Valhalla Legends Archive

At first, I used windows xp.  Then I switched to 2k for a few months, and now I'm back on xp.  I don't understand why people prefer win2k, personally.

The main reason I changed back to xp was the lack of firewire networking support in 2k.  I tried firenet, but it's not compatible with xp's firewire, which made it useless to me.

Also, windows xp is more customizable (there's a couple warnings on 2k I could never turn off), it boots almost twice as fast, it is easier to un-screw it up (I had a bad driver on 2k, had to boot into safe and delete it manually.  Xp would probably take care of that automatically), and all the annoying crayola-style themes can be turned off (like easy file sharing, pretty themes, etc).

In the end, I don't really see any point to using 2k rather than xp.  Please, feel free to convince me I'm wrong

I won't convince you. What I don't like about XP is mostly activation and the defaults. It can be setup to work nicely.

if you dont like xp because of the activation, just do what i did, get the corp version

ever since i beta tested xp way back before it came out, i knew it was a winner. it has its annoyances here and there, but they are all easily fixed, and the customizing is by far my favorite.

I have never tried out 2k but I got some problems already with Windows XP. Well my comp will be completely booted up and then I will have to wait like 5 minutes before it lets me connect to the internet. Stupid if yeah as me. But on the other hand it has a nice layout, Windows 98 I have never had problems with though.

Windows 98 has little in common with Windows 2000 on the implementation level. Win2k is an NT-based OS. Win98 is not.

My own view is that XP has some functionality I don't need. Aside from the absolutely horrible default "crayola scheme" as iago puts it, I cannot stand the way it tries to hide everything and do so many things for you. I prefer having to do most things manually - XP requires too much work to configure to my satisfaction.

Quote from: Zakath on January 10, 2004, 03:44 PM
Windows 98 has little in common with Windows 2000 on the implementation level. Win2k is an NT-based OS. Win98 is not.

My own view is that XP has some functionality I don't need. Aside from the absolutely horrible default "crayola scheme" as iago puts it, I cannot stand the way it tries to hide everything and do so many things for you. I prefer having to do most things manually - XP requires too much work to configure to my satisfaction.

I found that 2k is just as bad for trying to hide stuff.  Unless you count the file sharing, but that can be disabled in xp.  Plus, Simple File Sharing is great if you don't know what you're doing

Don't get XP Home though.

Quote from: Adron on January 11, 2004, 09:50 AM
Don't get XP Home though.

I've never touched it

Quote from: Adron on January 11, 2004, 09:50 AM
Don't get XP Home though.

Damn thats what I got! I have been having quite the amount of problems with it though.

Quote from: Mitosis on January 11, 2004, 11:10 AM

Quote from: Adron on January 11, 2004, 09:50 AM
Don't get XP Home though.

Damn thats what I got! I have been having quite the amount of problems with it though.

P.I.C.N.I.C.

whats the difference between win xp home and professional

Quote from: Probe on January 11, 2004, 11:57 AM
whats the difference between win xp home and professional

XP Home is artifically limited - some things aren't included, some are just blocked.

Quote from: iago on January 11, 2004, 11:48 AM

Quote from: Mitosis on January 11, 2004, 11:10 AM

Quote from: Adron on January 11, 2004, 09:50 AM
Don't get XP Home though.

Damn thats what I got! I have been having quite the amount of problems with it though.

P.I.C.N.I.C.

What's that mean, iago?

I'm glad you asked!

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=picnic

h4r~

I'll have to use that more often.