ForumsHQ

Quote from Aragon, posted on Oct. 28 2001,12:45

Quote from Ray Dillyo, posted on Oct. 29 2001,01:26Quote:

i have a p1 300 mhz with 64 mb ram... it sux ass. *but xp runs excellently on it... whatcha gunna say now oregano? * biatch...

Ray



Uhmm.. rabid? are you on something? I didn't say XP wouldn't run great. I'm saying Windows 2000 would run FASTER than XP on the lower end machines. That doesn't mean XP would suck.

*sigh*...

Well as far as 2k runnin better on a low end machine than XP ----- Ummm XP will run better 2k was never made for home use even the startup of XP is bout 2x faster then 2k. But I still love my 2000! Don't want to go to XP, seems to me there is a privacy issue with XP. When U install it, it goes to microsoft and reg's itself or at least that is what I have read? I dont like the idea of microsoft watching me Tho they prolly aready are

I don't trust microsquash any farther than i can throw bill gates, and since i can't get near enough to him to throw him outta that plane, then that means i don't trust him at all.

And because I don't trust him, I won't upgrade to XP, too many provacy issues, too many bugs, too many idiot-proof utilities that make things too easy for the average moron to get online and waste space and resources. I would love to go 2k, but my hard drive is crap and 2k won't install on it cuz it claims its corrupt...so, I still use 98...good ol' win98!

At least with win98, I can hackup the startup and shutdown images to my liking. Come to think of it, win98 is so much more hack friendly Makes it easier for me to tinker with and make my own changes whenever I need them.

I'm running win2k and would run xp if i could get a copy. Hell if i'm going to pay for it though.

Trusting Microsoft is like trusting your a friend with your woman U just don't do it

Windows 98 was good I quess but 2k is the shit! *I am not a big gamer so I dont have to worry about the gaming issues that come along with it. *XP F**K it I am sick of every time I turn around microsoft has a new OS, all they are trying to do is drain the pockets of home and corperate users!

DOWN WITH BILL GATES

Quote from Xetox, posted on Oct. 29 2001,3:19

Quote from Aragon, posted on Oct. 28 2001,12:45Quote:

Quote from Ray Dillyo, posted on Oct. 29 2001,01:26Quote:

i have a p1 300 mhz with 64 mb ram... it sux ass. *but xp runs excellently on it... whatcha gunna say now oregano? * biatch...

Ray



Uhmm.. rabid? are you on something? I didn't say XP wouldn't run great. I'm saying Windows 2000 would run FASTER than XP on the lower end machines. That doesn't mean XP would suck.

*sigh*... :thumbsup:

Well as far as 2k runnin better on a low end machine than XP ----- Ummm XP will run better *2k was never made for home use even the startup of XP is bout 2x faster then 2k. *But I still love my 2000! * Don't want to go to XP, seems to me there is a privacy issue with XP. *When U install it, it goes to microsoft and reg's itself or at least that is what I have read? *I dont like the idea of microsoft watching me *Tho they prolly aready are

No way buddy... what are you basing this on? I'm basing my claims on benchmark tests done by PC Magazine.

On lowerend systems, Windows 2000 tends to run faster than Windows XP. It's only when you start getting above 1ghz that Windows XP will show a BIG improvement over Windows 2000.

As far as the "going to microsoft and registering itself".. that's only for the home versions. Professional versions don't do this. And if it does this in secret anyway, who's to say Win9x and win 2000 hasn't already done this?

Well I am going off of the 3 test machines I have here in my office, all are the same PII 450's 64ram one with XP one with 2k one with NT. Xp on start up and over all just seems to be faster, NT of corse is the slowest! but we all know that :). *I dont go off of reports I like to see for myself *I have not installed xp home yet only professinal - and from what I read professinal upgrade the first time you install it wont ask ya to call or hit the websight, but from what I understand if you ever need to reinstall, and for those of us who run windows this happens more often than not :), it will require you to either call or go to the web sight for activation code? *I have not tested it to see if realy does this but thats what they say.

Now Office XP professinal, after 30 days of having it installed I had to call and get a activation code. *Maybe that will happin with XPOS not sure, anyway I don't know what I am talking about * * All I know is I have had good luck with 2k in the corperate inviroment much better than NT, and we are in no hurry to have to run out and pay for all the upgrades to move to XP. *

As of July 31 we will no longer be able to by upgrade from microsoft only full versions, now that is some BS if I have ever heard it. *Now companys are forced into makin the decision of upgrading or not, if not done before then it will cost a fortune.

http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO64608,00.html

true.

Your talking too much ^#$%@#%*@#&$%@#

LoL



But yea, winxp is good, but on weak systems win2k works better i belive.

WinXp and Win2k multi boot for now. so I can test between the two. pentium 2, 400mHz, 128 megs ram. ntfs file system on two hd.

but, i agree ... it is a bit fruity.

So, far, in the speed test department.. win2k is faster. we shall see as I get xp set the way I want/like it/tolerate it.