Old computer, older OS, old junk is better (and worse)
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:17 am
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!
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

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, 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'
