LLXX

Because Microsoft is obsessed with the NT kernel, just as you are NT 6.x would be "Vista". It comes on a DVD and the install is 2Gb in size. From the Vista forums it seems to require at least 10Gb of hard disk space. I haven't installed my copy yet so I can't say anything about its performance, but I'd expect it to be quite sluggish. Definitely seems MS is wanting to make the apparent speed of computers stay the same even though the hardware is getting faster, by inventing new ways of creating inefficient software. ?? Win98 has always supported long filenames... Yes, and you can also run Windows 1.x and 2.x (v2.03 fits on a single 1.44M floppy) in a DOS window inside Win9x. Also, you can boot the GUI from running WIN at the prompt. I still boot to a command prompt by default, so I don't have to wait for the GUI to load if I want to do something simple e.g. write and print a short text file. I've tried it. Windows XP Professional on a Pentium 166 with 32Mb of RAM and a 5.2Gb HDD. It will install but seems to freeze due to the slowness. Needed over 10 minutes to boot to the desktop after the 4+hour install. Not at all "usable".

Aren't games supposed to be CPU-intensive? (Especially the newer ones).

Norton is definitely the worst. Their antivirus even misses some virii that others catch. Actually, I don't use any resident security program. I find that it just slows down the machine and takes up unneeded memory. I just secure my browser and use a hardware firewall.

Even after nLiting, it's a sluggish elephant compared to a virgin 98se install. Linux is comparable to 2K/XP but much more complex and difficult to maintain. Win9x being low performance? Quite possibly ME, but definitely not 95/98/98se. They are fast and efficient. In fact, if you took an nLited XP and changed all the icons, names, themes, etc. so that it looked exactly like 98se, you'd still feel the difference. The NT-series of OSs have a distinctly higher response time and sluggishness that is very apparent. I've tried this before, so I know.Regarding driver support, I am quite surprised to see that some hardware manufacturers actually have realmode DOS drivers, regularly updated, for their newest products.

No, it's a 32-bit DOS with an optional GUI. So what?If you've seen what could be done with a 10MHz processor and a few tens of K of RAM, you'd be wondering why NT was so resource-consuming. The DOS kernel is simple and highly efficient compared to any other OS after it. Windows 3.11 died because it was simply too limited. But we still haven't reached the limits of the 9x-series, it's just that software has gotten more inefficient so it seems that way.

If the BIOS has the capability to mount USB storage devices so they are accessible as normal hard drives under DOS, you can boot DOS from a floppy, use it to copy the install files from the USB drive to the main hard drive, and run the setup from there.

When that article you linked to was written, Windows 2000 and XP were not even introduced! Look: How many normal applications programs can you think of that use the NT Native API? Not many. Win32 is the standard. Also, don't forget that many of the native APIs are undocumented. http://www.sysinternals.com/Information/NativeApi.html

If your drive can be detected by the BIOS in its correct size, there is no problem. Free FDISK: http://www.23cc.com/free-fdisk/

I've found that a streaming video player that can play an MJPG stream will work well for viewing... Here's an interesting one: "Room 134" : http://133.5.31.7/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi

I'm running a Pentium 4 3.6HT @ 4.17GHz, which is as fast as it can go, so I think to have it run 100MHz faster wouldn't be too impossible. However, my heatsink covers half the mobo and has two 80mm fans on it...

I've never trusted any of their products... especially their antivirus which tends to leave some viruses undetected.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=64996

Tunnel through an open port.

Get a disk editor (make sure it supports LBA and direct communication with the drive), read up on how partition tables work, and recreate the partition table manually. From my experience, "automated recovery" programs tend to sometimes mess up more than they fix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_table http://www.ata-atapi.com/hiwtab.htm What is most important is locating the partition superblocks and the Extended Partition Table. The superblock for the first partition should be very close to the beginning of the disk; it can be recognised due to its distinct structure and also ending with the bytes 55,AA. Once you have found this, you can put its address into the partition table as the Primary partition and also set its size (which will be indicated in the partition superblock itself). Add this size to the start of the disk and go to ~20Gb into the drive, and look around there for the Extended Partition Table. Once that has been located, put its address and the size of the remainder of the disk into the primary partition table, and your partition table should've been rebuilt.

I use IE because it's free with any install of Windows, can be secured easily (Tool -> Internet Options -> Security), and works quite fast. I've been using IE for as long as I can remember and have never been afflicted with spyware, adware, popups, or other malware, because I know how to use and secure it. I hate FireFox because it's really creating a false sense of security among those who use it. They think that it's the best browser, it's the most secure, etc. and then wonder why they get some malware several months later.

The performance of a computer program is inversely related to its complexity. A simple kernal architecture enables system calls to be processed faster and more efficiently.In the NT-series of OSs, the kernel runs at ring 0 and entering it via the standard API interface takes considerably more instructions than in the 9x series, where the kernel resides in ring 3 and is directly callable in the same way as a normal DLL. Calling into the kernel on an NT-based system follows a long path, involving a priviledge-level switch into ring 0, where the kernel resides, to execute the system call, and then back to ring 3. Notice where the kernel resides on NT: Now, notice where the kernel ("core") resides on 9x: If you still disagree with me regarding the performance of 98se vs 2000 or XP, you should do the tests yourself. Call an API 10000 times on 98se, then on NT, on identical hardware, and compare the results.

I don't think it can be done Remember... always BACKUP!

An open-source copy protection, according to their description page?Any CD-ROM that supports raw reading should be able to copy exactly the disk with no problem... this one is extremely weak. No copy-protection system is uncrackable.

It's a feature not a bug, just like Word macros and the like. Microsoft probably intended to allow embedded code in WMF files. I have a rather strong dislike of Gibson. He overexaggerates severely and seems to know very little. I had a good laugh about that...

I've used that one before on a friend's computer that got Jeefo'd. It works very well.

Missing Some Forums Now Microsoft Studies For Noobs

Asks if I want to save the file or not... IE 6.0 here.

From a manual inspection of the file, it contains many network paths and networking-related items that look suspicious, as well as containing an appended executable. Perhaps that was why it was detected as a worm.

You don't need to install a separate ad-blocking program, an updated HOSTS file is a simple and effective solution (and one which you can manually update yourself).

If you can change the external clock you should be able to oc it. 100x11 is the default speed 1100MHz 110x11 is a 10% oc 1210MHz 120x11 is a 20% oc 1320MHz 128x11 is a 28% oc 1408MHz and would be as far as I'd go with stock cooling and voltage.