damn, I dont.. I hate them; in fact.
swapping a hard drive in a PC. A nice 160GB drive, bought it ages ago.
I stick it in, put the XP pro disc in and off we go.
oh dear, XP can only see 130GB of the drive.. so I flash the (ooooooold) bios with the latest, and the BIOS sees 160GB... well, it did before anyway but latest BIOS cant hurt.
XP install starts again.......... still 130GB.
I google... oh, bummer... the setup doesnt support > 130GB.
So I now install XP into a 10GB partition, so I can then slip-stream the SP2 into there and then get to reinstall it all over again... yiiippeeee... :roll: :roll:
Good job my compy has a pair of 120GB drives then :)
Not a problem Ive encountered:
(http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/9823/drives8ao.jpg)
Lucky you :lol:
got it installed, running autostreamer now, to integrate SP2 onto the disc.
Can XP make a CD from an ISO file as standard with XPs built in burning?
or am I going to have to drag its sorry ass over the network and burn it here on my PC?
I think ill reinstall it tomorrow.. had enough M$ shenanigans for one day
try changing a CPU on a corporate OEM copy, it usually demands you reactivate the bloody thing. That is annoying as the retail version has never asked me to, nor do my MSDN copies. :?
Ive had that problem too. Just create the partition you want windows on and leave the rest unformatted. Once you stick SP2 on then you can reformat the rest within windows.
Obviously thats no good if you want one big 160gb partition.
The alternative is to do a 120 meg partition and use something like partition magic after installation to increase it to fill the spare volume.
Or boot up a live Ubuntu CD and use the partitioner (gparted) to alter the partition. ;)
Quote from: snellgrovedamn, I dont.. I hate them; in fact.
swapping a hard drive in a PC. A nice 160GB drive, bought it ages ago.
I stick it in, put the XP pro disc in and off we go.
oh dear, XP can only see 130GB of the drive.. so I flash the (ooooooold) bios with the latest, and the BIOS sees 160GB... well, it did before anyway but latest BIOS cant hurt.
XP install starts again.......... still 130GB.
I google... oh, bummer... the setup doesnt support > 130GB.
So I now install XP into a 10GB partition, so I can then slip-stream the SP2 into there and then get to reinstall it all over again... yiiippeeee... :roll: :roll:
Consider when pre sp1 xp was available (2000) > 130gb drives cost several hundred pounds, they were as rare as rocking horse sh*te in the home.
You are expected to update an operating system, at which point your entire harddrive will be detected for you to make use of. Granted without 3rd party tools you cant repartition to create one massive partiton but what you can do is convert your drive to a logical disk set it to dynamic and voila... one giant partition :)
Failing that use a free linux live cd to do it for you as max said :)
I think my main annoyance is that the XP installer looks like it was written in the 80s, and has the same functionality.
I had major headaches when getting my SATA drive working as I had the "Press F6 to install a driver" screen, and it required that I have the driver on a floppy disk.
my pc doesnt HAVE a floppy disk drive.
:roll:
very annoying....
I have streamed the SP2 into the build now, and will re-install tonight ...hopefully it can see all of it and I can have a 160GB C: drive :) I knew I should try and convert my family to using Ubuntu :mrgreen:
You cant slag them off because their OS was released years ago and isnt bleeding edge like a linux beta distri.
IMO the number of die hard MS haters that will turncoat when they realise Vista is actually going to be the mutts nuts is going to be so high youll think this uncanny.
Why are you creating one partition on a 160GB drive, anyway? 10/10 for data security, genius.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeYou cant slag them off because their OS was released years ago and isnt bleeding edge like a linux beta distri.
IMO the number of die hard MS haters that will turncoat when they realise Vista is actually going to be the mutts nuts is going to be so high youll think this uncanny.
Doubt it, the beta isnt to oshabby, and much better than i was expecting. However to have all the bells and whisltes on its gonna force an upgrade. :\
Quote from: BeakerQuote from: Clockd 0NeYou cant slag them off because their OS was released years ago and isnt bleeding edge like a linux beta distri.
