PCMech Forums - View Single Post - eXPeriences with XP (from a Sysadmin's point of view)

Statica · 09-19-2001, 08:24 AM

This is in follow-up to a ton of queries that u folks have about Windows XP.
DISCLAIMER: These are just my experiences in analyzing the potential of XP for deployment instead of Win2k on some of our systems where I work and freelance as a sysadmin. This is in no way a complete list of the "features", and is indubitably biased.

One of my Win2K machines crapped out, so I spent the better part of yesterday seriously analyzing XP, with a view to replacing a few Win2K professional machines with the XP Professional. Started about 1600 hrs (wherever I am) last evening.

Its now 0900 hrs, and I type to you from within my Win2k machine and the XP CD is safely stored in the garbage.

From a sysadmin's point of view this OS is the worst PoS to have come out from Redmond bearing the tag of a "Professional"/"Corporate" OS. Let me go through some of the points that have prompted me to do what I have done:

Improved interface? Its nothing but a MAC/NeXT/Linux knockoff. The tradeoff in system load makes it such a choice. I'd rather have the traditional look with TEXT than this "fancy" nonsense and Pictures
The new wizards and babysitting of the user .. I've had it with that! Am sick to h*ll with the system telling me what I need.
I'd be extremely interested to know if ANYONE out there will use the new START MENU for extended periods of time. Maybe it is conditioning, but that thing was cumbersome .. extra clicks to get to where I wanted to go.
Hardware support, may be advertised as improved but I find that everything that needs support has Win2k drivers out there.
Here's the nightmare I faced .. user configuration. Gates and I had a bit of an argument.
During configuration (mine was an upgrade from win2k->XP) it asks for a user and I gave it, good enough. Then at the end of setup it allowed me to add about 5 more users (a la Linux) and I was pleased and tried 2 more.
EXCEPT XP CONFIGURES ALL USERS AS ADMINISTRATORS WITH BLANK PASSWORDS BY DEFAULT! That is the most lame bit of security I have ever seen.
Fine, I tried to convert them to Power Users (w. legacy priveleges), but XP's babying me insisted that I either have it as a standard user or as an administrator. Finally I had to resort to adding users manually into other groups.
(Oh yeah what is that M$ user doing on my machine??)
And then it just wouldnt co-operate .. the XP's easy wizard identified the user as an Unknown user! To add any priveleges I had to literally type out the user names manually .. something like OBELIX\user1;VITALSTATISTIX\user2;.... yeah thats gonna sit real well with sysadmins.
Since I wouldnt use what they insisted I use, I was forced with doing things thus.
WHERE IS THE ADMINISTRATOR LOGIN? Yeah sure they give you a ton of administrator priveleged users, but where is the Adminstrator login? I cant create an Admin login, it says it exists, I cant change to it because it insists on displaying pictures of users rather than login names. If my OS wants me to use a su then I need to know it first. There was in fact no way I could login as root.This is a very alarming state! Maybe not to the home user but imagine the corporate setup.
The TCP/IP has improved with firewalling and alternate credentials and bridging, but with all the sockets, I doubt whether that is going to be of any comfort
The admin tools have grown better, and I had grown fond of the Windows Messenger in the short time I had used it as a desktop (this was prior to yday's installation). Am glad they provided Netmeeting for backward support.
Trust me when I say that the animations and the pictures grown tired real fast, unless you like having things flashing at you all the time.. I hope M$ paid Macromedia for allowing them to use Flash to design a UI
the rest of the features are well popularized, and anyways I have begun to lose interest in my rant

I wont be using XP, even though I found its desktop capabilities as organized enough. The kernel itself seems to give the system a lot of stability, but just stability isnt everything, in trying to break the myth of Win9x and ME's instabilities, M$ forgot one thing.. the OS must also be secure and usable.
I will be using Win2k for a long time to come

Ultimately it will be a choice based on aesthetics vs semantics of using this OS. I dont think that just aesthetics is a powerful enough motive for it to go into the corporate installation.

