 | | Windows 2000 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | I'm strongly considering purchasing Windows 2000 when I back up and reformat my system in the near future. I'm curious if MLCad and if LEdit will run in them. I know LEdit is for DOS, and Microsoft is doing away with DOS - so does that mean it can't (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | | | I have never tried to run MLCad on 2000 since I do not have it, but until now I did not receive any hint that there are problems. From my best knowledge I can say I did no special thing in MLCad which would hinder it from running on 2000, beside (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | | | | (...) I can assure you that Windows 2000, has the "cmd" program of NT, i.e. the NT, DOS 7.0 compatible command interpreter. Here at work, several colleagues already are using it! And as it looks until now, it has improved on stability over NT. But I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.cad, Rui Manuel Silva Martins writes: <SNIP> (...) already (...) windows (...) That's somehow new for me, since at home (I'm using a PII 350 with 128MB-Ram) programs like MLCad are definitly faster on NT than on 95 or 98. Sure the display (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) You probably have a bad configuration on your Win95/98, possibly bad/slow/old drivers, try to updated them. The only advantage that you could have with NT is if you have more than one CPU. Since Win95/98 can't (don't now how to) use more than (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Ok. I'm running a PII 400 with 256mb ram, 12gb HD. I want 2000 cause of networking stuff and forced login when I get to college as well. NT doesn't support USB, which I need, and it also doesn't support a couple of other things (I forget which (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) A Bigger Hard Drive ? You have 12 Gig ! Linux Only requires about 128 Megs for system and programs (depending on which ones you will install) plus some extra 128 Megs (Maximum) of swap partition, but since you have 256 Megs of Ram, you can (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Matt Marshall
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | <snip> (...) bet (...) OS is (...) lines of (...) I installed 2k on a 133 with a 400 meg hd, and had enough room left to install word 97 and a few games, and it ran great too. I installed linux on the same box and x wouldn't work with the grpahics (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm aware that this is not a Linux newsgroup, but I just have to comment this, as I find it somewhat misleading. I'm setting followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek, which is a more suitable newsgroup. I'm sure you could install Linux on a 128MB (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Ben Vaughan
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 5:09:22 -0600, Rui Martins wrote (in message <Pine.GSU.4.10.10007...0@is-sv>): (...) Rui, Actually, NT and 2000 have much better memory management that 95/98. 95 and 98 will most likely only perform better on lower end machines (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.cad, Ben Vaughan writes: snip [...] (...) Ben (& everyone) thanks for the pointers. I'll do a little more research as I have a week or so before I can borrow an external SCSI burner for the backup job. I think I'm leaning towards 2k (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Millennium is just a new win9x with some additional bells and whistles and will not have any "revolutionary" new things. I doubt the difference between win98 and millennium will be more than the difference between win95 and win98. Of course (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Ben Vaughan
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 2:09:01 -0600, Selçuk Göre wrote (in message <3975621D.DD740346@s...ine.com>): (...) I'd agree there. WinME (Millenium Edition) is more of an evolution than a revolution. Win2000 is the bomb IMHO. (He said, typing on his G4 Mac. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Ben Vaughan
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:10:46 -0600, Tim Courtney wrote (in message <FxxIDy.7wF@lugnet.com>): (snip!) (...) Some folks can get *really* defensive of their favorite OS. That's all. (24 years ago, 20-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | Michael, I believe the reason that NT is faster in big machines is that it can address large amounts of memory more quickly. When I was discussing NT with a Photoshop expert, he said that for 128MB+ machines, it is much faster in NT, as Win9x can (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | | | | | | Hy Mike, I like the idea but I will have to have a deeper look into it ... With NT you will not have any problems using two CPU even if MLCad is single threaded (but it isn't some gui things run parallel) but in this case NT will properly give MLCad (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Mladen Pejic
|
| | | | | | I actually had MLCad installed on my Windows 2000, worked fine. However, I did have trouble with L3P... But that might have been my fault... ;-) Oh! BTW Tim, you do realize you certain software might not be able to run on 2000, like certain games... (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, so I've heard. As far as I'm concerned, as long as my Macromedia and Adobe stuff runs, along with MLCad and other LDraw utilities, I'm happy as a clam. I don't play many games at all. But I do waste time online chatting on AIM and (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Windows 2000 —Douglas Glasnapp
|
| | | | I am successfully using a cross section of the LDraw related applications in Windows 2000. MLCad, LDraw Add On, L3Lab, L3P Add on, L3P and POV Ray. I have not tried to run LEdit or LDraw since MLCad and L3Lab can replace those pretty well in the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
