Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/7/2006 6:17:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 7:35:35 AM EDT by danpass]
I would love to use Mac, but well ...

Why would I want to switch from Win2KPro?

Is there really any advantage for, say, the near future (t<2yrs)?

Right now I use it to surf, rip/listen CD's/DVD's, mess with pictures, MS Word, Excel, Frontpage, email, not so much CAD anymore.

Am I missing something by sticking with Win2K?


I guess my question stems from the following factors:

I understand that there is no more official support of Win2KPro.

I consider myself computer savvy 8.5/10

Computer hardware knowledgeable 8/10
Computer software knowledgeable 7/10

(considering how things are progressing these days )

Poll suggestions?

thanks,
da­n
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:19:47 PM EDT
For what you said you are doing, no. Windows 2K will suit you just fine.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:21:17 PM EDT
looks like you're doing everything you need to do with 2k. there really arent too many major advantages to XP. as 2k ages, less software will run on it, but until then i'd say stick with what you know. the only other major consideration is that since 2k isn't supported anymore, it may be more vulnerable to viruses. on the same token, XP is much more widely used, so it is the primary target of those looking to break into computers
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:28:41 PM EDT
I'm also staying with W2K at home. At work I have XP on my desktop. When I get a new computer I plan to leave XP on it and put Linux on this one.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:30:50 PM EDT
because when they go to vista you won't be getting updates anymore
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:31:19 PM EDT
For what you are doing W2K is fine.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:35:02 PM EDT
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:36:25 PM EDT
XP-PRO is much more streamlined and easier to use. Dont get the Home edition, its bloated and slow.

You should use a friends computer or go to bestbuy and try out XP Pro and see what you like or dont like about it.

IF you do want it. Get it from newegg.com. You can get XP PRO for $85 (student/teacher editon), just enter in your/any school code when you purchase it.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:36:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 6:40:33 PM EDT by mgw1181]
Win2K is still getting security updates, and will be until 2010(?). No additional features or enhancements though. I still run it, haven't found any need to upgrade.

Edit: Still have 4 more years of extended support: www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulletins/extendedsupport.mspx
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:39:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



XP share permissions are defaulted that way for security. You have to manually adjust the shares to full access. IRRC.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:40:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 6:47:46 PM EDT by Robbie]
Microsoft says they'll be issuing security updates for Win2k until 6/30/2010. Win2k's underpinning's are similar to XP...close enough in some cases where some device drivers can work for either 2k or XP.

With XP you'll get:
* candy coloring
* latest drivers for devices that are coming out today and probably for another ~4 years
* Some smoother menus/user interfaces on things like setup/install processes...wireless connections...networking....Despite some smoother menus...Win2k does the actual work just as well as XP.
* gaming
* some specialized software might get picky and want XP
* the dog from Microsoft BOB



From the stuff you said and the time frame (2 yrs)...bleh...stick with Win2k. By Halloween, Microsoft will be demonizing XP and telling us how wonderful Vista is. Then for a few years it will be Vista-this...Vista-that.

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:40:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mgw1181:
Win2K is still getting security updates, and will be until 2010(?). No additional features or enhancements though. I still run it, haven't found any need to upgrade.



yah but as I found out the other day miscrosoft is intentionall screwing its users... Went out and got Age of empires 3.... refused to instal on win2k... just cause microsoft didnt want it to... install it through dos... RUNS PERFECTLY... they just want ot make you upgraded
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:40:55 PM EDT
If you cannot discern the difference, then you will not notice the difference.

Bob
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:42:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



You need to retire.

XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment. Good luck to you.

Bob
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:42:35 PM EDT
All things being equal, XP loads faster.

I use Win2k Pro for almost everything, but it's a PITA to reboot.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:43:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



You need to retire.

XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment. Good luck to you.

Bob




LOL, you rule.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:45:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
All things being equal, XP loads faster.

I use Win2k Pro for almost everything, but it's a PITA to reboot.

