Printable View
I am going to be upgrading to windows XP Home due to the fact that I am too poor to afford Pro. My qyestion is this. When I upgrade will I be able to modify permissions for files and folders individually? In my limited experience the answer is no. If any of you know a free tool that will modify the permissions like you can do in 2000 pro please post a link so i can get it. I really don't want this to be more of a hassle than it already is going to be.
Hi Gir, just out of curiosity, what is the price difference where you are?
You sound as if you already have Win 2000 Pro, so would XP Home really represent that much of an upgrade? particularly in a home or SOHO environment (you did say you were too poor, so I guess we are not talking Fortune 500 here? :D )
The reason I am asking is that I have had this sort of conversation several times recently. Mainly the issue was that Vista is due out shortly, so is it worth migrating a stable and functional system onto what would seem to be quite a short term solution?
A bit of advice:
1. Make sure you have the drivers for your legacy hardware.
2. Take a look at your RAM...................... XP likes a lot of resource ;)
Yep.......I do it on my machines
As long as you install it on the NTFS file system
MLF
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
The reason I am asking is that I have had this sort of conversation several times recently. Mainly the issue was that Vista is due out shortly, so is it worth migrating a stable and functional system onto what would seem to be quite a short term solution?
Yes vista is due out soon... but come on. i was still using 98se for the first year and a half of XP's life...
Vista is going to be a big change to the windows platform... more then xp was.. and because of this major change it will take some time before Vista is the new absolute standard.... When people at bestbuy ask me if XP is still ok to purchase since Vista is on the way i say yes with positive assurance.... XP is still a great OS. wait for Vista to roll out from the starting line and get a lap or two down before you migrate
Hi hex~ that was kind of the discussion I have been having.
People still use old operating systems if they work. I still have 98SE and ME because they are still in use in the home and SOHO environments around here.
True, I would not recommend diving straight into Vista, so right now, a more modest hardware platform with XP Pro is what I would recommend and go for.
The question that arises is where people are still using Win 2000, and a lot are around here, including the local government, hospitals, schools, colleges, businesses. They are not going to go out and blow thousands on new kit until they have to. So the issue is whether to upgrade the OS for no apparent reason, or wait for a stable VISTA, by which time they will probably want to replace the hardware anyway?
You skipped Win ME did you not?................ same kind of thinking here, I reckon. They are using Win 2000 and it works. They would have to pay for an XP upgrade and probably face additional costs for hardware and peripheral upgrades in some cases.
The issue is whether to wait for VISTA or not, given that they have no intention of major hardware replacement until then.
:)
My reasons for upgrade are the fact that I want to use Windows live mesesnger and you cant install it on 2000 pro. I purchased the copy of XP Home over a year ago and installed it on the machine. Since I use it mostly for gaming and it is on the low end of the power scale (500MHZ PIII) i went with 2000 pr since it wasnt as resource intensive. As for a tool if someone could direct me towards a free one that works that would be nice if for no other reason to know about it, I have decided to dual boot the system since I had a free 10GB partition I wasnt really using so I guess i don't really need the tool seing as i can do all the modding under 2000 pro.
Really? On my XP Home with NTFS, I couldn't modify any of the ACLs. Is your an OEM version of XP that came with a computer or off the shelf version?Quote:
Originally posted here by morganlefay
Yep.......I do it on my machines
As long as you install it on the NTFS file system
MLF
- Xierox
It seems you can only change the ACL's if you boot to Safe Mode..Quote:
Originally posted here by xierox
Really? On my XP Home with NTFS, I couldn't modify any of the ACLs. Is your an OEM version of XP that came with a computer or off the shelf version?
http://whoozoo.co.uk/winxpFilePerms.htm
Learn something new every day. :D Thanks!Quote:
Originally posted here by SirDice
It seems you can only change the ACL's if you boot to Safe Mode..
http://whoozoo.co.uk/winxpFilePerms.htm
- Xierox
Really? try this:-Quote:
My reasons for upgrade are the fact that I want to use Windows live mesesnger and you cant install it on 2000 pro
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Interne...senger-8.shtml
I think it was the beta before this release that you were only supposed to use with XP?
:)
This is not alot of space for XP...my current windows folder is about 3.5 gigs...grant it I could clean up some of the hot fix sp uninstall dirs..Quote:
I have decided to dual boot the system since I had a free 10GB partition
Now ...put some games on it......your pushing it.
Also...how much ram you got.........xp loves ram......the more the better.
Sorry....forgot to mention that ;)Quote:
It seems you can only change the ACL's if you boot to Safe Mode..
was into the wine :cool:
MLF
Well im only planning on using it for windows live messenger so i dont need much space. Also i have 392MB of ram so i think im pretty safe but i only have a 500 mhz proccesor.
You don't want to limit yourself for room to manouver.
Source InformationQuote:
One factor that prevents some people from upgrading their computers to WinXP is the OS' system requirements. If you have not upgraded, make sure your system meets these necessities.
According to Microsoft, WinXP Home and Professional require a 233MHz or higher processor (300MHz recommended), 64MB of RAM or more (128MB recommended), 1.5GB of available hard drive space, 800 × 600 resolution (Super VGA [video graphics array]) or higher video adapter and monitor, CD-ROM drive, keyboard, and mouse or other pointing device.
NOTE:
It's also a good idea to test your current system's hardware for compatibility with WinXP. Microsoft's Upgrade Adviser applet will perform this task for you. To use Upgrade Advisor, visit the WinXP Compatibility Resources And Information Web page (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/c...ty/default.asp) and click the Upgrade Advisor link.
As many frustrated WinXP users have discovered, Microsoft's recommended requirements are insufficient to run a heavily loaded system at full boogie. Extra power becomes even more crucial if you work with large multimedia or graphics files or run several programs at once. If you want your WinXP computer to zip along, you will need a 600MHz processor at a minimum, 256MB of RAM (512MB is even better), a 1,024 x 768 video card, and a 20GB hard drive.
Most newer PCs (those less than two years old) exceed these requirements with the exception of RAM. Sufficient memory is one of the main factors in getting WinXP to scream, and RAM is so inexpensive these days that there is no excuse not to have enough.
I was quite happy with my P2-350 running XP.. No problems.. Played games et al.. It had 392MB ram..
RAM is the key, there is actually very little difference between a PIII/533 and a PIII/733 in my experience.
I had a machine in last week. PIII/733 with 64Mb of PC133 RAM. At first I thought the monitor was dead, as it took about 5 minutes to even show that contact had been made!
I stuck in another 64Mb of RAM and it improved considerably, but was still unacceptable IMO......as in "I would rather have a 486" :eek:
It had on board video, so I stuck an old 16Mb PCI card in it, and that improved the boot up, a bit more. So I deleted XP and reinstalled Win98SE and it worked just fine. I guess it was OK originally with 64Mb of RAM of which 16Mb was "shared" with the onboard video.
Video sharing the RAM can be a killer, because it doesn't "share" it "steals" ;)
With 256Mb of RAM you should expect a performance identical to 9x and W2K, for "light usage". Beyond that there is pretty good bang per buck up to 512Mb. Beyond that and you would need to be running more "heavy duty" applications to appreciate it.
My preference for "specification challenged" machines is Win2K, but you need to watch out for drivers as you probably have legacy peripherals to deal with as well.
Greeting's
Why are you so interested in Windows Live messanger ? Is it because you can talk with people with Yahoo ID.. Just curious.. Why upgrade for a messanger from Microsoft...
Hi there Byte~ I have pointed out that he CAN run it (well at least a reasonably stable version) under W2K.
If he wants to run MS beta crap, well, let him learn in the University of hard knocks?
:D