by working on computers i did not mean a hardware tech. i mean using the computer to do your work (graphic design, multimedia, engineer, etc). i myself had no hardware that wouldn't function under XP, but for some reason XP wanted to use my firewire card for networking, not my ethernet card. until i pulled on the firewire i had no network. i am not saying w2k on it's debut was more sound than xp is now. what i'm saying is that comparing w2k to nt4, THAT was a major update. there were definitely advantages made from nt to 2000. but there are no advantages as this point with xp over 2000. that is what i'm saying. yes, they might have fixed minor bugs, but aside from slapping that new attempt of an OSX looking interface, there is nothing worthwhile about XP.
<font color=green>"Ok, go ahead rip it apart...just bring me a cup of coffee would you please?"</font color=green>
Sure! Extra caffeine? LOL! Triple cream for me.
(I hope you know that I'm enjoying this conversation. And between the two of us, [and anyone else who chimes in with their opinion] this thread oughta be educational for those considering the upgrade. We should have the the pros and cons pretty much covered by the end of this!)
<font color=green>"As far as a reason to upgrade or fork the extra 130?
for those who have 2000 and actually know how to use it? nope"</font color=green>
We are in agreement on this. And I don't see the point for an IT manager to allocate the upgrade into the budget, not unless WinXP works much better than Win2K, especially for networking.
Okay ... now, same subject, different focus:
<font color=green>"But only get the upgrade to save money"</font color=green>
Hmmmm. Maybe. In the past, upgrading an OS in this manner caused no end of problems, even with the correct drivers. I've always recommended a clean installation of any MS operating system for stability. Is this upgrade going to be different?
I would expect that upgrading from Win2K to XP wouldn't be nearly as problematic as Win98 to XP, because of the kernel.
So will it really save money in the long run, or will an upgrade like this 'cause the user to spend some time paying a tech to fix an unstable system?
<font color=green>"If you have thief the metal age? That is the perfect example of this and try it between the two you will see what I mean.
but when I used to try and load up thief, onto 2000 it would take at least 5 mins for the install screen to show up.
I noticed today when I was checking the video for you. and installed it it came on and went in like it should. came up and played with no hiccups. Was shocked at that."</font color=green>
Okay. That's kinda weird. Yes, I have the game, but it's not doing that to me. I just load it up and play it.
Did you have the latest compatibility updates installed?
<font color=green>"Same goes with some of the other programs like cd creator."</font color=green>
I think that this is more Roxio/Adaptec's fault than the OS. Maybe they should hire some programmers who are a little less brain-dead. (That's also applicable for some other companies, whom I just won't bother to mention.)
What other programs do you have that give you similar problems? (Excepting DOS games, and hopefully, a newer user won't be installing many of those.)
<font color=green>"I know this cause im watching it go on right now, that, in two months time when they smooth this thing out im going to be asked why I didnt put xp on the system or why I didnt recommend it. because its the greatest thing since slice bread and oooooo I cant live with out it."</font color=green>
Yes ... I expect to be asked the same question. Of course, by that time, I'll have a more complete list of why I recommended Win2K, instead of XP. As for it being the best OS ever ... well, that remains to be seen. Let's see how many people are still ecstatic a year from now.
On my end, I've always had more difficulty convincing people that they <i>should</i> upgrade. I've still got customers who won't part with Win95A. (Lots of retired folks in my area.)
<font color=green>"and at the time I did not have time to play with 2000 and find out why it was locking up everytime I'd turn it on.it took me 6 months before i even hinted at the switch over for it. and you know it didnt work completely right till sp2 came out. Was still bugging out." </font color=green>
I've actually spent more time working on getting Win2K straight on different systems since SP2 was released, interestingly enough. I've run four versions, including a beta, and SP2 has been more of a problem than the others combined because of programs and drivers that needed updated.
