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.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 88 of 88
Thread
-
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?
-
Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
wow this system isnt even ATX -
no, once it's turned off in bios it will disappear from windows completely.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by dukenukem
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 -
Originally Posted by mujahid7ia
This is an old OEM bios, with hardly any options... maybe missing something? -
is there a "share memory size" item? if so make sure it's set to zero
-
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* -
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. -
Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
-
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 -
Originally Posted by dxj40c
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. -
Originally Posted by SaSi
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 -
Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
-
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. -
Originally Posted by Jester700
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. -
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 -
nah, 32 megs of ram won't be enough for the ten minute long non-skippable flash intro
-
Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
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 -
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. -
That makes sense, adam, and it's not like you're losing functionality when you disable all the GUI effects.
Originally Posted by devinemi83 -
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?
-
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. -
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.
-
Originally Posted by Jeremy_G_DVC
-
Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
-
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.
Similar Threads
-
Sharp Mini DV firewire not detected by Win 7 but was working under Win XP.
By thintin in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 2Last Post: 6th Jun 2010, 03:12 -
Which is better for speed and performance?
By SIRCOOKS in forum ComputerReplies: 3Last Post: 20th May 2010, 23:03 -
Win 7 and XP dual boot issues. Can't access one of the drives in Win 7?
By Denvers Dawgs in forum ComputerReplies: 3Last Post: 13th Jun 2009, 23:51 -
Concerned about PC performance
By mattman1968 in forum ComputerReplies: 4Last Post: 23rd Oct 2008, 11:31 -
Still Performance
By crocker5731 in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 5Last Post: 5th Dec 2007, 11:31