shassouneh

Btw, XP is incompatible with NETBEUI which most win9x/Me/2k machines use to communicate over a network. Yes, you can get XP to work but that requires some TCPIp or IPX/SPX setup. As for OSs, MacOS certainly looks impressive and has great potential, but still lacks one fundamental fact that windows has always had: Application compatibility,and ease of use. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT slaughtering MacOS or Linux, I'm just saying that they don't have that "ease of use" that the windows OS has been known for. MacOS and Linux CAN and probably WILL defeat windows (at some point) in terms of ease of use and install, but I unfortunately don't see that coming for a little while. Anyweays, thanx for participating in the poll! Please keep doing so

Hey guys, I just got it to work. For those of you who may have a similar or identical problem here's the details: Apparently, Windows 2k/9x/Me get networked through NETBEUI. As you probably realize, XP has no support for NETBEUI, so networking is now done through IPX/SPX. So to network a winXp machine to any other windows machine, you must make sure all machines have IPX/SPX installed, AND with the same IPX/SPX frame. For instance, if machine A has an IPX/SPX fram of Ethernet SNAP, machine B MUST have an IPX/SPX frame of Ethernet SNAP to network them. And so on! Good luck everyone! :-)

Wow DosFreak! Don't get me wrong. I somewhat like the new graphical UI and all, but I gotta be honest with you, it really gets in my way. I especially liked WIndows 2000 especially because its nice,straight forward, and very stable. As far as I can tell, WinXp offers good stability, but its new UI has yet to prove itself. In case you're wondeirng, I'm using an RTM version on a computer at work, so its not a beta or RC that I'm using. Anyways, I personally think MS has concentrated too much on the UI than actually making the OS as "new" as Win2k was to win9x users to actually convince them of switching over to the NT family (win2k). Anyways people, please participate in the poll!

So how EXACTLY did you do it? its not working for me!

I need help with the System Idle Process. Though it only takes 16k of memmory, at some times it takes about 99% of CPU usage, which naturally causes the system to severely slow down and have big lag in responsiveness! Does someone know why it does this? If so, how can it be solved? Note: System Config: Dual Prnium Pro 200 MHZ / 256MB RAM. Had about 170MB of RAM free when this last happened. Someone please help!

Greetings everyone, I heard (or read) somewhere that Windows NT automatically utilizes BOTH processors in a dual-processor machines, by splitting the load between both processors in some way. Is this true? If so, does this mean that some program may be put (by windows 2000) to run on the second processor? Please reply with all the juicy details!

Cool! I may "DUMP" some processes on my second processor using Task manager to get some juice out of it! Thanx for the info by the way. VERY HELPFUL :-)

Yeah, I agree. I think win2k is a good multi-tasking OS, and I think it utilizes multiple processprs well. I'm waiitng for cash flow to build a new system :-)

You may be right there. Upgrading may be the only way to go. I might just build a new system and use this one as a small-scale server. I have a strong feeling it will perform well as a linux server or even Nt server.

The motherboard was made by MICRONICS. If you're interested, more information is available here: http://www.diamondmm.com/default.asp?men...ntium_Pro_W6_Li As for the BIOS, it is already updated with the latest version that succesfully "flashed". As for a UDMA/66 or UDMA/1000 card, I used to have a Promise UltraDMA/66 card but that caused problems with Linux, so I switched bak to my motherboard. I also seem to get better read/write speeds on the mothrboard rather than the card for some reason. As for what games I ran, here is a short list. As you'll notice they're not very new games, but they are games that will work on my set of processors. -Unreal Tournament: perfectly smooth at 800x600, slightly choppy (not very noticeable) at 1024x768 [my monitorn is a 14" and only supports up to 1024x768] -Mortal Kombat 4 (default mode. I think its either 640x480 or 800x600) - runs perfectly smooth as is if it was a console game running on a console platform like SuperNES or Sega (very clear and smooth) -Beetle buggin (1024x768 perfectly smooth) -2D games like RedAlert2 (even though red alert 2 requires a 3D accelerator). Ran RA2 at 800x600 and 1024x768 crystal clear! -[old]Jedi Knight - 1024x768 crystal clear and smooth. Of coarsem this is an OLD game the list goes on. As I said earlier, this is no "GAMER'S" set of hot new games, it is merely a partial list of games that have been TESTED and WORK on my set of processors. There are more games that run of coarse. Also, I tried installing 3dMark 2001 but the installation fails giving an error message like "could not create a direct3d texture device" or something like that, so I'm sorry but I can't give you a 3dMark score. The video card I have in there is a 16 MB PCI Vodoo Banshee, which is probably why all these games even RUN to begin with on a pentium pro! Anyways, I think the processors may not be up to the "challenge" of burning at 8x, especially since most CD burning software is not multi-threaded. If it WAS multi threaded it would be a different story. Anyways, this is my info, I hope it helps you get a better idea

The BIOS is old and only supports UDMA/33. However, I have enabled all DMA settings for all applicable drives under windows 2000. I also defrag all drives EVERY DAY, so it may be the processing power issue. The weird thing is i can run pretty much anything or any game on it smoothly, especially 3d-intensive games. I have yet to try Quake 3 if i can get my hand on it!!

Well I have two PENTIUM PRO 200 MHZ proxessors (512KB cache). I have an 8x burner, but can't seem to burn at faster than 4x with no applications running. If applications are running I will be lucky to get by with 2x! Note that I have plenty of memory (256MB) and I usually burn with NOTHING ELSE running. I even close processes down using ctrl-alt-del in windows 2000!!! Help someone?

Technically speaking, you CAN run windows 2000 or XP on a 386 if you WANTED to even with 32 or less MB of ram. The question is: are you NUTSS enough to do it!

Hi everyone. I can't get Shadow Warrior to work with sound under windows 2000 professional. The game itself will run, but it has issues working with my sound card. I have a SoundBlaster 16 compatible sound card (Creative Vibra PNP 16), and I have already Tried VDMSound 2.0.4. When I run the setup program (setup.exe or setmain.exe) under VDMSound it seems to pick up the sound card but fails the audio test (locks up). If someone has figured out a way to have it work, please let me know. Thanx

I would love to be able to install windows XP. I tried installing a recent beta of it, but it asked for an "activation". I do not wish to activate a beta, and Windows Xp's retail price is expected to be hefty on the pocket ;-), so for now (at least) I will have to go by with whatever win2k can handle. Thanx for the reply though. I am aware that Windows XP has increased support for dos games. :-)

Well I'm not sure if you can trick it in such a way. And even if I COULD boot in such a way, my drives are partitioned as NTFS, so it will do me no good. Also, my BIOS is old, and does not support booting from a CD anyways. I tried updaing it, to no use! The call is still one for people to find ways around this problem! keep posting!

Unfortunately, sice all my drives are formatted as NTFS, it is impossible for me to use a boot disk (win9x/me). Any other alternatives out there? the game is really not worth it without sound!

This is just a reminder to see if anyone yet has figured out how to get the sound to work for Shadow Warrior under windows 2000. Note that booting under DOS / win9x/me command prompt is NOT an option for me since all my partitions (drives) are fromatted as NTFS. If someone knows how to get it to work, please don't hesitate to reply. thanx

Excellent! I'm glad you got it fixed. At least I now know about the admin.bak folder, so thanx!

Ok people, if this thread is mis-placed please do forgive me, for I find nowhere else to put it. My system can accept the following RAM specification: 128MB EDO BUFFERED DIMM 3.3v 168 pin. Note that its MUST be buffered to work. My question is, since this kind of RAM runs for about 76 bux online (cheapest deal), can I use PC133 compatible ADRAM instead? its cheaper, but I have no idea whether or not it will work on my motherboatd. Here is my motherboard specification: Micronics w6-Li Dual Pentium Pro motherboard w/ UltrDma/33 support. It currently has 256Mb of memory in the following configuration 1 x 128MB 1 x 64 MB 2 x 32 MB for a total of 256Mb (4 DIMM slots) Please remmeber that this is EDO BUFFERED ram (it MUST be buffered) Again, my question is will PC100 or PC133 SDRAM DIMM memory work on such a motherboard? I would appreciate a reply. Thanx everyone. I aslo appologize if this seems like its not related at all to WInNT/2k/Xp.

Thanx guys for the info. i really appreciate it! :-)

Oops, I'm sorry, I just read your post again. You have them on 2 different partitions already. I'm terribly sorry dude. I thought you had them on one! All I can say is make sure each partitions has tonnes of space. Other than that all I can do is shrug! Sorry again dude, MY BAD! :-(

Well I am no expert on this specific topic, but to me it sounds like you may have potential problems with OS clashes. If you're running both NT4 and 2k on the same partition, some shared files may be optimized for one OS but not the other. Windows 2000 was built on windows NT and therefore shares some structural and file name similarities. However, siince windows 2000 is a newer OS it may have replaced some files wich maybe win2k optimized, but which NT4 struggles to handle! I REPEAT: I AM NO EXPERT ON THIS SUBJECT, but I do know one thing, it would be a better idea if you allocate each OS its own partition. I don't know whether or not that's practical or even feasible in your case since you've already installed both OSs on one partition. In the future though, if you wish to dual boot ANY OSs, you really should set up seperate partitions for them to work in. That way you can prevent clashes and improve performance, and also organize them better! good luck. I hope this helps!

Since you are able to set up another administrator account, do just that. Lets say you create an adminsitrator account named "testadmin". Log Off, then log back on with testadmin. Since you have administrator privelages, you will now want to re-create the administrator account or refresh it. Go to System Management (right click My Computer and choose Manage), then go to Local Users and groups->users. Examine your primary admin account "Administrator" for anything fishy, and if so fix it. If not, create a new password for that account, and try logging back in to "Administrator" with the new password. If the problem persists and u still have gigs of free space, you may have a hard drive problem, unless you're windows partition ran out of space (which seems highly unlikely here). In the case that you have enough space on all partitions, attempt to run chkdsk or Norton Disk Doctor and Norton WinDoctor and see if that helps any. Note: If you do not have Norton Utilities, or haven't installed them, or even don't wish to buy or use them, you'll have to try chkdsk! good luck! :-) Let us all know if this helped (I hope it does)

Bummer. I was hoping to cheap out since EDO memory is very expensive ($76 plus shipping) for a stick of 128 megs. Thanx for replying though. I do appreciate it. How about newer motherboards that support SD/RD RAM, will they accpet older EDO RAM (60ns) or would they fry them up? again, 3.3v buffered ECC EDO 168 pin DIMM???