Rating: 
Summary: more of the same
Review: I would rate XP a 3 star just above 98's 2 star rating. Several incompatibility problems and frequent application crashes are my biggest gripes.
Rating: 
Summary: XP Professional improved my PC performance
Review: At first, I was hesitant to upgrade my computer to XP from Windows ME. But when I finally did, my computer started operating a lot better than before.
A few points:
1. My computer runs faster now. I hesitated to upgrade to XP because I feared it wouldn't run very well with my 128 MB RAM. Now, after the upgrade, it is running faster and smoother.
2. With Windows ME, I had trouble shutting down my PC. It often refused to shut down, forcing me to shut off the power and then having trouble starting it up the next time I booted up the computer. This problem was completely eliminated with XP.
3. With Millennium Edition I needed to install certain software to make my CD-RW work. Windows XP already takes care of that with no programs to install.
4. The transition to XP was very smooth. It left all my files and programs intact. It even left my quick launch items just as they were in my old Windows ME. It also notified me during installation which programs will not work with the new XP (such as Norton Anti Virus and another program I had in Windows ME).
I recommend anyone with 128 MB of RAM or more to go ahead with the upgrade, because it will spare you a lot of headaches.
Rating:
Summary: Windows XP! You can't ask for better!!
Review: It's a top product from Microsoft! This OS makes up for the invetion of Windows ME!!
Rating: 
Summary: It Is The Worst Os Ive ever seen!!
Review: First Off I would like to say that windows xp is great if you like crashes and freezups,constant errors, slowness
ok the only thing thats new basicly about windows xp is it has a new windows skin and has more crashes and lockups that any other os :warning: this product will make your computer real slow!! you may ask why!! well here is the reason ok it goes like this
windows 95 took 16mb of ram to load windows 98 took 32 Windows me took 64 and windows xp takes 128!! i mean come on microsoft: we all dont have supercomputers and if you are going to buy it you must have at least have 256mb of ram microsoft says you can do it with 128 but i have found this not to be true unless you like your computer being slow if you are determened to buy it be prepared for Millions Of Crashes and problems
Rating:
Summary: Stick To ME or 98
Review: ALright I Have Always Been a Fan Of Microsoft And There Products
I Have Two Computers One Is Running Windows ME The Other One Windows 98 now i tried to install windows xp on my computer that is running windows me and it threw up all kinds of errors like cab file errors all kinds of errors blue windows after i finally got it to install it ran real slow and crashed all the time my computer is a 700mgh 128mb ram computer ok it shouldn't have been slow after a few days im back running windows me and a few days later i tried to install it on my computer with windows 98 and the same thing happened
Rating:
Summary: Excellent O.S
Review: Windows xp is the greatest operating system i ever had. I used to have ME it was bad it crashed alot windows xp did not crash once since i got it, Great buy,a must have! It has many cool customizing options. Get It!
Rating:
Summary: Absolute proof that Microsoft has a monopoly on op systems
Review: Unreliable, mediocre, untested, and highly annoying. I have had constant problems running software on XP. Quite often the XP updates make some software stop functioning. Using XP makes me wish I had a Mac. This is an incredibly lighweight software. My pc came with XP; but if you're looking to upgrade --- PLEASE DON'T.
Rating:
Summary: What a relief
Review: I've cursed Microsoft as much as the next person... and although I'm unlikely to stop anytime soon, Windows XP goes a long way towards making everything right again. I just upgraded from Windows ME, and I'm soooo glad I did. I only wish I had done it sooner. Under Windows ME, I was having all sorts of problems. I'd have bizarre system lock ups, hardware compatability issues, chronic and unexplained system restarts... and sometimes the darned computer wouldn't even turn off (it would shut down, but never turn itself off... I'd have to disconnect power completely). The system regularly became so corrupted I'd have to wipe my primary harddrive and reinstall Windows ME about once every four months to get the system running again. Well, no more. Installing the upgrade was a breeze, I hardly had to do anything, just sit back, fill in some information, and off it went. It took about an hour, and all I had to do was poke my head in every once in awhile to make sure it didn't need anything else from me. Once installed, the performance is very smooth, and it is much more attractive than Windows ME. It also gives you better control over your video settings (which, as a video game junkie is essential for me, but also helps with DVDs and pictures...). Only problems I experienced was that Norton Utilies 2001 won't run with XP. Also, I had to reinstall my DSL software which was something of a pain. Other programs that had problems running just needed to be patched and updated. As for home networking... Configuring XP for my home LAN was a breeze; just a matter of clicking a few buttons and it was all set...a far cry from the half-hour of heartburn and hair pulling I had with ME. Setup is also a breeze and rather intuitive. You have to do a little extra tweaking to allow other computers to view and access your files, but that's a welcome tradeoff for the increased stability. (I've about three different firewalls up, so that made things a little extra difficult.) They promised increased stability, and they delivered. I'm delighted with the upgrade to Windows XP and would highly recommend it to anyone debating whether or not to toss their clunky ME OS. System Specs: Athlon 1.4 w/ 512 meg DDR RAM, GeForce 3 Graphics card w/ 64 meg RAM, twin 30 gig hard drives... Not the most state-of-the-art system, but it runs XP beautifully.
Rating: 
Summary: go pro!
Review: Don't waste time with Home. Many productivity app vendors won't guarantee compatability with XP Home, and even Microsoft's own Tablet PC software won't remote control an XP Home box (and boy are they pushing that for...the home of all places!)
Rating:
Summary: The "best" OS -- that's for you to decide.
Review: Here's an unpleasant fact about computers: you can't get one without an Operating System. Or rather, you can, but you can't really do anything useful with it. An OS contains all the basic software logic that all the other software needs to run. That's why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world: for a long time, he's sold a product that most PC users had no choice but to buy. It's only recently that serious alternatives to Microsoft OSs have become practical for most users. 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.
| 
