XP vs Win 2000

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.
That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:44:48 -0500, "robert"
scribbled:

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.

So why are you using their products?

That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

robert wrote:

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.
That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.
Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

"Gianni" wrote in message

robert wrote:

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.
That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.
Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

Not necessarily, when you install Win2000 you can chose the dual boot option.
Sounds complicated but really isn’t: when you boot you’ll be offered a choice, 98 or 2000.(XP?)
This will allow you to see if your devices and programs will run under the new OS without taking any risk.
I use 2000 on my work machine and have a family computer running XP. They are basically the same thing apart for the interface on XP looking more like MAC or AOL with candy colors and round angles.

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

"Gianni" wrote in message

robert wrote:

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.
That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.
Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

Not necessarily, when you install Win2000 you can chose the dual boot option.
Sounds complicated but really isn’t: when you boot you’ll be offered a choice, 98 or 2000.(XP?)
This will allow you to see if your devices and programs will run under the new OS without taking any risk.
I use 2000 on my work machine and have a family computer running XP. They are basically the same thing apart for the interface on XP looking more like MAC or AOL with candy colors and round angles.

Stephan

First of all, it depends hugely on the machine you want to use it with. Win2k can be a pain on some machines while WinXP runs smoothly on most of them.

Also, WinXP looks better (which is very important to me ;).

Dual boot means you have to stick with the old FAT32 on your HDD. NTFS is much faster, plus it defragments faster. Plus no limit to the size of a single partition.

I’ve been using WinXP ever since it came out and I see no problems with it.

I was using Win2k before but it crashed on me too often.

My machine is Celleron at 1GHz and 256Mb RAM with two 40Gb HDDs.

Good luck

—
Branko Vukelic ()

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

I don’t know if this helps, but I get asked by a rather large extended family of various Windows OS users to help with the problems that crop up with their computers. I find that in the last while it seems that I’m wading through more troubleshooting information on the net about XP than all the other OS’s put together. Maybe it’s because so many new users have XP, or because the interface has been changed around so much former knowledgable Windows people don’t understand it or it’s crap or whatever.

I run Win2K on mine and my take on it is this, it is a stable system, which is a good thing because when it becomes unstable it completely falls apart. I’ve also had to deal with driver issues, but I understand this carries over into XP. Hope this helps.

Dr.J

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:01:27 -0500, Gianni wrote:

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

For best stability, Win 2k.

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:01:27 -0500, Gianni wrote:

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

Fairly easy question. I’ve used, and supported machines using everything from the old Win 3.1 to Win 2k and I’ve used Win XP.

Win XP Pro (not the emasculated Home version) is, without a doubt the best and most stable Windows so far.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"I run Win2K on mine and my take on it is this, it is a stable system, which is a good thing because when it becomes unstable it completely falls apart."

what on earth do you mean by this statement?

please elaborate

m c

XPPro!!

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

"I run Win2K on mine and my take on it is this, it is a stable system,

which

is a good thing because when it becomes unstable it completely falls

apart."

what on earth do you mean by this statement?

please elaborate

m c

Ok, I built my current system with quality components, and crashes under Win2k are virtually nonexistent, especially compared to earlier OS’s (though in all fairness I never ran Win9x on this particular system). On the other hand, twice now I’ve gotten errors that have snowballed to the point I ended up reformatting.

Dr.J.

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

Stephan wrote:

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.

Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

Not necessarily, when you install Win2000 you can chose the dual boot option.
Sounds complicated but really isn’t: when you boot you’ll be offered a choice, 98 or 2000.(XP?)
This will allow you to see if your devices and programs will run under

the

new OS without taking any risk.
I use 2000 on my work machine and have a family computer running XP.

They

are basically the same thing apart for the interface on XP looking more like MAC or AOL with candy colors and round angles.

Stephan

First of all, it depends hugely on the machine you want to use it with. Win2k can be a pain on some machines while WinXP runs smoothly on most of them.

I dont see why, they are both NT right?

Also, WinXP looks better (which is very important to me ;).

That is purely a matter of tase, I find XP only bearable when under "classic windows" otherwise it looks AOLish

Dual boot means you have to stick with the old FAT32 on your HDD. NTFS is much faster, plus it defragments faster. Plus no limit to the size of a single partition.

