INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 11 (Development Ended) => Topic started by: zevele10 on June 02, 2003, 12:35:25 pm
-
I'am runing Windows 2000.
I can have at very very cheap price XP-- a genuine one ,not a pirate version.-
Any good to update ?
Or better to keep 2000 ?
All hardware and softwares are XP compatible
-
If you run a network only update if you can get xp pro.
XP is more stable, more intelligent in networking and boots faster. If you don't like the 'Teletubbie' skin you can switch to the old skin. And if you don't trust ms run xp antispy once.
Andy
Listening to: 'Finding And Believing' from 'Secret Story' by 'Pat Metheny' on Media Center 9.0
-
> cheap price XP
Which one?...the crib edition or pro?
There is virtually nothing that XP can do that W2k can't. W2k also has a MUCH smaller footprint on your drive, and doesn't throw all that eye candy crap at you that hurts performance (though it can be disabled). You also don't have to fuss with the Product Activation stuff that is XP. If you can get the pro version cheap then I would go for it, but I were you, I wouldn't install it on my main machine.
10-27
-
Xen-uno is right about that product activation. I've forgotten to mention that I'm using a (legal) company version without this activation so I had to key in the product key only. If you make changes in your system every few months like me a activation could be a pain ...
I'm using both in my network and Xp causes less problems, and this was confirmed by some prof. network-admins I know. And ms will stop the support for w2k soon.
contra:If your main system is running well ..............don't touch it
Andy
Listening to: 'Haitian Divorce' from 'The Royal Scam' by 'Steely Dan' on Media Center 9.0
-
>> You also don't have to fuss with
>> the Product Activation stuff
I did not see any big deal about this.
Windows 2000 should be reaching the limit of product support from MS next year.
-
...and that will be a sad day for me :'(
But does that mean the end of W2k? Hardly...
99.9% of the time when you run Windows Update, it is IE (and related) that is getting patched (security issues). New devices? Most if not all have their own drivers and W2k support will continue for a long time. There may not be anymore SP's issued, but there may be no need for any either. It is a super duper rock solid fantastically stable bichin' OS.
10-27
-
As mentioned earlier, there are many "flavors" of XP. I'm running Corporate Pro, so activation isn't an issue.
Microsoft has been trying to force upgrade paths... for example, if you're using Windows Messenger, only XP-to-XP can do video. I know of a few people who upgraded just for that.
Scott-
-
OK
few more question.
Can you run XP few days or hours before 'activation' ?
Just to see if you like it or no.
If not ,to run my ... version - cannot get the SP update- can give me a right idea of the XP OS ?
Can i just put it on the top of a recent Windows 2000 clean install?
If yes ,in this case can you delete it and be back to 2000 ?
If i see i like it ,in this case i plan to make a clean install.
Nothing against 2000 if the fact that it is slow ,slow.
Now ,you will SCREAM ,but ME on the same machine with the same programs and settings is faster than 2000 . I mean really faster
-
>> Can you run XP few days or hours before 'activation'
yes
>> Can i just put it on the top of a recent
>> Windows 2000 clean install?
it will ask you if you wish to back up the orginal OS and you can then restore it later to go backwards
I have a computer with windows 2000, XP home And XP pro they all seem the same speed to me i prefer Windows XP however
Windows 98, Windows 98se, WinME is junk
-
It's either 30 days or 50 logins...or something like that. If your machine is slow under W2k, then don't expect any speedup under XP (in fact, if you don't turn of the XP skin, it's likely to be slower). If you factored in the time spent rebooting from a Millen Ed lockup...is it really faster?
I've never updated an OS by installing over previous versions. I've always bitten the bullet...delete everything in the system partition (better yet the whole drive), then install the new OS (and all the apps). It's cleaner that way...and can keep mysterious problems from occuring down the road.
XP is OK (you'll probably keep it on there if you install it...I would), but I'd wait for MS to release SP2.
10-27
-
>> but I'd wait for MS to release SP2
when is that?
I would not wait if i had windows ME
-
He's running 2000 (see 1st post)
...and I don't know about release date for SP2. Surely soon. SP1 has been out for quite awhile, hasn't it?
10-27
-
>> SP1 has been out for quite awhile, hasn't it?
i think September
-
Xen
i asked about installing XP on the top of 2000 ,just the time to see if i like it.
If i keep it ,i do plan to make a clean install even if it is a real pain in ...somewhere.
I just do not understand why 2000 is so slow , at all levels.
Does not like my Athlon ? Or my motherboard ?
