Does anyone remember when ...

[Tannin]

I was posting here and dithering about switching over from NT 4.0 to 2000? It was a fair while back - indeed, it may well have been before there was a Storage Forum - i.e., perhaps it was on the old SR pre-MBF.

Well, I switched my home machine, and I have to hand it to the guys at Microsoft, they got W2K right. Well, as right as they ever get anything, which isn't very. But tonight I bit the bullet and started a fresk W2K install.

My original install here at home was getting a bit wonky and starting to have applications fall over now and then - usually IE6, which I barely use at all - that was Tea's browser: I prefer Opera or Mozilla.

Err ... where was I? Just replaced my install, and the old one lasted ... er ... two and a half years? Something like that. W2K SP 2 was just out a few weeks or months before.

Partly I was prompted by several assorted things (besides it getting a bit cheesy), some of which may be worth mentioning. In no particular order:

I bought Opera 7 the other day. I've been happy with a combination of Opera 6.06 and Mozilla for ages, but Opera 6 is showing its age now: there are quite a few pages that break it or at least make it go a bit pear-shaped. I need at least two or three different browsers for best results and it seemed to me that Opera had probably had enough time to fix up all the problems (and there were a lot of problems) with 7.0. The short answer: yup - they have fixed all the problems (or all the ones that matter to me), and added lots of nice new stuff. Some of it is actually useful. I'm going to have to put quite a bit of time into rewriting the menus though. On the bad side, they are bloated and poorly organised by comparison with the superb Opera 6. On the good side, you can customise everything. No point in dong that just before I nuke the install, so why not bite the bullet now?

Mutiah sold me his beautiful litte 18GB X15-36LP the other day. A perfect opportunity to do a fresh install on a nice new drive. Is it faster? I guess so, but it's hard to say on this clean install. Is it quieter? Louder! (But only because I have them both plugged in at present and the lid off the case - I imagine it will be slightly softer when I (eventually) take the old Mark 1 X15 into the shop to become the new drive for the showroom system.

While I was at it, I decided to take the plunge and upgrade my CPU. The XP2400 seemed a little old-hat. So I ordered a 2800 (last almost sensible Athlon). No stock. Hmmm.... A 3000 sir? WTF? OK. Ten minutes later, I sold the 3000 to a bloke who walked in just as I was wondering why I'd wasted all that money. sHOULD I buy another one? Hmmmm ..... Now I've had another attack of stinginess and upgraded anyway, but just to a 2500

Having a notebook here is another thing that makes reinstalling bearable. Without an instant system to fall back on - and one that is already customised to my particular fetishes, courtesy of coming on the trip with me - makes upgrading so much less scary.

Bad things:

I hate the stupid W2K install routine that simply cannot succeed without a floppy drive for the SCSI drivers. That's so bloody pitiful an excuse for an install routine that I don't believe it. Here I am sitting in a room with 2 computers, a network, 4 hard drives, two CD-ROMs and a DVD - and it insists on having a floppy drive. Worse, because the stupid laptop does not have a floppy drive, it took me nearly an hour to start the install. (Get stuck, download drivers, remove new drive because it doesn't have an OS yet, copy drivers, swap hard drives, discover need different drivers, reboot, swap back, round and round and bloody round. Pitiful.

Buggered if I know how to get my PC-Cillian 2000 registration back. As far as I can tell, the rego ran out 8 months ago but it's still downloading updates. Huh?

Junkspy doesn't work. The new 3.0 version won't install because I only have the 2.0 registration key, and 2.0 won't install because it doesn't believe me when I tell it the number? Huh? Hopefully, my new 3.0 key will arrive soon - otherwise I simply won't be able to get email.

Thank god for programs that don't need install routines! Things like PMMail are great - you just drag the folder over, drag a shortcut wherever you want it, and it works right away. No looking for install discs, no buggerising about with emails and registration keys, just drag, click, function. (With, of course, all emails and server details still intact.) There ought to be a Government Health Warning on programs that are not self-contained enough to operate without arcane install routines.

Gahhh....

I'm going to bed.

 

[sechs]

Stick to IE 5.5, There's nothing in IE 6 but heartache and pain.