Not sure you are right, I think I had NTFS but I might be wrong on this one.

I’ve been using WinXP ever since it came out and I see no problems with

it.

I was using Win2k before but it crashed on me too often.

I have been using 2000 for years and remember only two crashes!

My machine is Celleron at 1GHz and 256Mb RAM with two 40Gb HDDs.

You lose, mine is bigger 😉 Athlon XP2600 with 1.5 GB of DDRAM, lots of HDs
Stephan

AFAIK Win XP is as stable as Win2k, so I would go with the newer OS, WinXP.

If you do choose XP, avoid XP Home and go with XP Pro – anyone sophisticated enough to know and use Photoshop should take advantage of the additional features of XP Pro, and can easily learn to use them.

Maris

Gianni wrote:

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/2/2004

So what are those additional features to XP Pro ? Everybody says pro is much better but I havent understod where is the difference between XP home and XP pro
when it comes to being stable when running an program like Photoshop or any other Adobe application. ( I am still under W98 and are about to change to a newer machine and with a new Op-system. Why should I buy XP pro ?

Lars

Maris V. Lidaka Sr. skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:VP5Lb.22431$P%
..com…

AFAIK Win XP is as stable as Win2k, so I would go with the newer OS,

WinXP.

If you do choose XP, avoid XP Home and go with XP Pro – anyone

sophisticated

enough to know and use Photoshop should take advantage of the additional features of XP Pro, and can easily learn to use them.

Maris

Gianni wrote:

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/2/2004

Stephan wrote:

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

Stephan wrote:

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.

Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

Not necessarily, when you install Win2000 you can chose the dual boot option.
Sounds complicated but really isn’t: when you boot you’ll be offered a choice, 98 or 2000.(XP?)
This will allow you to see if your devices and programs will run under

the

new OS without taking any risk.
I use 2000 on my work machine and have a family computer running XP.

They

are basically the same thing apart for the interface on XP looking more like MAC or AOL with candy colors and round angles.
Stephan

First of all, it depends hugely on the machine you want to use it with. Win2k can be a pain on some machines while WinXP runs smoothly on most of them.

I dont see why, they are both NT right?

Beats me. It seems they both run well on powerful machines, but on slower ones such as my vintage lap-top (Celleron 500MHz, 64Mb) Win2k is sluggish at best while WinXP run just fine.

Also, WinXP looks better (which is very important to me ;).

That is purely a matter of tase, I find XP only bearable when under "classic windows" otherwise it looks AOLish

I meant the new GUI. Sure, it’s not the best I’ve seen, but it’s better. 🙂

Dual boot means you have to stick with the old FAT32 on your HDD. NTFS is much faster, plus it defragments faster. Plus no limit to the size of a single partition.

Not sure you are right, I think I had NTFS but I might be wrong on this one.

Check. Try creating a 40Gb partition with FAT32 as the FAT table. It won’t work. It didn’t work on either of my 40Gb drives. I’ve had a dual boot Win98/WinXP for a while (I didn’t set them up myself) and the FAT table was FAT32. Win98 doesn’t work on NTFS anyway. Switched to WinXP-only later since I didn’t need Win98 (SE) and the NTFS seems much faster. It also offers lots of security settings (for those who have kids, siblings, etc.).

I’ve been using WinXP ever since it came out and I see no problems with

it.

I was using Win2k before but it crashed on me too often.

I have been using 2000 for years and remember only two crashes!

I know. It depends on the machine. I have a friend who is satisfied with how it runs.

My machine is Celleron at 1GHz and 256Mb RAM with two 40Gb HDDs.

You lose, mine is bigger 😉 Athlon XP2600 with 1.5 GB of DDRAM, lots of HDs

Aw! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! 😉

No wonder Win2k’s cooperative. 😉

I don’t complain, tho. I did all my pro work on this setup and never had any problems. Bit slow with 70+ Mb photos, but other than that, it’s just about what I need. I mostly work with book typography, so it’s not much of a problem, you see.

