Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


Subjectupgrade from win2k to xp, yes, no ? comment ? new Reply to this message
Posted byTi-BOne
Posted on11/15/04 04:34 PM



i have this win xp cd lying around for almost a week now..
should i upgrade my win2k box ?
yes, no ?
why ?

home or pro, if i do ?

why ?

and oh yes..
WHY ?


Subjectyes, pro, because -nt- new Reply to this message
Posted byskydoune
Posted on11/15/04 04:38 PM



> i have this win xp cd lying around for almost a week now..
> should i upgrade my win2k box ?
> yes, no ?
> why ?
>
> home or pro, if i do ?
>
> why ?
>
> and oh yes..
> WHY ?
>



Moon the world


SubjectRe: upgrade from win2k to xp, yes, no ? comment ? new Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on11/15/04 07:04 PM



> WHY ?

It's a lot faster to boot, a little bit faster in general (if you disable themes and stuff), every program nowadays is written for windows xp

Maybe there's more, but I'm tired.

Oh, don't upgrade. Do a clean install.

OKKAY!


SubjectI dunno new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on11/15/04 07:19 PM



> i have this win xp cd lying around for almost a week now..
> should i upgrade my win2k box ?
> yes, no ?

No

> why ?

I'd say no, since all of the latest exploits target WinXP/IE6, and SP2 introduces even more exploits (250MB of updates that that have a single bug? Yeah right).

Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Later software = less tested. Upgrading just to increase a version number because you're itchy to do something with your PC since you're tired of a bland (read: not problematic, you don't have to constantly tweak shit) experience, that's not a good enough excuse. A better question is why upgrade?

Windows 2000 is already well into SP4, and I'd say the majority of f-ups on that OS have been fixed, if you set yourself up with a hardware firewall, don't run as admin, turn off useless things such as file sharing and network browsing if you're not using it, stick to Firefox then you'll be OK.

On XP you're stuck with IE 6.0, you have to disable shit like UPnP, or MSN if you don't want it since it's installed by default. Shit is annoyingly slightly changed around and you have to get used to it or change it, so that's another while of tweaking.

XP is faster to boot, like Terry says (since Windows XP loads drivers and software as you need it, not everything at the start), but I don't find it faster to use or anything. It might be worse depending on if the increased RAM requirements tax your system. I run Windows 2000 on a 233MHz Pentium MMX and it's still usable. Windows XP does not bring any added stability, or speed (unless you're constantly rebooting for some reason).

> home or pro, if i do ?

Home

> why ?

No Remote Desktop, that's just one more feature there to exploit, less software = less shit.

> and oh yes..
> WHY ?

Why Windows?




SubjectRe: I dunno Reply to this message
Posted byTi-BOne
Posted on11/15/04 07:39 PM



> No

hmm..

> > why ?
> Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Later software = less tested. Upgrading just
> to increase a version number because you're itchy to do something with your PC
> since you're tired of a bland (read: not problematic, you don't have to
> constantly tweak shit) experience, that's not a good enough excuse. A better
> question is why upgrade?

i only would upgrade if i would get a better performance, since my hardware is finally showing its age for what i do.

> Windows 2000 is already well into SP4, and I'd say the majority of f-ups on that
> OS have been fixed, if you set yourself up with a hardware firewall, don't run
> as admin, turn off useless things such as file sharing and network browsing if
> you're not using it, stick to Firefox then you'll be OK.

that my friend, is my basic behavior, i'm been faith to firefox since it was called phoenix. hehe.

> XP is faster to boot, like Terry says (since Windows XP loads drivers and
> software as you need it, not everything at the start), but I don't find it
> faster to use or anything. It might be worse depending on if the increased RAM
> requirements tax your system. I run Windows 2000 on a 233MHz Pentium MMX and
> it's still usable. Windows XP does not bring any added stability, or speed
> (unless you're constantly rebooting for some reason).

i need it to be stable (without crashings for no reason) and fast in performance, booting time is NOT a problem, since i only boot once per day.

> > and oh yes..
> > WHY ?
>
> Why Windows?
Right now ? because i want to play games (GTA3, GP4, NFS3 (yes bitch, i play nfs3 almost daily! hehe) NFSU2). and because its a shared computer with not so computer litterate people.
I have my other computer (a k6-2) and its running redhat for ages, great os.





---------------------



Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode