rep and some sort of cloning software like
Ghost... this will at least speed up the process.
-jim
-Original Message-
From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: OT: Windows 2000 "features&
Bill,I still have my "slide" from college if
you need it :)
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" http://mail2web.com/ .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
directions. Don't forget to
visit t
ME to XP Pro took 2 hours - only 10 minutes of which required any input
from me.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 August 2002 23:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Windows 2000 "features"
>
Both actually, but who know's what Microsoft will end up doing. Win/Dos
was supposed to end with Win95 then Win98 was to be the last edition, it
finally
was ended with WinME. XP is sort of the WinME interface made more
"friendly" with
bright colors and fewer options, grafted onto the NTFS file
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:49:15 -0500, Len Paris wrote:
> I'm not real sure that XP was actually intended to be the
> successor of NT. It was definitely intended to be the successor
> of Win98SE and Win98ME, though. I think that the intended
> successor to NT is Win2K. Not necessarily the early ve
I can speak to this. I just upgraded my older home PC from Windows NT
4.0 to Windows 2000 Professional. According to Microsoft's published
requirements, my old hardware-a 230 MHz AMD chip with 160 MB of
RAM--could just get by.
I wiped my old OS clean and installed Windows 2000.
Well, the PC wou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not real sure that XP was actually intended to be the
> successor of NT. It was definitely intended to be the successor
> of Win98SE and Win98ME, though.
XP is intended to be the replacement for 95/98/ME *and NT. Microsoft had been
fed up with supporting two diff
for Norton Utilities 3.x)
In a nutshell, a "nice" MS-DOS stuff, that doesn't ask for hardware or
"nonstandard" things like EMS and XMS (which is also hardware) will
work. Everything else -- won't.
Best,
Mishka.
> From: Fred
> Subject: Re: OT: Windows 20
NT
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 "features"
> >True, true. And, it does seem to me that Win XP Home is finally
> >mo
>True, true. And, it does seem to me that Win XP Home is finally
>more like the NT-ish versions in many respects (rather than being a
>rehashed Win 9x, like Win Me was).
I have never understand the position of XP. Is it the successor of 9X or NT?
regards,
Alan Chan
___
Can't answer all your questions but 2kPro was pretty slow on my P2-266 with
PC66-320MB RAM and DMA33 hard drive. Some hardwares were not supported or
not running at all even they claimed they should (parallel scanner, printer
and Zip100). I just went back to 89SE on that machine. However, 2k is
"Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>Sorry for the OT note,
Or IT note, as the case may be ;-)
>Just got a note from the powers that be here at work asking if any of us are
>likely to have "issues" with a planned upgrade from Win 95 to Win 2k.
I got upgraded fro
W2k has been the standard Windows OS at my company for quite some time. It is, to a
great degree, 98 with a NT kernel. Looks and works like Windows 9.x, but is much more
crash resistant. You won't have any trouble running old apps so long as you have
enough memory: 128MB min.
-
This message is
Hi folks,
Thanks again to all for your many helpful comments on my Win2k questions.
Very good to know your experiences with this.
Regarding DOS, I think I'm on the same side of the fence as Fred. I've got
a few ancient, but still useful, DOS routines that I use once in a while.
The old QuickBAS
14 matches
Mail list logo
