winxp system build

i've just reinstalled my winxp. the last version i have and which i've reinstalled was build 2600. now the fresh version have build 2002. how can i update it? i've installed all the needed updates

Not sure if this is the way to go, I don't bother with windows too deeply if I can't help it, my system's unstable enough as it is :angry: but try Windows Update maybe?

Sorry if this post is unhelpful, just a suggestion…

np.. but i've already tryed windows update, all necessary updates are already installed, but build still remains same

Unless you need that specific build for benching or debugging or something i wouldnt worry about it too much. aslong as its service pack 2 it should be ok, i never used to bother with updates before i got Vista.

thanks, i only worried about why it was here and now it isnt :)

got Vista… er, why are you using a crap OS that eats up 600MB RAM just IDLING?!?

I've tried it but I'll definately stick with XP Performance cracks with the $hitware rm'd…

Although, if you've got 16 gig RAM and a CPU faster than 12GHz then why not use Vista…

_Viruses __Intruders ___Spyware ____Trojans _____Adware

Ah, that's for another thread… just saying… :matey:

ThorsDecree wrote: got Vista… er, why are you using a crap OS that eats up 600MB RAM just IDLING?!?

In his defense, it's an easily-noticeable trend that all Microsoft OS releases seem to take the forefront once they become "reasonably" stable. That being said, using Vista does have its merits for people looking to break into the IT field with up-to-date knowledge.

That being said, I do prefer XP to Vista any day… However, I too have to work with Vista to remain competitive in the field. As far as I'm concerned, the only good thing about Vista is IIS7, which may very well convert the "process purists" for its modularity.

As for the XP builds, it shouldn't matter after all of the updates. Most likely, you got a hold of an earlier build that, through the full list of updates, ended up right back where your later build was.

i have debian too. but there are lots of thing that will run ONLY on windows (cant be emulated), or if i need something to compile under windows platform (i have code::blocks with digital mars for c++ on debian, and ms visual c++ on win) so i still need the windows

ThorsDecree wrote: got Vista… er, why are you using a crap OS that eats up 600MB RAM just IDLING?!?

I've tried it but I'll definately stick with XP Performance cracks with the $hitware rm'd…

Although, if you've got 16 gig RAM and a CPU faster than 12GHz then why not use Vista…

_Viruses __Intruders ___Spyware ____Trojans _____Adware

Ah, that's for another thread… just saying… :matey:

Ok, yes this is for another thread but all the same i will reply anyway.

You have a CPU of 12GHZ? dont you mean a Quad Core 3Ghz, thats not the same thing.

600Mb of RAM idleing? then your version of vista is serioulsy fucked. People who say this shit just havent used it. Vista uses all your RAM, working on the principle that unused RAM is wasted RAM, it loads commonly loaded programs into the RAM so they can be loaded faster (say firefox for example or Word) when you need them. When you load Half Life 2, or FEAR and these games need the memory its given up to allow for them.

Whatever if you think XP is better, to be fair i think its shit now, in 3 weeks ive been using Vista it has proved to be more stable, more useful, fuckin easier to fix problems with. You with your insane specs on your computer would benefit heavily from having Vista. you wouldnt notice the 5% FPS drop in quake 4, fuck i didnt, and my PC isnt half of yours.

Here is my system specs for you: Abit NV8 Motherboard AMD Sempron 3000+ OC'd to 2.07GHZ 1GB DDR PC3200 Ati Radeon HD2600XT 512Mb 1860Mhz Memory Clock, 830 Mhz Core. 160GB Harddrive.

I have not noticed a noticable perofance decrese from XP, and desktop performce is 100 times better. no shit.

PureEvil wrote: I have not noticed a noticable perofance decrese from XP, and desktop performce is 100 times better. no shit.

I recently tested a Pentium D 2.8Ghz (800Mhz FSB) with 2GBs of DDR RAM (running Windows XP) against a Athlon X2 5000+ (2000Mhz FSB) with 3GBs of DDR2 RAM (running Windows Vista), and I DID notice the performance drop in Vista, even with better specs. Vista is solid, but it hasn't reached "better" yet.

Anyways, let's not drag this thread into OT with Vista vs. XP arguments. Really, each is personal preference. Anyways, I figure the OP is probably finished with the thread; his original question was answered.

PureEvil wrote: [quote]ThorsDecree wrote: got Vista… er, why are you using a crap OS that eats up 600MB RAM just IDLING?!?

I've tried it but I'll definately stick with XP Performance cracks with the $hitware rm'd…

Although, if you've got 16 gig RAM and a CPU faster than 12GHz then why not use Vista…

_Viruses __Intruders ___Spyware ____Trojans _____Adware

Ah, that's for another thread… just saying… :matey:

Ok, yes this is for another thread but all the same i will reply anyway.

You have a CPU of 12GHZ? dont you mean a Quad Core 3Ghz, thats not the same thing.

600Mb of RAM idleing? then your version of vista is serioulsy fucked. People who say this shit just havent used it. Vista uses all your RAM, working on the principle that unused RAM is wasted RAM, it loads commonly loaded programs into the RAM so they can be loaded faster (say firefox for example or Word) when you need them. When you load Half Life 2, or FEAR and these games need the memory its given up to allow for them.

Whatever if you think XP is better, to be fair i think its shit now, in 3 weeks ive been using Vista it has proved to be more stable, more useful, fuckin easier to fix problems with. You with your insane specs on your computer would benefit heavily from having Vista. you wouldnt notice the 5% FPS drop in quake 4, fuck i didnt, and my PC isnt half of yours.

Here is my system specs for you: Abit NV8 Motherboard AMD Sempron 3000+ OC'd to 2.07GHZ 1GB DDR PC3200 Ati Radeon HD2600XT 512Mb 1860Mhz Memory Clock, 830 Mhz Core. 160GB Harddrive.

I have not noticed a noticable perofance decrese from XP, and desktop performce is 100 times better. no shit.[/quote]

i Must agree…Vista is bad, but then again, its different for different peoples uses.

my use was compatability it DID NOT perform. AT ALL.