M$ removes XP activation, slashes price to bone

[pIII_Man]

eden again i know that 2k can use hypertreading...M$ recomends you dissable when using pre XP os's...for good reason...

again that is why i tryed 2k3


Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[eden]

Plz don't try to make me out as a dumbass, who said i bought 2k3...

Where did I even try to do that?! And when did I even say YOU bought it!

You have shown me that you DO take too much seriously, it's no wonder you were the prime target for Pope! You would react to the simple thing he'd say. Seriously, CHILL! I never even insulted you, I said it is silly if you went for 2003 just for HT. You need to read how you react in your posts, you're seriously a prime target for flamers.

Why does XP have to hog so many resorces? That is my point it is extremely unecissary...

No, it's just yet another advancement of Windows. Have you enjoyed a 16MB RAM Win 3.1, upgrade to Windows 95? Did you feel it was just the slightest bit unresponsive? It's all normal.
Windows XP has a new interface, that alone accounts for a lot of bloatness. Disable it in the Display Props.

Again the top of the line dells ship with 256 which is too little for xp IMO...

Ok, that's true. Then again, check out the entire system, it's a 400MT bus P4 with a 64MB GF4 MX!
BTW, I used to have a 256MB WinXP. I totally agree it sucks for gaming with that, but you CAN get by it, and you definitely are not gonna have slowdowns in general usage. But, as I and this forum's probably most respected or appreciated member for helping aside Crashman, Toejam13 say: 512MB is the sweet spot for WinXP, and it's cheap as heck these days. Dell just screws you with expensive upgrades for RAM.

that seems to constantly access the internet...i don't like that...i feel like M$ is playing big brother on us...just download a firewall and see how often it accesses the internet (open help for example)

Ok, it's your opinion, but as a user for over a year and that has 90% of the PC filled with pirated software, except Windows XP, I have to say, those accesses have never once come in between my usage experience. I've never once felt it conflicted nor even noticed it existed.

what you think is silly i may think is logical...

Again I only found it silly that you would possibly (not did) go get Win2003 just for HT, considering WinXP had it all along.

eden you do not need to judge my actions...really...what you think is silly i may think is logical...i do not like the fact that you are trying to make me look like a jackass just because i have a diffrent preferance of OS's than you...i relise that xp is simular to 2k3 and if you had read my posts you would know why i went for it...but obviously you would rather put down than read...so flame away...you are just wasting your time...

What's the point debating someone who takes anything to the next magnitude, and makes himself a martyr?

Sorry PIII_Man, you seriously need to check your behavior. You do just as I said in the phrase above. You screw my words and make yourself the martyr when I never once tried to disrespect you. Debating YOU is not fun, it's becoming a fight on your side. Dunno how you debate, but that's just low how you react.
I respect your opinion, but you need to wake up a bit to how I said things.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[pIII_Man]

Um not to disappoint but I believe Windows XP Pro has HT in it, you're a big fool if you got Win 2003 JUST for HT!

What is the harm in trying something that is free?

I was curious get over it...

again I only found it silly that you would possibly (not did) go get Win2003 just for HT, considering WinXP had it all along.

How many times do i have to explain myself...i previously said before you responded to me why i went for this os... i did not go for 2k3 ONLY because it had hyperthreading support...it was basically xp with all of the features that you have stated but without the extra crap...after i disabled all of the server functions...it was a pre-tweaked xp...i did it because in fact i WANTED XP but without the extras that slow down and annoy me (such as the gay jumping dogs in search...)

I make myself look like a martyr?

How? that is not what i am trying to do...i felt attacked because i had preiviously explained why i went for 2k in previous posts...and then you come along and say... must be a fool for going for 2k3 just for HT support...which is not what i did, and i already explained that...it seemed that you were just asking for that response...

I do not mind debates...but when i feel like i have to explain my actions over and over to get others to understand...it is impractical...

Fact of the matter is what are we debating about?

Which os is better 2k3 xp or 2000?