2k boots fast enough on 10k RPM drives.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:47:33 PM EDT
you're missing out on the Fisher-Price interface.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:49:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:

Originally Posted By mgw1181:
Win2K is still getting security updates, and will be until 2010(?). No additional features or enhancements though. I still run it, haven't found any need to upgrade.



yah but as I found out the other day miscrosoft is intentionall screwing its users... Went out and got Age of empires 3.... refused to instal on win2k... just cause microsoft didnt want it to... install it through dos... RUNS PERFECTLY... they just want ot make you upgraded

Naw, Microsoft would never do that
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:49:26 PM EDT

My laptop, running Win2K, does boot pretty fast.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:53:32 PM EDT
If it is doing what you want it to do, why switch? IMO I like XP better, I dunno, just like the feel more. But then again I got XP Pro from some MS agreement with my school for 10 bucks (legally) so I didn't have to debate shelling out 200 bucks for an OS.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:12:54 PM EDT
if it works and your happy. why change. i remote desktop with xp pro all the time with no issues.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:15:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GotGuns:
If it is doing what you want it to do, why switch? IMO I like XP better, I dunno, just like the feel more. But then again I got XP Pro from some MS agreement with my school for 10 bucks (legally) so I didn't have to debate shelling out 200 bucks for an OS.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.




Exactly. Considering how many changes Mac goes thru compared to MS, whats the point?

I love my Win2K why do they have to obsolete it (besides money of course )
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:21:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:
XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment.


What kind of "Enterprise enviroment?" For employee PCs, sure, but I would NEVER put XP on any of our production or development servers. Frankly, MS is shit for any large-scale enterprise environment. We just converted half of our data center to HPUX from W2K-AS and we'll be running Oracle 10g instead of MSSQL in November (porting from TSQL to PL/SQL is fun ).

Fuck MS for everything but the desktop PC.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:33:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:
XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment.


What kind of "Enterprise enviroment?" For employee PCs, sure, but I would NEVER put XP on any of our production or development servers. Frankly, MS is shit for any large-scale enterprise environment. We just converted half of our data center to HPUX from W2K-AS and we'll be running Oracle 10g instead of MSSQL in November (porting from TSQL to PL/SQL is fun ).

Fuck MS for everything but the desktop PC.



HPUX! omg, 1986 was 20 years ago!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:37:07 PM EDT



<-----------Danpass Jones'--------------------------------------------->
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:37:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



You need to retire.

XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment. Good luck to you.

Bob



Actually I started using Win2003 for my boxes as the administration is still setup like Win2K. I've turned on file sharing for XP and still can't get into the box. I can get out to my Win2K boxes no problem. My parents, who live 500 miles away, have XP on their 2 computers and are always calling me trying to get their computers to talk. The way I see it XP is for stupid users so Microsoft by default locked everything down and made it next to impossible to actually do anything. That way all the stupid users can't go in and mess things up. I prefer Win2K and Win2003 so I've never bothered with XP other than installing it on a box from time to time to play with it. Usually I get so frustrated with everything being locked down that I say screw it, reformat and put Win2K back on and I'm good to go.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:44:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



You need to retire.

XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment. Good luck to you.

Bob



Actually I started using Win2003 for my boxes as the administration is still setup like Win2K. I've turned on file sharing for XP and still can't get into the box. I can get out to my Win2K boxes no problem. My parents, who live 500 miles away, have XP on their 2 computers and are always calling me trying to get their computers to talk. The way I see it XP is for stupid users so Microsoft by default locked everything down and made it next to impossible to actually do anything. That way all the stupid users can't go in and mess things up. I prefer Win2K and Win2003 so I've never bothered with XP other than installing it on a box from time to time to play with it. Usually I get so frustrated with everything being locked down that I say screw it, reformat and put Win2K back on and I'm good to go.




I almost forgot! Another reason I am still hesitant to switch.

This cursed idiot-proofing (on all products- cars, guns, etc) is really ticking me off
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:46:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:


<-----------Danpass Jones'--------------------------------------------->




Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:49:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:


<-----------Danpass Jones'--------------------------------------------->







I will explain, although the original spacing does not show on the finished version (??)

You are over here <---, and the Jones' are over there ------------->, you know, to "keep up with the Jones'".
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:50:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:
HPUX! omg, 1986 was 20 years ago!


What does that say about Win2K that "20 year old" technology kicks the shit out of it.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:52:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:


<-----------Danpass Jones'--------------------------------------------->







I will explain, although the original spacing does not show on the finished version (??)

You are over here <---, and the Jones' are over there ------------->, you know, to "keep up with the Jones'".



got it, thats good
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:03:26 PM EDT
Ok, I finally figured it out. First you have to make sure you add in Microsoft File Sharing when setting up the network connection. That was done. Then you need to setup the file share. I did that but there was no place to assign permissions. I then remembered what I went through at my parents house to get it setup for them and did this step. You have to open up windows explorer -> Tools -> Folder Options, then click on the View tab. One of the check boxes in there is to use "Simple File Sharing" and it's checked by default. Now will someone please explain what an adminastrative file sharing setting is doing under a "view" tab for viewing file extensions or displaying the full path in a title bar? Anyway, once I unchecked the "I'm a stupid user and need Microsoft to make things simple for me" box then I could back to my file share and assign permissions to the specific users. Then I was good to go. But still XP sucks.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:05:29 PM EDT
W2K is just fine, and damn solid...IF your SP's are up to date.

It just works.

HH
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:09:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:
XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment.


What kind of "Enterprise enviroment?" For employee PCs, sure, but I would NEVER put XP on any of our production or development servers. Frankly, MS is shit for any large-scale enterprise environment. We just converted half of our data center to HPUX from W2K-AS and we'll be running Oracle 10g instead of MSSQL in November (porting from TSQL to PL/SQL is fun ).

Fuck MS for everything but the desktop PC.



I hear this shit all the time from *nix admins who don't get it that you manage a Windows environment differently.

I have run 5 nines on Win 2000 with off the shelf HP LH3000 and Lpr servers.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:23:50 PM EDT
The BEST thing about XP Pro is it's ability to restore to a previously saved configuration / time. If you get a virus....no sweat...just restore it to the last saved restore point and then don't download the virus again.

The thing that troubles most IT folks who think they are smarter than 'The Gates Kids' is: they fail to grasp the active directory concept.

I set up a lot of Enterprise servers with Server 2003 & Small Biz Server 2003 and will admit that Server 2003 has a learning curve...but it's the best stuff out there once you get it dialed in. I have clients who have been running Server 2003 for over 2 years and they take very very little maintainence. Running diagnostics and dumping log files is the most I've had to do to 99% of the machines I look after.

I guess software that an IT guy doesn't have to constantly screw with isn't exactly job security for them, eh?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:28:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 9:34:21 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Ok, I finally figured it out. First you have to make sure you add in Microsoft File Sharing when setting up the network connection. That was done. Then you need to setup the file share. I did that but there was no place to assign permissions. I then remembered what I went through at my parents house to get it setup for them and did this step. You have to open up windows explorer -> Tools -> Folder Options, then click on the View tab. One of the check boxes in there is to use "Simple File Sharing" and it's checked by default. Now will someone please explain what an adminastrative file sharing setting is doing under a "view" tab for viewing file extensions or displaying the full path in a title bar? Anyway, once I unchecked the "I'm a stupid user and need Microsoft to make things simple for me" box then I could back to my file share and assign permissions to the specific users. Then I was good to go. But still XP sucks.





Damn my mother knows to install Microsoft File Sharing when setting up the network connection and she is 74 years old. ETA: usually installed by default.

No offense intended but a search in help on "setting up a network" or the MS web site and 5 min would have gotten you through this... it is kinda hard to screw up.

You also might try to use Administrative Tools in the Control Panel... on second thought don't.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:33:41 PM EDT
Other than driver support and a few other under the hood polishings nt 5 is not much more than nt 5.1...

i'm not gona touch the playskewl interface... it is like it was made for fucking children... which most PC user are.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:45:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



+1


Having used 2kPro and XP in a multi-user environment (6 labs, about 200 or so computers, about 15,000 possible users, 5k or so routinely use them per week), I can safely say that we had less trouble with 2kPro. It was easier to keep running, and caused less problems.

And I fucking hate the way XP refuses to let you control things. 2kPro, you can fine tune that thing like a piano. XP is like a damned electronic Piano: you're stuck with what they gave you, for the most part. As far as stability goes, 2kPro is the most stable WinOS I have used since DOS. I love it.


