View Full Version : W2K or XP
My pooter currently has a few little annoying quirks so i think its time for a format and a fresh start.
Question is do i reinstall 2K or shall i upgrade to XP :confused: Is XP that much better (i have seen its 'prettier') or shall i stick with good ol 2K :D
dtmpower
29-09-2003, 17:53
Would install xp, and use the classic windows desktop and menu's that are nicer, load quicker and easier to work with
Win Xp pro imo, and i would use the funky GUI, and use command line shortcuts to find ur way around :p
voodoo_melon
29-09-2003, 18:10
2k, it's far more stable than xp pro on my machine, it's more compatible and it doesn't have the stupid tellytubbies gui (although you can turn it of in xp).
I hate XP :furious:
Tried to install a printer on it this morning and it sets off about using IR ports and whatnot. :mad: :mad:
I'm not much of a techy but XP seems shit hot to me.
thejames
29-09-2003, 18:46
Im with Mr Davro on this one. :)
Jezz_S13
29-09-2003, 18:58
I'd go with XP.
Once you have reverted all the toolbars etc back from tellytubbie land to something more sensible it's loads better IMO, loads faster.
Gotta say though I fecking hated it when it came out.
Originally posted by voodoo_melon
2k, it's far more stable than xp pro on my machine, it's more compatible and it doesn't have the stupid tellytubbies gui (although you can turn it of in xp).
Tellytubbie GUI :D :D :D :D PMSL :notworthy
XP, 2K is brill as well but you may as well use the latest and in my opinion (best) O/S Microsoft have butchered :)
Dave
Martin T
29-09-2003, 19:31
XP. You'll hate it at first, but then you learn how to use it properly and its far better.
I tried XP a while since and I hated it :(
I have it on now though. I grew to like it.
IMO, it runs like a sack of cr*p on 256, but flies on 512Mb.
Nath
XP all the way. I've had it for over 18 months having moved from 2k. The layout annoys to start with until you get used to it. If it really bugs, just turn it all off. Looks exactly like 2k then - except faster. Mind you, I run it on a 1.4GHz PC with 1GB RAM....
voodoo_melon
29-09-2003, 23:39
Originally posted by Martin T
XP. You'll hate it at first, but then you learn how to use it properly and its far better.
I went on an XP training course for work and we learnt about all the annoying bits of it. Like the automatic file restore, which uses 300mb (ok thats not very much any more but still...) of your c: so if you delete an important file, it can restore it. This is great if you happen to delete solitaire or netmeeting, but if you delete ntldr it can't restore it so it still buggers the machine :wack:
Try deleting all the files in c:\program files\netmeeting. Within a few seconds it'll restore them on it's own.
Originally posted by voodoo_melon
I went on an XP training course for work and we learnt about all the annoying bits of it. Like the automatic file restore, which uses 300mb (ok thats not very much any more but still...) of your c: so if you delete an important file, it can restore it. This is great if you happen to delete solitaire or netmeeting, but if you delete ntldr it can't restore it so it still buggers the machine :wack:
They obviously didn't teach you that you can adjust the size of the system restore. Mine is on the lowest setting. This only gives a few weeks of restores, but if something goes wrong that's all you're going to need.
There is a proper way to uninstall Netmeeting and MSN Messenger, etc., rather than deleting the directory. :eek:
You can also restore files like ntldr from the Recovery Console without needing to load Windows.
voodoo_melon
29-09-2003, 23:49
It's not system restore, it's different. System restore enables you to roll back to a previous copy, eg before you installed something. The file restore thing constantly scans certain files and restores them if they're deleted. They're stored in c:\windows\system32\dllcache\ iirc.
You can also restore files like ntldr from the Recovery Console without needing to load Windows.
Yes, but if windows can use cpu time watching solitaire and minesweeper for changes you'd think it'd also check files which are critical to the system.
I voted "Nothing in it really" cos it had no votes and I'm pissed, but would really vote XP.
I'm running XP Pro in classic format and it's never let me down - very stable! :thumbs:
:D
marty_t3
30-09-2003, 01:15
I find 2000 to be far more stable. It lets you decide how you want things set up where XP just makes an ar5e of it for you.
Win2K proven, stable, as long as you don't want to play games, otherwise Xp.
Me...... I use win2k cos I'm crap at games, and that is what my PS/2 is for;)
I would just add that XP Pro appears much more stable than XP Home.
I've got XP Home on my laptop, and I've never had a single problem with it yet. Although I have to admit I have a loathing of things that run in the background and take up CPU time, so I'm probably running things a lot more simply than most of you :)
Does changing from the pretty skins to the standard appearance really make that much of a difference? I'd assumed it would use the same routines - in essence, that you'd just be running a 'Windows classic' skin - a skin still.
Yes, it makes a difference. Try it yourself, if you want. You can always reverse it if you're not happy.
Press the Windows key+Pause/Break to get the System Properties windows. Click the Advanced tab and the Performance Settings button. Choose the 'Adjust for best performance' option and click OK to everything.
If you want the Win2k start menus, right click the Start button and click Properties, click Classic Start Menu then OK.
Wasn't there a big thing about some Microsoft spyware in XP? Was it a myth? I have 2000 because that's what I happened to have when I set up my PC and Mr Gates has enough money without a further contribution from my leaky pocket :p
Originally posted by Wak
...and Mr Gates has enough money without a further contribution from my leaky pocket :p
I'm sure someone would be able to sell you their spare ;) unwanted copy for nothing at all... :D
Duff Man
30-09-2003, 11:48
I use XP pro on all my machines, its eleventy billion times better than windows 9x and have had no problems at all and several problems have been solved. My stability is better than ever and if something goes bleh, it doesnt take everything else with it and gracefully closes.
It has good hardware support out of the box and many useful feature built in (I particularly like the way you can use the picture slideshow and photo printing wizard to make prints of your digital images, all cropped and resized to the right dimensions).
I would also agree that it is more stable than XP home, my GF's pc had this preinstalled and it was forever slowing down and going awry! Recently I wiped it and installed XP pro and that machine works far better now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.