Microsoft Windows XP [Archive]

cluthu

June 24th, 2001, 18:29

>Well I was just wondering that what this new version of windows
>has in store for us
Nothing new, save for some Microsoft spywear that'll be cracked in a week.

>so does the blue screen appears in it or not
What version of Windows would be complete without BSODs? Since it's going to be based on the NT kernel you're likely to see less of them, I'd imagine. Of course, you could reap the majority of the "benefits" they advertise by just using Win2k.

Ali

June 24th, 2001, 19:07

Well what do U think I am currently using Windows98 First Edition and it is working very well for me.......Should I go for Windows2000 or windows XP.........?

CDBuRnOuT

June 24th, 2001, 19:33

Win2K..

Ali

June 24th, 2001, 20:09

Originally posted by CDBuRnOuT
Win2K..

Thanks m8

Badaro

June 24th, 2001, 23:00

Originally posted by liaqatali
Well I was just wondering that what this new version of windows has in store for us.I mean that wether our beloved emus (Actually I like all of them)will be compatable or not with this new version.

As far as I have tested, any emu that works with Windows 2000 will work with Windows XP.

[]s Badaro

sxamiga

June 25th, 2001, 06:23

Be careful, WIN 2k is not a gaming OS. You'll have problems w/it guarented. Stick w/WIN ME or WIN 98, unless you're into fighting w/a business OS (which WIN 2K is) to try to run your games and emus.
WIN XP is supposed to be a "marrige" of WIN ME and WIN 2000, w/the best features of both. Both business and gaming applications are supposed to run fine on it. That is the one I'm going to take a look at. Otherwise, I'll just stay w/Win 98 Second Edition (yup I finally got the upgrade to work).
sincerely,
sx/amiga

Ryos

June 25th, 2001, 07:47

Egad. I disagree with that entirely. Only touch Win ME if you want ammunition in a holy war against Microsoft. Windows 2000 is vastly better than ME for gaming and, in many respects, 98. Considering how few flaws it has now, I'd say it's simply better in every way than 9x, but there will always be some weird title someone wants to play that won't work in 2k.

Dan

June 25th, 2001, 12:36

If windows is your game... I would recomend windows 2000.... Its a real trooper thru and thru... ME is what you get when you combine windows 95 with a service pack called 98, then add in any bloat code that you have laying around the office... I would avoid ME like the plague...

Anyways, sx/amega, Windows 2000 is great for gaming. I have never had a problem with, except for a game or two that would not run without a patch... It may be a bit harder to set up, but once you do it (correctly), its golden days.... I have not had a BSOD since going to 2k on my system, and find them only ever so rarely on the networks i run...

XP on the otherhand has not impressed me yet... I would still choose 2000 over XP for atleat a year untill some of the aftermarket bugs are worked out...

cluthu

June 25th, 2001, 13:04

>Be careful, WIN 2k is not a gaming OS.
I'll agree with sxamiga, but only with a caveat. Win2k isn't an OS for gamers if they have older hardware and/or can't get updated drivers for said hardware. Initially the problems that came about with Win2k were predominately the fault of buggy drivers (which is often the case, actually).

When Win2k was first released I recall C|Net doing a review in which quite a few games actually saw speed *gains* in Win2k, despite the architecture being somewhat new. Just recently I was reading a review of the Geforce 2 MX 400 and realized that there were some considerable performance improvements to be had simply by running Win2k. There's a few titles that simply refuse to run under Win2k (VGS and FF7PC, for example). While there are patches to circumvent the problem in some cases, recall too that you can have Win9x *and* Win2k installed at the same time, so if you have such a program, you can always reboot if need be.

If you have an older system and a small amount of ram I would suggest sticking with an earlier version, as Win2k would surely just aggravate you. Otherwise, do some research, see if all your hardware is supported, and give it a try, I think you'll be pleased.

Dan

June 25th, 2001, 13:13

FF7PC doest work in 2000?

