Difficult to use? (Score 1)

Okay, I understand that this is a "moving over to Windows having never used it before" artice, but seriously. A move from one operating system to another never used is going to be like that no matter what. The majority of these complaints are unfounded or just flat out wrong. "Anyone who complains about a Linux partitioner obviously hasn't tried installing Windows." So having just one partition is more difficult than having 3 or more? FAT32 and NTFS are the only hard-drive filesystems XP supports if we leave out FAT16, which I hope you wouldn't want to use. If you do make more than one partition, all you have to do is try to browse to it and the option to format it apears like magic! The first release of Windows XP in 2001 doesn't support drives larger than 137GB. I'm sure that the Ubuntu release you were installing wasn't from 2001 was it? It seems Ubuntu 5.10 was at a final release on October 13, 2005. Windows XP with SP1 does support larger drives however. Slipstreaming SP1 into a Windows install is easy as cake given the information how to. "I was not given a choice in the matter. It adjusted my desktop..." Well obviously if it didn't install your video-card drivers it's not going to be able to do that. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your video card is probably newer than the Windows XP release. They were support to include drivers that didn't exist yet? So they left the window in there that asks? You only have to deal with this ONE time; before you've installed your video drivers. "After a long download, a lengthly install, and a reboot, we were in business." I'm not sure what kind of computer you are using but drivers usually don't involve a lengthy install of any kind. The only ones I've seen that involve long downloads are sound and video drivers (keep in mind this is only on occasion). The entire network setup problem wasn't the fault of Windows XP but the network administrator for not configuring the DHCP server and Domain Controller correctly. Roaming profiles was obviously enabled on the Domain Controller for his account, why? Who knows. Why did he go into such detail explaining how difficult it place his computer in a domain when it wasn't even the fault of Windows XP? No, it didn't load his roaming profile the second time, it loaded the local copy which it had created upon failure to load the non-existant roaming profile. I have yet to get the second page to load so I'll end it here.