Windows XP is an excellent multimedia operating system. With the included Windows Media Player 8 (upgradable to 9), you can play nearly any kind of multimedia you could ever want on your desktop computer. The layout is ideal for playing movies, though I'd still suggest something more compact for music. Along with Media Player, you get Windows Movie Maker, for editing your digital movies. Windows XP is also extremely easy to use with scanners and digital cameras, since Explorer now has nice thumbnailing and preview support.

Windows XP Professional is also an excellent business-oriented operating system. With the stability of Windows 2000, Windows XP is not prone to random crashing. Unlike Windows9x, Windows XP will stand up to whatever you throw at it and keep on chugging. Stability aside, it also has very nice business-oriented tools such as Remote Desktop and Remote Assistance. Remote Desktop allows you to login remotely, while Remote Assistance allows you to share your desktop with another machine, either for collaboration or support purposes.

If you depend on multimedia or you use a version of Windows older than Windows 2000, I would highly suggest you invest in this product. It is well worth the time. There is much I didn't mention here that you will find useful.

Five years ago, this review would have just said, "Buy the MS OS -- you don't have a real choice." Sure, there were alternatives, but compatibility and support issues made them impractical for most people. But that's changing. So now a review of XP boils down to, "Should you consider an alternative"?

Note that I did not say "a better alternative". True believers in the competing OSs (and for most users, the competition is either MacOS or Linux) tend to get pretty religious about why their systems are better than Windows. And they're not entirely wrong. But these issues are mostly irrelevent to the average computer user.

Let's look at the two alternatives one at a time. First, MacOS, which only runs on Apple Macintosh hardware. Mac true believers claim that Mac hardware is fundamentally superior to the Intel/IBM design that most PCs use. And, in point of fact, I think they're probably right. Problem is, that superiority is at a level that just doesn't matter to the typical computer user. Yes, a 1GHz Mac will outperform a 1GHz PC. But even a 1GHz PC is a lot more computing power than most people need.

And this technical superiority is not free. Because they put more work into it, and because a lot of the tech is proprietary, Macs just plain cost more.

Still, you should strongly consider a Mac if you're totally intimidated by computers. Mac is the only system designed from the ground up with usability in mind.

Then there's the compatibility issue. That's less of a problem than it used to be. It's still true that most Windows software just isn't available for the Mac. But what software do most people need? They need basic internet software, which the Mac has. And they need office productivity software. Nowadays, that market is also dominated by Microsoft. But MS Office has a Mac version. Sharing Mac files with Windows users used to be a hassle, but Mac OS X does a lot to ease that problem.

The second alternative is Linux. The big advantage here is licensing costs. It's illegal to install a single licensed copy of Windows on multiple systems -- and with Windows XP, Microsoft has added feature that make it technically difficult as well. This is not an issue with Linux, which places no restriction at all on multiple installations or duplicating the installation CDs. If you're a programmer, you can even modify a Linux distribution and distribute it as your own product. Which is, of course, why there are so many Linux distributions. And also why people who enjoy fiddling with technology love Linux.

But what about everybody else? Is Linux a realistic alternative to Windows XP? I think it depends on who you are, what you need your computer to do, and how important the cost savings are.

Now, if you absolutely need to run certain Windows software, or your web browser just has to be 100% compatible with Internet Explorer, than Linux is just not an alternative. The compatibility gap between Windows and Linux is getting smaller every day, but it's still pretty big. And if something you need to do falls in the gap, you're stuck. And the gap will never close completely. For example, sharing word processor files will never be seamless and foolproof, unless you can somehow make the word processor work under Linux -- WP file formats are just too unstructured and complex.

On the other hand, if you're on a budget and compatibility is not an issue, Linux is a very serious alternative to Windows. This is especially true if you're in a position to burn your own installation CDs, either from borrowed originals or ISO images freely -- and legally -- available on the net. Amazon doesn't allow reviewers to post URLs, but ISO images are not hard to find, using your favorite web search engine.

As I mentioned, there are a lot of different Linux distributions. Most of my own experience is with Red Hat, which has the largest user community in English-speaking countries, and is thus on the top of my recommended list.

I've also been intrigued by Lycoris Linux, though I haven't gotten round to trying it. Most Linux distributions are made by and for techies, so they throw in every piece of free software a techie might want to play with. Lycoris focuses on providing a simple coherent package for the typical computer user.