If you want my opinion on that it is user preferance...i was giving MY opinions...if you like XP great...i hold nothing against you...i did not say don't by xp i just said "2000 pro all the way" which was just my opinion...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by piii_Man on 08/17/03 11:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[eden]

What is the harm in trying something that is free?

Ah but that I don't recall you saying.

How many times do i have to explain myself...i previously said before you responded to me why i went for this os... i did not go for 2k3 ONLY because it had hyperthreading support...it was basically xp with all of the features that you have stated but without the extra crap...after i disabled all of the server functions...it was a pre-tweaked xp...i did it because in fact i WANTED XP but without the extras that slow down and annoy me (such as the gay jumping dogs in search...)

That was after my big post. Heck, can you even tell me what do you mean "without the extras that slow down"?

How? that is not what i am trying to do...i felt attacked because i had preiviously explained why i went for 2k in previous posts...and then you come along and say... must be a fool for going for 2k3 just for HT support...which is not what i did, and i already explained that...it seemed that you were just asking for that response...

Again I did not read that this way. You implied and I can quote you as well. I understand now what you mean, but just because you repeated yourself, does not give you the right to extend a misunderstanding to something dramatic. Yes, you ARE martyring yourself. I of all people would not even call someone a jackass for his choice and yet you think I did that. Shame on you!

Fact of the matter is what are we debating about?

Features?
At first yeah, I was countering what you mostly said because I felt you had very little experience to know what XP offers (besides the fact you CAN turn off most services, you CAN remove the bloated interface, and be using a Windows 2000-like interface, fast, and stable, and with all the features you may one day use, including Sysrestore). Then you started replying to me as if I insulted you and you countered me in things like the memory requirement. At that point it was arguments, proving why XP's memory usage is only naturally higher.

My point still stands, you ARE a big target. I can quote you in several threads by Pope proving just how gullible and quick to judge you can be, and how easily provoked you are by even things NOT meant to harm or provoke you.

Ah well, let's just resume the Windows Thai version conversation.....

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[pIII_Man]

Ah but that I don't recall you saying.

HAHA!

And you think i spent $2000 to buy 2k3 for home use?

That was after my big post. Heck, can you even tell me what do you mean "without the extras that slow down"?

can you honestly tell me that XP is a faster os than 2k?

Fact of the matter is you are contradicting yourself you said it yourself that as os's evolve they need more resorces...

I just do not see the evolution that has occured between 2k and xp that requires such a large amount of resorces to be used...i would say 64mb of mem is the minimum to run 2k at a good speed...and 384mb to keep XP chugging...

I understand now what you mean, but just because you repeated yourself, does not give you the right to extend a misunderstanding to something dramatic.

Eden before you spend 10 minutes writing a post...make sure you know what you are posting about...

At first yeah, I was countering what you mostly said because I felt you had very little experience to know what XP offers

You cannot say i have little experience with what xp offers...it is installed on my laptop a(pentium M) and also was installed on my Piii system...i have had over 6 months experience with it...so i feel that i am in a pretty good postition to judge it...

My point still stands, you ARE a big target. I can quote you in several threads by Pope proving just how gullible and quick to judge you can be, and how easily provoked you are by even things NOT meant to harm or provoke you.

What are you trying to say? I think that people should be able to surf and post at these forums without having to worry about getting flamed...so what if i am a big target...that gives no one the right to flame...i just hate it...that is why i mostly stay away from the GPU and others forums...

Beleive me eden...i never once took pope seriously (who did?)

OK...end of 1 rant on to another!


Back to windows Thai/xp in general...


Things that i don't like

msmsgs...
access to the internet...
by the time you strip down you are left with 2k...
memory requirment...
the fact that xp's root dir (windows/winnt folder...) is close to if not exceeding 2gb
Command line emulation (same problems with 2k....long live dos 6.22! )

things i do like...

HT support...

sysrestore could be a nice feature (i have never used it and always disabled it)
It has a good gui for beginers (although without the old style gui i feel like it is hard for a <i>power user</i> to navigate)
Intigrated "COMPACT" (used to be command line in 2k) into the gui of XP...
Driver rollbacks (although restarting in safe mode can acomplish the same thing)...
The autorun function...