IMO the number of die hard MS haters that will turncoat when they realise Vista is actually going to be the mutts nuts is going to be so high youll think this uncanny.
Doubt it, the beta isnt to oshabby, and much better than i was expecting. However to have all the bells and whisltes on its gonna force an upgrade. :\
Fancy graphics doesnt make an OS and it is all scalable. The point is, its going to have all the bells and whistles and be more powerful than anything else weve seen before.
Indeed. Strangely Im quite looking forward to seeing what they have accomplished.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeQuote from: BeakerQuote from: Clockd 0NeYou cant slag them off because their OS was released years ago and isnt bleeding edge like a linux beta distri.
IMO the number of die hard MS haters that will turncoat when they realise Vista is actually going to be the mutts nuts is going to be so high youll think this uncanny.
Doubt it, the beta isnt to oshabby, and much better than i was expecting. However to have all the bells and whisltes on its gonna force an upgrade. :\
Fancy graphics doesnt make an OS and it is all scalable. The point is, its going to have all the bells and whistles and be more powerful than anything else weve seen before.
Mostly ripped off from Linux. Bells and whistles to one is bloatware and speed reduction to another.
you could go all the way back with that argument.
Ripped off from apple, ripped off from commodore, etc.
Poor Commodore, but when you name your puter after a toilet, what do you expect? :mrgreen:
Quote from: Clockd 0NeQuote from: BeakerDoubt it, the beta isnt to oshabby, and much better than i was expecting. However to have all the bells and whisltes on its gonna force an upgrade. :\
Fancy graphics doesnt make an OS and it is all scalable. The point is, its going to have all the bells and whistles and be more powerful than anything else weve seen before.
But why should an OS force a system upgrade to get all the relevant parts working? Ill upgrade for applications and games, but the OS Shouldnt ever force you too. Im wating to see it running on a Celeron or older Athlons that are only just about hitting minimum spec. Im told the full installer is going to check the system specs and if you arent fast enough it isnt going to let you install. Not really on, and it isnt going to go down well with the corporate customers, where I work out main client has only just gone to windows XP :\
It doesnt force you to get all the parts working. Have you actually read about this or are you speculating? There is even a stripped down version that will work on systems with something like 128Mb RAM.
The only thing that needs high specs are all the fancy graphics options, all the applications and features supplied are in the different packages only and they will work fine off the bat, you dont need to upgrade to use the OS, only to use the fancy graphical features.
Even saying that, the number of people on this forum alone with stupidly high end PCs and cutting edge graphics cards is pretty high and most people have at least 1Ghz of processing power these days, more than enough for any OS.
The specs arnt that grand really, have you used the compatibility program on the website?
Corporate customers on the whole will not give a monkeys, they wont need the features anyway in most cases, Im sure Windows XP is fine for them. They dont need to be cutting edge, any intelligent businesses would not throw money at an IT overhaul without seriously needing the capabilities offered. If they are upgrading for the sake of it more fool them.
Do you think Microsoft are really going to be stupid enough to release an OS no one can use?
edit:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx
Massive spec requirements there :lol: My only objection would be to 15Gb of HDD space for Premium, but I think its still pretty good. Maybe a few features require a more powerful machine such as the disk encryption, but tbh things have to move on. You would only be complaining in a few years otherwise thats its so obsolete compared to linux.
Quote from: soopahflyyou could go all the way back with that argument.
Ripped off from apple, ripped off from commodore, etc.
Apple nicked it from Xerox IIRC
Quote from: maximusotterPoor Commodore, but when you name your puter after a toilet, what do you expect? :mrgreen:
The Amiga was a good computer which was milked for all it was worth by Commodore. Except they didnt put anything back into developing it until it was far too late. They deserved to go bankrupt TBH for the gross negligence and stupidity of the management.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeIt doesnt force you to get all the parts working. Have you actually read about this or are you speculating? There is even a stripped down version that will work on systems with something like 128Mb RAM.