09-19-2001, 08:24 AM	#1
Statica Premium Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 9,231	eXPeriences with XP (from a Sysadmin's point of view) This is in follow-up to a ton of queries that u folks have about Windows XP. DISCLAIMER: These are just my experiences in analyzing the potential of XP for deployment instead of Win2k on some of our systems where I work and freelance as a sysadmin. This is in no way a complete list of the "features", and is indubitably biased. One of my Win2K machines crapped out, so I spent the better part of yesterday seriously analyzing XP, with a view to replacing a few Win2K professional machines with the XP Professional. Started about 1600 hrs (wherever I am) last evening. Its now 0900 hrs, and I type to you from within my Win2k machine and the XP CD is safely stored in the garbage. From a sysadmin's point of view this OS is the worst PoS to have come out from Redmond bearing the tag of a "Professional"/"Corporate" OS. Let me go through some of the points that have prompted me to do what I have done: Improved interface? Its nothing but a MAC/NeXT/Linux knockoff. The tradeoff in system load makes it such a choice. I'd rather have the traditional look with TEXT than this "fancy" nonsense and Pictures The new wizards and babysitting of the user .. I've had it with that! Am sick to hll with the system telling me what I need. I'd be extremely interested to know if ANYONE out there will use the new START MENU for extended periods of time. Maybe it is conditioning, but that thing was cumbersome .. extra clicks to get to where I wanted to go. Hardware support, may be advertised as improved but I find that everything that needs support has Win2k drivers out there. Here's the nightmare I faced .. user configuration. Gates and I had a bit of an argument. During configuration (mine was an upgrade from win2k->XP) it asks for a user and I gave it, good enough. Then at the end of setup it allowed me to add about 5 more users (a la Linux) and I was pleased and tried 2 more. EXCEPT XP CONFIGURES ALL USERS AS ADMINISTRATORS WITH BLANK PASSWORDS BY DEFAULT!* That is the most lame bit of security I have ever seen. Fine, I tried to convert them to Power Users (w. legacy priveleges), but XP's babying me insisted that I either have it as a standard user or as an administrator. Finally I had to resort to adding users manually into other groups. (Oh yeah what is that M$ user doing on my machine??) And then it just wouldnt co-operate .. the XP's easy wizard identified the user as an Unknown user! To add any priveleges I had to literally type out the user names manually .. something like OBELIX\user1;VITALSTATISTIX\user2;.... yeah thats gonna sit real well with sysadmins. Since I wouldnt use what they insisted I use, I was forced with doing things thus. WHERE IS THE ADMINISTRATOR LOGIN? Yeah sure they give you a ton of administrator priveleged users, but where is the Adminstrator login? I cant create an Admin login, it says it exists, I cant change to it because it insists on displaying pictures of users rather than login names. If my OS wants me to use a su then I need to know it first. There was in fact no way I could login as root.This is a very alarming state! Maybe not to the home user but imagine the corporate setup. The TCP/IP has improved with firewalling and alternate credentials and bridging, but with all the sockets, I doubt whether that is going to be of any comfort The admin tools have grown better, and I had grown fond of the Windows Messenger in the short time I had used it as a desktop (this was prior to yday's installation). Am glad they provided Netmeeting for backward support. Trust me when I say that the animations and the pictures grown tired real fast, unless you like having things flashing at you all the time.. I hope M$ paid Macromedia for allowing them to use Flash to design a UI the rest of the features are well popularized, and anyways I have begun to lose interest in my rant I wont be using XP, even though I found its desktop capabilities as organized enough. The kernel itself seems to give the system a lot of stability, but just stability isnt everything, in trying to break the myth of Win9x and ME's instabilities, M$ forgot one thing.. the OS must also be secure and usable. I will be using Win2k for a long time to come Ultimately it will be a choice based on aesthetics vs semantics of using this OS. I dont think that just aesthetics is a powerful enough motive for it to go into the corporate installation.