I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if there's
any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything seems to be
directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot. I guess I'm asking
if absolutely everything that says XP works 100% with Windows 2000 too. Any
give and take factors I should be aware of in this evaluation?

"Oistein" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's
any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything seems to be
directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot. I guess I'm
asking
if absolutely everything that says XP works 100% with Windows 2000 too.
Any
give and take factors I should be aware of in this evaluation?

I can only share my experience with you...and I switched from Win2K Pro to
XP Pro and love it! It seems to be a little more stable and it
starts-up/shuts-down faster. I haven't had any combatibility issues at
all...but didn't have any with Win2K either. So, between the fewer crashes
and a little smoother performance, I reccommend going with XP.

XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it knows what
you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of options even when
you're doing what you want to do. I have no regrets about choosing 2000 Pro.

Hi William,

If you ever get around to using XP the following site should be helpful in
taming XP's interface :
http://www.musicxp.net/

Best of luck!

John L Rice


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it knows
what
you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of options
even when
you're doing what you want to do. I have no regrets about choosing 2000
Pro.

XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it knows what
you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of options even when
you're doing what you want to do. I have no regrets about choosing 2000 Pro.

It's not hard to turn most of that off.

True enough. Go to your local computer book shop and look for a book called
Windows XP Annoyances, published by O'Reilly. There are MANY suggestions
(and implemention instructions) for taming XP. And, the toad on the cover
is way cool.


"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it knows
what
you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of options
even when
you're doing what you want to do. I have no regrets about choosing 2000
Pro.

It's not hard to turn most of that off.

Denny Meeker wrote...

Go to your local computer book shop and look for "Windows
XP Annoyances", published by O'Reilly. There are MANY
suggestions (and implemention instructions) for taming XP.

Thanks for the suggestion.


And, the toad on the cover is way cool.

I assume this is a reference to Shakespeare. The only O'Reilly animal reference
I got without help was the flying squirrel on their Palm Pilot books.


XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it knows
what you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of
options, even when you're doing what you want to do.

Other information about the book: author - David A. Karp
ISBN - 0-596-00416-8

The O'Reilly books on various computer-related topics are illustrated on the
front cover with a picture of an animal, some relatively common, some
exotic, depending on your perspective, I guess. How they picked the animals
is anybody's guess. The animal on the cover of Windows XP Annoyances is the
Surinam Toad, aka Pipa Pipa, that lives its entire life cycle in the muddy
rivers of South America.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Denny Meeker wrote...

Go to your local computer book shop and look for "Windows
XP Annoyances", published by O'Reilly. There are MANY
suggestions (and implemention instructions) for taming XP.

Thanks for the suggestion.


And, the toad on the cover is way cool.

I assume this is a reference to Shakespeare. The only O'Reilly animal
reference
I got without help was the flying squirrel on their Palm Pilot books.


XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it
knows
what you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of
options, even when you're doing what you want to do.

"Oistein" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's
any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore.

No. Never was ...

geoff

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
XP is no doubt superior in some ways to 2000 Pro, but I don't like the
interface. It's much, much too intrusive. It constantly assumes it knows
what
you're doing and interferes, or it prompts you with a bunch of options
even when
you're doing what you want to do. I have no regrets about choosing 2000
Pro.


Go to display options and choose desktop theme as 'Classic Windows'. Then
you won't be lost with all the cluttery warm feely rubbish.

geoff

I tried that when XP first came out and it had no particular effect.

Go to display options and choose desktop theme as 'Classic Windows'.
Then you won't be lost with all the cluttery warm feely rubbish.

In article k.net writes:

The animal on the cover of Windows XP Annoyances is the
Surinam Toad, aka Pipa Pipa, that lives its entire life cycle in the muddy
rivers of South America.

That sounds appropriate for something relating to Windows. Does anyone
publish a series of Windows books with various mushrooms on the cover?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

The one good reason I can think of for running Windows 2000 is if you
have more computers than Windows licenses. W2K lets you break the law,
XP does not.

XP will supposedly quit working if it goes a certain amount of time
without connecting to Microsoft to confirm your registration. Which
can be a problem if you don't connect your computer to the internet.
You know, like if it's a special-purpose machine in a recording studio
or on the Space Shuttle.

ulysses


In article , Oistein
wrote:

I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if there's
any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything seems to be
directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot. I guess I'm asking
if absolutely everything that says XP works 100% with Windows 2000 too. Any
give and take factors I should be aware of in this evaluation?

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...
The one good reason I can think of for running Windows 2000 is if you
have more computers than Windows licenses. W2K lets you break the law,
XP does not.

XP will supposedly quit working if it goes a certain amount of time
without connecting to Microsoft to confirm your registration. Which
can be a problem if you don't connect your computer to the internet.
You know, like if it's a special-purpose machine in a recording studio
or on the Space Shuttle.



Well, you can apply a crack ( a quick download and a double-click), which is
the same degree of against-the-lawedness as multiple W2K installs....


geoff

The one good reason I can think of for running Windows 2000 is if you
have more computers than Windows licenses. W2K lets you break the law,
XP does not.

XP will supposedly quit working if it goes a certain amount of time
without connecting to Microsoft to confirm your registration. Which
can be a problem if you don't connect your computer to the internet.
You know, like if it's a special-purpose machine in a recording studio
or on the Space Shuttle.



Well, you can apply a crack ( a quick download and a double-click), which
is
the same degree of against-the-lawedness as multiple W2K installs....


geoff


Or, you could just obey the law.

You don't need an internet connection to register XP. You can just call the
phone number on the screen and then follow the automated voice prompts and
say out loud the code on your disc packaging. Then the robot lady tells you
the numbers to enter into the prompt on your screen and everything works.
Very easy and painless. If you re-register it to many times you get sent to
a big mean man who asks you 'what the **** is up?' and you tell him you keep
re-installing it over and over again on the same machine because trying to
get everything installed and working properly together is as easy as
sticking one hand up yer ass and tying a dental floss bow around a turd. He
then says 'you sound cute, would you like to attend tonight's opera with me
as my special guest' and you say no thank you and he says 'here's your
registration code sweetie, don't be a stranger'

I think it's passed my bed time . . . . .

John L Rice




"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...
The one good reason I can think of for running Windows 2000 is if you
have more computers than Windows licenses. W2K lets you break the law,
XP does not.

XP will supposedly quit working if it goes a certain amount of time
without connecting to Microsoft to confirm your registration. Which
can be a problem if you don't connect your computer to the internet.
You know, like if it's a special-purpose machine in a recording studio
or on the Space Shuttle.

ulysses


In article , Oistein
wrote:

I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's
any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything seems to be
directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot. I guess I'm
asking
if absolutely everything that says XP works 100% with Windows 2000 too.
Any
give and take factors I should be aware of in this evaluation?

In article writes:

XP will supposedly quit working if it goes a certain amount of time
without connecting to Microsoft to confirm your registration. Which
can be a problem if you don't connect your computer to the internet.

You can get a registration code by phone. But if you try to register
too many computers on the same copy of Windows, you'll have some
'splainin' to do.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1061253709k@trad
In article
writes:

XP will supposedly quit working if it goes a certain amount of time
without connecting to Microsoft to confirm your registration. Which
can be a problem if you don't connect your computer to the internet.

You can get a registration code by phone. But if you try to register
too many computers on the same copy of Windows, you'll have some
'splainin' to do.

The classic explanation is a recent string of upgrades and/or repairs.

Given how sensitive XP is to seemingly trivial hardware changes, they have
to honor this.

"Oistein" wrote in message ...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if there's
any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything seems to be
directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot. I guess I'm asking
if absolutely everything that says XP works 100% with Windows 2000 too. Any
give and take factors I should be aware of in this evaluation?

It is hard to justify the upgrade cost while switching from
Windows 2000 to XP. It is not worth the money in my opinion.
Win98-XP makes more sense. If you are running Windows 2000 then
skip a generation and upgrade when the next version of windows (post-XP)
comes out.

(John D.) wrote in
:

"Oistein" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything
seems to be directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot.
I guess I'm asking if absolutely everything that says XP works 100%
with Windows 2000 too. Any give and take factors I should be aware of
in this evaluation?

It is hard to justify the upgrade cost while switching from
Windows 2000 to XP. It is not worth the money in my opinion.
Win98-XP makes more sense. If you are running Windows 2000 then
skip a generation and upgrade when the next version of windows
(post-XP) comes out.


Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

Toad

(John D.) wrote in
:

"Oistein" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything
seems to be directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot.
I guess I'm asking if absolutely everything that says XP works 100%
with Windows 2000 too. Any give and take factors I should be aware of
in this evaluation?

It is hard to justify the upgrade cost while switching from
Windows 2000 to XP. It is not worth the money in my opinion.
Win98-XP makes more sense. If you are running Windows 2000 then
skip a generation and upgrade when the next version of windows
(post-XP) comes out.


Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

Toad

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:07:56 -0000, toad wrote:

(John D.) wrote in
m:

"Oistein" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything
seems to be directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot.
I guess I'm asking if absolutely everything that says XP works 100%
with Windows 2000 too. Any give and take factors I should be aware of
in this evaluation?

It is hard to justify the upgrade cost while switching from
Windows 2000 to XP. It is not worth the money in my opinion.
Win98-XP makes more sense. If you are running Windows 2000 then
skip a generation and upgrade when the next version of windows
(post-XP) comes out.


Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

I think that WinXP requires much less tweaking to run as a stable DAW
than Win2k did.

Al

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:07:56 -0000, toad wrote:

(John D.) wrote in
m:

"Oistein" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this subject has been discussed before. I'm just curious if
there's any reason to use Windows 2000 over XP anymore. Everything
seems to be directed towards XP now. Toutorials, drivers and whatnot.
I guess I'm asking if absolutely everything that says XP works 100%
with Windows 2000 too. Any give and take factors I should be aware of
in this evaluation?

It is hard to justify the upgrade cost while switching from
Windows 2000 to XP. It is not worth the money in my opinion.
Win98-XP makes more sense. If you are running Windows 2000 then
skip a generation and upgrade when the next version of windows
(post-XP) comes out.


Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

I think that WinXP requires much less tweaking to run as a stable DAW
than Win2k did.

Al

"toad" wrote in message
Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.


Apart from minor things like current versions of applications being written
explicitly to take advantage of XPs addition media-friendy subsystems.


geoff

"toad" wrote in message
Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.


Apart from minor things like current versions of applications being written
explicitly to take advantage of XPs addition media-friendy subsystems.


geoff

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:07:56 -0000, toad wrote:

Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

If you're sticking with program versions released at the time of W2K,
maybe. But maybe not . Vintage ain't always better :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:07:56 -0000, toad wrote:

Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

If you're sticking with program versions released at the time of W2K,
maybe. But maybe not . Vintage ain't always better :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"toad" wrote in message...

Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

Toad


I think this may depend on how 'bloated' the system is. As to boot speed,
I've never seen anything as slow as XP... which is bloated by design. If it
were a contest for boot speed, I could fire up a 98SE system, open the
audio application and be recording or burning CDs before the XP system
was on line. With 2000, I found that every piece of software added would
slow the boot time, and it had better be a dedicated audio box or glitches
were in the works. The moment anything having to do with 'Office', 'Works',
network cards, or anything which required the addition of MDAC components
is added, it's speed and functionality as an audio workstation is compromised.

DM

"toad" wrote in message...

Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed. If
you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

Toad


I think this may depend on how 'bloated' the system is. As to boot speed,
I've never seen anything as slow as XP... which is bloated by design. If it
were a contest for boot speed, I could fire up a 98SE system, open the
audio application and be recording or burning CDs before the XP system
was on line. With 2000, I found that every piece of software added would
slow the boot time, and it had better be a dedicated audio box or glitches
were in the works. The moment anything having to do with 'Office', 'Works',
network cards, or anything which required the addition of MDAC components
is added, it's speed and functionality as an audio workstation is compromised.

DM

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" wrote in
newsAh4d.8007$vd1.1629@trnddc03:


"toad" wrote in message...

Agree. The only real advantage XP offers over 2000 is start-up speed.
If you don't care about this then stay with W2K.

Toad


I think this may depend on how 'bloated' the system is. As to boot
speed, I've never seen anything as slow as XP... which is bloated by
design. If it were a contest for boot speed, I could fire up a 98SE
system, open the audio application and be recording or burning CDs
before the XP system was on line. With 2000, I found that every piece
of software added would slow the boot time, and it had better be a
dedicated audio box or glitches were in the works. The moment
anything having to do with 'Office', 'Works', network cards, or
anything which required the addition of MDAC components is added, it's
speed and functionality as an audio workstation is compromised.

DM




Odd, the prefetch feature of XP just makes it boot a whole lot faster
then W2K or 98 in my experience. But, it depends too on how many startup
programs and services you have on each. The first thing I do is turn off
as many automatic services as possible in XP or W2K which helps.

Toad

Odd, the prefetch feature of XP just makes it boot a whole lot faster
then W2K or 98 in my experience. But, it depends too on how many startup
programs and services you have on each. The first thing I do is turn off
as many automatic services as possible in XP or W2K which helps.

I have a partially stripped down XP machine for audio and it boots faster than
any machine here..never a problem...at least not OS related.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637