The only thing that needs high specs are all the fancy graphics options, all the applications and features supplied are in the different packages only and they will work fine off the bat, you dont need to upgrade to use the OS, only to use the fancy graphical features.
Even saying that, the number of people on this forum alone with stupidly high end PCs and cutting edge graphics cards is pretty high and most people have at least 1Ghz of processing power these days, more than enough for any OS.
The specs arnt that grand really, have you used the compatibility program on the website?
Corporate customers on the whole will not give a monkeys, they wont need the features anyway in most cases, Im sure Windows XP is fine for them. They dont need to be cutting edge, any intelligent businesses would not throw money at an IT overhaul without seriously needing the capabilities offered. If they are upgrading for the sake of it more fool them.
Do you think Microsoft are really going to be stupid enough to release an OS no one can use?
edit:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx
Massive spec requirements there :lol: My only objection would be to 15Gb of HDD space for Premium, but I think its still pretty good. Maybe a few features require a more powerful machine such as the disk encryption, but tbh things have to move on. You would only be complaining in a few years otherwise thats its so obsolete compared to linux.
yes i have looked at, though ive only had chance to get an early version running as it hated the machine i installed it on. My not too shabby laptop (3.2Ghz P4, 1Gb, 128Mb 9700)bnearly choked, and if that was anything to go by then im more than a little dubious of it. As it is ive just queued up the Beta2 download from MS and ill have a play around to see how it is before either assigning it to the bin, or assigning it as my windows boot option.
I had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.
The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.
Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....
Quote from: soopahflyI had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.
The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.
Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....
really? why is it a poor excuse?
Ive never been forced to upgrade, nor do i intend to unless i see some real benefits. My old 2800+ isnt going to cut it with Vista, ill give it a try, but if i find the performance between XP and Vista is noticable ill put XP back on the machine, its not like ive ever been in a rush to upgrade, and regardless i wont be installing it on my main machines until after SP1. Ive yet to see an OS that is "perfect" on 1st release, and they rarely get there before they drop out of the support cycle. Im gonna install the Vista Beta 2 this weekend. Ive checked and one of my desktop machines is fully supported. Sole reason for doing it is because im informed where i work now may now extend our contracts, and if they do ill have an advantage if ive got used to Vista before almost everyone else.
Quote from: soopahflyI had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.
The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.
Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....
You know... that has been done. :)
mmm. didnt everyone complain about the min. spec needed for XP when it came out ?
Quote from: M3ta7h3adQuote from: soopahflyOhh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....
You know... that has been done. :)
an old 6th form teacher of mine had XP running on a 286 with 4 meg of ram :o
he said he had to leave it overnight for it to boot, but it did boot !
Quote from: BeakerQuote from: soopahflyI had it on a mid spec Centrino, with 512mb and a 40gb drive, with aero and it seemed snappy enough.
The OS shouldnt force you to upgrade is a poor excuse.
Ohh Oohh, I wanna run XP on my 286.....
really? why is it a poor excuse?
Ive never been forced to upgrade, nor do i intend to unless i see some real benefits. My old 2800+ isnt going to cut it with Vista, ill give it a try, but if i find the performance between XP and Vista is noticable ill put XP back on the machine, its not like ive ever been in a rush to upgrade, and regardless i wont be installing it on my main machines until after SP1. Ive yet to see an OS that is "perfect" on 1st release, and they rarely get there before they drop out of the support cycle. Im gonna install the Vista Beta 2 this weekend. Ive checked and one of my desktop machines is fully supported. Sole reason for doing it is because im informed where i work now may now extend our contracts, and if they do ill have an advantage if ive got used to Vista before almost everyone else.
Looks like I have no real chance of my old 2500+ handling it then, not that I want it to. As long as the games I want to run work adequately on my present rig I wont be upgrading.
I would still use w98 if it would work with everything. All this uppgrades of perfectly working apps why ? The only good ones are security uppdates.
The only real reasons not to use 98 are USB support and games. With business software it doesnt really matter what you use providing its fast enough.
