Re: Upgrade from Windows 98SE to XP Pro

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Randall Ainsworth, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. If it works now, don't screw it up by going to XP.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <100720032036147608%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >If it works now, don't screw it up by going to XP.


    I don't know of a single person in real life who regrets going from
    Win9x to XP. The general consensus is that "everything just works now".
    Only a few isolated, vocal people like yourself bitch about XP.

    XP has never crashed on me once it was up (it has failed to boot with
    the CPU speed overclocked too far), and almost everyone I know who uses
    it has never seen the OS crash.

    It recognized most older hardware and uses it without any user
    intervention. I installed my copy of XP for up to 30 days without
    activation on about a dozen different hardware configurations of spare
    parts I have lying around, and only in a couple of cases has it needed a
    driver to use a piece of hardware (always non-essential hardware).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > I have two computers, side by side. One with Win98SE and this one with
    > WinXP Home. WinXP has NEVER crashed in the 8 months it has been up, and
    > it is up all the time 24/7. Win98SE crashes 1 to 5 times daily! The
    > ONLY reason WinXP isn't on both computers is that HP claims the old one
    > might not be compatible and I have old hardware, such as a scanner, that
    > does not have XP drivers.


    Let me sit at the Xp machine and I'll lock it up with two keystrokes.
    Gimme the 98 one and I'll make it work right. :)
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Randall Ainsworth

    Abrasha Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > > I have two computers, side by side. One with Win98SE and this one with
    > > WinXP Home. WinXP has NEVER crashed in the 8 months it has been up, and
    > > it is up all the time 24/7. Win98SE crashes 1 to 5 times daily! The
    > > ONLY reason WinXP isn't on both computers is that HP claims the old one
    > > might not be compatible and I have old hardware, such as a scanner, that
    > > does not have XP drivers.

    >
    > Let me sit at the Xp machine and I'll lock it up with two keystrokes.
    > Gimme the 98 one and I'll make it work right. :)


    Which two keystrokes?
    --
    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
     
    Abrasha, Jul 11, 2003
    #4
  5. Randall Ainsworth

    Tom Scales Guest

    Now that's just BS.

    XP is vastly superior. It's not even close
    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:110720030911204943%...
    > > I have two computers, side by side. One with Win98SE and this one with
    > > WinXP Home. WinXP has NEVER crashed in the 8 months it has been up, and
    > > it is up all the time 24/7. Win98SE crashes 1 to 5 times daily! The
    > > ONLY reason WinXP isn't on both computers is that HP claims the old one
    > > might not be compatible and I have old hardware, such as a scanner, that
    > > does not have XP drivers.

    >
    > Let me sit at the Xp machine and I'll lock it up with two keystrokes.
    > Gimme the 98 one and I'll make it work right. :)
     
    Tom Scales, Jul 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <110720030638361560%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >I've worked with XP every day since before it's public release. Beyond
    >the putrid interface, it's nowhere near as stable as Win2K and is a
    >resource hog. Makes me glad I'm a Mac guy for my personal equipment.


    9 out of 10 people I've heard comment on win2k and XP, who have used
    both, say XP is more stable. Your experience is abnormal.

    The Win2k interface can be used, as an option in the interface itself.
    You can also use *any* executable programs you want as your GUI shell,
    and this is true of every version of Windows.

    Xp doesn't use any significant amount of RAM over Win2k, if you turn off
    the extra bells and whistles in the GUI. It doesn't "hog" any more
    resources here than Win2k does on my other machine. My Xp machine has
    typically 600 to 800 MB of available RAM, out of 1 GB, with uptimes of
    weeks and many programs open.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <110720030909147393%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >My personal stuff is Mac but I've worked with all versions of Windows
    >daily for years...certified in Server & Workstation.


    Certification grows on trees.