I also wish that you could privide third-party drivers in some way other than a floppy disk. They're so small and slow....

 

[LiamC]

PC-Cillin installs a DAT file in the root of the drive it is installed on. If you have this file backed up - just copy it to the root of your HDD where PC-Cillin is installed and you should be fine. The file should be nammed something like

PCEA-9993-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX.DAT

Alternatively, if you have the file name number, when you first install PC-Cillin it will prompt you for the registration code. Just enter that number (you may have it in a confirmation email sent to you as well from Trend Micro) and it will look you up in their database the first time you update and should recreate the DAT file. HTH.

 

[CougTek]

Wow, that thread makes so ~2001...

Can't believe Tony still wonders about the joy of W2K compared to NT4 some 3 years and a half after it's been release. Oh well, the secret of happiness is made of small joys.

 

[Tannin]

Ah, but my point, Coug, is that my 2000 install has lasted for ... oh, since some time in 1981. Never before have I seen a Windows product stable enough to do that with. My OS/2 installs last that long as routine, of course, and NT was itself vastly better than Win9X, but that was a quantum leap in reliability and usability.

Pity XP is such a pig-ugly bloated mess. Hell, even with 2K I have to buggerise about stripping crap out of it for half an hour.

Liam: great tip! Unfortunately, PC-Cilian 2000 utterly refuses to install on my system. I have no idea why. I've tried everything I can think of and am stumped.

 

[Tannin]

Errr ... or possibly 1991

 

[Tannin]

Gahh!

I mean 2001, of course.

Look, I can tell you that today is the 20th, no problem. I am vaguely aware that it's December, and if pressed, could probably remember that it's one of the years that end with a "3".

The number before the "3" is a bit trickier, OK?

(Don't even ask me what century this is.)

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

Ah, but my point, Coug, is that my 2000 install has lasted for ... oh, since some time in 1981.

You meant 1891, didn't you??? :lol:

Better go get yourself a relaxing cup of... er... Tea.

Pity XP is such a pig-ugly bloated mess...

Actually, over time, WinXP Pro (don't know so much about XP "Home") and everyone's software applications (Adobe Photoshop CS, Office 2K3, etc) have finally gotten to the point to where I believe WinXP Pro is clearly a notch above Win2K -- even if you are running PhoShop CS, Office 2K3 on Win2K. WinXP Pro is more productive if you are dealing with digital photography, audio, or video than Win2K. WinXP also is finally stable -- at least on a P3/P4 platform with Intel chipsets. I could say the same for whatever else on a mobo with a Via, Opti, or SiS chipset.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

I could say the same for whatever else on a mobo with a Via, Opti, or SiS chipset.

I couldn't say the same for whatever else on a mobo with a Via, Opti, or SiS chipset. OK.


Better go get meself a relaxing cup of... er... Rum.

 

[Mercutio]

XP better than 2000? Them's fightin' words!

The only thing XP/2003 Server adds that I really, really appreciate is auto-population of Network Places with resources shared on other XP/2003 machines.

It's not faster - or at least not enough that I can tell.

I've seen more crashes and bluescreens from 2003 Server than I EVER saw with 2000 (while noting that this is very probably a sloppy driver issue). XP Pro has at least been good in this regard.

The thumbnail view my trainer coworkers have been enamoured of has been in Windows since Win98.

Commonly used Tasks eats screen real-estate that could better be used by anything else.

Media-wise, 2000 and XP have the same capabilities, unless you're referring to the fact that XP has the auto-picture-resize power tool.

XP adds no benefit in terms of network management.

I've never gotten ASR to work right.

I find XP to generally be a bloated mess.

 

[Tannin]

You're right, computer generated one.

No, no - not about the XP thing vs 2000, I mean about the strain getting to me.

I don't think I can stand being monophrenic for very much longer.

Stupid ape. I miss her.

He meant, of course, to write it here.

Should I try scotch?

 

[sechs]

I've been a pretty die-hard Win2k advocate, but after having to deal with it at work, I think that I can tame it. After SP2 comes out, I'll install it experimentally and see if I can strip out enough crap for it to be acceptable.

Now if I could have gotten OS/2 to run my games on my hardware....