Some of the great upsides is the user handling. It's very similar to 2k (Documents and Settings instead of Profiles) but it gives just a little more control over the users and the way users sign on and off. Changing logins no longer requires a pseudo restart of the system.

Professional also does not require registration, unlike Home edition. Once the liscenses are purchased then there is no point in registering a thousand corporate PC's that were probably all imaged to begin with. This isn't anything new over 2k but the XPHome edition would pout and hold its breath until it turned blue in the face waiting for that registration.

The system also handles a lot better with program crashes and lockups. Never once have I had it freeze; neither have I seen the Blue screen of death. It uses the error sending screen in place of this. However, it is very sensitive to program's not responding and many times it won't wait for programs to get back up and start running again, it will just shut the app down. A few apps I use have a few instances where they await input from network machines... well XP thought the programs weren't responding and shut them down. I have found it a very stable system as far as it is concerned, many programs have since become unstable in their own right. If you decide to go XP, be cautious, very cautious. You may wind up sending every one of them back and having to rebuild your machines from scratch. Final note: 1 out of 8 times the XP OSunistall has worked (which returns the system to the original operating system, I don't suggest loading XP ontop of another system anyway) but every time the system restore has worked like it's always meant to work.

This is really the closest you can get to a truly standard OS for all types of users, except system administators obviously. We are getting closer to not having different Windows flavors running around anymore.

The acceptance of this OS will gradually relieve developers from having to design multi-platform applications, a major headache in the past. As of this writing, Windows 95 has almost been phased out, and almost every piece of software is written for Windows XP (Home and Professional)

I've tested this OS on my personal laptop (Thinkpad T-21) and several Pentium family desktops (P-III 750Mhz and P-IV 2.4Ghz) with many different software and hardware combinations without major issues. Software drivers are becoming quickly available for all types of hardware. In terms of software applications, I had to wait a bit longer for a few applications to become XP compatible.

As with any OS, the compatibility issues were higher when the OS was released, but now you will not find as many, unless you still own very old pieces of hardware and software. This is in my opinion the primary factor when deciding wether to upgrade or to stay where you are.

I will not get into the features of the OS, as they are very well described by Amazon and other reviewers, what I can tell you is what I consider the major highlights of this OS:

* Great multimedia features - MovieMaker, Media Player. Windows Explorer has also been expanded with options to manage digital media such as pictures and music. Multimedia devices are installed and configured easier than ever

* CD Burning options built in - Creating a music or data CD is as easy as drag and drop. It may not be the most efficient burning system, but its a good place to start

* Administrative Tools - The Disk administrator, along with the disk defragmenter are two enhanced tools that I rely on with XP

* Windows Update - Microsoft has been updating the OS frequently with many security fixes and tools updates and enhancements. You can set up XP to update your system periodically

* Networking - Setting up a network is much easier now. A firewall is also built in as part of the network security features new in XP

* System Help - The help tool has been enhanced to search not only locally on the PC but through the Internet as well. General Help Topics are very detailed and descriptive with many illustrations. Great improvement here.

* Wizards - Many more settings are performed with wizards. Is like filling an electronic questionnaire, then XP takes over the rest of the configuration steps based on your answers.

And simply the looks. Icons are more colorful, and they take advantage of higher end video cards with more color options. You can select display settings to look like the old Windows or the new XP look.

In terms of performance, I admit that Windows by design, does not consider low end machines and it may seem slow on low RAM machines. I would definitely recommend having more than 256MB of RAM and a high end Pentium processor (P3 and up) for acceptable performance. Fortunately, there are options to tweak performance settings by eliminating the sometimes unnecessary display effects.

I think at this time, you may be assured that Windows XP will be the best choice for you. Don't hesitate to buy it, taking into consideration the points I mentioned above.

Recommended

2 stars for good looks
Hope you find this useful.

~MKG
A+, Network+, I-Net+, Server+, MCSA (Win2k)

1.
The DOS feature still exist, in the RUN menu use "command.com", which is the older version of DOS. "cmd.exe" is default in the OS, and is the newer version of DOS.

2.
There are 4 interfaces in XP, Windows XP Blue, Olive Green, Sliver, and Classic. There are thousands of other interfaces you can add on with a 3-rd party application like Styles XP, you can get MacOS interface by the way.

3.
XP can run solidly and fast even on a Pentium 3 533mhz with 128MB of ram, although the extra 128MB ram helps alot. It also dos not require as much hard drive, 15GB is plenty, XP uses only 3.07GB out of 11.7 I assigned, that is afther installing a game and several programs. It can run a game play music and burn a cd at same time.