    No matter how much training you get on something, if you have a
    philosophical agenda against it, you may never learn to work _with_ it.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <110720030911204943%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >> I have two computers, side by side. One with Win98SE and this one with
    >> WinXP Home. WinXP has NEVER crashed in the 8 months it has been up, and
    >> it is up all the time 24/7. Win98SE crashes 1 to 5 times daily! The
    >> ONLY reason WinXP isn't on both computers is that HP claims the old one
    >> might not be compatible and I have old hardware, such as a scanner, that
    >> does not have XP drivers.


    >Let me sit at the Xp machine and I'll lock it up with two keystrokes.
    >Gimme the 98 one and I'll make it work right. :)


    This is what I meant by "philosophical agenda". Win98 can be crashed
    just by writing one byte in low memory in "debug".
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Randall Ainsworth

    Mark B. Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:%gAPa.481$2.webusenet.com...
    > wrote:
    >
    > I have two computers, side by side. One with Win98SE and this one with
    > WinXP Home. WinXP has NEVER crashed in the 8 months it has been up, and
    > it is up all the time 24/7. Win98SE crashes 1 to 5 times daily! The
    > ONLY reason WinXP isn't on both computers is that HP claims the old one
    > might not be compatible and I have old hardware, such as a scanner, that
    > does not have XP drivers.
    >
    > XP is vastly superior in EVERY way to Win98SE, period.
    >
    >


    I'll second that. We upgraded to XP Pro in work several months ago. Prior
    to that, I would crash several times a week. Same deal at home. I got a
    new machine pre-loaded with XP Home a couple months ago, no more crashes. I
    would NEVER go back to 98.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Jul 11, 2003
    #9
  10. > 9 out of 10 people I've heard comment on win2k and XP, who have used
    > both, say XP is more stable. Your experience is abnormal.


    I've only worked with XP every day since before it was released to the
    general public.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 12, 2003
    #10
  11. I have no agenda. I'm just 100 miles from Microsoft's HQ so Bill is
    probably breathing down my neck as I write this. I don't give a shit
    about Microsoft. I'm just speaking from real world experience.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 12, 2003
    #11
  12. I never said that 98 was more stable than XP. But if I had to choose
    between the two, it would be 98SE all the way. Fortunately I don't
    have to choose.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 12, 2003
    #12
  13. Randall Ainsworth

    Tom Scales Guest

    No, they won't. Perhaps the problem is the lack of skills of the technicians
    maintaining your environment, because XP IS more stable the Windows 2000.
    Period.

    Either can be unstable when not properly managed.

    Tom
    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:110720031627483773%...
    > No brain dump special here.
    >
    > Look, I've seen this almost every single day for the past two years.
    > XP is sluggish besides being ugly. It's a resource hog and less stable
    > than 2K. Anybody in the computer biz will tell you that. Stop reading
    > PC Mag.
     
    Tom Scales, Jul 12, 2003
    #13
  14. Randall Ainsworth

    Rick Guest

    "Tom Scales" <> wrote in message news:FKJPa.4147$2.webusenet.com...
    > No, they won't. Perhaps the problem is the lack of skills of the technicians
    > maintaining your environment, because XP IS more stable the Windows 2000.
    > Period.


    Well, not quite "period". E.g. try running more than one USB
    scanner under XP and see what happens:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;324756

    > Either can be unstable when not properly managed.


    Very true. But there are more stability problems with XP right
    now simply because it's a newer product. Microsoft is up to
    SP4 on Win2K and virtually all major stability (and other) issues
    have been addressed. Not so with XP. But Randall's claim
    that Win98 is preferable for digital editing to either XP or 2K
    is absolutely ridiculous.

    RickW
     
    Rick, Jul 12, 2003
    #14
  15. Randall Ainsworth

    Abrasha Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > I have no agenda. I'm just 100 miles from Microsoft's HQ so Bill is
    > probably breathing down my neck as I write this. I don't give a shit
    > about Microsoft. I'm just speaking from real world experience.


    So which two keys is it, Mr. Blowhard?

    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
     
    Abrasha, Jul 12, 2003
    #15
  16. Randall Ainsworth

    Vaughn Buck Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:110720031626299023%...
    > > 9 out of 10 people I've heard comment on win2k and XP, who have used
    > > both, say XP is more stable. Your experience is abnormal.

    >
    > I've only worked with XP every day since before it was released to the
    > general public.


    Have installed the service packs? I stayed away from XP but have used it on
    my last two machines. Its been flawless. First machine had an issue but it
    was a bad sector on the hard disk. Reinstalled with the old version still on
    (so no accidental usage bad sector, yes I know it was marked after being
    found but just in case). On my other sons machine, had used Win98se for a
    long time and upgraded MB and planned to use Win98 again but it just would
    work with his usb wireless nic. Upgraded to XP with no issue. Both xp
    upgrades were clean versions not upgrades. I used Win2k for a couple of
    years before but am convinced that M$ has it right with XP. Their machines
    are used for gaming and worked hard.

    Can a machine be made to lock up? sure. Especially if you try to stay with
    old outdated drivers. Also if you're not careful and let M$ use its
    versions instead of the manufacturer's that can cause problems.
     
    Vaughn Buck, Jul 12, 2003
    #16
  17. Randall Ainsworth

    Vaughn Buck Guest

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:benqvu$77qbf$-berlin.de...
    >. Microsoft is up to
    > SP4 on Win2K and virtually all major stability (and other) issues
    > have been addressed. Not so with XP. But Randall's claim
    > that Win98 is preferable for digital editing to either XP or 2K
    > is absolutely ridiculous.


    Yes but XP is not new its NT X where as Win2k was NT X- Yes they do add
    new interfaces but that's fluff. And some code is changed but its far from a
    totally new OS. With SP1 its running very well which says a lot. Win2k is a
    fine OS also but can go crazy. The machine I'm writing this from was on
    Win2k for 2 years with no issue and now Win2k won't even load. I'm back to
    Win98SE. Go figure.
     
    Vaughn Buck, Jul 12, 2003
    #17
  18. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <FKJPa.4147$2.webusenet.com>,
    "Tom Scales" <> wrote:

    >No, they won't. Perhaps the problem is the lack of skills of the technicians
    >maintaining your environment, because XP IS more stable the Windows 2000.
    >Period.
    >
    >Either can be unstable when not properly managed.


    Or with a poorly supported peripheral. It's very easy to get a
    distorted view of an operating system, when you work with 100 copies of
    the same computer, which all have the same video or sound card that has
    a bad driver, reproduced 100x in a house of mirrors. "We have 100
    computers here running XP, and they all crash once a day!"
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 12, 2003
    #18
  19. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <110720031626299023%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >> 9 out of 10 people I've heard comment on win2k and XP, who have used
    >> both, say XP is more stable. Your experience is abnormal.


    >I've only worked with XP every day since before it was released to the
    >general public.


    With an attitude the whole time? With the same computer(s)?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 12, 2003
    #19
  20. Randall Ainsworth

    Guest

    In message <110720031628477327%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >I have no agenda. I'm just 100 miles from Microsoft's HQ so Bill is
    >probably breathing down my neck as I write this. I don't give a shit
    >about Microsoft. I'm just speaking from real world experience.


    Perhaps you're filtering out what you want from a small slice of real
    world experience.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 12, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dragan Cvetkovic

    Re: Upgrade from Windows 98SE to XP Pro

    Dragan Cvetkovic, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    718
    Dragan Cvetkovic
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. ajacobs2

    Re: Upgrade from Windows 98SE to XP Pro

    ajacobs2, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    745
    ajacobs2
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Matt

    Re: Upgrade from Windows 98SE to XP Pro

    Matt, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,379
  4. John O.

    Re: Upgrade from Windows 98SE to XP Pro

    John O., Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    649
    John O.
    Jul 11, 2003
  5. Bart van der Wolf

    Re: Upgrade from Windows 98SE to XP Pro

    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    765
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jul 11, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page