 

[ddrueding]

Well, XP is pretty darn quick IMHO. Especially with modern hardware. I haven't had to wait for anything since my last reboot...

 

[Tannin]

Sorry David, but that is abslute bollocks.

No vast and bloated operating system is ever going to be quick, nor should we expect it to be. The rules for speedy software are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion (that's a fancy way of saying I don't understand most of them), but Rule 1 is as clear and simple as anyone could ever ask for.

Rule 1: The bigger it is, the slower it goes.

What you are seeing is fast hardware. Your apps run fast despite Win XP, not because of it.

Provided that you run it on the same hardware, XP is a good deal slower than 2000, just as ME was slower than 98SE and 98SE was slower than Win 95. Somethings in life never change, and Rule 1 is a prime example.

Here, try this: take a mackine from, oh, let's say 1997 or '98. Load some apops plus Win XP on it. Let's say Office 2000, a couple of web browsers, and PhotoStudio. Result: utter slugsville (even if you cram extra RAM into it like there is no tommorow). Now, reformat, install Win 95B or 98SE and repeat. Result: a perfectly usable little machine.

Now (I hear you saying) that only works because Win XP is "optimised" for modern hardware.

Hogwash!

Here is the proof. Take a brand new machine. Anything you like within reason: let's say an XP 2500, 512MB, 80GB 7200 HDD and whatever 64MB AGP video card you fancy. (But bigger if you want to spend the money - make it as big as you like.)

Load the same programs and the same two operating systems. It's still chalk and cheese. Believe me, we do this every day in the workshop. Broadly speaking the hardware we supply is much of a muchness (after all, the price-performance sweetspot is razor-thin of late, so nearly everyone buys the same stuff) but we generally wind up by reloading whatever OS the customer already owns onto a brand-new drive (unless they have something like Win95 that can't support their new hardware, the USB ports in particular, in which case they often go to Win XP Home).

The performance differences are vast, and XP loses every time. Doesn't matter if it's an all-new machine or a simple hard drive upgrade. The only difference is that you notice it more on an older one, because our poor human-level reflexes find it easier to tell the difference between 15 seconds and 23 seconds than they do between 1.5 seconds and 23 seconds.

Which really should be no surprise. Mr Gates and Mr Grove run the universe, as we all know, and the old, old adage is as true today as it ever was.

Andy giveth and Bill taketh away.

 

[blakerwry]

i like XP.

The main thing I liked about it is how much more stable it was on my via motherboard...

Now that I'm using a SiS i could give it another whirl, but why? I love the XP power tools, the including scanner software is a bonus since HP cant make decent scanning software for my scanner, the better detection of hardware(more drivers included) is great...


Merc, I absolutely hate that feature of auto share population. I like to setup the shares that I'll be using and get rid of the crap that wont be used... it just makes things bloated and harder to sort through for me. I also hate how if you go to an FTP site it sometimes auto poulates those into the network places. bah!


I also like the fast user switching capability of winXP(although dont use it anymore). And, although I dont use it very often, I like the ability to burn CD's straight out of the box.

I also like how winXP can read/write to the metadata included in audio and video files(although I wish there was a way to enable/disable it easier).

I think XP is perfectly usable on a pentium II/III with 256MB RAM or more. The same machine will be slightly faster with 2000.

 

[Pradeep]

Media-wise, 2000 and XP have the same capabilities, unless you're referring to the fact that XP has the auto-picture-resize power tool.

Are you referring to the auto image resize in IE6 or the Windows Picture and Fax viewer in XP?

 

[Pradeep]

On a sad side note, I finally realised why 2003 Server wasn't playing any audio for me. Apart from the fact I didn't have any speakers plugged in, I didn't have the sound card in the computer either. Perhaps marriage has melted my marbles.

 

[Handruin]

When I upgraded my T-bird 1.2 GHz machine from windows 2000 to XP Pro, I did notice a speed improvement, mainly in games and boot time. I didn't find XP to be a good deal slower than windows 2000 pro. The overall responce time of the machine is about the same, if not a little better.

 

[ddrueding]

On a sad side note, I finally realised why 2003 Server wasn't playing any audio for me. Apart from the fact I didn't have any speakers plugged in, I didn't have the sound card in the computer either. Perhaps marriage has melted my marbles.