King
I had 95-98-98SE and ME.
Really by very far the best one was ME.
As a clean install and runing scan-defrag once a week.
I never ever had a blue screan.
Or if i had ,it was because i did something wrong , not an 'OS madness'.
Of cause i used to do a lot of tweaks .
Maybe because of it ,it was good.
Anyway i would like so much to see the full version of Windows Media Player 9 ,that i will give XP a try.
I can get it for around $20 from an idiot who buy ALL the special offers from his internet provider.
He has boxes of Norton ,Mac Affee and other junks all around.. and still runs 98 ,even not SE ..... and barely knows how to power on his computer....
-
>> I never ever had a blue screan.
>> if i had ,it was because i did something wrong
With a good OS you would have never seen TBSOD
-
Zev,
It sounds like the King has a tri-boot setup (is this correct, King?). You could <possibly> do a dual boot setup, but I think you would need a separate (and large...say 2 GB) partition to install XP on. I don't know the specifics, though. Know anyone that has it installed? Maybe you could play around with his/hers.
How did you install W2k in the first place? Did you install over Millen Ed?..or was it a clean install? W2k runs most excellent on my 700 MHz PIII...and I think your machine is faster than mine.
Can you friend get (or does he have) Office 2K Developer's Edition (preferrably the SR-1 release)? I need a cheap (but legal) copy.
10-27
-
>> It sounds like the King has a tri-boot
>> setup (is this correct, King?).
no not so complex, i have it on 3 dif computers
-
Of cause i have 2000 as a clean install.
It is not that it is not working , far from it.
It is just that programs are slow to open ,react to a click is slow as well.
I do check once a week if there is need to defrag and Windows Updates ,so cannot be it.
Or maybe i need to stop it from time to time.
I have FTP server and p2p running 24/24 , downloads allmost 24/24 , few hours a day ripping and taging.
Maybe to give the OS a break from time to time can be the solution.
Concerning Office ,you are out of luck , cause all he has are in hebrew.
I'am out of luck as well ,because the last thing i dream about is to have any program in hebrew on my computer who is in US english- i'am just to slow to read hebrew ,i mean really slow . And beyond a post card is out of reach concerning writing......
-
Might want to reboot from time to time just to flush the memory and give it a chance to cool down. It is hot there, eh?
Anything running in systray stealing some memory? Anything that isn't absolutely necessary should be shutdown.
Does W2K have the option like 98SE to change from desktop computer to server? This was a little speed trick I read somewhere. Don't know if it worked or not, old machine was just plain slow. :-/
-
>> I have FTP server and p2p running
>> 24/24 , downloads allmost 24/24
Kazaa slows down the system
1. depending on how many files your shareing
2. if super node is turned on
-
Do not use any of the well know p2p.
Only underground ones with full albums , ,right tags ,art sleeves. In Lame 192 vrb mp3 ,ogg,ape and Windows9 lossless.
-
"Do not use any of the well know p2p.
Only underground ones with full albums , ,right tags ,art sleeves. In Lame 192 vrb mp3 ,ogg,ape and Windows9 lossless."
hmmm, sure would love to find those . . . .
I love the way XP runs on my XP2100 . . . smooth as silk
-
Zev,
It sounds like you've just got a ton of processes going on, all contending for cpu time. Bring up Task Manager and go to the Performance tab. What is shown for CPU usage? Under Physical Memory, what are the #'s for Total and Available? Under Commit Charge, what are the #'s for Total and Limit? This may help us diagnose whazzzuuuup.
10-27
-
Zevele
if you do a dual boot W2K + WXP do not forget the rules:
1) Install W2K first
2) Install WXP afterwards
If you install WXP first it wont work after installation of W2K. AS you need 2 separate partitions to install both, you can easily install W2K on the second partition (D: ), so that afterwards you will have WXP on C:. You just have to tell W2K that you want it installed on D:.
-
Go Linux.
Oh wait, you can't run MC on that (you can't right???) so stuff it and you won't want to get sue by SCO.
I am running both Win2k and WinXP now. I find that in terms of stability, Win2k might be a bit better but not really a lot of difference in terms of that. But that is my personal experience.
WinXP is good for drivers support as they got most of the drivers that you can think of for most of the USB devices (I think). And it is way stable than any of the Win9x.
If I am not wrong, I am thinking that SP2 for WinXP will be release either late this year or early next year. Support for Win2k is suppose to end next year? 5 years if I am not wrong and Win2k is release on 1998/9?