Longhorn...Longhorn...
...yea...
It's got the strange SmartBarXP thing in it, has a afslot of new svcs that aren't explained very well in the MMC like "Castle Service" and "Windows Future Storage", IE is 6.05, STILL SHXT COMPARED TO FIREFOX, now the taskbar buttons are CENTERED (Strange), thanx to the Sidebar the desktop is now about 1/3 smaller, a condition MS tried to releive by cramming a t0n more crap in the 'New Start Menu' which now takes up a little under 1/2 the screen and alot over 1/2 the desktop, get the feeling I don't like it? They now let you use the 'Welcome screen' AND Ctrl+Alt+Del.
Want some LH Astroturf? http://longhornblogs.com/
-Q
It's got the strange SmartBarXP thing in it, has a afslot of new svcs that aren't explained very well in the MMC like "Castle Service" and "Windows Future Storage", IE is 6.05, STILL SHXT COMPARED TO FIREFOX, now the taskbar buttons are CENTERED (Strange), thanx to the Sidebar the desktop is now about 1/3 smaller, a condition MS tried to releive by cramming a t0n more crap in the 'New Start Menu' which now takes up a little under 1/2 the screen and alot over 1/2 the desktop, get the feeling I don't like it? They now let you use the 'Welcome screen' AND Ctrl+Alt+Del.
Want some LH Astroturf? http://longhornblogs.com/
-Q
Comments
-Q
Why does software nowadays have to be so f*cking complicated? Take word as example. Its about 100mb. WordPerfect 5.1 does the same thing. If you gave WP51 a graphical windows-look shell it would be perfect. all the functions you need and a total size of about 8mb.
Really: Who needs that f*cking Office Assistant crap?
It's a viscous cycle.
-Q
PS: OO.Org. 130M to install, 90% Office compatable. I still like MS Office though. I used IBM Works once with OS\2 v3 and its good for the time period. IBM Works has about the same funtionality as Office 4.3/95. I got WP 5.1 for DOS and its just too simple for me.
Sure was hell ugly and took a bunch of space. I think MS should start completly over with the look and feel of windows. and also don't make it all pastal and crap. When I ran XP it felt like the queer guys came over and gave my laptop a make over. I perfer something simple like Window Maker for linux. Easy to use, no pastal shit, runs fast on a 486 and can do just as much as windows if not more.
I'm a little afraid to go all Linux, but I may go to Win 2000 instead of Win XP.
-Q
-Q
I did RH 9 on 64M RAM and was like shit, the thing was an MMX 233, stuck in another 96M and put on RH 7.3 and ran great. Unfortionitly, it runs Windows 2000 right now.
1) Versions ARE compatable with each other most of the time.
2)It run fast when you use thr right version. Like 9 will not run on a 386 unless you just use the concal instead of a GUI. For example, RH 9 wont run on a 100MHz, but RH 6.X can, and you cant really tell the difference.
And plud, it makes good servers :-P. Lets face it, Windows cant run as long as Linux. Why do you think half the internet runs Linux. HuH? all major protcols are supported such as HTTP, FTP,,SMTP, POP3, and many more.
And SSH23, What is your actual REASON for going Windows 2000? Huh? Just becuase XP looks bad, put it in classic mode :-P problem solved.
I have it in classic already, :P. The main thing that made me realize that XP is scary is when browsing my network. It seems like Win 2000 just instantenously brings up the PCs in my network or shows network shares, but XP takes a while just to draw up the H:/ drive on my network.
That would be why you put XP on <b>everything</b>, and I'm trying to switch most of my stuff to 2000.
I got 1 PC with Windows XP and 3 with 2000, 3 with NT4, some with 95, and an OS\2 box thats fucked up at the moment :-0
And, YOUR the one putting XP on everything. You put XP on a 500MHz with 128MB RAM, 256M is barely enough, AND you put Windows 2000 on a 133MHz with 32M RAM, my MMX 233MHz/192M is barely enough for Windows 2000.
Plus, Q is USING XP Pro.. NOT 2000. 2000 is a kickass OS, its insanely stable, but doesnt support SSE / SSE2, which Q has, so Q went wth an OS that SUPPORTS HIS PROCESSOR. Running 2000 on an Athlon XP / MP / 64 or Pentum 4 is like running Windows 3.1 on a Pentium 3. Your just making it slower.
-Q
.....WHY? 128MB is murder, so why 96M? I'd just uppy the RAM a bit, a stick of 128M is like ~8 giving you...(gets out calc)....uhhh.....224MB
OR, just use Windows 2000
Also, that 2000 with the crap processor was for a customer of mine, they really wanted it. Tried to warn him, tho. I do have 2000 on my parent's P166 laptop with 32 MB Ram and it runs pretty well- even after use and with Office XP on it.
Dunno if I will put 2000 on my laptop or not. It's tough to say. I may leave XP on it, and put 2003 on my P4 desktop. Then put 2000 on all my older systems.
What do you think is better for a Dual PIII 550, putting your personal XP/2000 preference aside?
/ If DateTime >= 4/6, 'SuSE 9.1 x86-64'
\ elseif, 2000Proessional
-Q
Just as many boards/BIOSes from that day don't support more than 8.4 Gig of HDD space, I thought <b>maybe</b> it might not have supported it. Besides, maybe he upgraded the processor and its really an older board. :P
James
Pentium forgot already
80M EDO
6.7GB HD
Windows 2000.
I would add RAM, but considering EDO is so damn hard to find. You probly only have like 4 EDO Slots, 32M modules never really made it... SDR Came out when most people only had like 64M or 32M RAM.