New 2.4C for the bat computer

[Rasputin'sLiver]

Guess I owe AZN an apology, thought maybe he was trying to pull a joke on me or something.

don't apologize to him. he probably was trying to pull a joke on you! jk, azn!

 

[AZN]

scores are much better batboy

 

[gouda96]

not me

originally posted by batboy
You mean why I don't like it other than it being an inefficient OS with a bloated programing code and that Microsoft forces you to reauthenticate it everytime you upgrade?

2 ways to solve that:
have a father that is an IT guy at a major company, and have him get an open IT registration to make it as easy to install as many times on as many machines as you like without any registration crap... or
hhmmm...
*cough* *cough*

 

[micamica1217]

Re: not me

hhmmm...
*cough**cough*

please delete this part........the rules about speaking of pirating software is stictly forbiden. read the rules of this forum.

thanks

mica

 

[AZN]

Gawd.... you couldn't pay me enough to use XP. I really hate leaving 98SE, that's the best gaming OS.

so who wants to bet that batboy will be using XP sooner or later? also 98se wasnt a best at anything

 

[micamica1217]

Ras, I hung onto Win98SE until last weekend, I bet I can cling to Win2k Pro for a long time too... hehehe. I have SP3 installed which solved most of the earlier compatibility issues. All current software supports Win2k. I even installed some old pre-Win2k games and programs which work just fine. I've had no trouble finding device drivers. Win2k is a well proven and extremely stable OS. I see no reason to deal with the hassles of XP (at least for the time being).

man, batboy, I always belived the same as you about win xp....

yet after I first instaled winxp, I'll never go back.

it was just too easy to make everything look like win98 and get rid of all the "bloated" crap.

you now just have to type in "run"---msconfig...
since it is not listed in any menu I can find.
big deal.

mica

 

[AZN]

i remember using CTRL ALT DEL in win98 all the time
now the only time i do that is to lock the pc out

 

[batboy]

No, no, no, I will not bend to peer pressure. To be honest, I have used XP a couple times, but I never inhaled.

Fizz, I'll run some benchies later this week. I'm working on repairing a computer tonight for a lady that's moving and I have to make a house call tomorrow night for a CPU upgrade. However, I don't have UT2k3.

 

[ol' man]

Yeah I install XP on my computer only to use it like 2 times then reinstall win2k over it. The kernel for them both is the same you know. Instead lately I have been using win2k3 server trial version. I like it better. XP sucks plain and simple. The differences between Win2k and XP is very little. Maybe you can run your burner without software or run msconfig without using the XP version in win2k(which I do). O yeah I guess you don't need to install dx8 or media player 9

I have had a legal copy of winXP for about 1 year but it simply just sits there unused like the piece of crap it is.

win2k forever man. I am sure if you tried you could get the XP gui to run in win2k as also the burner software. I am used to the old win2k gui. I changed the win2k3 gui to be like win2k. Old habits die hard.

Like I said I am using win2k3 server which really is no different than winXP or win2k. win2k3 simply has all the updates and dx9 media player already installed. They have a win2k3 proffessional version apparently coming too. I don't know is that Longhorn?

There definatly is a big difference between win98 and win2k/XP etc....... Really is no comparison. Everytime I use a win98 computer at school it has to die at least once on me in an hour time span. I have ran my win2k machines for months without a lockup or shutdown.

I have been running a legal version of win2k for 2.5 years now.

Saying games run better on winXP is BS also. I have seen scores and actually after SP1 installed the games run slower on XP. Without SP1 isntalled they run the same speed. Maybe it is the bloated puss code.

 

[AZN]

win2k forever man.

u remember that 20 years from now

 

[ol' man]

http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml


Game benchmarks.

 

[ol' man]

These benchmarks are before SP1. I can't find the benchmarks after sp1 which were worse. Tell me what else does XP have that is so great that win2k doesn't?

In 20 years we will have OS's on a chip.

 

[batboy]

My hero.

 

[ol' man]

My hero.

This link gives some more non game benchmarks.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/index.x?pg=1

Basically winXP and win2k run progs the same speeds. We are talking .5 fps between win2k and XP. winME plain sucks in comparison as also win98.

 

[AZN]

so u base this all on 1 Fram per second difference?

 

[TC]

I have been running P4 HT and Xeon chips under 2k, XP Pro, and more recently dot net enterprise. I have found very few differences between them with respect to HT performance. When you get down to it XP is little more than 2k with a different appearance and more drivers built in. Dot net is really where I see more of a break from the past two releases. Having said that, what was the original topic of this thread?

 

[ol' man]

I have been running P4 HT and Xeon chips under 2k, XP Pro, and more recently dot net enterprise. I have found very few differences between them with respect to HT performance. When you get down to it XP is little more than 2k with a different appearance and more drivers built in. Dot net is really where I see more of a break from the past two releases. Having said that, what was the original topic of this thread?

Is this the same thing as win2k3 server enterprise edition? I am running that and I don' see what is so special. If anything it seems a little less stable than win2k. I also noticed that winXP was plagued with the same things as win2k3 server enterprise edition.

How is it that .net is moving ahead of 2k and XP.

 

[ol' man]

so u base this all on 1 Fram per second difference?

Eh?

I see less than a 1fps difference between the two above. With sp1 installed it was more on the order of 1~2fps difference between XP and 2k. I really am not sure what you are getting at? The point was that XP is not faster at gaming than 2k.

I simply like the principle of win2k. That activation crap is BS in XP etc. I do too much tinkering to worry about moving a HD around to different machines causing my system to shut down.

Anyway since HT works with 2k then what more could you ask for?

 

[Flu!d]

I simply like the principle of win2k. That activation crap is BS in XP etc. I do too much tinkering to worry about moving a HD around to different machines causing my system to shut down.

Not all versions of XP have product activation....

And I believe there is a patch to cure the slowdowns experienced running SP1....Not that I have ever experienced any anyway.

I have been running P4 HT and Xeon chips under 2k, XP Pro, and more recently dot net enterprise. I have found very few differences between them with respect to HT performance. When you get down to it XP is little more than 2k with a different appearance and more drivers built in. Dot net is really where I see more of a break from the past two releases. Having said that, what was the original topic of this thread?

Have you compared them in direct 3D applications (gaming benchmarks)? Because from the data I saw there was quite a difference in peformance between Windows XP and Windows XP SP1 in regards to HT....XP SP1 was quite a fair bit faster. Just wondering whether it's the same with Windows 2000.

 

[jdmcnudgent]

xp rocks. get it.