Beretta.net

So, my old laptop, an eyebrow-raised as if to ask "Do you really even want this thing, for free?" is a 2GHz unit that came with a seriously buggered-up XP OS. I used it for a few games, watching DVDs while away from home, and my cute little ELM-327 OBD2 interface unit (reads/deletes OBD-2 codes, and displays sensor data including real-time O2 streams, not bad for $14). The hard-drive, a laughable 30GB part, crashed on me a little while back. It definitely sucks, because I had just replaced the keyboard last year, and had a lot of files pertaining to some of my car-builds, like the modified wiring schematic for my '90 turbo 'Retta's 3400 SFI/97 Venture PCM install. I now only have hard-copies, so I will have to re-build the diagrams in another computer to be able to modify or print more copies of it. Oh well. I may still be able to recover it, and salvage the data.

I had a new, unused copy of Windows 2000 Pro waiting for either just his event, or for me to get a new drive preempting this very event. Why? Because I hate XP, and I'm not necessarily fond of 7, 8, Vista, or whatever 'Bright,New,Shiny!' (and bugged) OS that might be cranked-out next. Hey, I still like Windows 95A, and even that I had to be talked into from the DOS I used to use! It ticks me off that it takes a new system capable of running thirty or forty times more processing speed than my old computer has 50% longer to boot-up, because the OS is sixty times the size, or even twice that. My way-old computer was a business-class tower unit with a humungous 1+GB drive, and a pretty quick Pentium 1 (I wanted a nice 386, but waited too long to get it, and this monster appeared in my price-range, oh a couple of decades ago ). After I managed to fill the 1 Gig hard-drive, I bought a 25 GB drive, but my Windows 95 OS couldn't understand it. So, I partitioned the drive into several drives the OS could register, and bam! I had like six or seven hard-drives on the one computer (so far as it was concerned)! Hey, it worked great for all the stuff I was doing (no internet for me back then), and it still boots faster than most new PCs, and oh yeah, IT STILL BOOTS! Okay, enough about the dinosaurs... On to the prehistoric sabre-toothed OS I've chosen.

Currently, I am waiting for my brand new $15 HDD to finish partitioning... again. I have had to make a decision between FAT (File Allocation Table) old formatting style, and the newer NTFS structure. Thusfar, the only discussions I can find that are worth reading and that are actually readable in the middle of the night have no definitive answer on which system is better, since each structure has its' own set of advantages and disadvantages, but are all approaching a decade old. Well, that makes sense... So I've decided to install both, and see if I find any major pit-falls in either one.

So, although my old laptop was built for XP (Pro), it will now have 2000 instead. I'm having issues with the monitor display, as it only displays in the center 2/3 of the screen, and will only display a VGA 16 color display, what the heck? I am VERY familiar with the older NT platformed OS, so simple fixes I've already tried (or I think I've tried all the easy fixes... it is late). I may have to install a different video driver, which just sounds like a PITA, as I have zero intentions of exposing this old system to the web directly.

So, who else has retro-fitted (emphasis on 'retro' ) an older OS into a newer machine? What problems have you encountered? Remember, this is a very purpose-oriented computer I've put together, it is for primarily automotive work, and will not be used for the more intensive games, media, and internet operations that my regular computer is used for. I do love how fast it is booting up with the 2000 though!

Wow. Never had a problem with XP 32 or 64. Windows 2000 was the worst OS that I have ever used. It would blue screen and black screen off and on. Sure was happy to get rid of that. LOL mash the keyboard a few times and you have a blue screen.

Really? I've never had a problem with W2k dropping out or locking up, ever. We used it at a couple of my previous jobs, and it was very reliable for us. I don't know what Service Packs we were using there, and it could even be a difference between Pro and not-Pro (I doubt it). Of course, I don't recall mashing the whole keyboard over and over either... That would tend to happen after an OS locked up on me! I don't like how XP is so clunky, and tries to auto-update everything all the time -I am old-school, and prefer to the computer to do what I tell it to, not what it thinks it feels like doing. As I said too, my old lap-top's OS was buggered-up, so that is a small part of it, but I've used it on at least a few other computers, and I just didn't like it. Pretty reliable, so far as system crashes though, but W2k has a better track-record with me for that too. I know a lot of it is just that when Win 95 came out, I learned that thing almost inside and out, and W2k's platform operates much more closely to that than XP does. I'm sure I'll start missing some of the features of the newer OS's, but that particular unit is for limited duty anyway. If I can just get the !@#$! screen resolution/size problems fixed!

Windows XP was an amazing operating system. My windows 8.1 laptop boots from cold to desktop in 12 seconds.

XP, 2000, 7 and 8 are ALL NT architecture. Windows 2000 and XP are essentially the same OS. The only differences are visual styles, driver compatibility and minor performance tweaks. So not sure why you're hesitant to upgrade. ( and why on earth you'd downgrade? You CANT get drivers for those operating systems for new hardware, which is why your display isn't functional .) Windows 7 runs flawlessly on modern equipment.

As far as FAT vs NTFS. Fat will not recognize files over 4gb. NTFS offers encryption, and other security related features as well as supporting larger single files. there is no reason to use FAT unless you need inter platform compatibility (such as a shared data drive to a Linux machine). And a THAT is a definitive answer.

So I'm guessing that your video card is on board. It's almost like you need some drivers for it, but I would think that would be part of the main drivers. I have yet to deal with any laptop so this is all new to me.
LOL I'm running a computer that is at least seven years old or more. Seems like everytime I build a new one it fails and I'm back to the old one. Damn this thing is slow, but it works. Well I am having a problem with video play back that I can't seem to fix. "New" drivers and software and it still will freeze up. If you back up the play back it will not freeze up in the same spot.
My 2000 was just the home so that could have been the problem. Right now MS and AMD are pissing me off, but there is nothing that can be done about MS.

What has Microsoft done to piss you off personally?

Computers are so incredibly cheap I cannot understand why someone would use old stuff like that.

I build a new PC every two years. I spend under 1200 dollars. And that's extreme to me.

You can build a great home computer with amazing features for under 500 dollars that can last for years.



Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

It's crazy how some people hold such a grudge....

I'm not "happy" with the Windows 8.1 or 8.0 design,(mostly on a non touch screen device) but I wasn't thrilled with W7 till I started using it... 8.1 works great on a touch screen as long as your willing to accept the fact that the start menu has greatly changed.

Other than that it would never stop me from using a MS product.

I like Windows 8.1. I have touch screen and non touch screen computers. I have a Windows Phone, a Surface Pro 2 tablet, list goes on.

Anyway, you can get a program called Start Is Back, and it does what it says. It's 3 dollars, and you get a multi PC license.

I had Classic shell on my mother in-laws tablet but the 8.1 update killed that. I'm guessing Start is Back works on 8.1? I'm more interested in this stuff for my office environment... if I implement 8.1 on anything I think they would shut the PC off and resort to a pen and paper... They are that stubborn to change and honestly that slow at learning ANYTHING.

Corporate environments have a good reason not to upgrade, and typically only do so when Microsoft removes support for old products.

Mission critical apps might only run on XP for example.

Start is Back works on 8.1, just adds the start menu back, no bloat.

Chad91GTZ wrote:Corporate environments have a good reason not to upgrade, and typically only do so when Microsoft removes support for old products.

Near impossible to find new machines to replace dying ones in your company when Dell ships 90% of stuff with 8 too... that kinda sucks. Half the time I find a machine I want to try but it only has 8 on it. I've been raping the Dell outlet as much as I can...

Look what I found... LOL I thought it was appropriate for the thread.

Where'd you find a time machine?

3X00-Modified wrote:I'm not "happy" with the Windows 8.1 or 8.0 design,(mostly on a non touch screen device) but I wasn't thrilled with W7 till I started using it... 8.1 works great on a touch screen as long as your willing to accept the fact that the start menu has greatly changed.

I don't use Windows all that often at home, but Windows 8 was fine once you get all the keyboard shortcuts when you don't have a touch screen.. Although for some reason it thinks my Wacom tablet is an appropriate touch device and gives those silly on screen tips if it's plugged in.

I can't wait until I get new equipment at work, for it's entire life it will be on Vista (that's all that will be supported by HP)… Next one will probably be on 7.

I don't know if you can tell but that 2000 CD is Minty fresh... Still wrapped. NOS... New Old crap...

I have to keep that 98 CD around because the first laser engraver we purchased like 3 yrs ago... Only works on 98... WTF!!! lol We are masters at buying old out dated stuff.