zero2dash

Ok, I've got a question...

I've been running XP with a few issues here or there but nothing big. I initially went with XP because it's the only Windows OS that supports Hyperthreading (minus maybe the 2003 Server line), but with the repeated...and repeated...and repeated...and...(you get the hint) holes in XP, and all this ridiculous talk about SP2 already having flaws...I'm beginning to seriously consider going back to 2000 Pro.

***I guess essentially I'm running into a "performance vs. stability" problem and I'm wanting to know...is Hyperthreading really all that?***

I mainly use my box for net surfing and BitTorrent...some design work here and there, and some 3d gaming (Quake 3 Arena and Doom 3). I use CS Suite for design (among others) but I don't go all filter crazy in Photoshop, so if Hyperthreading is at work, it's probably not doing all that much. Is there any hard evidence supporting a big leap in Hyperthreading being worthwhile, or should I just safely go back to 2000 Pro and ignore the next news story about "Critical Update for Windows XP"?

Bires

I beleive Win2000 does support hypertheading. I don't think it does much in games. It should help with graphic and video editting.

I have been thinking the same things lately. I have come to really hate WinXP since I installed SP2. It's about as solid an OS as Win95.

__________________
Five years...

DarkFury

So what problems did SP2 cause? I haven't loaded it yet....

__________________


DarkFury's Pimptopia - Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Game!
Home of the Original OG Pimp (accept NO imitations)

Maarchk

My computer coughed twice and then threw up parts all over the floor.... Its still recovering... I'm back to no sp2 and i'm thinking of maybe loading linux

__________________
"The girl is crafty like ice is cold."

"I left my heart in san francisco... And my liver at Moe's Tavern."

A real friend is one who listens to you as much as they talk to you.

redcolours

hm. i havent experienced problesm with XP SP2 at all. works fine for me.

i personally would rather try the SP2 (or other software) first before i start believing what people are saying or writing about it, whether theyve been professionally or methodically or scientifically measured. ive had too many experiences where people say its the best thing since sliced bread, and it was utter crap for me. Then theres a time where i thought it worked the best with me, and people around say its garbage.
plus its not as if win2k isnt full of holes either, but with a lot more people using XP, those fkrs who write spyware and worms and trojans and virii (oh my!) tend to write their garbage more for XP. Its easy to find a flaw if you truly look hard for it. theyre just focused more on XP.
and really majority of the security issues arise out of simply being careless of where you go to online, or what you put in your system, or what you open in your email. of course you take precautions (update with the latest patches, virus definitions, etc). its like a vampire - they dont come in til you ask them to.
but if it really is that bad for you AFTER YOUVE TRIED IT FOR YOURSELF, then simply go back to what was working for you. simple as that. GHOST is your friend. (aint i right, DF? )
i know people still swear by windows98 SE, and others still prefer win2k. it works for them, and they see no reason to use whatever bleeding edge software is out there.
to each his/her/its own.

__________________
there are pictures, but no,nothing happens on my site.

Dave_7

Yeah, this post successfully written on XP SP2.



Dave.

zero2dash

The thing I'm mainly basing this on is what I've read today all over the web (C/Net, Yahoo namely) about XP SP2 already being flawed. Me at least - I don't have the tools to test these things like other people do. And the people in the know (or at least that's what I'd tend to believe) say that XP SP2 has flaws. Granted, we're talking about a Windows OS here, and more importantly, a Microsoft product...where...flaws just don't happen...ever. </sarcasm> Usually with opinions, I check things out for myself, absolutely. But in a case like this - I can't test XP's holes or flaws myself so I, like most people, rely on the thoughts and results of others.


True, 2000 has it's flaws but it's easy to see where 2000 is one end of the spectrum and XP is at the other. Obviously - most home computer users (and by this, I don't mean people like us - "smart users") upgraded their ME boxes to XP or just bought their first computer and it came with XP. XP has (and still is) sold to the masses as the operating system to use. Most of us know how to securely keep our computers running top notch...but of course the average computer user doesn't know not to open an email attachment from someone they don't know, etc. so yeah, XP is the primary target when it comes to viruses and the like.

I guess when I think about the security of 2000 vs. the security of XP, all you have to look at is the number of updates you have to download when you install each. I think the last time I fresh installed 2000 (roughly 6 months ago), I had an initial 7 or 8 updates including SP4. XP on the other hand was in the 30-40 updates range. That's insane...


True all around...Ghost is a lifesaver that's for sure.
I guess though, like I mentioned in my initial post I'm aiming to find out if Hyperthreading in XP will really give me a big enough boost to warrant using it. According to Intel, the Win2000 family doesn't support Hyperthreading; you can use a Hyperthread CPU *with* 2000 but it won't see it as 2 cpu's like XP will. (AFAIK)

Jeffbx

Hang on - the number of security updates has absolutely nothing to do with how secure an OS is. XP SP2 is MS's first attempt at making a REALLY secure OS. XP off the shelf is more secure than W2K, and W2K will never even come *close* to the level of security that XP SP2 has.

If you're looking for the perfect OS, you might as well chuck your PC out the window, because it doesn't exist. Every one of them has flaws, security problem, will crash occasionally, and will give you setup problems. HOWEVER, IMHO, XP is the best OS I've ever worked with. Hold off on SP2 if you're nervous about it. Grab yourself a hardware firewall and don't even worry about SP2.

So yes, of COURSE SP2 is flawed. Every OS in existance is 'flawed'. There is no perfect OS. You just need to pick what works for you & what you're comfortable with. In my opinion, XP is the most stable, secure & user friendly OS out there. I would never recommend that anyone move back to W2K from XP.

To answer your hyperthreading question - it WILL make a difference in processor heavy applications that are written to take advantage of multiple threads or multiple processors. However, there aren't a lot of these apps in the home market. For your situation, HT will make a difference in Photoshop & other Adobe apps, as well as in 3D gaming. Not a lot of games currently take advantage of multiple processors, but that is changing, and I can see the day where every 3D game will support multiple threads.

Bires

Divine Divinity and Gunbound crash to the desktops alot now
My computer gets hit with adware now, more than ever, even with the windows firewall on.
IE will try to load a page and just sit there...so I switched to firefox, witch also will refuse to load pages sometimes, requiring me to reload them for them to come up.

All these problems are new, since I installed SP2. I've had to spend a lot more time running adware killers and registry cleaners.

DarkFury

Umm yeah... right.

So what REALLY happened...?

EDIT: After seeing everyone's comments... I have ghosted my system just in case, however I'll probably go ahead and load SP2 anyways.

I ain't NEVER SKUUURED...