i am looking at a new 1.8 xp system,with a MSI.K400 vl or ultra mainboard.due to lack of $$ i am going to use my voodoo 3 2000 card and diamond monster 300 sound card and old windows. should i load win98 or ME ?I HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH. Can you load xp on a second computer with only one disc ?i heard you can download copies of xp  is this true & do they work ok?  8) any coments on useing via based boards with windows 98 or me?

Well, I would prefer Win98 over WinME, simply because of the full access to MS-DOS alone.

As well, I haven't really heard anything good about WinME, most people who had it really did not recommend it.
(Personally, I used to call it a Windows "for Women and Children", colourful but nothing spectacular or useful *g* )

My Opinion about WinXP :
I would not install this big Spyware Package on any of my PC's, even if MicroSoft paid me 1000$ for it :P

Lots of restrictions, that make the User a mere controlled and transparent Client, Spyware all over the place, very resource wasting, and basically nothing in there that one 'must have'.

A good Firewall running on WinXP will basically rather protect against the OS sending Data out (compromising), than against attacks from outside.
It is a highly unsecure OS, and it was designed for that 'feature', which makes it even worse by principle :-X

If your Voodoo3 is an AGP, it will not work in a KT400 based Motherboard. Most boards have protective functions against powering up with a 3.3V AGP card in their 1.5V AGP Slot. If they don't, the Voodoo3 AGP can destroy the Motherboard.

Since the KT400 really isn't a too good of a chipset, the latest KT333a Boards usually are on par with Performance.
(An improved KT400a is in the making right now, re-confirming that one should never buy a VIA Chipset when it is new, always wait for the KTxxx-a Version ;) )

Yeah, ME is trash. Use 98, preferably 98SE.

XP, with a few hacks (no product activation! yay!), and a bunch of things turned off, is a great OS. Crashes a LOT less than 98. If you have a fast PC, 800MHz w/ 256MB RAM or better, WinXP is faster than Win98. Oh, and Pro is best.

If you want more info on, erm, patching XP, drop me a PM.

thanks for your input on this guys , AND GALS .now its between 98se & me. can you elaborate on the dos thing? would useing 98 limit the soft ware or drivers available down the road any more than ME since its older ?i thought the kt400 would be a better choise than the 333 because of the usb2 & agp8x .how long would i have to wait for a kt400a? would it just be a bios update or a hardware upgrade my voodoo3 is  a PCI card. 8)how about a msi K7N2-L -NF2 ? COULD I USE MY VOODOO3 PCI?

keep away from xp if you run a voodoo 5 drivers have bad compatibility , i swapped back to ME after playing around with voodoo 3`s and 5`s on xp  . drivers have better compliance on 98* . but glide and gl is extremely quick on XP ( unreal tournament!!!)

All drivers that work on ME are also suitable for Windows 98.  Personally I would avoid ME but then I boot to full DOS mode all the time.  If you don't know what that is then I wouldn't worry too much and ME will be fine.

Personally, if you can get your hands on Windows 2000 I'd suggest that. More stable then both XP and Win 9X. I game with it all the time and I've only ran into two older games that don't run on it that run on XP (built on 2k core, which makes no sence), and those two games are Need for speed high stakes and Rogue squadron. Other wise any new games, it runs sweet and that's with using both a V3 and a Voodoo 5.

IG88 wrote on 20.02.03 at 04:58:15:

* IG88 . but glide and gl is extremely quick on XP ( unreal tournament!!!)

Odd... I'm running XP with a Voodoo 5. Using AmigaMerlin 2.5SE drivers, with Koolsmoky's latest Glide DLLs, and WickedGL, I have had no problems with anything I've tried... Unreal Tourney, Jedi Outcast, PSX emulation w/ Lewpy's Glide plugin, and N64 emulation with Glide64. It all runs perfect and looks great.

'Course, that's not too many games...

I did, however, notice that the Add/Remove programs box sometimes gets graphical corruption, but that's the only thing that does it.(

Well games like max pain , deltaforce land warrior , older games like  blood and even new iron storm demo have big problems  , even using dreamweaver with black background you cant see the cursor . I`m no expert but i think direct 3d is useless with a V5500 on Xp , overlays and i think SLI is out of wack with some direct 3D engines  . Glide game do work well and most gl Games do . These problems disapeared with Me using the latest Amigamerlin drivers . Basically XP drivers need more work , until than i`m sticking to all around funtionality , and full direct x 8.1 compliance .

that said the voodoo 3 runs extremely well game wise on xp , shame it didn`t have more ram . Xp is greedy on
display resourses .