LOL, that's the best one in some time...thoguh it would have been better if the speakers were connected to the card.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you referring to the auto image resize in IE6 or the Windows Picture and Fax viewer in XP?

No. One of the power toys for XP does Right-click resize to 640x480, 800x600 or 1024x768.

 

[ddrueding]

No vast and bloated operating system is ever going to be quick, nor should we expect it to be.

Not true, as you state further down...

What you are seeing is fast hardware. Your apps run fast despite Win XP, not because of it.

Provided that you run it on the same hardware, XP is a good deal slower than 2000, just as ME was slower than 98SE and 98SE was slower than Win 95. Somethings in life never change, and Rule 1 is a prime example.

I completely agree, and never said that this wasn't the case. What I did say was that WindowsXP on my machine is fast enough (due to serious hardware) that I never need to wait for it. (in other words, a quick system).

Here, try this: take a mackine from, oh, let's say 1997 or '98. Load some apops plus Win XP on it. Let's say Office 2000, a couple of web browsers, and PhotoStudio. Result: utter slugsville (even if you cram extra RAM into it like there is no tommorow). Now, reformat, install Win 95B or 98SE and repeat. Result: a perfectly usable little machine.

For grinns, I just happen to have a HP Pavilion (read: slow) Pentium 90MHz, with 24MB of RAM and a 1-2GB HDD....I think I can get it to 192MB of RAM and we'll see how it likes XP Home

Now (I hear you saying) that only works because Win XP is "optimised" for modern hardware.

Wouldn't say anything of the kind....see above.

 

[ddrueding]

Grr...the system won't boot from CD, and I'm too lazy to go get a floppy and a floppy drive.....neermind.

 

[i]

For grinns, I just happen to have a HP Pavilion (read: slow) Pentium 90MHz, with 24MB of RAM and a 1-2GB HDD....I think I can get it to 192MB of RAM and we'll see how it likes XP Home

Hmm ... HP Pavilions with similar specs also included Quantum Bigfoot hard drives if I recall correctly.

Not like things could get much worse, really. Then again, I'm sure Mercutio could suggest some more hardware to make it yet more of a challenge.

Hah. I just remembered the time, back in early 2000, when my officemate had a woman come in for help with her Windows 3.1 system. She suddenly started having problems dialing into the university.

She was using a NON-Hayes compatible modem.

After making a token effort, he showed her the door.

 

[ddrueding]

For grinns, I just happen to have a HP Pavilion (read: slow) Pentium 90MHz, with 24MB of RAM and a 1-2GB HDD....I think I can get it to 192MB of RAM and we'll see how it likes XP Home

Hmm ... HP Pavilions with similar specs also included Quantum Bigfoot hard drives if I recall correctly.

Not like things could get much worse, really. Then again, I'm sure Mercutio could suggest some more hardware to make it yet more of a challenge.

Hah. I just remembered the time, back in early 2000, when my officemate had a woman come in for help with her Windows 3.1 system. She suddenly started having problems dialing into the university.

She was using a NON-Hayes compatible modem.

After making a token effort, he showed her the door.

LOL. Well, I've given up. I just opened up the case...I can't up the RAM as I don't keep SIMMS in stock. I just upgraded it to 98SE...and told him if to call me when he wants to buy a new one.

 

[i]

I've found XP stable, in the sense that it doesn't crash.

However, I've also found it about as buggy as Win3.x.

I've got a fresh XP install at work, plus Photoshop, Acrobat, Illustrator, and Office. No stupid P2P apps or any trash like that. This is a system for work, and it's treated that way.

Using the search function within Explorer I often get a classic error dialog box, consisting of just an exclamation point icon and an "OK" button. No titlebar text, and no message text. WTF? Windows XP? 2003? Hello?

I also find my taskbar goes AWOL a few times each week. Oh, it's still visible, but it goes completely blank. The start key works and brings up the start menu, but there's no "start" displayed. Applications that are currently running show up in the ALT+TAB list, but aren't displayed in the task bar either. The system tray disappears too. The whole taskbar is completely blank ... with the exception of the clock. Yay. Go Microsoft!

