XP on Vista action
#1
Posted 03 March 2008 - 07:43 AM
World Domination Status: ▾2.7%
#2
Posted 03 March 2008 - 08:49 AM
#3
Posted 03 March 2008 - 09:11 AM
it doesn't matter on which partition you install them, they will work anyway.since most things are going to work better and faster in XP you will probably want to install them there
if you're thinking about getting rid of xp in the future, i'd put that on the smallest partition. keep in mind that you'll need to install most software twice though
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#4
Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:52 AM
I think XP SP2 needs 1560 MB peak usage during installation, but would I need much more space besides? I'm guessing I'd still be able to use the main partition for files, so would it be resonable to say 10Gb for XP + XP proggies do you think?
World Domination Status: ▾2.7%
#5
Posted 03 March 2008 - 08:13 PM
if you want to play games on xp, then of course it's a whole different story
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#7
Posted 04 March 2008 - 11:14 AM
World Domination Status: ▾2.7%
#8
Posted 09 March 2008 - 01:03 PM
I was going to post some vids of a barely legal OS being banged up in all its flaws by a dirty old system with a big toolbar, but the server only goes for Uni xxx.
Sure you can find it all on youtube anyway, just search for something like "Vista sucks," "Windows blows," etc.
Now edit out that "semi-intelligent discussion" part of your complaint
World Domination Status: ▾2.7%
#10
Posted 10 March 2008 - 09:58 PM
Vista will remain, and retain its place as the primary OS, as I prefer it to XP.
Wait, what?
#11
Posted 11 March 2008 - 11:56 AM
I was skeptical before I used it, but it only took 5mins for me to prefer it. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it, but don't just hate it because its M$, overpriced, and has higher system requirements, because M$ sucking at marketing (and, well, everything), doesn't mean XP is actually better. It means M$ suck at marketing (and, well, everything).
But then, I know a lot of people who scoff Mac's, and I'd be using Leopard too, if I could run it on this.
World Domination Status: ▾2.7%
#12
Posted 12 March 2008 - 10:42 AM
#13
Posted 12 March 2008 - 11:00 AM
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#14
Posted 12 March 2008 - 02:03 PM
My Political Compass
Sieben Elefanten hatte Herr Dschin
Und da war dann noch der achte.
Sieben waren wild und der achte war zahm
Und der achte war's, der sie bewachte.
#16
Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:38 AM
#17
Posted 14 March 2008 - 08:32 AM
As the only guy here who uses an OS as an enviroment to run software on a computer rather than a bunch of background tasks on a gaming platform, I find it to be quite reliable, fast, easy to use, and more secure than XP. The networkings better, its faster to run simple tasks like running a program, searching, maintainance is vastly improved. The only software I've had compatability issues with are M$'s, all of which have patches availible and automatically updated themselves when the problems arose, and old versions of IE.
You find it fast? As in faster than XP on the same hardware? Must have some seriously buggy XP drivers for the chipset and disk controllers then. Its easier to use if you need your hand holding to find the various control applets and config options, but if you actually know windows since 98 like the back of your hand, almost everything requires at least one more mouse click than it did before or you have to use search. Maintenance isn't vastly improved at all, and what improvements there are make virtually no difference to a home user... in fact the UAC prompts are likely to annoy the home user who doesn't understand not to install random new screen savers or tool bars. As for software, you clearly don't use a wide range and largely have big name commercial software installed that MS made sure would work. If you had stepped off the path most trodden you'd have walked into a nightmare of troubleshooting and version incompatibilities. From most home users perspectives Vista is better looking, slower running and expensive and that is where the difference to XP ends.
#18
Posted 15 March 2008 - 10:42 PM
#19
Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:23 AM
I don't have a problem with annoying computers. I had to work with a Linux Debian before. Even better, I had to do programming with a Linux Debian. If anyone prefers that over Vista, I'd like to see you use it.
Though I'm a big fan of XP, many business's now are starting to use vista. I'm getting into the field of Information Technologies, I'm always supposed to be updated with the newest OS's and servers.
As mentioned earlier, if you want to have a dual boot disk, I'd recommend a 60-40 cut. Just give more to your preferred OS. However, back-up all your data. I did a tri-boot with a Linux Ubuntu-Windows 2000 server-2003 XP. After XP found Linux was on the same hard drive, it corrupted the data and also made 2003s files in-operable.
Why can't we just have a perfect one-to-do-it-all OS...
#20
Posted 16 March 2008 - 09:07 AM
World Domination Status: ▾2.7%
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users