Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

win2k help

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • win2k help

    Is there anything for windows 2000 like Windows Picture Viewer for XP? A buddy of mine recently got win2k (used to have ME) and now is complaining that he doesnt have image viewer, and actually wants me to put ME back on (I would put on XP but it is a bit of a stretch for his system P3-550, 128mb)
    Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
    Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

  • #2
    There are a like a million image viewer apps out there.

    Tell him to go to TUCOWS and pick one. I'm sure that there are even freeware ones available.
    P.S. You've been Spanked!

    Comment


    • #3
      WinXP a stretch for that system? I can possibly see it on the memory side, but if he's fine using 2k then you can easily disable some of the system-hungry effects and services in XP.

      That aside, schmo is right, there is a plethora of image viewers out there. Most are crap, but there are some good ones depending on exactly what he is wanting out of it. IrfanView 32 comes to mind, though none that I've ever seen/used work quite the same way as the built-in XP one.
      “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

      Comment


      • #4
        IrfanView all the way. Make sure to grab the plugins as well. They're contained in just one additional executable.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would put on XP SP2, then go into system properties/advanced/performance settings and choose "adjust for best performance". It'll be at least as fast as W2K if not faster, but with all the important improvements that come with XP.
          Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

          Comment


          • #6
            Why install XP just for Pciture Viewer?

            Comment


            • #7
              Why not?

              People install software/OS' for far sillier reasons than because there is a certain application or function they like and prefer to use. Sometimes what the user wants supercedes anyones opinions about what they should want or can get by on. Simply put though, Mehen stated that installing XP would be an option save for the resource requirements, or rather, how it is assumed XP would run on the given hardware.
              “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

              Comment


              • #8
                So...we know it's silly but we endorse it?

                PS. BTW |Mehen|, one question. Somebody here has machine with identical CPU/RAM, but the OS (especially when it comes to parts that decode videos) is quite fubared. I wonder if there's any sense in repairing/reinstalling...typical divx/xvid (not of very high quality - sort of things that fit on 1cd) plays good on it when using, for example, ffdhsow with fastest settings?
                Last edited by Nowhere; 19 March 2006, 03:14.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Who says it's our place to endorse it or not. We have here a user that likes the Windows XP picture viewer, and who may very well not be comfortable using another like application. So you're telling me that when we have the option to provide said user with what he'd like to use (providing XP would run on the system in an acceptable manner), we should scoff and force something else on him?

                  Keeping in mind he's already going to be running Windows, so there's no debate on that front. The only difference is in the version of the OS. If he end sup liking IrfanView or another then that's great, but if not...

                  Sometimes it just doesn't matter what we think, especially when we're talking about something as trivial as an image viewing app thats use isn't so trivial to the user.
                  “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ok the user...but what about his pocket?
                    And let us not dumb the user down...Irfanview or XNview isn't particulalry harder to use than Pciture Viewer...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      His pocket is his concern, and let's be honest, who's to say his pocket is even an issue...

                      I fail to see how this is dumbing the user down. It comes down to ease of use and how the application/function behaves in accordance with the users needs and workflow. Not everyone really needs the extra bits, nor do they want them in many cases.

                      As I said, if he finds he likes one of the 3rd party apps, then that's awesome, but if not...
                      “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        not sure if this works in windows 2000

                        According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jesterwild, Irfanview/etc. aren't particualrly harder to use...you doble click file, use cursors/mousewheel/arrows in the app to move. Rest of functionality can be ignored/hidden. And do you realise how the applications/functions/OS itself behave when it comes to users needs and workflow on a machine with WindowsXP and 128MB of RAM? (yes, even after shutting every service possible - my setup was like that for quite a time...opening any photo besides "web sized" ones leads to swapping)

                          PS. I just remembred another one besides Irfanview and Xnview - Slowview (the name is just for fun...)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I've used IrfanView and several others. I never said they weren't easy to use, I was stating that regardless, the user in question may simply prefer the built-in picture viewer. I'm quite aware of how Win XP runs on a system with 128MB of RAM. Did so for a couple years myself, and this was on a P2-350. Turning off various services that either are not needed or were not present on Win 2k, reduces the performance drag to damn well close to that of the latter.

                            You're still missing the point. This user prefers A, as an alternative he's being presented with (one assumes) options B and maybe C and D. If said user happens to like B, C, or D, then that's well and good and we can all go back to arguing about Walmart and which country has the bigger penis. But, if this user is unhappy with those alternatives, then isn't A the logical choice based on what the user wants?

                            If not then I digress.
                            “And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'” ~ Merlin Mann

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Then...let him/propose him to use Windows Me instead of XP? Because on his current setup, both Windows 2k and XP will be compromises - 2K more snappy but with certain functionality accesed a bit differently, or XP with desired funcionality but more frustrating to run (really...IMHO even 2k is a bit borderline on 128MB...still much less than XP, even though I was shutting down everything allowed...)

                              PS. |Mehen|, or just get him more RAM (should be plenty cheap now...), dillema solved

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X