VisorCentral.com - Upgraded to XP

Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Upgraded to XP (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=21780)

Posted by GSR13 on 02-26-2002 05:25 AM:

Upgraded to XP

Well, I finally did it. I have a Dell with a 733Mhz PIII and 383MB's of RAM, so I decided to upgrade to XP.

I was running WIN98SE and everything was fine, but I was running out of diskspace. So, I purchased a 40GB HardDrive and the XP Home Edition Upgrade (though I am probably going to buy the Professional Version before it is over).

I removed my old HDD completely, as I wanted something to fall back on in case I had problems. Having dealt with OS installs before, this was not something I really looked forward to. I did do some investigating before I began and decided on the most simplistic approach. I simply installed the HDD, put the XP CD in the CDROM and powered on my PC.

It was really amazing. It did it all. Booted to CD, loaded the generic drivers, and then began to setup my new HDD. I did not even make the drive bootable, XP did it all.

An hour or so later and with minimal human input, my machine was up and running. The only thing I had to install was WinDVD, as no DVD encoder is included in the OS. All my other HardWare items were detected and installed without a problem.

I immediately began to install my CLIE and Visor Deluxe. Everything went great and all is working well. In fact, I installed all the Sony Software and Drivers and got it configured before I began the HandSpring installation. Then, I simply put the Deluxe in the cradle and hit HotSync, XP went out and found the driver and I never put the HS CD in. That really surprised me.

I then purchased Office XP Standard for Students and Teachers. My wife is a Teacher and therefore the cost was only $149.99, something I could never pass up. So far, I have been very impressed with the whole setup. Everthing has been working great and I have had only one problem with my Network Connection having to be disabled and then enabled. For some reason, it appears to go to sleep, even though I have PowerManagement Disabled.

On the whole, if you have the hardware, I would recommend XP. It seems very stable and actually seems faster than 98. Of course, I have much less software involved to clutter things up.

I would definately recommend a new HDD, or at the very least formatting your existing drive before upgrading. I have just never been able to upgrade over the existing OS and have much success.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by DingoFish on 02-26-2002 02:44 PM:

agree...

I upgraded what I thought was a dog of a machine (eMachine, 733 celeron, 128 MB). I t was one of the worse performing high end computers I ever used. I thought it was cheapo hardware.

Well, it looks like it was sh*tty Win ME that was dogging it down. It's like a brand new computer, no kidding. It flies now, even downloads and renders html faster.

Well worth the $99.

Aaron

Posted by Keefer Lucas on 03-03-2002 02:51 PM:

Upgrade? Ayuh!

I have a Gateway with a Celeron 400 with 256MB of PC66 RAM. I upgraded my hard drive to a 7200RPM model (from a 5400RPM) at the same time I did my upgrade, and wow! Windows XP improved my system performance markedly.

I was secretly hoping that it would turn my system into a dog and force me into finally buying a new machine. Now I will put off getting a new machine for atleast another 8-12 months.

I have a Dell machine at work with a Celeron 1.1Mhz chip and 256MB of PC100 ram, plus a 7200 RPM hard drive. With Office Apps and Photoshop I scarcely notice a difference between when I am working at home and work. The biggest improvement in performance I notice is when I run the compiler function for NetObjects MX, which is understandable. I can, however, live with the performance lag when working on web sites (its 3 seconds vs. 12 seconds, so its hardly a lifetime).

I remember when I had an old 486 66Mhz machine and the rest of the world was using the original Pentium...and my computer would barely open Word. That is certainly not the case with OfficeXP.

Its been 90 days since my first OfficeXP install. I think I can re-install it on another machine now.

Posted by dick-richardson on 03-04-2002 12:55 AM:

We've been install XP on our new computer sales, and I have to admit I don't really care for it, only because we copy programs, files, and settings over when we set up the computer. The 'files and settings transfer wizard' works alright, but program compatibility is a serious PITA. Farmers up here are using the same software they were with DOS (and the company that made it hasn't upgraded because it works). My favorite version of Windows is (rather like saying, "my favorite flesh wound is...") still '98SE, simply because it has a full implementation of DOS under it along with scanreg, msconfig, etc. etc. etc. If you have to spend as much time making an OS work as one typically does with Windows, having as many options to get under the hood as possible is a good thing. I can understand why MS is moving as far from it as they can.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by GSR13 on 03-04-2002 03:36 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
We've been install XP on our new computer sales, and I have to admit I don't really care for it, only because we copy programs, files, and settings over when we set up the computer. The 'files and settings transfer wizard' works alright, but program compatibility is a serious PITA. Farmers up here are using the same software they were with DOS (and the company that made it hasn't upgraded because it works). My favorite version of Windows is (rather like saying, "my favorite flesh wound is...") still '98SE, simply because it has a full implementation of DOS under it along with scanreg, msconfig, etc. etc. etc. If you have to spend as much time making an OS work as one typically does with Windows, having as many options to get under the hood as possible is a good thing. I can understand why MS is moving as far from it as they can.

