Windows issues 23 replies

Please wait...

Guns4Hire

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

22nd September 2002

0 Uploads

15,559 Posts

0 Threads

#21 14 years ago

better is a matter of opinion on this subject. IMO :cool:

As for having no IE, isn't that a part of Windows that you must have?




metal_militia

Killing is my business...

50 XP

29th November 2004

0 Uploads

1,759 Posts

0 Threads

#22 14 years ago

nah, you can leave on IE core but remove everything else accociated with it. I am reasonably certain that even IE core can be removed too.

But you will not be able to use windows update.

Take a look at this: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=28005

A decent tutorial for slipstreaming. The unattended installation is one of my favourite features. And intergrateing you own drivers into the install if damn usefull.

:)




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#23 14 years ago

Well, I would say Win2K is a better bet. You are likely to not be able to install WinXP in when its life cycle ends. I however have kept a copy of DOS, and Win3.1 around, to get full speed out of DOS programs, on old 486s. :D I kept Windows 98 to run those programs on my current hardware.

Pros use WinXP because they have to. Because the Companies they work for require official OS support, for issurance purposes. Not because its the better OS. Those who have a say to what OS to use, usually get Linux, or .Net Server 2003, or stick with what they have.

WinXP has a few extra nifty features, but I don't whole heartily recommend it. WinXP64 will warrant an upgrade from Win2K. But not untill. I'll still hang onto my Win98 and Win2K installations, for stability, speed, and long term use.

I use Windows 2000 because WinXP eats up nearly all of my RAM. Leaving little for gaming. Win2K does not, Win98 uses less, but is too unstable.

I still have Windows 98 on my system, and use it regularly, it is having no effect on my systems performance. I've tested this by clean loading Win2K on another drive. Same speed. Except for the Anti-Virus app slowdown.

WINDOWS 98 DOES NOT SLOW DOWN WINDOWS 2000.

What slows down my Win2K installation is,...

1. Stuff next to my clock. 2. Services, such a Anti-Virus software. 3. Fancy nVidia effects, such as transparencies. 4. Window Blinds, or other Shell enhancement/replacement apps. 5. Other programs, or apps. 6. Low C:\ disk space, below 25%, if it gets that low, I just switch to another disk. :D

Tust me. I work on these things for a living. I've had access to a wide variety of software, games and OSes. I may not have WinXP myself, but I've used it while building custom PCs, setting up display models, and troubleshooting customers PCs.

Where exactly is this 68% free thing at (incase I am mistaken as to the resources you refering?




}CL{DaemonC}TG{

Clan Leader

50 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

37 Posts

0 Threads

#24 14 years ago

I've used all the above mentioned operating systems + some.

As for Win2000/Pro, it is good a few ways, as in more simplicit to use for advanced users than XP is, but support has ceased for a while.

XP/XP Pro (im using now) is the newest therefore better, becuase support will continue for sometime vs W2K which has had no support anymore.

I have done a full install of XP/Pro and it uses about 115 mb of ram, not including virtual memory (i still dislike this even though i see the functionality and use of it)

So far, I have worked with DOS, Linux, Win 3x, Win 9x, Win ME (sucks), Win 2k, Win XP, (various commercial flavors of Linux). Each has had it's good and bad, cept for ME, was a good start, but should have never been released, XP should have been the next one not ME.

IE can be removed, BUT explorer SHOULD NOT be removed, even though you can. If you do remove it, windows basically is useless to you, and if you really hate EXPLORER use another OS, cause apparently Windows is not your type or flavor.