<font color=green>"If your not a business? yes I'd say right now switch over to XP. just the lack of crashing alone is reason enough.
and the fact that in a couple of months drivers will be out everyone will be hugging each other singing praises from the roof tops, and saying ohhh baby where you been all my life. so go ahead and recommend xp. save them from buying it two months from now then they would be mad at you for making them buy 2000 then going out and getting the upgrade."</font color=green>
However, if they install Win2K, they won't <i>need</i> the upgrade. And if they do feel compelled to give it a try, the combination of the price between the two won't be anymore than the full version of XP would have cost in the first place.
As for the "roof top" singing, that happens with every release of a new OS. Some people still think WinME is the best OS. Or that there was no compelling reason to switch from Win95 to Win98SE.
I learned in my life that when it comes to "the majority" ... they are rarely right. That's like saying the consensus opinion of a committee has a greater chance of success.
<font color=green>"You know Toey your caught between a rock and a hard place."</font color=green>
To a certain degree. You can't halt change. But if I can limit the amount of people who come to me from upgrading immediately, at least for a few months, I think I'll be saving all of us some headaches.
I don't think anyone is going to be mad at me. Eventually, I think most people are going to believe that the best upgrade path will be Win98SE to WinXPSE, not the initial release. Time will tell ...
<font color=green>"the basic question I actually ask those who come to me is this.
Are you in it for the short term or long?"</font color=green>
I don't quite follow you on this. Maybe I need another cup of coffee! First computer or your seventh? New user or old hand?
Toejam31
<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________
<font color=purple>"Have you noticed how much they look like orchids? Lovely! ... Robert A. Heinlein"</font color=purple>
Sure! Extra caffeine? LOL! Triple cream for me.
(I hope you know that I'm enjoying this conversation. And between the two of us, [and anyone else who chimes in with their opinion] this thread oughta be educational for those considering the upgrade. We should have the the pros and cons pretty much covered by the end of this!)
<font color=green>"As far as a reason to upgrade or fork the extra 130?
for those who have 2000 and actually know how to use it? nope"</font color=green>
We are in agreement on this. And I don't see the point for an IT manager to allocate the upgrade into the budget, not unless WinXP works much better than Win2K, especially for networking.
Okay ... now, same subject, different focus:
<font color=green>"But only get the upgrade to save money"</font color=green>
Hmmmm. Maybe. In the past, upgrading an OS in this manner caused no end of problems, even with the correct drivers. I've always recommended a clean installation of any MS operating system for stability. Is this upgrade going to be different?
I would expect that upgrading from Win2K to XP wouldn't be nearly as problematic as Win98 to XP, because of the kernel.
So will it really save money in the long run, or will an upgrade like this 'cause the user to spend some time paying a tech to fix an unstable system?
<font color=green>"If you have thief the metal age? That is the perfect example of this and try it between the two you will see what I mean.
but when I used to try and load up thief, onto 2000 it would take at least 5 mins for the install screen to show up.
I noticed today when I was checking the video for you. and installed it it came on and went in like it should. came up and played with no hiccups. Was shocked at that."</font color=green>
Okay. That's kinda weird. Yes, I have the game, but it's not doing that to me. I just load it up and play it.
Did you have the latest compatibility updates installed?
<font color=green>"Same goes with some of the other programs like cd creator."</font color=green>
I think that this is more Roxio/Adaptec's fault than the OS. Maybe they should hire some programmers who are a little less brain-dead. (That's also applicable for some other companies, whom I just won't bother to mention.)
What other programs do you have that give you similar problems? (Excepting DOS games, and hopefully, a newer user won't be installing many of those.)
<font color=green>"I know this cause im watching it go on right now, that, in two months time when they smooth this thing out im going to be asked why I didnt put xp on the system or why I didnt recommend it. because its the greatest thing since slice bread and oooooo I cant live with out it."</font color=green>
Yes ... I expect to be asked the same question. Of course, by that time, I'll have a more complete list of why I recommended Win2K, instead of XP. As for it being the best OS ever ... well, that remains to be seen. Let's see how many people are still ecstatic a year from now.