I have been totally pleased. Of course, the only software I have installed has been built for XP, therefore making my experience much easier. In addition, the only Hardware I have installed has either came with XP Support or XP has the Drivers built-in.

I have installed some older software on my Dad's machine running XP and it seems to be fine. I just prefer to avoid it if at all possible.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by IanP on 03-04-2002 09:53 PM:

there's life in this old dog...

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
I upgraded what I thought was a dog of a machine (eMachine, 733 celeron, 128 MB).

quote:
Originally posted by Keefer Lucas
I have a Gateway with a Celeron 400 with 256MB of PC66 RAM

Well I'm truly amazed. Unsurprisingly Win 2000 performed pitifully on my Dell 300Mhz with 96Mb. I always knew it would but it was the onl way i could get connected to the office. Unfortunately as soon as my 128Mb RAM upgrade turns up, W2K finally sinks into the Quagmire. What the hell I thought, let's give XP a whirl, I can always uninstall it

Well, I'm still basking in XP Luna and haven't though twice about turning back...

quote:
Originally posted by GSR13
I would recommend XP. It seems very stable and actually seems faster...

I could agree more. Not only is it proving as stable as everyone says, it's recognised every last piece of hardware I've thrown at it including my SM Card reader which I had to shoe horn into W2k using the W98

drivers provided by the manufacturer. Better still, my US Robotics 56k modem which, despite all the driver updates never kicked above 33.6k in W2k has never slumped below 45.2k (I've even had it purring at 51K

).

The only sadness of the whole story, and it pains me to say this, is that I was planning a return to the Mac OS and one of those fine Titanium G4's - I'd even managed to convince the missus. It just don't seem right spending all that cash, perhaps I'll put the money towards a clie or a digital camera or something.

Posted by Stealth_Samuari on 03-06-2002 04:07 AM:

Hey GSR13 there is NO need to update to winxp pro. i have it and really wished i had saved $100 and only gotten home. I dont use the extra freatures at all. Keep the one you have. No need to upgrade

__________________
My PDA: Handspring Visor Platinum

Visit PDA Freak: www.geocities.com/greenrav1/index.html

Posted by Keefer Lucas on 03-06-2002 01:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Stealth_Samuari
I dont use the extra freatures at all. Keep the one you have. No need to upgrade

The big reason to upgrade is if you need or want the integrated desktop remote control function. If you want to access your computer at work, or provide desktop assistance to family members, then the Pro version will make this relatively simple.

I used to use PCanywhere. That product will work with Windows XP but it disables the Fast User Switching feature that has quickly become essential in my home. Until Symantec comes up with a solution to that problem (frankly, I don't think they should advertise their product as being Windows XP compatible if it requires disabling key elements of the OS) going with XP Pro or one of the subscription-based desktop remote programs is the only option.

Posted by foo fighter on 03-11-2002 10:27 PM:

Color me shocked...

As much as I hate to admit it...XP has proven itself to be infallible. Since installing XP home edition on my Dell 8100, I haven't had a crash in almost 4 months. The only thing I hate about this OS is the ugly UI. Microsoft attempted to copy Apple's Aqua look, and the results are disastrous. Like Pippy Longstockings on Acid, Luna is bright, bold, and gaudy. I hate it!!!

Thanks God for Themexp.org.

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by GSR13 on 03-11-2002 11:29 PM:

You know Foo, I really disliked the UI myself. And then I found the Silver Color Scheme and really like it.

As for ThemeXP, I have seen some pretty cool stuff, I have just been hesitant to spend the money.

You think it is worth it?

On a side note, I noticed the OS-X Theme was pulled due to Apple's complaint. Any chance you have that one?

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by Keefer Lucas on 03-11-2002 11:51 PM:

Re: Color me shocked...

quote:
Originally posted by foo fighter
The only thing I hate about this OS is the ugly UI.

Whoever created the default XP "theme", and the new UI must have been previously employed as a set designer for the Teletubbies.

I switched back to the "Classic" interface just as soon as someone here clued me into it.

Posted by foo fighter on 03-12-2002 12:16 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by GSR13
You think it is worth it?

It depends on whether you like to customize your desktop. If you're satisfied with "silver", then no...it's not worth the price. But if you want to change the look and feel of Windows, StyleXP is the best choice among GUI apps.

Here are few themes I'm fond of:

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by foo fighter on 03-12-2002 12:18 AM:

and another....

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by foo fighter on 03-12-2002 12:20 AM:

and another

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by foo fighter on 03-12-2002 12:22 AM:

and yet another..

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Posted by BEN on 03-12-2002 04:07 AM:

why doesn't my desktop look like that. I have icons all over the place in a big mess. I guess I need like 4 screens .

BEN

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Show 20 posts from this thread on one page