirvana.

I believe that last step is codenamed Blackcomb, to be released in 2005 (or only 10 years late, if you're counting). In Blackcomb everything is an object, from files to OS components to application components. Components can be local (Windows) or remote (.Net). The filesystem goes away and becomes a full database.

Yes, I know OS X is doing some of that now. But it stops far short of a data-oriented system and it's crafted on top of Unix, a very tired architecture --I know, I administered NextStep machines a short 10 years ago. Blackcomb will be the killer OS, make no mistake about it: it will be the Platform. Of course, I would rather have a non-evil company running the Platform, but if they can bring it to market, I don't care.
posted by costas at 10:14 AM on October 25, 2001

OEM editions require to be sold with some hardware. Usually it's a power cable or something. There is no real disadvantage to buying an OEM copy.
posted by riffola at 10:18 AM on October 25, 2001

I’ve used XP for a little bit at work and have not that much to complain about.

what I didn’t like:
I couldn't figure out how to remove that damn windows messaging thing. I’m sure that Tweak UI or some other utility that will emerge will get rid of it along with passport annoyances.

My company runs a Novell network and so far Novell hasn't release an official client for XP yet. but; the MS Novell client seems to work flawlessly.

I only ran into a few things that didn’t work right. I’m sure after patches, new drivers, SPs, ect things will be fine.

Things I liked:
Stability and Speed. Specifically internet speed. Maybe its IE6, maybe MS beefed up their IP stack for XP. I don’t know. All I know is that I and my IT manager did notice the internet respond significantly faster.

The skinning possibilities. Being one who enjoys cool wallpapers and icon and anything else that makes the desktop look cool and easy on the eyes the alpha blending, 16 bit color icons and all the other modding possibilities has reached a new level. I’m not talking about Plus theme or that kind of crap. Sites like deviantart.com and customize.org will be filled with eye candy themes and skins for XP.

There was a bunch of stuff in it I didn’t even get a chance to look at but giving the time there are number of nifty additions, like the ability to rename many files at once verses clicking on each file over and over again, that will be useful.

System requirements don’t matter to me, I’m a gamer. My system will handle anything thrown at it.

The only thing consumers can do is simply not buy it or buy new PCs without XP on it (which will be virtually impossible for the common PC user) if they don’t like it.
MS got to be the king of the mountain by being smart. I don’t like there monopoly either but they play the game of capitalism very well and that’s what business is all about these days.

All I’m going to say about XP’s activation thing is volume licensing is a wonderful thing.
posted by Qambient at 10:30 AM on October 25, 2001

Sooner or later, there will be some specific application that I want to run that will require Windows XP rather than 9X. At that time, I will purchase XP when needed in order to run that other program; I certainly see no reason to buy it on its own merits or lack thereof.
posted by harmful at 10:36 AM on October 25, 2001

Re: OSX Dev Tools:

I'm not a programmer, but I can tell you that I hate Visual Basic Studio and I love the OSX Dev tools. They come with every box of OSX, and I made a program without even knowing what I was doing.

It was a currency converter, so I obviously didn't use anything more complicated than a math function, but still. I was impressed.
posted by jragon at 10:39 AM on October 25, 2001

Paul Thurrott's site WinSupersite.com has tips and tricks for XP, which include the trick that'll let you uninstall Messenger.
posted by riffola at 10:40 AM on October 25, 2001

I have faith that my year old Win ME computer will last for another few years, through the releases of a few more Operating Systems. By that time, if Microsoft hasn't gotten it's act together on the spy/nagware game and realized this simple, simple concept: Consumers want to do their business with you and forget about you, they don't want a forced relationship, and when they want help or upgrades they'll come back; I'm going in either the Mac or Linux direction.
posted by tomorama at 11:14 AM on October 25, 2001

Vetinari, what consumer OS do you know of that comes without any (relatively complex) bundled apps? And why do you want to prevent my grandfather from being able to do simple manipulation of some images he got off his digital camera w/o having to install a third-party app? No one is going to force *you* to use these. This seems like such a non-issue.
posted by JasonSch at 11:41 AM on October 25, 2001

Windows machines come with all that stuff anyway, either through bundling or with the camera's software.
posted by jragon at 12:03 PM on October 25, 2001

Beats that annoying clip from hell any day...


Imagine going home from work after a day as Clippy.

Kids laughing at you, chihuahuas urinating on you...