4.
Its well worth your money. There wont be another major release of Windows for several years. Althought the building and testing is still in progress. So you won't have to upgrade for another good 3 or 4 years, by that time your computer will be so out dated it woulden't be wise to upgrade. So this is for keeps.

5.
Linux. Well its not entirely free,... more...then XP home edition upgrade. Also, some copy XP's interface, ...lycoris....

if you have any questions or problems, go to iexbeta.com/board and ask questions, most of the time you can get your questions answerd right away.

my thoughts, I think XP is a success bringing Windows 9X and NT into one. Its the most powerful of any operating system by far, except XP 64bit and XP .Net which is not for most of us. The price will only fall as time goes by. I would not recommand any computer under 533mhz. 533 is right amount to run most of the features in XP. I recommand getting XP Home edition upgrade if you have previous versions of Windows. Also another stick of memory which is very [affordable] if you look at the right sites...pcboost...

If your gonna buy a preinstalled XP computer I recommand Hewlett Packard computers with "Windows XP Media Center Edition" installed. Its a new version of XP with the ability to view dvd's, home movies, watch tv, record tv programs, back up tv programs to hard drive or a DVD, tv guide, listen to music and much more in a clean, simple, and beautiful interface with a remote sitting on your couch.

XP will work on all computers built afther 1999 and many before that. Even HP pavilion. Its wise to do a fresh install, which can be abit complicated for beginners so call some one to do it for you.

Tips---
Right click on My Computer in the start menu and click properties and you'll have the ability to do system restore, change the visual aspects, change how the memory will be used, processing proirty, virtual memory, and remote assistance.

in the display properties, right click on desktop and properties, go to appearance tab and effects. Chnage standard to cleartype. The text you see on the screen will look much better, darker, clearer, and easy for the eyes.

Use windows catalog when buying hardware for XP, its 100% compatable with XP ...

Windows XP DOES boot faster. I counted it off, and if you keep your desktop reasonable clear of icons, it boots in about 10 seconds, at least on my 900MHz PC.

I have not yet had to reboot my system due to an inexplicable hang-up (something that happened from time to time with ME.) I also run this on a laptop (Toshiba Satellite) and the power management feature for dimming the screen and managing the battery is welcome, as the Toshiba battery uptime is a bit limited. All in all, I am quite pleased with XP.

Why the Pro version and not the home version, which is the one that usually comes with new PC's right now? I've heard that a lot of new software applications are being developed on and for Professional Version and not the Home Version.

Overall preformance was pretty good. Since WindowsXP is based on the Windows 2000 Kernel, it didn't have many negative things. I really enjoy the "Switch User" function. I can "Logout" but not close all my apps, and login as someone else. This is VERY handy, trust me.

For the "Display": you can keep the Kindergarten interface if you so choose. You can switch XP to classic mode, where it looks like Windows9x/Windows2000. Same goes for the Start bar.

My 2nd favorite thing is the built-in CD Burner software from Roxio. You just insert a blank CD-R, and drag files onto the actual Drive. Click "Write these files to a CD", and moments later you have your CD.

Overall I am very impressed, XP is very accomidating to you knowledge level. Myself being an advanced user, I didn't feel so violated....

Biggest Reasons to upgrade:

1. Fast boot up time
2. More stable (virtually no Blue Screens, none that I've experienced)
3. More secure - you can limit what a user can do by setting up proper permission.
4. Remote control access
5. Support for wide range of devices - If it's been manufactured before 2002, there is a 90% chance that the OS will recognize the device.

Downside to upgrading:

Not much, I had trouble with my easy CD creator, which I knew about... !

In conclusion I give Windows *****. I am very happy with it's performance and you will be too.

Tips: After installation, make sure you download all the patches and updates especially the service packs to ensure all the "Known" risk are eliminated.

Also, if you are connected to a dedicated internet connection, make sure you install a virus scanner and a fire wall if you are not connected into a Cable/DSL router with a Network Address Translation (NAT).

XP may look flashy and stable on the outside, but believe me it is not compatibe with 1/3 of my nearly new hardware(it all works in 2000 and ME). It even crashed repeatedly when I installed a brand new harddrive. My new scanner wouldn't work, ever, and my printer was finiky, my graphics card(an Nvidia GeForce 2) performed much slower; all after a fresh install. And to top it off, the Remote Desktop feature was born from the Remote Access Security Vulnerablity in Windows 2000.

