Link21 lives

[Thunderbolt 2864]

At least the NT series were more stable than 9x, so I'll stick to it. As I said, I rather use an OS that uses more RAM if its stable.

[Link21]

At least the NT series were more stable than 9x, so I'll stick to it. As I said, I rather use an OS that uses more RAM if its stable.

Exactly!! And besides, Windows 2000 and Windows XP run applications much faster and more efficiently when you have a decent amount of RAM. ENough said.

It would be interesting to see how others relate operating systems to automobiles, just like I did.

What kind of car would you compare Windows 98, WIndows XP, and etc... to?

Edited June 27, 2006 by Link21

[Fredledingue]

Link21,

It's interresting to see that with cars, the same phenomenon appeared as with M$ Oses.

I don't know to which brand and model I could compare w98 or XP, so let's just call the w98 car (which was build 10 years ago) and the XP car that is new.

The w98 car is an old car, build on technologies of the 80's and early 90's. This car use to breaking down very often and needed constant restart but it's easy to repair yourself. Take a screwdriver and after 5 minutes you go.

It's speedy, it has a nice roaring sound, fast accelaration, and for a sport car, consume very little gas!

By the time, we replaced a lot of parts from the engine and it's much more reliable now.

We did some tuning, repainted with pearled grey color to make it look more modern, added new alu wheels, new seats etc Now it looks great!

You can do almost what you want thanks to interchangeability of parts; change the engine to put a stronger one, put a tank with more capacity etc

What's nice is that as an old car, nobody wants to steal it and it's difficult to steal anyway if you don't have the keys.

The XP car is a new car, build on the most recent albeit not that recent technologies.

It can ride huge mileages without any problem and almost never breakdown. But when it does, parts cost a lot of money.

The engine is huge and heavy and when you open the hood, it's almost impossible to do anything yourself: you need special tools and a most importantly, a computer because it's full of electronic inside!

So because you don't know what to do and if you do something the engine doesn't start anymore, you just go to the car service of the official dealer.

(Mecanics working XP car must be licensed from M$-motor inc and must call the company for permission to replace parts.)

It burns a lot of gas so you need a big gas tank. It's slow and because it's automatic, you can't make it drive much faster by changing gear yourself like on w98 car.

The interior is quiet luxurious, which is nice.

They said, this car include all the newest electronic appliances but the autoradio and GPS works just as fine on w98 car: You just have to buy them separately.

The problem with the XP car is the combined remote control for the doors and the autoradio: thieves just have to have another remote controler on the same frequency and they can take your car, switch off the alarm and go! That's because of the extensive electronic integration.

XP car owners must go to the XP car service every week to replace these electronic components and add expensive extra alarm and autoblocking system.

Vista is a limo. It's so long and slow and gas consuming that you can barely drive with it. The guy with the DOS bike, goes even faster in narrow streets!

Mac car is ver good and very confortable to drive with but it uses a special type of gas that very few station provide so most of poeple use the M$-motor car.

Linux car is a nice and ecological alternative but you have to learn the new driving habits of the electric car!

Edited June 27, 2006 by Fredledingue

[Lunac]

Incredible. I kept repeating this throughout that old wINDOZEE 98 is gARbage thread last year, and I mentioned it in this one as well, few pages back. I repeat again: HAL. Hardware Abstraction Layer that is.

For some basic information go here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hardware-abstraction-layer

In my opinion, continual development of such architecture (HAL) was a half-assed attempt at pushing NT into the mainstream by attempting to correct the obvious lack of hardware support NT kernel had (and still has), at the expense of speed and performance. Also, it seriously highlighted, in my eyes at least, the lack of imagination and general lack of ability at Microsoft

I stay away from NT based operating systems for same reasons I stay away from Linux. It doesn't support hardware from 10 years ago, or hardware released few months ago. I stick with what works, and right now NT ain't it.

Much like everything from Apple is a fashion statement for your average metrosexual and/or metrosexual wannabee, NT based operating systems (and Linux as well) are fashion statements too. Only Linux and NT operating systems are directed at different segments of the consumer spectrum. Myself, I am not into fashion statements. I'm into stuff that works. Pure and simple. I leave fashion to those with more money and time than me. I'm no fanboy. I owe allegiance to no corporation or a product. If a random corporation was to come out and offer me an OS that suited my needs I would use it. I don't care if it was TalibanSoft or CommuniSoft. Simple as that.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Lunac

[eidenk]

The extra power needed to run the aero interface in the US alone is going to suck enough energy to supply an entire third world country for everything IMO.