So here is my final opinion of xp...

By no means is it a bad os...i never said that...

I <i>feel</i> that it is too resorce hungry for my taste...also i became very annoyed with the msmsgs...although it can be dissabled via msconfig...during certain apps it autostarts again (there is a registry hack to get around this...but still it is annoying)...it does have some good features...but i see it as mainly targeted at the average home user...although it can be turned into a powerful os with some tweaking...you are pretty much left with 2k...

so...

If you are going for a non HT cpu...i would recomend 2k

if you are going for a HT cpu...i would recomend XP Pro or if you are daring 2k3





Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[eden]

And you think i spent $2000 to buy 2k3 for home use?

LOL!
Wow, that's the cost?
Ok, forget all I said, I WAS an arse here! :lol:

can you honestly tell me that XP is a faster os than 2k?

YES!
Bootup can be made extremely fast (BootVis and other tools), and Prefetch makes Desktop loading (bootup as well) seconds away from using the comp. Furthermore using tweak tools (like any power user will do for his Windows to be personalized and fast) will make it blazing responsive and amazing.

Fact of the matter is you are contradicting yourself you said it yourself that as os's evolve they need more resorces...

Perhaps for you, but even if it uses more resources, getting the right system (as one using a 286 with Win 3.1, switching to Win 95 would have done if it were too slow) is what you should do, whether it be RAM upgrade or a full upgrade.

i would say 64mb of mem is the minimum to run 2k at a good speed

If you consider it minimal acceptable speed, then you should not have had trouble admitting 128MB is minimal acceptable for XP, and this is normal too! Heck, Windows 2000 with 256MB is the sweet spot system! WinXP doubles that, but for a good reason, it's evolution.

You cannot say i have little experience with what xp offers...it is installed on my laptop a(pentium M) and also was installed on my Piii system...i have had over 6 months experience with it...so i feel that i am in a pretty good postition to judge it...

And I apologize for the quick judging on that one then.

But I am still more experienced, so NAH! :tongue:

What are you trying to say? I think that people should be able to surf and post at these forums without having to worry about getting flamed...so what if i am a big target...that gives no one the right to flame...i just hate it...that is why i mostly stay away from the GPU and others forums...

If it happens again, (the attitude I pointed you at), I'll come and quote you and prove you. Until then we'll drop this.

Things that i don't like

msmsgs...
access to the internet...
by the time you strip down you are left with 2k...
memory requirment...
the fact that xp's root dir (windows/winnt folder...) is close to if not exceeding 2gb
Command line emulation (same problems with 2k....long live dos 6.22!)

things i do like...

HT support...

sysrestore could be a nice feature (i have never used it and always disabled it)
It has a good gui for beginers (although without the old style gui i feel like it is hard for a power user to navigate)
Intigrated "COMPACT" (used to be command line in 2k) into the gui of XP...
Driver rollbacks (although restarting in safe mode can acomplish the same thing)...
The autorun function...


So here is my final opinion of xp...

By no means is it a bad os...i never said that...

I feel that it is too resorce hungry for my taste...also i became very annoyed with the msmsgs...although it can be dissabled via msconfig...during certain apps it autostarts again (there is a registry hack to get around this...but still it is annoying)...it does have some good features...but i see it as mainly targeted at the average home user...although it can be turned into a powerful os with some tweaking...you are pretty much left with 2k...

so...

If you are going for a non HT cpu...i would recomend 2k

if you are going for a HT cpu...i would recomend XP Pro or if you are daring 2k3

D00d! You needn't do that to me. I told you I respect whatever you choose!
I just wanted to check on a few things to make sure you knew what XP does, because it sounded to me in the beginning, you were not looking at the full picture and just chose to go like Spitfire, bash on MS (as usual anyways).

All is ok!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Wonderful serial long posts!

Well boohoo, get a better drive or enlarge your partition!

