I want to install Windows XP this weekend. I have 8GB of mp3's I don't want to lose, but I don't have anyplace to put them (not enough room on my laptop or my daughter's computer). Do I have any options other than purchasing an external hard drive or burning them onto CD's in mp3 format?

Yeah - You could NOT install XP and thank me later.

Did you forget to press the pound key?

Really, I'm currently running WindowsMe on that PC and I thought this would be a step up.

[This message has been edited by D.C.Ag (edited 4/11/2002).]

Forgive my ignorance, but how come you can't keep them on there? Not enough space? Or does XP clear out your media or something?

computers are dumb.

I think I can leave them there, but I kind of want to start from scratch. If it really isn't necessary, I'd be open to that option.

Create an old fashioned Win95 or Win98 boot disk, and use that to get a DOS environment. From there, delete everything on the HD but the mp3's and other data files you want to save (including the old OS). Then install XP.

-

dkeegan@aggies.com
Kyle Field - Where the 12th Man is a standing tradition, home field advantage is defined, and opponents get Marooned

Pro Ag:

You should be able to upgrade directly from Windows Me to Windows XP, provided you have the minimum amount of available hard disk space:
1.5-2.0 Gb, but I recommend 2 Gb. You shouldn't have to re-parition or do anything with your mp3 files.

If you want to start from scratch, you can simply install WinXP into a different folder, but remember that the *default* folder will be the /Windows folder, which is the same default that WinME uses.



Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 4/11/2002).]

If you're hard up for formatting your drive, you can go buy some software called Partition Magic. http://www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic/ It will allow you to repartition the free space on your drive where you can transfer your files, then format your original drive...

Personally, I wouldn't put XP on... it's no better, and I've even heard that it blatently sucks from some friends. I had WinME on mine, and I upgraded to Win2000 (a much better option, IMO).

Put them in a ziplock bag.

i second the partitioning idea.

Last night I was at someone's house who uses XP. We decided to test some of my software on it.

So, we downloaded a couple of screen savers I wrote years ago:

• weeds.scr - Draws psychadelic weeds on the screen. You can change the twig size and affect the rate of growth and the general structure of the weeds
• cube.scr - Draws a three, four, five, or six dimensional cube on the screen and then randomly moves the axises around to give an interesting visual effect

(If you are interested, both can be downloaded from ftp://cholera.gruver.net/pub/screensavers.)

We found that we could run the screen savers okay by opening up a DOS prompt and typing in "weeds.scr -s" and "cube.scr -s".

But when we copied it to the windows\system32 directory along with the other screen savers, they still could not be installed as the screen saver to be used by the OS.

Since it wasn't a big deal, we left it at that.

All I have to say is people who can honestly say win98 is better than XP are on some good crack. It seems to me the majority of people who make this comment don't know how to configure a computer from scratch in the first place so they go around spreading bs. I admit its not the grand daddy of all operating systems but it definitely blows away 98.

[This message has been edited by Tormentos (edited 4/11/2002).]

Don't listen to the linux freaks. XP is a huge step up from ME. Make that change in a heartbeat.

anything is better than WinME

Despite the fact that Microsoft blows, XP honestly sucks. If you have ME, there's no point in upgrading. Win2000 is BY FAR the best product Microsoft has on the market now. I'm not a 'Linux freak' though I do believe it to be the most manageable OS (once you take the time to learn it) as well as the most stable... plus it's free. The problem with Linux however, is that it is not 'the standard' and you can't get as good software with it and your choices are always much more limited.... this can be easily solved by getting a bigger HD and running a dual-boot system.

[This message has been edited by AGBQ01 (edited 4/11/2002).]

Heh! Well, I *am* a Linux freak, and personally I like XP better than *any* of the DOS-based OS's (Win95, Win98, and WinME). WinXP is *not* as stable as Win2000, but hey... Win2000 has had 2 Service Packs released. I expect that once XP has Service Packs released for it, it will be more stable. I just think XP was taken out of the oven a little too soon and needed to cook a little longer.

Bracy

If I were you, I'd just go ahead and burn the MP3's to CD. Go buy Windows 2000 and forget about XP.

quote:

---

Heh! Well, I *am* a Linux freak, and personally I like XP better than *any* of the DOS-based OS's (Win95, Win98, and WinME).

---

What? XP is DOS based. Everything Microsoft does goes back to DOS. They just disguise it better.

Hmm, I've never had any stability problems with XP compared to my 2000 machine. I run Solidworks, Pro/Engineer, do digital recording, and play a crap load of games on both of the systems. One thing I can say is I have had less problems with XP when it comes to games. Other than that each os performs just fine and these are under some intensive apps. Actually, when I come to think of it I don't think my XP machine has locked up in use since I first installed last October(OEM version). I have gone through mulitple CPUs, mobos, and now 2 hard drives since I orinallly put this system together and I have never had ONE problem. I find it funny that people call XP unstable yet top hardware sites(Anandtech.com etc.) have switched over to XP for their benchmarking comparisons. I would really like to hear some reasons why XP is 'so' unstable...
My XP box running happily along

eric76:

I didn't say that XP is DOS-based, I said I like it better than the DOS-based Operating systems.

Bracy

Tormentos:

The stability problems I've experienced mostly revolve around Internet Explorer and other internet apps which crashes on me constantly. As far as running installed applications, I haven't found any serious stability problems.

Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 4/11/2002).]

Tormentos:

Ever hear of a design table?

quote:

---

I would really like to hear some reasons why XP is 'so' unstable...

---

1. It's made by Microsoft.
2. See reason #1.
3. All of the above.

Ronnie,
Yeah I know I could have created instances of the set screws using a design table or derived pattern. This was the first time I had used the new SW2001+ version so I was just kinda messin around looking for changes compared to SW2001 and not really concerned about editing it later...

j/k man.

2001 is weird, definately looks like they knew (SW that is) XP was coming out, because all the commands are x's and checks and its really getting watered down and goofy-looking. I love it though, best solid modeler out there as far as picking it up in a week or so...

Yeah I agree, I used Pro/E for about 2 years, and the jump over to Solidworks was really easy. So far I have been using SW for about 2.5 months and I think its great...

BQ01:

You keep saying that XP blows, sucks, etc. yet you said you don't have it on your machine. Maybe you should wait until you have had some personal experience with it? I have XP on a desktop and a laptop and have never had a problem since day one.

I won't say that Microsoft operating systems "suck." There are some things about Windows that I like better than Linux, and some things about Linux that I like better than Windows.

As I see it, the main problem with Windows, as compared to Linux is that Microsoft just can't seem to figure out how to properly manage memory. Linux memory management is far and away superior than Windows.

Bracy

Bracy:

True. They could work on security, too.

AGnCS:

To be honest, I don't think that Microsoft's Operating systems are all *that* much less secure than Linux. However, the *default* settings of Microsoft operating systems are always set to the most insecure settings possible. Microsoft does add a whole bunch of "features" that jeopardize security to the extreme, but most of those features can be turned off or removed. In short, an administrator can make a Windows system *almost* as secure as a Linux system, but it takes a helluva lot more work.

Another factor that makes Windows less secure than Linux is the sheer number of people out there trying to exploit Windows security flaws as compared to those trying to exploit Linux. If Linux had the same installed base as Windows, the differences would be much narrower.

Bracy

Microsoft OS's are pitiful in a networking environment, which I am becoming more and more involved in. For a personal, stand-alone PC, it works fine... all my previous systems start crashing over time (probably due to the poor memory management you all mentioned) and I'm forced to upgrade. I've used XP, not on my computer, but on a friend's. I could hardly tell any difference. Perhaps it is more 'stable', whatever... I guess my beef is more with Microsoft than which specific version of their OS. Additionally, I enjoy building a Linux kernel to suit my system and being able to configure the software as I see fit. Plus, it's free.

[Edit: I just wouldn't waste my $$ on XP if I already had ME. I'd much rather choose NT if I was going to upgrade]

[This message has been edited by AGBQ01 (edited 4/11/2002).]

Yeah, and another wonderful thing about Linux:

You just don't know what your computer is truly capable of until you run Linux on it. Whenever I put Linux on someone computer who had been running Windows, the reaction is always the same:
"Wow! That was FAST!!"

It boots faster, it loads programs faster, it accesses the hard drive faster, swaps memory faster, and it runs faster -- and you can run a helluva a lotta programs without seeing any performance degradation. In Windows, I can get a "running out of memory" message by simply loading one program, such as Photoshop.

Bracy