I think it does... and oh yeah, one more thing, in 2k, if you install the support tools, you can use some games that normally wouldn't run (like driver) by running it under the 98 environment... (you can run some programs in emulatated 3.11,95,98,NT3,NT4 SP3, NTSP4... i think thats all of em...)

cluthu

June 25th, 2001, 13:26

>I think it does
It'll install, but the .exe won't allow me to run it. Of course, I tested that prior to both SP1 and SP2, so maybe it isn't true any longer. Maybe it was just being disagreeable that day, I dunno ;)

Dan

June 25th, 2001, 13:28

Have you installed the support tools?? Like i mentioned above, sometimes (and i do mean sometimes) runing it under a diffrent envirnment will do the trick...

cluthu

June 25th, 2001, 13:29

>Have you installed the support tools??
I have them installed *now,* but I'm quite sure I didn't back then. It's not as if getting FF7 to run is much of a priority though, seeing as how I finished it under Win9x.

chp

June 25th, 2001, 13:52

Some games have problems because they need "SB emulation inside DOS" so for these programs it exist a nice proggie for Win NT and 2000 wich emulate SB in DOS boxes. you can found it at :

http://www.ece.mcgill.ca/~vromas/vdmsound/

Now for me almost all my old "MS-DOS Games" are working

Badaro

June 25th, 2001, 16:48

Originally posted by cluthu
>I think it does
It'll install, but the .exe won't allow me to run it. Of course, I tested that prior to both SP1 and SP2, so maybe it isn't true any longer. Maybe it was just being disagreeable that day, I dunno ;)

Last time I checked FF7 was working in Windows 2000, but it needed one of those "Application Compatibility Updates".

[]s Badaro

cluthu

June 25th, 2001, 19:25

Note too that the partition you use for Win2k will have to be under 32 gigs in size if you'd like to use FAT32, otherwise it won't give you the choice of formatting it as anything other than NTFS.

Betamax

June 26th, 2001, 01:49

FF7 Pc runs on win 2K ok here. The only glitch is that it has a habit of crashing in the choco races. In fact in win2k I can run it in hardware mode using my geforce mx without any game patches... It seems that the card supports 8 bit textures on this OS.

Ps Badaro is right it does need the compat update.

Dan

June 26th, 2001, 05:58

Yeah, the GeForce cards will run some glide games in win2k also without any patches... does great on wizmark (glide benchmark)...

Ali

June 26th, 2001, 08:34

Well I think that I should not mess arround with my OS........and stick to Windows 98 First Edition Final Release........It works great for me........Thanks for the help Guys

Ali
M.L.A

Dan

June 26th, 2001, 09:17

Yeah, too complicated...

But if you were, (even thou you said that you were not), i would go with win2k... BSOD is MIA..

sxamiga

June 27th, 2001, 04:09

Dan, I hate to bring this up, but you are a mite to smug for me.
I don't like your attitude on a lot of things. You may be a programmer or whaterver, but you don't need to be like this. Maybe it is just me, but that is how it seems. Also, please spell my name correctly. It is amiga, as in Commodore Amiga. Thanks.
sincerely,
sx/amiga

Ali

June 27th, 2001, 11:24

Bull ****.......!
Today I saw the minimum requirements of Windows XP,Oh man....!this os is way to heavy

Requires minimum Pentium II,400Mhz
64 MB (Recomended is 128MB) system Ram
650 GB minimum hard disk space.....wwwwwwwwwooooooofff

These things really bug...........I need some improvement if I am to instal XP........is it better then Windows98

Ali
M.L.A

Keith

June 27th, 2001, 12:01

I have been using Win2K since it came out ... and I would never go back to Win9x OS. I do have it dual booted for my Scanner (which I am to cheap to buy a new one) because I need it for my drawings. There is so many things I could say about Win2K to convince people to switch ... but I don't feel like it .. so here is just a few. :P
Stability - Man talk about a stable OS. I run my computers 24/7 so I need something that will stay up for weeks at a time. I have never had a BSOD ... and I usually get one within a day of running a Win9x system. As far as Windows OS goes this is the most stable OS I have ever used.
Control - One thing I like is to have some control over my stuff. I know it comes no where close to other nonwindows OS for control, but it gives you enough to be able to control your OS enviroment compared to other Window OS.
Networking - I just have a simple home LAN but I have also experienced Home Networking with other Window OS, and I must say I highly prefere Win2K in this category. Also yes I understand it is a Networking OS, but I also know a lot of people are starting to venture into home networking.
Cool Shadowed Cursor and Fade Effect for the Menus - Heh, gotta love the small things in life. :D
I am sure I missed a ton of stuff ... but these are some of the things I like about Win2k. Well I know some people just love there Win9x OS, but it is a dead OS ... best to move on and get used to the new age of Windows.

-Wormie

SimonMallion

June 27th, 2001, 13:39

Originally posted by liaqatali
650 GB minimum hard disk space.....wwwwwwwwwooooooofff

You need at least a 900Mb partition to be able to install Windows XP.

Ali

June 27th, 2001, 16:16

Originally posted by UncleClive

You need at least a 900Mb partition to be able to install Windows XP.

My harddisk is a 20BG quantum Fireball.I have made 5 partitions.Each containing 4BG.....:)

Ali
M.L.A

CDBuRnOuT

June 27th, 2001, 18:42

WinXP wants 1.5GB for a recommended install..

Raziel

June 27th, 2001, 18:57

The official minimum requirements are:
At least a 233MHz CPU(which when speak in the microsoft language means:at least a 400MHz CPU)
128Mb Ram(read 256)
1.5Gb of free disk space(this one real).

Ali

June 27th, 2001, 19:25

Originally posted by CDBuRnOuT
WinXP wants 1.5GB for a recommended install..

Howly ****

Ali

June 27th, 2001, 19:32

Okay forgot to ask one thing.......!
As CD said it requires.....1.5gb for recomended installation........I would rather like to ask that what would this WindowsXP have.......!

I mean for GOD's SAKE.....it take up a space of 1.5GB....there must be something on that huge amount of space...........!
If the features of Windows XP and 98 are the same then.......I would rather tell microsoft........GO TO HELLLLLLL......!
But these would rather be my comments because there are many Guys out there who would rather love Windows XP.....irrespective of the amount of space it requires......and ofcourse the recomended System............!

Well I guess that Windows XP would be a deal for me that would surely SUCK............I mean Suck FULL TIME............!
But I might change my mind if it runs fine on a Pentium III,500Mhz system with 128MB ram........:)

Ali
M.L.A

Ryos

June 27th, 2001, 22:59

Windows XP = more bundled M$ software = even more bloatware (if that's possible).

Dan

June 28th, 2001, 12:12

sx/amiga... there... its spelt right... :)

Sorry if i seem to come off so smug... My job is an IT Consutant. I speend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week telling people what they need, dont need, and why thats so... I run many networks which contain many, many, many computers of all types and sorts... including the dreaded macintosh... Anyways, the point being is that i enjoy my job, and i like to offer advice when i can because of my vast experice. Again, i appologise if i seem to come off smug to you, but i am not doing it intentionally.

And if you feel the need to repremand me for my option, you are free to e-mail me, its in my profile. I will give you a timely responce.

BTW:
If you have ever been a network administrator, or an ITC, it gives you a god complex over time, weather you want it or not. So that might be the smugness that you speak of. Allthough i dont think that i have it... (Denial is the first stage of acceptance... or is it?)

sxamiga

June 28th, 2001, 19:59

Dan, thank you for the explanation. I can see where you're coming from, but just because you are an IT Consultant does not not mean that you know more than everyone else. That is what i was getting at. In my own way, I probably know as much or more about the emu scene then even you and I'm not an IT consultant.
No, I'm not going to repremand, ban, or otherwise do anything to you, after all, you've done nothing wrong and you are very helpful. I was just stating how it appears to me.
sincerely,
sx/amiga

CDBuRnOuT

June 29th, 2001, 03:42

Positions don't mean knowledge..

BOB

June 29th, 2001, 03:51

Okey dokey, just for arguments sake when i mention NT5 i mean Windows 2000 and when i mention Windows NT 5.1 i mean Windows XP...

In regards to the previous posts about NT5 having problems with games,this is true and not true at the same time.. if you switch to NT5 then a select few `old` games will be unplayable until Microsoft release a compatibility fix for it.
An example of such is M1 Tank Platoon 2 (it only partially works if you use Win95 compatibility mode, but ingame is unplayable).
The problems in the past with NT5 were immature and buggy drivers, to the most effect this is no longer true and with the imminent release of NT5.1 will mean that the hardware makers will be primarilly focusing on NT5.X driver development (NT will no longer play second fiddle for drivers to Windows 9x).

From what i have used of the NT5.1 beta's it seems mostly as a mainstream Windows meant for what i'll term the average pc user, this is someone who only occasionally uses a pc for things such as email, web browsing, the occasional spreadsheet app or game.
This average pc user will probably be an AOL user, from his/her perspective NT5.1 offers a lot over NT5/Win 9x, its got a very simplistic look and tries to be aesthetic in appearance (copying the Aqua look, my opinion i'm _not_ stating it as fact).

However it offers very little new over NT5 and of what it does offer you can already get for NT5, for example NT5.1 offers sound for DOS games whereas NT5 out of the box does not, however support for sound in DOS games can be added by SoundFX 2000 (http://www.softsystem.co.uk ) and as previously stated VDMSound (http://www.ece.mcgill.ca/~vromas/vdmsound/ )

Personally i recommend NT5, however if you class yourself as a person who goes more for looks then go for NT5.1.
Under the hood there is very little different between the two and future games will run identical on both operating systems.

I'll just get off my soapbox now...

BOB

Ali

June 29th, 2001, 07:06

What's going on in this thread

Dan

June 29th, 2001, 13:19

sx/amiga... You dont have to be an IT Consultant to know about anything... But, i state my positon only to try and put some weight on my experiences. I don't claim to know more about the emu scene, or the psx emulators. But, i do have extensive knowlege of diffrent OS and the problems that can be formed and solved. Because these are things that i face every day. Taking care of one or two computers (sometimes a few more) is one thing, even a home network. But when you go onto a corperate scale, it gets a lot more complicated because there are hundreds of diffrent configurations between hardware, software, and users. When i post my prefrences or configurations for computers or what not, its ment as a general statement (unless otherwise stated). It from what problems i have come across and overcome.

I never invalidate anyones opinon. But i will try and correct a misgiven fact. And will tell how to turn the cannot into can be done. I never claim to know more than anyone else. It just might appear that way :D

What's going on in this thread
I dont think it pertians to the tittle anymore...

Positions don't mean knowledge..
But experice does...

Knowlege
1A: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association 2 : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
1B : the fact or condition of being aware of something 2 : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning

Well, anyways, i hope i have not offended anyone too much. I mean no ill to sx/amiga or CD or anyone who i have posted with. The only bad thing about the internet communicaiton, is its extreamly hard to tell the context of written/typed words. BTW sx/amiga, i am a horrible speller and thats why i spelt your name wrong :)

Ali

June 29th, 2001, 15:22

I would say one word.........!

PEACE>>>>>>>

BOB

June 29th, 2001, 16:10

We should all become fun loving hippies and sing songs around a campfire.

Let us all join hands for world peace!

:)

BOB

Demigod

July 13th, 2001, 06:29

I don't know why everyone thinks ME is so bad. I think it's the best thing to happen to the old Windows 9x core. It's much more stable(although I've heard otherwise), I hardly ever get BSOD anymore and it loads much faster than Windows 98. It also has the compatibility and gaming support which the Windows 9x series has always had which is why I still stick with it.

NT is just a business machine. Although it says it has full DirectX 7 support it's very loosely implemented, especially the **** Direct3D support. All my games (that run) always run better in Windows ME. I use the latest working Detonator drivers for my TNT2 but it's still rather slow and unstable (yes, unstable as in it crashes). It seems Direct3D opens a hole in the NT's HAL or something, cause I frequently get these errors or crashes running 3D accelerated games in NT which I never got before in Windows ME. Plus a lot of games don't seem to work, even with the latest service packs and compatibility updates. I can't get Worms Armageddon to work, neither FF7 PC (crashes at the menu; I guess I need a patch, anyone have a link?) and my fav PSX emu VGS don't run. I know it's not the fault of the OS, the blame rests on the programs themselves but where Windows 2000 can't run, Windows 98/ME can. I can always rely on ME to run all the programs and games that I want to run and can always expect full DirectX support with them. Windows 2000 does have its merits (superior networking, superior multi-tasking, SMP support, stability, etc.) but it just fails as a gaming machine, at least on my machine, and on my friend's. I just don't want to wake up one day with the urge to play some old game, then realize that I can't run it because the OS can't handle it. Support has been getting better but I'm just not ready to commit to NT just yet (that's why I dual-boot :))

SimonMallion

July 13th, 2001, 13:03

Once I had installed my VIA 4-in-1 drivers, I found that Win2k was nearly as good as ME in terms of gaming performance (about 200 3dMark 2001 points lower). But when I tried WinXP beta 2 build 2465, I found that I got a higher score in 3dMark2001 than what I did in ME (I got about 2750 in WinXP with standard drivers). I have no problems with WinME too, and I've got Nero and DirectX 8.1 installed too.