And here's something swell, XP actively reports stuff to MS. I am well aware of this since I am smart enough to run a logged firewall. IE was the worst culprit, but since it is practically part of XP, XP users have to live with it.

And it would seem as though CD's burned with XP's integrated CD burning software sometimes do not work in any other OS besides windows.

I also noticed massive compatibility problems with older applications that were written for Windows 95 or 98.

And if you think XP SP1 makes it any better, you're wrong. Contrary to what MS promised in court, the SP only hides MS's middleware and leaves IE integrated even if you swap it out.

And Windows XP hides almost all of the inner workings of the OS and computer from the user so that most people have no idea how to fix it if something goes seriously wrong. This applies more to sys admins than desktop users, but it is still relivant; the easier to use an OS is, the more likely a company is to hire unskilled people to administer it, and if something goes horribly wrong they wind up paying a specialist to fix it.

Is the higher total cost and frustration really worth it? Of course it is smoother if you buy it preinstalled on a new computer, but most of my review holds true even then.

And finally, the OS is not crash proof. Well, it doesn't have the major Blue Screen of Death crashes like WIN98 did, but apps freeze up a lot, mainly IE and OE. The OS still may be usable, but these apps come bundled with the OS, and should not be buggy.

With every product, however, comes disadvantages. I have only found two. First, since it is not DOS based, it is unable to run many old video games. However, by not beind DOS based it is more userfriendly and dependable. Secondly, the graphics orientated nature can really drain a battery.

I highly recommend upgrading to this product. I am sure you will not be disappointed. However, if you are, you can just go into control panel and tell it to run like Windows 98!

With every product, however, comes disadvantages. I have only found two. First, since it is not DOS based, it is unable to run many old video games. However, by not beind DOS based it is more userfriendly and dependable. Secondly, the graphics orientated nature can really drain a battery.

I highly recommend upgrading to this product. I am sure you will not be disappointed. However, if you are, you can just go into control panel and tell it to run like Windows 98!

There are *tons* of new improvements, and you just keep finding them. Some that spring to mind are:
- the optional automatic download of service packs to speed up updates
- much improved wizards for network connectivity, particularly for RAS connections.
- much improved recovery from installation of bad drivers and software (e.g. the flakey, uncertified Best Data WinModem driver!)
- prettier UI
- built in fire-wall (a must for all computer connected to the internet)
- built in defragmenter (this really needs a scheduler though and it does not defrag. very quickly or very well :^( -- probably the licensor is still marketing a full featured version!).
- IE 6 (great protection against snooping cookies, etc.)

It is not perfect but it is darn good. The media player is a little over blown and obtrusive (not as bad as the horrible alternative from Real Player though -- which is very obtrusive, and unreliable).

Be careful when upgrading -- use the website provided by Microsoft to evaluate your PC first and heed well any warnings.

The only problem I had with my applications was that I could not find a driver for my DVD decoder on my graphics card. So I lost the ability of DVD playback on my PC, no big deal as I rarely used that anyway of late.

Then the big problem came one day. All of my desktop icons, became scrambled one day. I was able to switch about half of them back to the correct icon, but the other half were stuck. Restarting had no effect on getting the correct desktop icons.

Not soon after the desktop icon problem I started getting considerable lag on the computer, which is a AMD 1gig machine with 384 Mb of RAM.

The only other problem was created with the horrible ISP I am forced to work with. I can connect to the internet fine on my main machine and have it networked with another machine also running XP on a clean install. The two computers comunicate well in all facets except for the internet. Clicking on internet explorer on the second machine will cause the ISP on the first to dial up, and it will connect yet it shows disconnected on both machines interface. Maybe a minor inconvience except that it has to many set up wizards for the network that don't give me the control to make the nessary adjustments that I am familiar with on earlier versions like NT or 9x. I'm sure it could be resolved but I am just too unfamiliar with XP to know how to get around those setup wizards.

The only other major problem I encountered is that I have a gaming system and most of my games are very happy with the Fat32 file system, on the clean version of XP, you have to go to extensive searches looking for updated drivers.

In the end I switched back to Windows 98, I don't mind the occaisional restart. I may still run XP on a dual boot system but that is only because I did not have to pay for it since I got it through my school.

WinXP is the best operating system MONEY can BUY! However, the ironic thing is that LINUX looks better (KDE/GNOME desktop enviroments) runs faster, is WAY more stable, has cooler programs, and guess what, it's absolutely FREE! The linux you see in stores is sold for a price, but the distributors are required to make it available online for a download.

So the point is, WinXP is a pretty good OS, but you'd be an idiot to overlook a better OS that costs hundreds less. Microsoft has the resources to make good products, but the money goes to legal departments/hype/marketing/destroying other companies instead of where it belongs, in developing good software.

Yes Anti-Microsoft junkies, this is your worst enemy. Its productive, efficient, performs well, intuitive, and has a low TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, and thou shalt not covet this product, buy it . . . its yours.

The program has a life off it's own and decides in the middle of your using the computer that you should be doing something it thinks is usefull and keeps on interupting your thoughts.

I have uninstalled it and find that WS 2000 is a much more usefull version. One day when MS has decided that after you pay for as program you can make your own decisions when and how to operate your computer it may be usefull to have the new features available.

Almost none of the older hardware is compatable even with upgrades and those that can be upgraded dont work well with xp

Problems I have:
- Activate within 30 days. I re-install my OS a lot and add hardware often. This could be a problem.
- I also managed to mess up my settings some how so every time I shutdown it reboots instead. I simply re-installed to fix it.
- You can easily revert to "classic view" and apply a "windows classic" theme for a regular start button but the million-and-one helpful pop-ups gets a little old after a while as does the showing off of fade-in/fade-out. Alright already you have transparancy. (I'll just turn it off)
- The built-in DVD player software didn't recognice my drive as a DVD drive.
- The above mentioned PPPoE "dialer" seems to report my speed as 100Mbs for some reason (I get a lot less then 1.5Mbs).
- Properties of the connection doesn't report how fast my connection actually is while downloading (my ISP's propreitary pppoe software can do this). Over all a very good OS and to say the least light years beyond WinMe (which I haven't used a whole lot).
- Yes the default theme has buttons and title bars that seem to have been inspired by fisher price. I sure grandma will love it though.
- Do I really have to have MSN Messenger? Forcing it on my is as bad as netscape and AOL IM...

this is the os for you

if you have a dsl line, that uses the ppoe dialer, this is your os

If you are considering this software I would recomend it assuming you can get over the hurdles I am about to list.
Here are the things I really don't like about this software:

1. Almost nothing I need is compatible. The Installation would not run unless I removed programs that had known compatibility issues, (ie. All of my antivirus and security software) Now that I have XP loaded I have two options. I can go back to my Old OS and normalize everything. Or I can Shell out my life savings on new software that is "XP Approved" Even Office for XP requires an activation code.

2. This OS is very expensive. Once activated you can still upgrade your computer to some degree without having to reactivate. (by a new copy and activation code) But for this Price? You've got to be kidding me! Software this expensive should give a user unlimited use allowing installation on as many machines as are in his or her household without extra cost. Of Course some households qualify for a multi user discount, but from what I hear it's a pretty skimpy discount.

3. Good Wizards and Bad Wizards. Yes, like a good Tolkein novel there are Good Wizards and Bad Wizards, and MS typically has bad ones. When you run the wizards they will do all the work for you, which is good for some people, But I want to know why some things are done the way they are done. The Windows XP Wizards make assumptions that they should not make. If you really know what you are doing, it won't be too difficult to figure out why your network suddenly doesn't work when you enable the ICF (Internet Connection Firewall) feature.

Basically this is going to be a very big money pit to any one who decides to upgrade. In an understandable effort to prevent/thwart Piracy, the Software company has taken measures to make sure that everyone has to buy their own copy as well as the upgrades or newer versions of the most commonly used programs in those machines.

All in all I am not displeased with the new operating system, But I do not recommend it. It offers flexibility on our desktops but is very inflexible as a continued expenditure. If you buy it you will Pay much more than what the Operating system itself cost.

Good luck in your endeavors!

So I need to give them the product number and lose any chance I might have on a refund or pay ... to answer that question. Can I use the full version. Because my manufacturer has posted one thing and Microsoft another. Not even going to play the tag game with microsoft nor will I pay ... for the answer. I will send it back to my friend thank her for the gift and explain the option I had and why. It's embarassing for me and the person giving the gift. But at least I know not to invest any large amount of money into microsft software if it's not already on the puter I bought. don't waste your money I have seen nothing but negative reviews every where.