|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Question about Windows XP vs 2000 Pro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/534a.jpg)
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-10-2004 02:25 AM
There are also one or two other bells and whistles which are exclusive to XP Pro, e.g. more sophisticated file sharing options and an encryption facility.
The main difference I noticed between 2K and XP Pro was that the latter used a lot less RAM and slightly less hard disc space. Simply put, when comparing the two operating systems running on the exact same hardware, XP Pro seems to run faster and multitasks more efficiently.
I've never used XP Home, though (except briefly and on other people's machines), so I couldn't say whether you'd be getting these advantages when installing it over W2K.
On the subject of computers, I've just finished a major upgrade of mine and have hit two strange problems on reinstalling Windows (XP Pro). The first is that it will only create and install my system volume as drive H:. It won't let me change it to C: in Computer Management later, as you can't change the drive letter of the system volume. I guess the reason for this is that both my hard drives in the new machine are on a Serial ATA RAID controller. There are no hard discs connected to either IDE rail, so I can only guess that Windows reserves C: for an IDE drive. I'm not even sure that this is a problem at all - presumably the OS and all application software should work happily with the system volume as H:. If it won't, is there any way of changing it to C:?
Secondly, neither the BIOS nor Windows recognises the CPU correctly as being an AMD XP+3200/400FSB. On bootup, the BIOS simply says 'AMD Athlon', while Windows thinks that the CPU is an XP+1900. Things I've tried: (i) updating the BIOS with the latest version (the motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro 2 rev. 2.0), (ii) double checking the motherboard jumper settings and BIOS settings to auto-detect everything and (iii) downloading all the recommended Windows updates, using Autopatcher first and then Windows update to put in everything which was released since. Still no joy, and I'm wondering if this is simply a display glitch or if the processor is not running as fast as it should be.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|