 |
BorlandTalk.com
Borland discussion newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gery Rohrig
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:13 pm Post subject: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
 |
|
Hi to all,
I'm thinking to upgrade to a new PC with Win2000 or XP as OS.
Currently I'm using Win 95 and 98 and D5 (autch I'm getting old) and
had no problems with it.
My question is if you had bad expirience with XP (or 2000) using Delphi?
Regards Gery
www.zip.com.au/~gprdata
Have a great day, and thanks for any replays.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jud McCranie
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:13:38 GMT, [email]gprdataNo-SpaM (AT) zipworld (DOT) com.au[/email] (Gery
Rohrig) wrote:
| Quote: | I'm thinking to upgrade to a new PC with Win2000 or XP as OS.
Currently I'm using Win 95 and 98 and D5 (autch I'm getting old) and
had no problems with it.
My question is if you had bad expirience with XP (or 2000) using Delphi?
|
Delphi works much better with XP than 95/98/Me. I would not recomend
going to Win2000, you might as well go to XP pro instead. I use XP
personal, and that may be all you need.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:53 am Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
"Gery Rohrig" <gprdataNo-SpaM (AT) zipworld (DOT) com.au> wrote
| Quote: | Hi to all,
I'm thinking to upgrade to a new PC with Win2000 or XP as OS.
Currently I'm using Win 95 and 98 and D5 (autch I'm getting old) and
had no problems with it.
My question is if you had bad expirience with XP (or 2000) using Delphi?
|
Only positive experiences. Much greater stability while
developing projects.
PR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jud McCranie
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:03:23 -0800, Jamie
<jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | i use 2000 Pro and i haven't yet seen a OS error nor
have i brought down the OS yet with any of my bad
coding
|
Me either, with D6 and XP -- unlike 95/98/Me, when I used to lock it
up an average of 2-3 times a day.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamie
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
using an NT kernel PC has always been much better
when coding due to better lock up recovery
(pre'emtive tasking) and better memory handling.
i use 2000 Pro and i haven't yet seen a OS error nor
have i brought down the OS yet with any of my bad
coding since i install this OS about 4 months ago.
i have both D3 and D7.//.
Gery Rohrig wrote:
| Quote: | Hi to all,
I'm thinking to upgrade to a new PC with Win2000 or XP as OS.
Currently I'm using Win 95 and 98 and D5 (autch I'm getting old) and
had no problems with it.
My question is if you had bad expirience with XP (or 2000) using Delphi?
Regards Gery
www.zip.com.au/~gprdata
Have a great day, and thanks for any replays.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Richardson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) - don't use XP PRO |
|
|
"Gery Rohrig" <gprdataNo-SpaM (AT) zipworld (DOT) com.au> wrote
| Quote: | Hi to all,
I'm thinking to upgrade to a new PC with Win2000 or XP as OS.
Currently I'm using Win 95 and 98 and D5 (autch I'm getting old) and
had no problems with it.
My question is if you had bad expirience with XP (or 2000) using Delphi?
Regards Gery
|
I now use D5 and XP Home Edition and think it's great. I don't know about XP
2000.
When I tried to "upgrade" from XP-Home to XP-Pro I had a TOTAL DISASTER.
There is no capability of moving from XP-Pro back to XP-Home, unless you
wipe your hard drive clear and start afresh...with every program on your
system.
My problem with XP-Pro occurred because XP-Pro did not have a driver for my
video card. This problem manifested itself ONLY WITH DELPHI. Very strange!!
Other programs seem to work fine, but D5 couldn't display the splash screen
(you know, that silly one with four panels, including wrenching a lady bug).
Apparently that splash screen utilizes some features of my video card that
the "default video driver" put in by XP-Pro could not handle. The tech
support at Delphi indicated that a few others have had this problem - but
they no longer support D5.
My problem with XP-Pro occurred with an ATI Radeon 7000/Radeon VE, 32MB
card.
This problem happened two years ago. Maybe they have the appropriate driver
now. I ended up giving that computer to my wife and getting a new one. She's
had several crash problems that we believe were caused by XP-Pro.
YMMV
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) - don't use XP PRO |
|
|
Bob Richardson wrote:
| Quote: | When I tried to "upgrade" from XP-Home to XP-Pro I had a TOTAL
DISASTER.
snip
My problem with XP-Pro occurred because XP-Pro did not have a driver
for my video card
|
Yes, that's why you would download the driver, or install it from the CD you
got when you bought your video card. WinXP home and WinXP pro drivers are
interchangable.
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
"Bjørge Sæther" <bjorge (AT) hahaha_itte (DOT) no> wrote
| Quote: | Gery Rohrig wrote:
Hi to all,
I'm thinking to upgrade to a new PC with Win2000 or XP as OS.
Currently I'm using Win 95 and 98 and D5 (autch I'm getting old) and
had no problems with it.
My question is if you had bad expirience with XP (or 2000) using
Delphi? Regards Gery
What I hate about XP, is that the OS *allways* survives long enough to
propose sending Microsoft an error report describing my latest flaw.
Win9x was better here, I could just start over with a fresh, rebooted
computer.
|
That would be a bit of a nuissance if one
could not turn it off, however you can.
PR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
"Jud McCranie" <youknowwhat.mccranie (AT) adelphia (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | Delphi works much better with XP than 95/98/Me. I would not recomend
going to Win2000, you might as well go to XP pro instead. I use XP
personal, and that may be all you need.
|
Do you have some specific reasons for recommending against W2K? While I
haven't used it as a development environment all my experience with the o/s
has been extremely positive.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jud McCranie
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:20:57 -0500, "Bruce Roberts"
<ber (AT) bounceitattcanada (DOT) xnet> wrote:
| Quote: | Do you have some specific reasons for recommending against W2K? While I
haven't used it as a development environment all my experience with the o/s
has been extremely positive.
|
It has been superceeded by XP pro, hasn't it? If you're upgrading
operating systems, I think it would make more sense to go to XP pro
than 2000.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maarten Wiltink
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
"Jud McCranie" <youknowwhat.mccranie (AT) adelphia (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:20:57 -0500, "Bruce Roberts"
[email]ber (AT) bounceitattcanada (DOT) xnet[/email]> wrote:
Do you have some specific reasons for recommending against W2K? While I
haven't used it as a development environment all my experience with the
o/s has been extremely positive.
It has been superceeded by XP pro, hasn't it? If you're upgrading
operating systems, I think it would make more sense to go to XP pro
than 2000.
|
That Microsoft considers it "superseded" does not bother me. I recently
upgraded from Windows NT4 to Windows 2000. Why should I go to XP? (There
is one correct answer to that; I'll be favourably impressed if you can
give it.)
There are also reasons for _not_ migrating to XP. The fact that I'm
running on "only" 1000 MHz would be one. That I have very limited hard
disc space would be another. Windows 95 needs some 20 MB, IIRC. Windows
NT4 takes up about 300 MB. I was mortified to discover that Windows 2000
increased that further to a full Gigabyte; I had to jump through serious
hoops (mounting Program Files from another partition) to be able to
install some applications, too.
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Kennedy
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
Jud McCranie wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:20:57 -0500, "Bruce Roberts"
[email]ber (AT) bounceitattcanada (DOT) xnet[/email]> wrote:
Do you have some specific reasons for recommending against W2K?
While I haven't used it as a development environment all my
experience with the o/s has been extremely positive.
It has been superceeded by XP pro, hasn't it? If you're upgrading
operating systems, I think it would make more sense to go to XP pro
than 2000.
|
I don't think "There's something newer" is a specific reason. It's not
even a very good reason.
My reasons for prefering XP:
1. Visual styles. When I'm writing components, I want to ensure that
they look correct both with and without a theme applied. I can't test
that on Windows 2000.
2. Fast user switching. Fast user switching is an easier way of running
something as an administrator. In Windows 2000, I can use the run-as
service, but I'm just not as comfortable with that as I am with a
separate desktop setup.
And those are both fairly weak reasons for me. I spend only a small
fraction of my time writing components or tweaking administrative
settings. Windows 2000 is a fine system for development work. No reason
to avoid it.
--
Rob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
"Jud McCranie" <youknowwhat.mccranie (AT) adelphia (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | It has been superceeded by XP pro, hasn't it? If you're upgrading
operating systems, I think it would make more sense to go to XP pro
than 2000.
|
It my belief that XP is considered a "desktop" o/s while MS views 2000/2003
more as a "server" o/s. So perhaps they, at least their marketing people,
like to think that XP supercedes 2k. Were I a network administrator I'd want
to see all my machines running the same o/s if possible - and this is what I
have seen at a number of sites. W2k on everything.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jud McCranie
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:10:07 +0100, "Maarten Wiltink"
<maarten (AT) kittensandcats (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | That Microsoft considers it "superseded" does not bother me. I recently
upgraded from Windows NT4 to Windows 2000. Why should I go to XP? (There
is one correct answer to that; I'll be favourably impressed if you can
give it.)
|
I was answering the question of the OP, who had W98. He was wondering
about going to NT or 2000. If you're a W98 user, I think it makes
more sense to go to XP than to NT or 2000. If you're already using
2000, you can stick with it.
| Quote: | There are also reasons for _not_ migrating to XP. The fact that I'm
running on "only" 1000 MHz would be one.
|
I was assuming that he had reasonably modern hardware too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marco van de Voort
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:56 am Post subject: Re: Upgrading to XP (or 2000) |
|
|
On 2004-02-10, Rob Kennedy <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | Jud McCranie wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:20:57 -0500, "Bruce Roberts"
[email]ber (AT) bounceitattcanada (DOT) xnet[/email]> wrote:
Do you have some specific reasons for recommending against W2K?
While I haven't used it as a development environment all my
experience with the o/s has been extremely positive.
It has been superceeded by XP pro, hasn't it? If you're upgrading
operating systems, I think it would make more sense to go to XP pro
than 2000.
I don't think "There's something newer" is a specific reason. It's not
even a very good reason.
My reasons for prefering XP:
1. Visual styles. When I'm writing components, I want to ensure that
they look correct both with and without a theme applied. I can't test
that on Windows 2000.
2. Fast user switching. Fast user switching is an easier way of running
something as an administrator. In Windows 2000, I can use the run-as
service, but I'm just not as comfortable with that as I am with a
separate desktop setup.
|
Reasons for prefering W2000:
Faster, leaner, one can keep IE5 which feels a tad faster than IE6 Sub
1.5-2GHz these are nice things.
Less annoying visually, less to turn off after installing.
| Quote: | And those are both fairly weak reasons for me. I spend only a small
fraction of my time writing components or tweaking administrative
settings. Windows 2000 is a fine system for development work. No reason
to avoid it.
|
Same with XP. Differences are not that great, though be sure one gets
XP-pro, if you use Microsoft networking functionality. If you choose XP-Home avoid
restore CDs as the plague, and make sure you get a _real_ cd, with as
few mods as possible. (/me hates OEM versions)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