I dont think the 2500 or 2800 will have any problems.
It may be a little slow, but not too much.
Im going to install it on my 1.7 Centrino Dell laptop, with aero, and ill tell you how it performs after the weekend.
when min. spec is 800mhz, why would a 2500 or a 2800 have problems running it ?
QuoteMinimum Supported Requirements
Processor - 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64)
System Memory - 512 MB
GPU - SVGA (800x600)
Graphics Memory - (none)
HDD - 20 GB
HDD Free Space - 15 GB
Optical Drive - CD-ROM Drive
everyone (including me) said the same thing about winXP, that we didn;t need to upgrade from 98... but lets face it, win98 sucks in comparison to xp !
People that try betas can instantly tell how the final optimised and polished product will run Alan, nevermind the listed running requirements.
They can also read tea leaves and are clairevoyants.
Have to admit, Im quite looking forward to gold versions of Vista and Office12. Ive been playing with Vista with Aero and the new Office beta on my laptop (Thinkpad Centrino 1.6/2Mb, 512Mb, 40Gb, onboard graphics) and its pretty smooth :) I couldnt be happier with the new Office, finally some big changes.
The latest Vista beta is currently running suprisingly smoothly on my workstation rig, which spec wise should be able to handle the upper requirement limits (Tyan K8WE, dual dualcore Opty275s, 2Gb, 2Tb, 256Mb 7800GTX).
Im not usually an early adopter for this kind of stuff, hell I only switched from Windows2000 to XP last summer when I got both the systems I mentioned above (not that my previous ones couldnt handle XP, but I was happy with what 2k offered + the stability.)
XPs been OK for the year or so Ive been running it in 32 and 64 modes, but I started to get pretty frustrated with the way it handles media, especially large collections. This is why I can see myself jumping on Vista sooner rather than later, its handling of media libraries is much better.
Of course Im still investigating the *nix option for a more streamlined media server, but Im still learning all the ropes there.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeIMO the number of die hard MS haters that will turncoat when they realise Vista is actually going to be the mutts nuts is going to be so high youll think this uncanny.
i hope M$ get it right with this new OS, but IF its even HALF as slick, efficient, stable, easy to use AND flash as Mac OS X, ill run down Oxford Rd in Manchester with my pants around my ankles... it aint happening, not in this iteration of Windows, anyway...
I find XP to be slick, efficient, stable.
I also find the Mac OS comparable to wiping my arse with wet and dry.
Quote from: Clockd 0NePeople that try betas can instantly tell how the final optimised and polished product will run Alan, nevermind the listed running requirements.
They can also read tea leaves and are clairevoyants.
my sarcasm detector just shot off the scale.
The Beta is an indication, nothing more. The actual benefits of upgrading from XP to Vista arent all that great if 2k3 is anything to go by (The Kernel is just the 2k3 SP1 after all). Still using NTFS rather than WinFS as well, i was kindof looking forward to a new File System that wasnt prone to corrupting the MBR and BSODing when you breath on it wrong. Looks like well have to wait for the 1st service pack, if then. Thats actually allowing for the target date of late 2006/early 2007 actually being hit at all. If not then its likely the actual benefits of upgrading arent enough to justify it. I stuck with Win3.11 until i was puashed into 98, then I stuck with 98 until 2k got SP1. Ive not long ago moved my systems over to XP and even though my MSDN Access allows me free OS Upgrades these days i wont install Vista on any of my main machines. If i want to know how reliable Vista is going to be then ill use my 2k3 machine more often, then put the performance at about 75% after adding things like Aero in.
Ill probably end up on vista at some point, but im not in any rush to install it and use it as my main OS. I only user Windows to play games these days, most of my work is run under either Solaris or SuSe because I prefer them overall. Though Solaris is an even bigger bitch than windows to actually configure.
I doubt I will upgrade straight away, like most people.
The only people that will are those that especially need the features or that want to do it because they can. Or to prove how big a geek they are, who knows.
I just detest the whole MS bashing bandwagon that rolls on for the sake of it.
