windows XP install on 2 PCs (sort of DIY)
 

Fwom:Dave )

I've just bought and installed XP and am considering buying one of the
CsOA advertised on ebay so I can install XP on a 2nd PC.


Win2000 is a significantly better version of NT than XP.


NT

Highly subjective answer there - I happen to believe that XP is better
- but of course thats a subjective answer....


On 12 Jan 2005 11:57:38 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Fwom:Dave )

I've just bought and installed XP and am considering buying one of the
CsOA advertised on ebay so I can install XP on a 2nd PC.


Win2000 is a significantly better version of NT than XP.


NT

On 12 Jan 2005 11:57:38 -0800, (N. Thornton) strung
together this:

Win2000 is a significantly better version of NT than XP.

Although you are quite correct, use a proper newsreader.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:48:55 GMT, strung together this:

Highly subjective answer there - I happen to believe that XP is better

From what perspective?

- but of course thats a subjective answer....

I think most are on usenet.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Grunff wrote:

and a horribly broken built in file search utility.

Drifting more OT, that can be fixed with a few settings tweeks [1]. The
limitation is that when XP is asked to search "ALL" files, it takes that
to mean all file formats that it has a "filter" for.

[1] One solution:

Open Search window and click ion the "indexing service" link. This will
dsiplay the settings dialog.

Ignore whether it is enabled or not (does not affect the ability to
search all files) and click the Advanced button. This will open the
Indexing Service management console.

Click the "Show/Hide console tree icon on the tool bar". This will split
the window into two panes. One the left hand pane right click the top
level entry for "Indexing Service on Local Machine", and select
"Properties" from the context menu.

In the Properties window, tick the "Index files with unknown extensions"
option and OK your way out of all the dialogs.

Search in XP will now work like it did in Win2K


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , "Grunff"
says...
wrote:
Highly subjective answer there - I happen to believe that XP is better
- but of course thats a subjective answer....

First, please don't top post, it doesn't make sense.

Second, there is nothing subjective about it - 2000 is vastly superior.
XP is 2000 with a bunch of useless addons (Windows Security Center,
Windows Firewall, Windows Firewall etc.), a much ruined user interface
and a horribly broken built in file search utility.

Loads of crap is enabled by default - just disable it.

Rob Morley wrote:

Loads of crap is enabled by default - just disable it.

I don't use it, so I don't need to. But that's precisely my point - to
get XP behaving like it should (like 2k), it takes a couple of hours of
changing settings and disabling stuff. Why??


--
Grunff

In article , "Grunff"
says...
Rob Morley wrote:

Loads of crap is enabled by default - just disable it.

I don't use it, so I don't need to. But that's precisely my point - to
get XP behaving like it should (like 2k), it takes a couple of hours of
changing settings and disabling stuff. Why??

In order to keep their marketing people happy they have to come up
with all sorts of compelling reasons why each Windows version is
better than the previous one, so everything is enabled by default
because most users wouldn't even know what the "improvements" were,
let alone how to activate them.
Do you really think it takes two hours to fix it all?

Rob Morley wrote:

Do you really think it takes two hours to fix it all?

About that, yes. I've done it several times for users who switched to XP
from 2k then wanted a non-broken user interface.


--
Grunff

In article , Grunff
writes
Rob Morley wrote:

Do you really think it takes two hours to fix it all?

About that, yes. I've done it several times for users who switched to XP
from 2k then wanted a non-broken user interface.



Whatever did they change to XP in the first case. IMHO Win 2K was/is
about the best that microsnot has ever offered .

Apart from MS-DOS 7
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

Whatever did they change to XP in the first case. IMHO Win 2K was/is
about the best that microsnot has ever offered .

I totally agree with you. They changed because the latest thing "must be
the best thing". Surely you know, anyone using Windows /2000/ in
2004/2005 is way behind the times.


--
Grunff

In article , Grunff
writes
tony sayer wrote:

Whatever did they change to XP in the first case. IMHO Win 2K was/is
about the best that microsnot has ever offered .

I totally agree with you. They changed because the latest thing "must be
the best thing". Surely you know, anyone using Windows /2000/ in
2004/2005 is way behind the times.

Ah!, thats fine then;)

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:55:11 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Rob Morley wrote:

Loads of crap is enabled by default - just disable it.

I don't use it, so I don't need to. But that's precisely my point - to get
XP behaving like it should (like 2k), it takes a couple of hours of
changing settings and disabling stuff. Why??

Any tips Grunff, have just installed XP on a new pc for a friend. I use
Linux here.

Dave

--
For what we are about to balls up may common sense prevent us doing it
again
in the future!!

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Grunff
writes

Rob Morley wrote:

Do you really think it takes two hours to fix it all?

About that, yes. I've done it several times for users who switched to XP
from 2k then wanted a non-broken user interface.

Whatever did they change to XP in the first case. IMHO Win 2K was/is
about the best that microsnot has ever offered .

Personally I never used 2K - I skipped straight to XP from '98, and I
suppose I find it marginally better (having customised it to my own
needs. Certainly more stable anyway.

I'm not an IT professional, and please feel free to shoot me down, but I
think much of the issue is MS's one-size-fits-all-approach. They are
providing essentially one OS to suit all users, from highly clued-up,
high-end users right down to my 70-something mum who decided about a
year ago to get a computer. MS need to attract people like her to keep
expanding their customer base, and TBH I think they've done a pretty
good job with XP from that point of view. Twenty-odd years ago, my mum
would no more have been able to handle working in MS-DOS or use my old
1200/75 modem, than she would have been able to pilot a space shuttle,
yet now, notwithstanding her advancing years, she's happily hooked on
broadband internet, emails family and friends around the world, does
lots of scanning, graphics editing, all sorts.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:24:58 GMT, Lobster
strung together this:

I'm not an IT professional, and please feel free to shoot me down, but I
think much of the issue is MS's one-size-fits-all-approach. They are
providing essentially one OS to suit all users, from highly clued-up,
high-end users right down to my 70-something mum who decided about a
year ago to get a computer. MS need to attract people like her to keep
expanding their customer base, and TBH I think they've done a pretty
good job with XP from that point of view. Twenty-odd years ago, my mum
would no more have been able to handle working in MS-DOS or use my old
1200/75 modem, than she would have been able to pilot a space shuttle,
yet now, notwithstanding her advancing years, she's happily hooked on
broadband internet, emails family and friends around the world, does
lots of scanning, graphics editing, all sorts.

As much as I hate windows, it's here and I have to support it.

They started out with two 'levels' of Windows, NT for business and
wonky for home. This worked as well as Windows ever did until they
released the converged 'one size fits all' XP.

As much as I agree with you in that it's easy to use for first time
Windowers it's a nightmare for 'proper' applications in a business
environment. I still use 2000 for new systems supplied for business
use, (and at home too).

If they continued along the 2 seperate paths then there wouldn't be as
much anamosity towards XP as proffesionals could carry on using proper
versions.

Or something like that......
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Dave Stanton wrote:

Any tips Grunff, have just installed XP on a new pc for a friend. I use
Linux here.


Depends what your friend's needs are, and what (s)he's used to using. If
(s)he's been using 2k and has just switched to XP, then I'd start with
the following:

- Install SP2, then download the latest set of patches.
- Disable Windows Firewall. Use a real firewall.
- Disable Windows Security Center.
- Hate to say it, but use some AV (nod32 is reasonably good)
- Tell them not to use IE/OE/Outlook. Install firefox and thunderbird
instead.
- Turn off the silly XP theme.


Even after all this, it still won't be as secure or as useable as a well
configure linux box. I use both windows and linux every day - I have no
choice in the matter, much of my work is windows based.


--
Grunff