Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Geek Forum
Topic: Switching over to XP
started by: smartsnake

Posted by smartsnake on Jun. 14 2002,01:25

Ok I feel lame just posting this but thats ok.

I'm thinkin of switchin over to XP cos I'm on my friends comp and enjoying it. Would there be anyway to save some files in the switch over? (music etc) I have no cd burner or zip drives.

Also could my computer handle XP? I have AMD K6-2 450, 192mb of ram umm 13 gig hard drive. Yes I kno my computer sucks but my mom bought it a long time ago and I need to save some money and get my own. So yea thanks for the help.

Posted by The_Stomper on Jun. 14 2002,03:21

Can your comp handle XP? Yeah, but it's on the lower end of the spectrum. Make sure to turn off the eyecandy.

Saving files? Either get an "online drive" or swipe a burner/zip/extra HD from a friend ... or make a second partition and dump your files there.

Posted by RadioActive on Jun. 14 2002,03:26

i ran XP in a 166 with 64mb ram. so it would work on 450 no problem. on 166 was the only time i've seen xp crash, but for obvious reasons. that was until i installed FreeBSD there. as for music files, since you should probably a clean install of XP, all programs will have to be reinstalled. but all your music will still stay there. so will all your files as long as you don't format your hard drive.

Posted by ^Oni^ on Jun. 14 2002,17:40

Any new O/S can be a nightmare at first, but I actually like XP. Your system will run it, but not very well. The minimum specs and the suggested specs have a huge disparity between them.

Just out of curiosity, when it was installed on the 166 did you install to a drive and then move the drive over to the machine? I've seen it fail and give an error that the processor is too slow to run it. Just curious.

Posted by RadioActive on Jun. 15 2002,15:26

no, when you do that you will get a blue screen of death on boot because the processor and the rest of hardware are different then windows expects. i installed it from the cd right on to a 166 and it didn't even complain. it did crash afterwards and took several minutes to bot, but fact of the matter is it worked. as for a 450, it would work perfectly. i am running it on a 350 P2 right now with 320mb ram and it works really well. but of course you need to turn off all eye candy and visual effects to make it faster.

Posted by ^Oni^ on Jun. 17 2002,14:56

That's nifty... I must say. XP is odd for that. It doesn't really suck up CPU usage so much as resident memory. I do think it's a healthy marriage of the 9x and NT strains though

Posted by compact3000 on Jun. 22 2002,23:18

DONT DO IT!!! dont switch over to XP! my father who is the presedent of a big new-energy company thing used XP, and his Outlook crashed and wont get back up! XP isnt compatable with a lot of things! M$ sux! dont do it! use RedHat Linux! thats one of the best OS's there is! oh and does anyone know how to run AOL on redhat linux?

Posted by supercool on Jun. 22 2002,23:30

just out of curiosity (and to get my post count up a bit) how long did it take you guys to install xp?

Posted by editor on Jun. 23 2002,02:32

Well, I'm pretty much the Detnet tard, and my Sony 700mz 512mb ate up XP and has only burped once in about two months. It hung up on RealPlayer (gasp, not RP!

I did lose my scanner which was 3 years old, but everything else works cept some of the speed keys at the top of the keyboard.

The disk itself took like 2 odd hours to run.

I like XP alot.

Posted by just_dave on Jun. 23 2002,02:49

Xp can take a while to install. It depends on how you go about it. I like the format opitions it gives you on a clean install. To be able to go ntfs or fat. But it took my 525 with 280 sum odd megs of ram about 2 and half hours or so. I think, I installed pro on it, this laptop came preinstalled with home.

dave

Posted by ^Oni^ on Jun. 23 2002,04:20

XP is the most stable OS I've used. It took me about an hour and a half to pop it in fresh.

Common misconception: XP is not compatible with everything.

Not everything, not even close. If you have a program that ran in 98 and won't run in XP, run it in compatibility mode. Voila. Fixed. As far as hardware goes, the reason alot of hardware isn't XP compliant yet is because the manufacturers are too effin' lazy to write drivers. The repair console feature is nice too.

Posted by supercool on Jun. 24 2002,00:14

an excellent thing about win xp pro is that the driver database is HUGE all the drivers for my things are built in so i can ditch all my driver cd's now

XP pro took me about 40mins to install from a network on a 1.9Ghz with 1Gb ram. (clean install)

Posted by L33T_h4x0r_d00d on Jun. 24 2002,20:22

Quote (compact3000 @ 22 June 2002,15:18)

I myself am quite fond of 2kpro. I had xp installed on a box here for about 2 months screwing with it. Its acceptable once you remove the fisher-price theme and all the other aol-esque features. I just have no reason to upgrade, 2kpro fills my needs.

Posted by RadioActive on Jun. 24 2002,21:13

well for once i wouldn't listen to a person saying RedHat is the the best OS and who runs AOL. XP is microsoft's best operating system and it is compatible with almost everything and anything (software wise). most poeple start yelling that XP sucks and that it's buggy and it crashes, it has never crashed on me since RC1, back when it was still codenamed whistler. i think for most users who bitch and whine about XP a problem resides somewhere between a chair and a keyboard. and if your pressario or pavilion keep crashing with XP home edition when you try to watch porn, well get a decent computer!

Posted by L33T_h4x0r_d00d on Jun. 24 2002,22:03

Quote (RadioActive @ 24 June 2002,13:13)

i think for most users who bitch and whine about XP a problem resides somewhere between a chair and a keyboard.

PEBKAC

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair

Posted by ^Oni^ on Jun. 24 2002,23:27

common error msgs at work:

ID-10T

Carbon Based User Error

RTFM

Usually, these faults are the result of some WOT, or in extreme cases TWOT.