I have been using Windows XP Professional for about a year now, and i must say from a sort of "less than advanced user" standpoint, I like it. I like it for a few simple reasons.

1.) Its customizability.
Windows XP with some help from a few programs provided by http://www.stardock.net could easily make your desktop enjoyable.

2.) Nothing else.
I don't know about backdoors, or win files, or any of the ingredients that make Windows XP so easy to customize, but I sure do like being able to.

Let me know what you think guys, Im curious to know..

It tries to hide stuff like NTFS permissions and makes you click 'yes I want to see the contents of C:\' if you go to C:\ the first time, which is a nuisance at best and a real annoyance usually.

There are lots of too user-friendly things to fix when you first get it. It can be made to work rather nicely given some time to set it up though.

I've set it up enough times that I can go through all those disables pretty quickly :)

[quote author=Skywing link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=0#msg16286 date=1059418883]
It tries to hide stuff like NTFS permissions and makes you click 'yes I want to see the contents of C:\' if you go to C:\ the first time, which is a nuisance at best and a real annoyance usually.
[/quote]

IIRC, Windows ME and 2000 do the latter as well. Additionally, it hides file extentions by default. It even hides the Administrator account from the Welcome screen by default.

Yes, those also hid some useful things, but it keeps getting worse with every new Windows version. Also, Windows XP Home completely lacks the NTFS security tab. You can set acls with cacls or other tools, but not with the built-in Explorer UI.

[quote author=Adron link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=0#msg16301 date=1059426661]
Yes, those also hid some useful things, but it keeps getting worse with every new Windows version. Also, Windows XP Home completely lacks the NTFS security tab. You can set acls with cacls or other tools, but not with the built-in Explorer UI.
[/quote]
Windows Server 2003 completely reverses this trend. It doesn't hide any directories or permissions tabs by default (even %SystemRoot%\System32).

[quote author=Skywing link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=0#msg16342 date=1059454713]Windows Server 2003 completely reverses this trend. It doesn't hide any directories or permissions tabs by default (even %SystemRoot%\System32).[/quote]

I dont think any Windows Sever editions have ever done this, no?

[quote author=Camel link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=0#msg16347 date=1059461377]
[quote author=Skywing link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=0#msg16342 date=1059454713]Windows Server 2003 completely reverses this trend. It doesn't hide any directories or permissions tabs by default (even %SystemRoot%\System32).[/quote]

I dont think any Windows Sever editions have ever done this, no?
[/quote]
Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2000 Advanced Server did.

yeah Windows 2000 advanced Server does, i use it and it much better than my old OS which made me go insaine....... WinME >.<

Which Windows XP? XP Home or Professional?

Windows XP Home does not deserve to exist.

Windows XP Pro is the same as Windows 2000 Pro, with lots of aesthetic changes (improvements?) and a lot of newbie-friendly crap (too newbie-friendly to sanely use it, IMO).

My equation has proven to be true so far: WinXP = Win2K + crap.

Remote desktop doesn't fall under crap, Yoni!
The crappy firewall, however, does.

[edit] +1 to Yoni for having exactly 888 posts. :)
[img]http://camel.ik0ns.com:84/images/yoni888.jpg[/img]

XP has some nice low level changes from Win2k. Including the ability to run windbg over 1394.

I don't even have FireWire... There aren't any improvements in XP that I know of which I personally care about.

Either case, I run 2003 now, which includes all these changes anyway.

[quote author=Camel link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=0#msg16418 date=1059517084]
Remote desktop doesn't fall under crap, Yoni!
The crappy firewall, however, does.
[/quote]Might I point you to this thread?
Additionally, unlike with Windows XP Professional, you can have multiple people connected with Terminal Services.

[quote author=Skywing link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=15#msg16520 date=1059598878]Additionally, unlike with Windows XP Professional, you can have multiple people connected with Terminal Services.[/quote]
More accurately, you can't have multiple active sessions -- console sessions are remote sessions are not differentiated as they are in Server builds. This means that if you connect via Remote Desktop, you cannot log in via the console even with an administrator account unless the remote desktop user agrees.

[edit] Skywing, I was referring to out-of-box. Good point, though.

[quote]Additionally, unlike with Windows XP Professional, you can have multiple people connected with Terminal Services[/quote]

Oh NO, whatever shall we WinXP Pro users do? ::)

[quote author=DarkMinion link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=15#msg16530 date=1059608217]Oh NO, whatever shall we WinXP Pro users do? ::)[/quote]

Uh, get Windows 2003?

[quote author=Camel link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=15#msg16524 date=1059606776]
[quote author=Skywing link=board=5;threadid=2119;start=15#msg16520 date=1059598878]Additionally, unlike with Windows XP Professional, you can have multiple people connected with Terminal Services.[/quote]
More accurately, you can't have multiple active sessions -- console sessions are remote sessions are not differentiated as they are in Server builds. This means that if you connect via Remote Desktop, you cannot log in via the console even with an administrator account unless the remote desktop user agrees.

[edit] Skywing, I was referring to out-of-box. Good point, though.
[/quote]
The console session is remote connectable with Windows Server 2003, btw (quite handy for those MB_SERVICE_NOTIFICATION messageboxes).