And I wouldn't buy into the "2kPro will be incompatible..." rhetoric. Most of today's software is still Win98 compatible because something like 45% of PC-users nationwide still use it. Its good, it works for what they need it to do, and is trouble-free enough for them to stick with it. They still are running Word97 for crying out loud...it still types letters, so its good enough. I see no reason to switch to OfficeXP, Office2kPro still does everything I could ever want to do with it.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:47:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
Other than driver support and a few other under the hood polishings nt 5 is not much more than nt 5.1...

i'm not gona touch the playskewl interface... it is like it was made for fucking children... which most PC user are.



The interface is made for average to novice computer users... the first thing most advanced users do is turn if off for the classic interface, that takes exactly 3 mouse clicks.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:52:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 9:57:03 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By MoparMike:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
XP sucks. I've worked on computers and networking for 12 years but for some reason XP has been a pain in the ass to get setup so I can access files on a remote machine. I'm going through that exact struggle again this very second. Had I put Win2K on the other box I would have golden a long time ago. I hate XP.

Right now I want to connect to my remote XP machine. So I type the server and I drive I want to hit, XP automatically fills in the username box with servername/guest and then makes it read only. Hello, how the hell am I supposed to log as an admin when the login box is hardcoded and read only to guest. Stupid XP.



+1


Having used 2kPro and XP in a multi-user environment (6 labs, about 200 or so computers, about 15,000 possible users, 5k or so routinely use them per week), I can safely say that we had less trouble with 2kPro. It was easier to keep running, and caused less problems.

And I fucking hate the way XP refuses to let you control things. 2kPro, you can fine tune that thing like a piano. XP is like a damned electronic Piano: you're stuck with what they gave you, for the most part. As far as stability goes, 2kPro is the most stable WinOS I have used since DOS. I love it.


And I wouldn't buy into the "2kPro will be incompatible..." rhetoric. Most of today's software is still Win98 compatible because something like 45% of PC-users nationwide still use it. Its good, it works for what they need it to do, and is trouble-free enough for them to stick with it. They still are running Word97 for crying out loud...it still types letters, so its good enough. I see no reason to switch to OfficeXP, Office2kPro still does everything I could ever want to do with it.



Windows XP in an active directory environment it is no harder to control large numbers of machines and is more fine tuneable than W2K.

The major difference is with Windows XP SP2 most things that are on by default in W2K are turned off by default… this is a good thing from a security standpoint. A lot of people use to dealing with W2K cannot get their heads around this.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 4:13:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:
XP is fantastic over Win2K in an Enterprise enviroment.


What kind of "Enterprise enviroment?" For employee PCs, sure, but I would NEVER put XP on any of our production or development servers. Frankly, MS is shit for any large-scale enterprise environment. We just converted half of our data center to HPUX from W2K-AS and we'll be running Oracle 10g instead of MSSQL in November (porting from TSQL to PL/SQL is fun ).

Fuck MS for everything but the desktop PC.



I was not aware that XP was a "server" OS. Gee, I learn something every day.

Bob
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 5:43:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
I hear this shit all the time from *nix admins who don't get it that you manage a Windows environment differently.

I have run 5 nines on Win 2000 with off the shelf HP LH3000 and Lpr servers.


We were a Windows shop for as long as our product was around. We grew so fast that the environment could not handle the traffic. MSSQL just can't handle what we are doing to it. We have a distributed file processing system that hammers SQL. We engineers took a year and rewrote the entire application from scratch to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the system. All we did was push the bottleneck further and further down until it became obvious that SQL couldn't keep up.

Try processing, translating, and importing 250,000 data files a day while handling thousands of web users on the same SQL cluster. We're going with HPUX on Itanium boxen with Oracle. You Windows guys can keep it, because it's proven to not scale well.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 5:56:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Ok, I finally figured it out. First you have to make sure you add in Microsoft File Sharing when setting up the network connection. That was done. Then you need to setup the file share. I did that but there was no place to assign permissions. I then remembered what I went through at my parents house to get it setup for them and did this step. You have to open up windows explorer -> Tools -> Folder Options, then click on the View tab. One of the check boxes in there is to use "Simple File Sharing" and it's checked by default. Now will someone please explain what an adminastrative file sharing setting is doing under a "view" tab for viewing file extensions or displaying the full path in a title bar? Anyway, once I unchecked the "I'm a stupid user and need Microsoft to make things simple for me" box then I could back to my file share and assign permissions to the specific users. Then I was good to go. But still XP sucks.





Damn my mother knows to install Microsoft File Sharing when setting up the network connection and she is 74 years old. ETA: usually installed by default.

No offense intended but a search in help on "setting up a network" or the MS web site and 5 min would have gotten you through this... it is kinda hard to screw up.

You also might try to use Administrative Tools in the Control Panel... on second thought don't.



Who uses Microsoft help? What good would going to the Administrative Tools do when that's not where that Admin Tool is that was tripping me up? The whole source of my problem was Microsoft buried their Admin setting for file sharing under "View" in "Folder Options". It isn't related and doesn't belong there. XP sucks because to make it "more secure" Microsoft turned off a lot of it's features and then added a "simple" interface that really does nothing useful. I'm hoping Windows Vista is setup much better. I have the preview I guess I should start playing with it.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 6:17:39 AM EDT
Stick with Win2K until you ABSOLUTELY have to upgrade. I went from DOS 5 to 5.x to 5.xx to 6.0 to 6.1 to 6.11 to 6.2 to 6.22 because every time they upgraded, something didn't work unless I upgraded DOS. I also went from Windows 3.1 to 3.11 during the process. Luckily, most of the upgrades were freebies. Most of the DOS upgrades were because of lawsuits during the DriveSpace debacle and I didn't feel the need to pay Microsoft's lawyers.

I went from Win 98 to 98SE to Win XP because the apps I wanted to use wouldn't work. I didn't upgrade with every new version of Windows because I learned my lesson with DOS. I still use whatever 98x apps I can that will run under XP because I'm familiar with them and I know how they work and how to do the things I want to do with them. I won't upgrade to Vista until I absolutely have to. I've been wanting to set up a dual-boot with 98SE for some of my favorite games and apps that don't like XP, I'll probably put that off until I upgrade to Vistal. or Vista 2.

I'm thinking about getting one of the new Intel based Apples if they make them the same price for the same performance as a Windows machine(sheah!right!). But really, I like the idea of having one box that will run on three different OS's on-the-fly.(Linux, OS X.x, and Vista) Then I can use the software that runs best on whatever platform I need without rebooting or changing machines.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 6:49:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
The whole source of my problem was Microsoft buried their Admin setting for file sharing under "View" in "Folder Options". It isn't related and doesn't belong there. XP sucks because to make it "more secure" Microsoft turned off a lot of it's features and then added a "simple" interface that really does nothing useful. I'm hoping Windows Vista is setup much better. I have the preview I guess I should start playing with it.




Screenshots perhaps ?


I always saw XP as a modded version of Win2K, hence this thread. The responses so far tell me that my instinct is right.

My instinct tells me though that Vista 2.0 may be the next version to upgrade to.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 6:56:53 AM EDT
I stuck with Win2000 for quite a while after XP came out, and even after all the other machines at work were converted to XP. In the end I switched everything to XPPro and I have been pretty happy with it.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 7:15:53 AM EDT
I have XP Pro at work and W2K Pro at home. I see no reason to upgrade my home machine. I have never run into software that required XP. If I do it will likely be a game that won't run on my two year old video card anyway.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:54:11 AM EDT
I'm running XP pro X64bit edition (Windows server 2003 kernel) and it has been great so far. Looks and feels like regular XP pro but runs both native 64 bit apps and 32 bit apps. Rock solid so far, but I wouldn't run out and buy it, I got mine free from work. Seems to be a middleground between XP and Vista.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:43:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:
I was not aware that XP was a "server" OS. Gee, I learn something every day.


I have heard of people running XP Pro 64bit in low-end server environments. That is why I asked the question. Nice that you decided to be a condecending ass about it.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 12:01:48 PM EDT
XP sucks. I run 2k on my machines and on most of my companies machines as well.

I wish they would take 2003, strip out all the server-specific stuff and have a nice, lean OS without the metric a$$load of gobbledegunk that XP is loaded down with.

Whatever happened to the lightweight windows version to replace 95 & 98 on older machines that was supposed to be in the works?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top