XPee: Not the one for me

Silver Blade

unread,

Nov 6, 2001, 1:00:09 PM11/6/01

to

Tried XP, thought it looked great, was disappointed by the lack of drivers
for it, it then stopped detecting hardware, Device Manager kept hanging,
several BSODs later, I got fed up and have restored the image of 2000 I made
before I installed XP.

2000 is MUCH faster. And better at multitasking - I'm currently burning a
CD, writing this, and browsing the web at the same time.

I couldn't even get my modem working in XP!

Until hardware developers and/or Microsoft can get their act together, I'm
sticking with 2000. XP is too "beginner"ish for me, I'm afraid.

-SB

lee

unread,

Nov 6, 2001, 1:57:23 PM11/6/01

to

Silver Blade wrote:

I had an HSP modem that worked first time in XP, this modem wouldn't
work in either W98/ME or W2k.

Lee :-)

MattH

unread,

Nov 6, 2001, 2:08:30 PM11/6/01

to

drivers always seem to be a problem with new MS OS releases... I'm also
interested in how the gaming industry handles XP. Typically, game makers
seem to take the easy road and just not support the NT line. If game makers
start to support XP (I don't see how they can afford not to) then i will
take a look at it.

-matt

"Silver Blade" <silverb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9s98g0$fqc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

ThE SlAyER cOmEtH

unread,

Nov 6, 2001, 2:58:04 PM11/6/01

to

i was burning discs srfing and printing all within xp within hours of
installl had no trouble with drivers apart from modem which i had to tell xp
which one to use,,,, now i installed a modem i had in the cupboard that
hasnt run well in ages and im on it now with the fastes connection i ever
did get..... i think its down to personal preferance,,,, why upgrade when
everything works for you in the os you have... well because we crave
adventure and need to try new things,,, this is the human way.... going back
to your old os is just being safe and we respect that here.... good luck
either way xp or 2000...

--
SoMe PeOpLe MeReLEy Sip FrOm ThE FoUnTaIn Of KnoWlEdGe
WhErAs OthErS DrInK HeAvIly....::::''''::::....

Ryan Faricy

unread,

Nov 6, 2001, 8:33:24 PM11/6/01

to

In Win2k I had to install 5 drivers. In XP, which is faster, I had to
install NO drivers.

"Silver Blade" <silverb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9s98g0$fqc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

Nobody_of_Consequence

unread,

Nov 6, 2001, 10:16:37 PM11/6/01

to

Maybe you're too "beginner"ish for Windows XP. Didn't you bother to
check hw compatibility BEFORE installing a new OS? Also you can't
make valid performance comparisons with a OS that you did NOT
properly install. Even win 9x would be faster and more stable than a
botched
install of XP!

YF

"Silver Blade" <silverb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9s98g0$fqc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

John B

unread,

Nov 7, 2001, 12:07:00 PM11/7/01

to

Nobody_of_Consequence wrote:

> Maybe you're too "beginner"ish for Windows XP. Didn't you bother to
> check hw compatibility BEFORE installing a new OS? Also you can't
> make valid performance comparisons with a OS that you did NOT
> properly install. Even win 9x would be faster and more stable than a
> botched
> install of XP!
>
> YF

Heh...what happened to XP being *THE* new M$ product to have? What about people
who buy a new system with it already globbed onto their hdd...is that going to
be a bad thing since it might be their first computer and they're just "too
beginner-ish" for it? Your statement makes absolutely no sense if you're trying
to use it as an argument to have the 'ultimate' new mess of an OS.

John
--
If Billy boy's got you by the cods, break free and use Linux!

Never Mind

unread,

Nov 8, 2001, 10:38:42 PM11/8/01

to

I second that.

"ThE SlAyER cOmEtH" <je...@speakingemail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mhXF7.22293$N16.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...