Hello.
I have been looking at my friends used laptop- a Dell Lattitude 610. He
has 2 one with XP the other with Windows 2000. Is there any preferance
of the os on a laptop? I have been using xp on a desktop- which would
be better? Thanks!
KOS

KOS <computerstuff2@excite.com> wrote:
: Hello.
: I have been looking at my friends used laptop- a Dell Lattitude 610. He
: has 2 one with XP the other with Windows 2000. Is there any preferance
: of the os on a laptop? I have been using xp on a desktop- which would
: be better? Thanks!
: KOS

I use both Windows 2000 and XP regularly. Both are very good - stable
and reliable. They are closely related (the buggy Windows 95/98/ME
are an entirely different code stream), with XP being newer.

I think XP uses a little more memory than 2000 does. If the laptop
has 256MB or more, I think XP would be better. It's slightly more
friendly with things like digital cameras and such.

Only reason I would consider 2000 is if the XP is XP Home and not XP
Professional. I have been finding more reasons to want XP Pro these
days, but I'm getting into some more advanced uses. Most users are
fine with XP Home. Windows 2000 has some of the more advanaced
features built into it that XP Pro also has.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
************************************************** *****************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
************************************************** *****************

"KOS" <computerstuff2@excite.com> wrote:
We're recommending XP for all new machines, and upgrades for
individual clients on a case-by-case basis. Since Win2K support ended
yesterday, and XP is fairly stable, I'd go with the XP.

William P. N. Smith wrote:

Actually, 2K support is due to end in 2009. What ended yesterday was one
phase of support.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 30 Jun 2005 18:53:12 -0700, "KOS" <computerstuff2@excite.com>
wrote:

Go with the XP. If you install it yourself use the FAT not the NTFS
option if you want to play old RPG video games ( possibly other game
types too but RPG's are all I have experience with). If you're not
interested in running old software use the NTFS option, it's more
efficent.

Chris or Larry LaMere wrote:

Application software under XP has no direct access to the filesystem, so FAT
vs NTFS makes no difference. If you are going to dual-boot to 98 to deal
with the few programs that XP breaks that's a different story.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

XP is better, other things being equal.


KOS wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:07:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:


Not being cyber-savvy I wouldn't know about that. All I can say is
that I have two machines with WinXP on them, one has FAT32 and the
other NTFS. All my old windows games play on the one with FAT32 using
compatibility mode and only two play on the NTFS machine.

I can't explain it , it just is.

Chris or Larry LaMere wrote:

Both same service pack level?

Might be the security that's the problem--with NTFS access to particular
areas of the filesystem can be blocked by the OS--with FAT32 there is no
security. I suspect that if you find out what the games are trying to
access and allow the user privilege there that they'll run.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:06:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

I'm not too bright, how do you do that unblock security thing?

Chris or Larry LaMere wrote:

Right-click on the folder, then "properties" and "security".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:09:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:


Right clicking then "properties" there is no security tab. General,
quick finder and sharing only and all the check boxes under the
sharing tab are greyed out.

Chris or Larry LaMere wrote:

Then either you're on a FAT disk (FAT doesn't _have_ security) or you're on
a network whose administrator has disabled your access to those features.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)