VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 88 of 88
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Mozambique
    Search Comp PM
    I use Win 2000 on my Pentium 600 after trying XP. They system runs much better with 2000 and I can do just about any thing I had planed for the XP OS including networking between XP and 2000 systems.
    Big Government is Big Business.. just without a product and at twice the price... after all if the opposite of pro is con then wouldn’t the opposite of progress be congress?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
    then you shouldn't do it like that, you should turn the onboard graphics card off in your bios.
    Thanks, I'll try that ... but WIN still detect it?

    wow this system isnt even ATX
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    no, once it's turned off in bios it will disappear from windows completely.
    Quote Quote  
  4. I have a 533mhz celeron with 96megs of pc100 sdram and have w2k installed over w98se and it runs much beter and way more faster,also uses up less ram than w98se does.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by dukenukem
    I have a 533mhz celeron with 96megs of pc100 sdram and have w2k installed over w98se and it runs much beter and way more faster,also uses up less ram than w98se does.

    Kinda cool isnt it? LOL It was like getting a new computer for me.
    A bird in the hand is worth a foot in the tush-Kelly Bundy
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by mujahid7ia
    Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
    then you shouldn't do it like that, you should turn the onboard graphics card off in your bios.
    Thanks, I'll try that ... but WIN still detect it?

    wow this system isnt even ATX
    The integrated gfx already was off in the BIOS, set to "non-boot" in pci vga setup, and "disabled" in irq list.

    This is an old OEM bios, with hardly any options... maybe missing something?
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    is there a "share memory size" item? if so make sure it's set to zero
    Quote Quote  
  8. I plan on using my system mostly for video editing & tivo-functionality. I'm not much of a gamer. Yet. I've been running winxp for about 2 years now, and know a fairly good amount of tweaks & customization schemes. But I'm wondering with my current hardware, which OS would be best : Pent4 2.6C/ Asus P4P800/ 1024GB (hyperx466)/ ATI 9600 AIW/ 10GB (os & apps only).

    I plan on getting a 200GB, which will allow me to use the 10GB to save my web-designing stuff, images, docs, & other non-multimedia data files, use the 60GB for normal OS operations, video capture, & recovery. I'd like to partition the HDD into 40/20. Use the 20GB partition to store a ghost image of the OS, use the 40GB to run/load windows, various apps, & temp storage of recorded shows.

    Went to cnet.com, to pull up the performance article about Win2k & WinXP, but couldn't find it. If anyone know it, please send me a link.. Better yet, post the link for us idiots. Thanx, have a good day.

    - C.V.Merlot
    -----------------------------------------------------

    - Home sweet home is at 127.0.0.1.
    Loving it each zero & one. *sm: )e*
    Quote Quote  
  9. A friend of mine just upgraded a computer with about the same size Celeron processor. It was upgraded from ME to Win2k. He had 64mb ram.
    Needless to say, it was a little slow to me, but he said it was about the same as ME. We jumped the ram up 256mb, and it goes like a bullet now.
    The moral is, as mentioned before, is probably you just need more RAm.
    I think the absolute minimum for Win2k is 128mb.
    If it works, don't fix it.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
    is there a "share memory size" item? if so make sure it's set to zero
    No share memory size item, so I think the integrated might be taking 16-32 MB f RAM even while using voodoo3 2000 PCI (overclocked)? how can i tell?
    Quote Quote  
  11. How do I turn off that Media Player preview in the side frame of explorer when selecting video files. I find it highly annoying.

    thx
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member SaSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hellas
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dxj40c
    A friend of mine just upgraded a computer with about the same size Celeron processor. It was upgraded from ME to Win2k. He had 64mb ram.
    Needless to say, it was a little slow to me, but he said it was about the same as ME. We jumped the ram up 256mb, and it goes like a bullet now.
    The moral is, as mentioned before, is probably you just need more RAm.
    I think the absolute minimum for Win2k is 128mb.
    Microsoft claims that the new, not yet released, Longhorn will require a P4/2.4GHz or higher plus 512Mb (although they suggest 1Gb as a minimum). Also, a DirectX 9 compatible card like FX5900 is required to handle the user interface (!!)

    They also expect to be able to ship a revamped version of XP before Christmas to "push" sales of new PCs and upgrades.

    I suspect that they give Windows to PC manufacturers at bargain prices to bundle and ensure that with every new version, new hardware will be required.
    The more I learn, the more I come to realize how little it is I know.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SaSi
    Also, a DirectX 9 compatible card like FX5900 is required to handle the user interface (!!)

    That's mental! i was pissed off when 98 inroduced animated start menu, i hate to think what longhorn will look like if it needs a crad that fancy
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
    Originally Posted by SaSi
    Also, a DirectX 9 compatible card like FX5900 is required to handle the user interface (!!)