And then there's the thing that drives me nuts the most. Sometimes Windows Explorer just randomly switches the listing type from Details to Icon View. But only for certain folders. I want to take an axe to it when it does that.

Honestly, it's more stable, but just as buggy - or perhaps I should say quirky - as Win3.x.

I'll be sticking with Linux at home. It's more responsive on far older hardware, and less quirky. I'm kind of amazed that I can actually say that, but it's been my experience so far (I've had that XP system for about 2 months now).

 

[i]

LOL. Well, I've given up. I just opened up the case...I can't up the RAM as I don't keep SIMMS in stock. I just upgraded it to 98SE...and told him if to call me when he wants to buy a new one.

For systems I actually care about to some extent, and that require SIMMS, I order from Kingston Tech. They've still got 72 pin EDO SIMMS available. 16MB for $11.00, 32MB for $21.00. Not bad in my book for brand new modules that are that antique a variety.

 

[e_dawg]

What you are seeing is fast hardware. Your apps run fast despite Win XP, not because of it. [...]

Andy giveth and Bill taketh away.

It seems that you haven't lost your touch either, Tony

 

[e_dawg]

I was posting here and dithering about switching over from NT 4.0 to 2000? It was a fair while back - indeed, it may well have been before there was a Storage Forum - i.e., perhaps it was on the old SR pre-MBF.

Well, I switched my home machine, and I have to hand it to the guys at Microsoft, they got W2K right.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I have been singing the praises of W2k for god knows how long...

... but you're right about the stupidity that is the installer requiring that SCSI drivers be installed from a floppy. I have often wondered about that myself. Apparently, you can slipstream custom SCSI support into the W2k install CD so you don't have to do that, although it is one of the more obscure techniques out there.

 

[e_dawg]

Now to ruin a perfectly good monologue...

These days, it should be "Craig giveth and Steve taketh away" (although nobody would know what you're talking about)

 

[ddrueding]

... but you're right about the stupidity that is the installer requiring that SCSI drivers be installed from a floppy. I have often wondered about that myself. Apparently, you can slipstream custom SCSI support into the W2k install CD so you don't have to do that, although it is one of the more obscure techniques out there.

No kidding, I've been trying to figure out this one for a long time....still no luck

 

[Tannin]

Craig and Steve. Fair enough, but who is Craig? Now if you's said Hector I'd have known who you meant. But for public consumption purposes, it will have to remain Andy and Bill, I'm afraid.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I have been singing the praises of W2k for god knows how long...

Indeed, it was you I was discussing it with, e_dawg! You and ... er ... Maybe it was Skallas or Santilli or Mercutio. Someone very elderly, anyway. So, if you wish, you may take all credit/blame for my switch.

That first W2000 install I did on this home machine - I guess it was an Athlon Thunderbird 800 at the time, or thereabouts - endured more-or-less trouble-free right up until a couple of weeks ago when I started getting a little weird stuff. Nothing hair-raising, just little stuff: IE 6 crashing two or three or four times a day (Opera 6 and Moz steamed on without the slightest trouble), cascading menus flicking themselves off just before you click on them, and the Start button, for some reason, blinking every second or so. Nope: virus-free and spyware free as well, just a registry that has had one too many install/uninstall operations done on it.

OK, my OS/2 installs go three times or five times as long as that before they need re-doing, and I dare say that 'nix is even better, but just the same, that, Mr Microsoft, is a bloody good effort.

 

[e_dawg]

Tony, the Craig which I am referring to is Craig Barrett, who took over for Andy Grove some time ago. Craig who? It's tough taking over for a legend when you're a nobody. Jeffrey Immelt is in the same position over at GE, having taken over for the legendary Jack Welch.

As for taking credit for encouraging you to switch, I will take my pound of flesh by knowing that you have come over to the dark side and have accepted the evil MS as a purveyor of fine software... er, what was that they said about being given an inch and taking a mile? :mrgrn:

 

[Tannin]

Jack who?

