May 15, 2002

8:26 AM

Windows XP Pro for $40!Microsoft is running a special offer where 'partners' can buy Windows XP for >85% off the retail price (free baseball too); all that's (realistically) needed is a .NET passport account. Since the MeFites had such fun buying cameras, I figured I'd throw this out for discussion; it does seem to involve a wee bit of misrepresentation to take advantage of.
posted by boaz (20 comments total)

it does seem to involve a wee bit of misrepresentation to take advantage of

Using obvious misrepresentation to get a copy of Windows XP. Obviously a perfect example of the punishment far outweighing the crime.
posted by pixelgeek at 8:41 AM on May 15, 2002

I wouldn't use XP if they paid me to use it.
posted by borgle at 9:40 AM on May 15, 2002

Oddly, I found XP rather easy to use. Not bad at all. Of course, I also use plenty of command-line systems, so maybe a graphical system is simply a change of pace. In the mean time I'll just wish I had my laptop back, since the flat-panel blew out.....
posted by dwivian at 9:50 AM on May 15, 2002

Windows XP Profi rocks. I'm glad you brought up this offer so my small, small company can afford Windows XP and not resort to stealing it.
posted by Hammerikaner at 9:56 AM on May 15, 2002

I like XP.
I installed it a few weeks ago, and have only rebooted about three times since then. The system never crashed, although single programs have. No bluescreens.
The zip-as-folder implementation and image folders are nice, the new look and new start menu have been disabled.
There's no noticeable performance difference to Win98 on my PII/400 with 256 MB-RAM.
posted by c3o at 9:59 AM on May 15, 2002

Already ordered. This will be my "legal" copy.

XP > 9x, fer sure. Much more stable, and has crashed maybe once since installing it two months ago. Works with all my apps, handles my freaky hardware just fine.

Like how when I sort my various images of naked über-bitch Malice that I get slideshow and thumbnails. Works for me.
posted by johnnydark at 10:07 AM on May 15, 2002

I took advantage of a similar offer for microsoft's "channel partners" (heh heh) last fall. I'm glad I did -- I like it. Those who don't -- why not? Just the usual antiRedmondism?
posted by luser at 10:21 AM on May 15, 2002

It's funny, everyone talks about how WinXP is much more stable and it has only crashed a handful of time since installing it. But I have never had a real problem with Windows 98.

Since I installed a new hard drive in my Win98 box, it hasn't crashed even once ( 5 months and counting ) and I reboot once a week, maybe.

The dang thing is more reliable than my Mac OSX boxen.
posted by Localemperor at 10:38 AM on May 15, 2002

I've had pretty opposite luck, Localemperor. My main rig, a Tibook running OS X, has been rock-solid from 10.0 all the way up to 10.1.4. Meanwhile, my home-built Athlon PC running an OEM WinME crashes about twice a week, can't go to sleep because it automatically reboots when I try to wake it up and doesn't recognize my CD burner as anything but a player despite the fact that I installed the software that came with it. Blah. OTOH, running Win2k at work has been a joy; I've installed all sorts of crazy stuff with no ill effects and only had a couple of crashes.
posted by boaz at 10:55 AM on May 15, 2002

Wow, Localemperor - My Win98 used to run out of memory all the time and had to be rebooted once every 20 hours or so -- if Explorer.exe/IE/etc crashes didn't take it down even before that.
posted by c3o at 11:24 AM on May 15, 2002

Windows coming from OEMs, no matter the version, is almost always tons more stable than Windows installed by the end-user. After all, the OEM can pick and choose the hardware! I have a Dell running WinME, allegedly the rockiest of all post-Win95 releases, and it's only given me the teensiest of trouble (excluding flimsy hardware, this is Dell's value line).

XP is more reliable because of the kernel structure, which prevents one program's crash from taking down the whole OS. Win9x was always hampered by the cooperative tasking model extant since Windows 2.x. Just made it more fragile by principle, let alone in practice.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 AM on May 15, 2002

dhartung:

That is the really odd thing. My win98 box is a hodge podge of parts. Some are new ( brand new Tyan Trinity mobo) and some are really, really old ( 8 year old NEC 8x CD-ROM). It defies all logic.
posted by Localemperor at 11:50 AM on May 15, 2002

Since I installed a new hard drive in my Win98 box, it hasn't crashed even once ( 5 months and counting ) and I reboot once a week, maybe.

Try loading some software on it.

*HarHar*
posted by a_green_man at 12:17 PM on May 15, 2002

I'm with Borgle. I wouldn't run XP if you paid me. It's not the usual antiRedmondism, it's preference.

XP may blow the doors off Windows98, but let's be honest -- that's not saying much. The real battle is between XP, OSX, and Gnome or KDE -- and OSX is the big winner.

I want stability and power with the best interface, and no upsells from Microsoft. OSX is a godsend.
posted by jragon at 12:33 PM on May 15, 2002

I got my XP and visual studio.net free at an academic release event. Heard about it through deelspree. It was a month-maker for me!

Oh and I love XP. Rock solid and easy to use.
posted by srboisvert at 12:45 PM on May 15, 2002

I XP
posted by viama at 1:34 PM on May 15, 2002

I use XP all day at work, supporting it amoung other things, Active Directory is a pain in the ass and XP is really just a 2k client spruced up to hog more memory, its still the same old windows OS, albeit it one that isnt a horrible obomination that say 98 was.

OS X lives on my ibook, and I couldnt be happier, anything that isnt handled by the bright my mom could use it with no training interface can be handled with the lovely terminal application.

The best part is I use OSX to troubleshoot XP issues at work. wireless? locations? xp is still lacking, and dont even get me started on application and hardware support, I love the stickers you see at the computer store these days "will not work with XP"

lol
posted by vincentmeanie at 4:02 PM on May 15, 2002

For those of us who are already using Win2K, it's pretty hard to get excited about WinXP (even though we did the icons for it.) There's not much difference between the two other than the cleaned up UI. Stability is about equal.

The best upgrade these days is Mac OS X. I'm finding it very stable, usable and a nice change from the normal battles to get the OS work the way I want.

As an example, I installed Jakarta Tomcat on an iMac in about 15 minutes (first time). Doing the same thing on Windows took me a few hours.

The Mac is now much more than a wonderful platform on which to run Photoshop. I'm getting back into Unix in a big way...
posted by Chief Typist at 4:48 PM on May 15, 2002

You call Luna a cleaned up UI?

Luna Silver may have a very remote claim at it. Luna default is not a cleaned up UI, it is a fucked up UI.

MacOS X is cool, yeah.
posted by azazello at 10:43 PM on May 15, 2002

XP is more reliable because of the kernel structure, which prevents one program's crash from taking down the whole OS.

Except IE, which runs in GOD mode and gets preference before the kernel. MS had to make IE run faster somehow.
posted by Nauip at 6:50 PM on May 21, 2002