Don't you guys/girls have Lynks?
There are days I open Word just to look at her. (I always work in WP, which is much better of course, but doesn't have delightful lynks)
posted by ginz at 12:31 PM on October 25, 2001

costas -

Nothing new to see in XP, move on.

harmful -

I think that Window Media Player 8 will require XP.
posted by jlachapell at 12:52 PM on October 25, 2001

... what's the matter with Teletubbies?

*sniffle*

I feel so unloved...
posted by po at 1:09 PM on October 25, 2001

I am hearing alot of talk about Win98 not crashing much, and Win2k being more stable, etc... I recently bought a Mac G4 867MHz running OSX and it doesn't crash. Sure some programs (namely Internet Explorer, coincidentally) crash, but never the OS. It just says, "Internet Explorer closed unexpectedly, nothing else was affected."

And about the icons. If you want some @#$@ing beautiful icons, you need to look at OSX, they are simply amazing.

One last thing about the interface, my roomate installed XP to check it out and I saw it. They crossed the line in making an interface look nice and easy to use: they made it look like it was for a kid. OSX could easily be used by a kid, but it doesn't make a person like me, with several years of experience on computers feel like I need a paperclip to tell me how to type. And if you are afraid of learning a new OS, it only took me a couple of days to be completely used to OSX and OS9, now I can't stand Windows interface, it seems completely unnatural.

Just something to think about.
posted by untuckedshirts at 1:14 PM on October 25, 2001

Po, you betrayed the innocents when you outed yourself. Don't get all surprised now.

The only way you could have done worse would have been to reveal a secret love child with clippy (which I guess would be the nylon-plastic clips, in bright colors).
posted by dwivian at 2:41 PM on October 25, 2001

looks like a g4 and osx for me, when i get the money... until then, i guess i'll just uninstall ME on my computer and get a copy of win2k for 5 dollars (college does have SOME benefits.).
posted by lotsofno at 8:33 PM on October 25, 2001

Why is it that no one has really given concrete reasons for choosing MacOS X over XP (other than untuckedshirts getting all tingly about the icons)? The only thing that's being proffered is "too many notifications in XP", which is absurd. You get one of the uber tool-tips when you first access the 'net, asking if you want to open a Passport account. You'll get another one periodically asking you to activate windows (which obviously goes away once you do). You'll also occassionally get notifications about Windows Update (which is very cool and means there's no reason to wait for an SP). It's really not a huge deal; most people are apprently complaining about the notifications w/o having ever used the thing. That's weak.

And XP has tons of cool new stuff. Fast User Switching and remote assistance are probably reason enough for most home users to upgrade.

P.S. -- Qambient, you can get keep the instant messenger client from starting up by choosing Tools->Options->Preferences and unchecking "Run this program when Windows starts". This doesn't uninstall it, but you'll never have to deal with it again.
posted by JasonSch at 8:58 PM on October 25, 2001

I recently bought a Mac G4 867MHz running OSX and it doesn't crash.

You know, I've always been a pc guy, and I've always heard that phrase ad nauseam. I always doubted it, but had no actual experience to back up my doubts.

Then over the spring I flew cross country to visit a sister who does the graphic layout for a 'grocery store' magazine. She worked on a g3, as did everyone in her office (about 10 people). Off the cuff I said, "and it never crashes, huh?", at which point she said it did crash, and I quote, "quite often". She said some on the floor crashed more than others, but they all crashed.

About a month later my fiance's sister bought one of the new titanium powerbooks. She's had it now for a few months and yes, this one also crashes.

My point is not that windows is more stable than the mac OS. I'm sure it's not. But this belief thought that macs never crash and windows crashes daily is simply misleading. I'm running win98 and it hardly ever crashes. Operating systems crash, no matter what you're running. So if you have a mac OR pc that doesn't crash by all means keep it because it's an exception to the rule. In fact, I'd say your computer is a miracle sent by God.

It's also interesting the number of posters who will be 'switching to a mac/linux box' for their next computer. I wish we could look two years ahead to get the actual numbers. I'm guessing most will never make the switch. Call it a hunch.
posted by justgary at 12:03 AM on October 26, 2001

UNIX never crashes.... nyah nyah...
posted by fooljay at 6:10 PM on October 27, 2001

Hope this feature crashes a lot (login: metafilter, kittens).
posted by walrus at 1:28 AM on October 28, 2001

I use to work in hospital records. We used UNIX. It did in fact 'crash'.

...nyah nyah...
posted by dantheman at 4:31 AM on October 28, 2001