If M$ gives me money to buy a larger HDD, then it's no problem.

Considering you hate Intel and don't want to buy any of their products, I have to say you're kind of screwing yourself with such a statement that doesn't concern you! LOL!

I'm not speaking for me. Most of the people buy Intel CPU.

Though I hate Intel, it doesn't mean that I will never buy any of their products. I may buy a Pentium-M based laptop if I need one and AMD/Transmeta has nothing good to compeat.

BTW, I'm bit tired with Win2000. It's kinda backdated nowdays. Lots of things to install after a clean installation. I want a new OS. I will try Windows Server 2003 after I buy some RAM. If it has some serious compatibility issues, then I may use Windows XP Pro

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[pIII_Man]

no serious compatability issues...

Just norton did not want to install...i had to download an enterprise version...which was hard to find...

Other than that it was fine...but before you start cussing at it for not playing games...remember to run dxdiag and turn back on all of the direct 3d functions! For some reason they are off by default...guess they don't want administrators holding lan parties after hours


Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I want to use NAV2002, will it work?

Does it come with .NET framework?

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[pIII_Man]

only the pro/enterprise editions will work...

I beleive it does...not possitive...



Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[eden]

Really, if you do not use networks, WinXP PRO is more than enough. You might want the SP1, but as a 33.6K user, a hacker would need to have no life to take his arse's time to hack you lol!

WinXP PRO SP1, disable some features you don't like, download MS' .NET Framework (they have Windows .NET if you want, but it's sluggish according to my friend), and you're good to go. 384MB RAM should be enough for you. NAV2002 will work.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

NAV2002 (standard) doesn't work at all? or only auto protect doesn't work?

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

 

[pIII_Man]

it will not let you install..


Proud owner of DOS 3.3

 

[sabbath1]

Same features as Win2000? XP looks better and are more compatible with older games, for instance. Also, I never saw a performance difference when comparing game frame rate between the two OS's. So I for one don't agree with you there.

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

 

[eden]

Heheh, you're so funny Sabbath, you dig up old threads and bust in out of nowhere!

Damn, that will ignite PIII_Man though... :tongue:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[sabbath1]

Heh, I haven't been posting anything in three weeks or so, and now I just stomp in 😉

Except for the product activation, for me Windows XP has been easily the best OS I've used. Been experiencing 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000 and now XP, (but not Linux), my opinion counts for something 😛


My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

 

[JP5]

My WinXP boot is pretty fast, but I have next to nothing in my taskbar.

 

[sabbath1]

My taskbar has 9 items, and yet still my boot is blazing
I've never ever thought or experienced any type of slowness in Win XP.

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

 

[eden]

Oh I definitely agree with you there man.

And the prefetch feature is a great feature.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[sabbath1]

Yeah, that's another fine aspect of Win XP

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

 

[Spitfire_x86]

XP looks better and are more compatible with older games, for instance

WinXP is very little more compatible compared to Win2000. I have some older games that doesn't run in Win2000. All of them (except 1) doesn't run in XP, too.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I've installed Windows Server 2003 (enterprise edition) yesterday. Sure it has some good things of Win2000, but both WinXP Pro and Windows Server 2003 needs heavy tweaking to make it usable for me. In WinXP, I have to disable many annoying things, and in Windows Server 2003 I have to disable many sever specific features. Moreover I have to enable audio, catalyst doesn't install properly.

I've found no option for enabling DirectDraw/Direct3D, the Enable buttons are permenatly grayed out. Improper catalyst installation is the reason?

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[sabbath1]

That's not good. However, I can assure you that I have several games that didn't work in Win2K that now works flawlessly.

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

 

[eden]

Thank god for the ZDOOM emulator so I can play Doom II on WinXP! :lol:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

 

[sabbath1]

Emulator? Is that what you call it?
Hey, even DOS Doom2 works on my machine, albeit without sound 😛

ZDoom in all glory...but I prefer the good ol' Doom experience...thus I use GLBoom/PRBoom


My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW