Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:37 PM
I've been with DOS since version 3.0, and slow to move to Windows. I did work with Windows 286 and 386, even OS/2 for a time, but Windows 95 was a big step forward (Windows NT at that time was too demanding for existing hardware). Windows 98 was better, but Me was a step backwards. We finally moved to Windows big time with version 2k, but it was hard to get it to recognize some of the hardware out there, so version 98 remained the favored version.
When they upgraded Windows 2k to Plug and Play, we went the other way increasingly, but patching 2k to give it the XP look and feel (making the new replacement for 2k) seemed unnecessary, so I stayed with 2k the longest, and still use it as a favorite. A limitation on 2k is that its installer does not recognize 48-LBA, so hard to install on large hard drives, and even harder to reinstall over a partition that somehow got corrupted. For all that, XP has been a better call.
My problem with XP is that I do a lot or hardware changes, and though I've had many PCs that came with XP installed, the whole verification, registration, and validation process of XP is a real irritant. Do more upgrades and enhancements, and you run the risk of causing your OS to turn on you. Now I find I have to fight VGA just to get an existing PC back up to speed when I do something major, like replace a video card, add more memory, replace the motherboard, or any of the things that i find beneficial or necessary. And with new PCs coming without the install CDs for the OS and other software, you want to try and prove that you have a legitimate right to what you bought and paid for? It just made me glad that i found Windows 2K so beneficial since you have none of the problems mentioned with that.
But that problem with Windows 2K installer not recognizing large hard drives or large partitions has made it increasingly difficult to work with, in the face of ever larger hard drives at real reasonable rates. See, I find it most useful to divide a large hard drive into multiple large partitions, then repeat the install of the OS and software on each. That way, if a certan partition fails to boot or shows other problems, I just boot instead to an alternate partition that does not have the same problems. It can greatly speed up efforts to get back up and running in an as short a time as possible.
So not long ago I began to revert to XP over 2K, because this limitation in 2K was getting the best of me and my time. As to Vista or Windows 7, I will let a newer and younger generation deal with those. What I am doing instead is moving some of my partitions to Ubuntu with VirtualBox on top, then install Windows 2K as a client. Almost ideal in many respects, and some surprising benefits as well. With a Windows client, you are a lot more secure from outside hacks and attacks, so less need to run protection software. Worth looking at.
But I always see a need for at least one standalone Windows parttiion, because there are tools in Windows that can be important to work with, and these become inactive or evasive when Windows is but a client. So which, 2K or XP?
Until recently, I was driven to think it would have to be XP. That is because of the continued limitations in getting 2K to set up, install, or repair with hard drives or partitions involved. But XP and WGA have pushed back too hard, and I decided that there had to be another way. How is it that the 2K installer does not recognize LBA, but the XP installer does? So I phrased some searches in Google, and was finally directed here. Seems like there is a way, but the posts on the subject are rather unclear on how to do it, sometimes saying something like "get this", and you are left wondering where to get it from, or how to use it?.
This is my first post here, and that is the reason I am back here, this time to register and to see if I can get a once and for all as to how to get the Windows 2K installer to begin with 48-bit LBA by initiating a key entry into the installer's version of the Registry, and anything else that needs to be dealt with as well. Inputs are welcomed.
Favorite Windows then? I would have to say 2K, with 32-bit XP close behind (except for WGA process), and Windows 98 if you want to go back to 16-bit addressing. But I find lots to appreciate about Ubuntu, especially with the melding of VirtualBox, because that works to give me even more flexibility as to OS and applications.
I'm just saying it the way I find it. If Windows wants to keep improving as a means to get future sales to replace what is already out there, then that is fine, as I then expect the competition to shoot at some new objectives as well. The worse thing about any version of Linux is that many vendors make little or no effort at producing suitable drivers for Linux, sometimes not even for the Mac OS, and in that area Windows tends to stay ahead. This is frequently regarded as a limiting factor when considering a move to Linux, but you might be surprised at the range of possible solutions or workarounds that people have come up with in this regard.
Frontpage
Forums
Tutorials
Members
Calendar
Subscription
Donate
Links
Contact 
Help
Back to top
I thought it was BOB.... 
