XP Upgrade Arguments

What are some arguments for and against upgrading to XP? I'm looking to try and find some real information beyond the standard "baby-food" type stuff (greatest thing since sliced bread they always say) I see in all the magazines...

1) What are the program issues and changes?
2) Is this product verification stuff (it's bs already it sounds like and it's already kept me from even thinking about the upgrade up to this point) going to cause any problems (loss of privacy, loss of ability to reinstall or run on upgraded hardware)?
3) Are there any program incompatibilities in any cases? I know DOS is out of the question and 3.1 is questionable...but are there any 95,98,Me, NT, 2K programs I should watch? Any programs I should look at upgrading right away?

Background: I've run the M$ upgrade advisor and it checks out. I've had to rebuild my machine and just formatted my hard drive (on another machine right now). Running Me right now and not stable (as it ever has been). I do long-term processing in terms of video/audio processing, cd-burning, etc, as well as game playing and the regular stuff.

Thanks in advance.

This is just my opinion, but the way I see it, is that it's just a GUI OS. Everybody is always looking for in depth reasons why or why not to upgrade. But really it's not that complicated of an issue.

Some reasons to upgrade:
1) Just as stable as Windows NT or 2000, plus has more multimedia functionality. If computer crashes bother you, then XP or 2000 might be the OS for you.
2) Offers IE6 built in which is also more stable and more functional than 5.5 or lower.
3) Makes is easy to setup a home network. Anyone can do it with XP.

Some reasons not to upgrade:
1) Costs a little more than previous versions (not much though).
2) Some hardware and software (mainly games) is still not compatible.

I think before upgrading, one should consider what it is that they want the OS to do for them. And then decide if the OS purchase they're going to make will be able to do those things. Is Need for Speed compatible with XP? No? Ok then, I guess I won't buy it then. Does my computer meet the requirements for being able to run XP? No? Then I guess I'll have to wait.

It's really user specific as to whether or not to upgrade. XP is merely a toolbox that keeps your tools handy for when you want to use them. And if some of your tools won't fit in the toolbox, then maybe this isn't the toolbox for you. For instance, just yesterday, I just went to install JDK1.3.1 on my XP desktop system. In ME, I like being able to type msconfig, and add path attributes that way and add my classpath attibutes also. But in XP or 2000, it's a bit different. So I ended up installing JDK on my laptop instead. It's kinda like that or something. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Well....here goes....

I like Win XP and now that I have it running, I enjoy it and admire it for the reliability and stability. Some people complain thaey don't like the new interface. Well, there just happens to be a "clasic" GUI that most everyone will be familiar with. I do virtually everything on my home machine. I game, edit video and pics, web design, and cad. I use all manner of programs from Photoshop6 to Autocad2002. Virtualdub, Dreamweaver, Morpheus, WinMx, NAV, WS FTP, Nero, etc.

I've never had one of them crash or lock up.

I play Black & White, Land Warrior, AquaNox, RTCW, Flight Simulator 2002, Alice, 3DM2K & 3DM2k1.... no probs.

I use a digital camera(usb) a dazzle capture device(usb{no coments necessary, SCUBA}) two printers(Hp and Epson) and again no problems.

To get to this point, I must have formatted and installed XP about 12 times. Wouldn't recognize my CL Live!(on ABIT KG-7) untill I switched PCI slots and upgraded the drivers. I also had major headaches with my HPT370 drivers. It took me a week to fix that. Before I fixed the prob, I had the performance rating of a 166MMX in SiSoft Sandra and I currently have a AMD XP1600+ overclocked to 1800+! I couldn't even play an MP3.

Anyway, I hope this helps you out a little. Sorry for the mile long post.
GG

"If it ain't broke don't fix it." If your system is running fine and never crashes, keep it that way. On the other hand, if your system is unstable you might as well upgrade to XP.
From my own experience, XP very rarely crashes and it has a lot of neat little bonuses that you'll find here and there...also it is very customizable which is always nice. But if you have no need t upgrade...then why bother?

I like XP since it is stable and based on the NT code rather than DOS
I went back to ME and I found that ME is not as stable as XP SO I am back to my XP
Just buy the XP upgrade , do a clean install after you back up your data ( You can use Norton ghost to back up your entire drive to CDRs or another partition of your drive , It is easy to restore your data after you get XP and Norton installed )
Win XP set up will ask for proof of a previous OS, Just toss in you Win ME or 98 full version cd, and follow the prompts

I've been on a home PC running XP Pro as an upgrade of ME. Absolutely like it.

Biggest plus? Stability.

Troubles? Scanners, imaging devices, CD Burning apps.

Dislikes? The Crayola interface. Changed back to windows "Classic" view within ten minutes of loading the program!

Likes? Admin Tools, ME's Restore function.

Id definately go with XP, its excellent to work with and i havent had a crash yet. Only problems are things like scanner drivers etc, but if there isnt an XP one available then just use windows 2000 versions(thats all ive done). Software problems that ive noticed are Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but that is sorted with patches from the site. HTH

Mick

If your running Windows 2000 SP2, then there isn't much reason to upgrade, if you can live without the few new features. I found Win2k to still be more stable than XP. But I do like the XP interface.

I used to be a die hard linux user, I still like it but M$ has really done it this time, I think XP is the best and most stable os that I have ever used. I have been using it for over 2 months and I have yet to have a proggie crash on me. Its built in cd burning is very nice because you dont have to open a program every time that you burn (small time saver but it comes in handy) IMHO the reliability far surpasses that of NT and 2k.

As far as the program compatibility goes, I have came across a few programs that would not work (mostly game emulators) but with the built in program compatibility wizard it fixed it in no time flat. The one thing that you do want to watch out for is that the boot disk that it makes is just DOS no tools at all.

You may want to try going to <a href="http://www.bootdisk.com" target="_blank">www.bootdisk.com</a> and making an old windows 98 boot disk.

The "crayola" appearance may look childish, but it is much easier on the eyes.

I say if your machine can handle it go for it

[quote]Originally posted by Radical Dreamer:
<strong>

As far as the program compatibility goes, I have came across a few programs that would not work (mostly game emulators) but with the built in program compatibility wizard it fixed it in no time flat.

The "crayola" appearance may look childish, but it is much easier on the eyes.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I suppose I should clarify...it's not really the "look" of XP I don't like, but the fact that I'm a] used to doing things in the same way as to navigating around windows, and b] I have this subconscious dislike of the resource usage that "shadowing" everything involves. [Even knowing that it really doesn't take all that much to do it.]

What really interested me is your comment on the compatibility wizard...I have never been able to get an application working by using it!!! Might be time to try again!