Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19

Warning: Function ereg() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 4

Warning: Function split() is deprecated in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 19
Windows 2000 > Windows XP - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

  1. #11
    Moderator
    Good Guru
    Compunuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,935

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP


    Say what you want about windows, but it kicks linuxīs ass when it comes to desktops.
    You are crazy .....

    My Debian with IceWM on P 233, 64 MB runs a lot faster than the same hardware with Win2K .....

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    353

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

    Maybe I should have added "for people who donīt have crappy computers." *

    Win 2000 runs fine on my duron 700@933 with 256Mb ram.

  3. #13

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

    If you need a computer that's less than 30 seconds old to run Windows, what does that say about it?

    Can you run a webserver with Windows 2000 on a 486?

  4. #14

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP



    Win 2000 runs fine on my duron 700@933 with 256Mb ram.
    so does slackware on my celeron 600 @ 927 w/ 256mb

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    353

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP


    If you need a computer that's less than 30 seconds old to run Windows, what does that say about it?
    Iīm not sure what you mean? I have had this computer for almost a year.

    Can you run a webserver with Windows 2000 on a 486?
    I donīt have a need to run a webserver on a 486, I just want a desktop OS that can do what I need it to do.

  6. #16

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

    Iīm not sure what you mean? I have had this computer for almost a year.
    It's called "hyperbole". I was exaggerating the youth of your system. Windows is bad because it doesn't run on old hardware, along with a ton of other reasons.

    I'm not going to start a windows basing/flaming thread, though, I'm not in the mood for the aggression right now.

    I donīt have a need to run a webserver on a 486, I just want a desktop OS that can do what I need it to do.
    Well that's your problem, isn't it?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    353

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP


    It's called "hyperbole". I was exaggerating the youth of your system. Windows is bad because it doesn't run on old hardware, along with a ton of other reasons.
    I understood that, I just think itīs funny how so many people complain about windowsī hardware requirements. I ran win 2000 on a celeron 300@450 without a problem. It only had 96Mb ram but you can get an additional 128Mb for an hourīs pay.

    Computers are cheap today, extremely cheap. Sure, there are some people who canīt afford a decent computer but I think they are very few.

    Well that's your problem, isn't it?
    Itīs not a problem. Win 2000 works like a charm right now.

  8. #18

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

    you can get an additional 128Mb for an hourīs pay.
    No, sorry, RAM isn't free.

    I'm rather tired of people referring to their 600 MHz processors and their 256 MBs of RAM as "weak" systems. What's so weak about them? Maybe you're trying to run windows on them? I have a P2-300 MHz with 128 MBs of RAM, and it runs (linux) just fine. It's certainly not "weak".

    Computers are cheap today, extremely cheap.
    Nothing's cheap when you're broke.

    Sure, there are some people who canīt afford a decent computer but I think they are very few.
    You're talking to one.

    Itīs not a problem. Win 2000 works like a charm right now.
    That was a joke.

  9. #19

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP


    you can get an additional 128Mb for an hourīs pay.
    Unless you have an income of zero like me

  10. #20

    Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP


    Say what you want about windows, but it kicks linuxīs ass when it comes to desktops.
    ... says you. I've had better luck with Linux on the desktop myself. For one, Debian makes it easier than Windows to install programs. It's pretty much unarguable that typing "apt-get install program" is easier than the Windows method. Also, there's so much more free programs with Linux. When I used Windows, I was such a software pirate. I don't really feel bad about it either. The software I wanted to use cost far more than I had. In fact, I pirated Windows 2000 itself because I consider Windows 9x to be half an operating system and I needed tools from a more complete one, like Win 2k. I can't afford to pay $300 for it though. Since I've used Linux and FreeBSD, I haven't pirated a single program. I doubt any authority would have ever figured out my software was pirated, but it makes me feel good that if they did check my computer, it's all legal now.

    Also, on the side of the Windows users, if you have old hardware, you can run old versions of Windows. Windows 95 will run fine on a 486. NT 4 isn't bad either for the power users like me. But Microsoft doesn't sell or support these old versions anymore meaning you have to buy them used and scrounge around for support. It's really a pity that they'd abandon these old ones to make people upgrade. And yes, today's operating systems should not require a 600 Mhz processor unless it's for a major server. I have an 850 Mhz Thunderbird and I would consider it fast. I'm shocked that it's not too far above the minimum requirements for XP. I just bought it a few months ago and then the fastest processor was just a little over 1 Ghz. I shouldn't have to buy new hardware about every year just to keep up. Before this system I used a Pentium 2 233 Mhz. I'll admit that it was pretty slow by the standards of that time but I don't think Windows 2000 should have ran as slow as it did. If the operating system is this much of a resource hog, what's left for the programs?

Similar Threads

  1. Upgrading Windows 2000 Server to Windows 2003 Serv
    By dbrewer in forum Windows - General Topics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-18-2006, 12:53 PM
  2. how to fix windows 2000 pro
    By texpo in forum Windows - General Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2005, 09:10 AM
  3. Make Windows XP Look Like Windows ME or 2000
    By The Donald in forum Windows - General Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2005, 01:32 PM
  4. Windows 2000 slows down
    By alloy in forum Linux - Hardware, Networking & Security
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-06-2003, 08:43 AM
  5. Windows 2000
    By pbharris in forum Windows - General Topics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-02-2002, 02:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •