Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 36532 2003-08-12 10:54:00 MS 98se TO MS XP Poppa John (284) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
167178 2003-08-12 10:54:00 Many moons ago I had w98se on this m/c. I then had the wXP Home ugrade disc installed. Other than a few bugs it went OK.
What would happen if I tried to use the same disc on the Dell 98se m/c of Maryann's? Would it let me? Poppa John 		Poppa John (284)
167179 2003-08-12 11:01:00 It would let you load it but it would require a different "activation" code from MS and therefore give you 30 days to explain to MS why you have 2 PC's with the same install code.
It requires the install code, then it gives you a second code. These are quoted to MS to get the third and "activate " code. Now you see the flaw in your suggestion? :D 		Pheonix (280)
167180 2003-08-12 11:03:00 Forgot to mention that the second code produced is determined by the install code AND the computer hardware. It will definitely be different to your first install. Pheonix (280)
167181 2003-08-12 11:04:00 It would initially "let you", but then 2 problems:

It would probably fail to "activate" as its already registered to your machine. Then it would stop working after a few days.

Maryann's machine is a bit low in spec (400 MHz) for XP, and it would be like wading through thick porridge waiting for it to work. Thats for the short time it would work, because you were unable to have it active on 2 machines at once.

Microsoft seem to think you should pay for a licence for each copy installed, which is probably quite reasonable.... :) 		godfather (25)
167182 2003-08-12 11:11:00 OK Guys, thought it would be something like that. Thanks anyway PJ
GF you have a good memory. Maryann = 400mhz, also only 64 ram at the moment. Got an E-m in to QMB about 2x128 ram sticks at the moment. That will probably be as far as we will go, apart from some tweaks as suggested earlier PJ 		Poppa John (284)
167183 2003-08-13 02:19:00 >Maryann's machine is a bit low in spec (400 MHz) for XP, and it would be like wading through thick porridge waiting for it to work.

One has to wonder why the size of Windows has roughly doubled since 98SE - apart from System Restore (which can be turned off). And the extra RAM and higher CPU required? Could it be that 'bulletproofing' half of the Windows source code for increased stability caused such overheads? Or is Windows creating tons of unnecessary logs and cramming in more 'features' that we will hardly ever use - half of which may be used for unknown purposes behind our backs?

I know that XP is based on NT, which is different to 98SE's DOS core. Surely that shouldn't make too much difference, as it's only one abstraction layer of the architecture. Of course, there's .NET - what contribution does that have?

Okay, new computers are getting more RAM, disk space & speed, but wouldn't it be nicer if we could have more of these resources to spare? 		D. McG (3023)
167184 2003-08-13 02:50:00 > > Maryann's machine is a bit low in spec (400 MHz) for
> XP, and it would be like wading through thick
> porridge waiting for it to work.
>
> One has to wonder why the size of Windows has roughly
> doubled since 98SE - apart from System Restore (which
> can be turned off). And the extra RAM and higher CPU
> required? Could it be that 'bulletproofing' half of
> the Windows source code for increased stability
> caused such overheads? Or is Windows creating tons of
> unnecessary logs and cramming in more 'features' that
> we will hardly ever use - half of which may be used
> for unknown purposes behind our backs?
>
> I know that XP is based on NT, which is different to
> 98SE's DOS core. Surely that shouldn't make too much
> difference, as it's only one abstraction layer of the
> architecture. Of course, there's .NET - what
> contribution does that have?
>
> Okay, new computers are getting more RAM, disk space
> & speed, but wouldn't it be nicer if we could have
> more of these resources to spare?

So what? A game I bought and installed the other day came on 3 CDs. Another is on a DVD (or on 5 CDs if I'd got the CD version). Back a few years ago (when an OS fit on 6 Floppy disks) I could get a game on a few floppies, or perhaps that filled about 10-20% of a CD. As everything gets better, they also get bigger. Although my OS and games are getting bigger, my drives seem to be getting bigger faster, so they're not filling up as fast as they used to.

Mike. 		Mike (15)
167185 2003-08-13 17:15:00 Heck I used to think Doom was a massive game at 12 megs now that is nothing compared to modern games. I got Windows 95 on Floppy disk about 8 or ten of them if I remember. OS's are getting bigger cause they are packing them with more stuff to cater for the change from 12 bit 16 bit to 32 bit and now 64 files systems. They also have more security features and all that wonderful microsoft spyware so they can keep track of everything you do. Also the internet browser has increased to cater to the new features of the internet and users demands and lets not forget all the pretty graphics involved with XP that takes up pleanty of room ;-) Odin (227)
167186 2003-08-13 21:45:00 Hi PJ, how many ram slots do you have? You might be better getting one 256MB stick rather than 2x 128's. Some boards get a bit grumpy if you fill all their slots up, especially if its different ram. Probably cheaper to buy 1 stick as well.

Just a thought, cheers Murray P 		Murray P (44)
167187 2003-08-13 23:01:00 > Hi PJ, how many ram slots do you have? You might be
> better getting one 256MB stick rather than 2x 128's.
> Some boards get a bit grumpy if you fill all their
> slots up, especially if its different ram. Probably
> cheaper to buy 1 stick as well.

Yes, it is cheaper to buy a single stick of RAM, only PJ/MA's motherboard cannot take over 128MB sticks :-) 		Chilling_Silently (228)
1 2 3