Death, I agree with you 99%, being based on NT isn't that big of a deal though, Windows 2000 is based off of NT and XP is based off Windows 2000 more then NT. Windows 2K is WAY more stable then XP. I game with it all the time and other then Need for Speed High Stakes and Star wars game, Rogue Sqaudron, I haven't had any games not work for 2K. My big complaint about XP is that it's BUGGY. I work on the 650 PC's my company has and about 60 of them are laptops that came with XP in the last year. Even with SP1 installed on these things, we end up reGhosting them about every 3-4 months because of problems with either hardware or software. XP is a pain in the ass not to mention the lack of services that they took out on the home edition compaired to pro, like no duel monitor support, no duel processor support, lack of security. They should of just stuck with XP pro, lowered the price to 150, have ONE OS and called it good (not to mention waiting another year to work out all the damn bugs in it).

wrote on 22.02.03 at 10:27:30:

anyway, here are the reasons why i don't like win xp: i have a via apolo pro motherboard and i had to install the 4in1 to make xp work faster.

So?

Quote:

i have a conexant 56k modem and i had to install a driver to make it function.

So?

Quote:

i have a voodoo 5 5500 and u know the rest.

OK, I agree it isn't the best situation...

Quote:

i have a monitor that is not well supported in xp and keeps shuting down with no reason.

Now THAT is a bad problem

Quote:

i am having problems with my sound card defualt drivers in xp (creative vibra 128 ) so i had to install new drivers.

So?

Quote:

xp keeps locking, freezing, shuting down with no reason.

...Sounds like you have serious problems

Quote:

having problems with my hard disk when cash-writing is on (seagate 20gb 7200rpm).

Big problem, there.

Quote:

some games don't work at all or have bugs.

Yah, agreed, but it's much better than Win2K.

Quote:

very annoying driver installation method (the device manager making me mad).

Odd, that's one of the tings I like best about Windows/ :P

Quote:

100% lack of support to any hardware before 2001

Hell yeah. But we have to move forward some time. If you have old hardware, XP is most likely not for you.

Quote:

takes too much ram for the services running in background and even when turned off still grabs a lot of ram.

That's probably my biggest gripe.

Quote:

very depended on updating from microsoft.

What version of Windows isn't?

Quote:

stupid troublshooter.

It plain sucks, you mean.

Quote:

ilogical error reporting system that shows critical errors on hardware or software that has nothing to do with the error itself.

*shudders* All the Mac had was numbers, but at least they meant something definate. I got an error once trying to browse an FTP site with Internet Explorer, "ERROR: A system call that should never fail has failed." :P

Quote:

takes 1.2 gb space.

A little optimization can get that down to about 750MB

Quote:

an automatic operation systems that basicly locks manuel control over it and makes your life difficult.

Yeah... they hide all the good tools. But don't worry, they are there, they're just buried. Deeply.

Quote:

TOTAL LACK OF NETWORK DEFENSE SYSTEM although it was built for this purpose.

Screw the memory thing. THAT is my biggest gripe.

Quote:

and the most annoying is the usage of NT based system.

Here's the situation with Windows Millenium -- it was unfinished, they pushed out the door wayyy too soon.

The OS never got completed, Microsoft flat out admitted it to everyone attending the Windows XP launch. Bill Gates changed policy and let them speak freely about it and they pointed out several things to back them up. They admitted windows ME was a mistake.

Ever notice how a few things seem kinda -- oh -- I don't know -- broken?

Stick with Windows 98 Second Edition unless you can get your hands on XP (and your system is beefed up enough to handle it).

---

Your fontrune cookie reads
"It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others"

Hi Folks,

I am one who is sure happy to hear the most of you don't like Windows XP.  The last guy said they pushed ME out of the door to soon, it still had some bugs????Have you counted the number of Critical downloads there were is SP1 for XP and we are almost reaching the top on SP2.  What Microsoft should do is, for the same money, sell each person Windows XP either Home or Pro and a free hard drive to accomodate all of the Critical downloads, suggested downloads, etc. etc. I had 98SE on this computer when I bought it.  I think it was a great system.  It doesn't have as many bells and whistles as XP, but I just finished getting my computer up and operating after the fifth (5) crash since I have been using XP. That's about a year, maybe less.  The problem with XP is that it is designed for more than I person to use the same computer or network.  I am the only person using my computer and I'm not on a network.  So, this this so and so tells me I can't delete, move, rename a file because someone else is using it????I start thinking there's a little microsoft person inside of my computer, who is trying his best to drive me crazier than I already am.  It seems to me, the four eyed Billionare should have made some kind of changes to allow ONE person to use XP and not be strapped down with all of the crazy restrictions.  "It" told me the other day to put my Windows XP CD in the "A" and and fine file,,,,,,,,,,,,now either the computer is getting nutty or I am...... I had a hard time getting that CD in there.  Then it didn't work!!!!!I hope no one believes I tried that.
Thanks for the eyes and ears,

duhbluesman 8) :D

Right blues.
Windows 98SE was one of the best systems since Chicago (Beta Windows 95). Performance is still scalable on a 2000+ Mhz processor (AMD or Intel), and the performance is very good.

What it lacks: tons of colors, sweeties as Win XP, advertising.
Windows 98 SE is good with 64Mb Ram. More than that it works well also.

The only reasons to have XP:
you are bored of the same good thing
you have too much money
you are eager for tons of colorful buttons
you buy things by their advertising
you need server or multi-user services
you think that every 2 years it's impossible to remain with the same computer/Windows

dahbluesman: Another thing you forgot -- XP did get finished and was not broken-ware, Millennium was.

WinME is a broken OS, XP isn't. And plus I am glad XP is getting service packs (like it's predecessors), would you want to run an OS that needs some updating from time to time and was buggy as heck because there weren't any updates?

A new hard drive for all customers for their critical downloads -- ok dude -- put down your crack pipe for a second -- if you are running XP on your 1Gb drive from 1996 you're going to have a problem. A few months ago I bought an 80Gb drive w/ 8MB cache (Western Digital) and it was only $100 - cheap!

If you haven't got the money for the gas, why buy the car, eh? this stuff isn't that expensive, plus (keep crack pipe down for one more minute) if you are worried about space, that is why we have these wonderful things called, say it with me now, "Ceee Deee Burhhhhnnn Urrs".

Just plop your critical updates to a CD and delete them from the hard drive. Not like they take much space at all anyway.

As far as crashes go, haven't had a one in XP yet on both of my machines, nor either of my parents 2 machines, nor my brothers systems.... stop hitting your head into the screen and well avoid the crashes altogether. Win9X crashed a he** of a lot more than any NT operating system.

A Microsoft person in your system, insert the CD into the "A"  -- ehh -- maybe smoking pot before posting on a forum may not be the best idea, Because none of this makes sense or is based in reality, honestly.

Four-eyed billionaire -- well he must be doing something right because his cash flow is still coming in, and god bless'em for it!

Boiu_Andrei: I don't take it them you are running Linux? Plus advertising in XP -- where I don't see any ads -- care to point his out -- exactly where they are located?

Oh and Win9x -- yeah runs great, except is you decide you want to have any *new* hardware run decently.

Impossible to run the same system with the same version of windows, I take you mean system uptime? Well I have been running XP from the first day it was available on the market, and I haven't had to re-load it on either system yet.

But hey, whatever -- none of what either of you two makes sense, just senseless Microsoft bashing.

---

Your fortune cookie reads:
"You will not advance far with your meager abilities"

Personally, I really hate to work with WinME.

Everytime I have to fix someone's Machine, and find WinME installed, things get quite alot more difficult to fix.

They tried to hide MS-DOS, which is a powerful Tool to assist, when Windows blew up, or something needs to be fixed while Windows should not or cannot launch anymore.
--------------------------
WinXP is a whole different deal :
With security and privacy risks lurking everwhere, this "OS" I consider the worst one ever invented. It needs minimum AntiSpy plus an excellent Firewall, just to keep it from compromising Data.
In the meantime, they could have appropriately named it "WinNSA" or "WinHD" (Homeland Defense).

(in the old times, Firewalls were invented to protect against attacks from outside, but Microsoft reversed this trend : you have to fight the OS now)

Many new Patches (some of which are critical for System safety) from MS carried Trojans, who often bypassed or reset important security settings.
(and they learned that it was possible to infect older, otherwise relatively clean Systems like Win2000 and even Win9x).
-----------------
I heard "new Hardware" causes trouble under Win98 ?

I type this from a Win98SE, acting as a 24/7 server for 20 other Machines (running no less than 10 different Operating Systems).

It is powered by an ASUS A7V8X (KT400), AthlonXP 2800+ and 512MB Corsair PC400 CL2. The ATI Radeon 9700pro does the Video, the Soundblaster Live! takes care of the Acoustics :) .

As said, this machine is running 24/7, 365 days a year (unless I leave for a longer time).

On several similar Systems, I even run Win95A or Win95OSR1 (since it was cheap, and the machines are running as numbercrunchers) ;D
New Hardware is no Problem, it just takes a bit of knowledge.
-----------------
The Gaming usually requires me to reboot the Server about once every 3-6 days to keep things smooth.
(or when I screw something up myself, which I like doing from time to time ;D )

All other machines run 24/7, with Win95, Win95OSR1, Win98 and Win98SE achieving uptimes of several thousand hours without problems.
(I believe my record machine was running Win95A, with an uptime of about 7000 hours; was interrupted by a power outage :P )
-------------------

Due to the current way Microsoft is headed (and where they are already), each new Installation is done with Linux, so I'm slowly migrating away from Windows alltogether ;D

Ok, I can agree with you falconfly, because you make solid points that are based in fact.

You didn't just bash Microsoft or the Oses and then say I hate it becuase I have to click....start...or something like that.

I have expirienced these things in which you speak. And the problems have been proven to be true that you have mentioned about 9x/2000/XP, yeah I agree it is a Win2K service pack, with some add-ons.

Win98SE, yeah it does work with new technology, but doesn't 2000/XP take better advantage of it?

Also with 2000 and XP as you have no 16-bit and 32-bit code mixing grafted on top of DOS which always has been the foundation of the 9x code base.

I myself have no complaint about XP, I use ZoneAlarm, Norton Anti-virus, Ad-Aware and Spybot SD as well as a customized hots file for the ad server and that pretty much covers it security wise.

---

Your fortune cookie reads
"You foolishly belive in the goodness of mankind"

Hm, Win2k/XP is certainly build around newer Hardware, and some things are likely a tad more optimized.

But I found that especially XP loses any such advantage due to its insane Overhead.
(I have this running on my only Notebook; this thing did not run anything else after 2 weeks of me trying everything I could think of with 98/2000 and Linux :P )

I cleaned mine as far as I could, but still it easily uses up some 100MB of RAM just for running idle, doing nothing ::)

Generally, a newer OS has the advantage of delivering useful standard Drivers for many base components (which otherwise need to be manually installed step-by-step).
But this advantage is reduced with time, since all Hardware after the release warrants newer Drivers as usual.

The early days, where people would still use MS-DOS Applications (requiring full blown config.sys & autoexec.bat config's) alongside an Installed Win95 are long over for most, so there really isn't much left of 16bit a few seconds after booting Win9x ;)

People like Procerus (and others) however, show that it is still easily possible to get the best of both worlds.
And finally, with the establishment of 32bit DOS-Extenders, all later MS-DOS Games also ran 32bit, almost just like Windows.

The thing I like about MS-DOS probably best right now, is really that it allows to troubleshoot Hardware or Windows itself from the lowest level possible. Without it, alot of machines I had to fix or clean of Viruses, would not have worked afterwards.
-----------
WinXP of couse does run fine, but I well remember many people come to me to advice, because many important settings were all of a sudden scattered all across the GUI (something I really hate myself).
================
Most people like me don't like the Ideas behind XP, more than the OS itself.
With TCPA lurking in the future, I (and others) see a development which effects and original Idea's I simply cannot tolerate anymore.

Bluescreens and typical Windows quirrels we all learned to handle (to some extend). But the already existing and upcoming "big brother" approach to the Operating System that is supposed to serve me and my Computer are a completely different playing field.

Bundeled with the already known facts about Microsoft's Past, present plans and future (as far as known) lay a catastrophic path, I just will not walk onto.

On a personal Note :
In it's current development state, I don't even like working with Linux too much. It's cool after all is setup and running (and free :) ), but it can be a tremendous pain to get there in the first place :P
And it did cost me one thing : time... LOTS of time...

At some times, I thought the developers of certain Applications must have been either drunk, or on drugs when they wrote them *g*
----------------
In the end, I'd say :
Whatever floats your boat.
Above is just my "best available" assessment of things, with a future prediction.
For me, that's enough to jump off the Windows Train alltogether if needed.
Others might not even notice, or care in the first place.
After all, it's just a Computer... but these become more important and powerful in today's lifes every day.

PS.
A hard lesson in Windows Risks the United States just received it seems :
An infected SCADA Center runnnig OLE for Process Control (Windows based Software for Power Grid Visualisation & Telemetry control) via COM/DCOM apparently has been enough to lose control.
Indications are, that W32.Blaster spread via the internal Maintenance TCP lines of the Power Providers (who so far slowly migrated to a standard Windows envroinment over time)...

Maybe that was a useful 'wakeup-call' ::)

You speak the truth, what you say makes sense!  :)

Whatever floats our boat -- we all have our prefrences, too true!  ;)

In regards to future versions of Windows, I have been reading/looking into the next iteration of Windows (longhorn) and I don't like what I am seeing -- needing a powerfull 3D accelerator just to run it because they are making it a 3D OS -- so this can't be good for gaming - but they say they are deisgning it so it's better for gaming....contradictory I'd say -- well that's all fine and great, but I don't care about the "pretties", at least to a certain extent.

Windows XP is more than likely that last OS from them I will use, becuase of this and the security flaws, etc. It's good but -- the future form here on out ain't lookin' so bright.

I mean you can fit the Linux kernel on the floppy and boot off it, with Windows you can't quite pull that off.

Windows does tend to use a lot of resources just sitting there, unfortunately.  :-/

I hope Linux gets caught up to where it can compete and we can run all our apps, games etc. on it that normally run in windows. It's close, but not quite there.  :-/

Plus this would give MS a run for their money, causing cometition and maybe they'll improve/re-design the OS much better than they have thus far. ;D

Time will tell I guess. . . .  ;)

---

Your fortune cookie reads
"You foolishly belive in the goodness of mankind"

wrote on 06.09.03 at 01:29:42:

Windows XP is more than likely that last OS from them I will use, becuase of this and the security flaws, etc. It's good but -- the future form here on out ain't lookin' so bright. I mean you can fit the Linux kernel on the floppy and boot off it, with Windows you can't quite pull that off. Windows does tend to use a lot of resources just sitting there, unfortunately.  :-/ I hope Linux gets caught up to where it can compete and we can run all our apps, games etc. on it that normally run in windows. It's close, but not quite there.  :-/ Plus this would give MS a run for their money, causing cometition and maybe they'll improve/re-design the OS much better than they have thus far. ;D [/size]

Even if the linux kernel can be on one disk, you still would do near nothing without a Linux system installed on disk. On comparison, with MS-DOS on one disk you can do near everything you imagine and do in Linux or WIndows but much more efficiently, including networking and games.

Resources on newer WIndows OS'es are not used as they should. Check the world forgotten Windows 3.1. Can run TONS of apps using just 1 Mb of Ram for all those apps, whenever Win XP, would require only for Notepad alone 4 Mb... And apps were very efficiently designed back in the days of Windows 3.1.

Give MS a run? No chance. MS is everywhere and appreciated (sometimes for true values): federal, industry, schools, home, company users... Linux might hit network services and homw users or company users, but no more than that...

Linux may not compete in a true manner as long as:
1) It remains a fairly closed system, with few privileges and rights to modify and see the structure of the OS (as it's possible to enter everywhere and see everything inside Windows).

2) They will not concentrate on efficiency and configuration capabilities. As long as I cannot change as an user the way in which Linux accesses my hard drive and uses it (As I can in windows), nothing good.

3) If they don't make the installation of Linux simpler and more transparent to the user.

4) If they don't make the huge start-up time shorten seriously, they would never match the "supposed poor designed Windows".

5) If Linux will really make a common usage of activating services when needed. Use 0 CPU time and RAM if no Networking activity. When there appears activity, take CPU time and memory, than return.

snipped of some of the quotted text here


wrote on 22.02.03 at 07:15:37:

These problems disapeared with Me using the latest Amigamerlin drivers . Basically XP drivers need more work , until than i`m sticking to all around funtionality , and full direct x 8.1 compliance . that said the voodoo 3 runs extremely well game wise on xp , shame it didn`t have more ram . Xp is greedy on display resourses .

with Windows XP - it -can- be greedy with resourecs and RAM, but you have to disable services (or have a batch file that stops the service when you want to play games) so that the bare minimum that you need is running, as well as no programs running in the back ground.

My 3Dfx system that is on XP is:
Pentium III - 450
320MB PC-100
Voodoo 5500AGP

And it runs just great, by disabling services as mentioned.

With the new AmigaMerlin this changes things with XP, now it is more stable and performs better. Plus it is more comptible with DirectX and OpenGL than it was before.

There were some games/benchmarks that wouldn't make it with me or halt up. Now that hasn't happed with these new drivers.

XP - does require some hacks on top of disabling the un-necessary services, and it will run decently if not better.

Emulated DOS works good enough for what I need. Heck patch Quake1 with Id-softs MiniGL patch (then update it with the newer 3Dfx MiniGL - for better quality/performance) and it will run under Windows XP -- since it is now running the game through the Win32 (OpenGL) executable, but it is a DOS game running in XP technically  ;)

But for me I no longer have a need to use the command line, so go figure since Windows XP isn't providing me with Real Mode DOS, it wouldn't be usefull for me, but we all have our prefrences -- and god bless ya for it  ;D

wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:38:37:

Luckily for the Linux'User, Mandrake or Suse make the installation easier and don't forgot something : Linux was/is a free OS it needs "simply" some knowledge, time and patience   ;D

Easier, not configurable. And easier as MS do, is hard to beat...

Even if Linux is free, it is still a questionable aspect if Linux is a viable alternative to Windows. At least for now. It has to evolve at least 5 more good years to be able to compete maybe in the Windows 95 field of users.

wrote on 09.09.03 at 10:54:29:

When i see the Linux World, Linux seems an alternative to MS... perhaps the only since Beos is dead... For an young OS, 12 years old now (since L.B. Torvalds sent his famous message in the NewsGroups), the system is nice and without big enterprise behind... Hope only that Linux will stay Linux Anyway, everybody is free...

12 years. Linux has evolved, and it's no doubt. But still if someone needs a simpler and faster solution, they choose MS. Also, the kernel shows some power as oposed to MS, but in a very relative manner. Linux should be more directed to efficiency, if he is to won over a good deal of the enthusiast PC users, which is a field in which he should compete, if not for simplicity, then for quality, speed, performance and efficiency, should Linux be based upon.

However, things don't go in this direction, nor for Linux, nor for other OS'es. All OS's tend to be too big, too slow, and too keen on using a better GUI, rather than a better kernel. Yes, Linux is looking nearly as good as MS, but it's not as efficient as a fine tuned Windows. And this should make the Linux builder aware that speed should be more important sometimes than the looks, at least for end-users, or companies, who want to protect and minimize their investments, and choose linux.

Linux also lacks a major stronghold: an unified, yet simple and fast environment to build apps that communicate intimately, or through the OS, and not the tons of languages you have to learn to use each and every part of your PC, with the overall constraints on where a language ends, and where should you use a different one.

If Linux will make such a development environment, it would have the most strong force by their side: professional, trained programmers. If not, Linux will end up with the slight advantage of beeing free, and because of the big CD's filled with apps build more or less by amateurs and profesionals, but which share near nothing in common, and are builded using different concepts, and nearly oposite languages, or multiple ones.

If Linux should bet on a card, that should be a comprehensive, full language, to handle all of the PC's devices in an unified manner, and with a high level of abstractisation (you never now on which specific PC you are operating, but things go without a problem, and you don't handle with specific vendor strings for some devices).

Interesting... and I still prefer DOS or Unix to this day...  I would agree with Boiu Andrei (for once) about XP, it is a commercialy oriented OS geared towards maximizing profits and monitoring the end consumer base.

Instead of sleaker more efficient OS's we appear to be getting fatter hungrier ones.  This is bad news for the gamer and in reality every type of user...

The points about XP being netwok oriented.  It is of course a '2k service pack' and 2k itself is a direct WinNT evolution...

Win9x may be acobbled together 'program' that runs 'on top of' the Ms-DOS operating system, but it is more suitable for a standalone machine running games to their full potential... that is if it's set up correctly. ;)

Quote:

that is if it's set up correctly.

lol, you must be talking about WinME. That OS was extremely unstable for me. IMHO, 98SE seems to be the most stable OS for the average gamer; as well as for compatability.

It's not useless, just borken in some parts it is still a good OS.


wrote on 13.09.03 at 02:18:31:

lol, you must be talking about WinME. That OS was extremely unstable for me. IMHO, 98SE seems to be the most stable OS for the average gamer; as well as for compatability.

Quote:

It's not useless, just borken in some parts it is still a good OS.

Ok now, you must really have comprehension issues. I'm not going to start anything, but I never said it was "useless". I said it was "unstable".

wrote on 13.09.03 at 02:18:31:

lol, you must be talking about WinME. That OS was extremely unstable for me. IMHO, 98SE seems to be the most stable OS for the average gamer; as well as for compatability.

No I was referring to Win98SE...  I agree as far as 98SE goes...

Windows ME is a near failure as compared to Win98SE. XP might seems somewhat, as related to 2000. And we all know why: look, oveload, spyware.

Of course, XP has a big hand full of Aces in hand: marketing, strong, powefull, payed magazines, reviews, surveys. But in certain aspects as related to the strong NT base of system, it seems it has blurred into "yet another ME", leaving little to nothing left from the good design, reliable of Windows NT.

I don't think XP will convince a brained buyer to purchase it because it looks like a kids toy, or because it boots faster than 98 or 2000, or because when you hit "the magic three" the end task appears instant. If this is at a cost 3 times more than 98 (hardware, memory, price), to get the same speed as in 98, in this case XP would never win against XP...

A good point was that ME wasn't however that much advertised, and in such a lying manner as XP

"NOW YOUR PROBLEMS WITH WINDOWS ARE OVER. BRING THE BEST WITH OUR EXPERIENCE. BEST RELIABILITY, DRIVERS, NETWORK, EASE OF USE..."

Microsoft TV shut down...

...

I think you put the nail in the coffin on this one -- that was dead on!  ;)


wrote on 15.09.03 at 10:03:41:

Windows ME is a near failure as compared to Win98SE. XP might seems somewhat, as related to 2000. And we all know why: look, oveload, spyware. Of course, XP has a big hand full of Aces in hand: marketing, strong, powefull, payed magazines, reviews, surveys. But in certain aspects as related to the strong NT base of system, it seems it has blurred into "yet another ME", leaving little to nothing left from the good design, reliable of Windows NT. I don't think XP will convince a brained buyer to purchase it because it looks like a kids toy, or because it boots faster than 98 or 2000, or because when you hit "the magic three" the end task appears instant. If this is at a cost 3 times more than 98 (hardware, memory, price), to get the same speed as in 98, in this case XP would never win against XP... A good point was that ME wasn't however that much advertised, and in such a lying manner as XP "NOW YOUR PROBLEMS WITH WINDOWS ARE OVER. BRING THE BEST WITH OUR EXPERIENCE. BEST RELIABILITY, DRIVERS, NETWORK, EASE OF USE..." Microsoft TV shut down... ...

wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

Even if the linux kernel can be on one disk, you still would do near nothing without a Linux system installed on disk. On comparison, with MS-DOS on one disk you can do near everything you imagine and do in Linux or WIndows but much more efficiently, including networking and games.

LOL! With linux on one disk you can do tons of things: firewall, web/ftp server, router, etc ... You can't do almost anything network-related with DOS. And don't come and tell that TCP/IP implementation in DOS is even slightly comparable with the one in linux. Come on...


wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

Give MS a run? No chance. MS is everywhere and appreciated (sometimes for true values): federal, industry, schools, home, company users... Linux might hit network services and homw users or company users, but no more than that...

??? The number of people/organizations switching to linux is constantly increasing, especially in the public administration. We need open and transparent standards when it comes down to public administration, GNU/Linux and the open source movement can give all this. I hate that my personal informations and data are handled with a closed source software.


wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

Linux may not compete in a true manner as long as: 1) It remains a fairly closed system, with few privileges and rights to modify and see the structure of the OS (as it's possible to enter everywhere and see everything inside Windows).

LOL! You must have switched the words Linux and Windows in this sentence ;D Do you know what are you talking about?


wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

2) They will not concentrate on efficiency and configuration capabilities. As long as I cannot change as an user the way in which Linux accesses my hard drive and uses it (As I can in windows), nothing good.

I don't get what you want to say here. Linux is much more customizable than windows. Period.


wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

3) If they don't make the installation of Linux simpler and more transparent to the user.

You have a point here. Usually modern distributions' installations are easier than in windows; but when something is not recognized well or set up properly you are alone. They should improve that, but I think it's a matter of a still lacking support from hardware vendors.


wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

4) If they don't make the huge start-up time shorten seriously, they would never match the "supposed poor designed Windows".

Another good point. But starting faster is different from good design. Look at BeOS: it started in less than 10 seconds on a K6 266 with 64MB of Ram. Personally I don't mind waiting for a minute more if the system then is much faster and stabler. And usually I have to boot once a day.


wrote on 08.09.03 at 10:04:22:

5) If Linux will really make a common usage of activating services when needed. Use 0 CPU time and RAM if no Networking activity. When there appears activity, take CPU time and memory, than return.

Eh? What are you saying here? Sorry, I don't understand. I have the total control on which services are started on my linux box. And they don't eat CPU when they are idle,

I don't want to be harsh or to start a flame. I just hate when people spread FUD or don't know what they are talking about. And this just seems the case.

First of all it is unadvisable to use such a language and say: "Oooh, you are just spreding lies, you don't know anything"...

Secondly, haven seen all the Windows that existed and seen at most what they can, similar seeing most of the things that Dos can do, and seeing 2 versions of linux (Last one was RedHat Linux 9) and on very various hardware, you shouldn't judge so easly and as usually....

Back to the point...
1)Why is Linux so good, if he must partition a drive in 3 section (boot (100Mb), Work (rest of), Swap (about 300Mb)??? It's no use and no meaning to split that much the drive, and make it so that if you don't own a SCSI, you will loose performance when the HDD is seeking to reacha file on each partition...

2) Linux is a closed  system in a way. Why would someone be denied access to certain directories and files on the partition, no matter what rights you give yourself, they remain always under system control?

3)Linux is more efficient in using RAM than Windows, but not by much... Any option to control how much memory space you use for caching (buffering) files from/to your HDD? Also, Linux is using around 20 Mb for some Netscape pages (slightly as an Windows XP IE6 page open), Explorer windows (called Navigator) which use around 7Mb per window...

4)Playing media content under Linux, even with good drivers, is still under the usual quality that Windows outputs, this can be seen as not a Linux problem, but of hardware drivers releases. But if you have a conflict on Linux, it is way harder to solve than on Win (9x).

5)Programs designed for Linux are not so amazingly different in fact. Running a game like "Linux Tux" shows a good deal of inneficiently use, since it can't run properly on a K6-2 at 450 Mhz or on a P2 with a Banshee or a Savage4. And the game is really no big deal, since even on a Radeon 9000, it's not a big difference (quality +10%) or a strong increase in speed (at most 20%). On a seriously well design, the differences should be much bigger, since runing a GTA3 on a Banshee and on a Radeon 9000 is totally different in terms of speed (300% more fps).

6)Linux still is not out of the era: "it's a good system if you don't know or bother too much, and all the apps are installed by someone else.". But trying to make some space free is not as easy as in Win, and trying to understand where really are your files placed is even harder (if you don't have them in My Documents or in the Start menu)...

7)Linux is not bug free. I remember seeing an error appear with no explanation at all. And in what program, guess? Nautilus, the Explorer counterpart, when there were also running Netscape pages.

8)Linux failed constantly on 2 fields:
a)Didn't prove in true numbers that their File System is faster than FAT16, not counting the problem of large file transfers to make problems even worse...
b)Didn't proove that is efficient in using RAM, since 64Mb or RAM can get rather quickly filled up, whenever on a Win98 it would take a little longer.

9)As on Windows, the apps don't recover fully the resources they claimed when they started, nor the memory fragmentation and allocation problems (slack generated due to the memory blocks minimum size, wasting memory when the allocation unit is not filled up, but is taken by the OS as a block used...).

10)Linux failed to prove better in how much RAM an app is using. Just as Windows 9x and upper, you will need about 4MB for each app to run it (no one time load of each .dll module in RAM and then share it as Win 3x did), and this proves that the example was taken from MS os'es, and still this tehnique is known to be limited in efficiency, since the .dll modules themselves rely on other modules. When one cracks down, it takes 50% or nearly (depends on luck and app), with it, and you could press "reset" if you are really unlucky... On the other size, DOS or Win 3x apps, even if not amazing in looks, didn't take all the system with them, even when a "General protection fault occured", and survived without freezing, even to a "protected mode failure", not to mention DOS, in which I never see a PC freeze or give random errors as in other OS'es. More, apps that are 64, 128Kb in size (DOS and Win3x) are a thing of past, now you have ones that are 512Kb-5Mb, ant they load trully 10 times more...

Try to reflect a bit at this aspects that shows the "not so bright" part of Linux.

To say a good thing, yes, Linux is safer in networking, file sharing and security than MS, at least for now, and yes, it looks just as good or even better than Win, and it has way more and greater screensavers (other true values are waited to fill the list, maybe in the future)...

@B_A

I really didn't mean to reply on this Thead anymore, but I simply couldn't resist.

Some of the statements you made are correct (after all, Linux isn't the perfect, ready-for-anyone, one-size-fits-all Operating System).

But, much of the stuff you wrote is really completely out the Window.

Bottom line :
I really cannot believe someone knowing obviously so little about an Item, would actually dare to write so much about it *g*

Well, in many way's, you are an exception (unfortunately).

Linux is one (if not THE) Operating System that can hold the functionality of an Internet Router, Gateway, Firewall, misc. Networking abilities and even more in a literally tiny amount of RAM, that wouldn't even allow Windows to load anything useful.

Many dedicated Mini-Linux Distributions are running from a standard Floppy, or even completely as a Disk-less System. Now try that with Windows, let alone the available Software base able to still run in such configurations...

Apart from a few, recent, full-blown Software Packages, it is known and highly praised for it's efficiency, and ability to run even on minimal Hardware.

In many places, it allows to boldly go where Windows have never been seen working (due to above reasons).
---------------------------
But what am I talking, the presence of year-old, long known facts (remember : basics) never has seemed to affect your somewhat clouded Opinions ::)

Since so far, almost noone seems to care about this deficiency (seen on a Democratic level, more even seem to support your sometimes weird statements ?!), I shall leave it at stating my personal Opinion...  :P

Odd... just very very odd....
Actually, I don't have time for this.