Stephan

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Dr. J. Smith wrote:

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

"I run Win2K on mine and my take on it is this, it is a stable system,

which

is a good thing because when it becomes unstable it completely falls

apart."

what on earth do you mean by this statement?

please elaborate

m c

Ok, I built my current system with quality components, and crashes under Win2k are virtually nonexistent, especially compared to earlier OS’s (though in all fairness I never ran Win9x on this particular system). On the other hand, twice now I’ve gotten errors that have snowballed to the point I ended up reformatting.

Dr.J.

Unfortunately, this happens on ALL Microsoft OSes. Don’t know about Mac or Linux…

—
Branko Vukelic ()

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:29:30 GMT, "Lars"
wrote:

So what are those additional features to XP Pro ? Everybody says pro is much better but I havent understod where is the difference between XP home and XP pro
when it comes to being stable when running an program like Photoshop or any other Adobe application. ( I am still under W98 and are about to change to a newer machine and with a new Op-system. Why should I buy XP pro ?

Windows XP Professional has the following features which XP Home does not: ability to access a domain-based LAN; the Remote Desktop virtual network connection feature (although you can easily install and use third party VNC software); a "roll back" feature for your registry and configuration files, which allows you to restore the system to a previous state if it suddenly goes awry; EFS file encryption; IIS, which allows you to host your own website or FTP site; multithreading support (support for multiple CPUs); and support for multiple languages.

And here’s the differences between 2k and XP Pro:

XP Pro requires product activation (unless you’re
licensing/purchasing business edition); XP Pro has the ability to restore the system to a previous state if something goes wrong; XP Pro has the Remote Desktop feature; XP Pro has support for Intel’s Hyper-Threading Technology; XP Pro has a wider range of hardware and software compatibility.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:29:30 GMT, "Lars"
wrote:

So what are those additional features to XP Pro ? Everybody says pro is

much

better but I havent understod where is the difference between XP home and

XP

pro
when it comes to being stable when running an program like Photoshop or

any

other Adobe application. ( I am still under W98 and are about to change

to a

newer machine and with a new Op-system. Why should I buy XP pro ?

Windows XP Professional has the following features which XP Home does not: ability to access a domain-based LAN; the Remote Desktop virtual network connection feature (although you can easily install and use third party VNC software); a "roll back" feature for your registry and configuration files, which allows you to restore the system to a previous state if it suddenly goes awry; EFS file encryption; IIS, which allows you to host your own website or FTP site; multithreading support (support for multiple CPUs); and support for multiple languages.

And here’s the differences between 2k and XP Pro:

XP Pro requires product activation (unless you’re
licensing/purchasing business edition); XP Pro has the ability to restore the system to a previous state if something goes wrong; XP Pro has the Remote Desktop feature; XP Pro has support for Intel’s Hyper-Threading Technology; XP Pro has a wider range of hardware and software compatibility.

I see you’ve done your homework!
You get an A

Stephan

Gianni …

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

XP pro by FAR is more stable than Windows 2000. You’re talking to someone who writes programs for a living, and works with operatings systems 8 hours a day for the last 5 years.

That said, the problem many people will run into is that an XP driver for your peripherals may not be available, depending on the age of them and the company. For each piece of equipment you have, check out their website to see if they have XP drivers, or if their current driver will works with XP. Otherwise you have to buy some new hardware.

Hecate made this statement …….
snip

a "roll back" feature for your registry and
configuration files, which allows you to restore the system to a previous state if it suddenly goes awry;

snip

Thank you very much for pointing this out to me. Since I am editing film with Premiere this is certainly something I miss with W98. My dealer keeps telling me I have no use for XP Pro on my new machine but now I know I will.
Thanks for your answer

Lars

And here’s the differences between 2k and XP Pro:

XP Pro requires product activation (unless you’re
licensing/purchasing business edition); XP Pro has the ability to restore the system to a previous state if something goes wrong; XP Pro has the Remote Desktop feature; XP Pro has support for Intel’s Hyper-Threading Technology; XP Pro has a wider range of hardware and software compatibility.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On 9 Jan 2004 05:33:38 -0800, (Larry Bud) wrote
(with possible editing):

Gianni …

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

XP pro by FAR is more stable than Windows 2000. You’re talking to someone who writes programs for a living, and works with operatings systems 8 hours a day for the last 5 years.

That said, the problem many people will run into is that an XP driver for your peripherals may not be available, depending on the age of them and the company. For each piece of equipment you have, check out their website to see if they have XP drivers, or if their current driver will works with XP. Otherwise you have to buy some new hardware.

No flame intended, but I’ve been developing software commercially for 21 years in multiple languages, principally for Windows, but Unix variants as well, and I’ve had very few problems with Windows 2000. My disagreement with you is over the "FAR" part – "some" perhaps, but not "FAR"! I haven’t seen any significant differences in stability between W2K Pro and XP Pro. The driver problem exists, but you might add (as I’m sure you know) that most (not all) W2K drivers work ok in XP.
—

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:23:26 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:29:30 GMT, "Lars"
wrote:

So what are those additional features to XP Pro ? Everybody says pro is

much

better but I havent understod where is the difference between XP home and

XP

pro
when it comes to being stable when running an program like Photoshop or

any

other Adobe application. ( I am still under W98 and are about to change

to a

newer machine and with a new Op-system. Why should I buy XP pro ?

Windows XP Professional has the following features which XP Home does not: ability to access a domain-based LAN; the Remote Desktop virtual network connection feature (although you can easily install and use third party VNC software); a "roll back" feature for your registry and configuration files, which allows you to restore the system to a previous state if it suddenly goes awry; EFS file encryption; IIS, which allows you to host your own website or FTP site; multithreading support (support for multiple CPUs); and support for multiple languages.

And here’s the differences between 2k and XP Pro:

XP Pro requires product activation (unless you’re
licensing/purchasing business edition); XP Pro has the ability to restore the system to a previous state if something goes wrong; XP Pro has the Remote Desktop feature; XP Pro has support for Intel’s Hyper-Threading Technology; XP Pro has a wider range of hardware and software compatibility.

I see you’ve done your homework!
You get an A

LOL! I sort of had this lying around for the day when someone asked the question 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:58:07 GMT, "Lars"
wrote:

Hecate made this statement …….
snip

a "roll back" feature for your registry and
configuration files, which allows you to restore the system to a previous state if it suddenly goes awry;

snip

Thank you very much for pointing this out to me. Since I am editing film with Premiere this is certainly something I miss with W98. My dealer keeps telling me I have no use for XP Pro on my new machine but now I know I will.
Thanks for your answer

Lars

Glad I could help. That rollback feature is really useful. I have one computer which is used as a testbed for software, web sites and so forth. It’s constantly having software installed and uninstalled and having video card settings and so on changed. Without rollback I’d be forever reinstalling the operating system 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Without rollback I’d be
forever reinstalling the operating system 🙂

I would assume then that this is an improvement over the "Choosing Last Known Good Configuration" in Win2K? ~Dr.J.

Stephan wrote:

"Gianni" wrote in message

robert wrote:

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.
That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.
Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

Not necessarily, when you install Win2000 you can chose the dual boot option.
Sounds complicated but really isn’t: when you boot you’ll be offered a choice, 98 or 2000.(XP?)
This will allow you to see if your devices and programs will run under the new OS without taking any risk.
I use 2000 on my work machine and have a family computer running XP. They are basically the same thing apart for the interface on XP looking more like MAC or AOL with candy colors and round angles.

Stephan

I understand the concept of dual boot. My questions to your reply is, Does 2000 come with XP? Or do you have to install (buy) XP (PRO)as a separate product?

There seems to be an implication from other responses that 2000 doesn’t run all devices.?

I appreciate your replying to my initial query.

Gianni wrote:

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

I want to thank everyone who responded to the
above query. You have all been very helpful

Gianni

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:43:31 -0500, Gianni
scribbled:

Stephan wrote:

"Gianni" wrote in message

robert wrote:

In my humble opinion.
Bill Gates and Microsoft s%ck.
That being said…..

Win 2000 is the most stable out of the 3

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

Thanks for responding. I have been afraid to upgrade.
Everything on my machine is stable at the moment and
I would like to keep it that way. If I upgrade, I have to go to a new machine.

Not necessarily, when you install Win2000 you can chose the dual boot option.
Sounds complicated but really isn’t: when you boot you’ll be offered a choice, 98 or 2000.(XP?)
This will allow you to see if your devices and programs will run under the new OS without taking any risk.
I use 2000 on my work machine and have a family computer running XP. They are basically the same thing apart for the interface on XP looking more like MAC or AOL with candy colors and round angles.

Stephan

I understand the concept of dual boot. My questions to your reply is, Does 2000 come with XP? Or do you have to install (buy) XP (PRO)as a separate product?

Why would one operating system come with another operating system? They’re two entirely different packages.

There seems to be an implication from other responses that 2000 doesn’t run all devices.?

Yes, Windows 2000 is picky about the devices it will support which is why it’s quite stable. Check the Hardware Compatibility List before thinking of upgrading
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/search.mspx

I appreciate your replying to my initial query.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:14:10 GMT, "Dr. J. Smith" wrote:

Without rollback I’d be
forever reinstalling the operating system 🙂

I would assume then that this is an improvement over the "Choosing Last Known Good Configuration" in Win2K? ~Dr.J.

Yes it is. It means you don’t have to screw with the OS. it just means you go back to the position before the test software was installed without any of the changes made by that software and with an intact registry without anything added by that software. you can look at like a super uninstall. Very useful.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

You seem like a casual computer user – Do yourself a HUGE favor and get XP Professional. Then, as with any Microsoft OS – Do a CLEAN install. Forget all of the dual-booting crap and technical arguments for or against any of the operating systems you mentioned.

I just did a clean install of XP Pro. Running all CS apps just fine. Didn’t even has to install any drivers for my stuff except the new Bios for the laptop. It’s great.

"William Kious" wrote in message

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

You seem like a casual computer user – Do yourself a HUGE favor and get XP Professional. Then, as with any Microsoft OS – Do a CLEAN install.

Forget

all of the dual-booting crap and technical arguments for or against any of the operating systems you mentioned.

L. M. Rappaport …

On 9 Jan 2004 05:33:38 -0800, (Larry Bud) wrote
(with possible editing):

Gianni …

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

XP pro by FAR is more stable than Windows 2000. You’re talking to someone who writes programs for a living, and works with operatings systems 8 hours a day for the last 5 years.

That said, the problem many people will run into is that an XP driver for your peripherals may not be available, depending on the age of them and the company. For each piece of equipment you have, check out their website to see if they have XP drivers, or if their current driver will works with XP. Otherwise you have to buy some new hardware.

No flame intended, but I’ve been developing software commercially for 21 years in multiple languages, principally for Windows, but Unix variants as well, and I’ve had very few problems with Windows 2000. My disagreement with you is over the "FAR" part – "some" perhaps, but not "FAR"! I haven’t seen any significant differences in stability between W2K Pro and XP Pro. The driver problem exists, but you might add (as I’m sure you know) that most (not all) W2K drivers work ok in XP.

Sure, if most means 51%. I just wouldn’t want the guy to upgrade and find out that 49% of his peripherals won’t work anymore 🙂

Clean install is the key. I did it – Haven’t had a single problem or crash since.

"Donna" wrote in message

I just did a clean install of XP Pro. Running all CS apps just fine.

Didn’t

even has to install any drivers for my stuff except the new Bios for the laptop. It’s great.

"William Kious" wrote in message

"Gianni" wrote in message

Since CS isn’t supported under Win 9x,
which is better? XP, XP Pro or Win 2000?

You seem like a casual computer user – Do yourself a HUGE favor and get

XP

Professional. Then, as with any Microsoft OS – Do a CLEAN install.

Forget

all of the dual-booting crap and technical arguments for or against any

of

the operating systems you mentioned.

Donna wrote:

I just did a clean install of XP Pro. Running all CS apps just fine. Didn’t even has to install any drivers for my stuff except the new Bios for the laptop. It’s great.

You bring up another question.
Is a laptop screen adequate for
PhotoShop work?

I’m getting involved with PhotoShop
because my wife wants
to learn PhotoShop; she is a textile
designer.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:39:40 -0500, Gianni wrote:

Donna wrote:

I just did a clean install of XP Pro. Running all CS apps just fine. Didn’t even has to install any drivers for my stuff except the new Bios for the laptop. It’s great.

You bring up another question.
Is a laptop screen adequate for
PhotoShop work?

I’m getting involved with PhotoShop
because my wife wants
to learn PhotoShop; she is a textile
designer.

Generally, no, because the screen repro of colour isn’t accurate enough.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui