5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Or, "Why should I bother with XP?"
The time is coming - this computer is kept in working order by technical expetise, willpower, and spit - and I'm running out of spit.
I'm considering buying and OEM box, but all the current OEM's come with XP. I can find a few "dumb" boxes out there, but a dumb box pretty well kills the advantage of an OEM box - getting to ask someone else the technical questions for a change.
Given what also seems to be an increasing paucity in Win2KPro availability, and the question arises:
"What Earthly reason is there for me to upgrade to XP?"
Let me toss out a few points before you answer that question.
1) Win2KPro does everything I need it to do, and does it rather well (for a Microsoft product.) It is everything I wanted when I had to go to Win32/WinNT, and my main problems now are hardware rather than software.
2) I don't really care for the major shift in interface and core architecture I saw in XP. One of the (rare) positive points in the old Win32 series was the fact that the interface didn't really change, and the cores were similar enough that all you really had to do was learn the new capabilities and diagnostic tools. Consistency was - and is - a good thing in some places - it allows you to focus on what other changes are more important (tax code, vehicle code, smog regulations, your job, &c. &c.)
3) Cost - I already have a copy of Win2K - although I'll probably need a new CD soon. If I build a box, isn't a copy of 2K less than a copy of XP?
4) Capability - what is there in XP that I NEED, that I won't find in 2K? Bear in mind that I'm not building hyper-multimedia machinery here - this is more like a customised office machine, and the prime requisite is RELIABILITY - followed by SIMPLICITY. I've got enough to work on...
5) Modern Equipment. I really don't need the latest and greatest (although I must admit this will mark the first time I've looked at a software box as part of planning a system - but I've got to be able to run DOOM III.) So, it's not, strictly speaking, necessary for me to be able to run the Intel Mega-Fast 10000GHz Pentium 73 with a terabyte of QDR ramchips - that's not a direction I'm heading. Hell, I think this box I'm running right now is an old Cel-A 500 or therabouts, and it runs W2KPSP4 just fine.
6) Microsoft Reputation. I've spent a few years as a tech, and I've been playing with computers since the Z80 was SOTA, so I've had time to formulate some opinions. Honestly, W2K is the first "as adverised" Microsoft OS I've had occasion to work with since, oh, MS-DOS 5.0 or so. Even in the DOS era, I went with DR-DOS 6.2, since it did everything MS-DOS 6.22 did, but did it better, faster, and more efficiently. The only real reason I'm still using Win32 is that the support for applications under Linux is just catching up, and I've not had much chance to play with Lindows yet. No, I won't run Apple - I've got too much legacy equipment that talks to PCs...
Gimme yer best shot. I'm always willing to be convinced, but sometimes it's harder to do than others...
5-90
The time is coming - this computer is kept in working order by technical expetise, willpower, and spit - and I'm running out of spit.
I'm considering buying and OEM box, but all the current OEM's come with XP. I can find a few "dumb" boxes out there, but a dumb box pretty well kills the advantage of an OEM box - getting to ask someone else the technical questions for a change.
Given what also seems to be an increasing paucity in Win2KPro availability, and the question arises:
"What Earthly reason is there for me to upgrade to XP?"
Let me toss out a few points before you answer that question.
1) Win2KPro does everything I need it to do, and does it rather well (for a Microsoft product.) It is everything I wanted when I had to go to Win32/WinNT, and my main problems now are hardware rather than software.
2) I don't really care for the major shift in interface and core architecture I saw in XP. One of the (rare) positive points in the old Win32 series was the fact that the interface didn't really change, and the cores were similar enough that all you really had to do was learn the new capabilities and diagnostic tools. Consistency was - and is - a good thing in some places - it allows you to focus on what other changes are more important (tax code, vehicle code, smog regulations, your job, &c. &c.)
3) Cost - I already have a copy of Win2K - although I'll probably need a new CD soon. If I build a box, isn't a copy of 2K less than a copy of XP?
4) Capability - what is there in XP that I NEED, that I won't find in 2K? Bear in mind that I'm not building hyper-multimedia machinery here - this is more like a customised office machine, and the prime requisite is RELIABILITY - followed by SIMPLICITY. I've got enough to work on...
5) Modern Equipment. I really don't need the latest and greatest (although I must admit this will mark the first time I've looked at a software box as part of planning a system - but I've got to be able to run DOOM III.) So, it's not, strictly speaking, necessary for me to be able to run the Intel Mega-Fast 10000GHz Pentium 73 with a terabyte of QDR ramchips - that's not a direction I'm heading. Hell, I think this box I'm running right now is an old Cel-A 500 or therabouts, and it runs W2KPSP4 just fine.
6) Microsoft Reputation. I've spent a few years as a tech, and I've been playing with computers since the Z80 was SOTA, so I've had time to formulate some opinions. Honestly, W2K is the first "as adverised" Microsoft OS I've had occasion to work with since, oh, MS-DOS 5.0 or so. Even in the DOS era, I went with DR-DOS 6.2, since it did everything MS-DOS 6.22 did, but did it better, faster, and more efficiently. The only real reason I'm still using Win32 is that the support for applications under Linux is just catching up, and I've not had much chance to play with Lindows yet. No, I won't run Apple - I've got too much legacy equipment that talks to PCs...
Gimme yer best shot. I'm always willing to be convinced, but sometimes it's harder to do than others...
5-90