    That's mental! i was pissed off when 98 inroduced animated start menu, i hate to think what longhorn will look like if it needs a crad that fancy
    Yeah! I understand making an OS UI "user-friendly", but if the OS requires graphics and CPU like that as a minimum, it will probably just be annoying and slow as hell, and what the hell is all that CPU power needed for? More HDD "indexing"? Or maybe "Anonymous Usage Reports" to M$... the OS is gonna be so bloated.
    Quote Quote  
  15. I think XP "as installed" may be slightly slower, but only because it has more processes running by default. Any self respecting "geeky PC guy" should disable services that aren't necessary on bootup, and when running this way there is no *appreciable* performance difference between the two. See:
    www.blackviper.com

    Networking shouldn't be an issue - I have 2k, XP pro, and 98se all on my network without issue. My XP is stable, driver install is easy, and it can be setup so it "feels" the same as Win2k.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by Jester700
    I think XP "as installed" may be slightly slower, but only because it has more processes running by default. Any self respecting "geeky PC guy" should disable services that aren't necessary on bootup, and when running this way there is no *appreciable* performance difference between the two. See:
    www.blackviper.com

    Networking shouldn't be an issue - I have 2k, XP pro, and 98se all on my network without issue. My XP is stable, driver install is easy, and it can be setup so it "feels" the same as Win2k.
    If you're referring to the above post, I was referring to Longhorn.

    I do know about all the services and processes and gui fluff, but i think I can say that the old PC is definitely significantly faster with Windows 2000 than it was with XP Pro.
    Quote Quote  
  17. 2.4Ghz to run an OS proves to me one thing, MS has GOT to get this shit worked out better! I mean comeon! It used to be the OS would require a tiny amount of power just to function and only intensive programs would require a beefy system, now is this is the new minimum........its gonna get scary. Knowing MS's ability to bloat I bet if you cut down most stuff in longhorn it will run on a PII 300 with 32MB ram! LOL
    A bird in the hand is worth a foot in the tush-Kelly Bundy
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    nah, 32 megs of ram won't be enough for the ten minute long non-skippable flash intro
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
    nah, 32 megs of ram won't be enough for the ten minute long non-skippable flash intro

    LOL Not to mention the glow in the dark interface that is sure to follow it by default.


    I really dont get why windows needs to be so damn bloated. I thought XP had a large footprint on a HD, this thing has got to be a friggin monster,
    A bird in the hand is worth a foot in the tush-Kelly Bundy
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I think those insane minimum specs for Longhorn are for if you are using the top "tier" of services, which basically includes a whole lot of 3D eye candy. Its a whole new display system. With os'es now you basically refresh the whole screen to change something. With LongHorn I think it can refresh individual pixels. Basically it allows you to operate in 3D. So instead of minimizing something to your taskbar, you can push it back in 3D space so it looks like its deeper inside the monitor. And every icon, picture, whatever inside that "box" zooms proportionally as well and it does it all in real time. If you use a lower tier it requires less computer resources. I think if your pc meets XP's minimum standards then you can at least use longhorn, you'll just have to turn off some of the features.

    I turn off all the animation and features of whatever os I use anyway. It all looks like win98 to me and it always will. I can't really notice any difference between 2k or xp so I just use the latter.
    Quote Quote  
  21. That makes sense, adam, and it's not like you're losing functionality when you disable all the GUI effects.

    Originally Posted by devinemi83
    LOL Not to mention the glow in the dark interface that is sure to follow it by default.
    lol
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    3D operation sounds interesting, but ultimately pointless. if an app is further inside the screen how can you see it behind the the maximised app in the foreground? unless they expect you to run all your apps non-maximised?
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I agree flaninacupboard. But the new 3D capabilities will basically just enhance all the typical animation functions of the gui. Like when you minimize, close, move etc... any folder you'll have a choice of different types of new animations that weren't possible before. Equally pointless for someone like me, but others might like it.

    And you know the specs sound hefty now but before you know it they will look prehistoric to us.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia, Can
    Search Comp PM
    Plus, if you use XPLite (www.litepc.com/xplite.html) you can remove lots of stuff you might not particularly use. I have personally removed 321 MBs of stuff within XP that I don't use. Increases HD space, performance and lessens memory requirements.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Originally Posted by Jeremy_G_DVC
    Plus, if you use XPLite (www.litepc.com/xplite.html) you can remove lots of stuff you might not particularly use. I have personally removed 321 MBs of stuff within XP that I don't use. Increases HD space, performance and lessens memory requirements.
    I tried it, on your advice , and I don't no what I removed but I screwed up Windows so badly that I had to do a repair install. I now know to keep System Restore on.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    wow, you screwed your os in less than 24 minutes!
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
    wow, you screwed your os in less than 24 minutes!
    Actually I screwed it up before, I saw him post about XPLite in another post.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Search Comp PM
    Using XP at work, feels and looks terrible. Use also lot of W2k, think it's better. It runs nicely even old PenitumPro 200 with 64Mb ram (have one as gateway/server). XP (pro) feels slow and sluggish with this P3/733, 512Mb ram, Matrox G450 (32Mb) graphics.

    XP can be stable and W2k can be stable. My experiences are, 2k is more stable. Somebody else may think XP is more stable.

    Unfortunately, stability of particular system with particular OS can't be predicted. There are too many hardware combinations/drivers etc. that may work together with certain drivers and OS and cause stability issues in another "same family" OS.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!