Loses data when PC shuts down

using this with firewire. I'm using Win 98, second edition.

Stop using Win98, it's a crappy operating system with poor history (on-the-knee
made-not-properly-designed-patch-over-the-paleolithic-MS-DOS).

Use some of the Windows NT OSes - Win2000 or WinXP.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:44:59 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote:

using this with firewire. I'm using Win 98, second edition.

Stop using Win98, it's a crappy operating system with poor history (on-the-knee
made-not-properly-designed-patch-over-the-paleolithic-MS-DOS).

Use some of the Windows NT OSes - Win2000 or WinXP.


This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

kony writes:

This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice. The Windows 9x family of
operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
operating systems. They are completely different (despite
similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
is technically superior by a wide margin.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

kony writes:


This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL


Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice. The Windows 9x family of
operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
operating systems. They are completely different (despite
similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
is technically superior by a wide margin.


The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of
Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. 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

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

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.

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.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:27:36 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

kony writes:

This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice. The Windows 9x family of
operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
operating systems. They are completely different (despite
similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
is technically superior by a wide margin.


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, a need of the
user. Simply claiming to move on from 9x without specific
reason is rather silly. Same goes for WinME (though my
least favorite Windows), 2K, or XP onto Vista.

There is no reason to believe someone using Win98
successfully without complain, has any reason to upgrade.

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 and therefore within
this context it makes sense- but that is not what was
mentioned, just a mindless "NT better" argument which is not
really true at all.

If a person boots and uses 9x, makes no use of the
differences between the OS(s), the theoretically better OS
isn't better in any realized way.

kony wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:27:36 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

kony writes:

This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice. The Windows 9x family of
operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
operating systems. They are completely different (despite
similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
is technically superior by a wide margin.


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, a need of the
user. Simply claiming to move on from 9x without specific
reason is rather silly. Same goes for WinME (though my
least favorite Windows), 2K, or XP onto Vista.

There is no reason to believe someone using Win98
successfully without complain, has any reason to upgrade.

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 and therefore within
this context it makes sense- but that is not what was
mentioned, just a mindless "NT better" argument which is not
really true at all.

If a person boots and uses 9x, makes no use of the
differences between the OS(s), the theoretically better OS
isn't better in any realized way.

That's right. Also, suppose you want to test some network things at
home. You could use all Pentium 4s with XP, or Win2003-Server OSs. But,
it is cheaper to work with some older PCs for network testing purposes.

Christine

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