sick and tired of windows

two weeks back my win xp crashed just becoz i connected two hard disks each of 20 GB making it 40 GB, i had to clean format and since i was tired of win xp giving me problems i decided to install win 2k pro but as i did not have the cd available at that moment i installed win 98, but two weeks was a long time for me to use win 98 with all the stupid blue screens telling me of illegal operations and likewise, so finally i bought my win 2k pro cd and installed it as an upgrade to win 98 and so it updated me on all my s.w as well, i mean those which are installed on my pc and wethere they are compatible with 2k or not, and only Norton was required to re-install, but i got a great surprise later when i found out that my whole Visual Studio was corrupt due to the upgrade and not only that, i couldnt open it anymore getting a warning telling me the .exe was missing!!!very strange.......and finally i had to reformat again and reinstall everything again :mad:

now the reason i wrote down this story is becoz i wanted to let everyone know that be careful when ur upgrading ur OS

Yep, upgrading OS is not the preferred method. Performing a full format and fresh install is definitely better since it provides more stability with less overhead. However, this is not the quickest way since it means reinstalling all your drivers and software, and messing with your settings again.

Not to mention XP is crap...
2k is ok...
98 is... well... 98...
95 is... old...
3.1 is... *gasp* trash.

You forget Windows 1.01..... heh ;)

re: wild wolf and VBGestapo

If you dislike Windows so much, why not switch to a more popular OS. I'm sure there are plenty of high paying Linux or OS/2 or Mac or..... jobs out there just waiting for you.

<dripping sarcasm>

As Kesley said a clean install is the way to go.

I don't see any good reason to upgrade any OS.

As far as Wink2 goes, I have had my PC running for over two
years without a single crash. I never shut down, I reboot once in
a while to access the second boot disk.

<joking>Hey! You forgot CE! All you need is a strongarm emulator!</joking>

Seriuosly though, with a good mobo and plenty of ram 98 can be pretty solid. I rarely have crashes, usually I reboot every couple days to reclaim leaked resources, but I don't really have to. I just see no reason to upgrade simply to lose resources and support for my dusty 'ol voodoo3.

Plus I can just bootmagic over to linux if I want a windows break.

OS/2...... you mean people still use that? :eek:

(In the days before Windows 2000 came out)

"UNIX is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus." — Peter H. Coffin .

i personally prefer win2k and have no problem with it, i changed to win xp as i wanted to play some games hehe:D and win 2k pro wont allow me to play games but once my win xp crashed i had to reinstall win 98 as i had lost my win 2k pro cd until i bought another one.....
so reboot i dun hate win 2k pro but its just that frustration that u lose all ur programs when u upgrade.....
Robby the reason why i upgraded was becoz i wanted to save time.....but eventually i ended up doin a clean format :p

"win 2k pro wont allow me to play games"

Windows 2000 will let me play games just fine, and so will Windows XP.

You mean you don't have a separate box for development? *gasp*

well said orufet, or whoever made that UNIX quote

...and Linux is a half-***** attempt at a Unix clone

Originally posted by divil
"win 2k pro wont allow me to play games"

Windows 2000 will let me play games just fine, and so will Windows XP.


it does allow u to play those small games that do not need directX and are DOS based but newer games that use DirectX wont work on it, yeah win xp is not a problem.....

DirectX games work fine on my 2k. The ones I've tried anyway.

Older DOS games that directly access hardware (and I'm talking REAL old here) may not work on XP.

All newer games should work just fine. Why not try learning about an operating system before putting it down?

>>Why not try learning about an operating system before putting it down?<<

Exactly right. I have been a Unix admin for all of my professional career. I never really had much to do with Windows until my ex-partner talked me into using Win2K server for this site. I have nothing bad to say about it. It is just foreign to me and that is why I am switching back.
I do now have WinXP installed on a spare box and I am impressed with it. I still am learning my way around it and at this point don't feel comfortable with it.
There are pros and cons to all OS and you really should try to learn them before you bash them. I would never bash an OS or belittle people for using an OS.
Be it Unix, Linux, Solaris, OSX, Windows, etc they all have a place and each has its strengths.

Love it or hate it; but you cant deny Windows is already an essential part of our lives.

Just my 2 cents.

well well anyway, i din wan start a new post for this so here is my question, im wim 98 we have the command msconfig where i can select which program to run on startup, but how do we select items for the startup in win 2k pro? I have alot of programs that run on startup and i wan remove them as they really make my starup slow......:-\

Originally posted by wild wolf
well well anyway, i din wan start a new post for this so here is my question, im wim 98 we have the command msconfig where i can select which program to run on startup, but how do we select items for the startup in win 2k pro? I have alot of programs that run on startup and i wan remove them as they really make my starup slow......:-\

A few of the settings are in the registry. (I cannot remember the exact keys to it). Also, you can disable some of the services under CONTROL PANEL -> ADMINSTRATIVE TOOLS -> SERVICES. Some of the services are unnessesary.

A program called CUSTOMIZER XP allows you to select the startup programs you want to disable.

Just my 2 cents. Correct me if I am wrong.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

%UserProfile%\Start Menu\%StartUp%


And, as mentioned above, check in services. Make sure not to disable something unless you know what it is and whether or not you (or the system for that matter) needs it.

Good Luck
-cl

Windows was a good idea until they ran backwards compatability into the ground. I still have a version of Harvard Graphics for Windows 2. It runs fine on XP. :D Who would have thought. Keep backwards compatability for a length of time, but not for all time.

A quick search on google for win2000 and msconfig gives you this website:

http://www.techadvice.com/win2000/m/msconfig_w2k.htm

It looks like it would help...

Mike Kossman

aha that was perfect, thanx buddy

Denmeister, backwards compatibility is a good thing, as long as it doesn't compromise speed and efficiency of the new, cutting edge programs.

Backwards compatability is good, don't get me wrong. I have found that many developers take it to an extreme. If you focus too much on keep original compatability it's easy to allow yourself to be resticted to a certain methodology. In some things Microsoft has done a very good job in replacing older (and obsolete) componets with more up-to-date ones. And in some, it has not. It's always a good idea to keep compatability if you can. But not if it restricts fuctionality and speed, like you said. It's a tough decision wether or not to break compatability. One I've had to to grapple with in several commercial packages.

It's not an easy choice, but my "personal" opinion (and this does not reflect the view of the masses) is that every so often it's good to wipe the slate clean and start anew.

I agree, I've had to make the same decisions myself. Just out of interest, where do you think Microsoft have failed?

They haven't "failed" per se. After all, they're still around and are the biggest software company in terms of usage. But I think they could have made some better decisions about the change from IE 5.5 to IE 6. I think a few things could have been a bit easier with WMP 7.1. But their biggest flop was keeping Windows on the same shaky DOS model that's been around since 1984 (and if you include CP/M which DOS was based on, much earlier than that). They kept this up all the way though Windows Me. Everyone was begging them to put Windows 98 closer to par with NT 4.0, but they released it (and two succeding versions: SE and ME) on the same foundation. Most DOS programs ran fine on NT, with the occational glitch. But we ALL moved over to Windows (whether we liked it or not, I personally had a hard time with the change) many years ago.

Nobody was screaming for backwards DOS compatability. Then again no one was really "screaming" for a more stable environment. Until people finally had enough, and Microsoft finally listened.

Now that's backwards compatability gone off-the-deep-end.

Just a small point, based on one old Microsoft technology as an example. DDE is still around for "backwards compatibility". Microsoft has replaced it with much better technology, that anyone with common sense would use for new software. DDE is just around for the old programs that used it, and there's nothing that says you have to use it in any app you write. I fail to see how this is "bad".

Windows 2000 was around before Windows ME. Hell, NT4 wasn't based on DOS.

Yes, people WERE screaming for dos compatibility. Hell, some idiots still are. Whenever I see young games kiddies *****ing on forums on the net, they are complaining how crap Windows NT is because it won't run their tired, outdated games.

MS kept that family of Windows products very backwards-compatible because there is a demand for it. Why else would they do it?

Keep old acrhetecture around for compatability? For programs that were written years ago, that only a few (very few) people use today? Can you say bloated software?

Maybe that explains why I could get away with Windows making a 50mb footprint in my hard drive as opposed to over a gig now for all componets. These should be OPTIONAL installs, not manditory.

Microsoft said that the integration between 95 and NT was going to happen in the next version. 98 was supposed to be what XP is. But it took over 6 years for them to come through. And for those who run out-dated software, let them run an outdated OS if it's that important to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Microsoft. I just think that several things could have been better. Microsoft makes good software that is always evolving. This is good for everyone. And it keeps us developers on our toes.