And make that an ex- purveyor of fine software. They stopped selling Windows 2000 some time ago. :wink:

The way I see it, the general rule is that every third MS OS is a goodie. Consider the sequence:


MS-DOS 3.0
MS-DOS 3.1
MS-DOS 3.3
MS-DOS 4.0
MS-DOS 4.1
MS-DOS 5.0
MS-DOS 6.0
MS-DOS 6.2

Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows for Workgroups 3.1x
Window 95A
Windows 95B
Windows 95C
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
XP Home
What comes next? Somehow, I rather fear that they are going to break my pattern.

I don't know if my rule applies to the professional series operating systems. Seems to me that they made two good ones in a row with NT 4.0 and W2K. Must have been a mistake.

We will be kind and not consider Windows 1.0 in the list above. :wink:

 

[e_dawg]

Fascinating this pattern of 3's... Apparently, NT 4 wasn't so hot until after several service packs came out. W2k IMO was usable right from the start. I started using NT 4 when SP3 or 4 was out and actually used NT 4 Workstation as my main OS for a year when 95B would crash incessantly on my desktop. After a fabulous experience with W98 on my laptop, I couldn't wait to get 98SE on my desktop. I then came back to NT 4 -- this time it was SP6a for a while before committing to W2k for good.

 

[CougTek]

I didn't consider NT4 to be usable prior to SP4 and Win2K prior to SP2. I still don't like WinXP even after SP1, but I have no problem even with betas of .Net Server 2003. Two of my three systems are running evaluation copies of Server 2003 while the last one is on W2K SP4. I don't plan to ever put WinXP on my own machines and I'm placing high hopes in kernel 2.6 for Linux to become good enough to be my main OS in the future before Longhorn goes out.

If only the GUI wasn't so sluggish on the penguin OS...

 

[CityK]

I didn't consider NT4 to be usable prior to SP4 and Win2K prior to SP2. I still don't like WinXP even after SP1, but I have no problem even with betas of .Net Server 2003. Two of my three systems are running evaluation copies of Server 2003 while the last one is on W2K SP4. I don't plan to ever put WinXP on my own machines and I'm placing high hopes in kernel 2.6 for Linux to become good enough to be my main OS in the future before Longhorn goes out.

A lot to agree with there. Although I am primarily a W2K user (and relatively happy with it....though it does seem to be beginning to get a little long in the tooth), before SP2 it was indeed crippled - what was IDE stuck in again? ATA33 or was it PIO, I can't remember.

I'm not much of an XP fan either. Sure, there are a few things that are nice with XP, but otherwise I agree with Tannin - its a big bloated mess (I actually prefer monstrousity, but hey, either works).

Over the course of the next year, or so, I really want to bring myself up to speed with unix/linux and make a full scale migration.

 

[e_dawg]

... I'm placing high hopes in kernel 2.6 for Linux to become good enough to be my main OS in the future before Longhorn goes out.

If only the GUI wasn't so sluggish on the penguin OS...

Indeed. I have had nothing but bad things to say about X on penguin OSes. They are like the Mac from 1995-2002 -- full of hype, empty on promises.

 

[e_dawg]

before SP2 it was indeed crippled - what was IDE stuck in again? ATA33 or was it PIO, I can't remember.

Please. Crippled? What hard drives can actually push > 33 MB/s sustained in daily (i.e., not just sequential I/O) usage. Interface bandwidth has a minimal impact on real world I/O performance when it is so much greater than actual real world disk-to-buffer throughput. And besides, W2k has always been able to support ATA-66, just not ATA-100 until SP2. And even then ATA-100 drives were run in ATA-66 mode. The drives were only reported to be running in PIO mode:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;260233

Over the course of the next year, or so, I really want to bring myself up to speed with unix/linux and make a full scale migration.

Good luck with that

 

[CityK]

Please. Crippled?

Alright, so I exagerate a bit. But I certainly do seem to recall load times and installation times being rather drawn out. Beyond HDDs, were there not many people who had burners and rom drives stuck in PIO mode?

Good luck with that

Got my trusty O'Reilly books to guide me through it....by this time next year I should be tar'ing this, awk'ing that.

 

[Mercutio]

Not much call for awk, actually. Learn perl instead.

I don't know what you're complaining about, e_dawg. I can make a linux box do anything a Windows machine can and vice versa. KDE works very well for Windows-types and the default apps that are available with Mandrake (which I've never used) and SuSE (which I have, and like well enough) can get any common userland job done.