If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Maxim S. Shatskih writes:
No, VPC is another thing. It will allow you to run Win9x in a window under Win2000 or WinXP. Some things will not run under XP or 2000, period. The operating system has tighter security than Windows 9x and this is an absolute barrier to software that tries to access hardware directly (as many older application programs do, particularly games). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
There's no conspiracy here. Windows NT and its successors represent a
far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x. Correct. 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for the purposes of speed issuse. NT will indeed run on that configuration. XP won't because that's not enough disk space, as I recall. No. XP SP2 wants around 2.5GB of disk space for the OS itself, but 128MB is definitely too small for it. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:50:17 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote: There's no conspiracy here. Windows NT and its successors represent a far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x. Correct. 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for the purposes of speed issuse. NT will indeed run on that configuration. XP won't because that's not enough disk space, as I recall. No. XP SP2 wants around 2.5GB of disk space for the OS itself, but 128MB is definitely too small for it. XP needs nowhere near 2.5GB, unless of course you leave system restore and other misc things turned on which slows it down even more. I was only comparing an optimally configured XP, giving XP as much "help" as possible to try to compete. For the ideal XPSP2 config, 128MB is certainly too little. The statment was only an example of what MS might spec, since they did not spec 256MB for XP either. More reasonble comparison would be old system with 512MB vs brand new w/512MB. It's no contest, Xp is slower. It is true that if you were copying massive files or some particular task, 9x can be sluggish. Single events do not make for the average or typical user experience. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:08:44 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: kony writes: That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower. There's no conspiracy here. never claimed there was Windows NT and its successors represent a far more complex yes (and technically superior) no It is techincally superior only in certain contexts. You will have to continuously make so many assumptions toward that conclusion that by the time you're done, you may indeed have described a lot of what the typical user does, but not ALL systems, all configurations. Therefore, "superior" has everything to do with exactly what the situation is, and is false is only mentioned as was, a generic statement. operating system than the modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x. You are biased. Use of MS-DOS environment shows it. There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one. The architecture is superior No. Random nonsense. It is more applicable to some uses and less so to others. and the code is written better, Better than what? One would hope we could have commercial alternatives for comparison but unfortunately not. and so the NT-based operating systems perform better on large configurations. not supported by any evidence the greater complexity of the OS also imposes a larger minimum hardware requirement. Yes, so? The argument was about appropriateness for any particular use, so that use would have to be specified. Further it was about speed, and it is not magically faster on some particular system config. QUITE the opposite, we can in fact configure any system with support for an appropriate sized HDD, memory, and see this. This is why NT was slow to catch on initially: hardware platforms at the time of its introduction were just barely sufficient to run it (although today they would be considered very small). Today's hardware can run NT and its successors easily. There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all. NT ran ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been the choice up until Win2K. Later versions of the operating system have fallen victim to software bloat, as all software does, but the above remains true. They could have easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1, 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for the purposes of speed issuse. NT will indeed run on that configuration. XP won't because that's not enough disk space, as I recall. XP should run on a first-generation Pentium in 128 MB, though--NT sure did, and XP is just a bloated version of NT. I was not arguing for that as an ideal minimum but in fact XP will run on that config. I was being conservative towards the lower boundaries MS spec'd which were even lower. FWIW, though, XP will run on 128MB and 1.5GB HDD space if it's kept under control. I have such a system doing video capture though it has a lot more memory and HDD space- that's simply what it uses. No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? Yes, I have, and it runs faster than it runs on small systems. Yes of course, as all do. That wasn't the issue though, it was whether there was some performance gain on XP. It is obvious XP runs faster on newer systems but even so, 9x does too. Unfortunately it doesn't know what to do with all that hardware, and it is easily crippled by heavy workloads that have no effect at all on NT-based systems running on the same hardware. Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who have 9x. Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON a system and being used already. MS-DOS runs even faster than 9x on large systems, Actually, no. There is a certain amount of caching and hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and DOS does not. DOS "could" be faster if there had been sufficient work towards it but everyone liked the GUI and it went from there. but it's also even more useless. No. This is a basic error in your conclusions. Use depends entirely on the need. If you only want to consider a system that can do *anything possible*, XP comes closer to that idea. If on the other hand all we're considering is the usual things people do, or more mission specific systems, 9x or sometimes even DOS can work. Both operating systems waste hardware on large configurations. If you want to make optimal use of a large configuration, you must run something based on NT: NT, 200x, or XP. Or you can run UNIX. "Optimal" being rather arbitrary. In the end it always has to boil down to the actual use, and the fact is, some uses don't require Xp and all and XP is just slowing down the system and requiring more hardware ($) to get the same job done. In many cases it's not a big difference, so the world keeps spinning, but it was never a matter of "how much" difference, only that there was one. It runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled. Try it with 100 applications Why? You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point. It makes your argument invalid. Better you should simply write "use XP if you try to run 100 applications". running at 50 MB each and see how well it runs. I've never claimed 9x would be good for that, nor have I ever claimed 9x is "better in general". And watch to see how long it runs before it crashes. You'll find that 9x is a poor choice for large machines running under heavy loads. No, I'll find that you are still making arbitrary assumptions. "Large machine" does not necessarily mean "is running 100 application". "Heavy load" is completely irrelvant. You've now drifted completely off on a separate subject and even then are trying to assume a configuration to justify XP. XP is not inferior to 9x, I'd never suggested it was. What I DID suggest is that XP does not have benefits in some uses. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
kony writes:
It is techincally superior only in certain contexts. It's technically superior in just about every way. You are biased. Use of MS-DOS environment shows it. I've been working with computers too long and in too many ways to be biased. There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one. Sure, but single-tasking is rare for users today. A few people might want to run only one program or game, but most want to use their computers for more than one thing. Better than what? Better than Windows 9x. not supported by any evidence I've seen it again and again. There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all. NT ran ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been the choice up until Win2K. It _was_ the choice, for me. Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who have 9x. Yes, but as soon as they upgrade, 9x will start to choke, because software is continuously bloating, and many modern versions of popular software are too bloated to run well on 9x. I installed Acrobat 7.x a week ago. Acrobat 4.x occupied 44 MB on disk. Acrobat 7.x occupies 760 MB. Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON a system and being used already. Any system that is working acceptably should not be modified. Actually, no. There is a certain amount of caching and hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and DOS does not. The same can be said of NT and its successors in comparison to 9x. Why? Because then it runs a lot slower. You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point. I'm not stretching things. A lot of users have dozens of applications open at one time. There is a tendency to open applications and leave them open until the computer is shut down. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:09:18 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: kony writes: It is techincally superior only in certain contexts. It's technically superior in just about every way. You are biased. Use of MS-DOS environment shows it. I've been working with computers too long and in too many ways to be biased. Hardly. The moment you mentioned DOS, as if that's a bad thing, you showed it. Keep in mind, not everyone, nor everything requires one (and only ONE) do-everything uber-PC. WinXp is useful for someone to have, if they had only one system and can use it for ALL their needs... I never meant to imply otherwise. On the other hand, that does not make it of virtue for tasks that don't need the things you feel make it superior. There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one. Sure, but single-tasking is rare for users today. Only in your limited context. You are like the fellow who wants a leatherman tool in his pocket because it does SO much, but when it comes right down to it, almost anything that leatherman tool does, is not as good as the one dedicated tool would be. A few people might want to run only one program or game, but most want to use their computers for more than one thing. Maybe "computer", minus the "s". Most people are not multitasking on more than one system simultaneously. Better than what? Better than Windows 9x. not supported by any evidence I've seen it again and again. Nope, you first take a mindset of a specific set of functionality, so defined that the mindset itself literally grew based upon the functionality WinXP provided, which is not unusal since it is effectively the only widespread modern commercial OS for a PC. Where your argument falls apart is when it's more carefully examined, that most people don't actually DO all those things. In fact, I know plenty of people with Win98 and no desire to upgrade their system or OS. They don't care if you think it's better. Wonder why? Because they know it suits their needs. There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all. NT ran ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been the choice up until Win2K. It _was_ the choice, for me. So be it. Making an informed choice is what it's all about. I don't urge anyone to use one, or the other, but to examine their real needs, not those needs projected by others. Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who have 9x. Yes, but as soon as they upgrade, Upgrade what? I'm not in favor of reusing old OS on new systems. It can be done, but not necessarily the best choice since they must have had some reason to upgrade, else it was just from a hardware failure... in which case they'll have to make the call whether it was suitable or not. So far as upgrading individual components, not necessarily. Win9x can handle 1GB memory, modern video cards and (in case of 98SE), modern sound cards with WDM drivers. If one needs more than 1GB memory or some crazy (for a so-called "PC") 100 applications, of course 9x is not suited for the system... and I never claimed it was. The bottom line is always about what is actually needed, not theory but what the real user, really does. 9x will start to choke, because software is continuously bloating, and many modern versions of popular software are too bloated to run well on 9x. Nonsense. There is no software bloat that creates a problem on 9x. I installed Acrobat 7.x a week ago. Acrobat 4.x occupied 44 MB on disk. Acrobat 7.x occupies 760 MB. So? Fire up acrobat and see how much memory it's using. Not anywhere close to approaching any limit to what 9x can do. MS Office can weight over a GB too, but 9x again shows it can run it fine, several instances of it. I suspect you've made some quick assumptions then never bothered to actually try them. Besides that, you keep trying to suggest scenarios that are not typical. The typical user of 9x is not one building a new system then installing Acrobat 7 on it. Rather, they are as the OP is, needing to maintain compatibility, or looking only to contiue doing the same tasks. Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON a system and being used already. Any system that is working acceptably should not be modified. Exactly Never have I suggested that anyone buy a new system, buy win9x for it, without need for 9x. 9x's virtue is in more backwards compatibility and the light footprint. Actually, no. There is a certain amount of caching and hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and DOS does not. The same can be said of NT and its successors in comparison to 9x. It's all relative. 512MB of caching is more than the typical user, makes use of. Power users can easily need more, so again it's all a matter of the specific needs. You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point. I'm not stretching things. A lot of users have dozens of applications open at one time. There is a tendency to open applications and leave them open until the computer is shut down. .... and a lot of users don't. Nobody is trying to force 9x on them, nor should anyone be falsely suggesting XP is a good choice without specific reasons directly applicable to their expressed needs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hard Drive Partitioning | JayD | Storage (alternative) | 29 | September 17th 05 02:02 PM |
Be a Smart Worker - Projects Available - Data Entry | Data Network Forum | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | November 13th 04 07:31 AM |
my new mobo o/c's great | rockerrock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | June 30th 04 08:17 PM |
Sata and Data Corruption | Robert Neville | Storage (alternative) | 27 | May 8th 04 06:20 PM |
help with motherboard choice | S.Boardman | Overclocking AMD Processors | 30 | October 20th 03 10:23 PM |