On my end, I've always had more difficulty convincing people that they <i>should</i> upgrade. I've still got customers who won't part with Win95A. (Lots of retired folks in my area.)
<font color=green>"and at the time I did not have time to play with 2000 and find out why it was locking up everytime I'd turn it on.it took me 6 months before i even hinted at the switch over for it. and you know it didnt work completely right till sp2 came out. Was still bugging out." </font color=green>
I've actually spent more time working on getting Win2K straight on different systems since SP2 was released, interestingly enough. I've run four versions, including a beta, and SP2 has been more of a problem than the others combined because of programs and drivers that needed updated.
<font color=green>"If your not a business? yes I'd say right now switch over to XP. just the lack of crashing alone is reason enough.
and the fact that in a couple of months drivers will be out everyone will be hugging each other singing praises from the roof tops, and saying ohhh baby where you been all my life. so go ahead and recommend xp. save them from buying it two months from now then they would be mad at you for making them buy 2000 then going out and getting the upgrade."</font color=green>
However, if they install Win2K, they won't <i>need</i> the upgrade. And if they do feel compelled to give it a try, the combination of the price between the two won't be anymore than the full version of XP would have cost in the first place.
As for the "roof top" singing, that happens with every release of a new OS. Some people still think WinME is the best OS. Or that there was no compelling reason to switch from Win95 to Win98SE.
I learned in my life that when it comes to "the majority" ... they are rarely right. That's like saying the consensus opinion of a committee has a greater chance of success.
<font color=green>"You know Toey your caught between a rock and a hard place."</font color=green>
To a certain degree. You can't halt change. But if I can limit the amount of people who come to me from upgrading immediately, at least for a few months, I think I'll be saving all of us some headaches.
I don't think anyone is going to be mad at me. Eventually, I think most people are going to believe that the best upgrade path will be Win98SE to WinXPSE, not the initial release. Time will tell ...
<font color=green>"the basic question I actually ask those who come to me is this.
Are you in it for the short term or long?"</font color=green>
I don't quite follow you on this. Maybe I need another cup of coffee! First computer or your seventh? New user or old hand?
Toejam31
<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
____________________________________________________
<font color=purple>"Have you noticed how much they look like orchids? Lovely! ... Robert A. Heinlein"</font color=purple>
Hellsbellboy
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 33
- 0
- 18,530
I upgraded from WinME to WinXP pro with no problems. There are some annoying things that pop up with WinXP cause so much of MS is intergrated into it.. MS Messanger is one.. had to totally delete it to get rid of it.
For the most part I don't think people or companies that are using Win2k will be upgrading to WinXP. There is no reason too, and most are finally getting Win2k to work properly or just upgraded to Win2k in the first place. But if u are using Win98 or WinME I think the upgrade is worth it, if all ur hardware is compatible. That's why the Update Advisor and Hardware Compatiblity test are so nice. I don't think there will be too many problems with this OS compared to others. But then again. I thought WinME was a good OS.. never caused me the problems that I had with Win95/98 or 2000. For some reason I could never get Win2k to work right on my system. But upgrading to WinXP has been painless for me.
For the most part I don't think people or companies that are using Win2k will be upgrading to WinXP. There is no reason too, and most are finally getting Win2k to work properly or just upgraded to Win2k in the first place. But if u are using Win98 or WinME I think the upgrade is worth it, if all ur hardware is compatible. That's why the Update Advisor and Hardware Compatiblity test are so nice. I don't think there will be too many problems with this OS compared to others. But then again. I thought WinME was a good OS.. never caused me the problems that I had with Win95/98 or 2000. For some reason I could never get Win2k to work right on my system. But upgrading to WinXP has been painless for me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Latest posts
-
Question PC randomly crashing, now seems to boot but won't display anything?- Latest: EvanPeterson111
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram