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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of
Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. Do you know at least anything about the innerworkings of MS's OSes? It's history is so 'poor' and 'crappy' that MS was forced to extend support for years after the original EOF date, which will *finally* occur on July 11, 2006 Lots of stupid people around which demand this :-) -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Inferior, yes, but often this is made as some kind of
blanket statement which is pretty much pointless unless it is addressing a specific limitation of the OS Lack of 128GB drives support. Lack of security. Lack of event log. Lack of ability of having more then 1 IP address per adapter. Lack of inter-process protection - a faulty app usually crashes the whole OS due to idiotic design of 2D graphics/windowing subsystem. Lack of... well, lack of everything. Performance also sucks due to lack of adequate file cache manager. Now moving past the generic concept to a specific scenario, in this particular case, supporting 48bit LBA would be gained by a latter version of windows Correct. Adequate versions of Windows do support 48bit LBAs out-of-the-box. just a mindless "NT better" If you would know the innerworkings of these OSes - you would not say this is mindless. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL What is wrong with OE? I'm satisfied with it. Hold that thought - and then try to understand how some people may be equally happy with Win98SE. Learning from one's own foibles is sometimes the fastest (though not always the most ego-gratifying) route to enlightenment. - bill |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 01:17:14 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote: Inferior, yes, but often this is made as some kind of blanket statement which is pretty much pointless unless it is addressing a specific limitation of the OS Lack of 128GB drives support. Lack of security. Lack of event log. Lack of ability of having more then 1 IP address per adapter. Lack of inter-process protection - a faulty app usually crashes the whole OS due to idiotic design of 2D graphics/windowing subsystem. True, and "if" the particular use of the system makes these important, 'tis reason enough to switch. Lack of... well, lack of everything. Oh well, you drifted back to nonsense. Performance also sucks due to lack of adequate file cache manager. LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have performance quite backwards. Maybe caching huge files, but seldom are such files continually cached rather than a immediate read-need scenario where drive transfer rates dictate performance levels. That's not to say it's impossible to encounter situations, but again, your nonsense is silly. Blanket generic statements in this case, are closer to lies than truth. Now moving past the generic concept to a specific scenario, in this particular case, supporting 48bit LBA would be gained by a latter version of windows Correct. Adequate versions of Windows do support 48bit LBAs out-of-the-box. just a mindless "NT better" If you would know the innerworkings of these OSes - you would not say this is mindless. If you knew that what you "like" is only relevant as revealed in an actual use, you would say it's mindless. remember, you don't have to "like" what someone does with their PC, it merely has to do that job. For many many jobs Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there is no reason to shun it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. Do you know at least anything about the innerworkings of MS's OSes? Yes, I do. It's history is so 'poor' and 'crappy' that MS was forced to extend support for years after the original EOF date, which will *finally* occur on July 11, 2006 Lots of stupid people around which demand this :-) You suffer from classic 'engineer syndrome' where, after having picked what you think is a 'technically superior' widget then declare all other widgets to be 'crap' and those using them 'stupid'. The problem is that even 'technically superior' depends on the actual needs or else you end up with nonsense like choosing a fusion MRV ICBM for 'home defense' because techno freak feels it's the most 'technically advanced' weapon. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
In article , Maxim S. Shatskih says...
The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. Do you know at least anything about the innerworkings of MS's OSes? Obviously more than you do. You really should try using it again one day. -- Conor, Same ****, different day. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
You suffer from classic 'engineer syndrome' where, after having picked what
you think is a 'technically superior' widget then declare all other widgets to be 'crap' and those using them 'stupid'. Yes, maybe you're correct :-) -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have
performance quite backwards. On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB, where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue. Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there is no reason to shun it. I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware, which runs fine on modern OSes. In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:14:25 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote: LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have performance quite backwards. On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB, where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue. Nope. The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's still slower on brand new systems. You are correct that memory is an issue, but one can in fact put 256MB on a fairly old system (something just new enough to cache the entire amount) and still see the problem. Any way you look at it, doing same task and having to juggle around 256MB of code just takes longer on ALL systems. Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there is no reason to shun it. I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware, which runs fine on modern OSes. Perhaps. The decision can be taken on a case by case basis. Remeber it is not a question of "what OS to buy today", rather one with Win98 is presumed to already have it, probably even have it running on any given system. The remaining issue is only whether it suits their needs which it may NOT do, but for some it does. In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk. Easy? $100 minimum expense, maybe more (like upgrading hardware not supported with XP drivers, possible memory needs). Several hours installing OS, drivers, user preferences, apps, transferring data, testing the legacy app, etc. Relatively speaking, there are certainly harder things in life but so far as PCs go, that's not the easiest way to do anything. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
kony writes:
Nope. The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's still slower on brand new systems. Not necessarily. Like all operating systems in the NT family, XP has a higher minimum hardware requirement. However, it also makes much better use of large amounts of hardware. So it runs more slowly than 9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems. However, there is no reason to _upgrade_ to XP if 9x is doing the job. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
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 |