[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Redfang
What if you computer is slow and isn't fast enough to run XP?

How slow are you talking? I run XP on a Pentium II 516 with only 128Mb and a PCI video card
 

Besides, NTFS is slower than FAT32.

It gets faster as drive size increases.
 

I've not used that or compared that to FAT32, so I'm not sure, but I read a test about it. Also, it might be insecure... not that all things relating to Windows (well, maybe XP/2K) are stable, but they're still buggy) aren't...

As far as security is concerned, NTFS comes up trumps over FAT32.

NEXT!

[Redfang]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
How slow are you talking? I run XP on a Pentium II 516 with only 128Mb and a PCI video card

466MHz Celeron, 160MB, and 8MB integrated graphics. It might run, but slow.
 

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
It gets faster as drive size increases.

Hmm, good. Didn't know that.

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
As far as security is concerned, NTFS comes up trumps over FAT32.

Good. Well, I guess that's true, but I think that there at least were some bad security holes... That or then it was in XP, though I'm pretty sure it was NTFS.

[Admiral LSD]

FAT32 has no security at all therfore it isn't hard to create a filesystem with better security

[Shrike]

Funny, it seems whenever I go out to fetish clubs, Thunder has some sort of problem.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Redfang
What if you computer is slow and isn't fast enough to run XP?

Then you run 2000 - it works fine on slower machines.

Originally posted by Redfang
466MHz Celeron, 160MB, and 8MB integrated graphics.

That machine is overkill for 2000; I've installed it on a PII-200Mhz laptop with 96Mb RAM and 4Mb graphics - worked like a dream. It was my dad's old computer, and he had been running 98 off of it. When he saw how well 2000 ran, he said that it was a shame he didn't know about it earlier, or he wouldn't have gotten a newer, faster laptop.

[Admiral LSD]

2000 sucks balls though

Not as much as Windows 9x mind you but it still sucks.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
2000 sucks balls though

What have you been smokin'?


*looks at username*


Oh, I see. Yeeeaaaahhhh.....

[Redfang]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Then you run 2000 - it works fine on slower machines.

 
I don't run 2K.
 
Maybe...
 
Windows's cost though, unless you do something I don't mention here.

That might be a good idea though, as my computer is so bad that it doesn't run games with any OSes... but well, maybe I'm going to get XP when I get a new computer.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Sandwich


What have you been smokin'?


*looks at username*


Oh, I see. Yeeeaaaahhhh.....

I used it for a year and, along with 9x, was glad to be rid of it. It's never going on any of my machines ever again. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD


I used it for a year and, along with 9x, was glad to be rid of it. It's never going on any of my machines ever again. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

What exactly didn't you like about it?

[vyper]

Originally posted by Shrike
Funny, it seems whenever I go out to fetish clubs, Thunder has some sort of problem.

Anyway, NTFS is far superior. Lose FAT, run win2k

[Admiral LSD]

I'd rather put my balls in a blender than run Win2k...

[Redfang]

Originally posted by vyper
Lose FAT

 
err..
 

[vyper]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
I'd rather put my balls in a blender than run Win2k...

[Kazashi]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
I'd rather put my balls in a blender than run Win2k...

Didn't I have an argument with you in the VBB about Win2k vs WinXP? After several more months of testing and use, I still maintain that WinXP isn't as good

FAT32 is NOT greater than NTFS. It may seem faster due to NTFS features like indexing (which can be turned off), however FAT32 becomes a horrible mess on large partitions with ballooning cluster sizes. Security is non-existant with FAT32, and it loses performance with fragmentation at a greater rate than NTFS.

If people are worried about not being able to recover files from an NTFS partition, it is still possible to recover them with a regular suite of recovery tools, even if the drive has been reformatted with FAT32.  Unless you've shredded the contents of course. I recovered 57GB of (non-critical) data after a mishap including a brownout. Either that, or use another hard drive as has been mentioned.

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Shrike
Funny, it seems whenever I go out to fetish clubs, Thunder has some sort of problem.

I hope to god it's just a coincedence - since I don't see you ever stopping your visit to fetish clubs just because of me!

Anyhow, thanks for the good wishes - looks like I'll need them, the repair place merily announced that my DVD drive was shot to hell (funny, it worked the morning of me loosing the computer) so that's being replaced... so is the fan on the CPU (apparently that was clogged... also funny since it wasn't over heating or making weird noises...).

Ah well, whatever - as long as they sort the problem.

As for the grand "switch to XP" debate. I would, but I don't want to put up with their product activation bollocks if I change my hardware to much or anything like that - and can't afford XP Pro Corporate... and since I've only heard bad things about using unlisenced XP keys (like them disabling the keys and so on...) it just sounds like more hassle than it's worth at the moment. 98 has been fine for as long as I can remember untill a couple of days ago, it's just a shame it all went so wrong.

And yes, this is dads POS... or rather my old P2 350... it still runs the FS2 demo though [grins]....

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Kazashi
Didn't I have an argument with you in the VBB about Win2k vs WinXP? After several more months of testing and use, I still maintain that WinXP isn't as good

And I still maintain that, after a year of using it exclusively, XP is the best godamned OS ever to come out of Redmond, Washington.

edit: And about Product Activation: It really is a non-issue. It takes all of about a minute to do and it's not like you have to reactivate with every single little hardware change, you are given some leeway.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
edit: And about Product Activation: It really is a non-issue. It takes all of about a minute to do and it's not like you have to reactivate with every single little hardware change, you are given some leeway.

You like Windows XP but not 2000?
From what I've heard about Product Activation, though, at some point you're probably going to have to start phoning Microsoft because you exceeded the activation limit.
In my opinion, Microsoft should have not bothered with it and saved the thousands of dollars it took to make it...then they could lower the price of XP, which would reduce the amount of piracy far more than Activation.

[vyper]

from what I see, XP is just 2000 with a shiney new cover.