456820 0 Posted April 13, 2006 Quote[/b] ]Hm.. I'd be interested what video editing software your going to get I found out my sister from uni can get free editing software thats where we got out copy of photoshop 6.0 slightly old but better then nothing. So im going to be getting some software of them and its free but im not sure what it actually is called yet. Anyway im definatly sticking with 2000 since we already got the CD for it and i dont want to spend some more money on a copy of XP which is still quite expensive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashdome 1 Posted April 13, 2006 I get all that same list that Kegetys does too, it's the devil in the details about people not thinking up at the Evil Empire.Basicly it boils down to two issues : 1) lack of consistency /stability in code or functionality. 2) Ignorance of the world outside 5 blocks in Redmond. How? What do I need to do specifically... because I don't and no one will tell me how. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Donnervogel 0 Posted April 14, 2006 If you're going to school or studying at uni or something like that, there's a special offer for most microsoft programs under something that's called "student's license" here (non commercial use only). Anyway I got w2k really cheaply with that. About 1/3 of the price I pay in stores. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kode 0 Posted April 14, 2006 Well, the best OS is actually a personnal question , and also how the users uses and works with it. I used win2k for a long time, and also winXP(not talking about al other OS's like different linux editions, mac os's and older windows). I neither had any major problems with it unless I did things wrong, which some users just don't know they do. Most often the problem is: I might try that new OS. By doing so, installing it, but then problems start, things are different then the previous, you have to search for things, things don't work properly at first, giving errors and such. Then some people just go back to the old OS they know, and leave the other OS, as they are tired trying. My experience is that you can tweak winXP so hard you only use 80Mb of the Pagefile with 256Mb ram, with windows 2k it was around the same. But Xp just is more recent, still has support, and supports more recent hardware, and newer application designed for windows, are mostly designed for windowsXP. It depends on the person wether they seek the problems untill they resolved them ,or just go back to the old. Anyway, windows vista won't be out for next year, and the hardware specs are again much higher, so then again how many people will switch etc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kegetys 2 Posted April 14, 2006 Um...... I hate to tell you this, but XP was the update. Yet strangely w2k has received many other updates since the release of XP. Quote[/b] ]I could not reproduce any of them. Some of them are not easily reproducable, for example the crashes are quite random. You can easily reproduce the search in files not working, go to your OFP install dir, open the search bar, search for all files (*) and in the 'a word or phrase in the file' put in 'rdata'. Does it find anything? no. Yet this string appears inside the OFP executables. Try it in w2k and it finds them fine like it should. Also, here is a shot of the sort menu when in a dir with mp3 files, the 'modified' option which sorts by modification date (which is normally there) is gone. This sort of 'smart' changes (also found in many other places) are very annoying since I need to see what it says every time instead of knowing what it says beforehand. Quote[/b] ]Just because XP has a bigger footprint != wasted resources. There is sufficient reason it does, even though it seems everyone seems to ignore it or wants to ignore it... What reason is that? That is comes with an integrated cd/dvd burning capability? a firewall? an animated character teaching you how to search files? annoying popups jumping from the systray? a new, ugly theme? Do I want all that? no. Its jus unnecessary bloat that I cant get rid of. The only improvement I have noticed is the faster booting, and that is also somewhat unneeded for me since I dont reboot that often. Quote[/b] ]...Source: www.microsoft.com A very realiable source for benchmarks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashdome 1 Posted April 16, 2006 Um...... I hate to tell you this, but XP was the update. Yet strangely w2k has received many other updates since the release of XP. Quote[/b] ]I could not reproduce any of them. Some of them are not easily reproducable, ...[removed to keep short]... very realiable source for benchmarks  Oh come now.... seriously, those are very flimsy arguments. Not only are you flat out wrong about XP not being able to do those things, you are saying that an entire OS is crap because feedback dictates that the more common features or default configurations don't suit your particular style and has nothing to do with performance which is what this entire thread is about. I will agree on one thing: Win2K should have received a HT update. But... who knows what kind of mess or such it could have been? People often wondered why MS rolled out XP instead of updating the 2000 line and I think alot of it had to do with the significant changes to the kernal. Also, it was a complete licensing and product-line change. It just makes more business sense. Your file handle argument is thin because how am I to be sure it isn't the software or your particular machine causing the problem? I have screens to prove that modified date and searching for strings within 'unregistered extensions', which is the problem, are possible. All you need to do is add the Date modified column to the detail list view and revert back... takes 5 secs. The reason why it won't find that "rdata" string in the pbo files is that they are unregistered extensions and your post is very misleading. It's like you suggest XP can't do that at all. Most people - and by most I really mean probably close to everyone - who uses XP does not search files which are not associated with some program such as doc, ppt, pdf, xls, etc... and therefore experience a performance increase by filtering non-related files and files that are strictly data or binary such as bin files and and such. Even an intelligent person such as yourself can see the benefits of that. But if you really need to do what you suggest, it can be 'enabled'.  (see: http://support.microsoft.com/?id=309173) File Search (Note it was in process of searching when screen shot was taken) Arrange by Date Modified As far as memory, sure the 'fancy stuff' does take up memory, but even Microsoft has published ways to reduce the amount of clutter if you are that type of user (which I hate to tell you is far fewer amount of people than otherwise) and what you see left over is improvements to memory management, garbage collection, etc.... If we went off the basis that less memory requirements == better performance, than my C-64 is a fricken speed machine. I have no personal opinion about what people use, you can use Win2000 or whatever the hell you want if you like it better, but that wasn't the question. Revisit the first post. He clearly wants to know which will run OFP better and as my first answer suggested, they are both very close but XP has better overall benefits. The arguments you made against XP have been overwhelmingly sketchy and based on personal preferences which do not even relate to what was asked and has done nothing but mislead the visitors of this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Donnervogel 0 Posted April 16, 2006 If we went off the basis that less memory requirements == better performance, than my C-64 is a fricken speed machine. now that argument is wrong. The low memory is of course a problem performance wise. So if you have a OS that uses up more memory for improvements you don't need it's obviously the better choice to use a OS that gives you everything you need and uses less memory. When you have limited memory you will end with better performance despire the "superior" ressource management of XP (XP on my computer just makes it a pain to use as I have to wait longer for everything to happen and when I work with some program that requires more memory than the editor the whole system is crippled) I agree that XP has some unique features that some people might need and thus I don't say "don't buy XP because it's crap". I just say that if you have limited hardware ressources be sure to check if you really need what XP offers (I know I don't). If not you might be better off with w2k. This might change in the future though as w2k isn't supported anymore but so far I never ran into problems as the w2k architecture is so similar to win XP. My guess is that w2k will allways be able to run virtually all XP programs as I think it won't take too long until Vista (or whatever else will be "the new thing" and then they probably will also cancel support for XP.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kegetys 2 Posted April 16, 2006 you are saying that an entire OS is crap I haven't said such things Quote[/b] ]All you need to do is add the Date modified column to the detail list view and revert back... takes 5 secs. I know this, but when I go to another directory with audio files it goes back. And, like I said the very fact that the menu changes on its own is an annoying slowdown as I need to read what it says every time since I cannot trust it being the same. Quote[/b] ]The reason why it won't find that "rdata" string in the pbo files is that they are unregistered extensions and your post is very misleading. It's like you suggest XP can't do that at all. Most people - and by most I really mean probably close to everyone - who uses XP does not search files which are not associated with some program such as doc, ppt, pdf, xls, etc... and therefore experience a performance increase by filtering non-related files and files that are strictly data or binary such as bin files and and such. And, again we get to the very root of the problem here; Whatever Microsoft thinks is "good" for Joe Average is forced to everyone. I'm not a "Joe Average" user. I need to often find strings from files of which I do not even know the extension beforehand, this worked fine in w2k but doesnt in XP. I do not care if 99% of people do not need such a feature, I do, and it not working is annoying. I have tried the registy tricks in the ms suppot article before but it still didn't work like it should. Quote[/b] ]If we went off the basis that less memory requirements == better performance, than my C-64 is a fricken speed machine. Mine is too :P Quote[/b] ]I have no personal opinion about what people use, you can use Win2000 or whatever the hell you want if you like it better, but that wasn't the question. Revisit the first post. I think you need to revisit my first post in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddo 0 Posted May 16, 2006 This inside-a-file search talk reminds me of how wonderful program gnu grep actually is. Probably the most useful program I have ever thumbled into. It can be installed into WIN32 also like dowloading it from here, although I have not tried it on WIN32 myself. BTW, according to Windows XP my computer has a DVD drive (in addition to the CD/RW drive) but I have been unable to locate it on the computer case I tried to delete the reference but it always comes back. Isn't Microsoft so optimistic company or what! What comes to XP or 2000: cant' say much about 2000 because I never used it at home. I never had much stability or usability problems with XP. I think most of the crashes I have experienced in XP have been the fault of 3rd party apps like the damn Firefox browser which crashed several times a day with buffer overflows everytime. Firefox had to be deleted for good from my computer, I can't allow that many buffer overflows while surfing, it's too big a security risk. As far as I know from what I have read, Firefox still has plenty of buffer overflow bugs no matter how much people advertize it here on their signatures. Internet Explorer has never crashed on my XP installation. No I don't use it anymore either, I prefer some other operating system. Windows XP installation can be slimmed down by somewhat for example with nLite but I think that's too much of a hassle for a regular user, one needs to be interested in the details to bother with this kind of tuning and most users are not. I would like to see options during Windows installation where we could choose exactly what components to install and then the installer would do it cleanly and safely without requiring hacks like nLite etc. for the job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted May 16, 2006 BTW, according to Windows XP my computer has a DVD drive (in addition to the CD/RW drive) but I have been unable to locate it on the computer case I tried to delete the reference but it always comes back. Isn't Microsoft so optimistic company or what! Perhaps you are using software that creates an emulation drive. If you have CD/DVD burning software like CloneCD, Alcohol etc. this could be causing it. I am under the impression that XP uses more resources, but yet utilizes them more efficiently. I havent got time to read through all the pages, but thats just what Ive heard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted May 17, 2006 Generally I´m pretty happy with XP. No reinstal of the system for quite a while now What drove me crazy lately when I updated to SP2 was that my external USB harddrives were not detected anymore and I spent about 2 months searching for the cause. Microsoft support didn´t find the problem neither did it give a solution. After a really time-consuming search on the Inet I found out that I manually had to alter the registry of the Explorer. Something that is not really on my list when operating a system. Now it works like a charm but I went through some really funny times before... Never change a running system...I know...but I had expected that a patch coming directly from MS would not render my external harddrives useless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