No one can compete with them because no one in their right mind would pay for anything even half as:
Quote from: soopahflyslick, efficient, stable.
because that is all the competition can come up with. Linux is good because it is free, but lets not pretend its ideal for the home user.
Vista will be the choice for anyone that wants an easy going life with a reliable OS and a grabbag of media functionality out of the box, without having to apt-get stuff/things.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeI doubt I will upgrade straight away, like most people.
The only people that will are those that especially need the features or that want to do it because they can. Or to prove how big a geek they are, who knows.
When i do upgrade ill likely kill everything i dont want to use, on installing XP on my own systems one of the 1st things i did was switch off all the fancy effects and deactivates the themes.
QuoteI just detest the whole MS bashing bandwagon that rolls on for the sake of it.
Im hardly bashing it, just that there is no need for anyone to upgrade anyway. ITs marketing, pure and simple. Ive heard a number of people saying how much faster Aero is than the present system. Personally i found it anything but, however that may improve in the final Beta or Release Clients. Im not TBH holding out much hope though, by its nature its going to be resource hungry, though why a UI even needs the level of detail its promising ill never know. Personalyl im an old Mac user (systems 6-8) and ive used Linux/Solaris/BSD as my day-to-day operating environment for years depending on what ive decided to learn.
QuoteNo one can compete with them because no one in their right mind would pay for anything even half as:
Quote from: soopahflyslick, efficient, stable.
because that is all the competition can come up with. Linux is good because it is free, but lets not pretend its ideal for the home user.
Vista will be the choice for anyone that wants an easy going life with a reliable OS and a grabbag of media functionality out of the box, without having to apt-get stuff/things.
The main thing with Windows is that people are used to it, Its great because all the hardware that is supported, all the applications that are written and because you can learn it at school. People are just used to using it. The only time it is going to be knocked off its perch is if either MS Go bust (very unlikely), or if another company of equal standing can actually produce an OS Branded correctly. The only company that springs to mind who could even attemptt aht is Google. They have the money, manpower and knowledge to produce an OS that is uber scalable, uber stable and uber fast. They have done it already in a server farm environment. Despite that its still up int he air if they will ever actually release that OS on the world, though indications are that they have no interest in doing. Would love to see a Google Branded PC though, someone needs to shake things up and at least threaten MS, while showing the Linux fanboys that their OS is lacking in just as many areas as Windows.
Most people are total tools when it comes to computing and general IT literacy is - among the general population of users - functionally retarded.
Simplicity is key and everyone both knows and understands the MS system.
Im sure Google could release something to compete, but why bother? There is no war to begin with and if they started one, MS would win it as they have the foundation in everything IT related. Who doesnt use Office? They would win a war of attrition against anyone that tried to put a new OS against them. IMO at least. Im no fanboy, but they didnt get to number one by releasing crap, or no one would use it with the alternatives available.
I actually have really high hopes for the UI.
I use a lot of applications and have up to thirty windows open at any time, not including all the tabs I have open in Mozilla (53 at current check...). So many in fact they have encroached beyond the boundaries of the red X box on the right.
The preview filofax task switching doodah will be a godsend to me if it works well. For that alone I would like to upgrade.
oh i know how clueless the majority of users are. Where I work we deal with the technical retarded daily. Personally I wouldnt even give these guys a functioning OS, they would be given icons as they needed access to applications, and no way would they ever be allowed to play around with the settings.
MS we are pretty much stuck with, they arent the simplest to use for novces, Apple still hold that title, however they are familiar. It doesnt matter that its not the best. It works well enough for most people. Office is the annoyance, and also maybe the key in the end. While MS Stick to using proprietory templates all but a minorority of users will stick to office. If they are eventually forced through market pressue to go to ODT format then office will almost certainly switch round in the home market. TBH i cant understand people who do spend Ã,£300 on Office, no home user needs all the macro functions and something like Open Office is more than adequate for them. THe business world will always use MS Office regardless, its a standard they wont liek deviating from.