[prx984]

The extra power needed to run the aero interface in the US alone is going to suck enough energy to supply an entire third world country for everything IMO.

lmao so true

AHHH! windows 98 car!! *runs away*

nah im just messing with ya, windows 98 is great for older computers. but, if you have a more modern computer, why not run XP? but if you wanna run 98, more power to ya, its a good os for people who know it and stuff, XP is more user friendly for the "newer" people to computers.

computers are getting more useful in and out of the work place, so more and more people are jumping onboard the PC bandwaggon and getting to know XP is nicer to look at than getting to learn 98. for me, i found 98 fairly easy, but at times i had a few problems. xp was built on the earlier OS's, they have pretty much the same UI for the most part, and stuff like that. so thats really where theyre similar. the usability of a 98 machine and an XP machine have more in common than you think. XP was built on the fixes of the mistakes in 98 and earlier.

everything above is just me talking, it could be the booze or drugs, idk. lol

-brian

Edited June 27, 2006 by brian10161

[EAT MY DUST]

http://www.pcbsd.org/

PC-BSD has as its goal to be an easy to install and use desktop OS, which is built on the FreeBSD operating system. To accomplish this, it currently has a graphical installation, which will enable even UNIX novices to easily install and getup and running. The system comes loaded with the "K" Desktop Environment (KDE), which lets users immediately sit down to a familiar interface. Also developed exclusively for PC-BSD is the PBI system, which lets users download and install their applications in a self-extracting & installing format, similar to InstallShield® on Windows®.

Edited June 28, 2006 by EAT MY DUST

[playsafe]

For me Win2K Pro is best of the lot offered by M$, not comparing it with others Like Mac or Linux. For its reliability and speed both, it is kind of inbetween to 98 and XP. I think it still is best package offered till now by the Microsoft in areas like stability and reliability. Not all that resource hungry and it Works.

I still use Win98, it surely crashes more often than XP and 2000. But when I need more speed like for games and just for routine work, for downloads i prefer it. It still annoys when it doesn't work out with applications that are made for win98 platform. XP is more luxurious without understanding wht is inside. I am anxious to see wht mess Vista will create for resources when its Final version come out.

The comparison by Fredledingue abt Oses as cars says it all. I will like to hear abt 2000 more in that comparitive perspective though.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

If you use Windows XP and 2003 and you have cable internet, they give you faster download speeds, unlike 98/ME. I received speeds over 200KB when downloading a file off from HTTP or a FTP when using XP/2003, and when I compared it to 98/ME, I got a measly speed of 30KB maximum. Lame.

You can disable the themes if XP is a bit laggy. XP and 2003 runs like a dream on my computer, its performance is so much better.

[LLXX]

If you use Windows XP and 2003 and you have cable internet, they give you faster download speeds, unlike 98/ME. I received speeds over 200KB when downloading a file off from HTTP or a FTP when using XP/2003, and when I compared it to 98/ME, I got a measly speed of 30KB maximum. Lame.

You can disable the themes if XP is a bit laggy. XP and 2003 runs like a dream on my computer, its performance is so much better.

You have not optimised your TCP parameters. XP comes with the TCP parameters set for best performance in broadband connections, but when 98se first came out broadband was not as common as it is now, so the TCP parameters are more conservative and better for dial-up use.

I can saturate my 10Mbps cable (real speed ~1.1MB/s) easily in 98se with a download manager like FlashGet.

The best setup IMO is a dualboot - I have 98se *and* XP Pro on separate HDDs, and can switch between them whenever needed. I still mainly use 98se though, the XP being reserved for running programs that absolutely demand it.

Edited June 28, 2006 by LLXX

[playsafe]

The best setup IMO is a dualboot -

Earlier I used Dual boot with 98 and XP on it and sometimes 2000 as well. But from last 6 months or so I started using Virtual machine. With VMs, I can play as rough as I want and can always revert back. Without thinking of re-installation and saving data. Certainly with VMs, resources are shared and performace is not at its peak but i can bear that bit performance loss as I dont always use heavy applications. For such applications I use windows 2000 as Host OS and shut down VMs at that time. Sensible!. is it?

[Lunac]

You can disable the themes if XP is a bit laggy

Oh, brother! Themes are the least of it.

if you have a more modern computer, why not run XP?

Like I pointed out, over and over again, NT 5.x won't run on lots of modern "computer" hardware. Get it? El no run-o.

PC-BSD has as its goal to be an easy to install and use desktop OS

Ok, stop right there. PC-BSD has even less hardware compatibility than your average Linux distro.

This is the best NT crowd has? Turn off the themes? Get a "modern computer"? (which wont fix anything really) Or switch to PC-BSD? So anything but 98? What in the...

[prx984]

98 is alright for some people, but for a lot of people, it was a terrible os and always will be. deal with it. and NT wont run on a lot of modern hardware? BS. XP and 2000 and 2003 are way better, sure they dont run as fast as 98, but meh, id rather have a little bit slower of a computer than a fast one thatll just be dumb and crash when you plug in a slightly newer piece of hardware. my card reader doesnt even work in 98, so the hell with it i say. 98 can go to hell, im sorry i ever purchased the thing. im happy i got XP pro. so much better of an operating system, MS did it right when they started the NT system.

also, i said if you have a modern computer, then why not run 98. hell im running it on my 366 PII and it runs better than 98 (which it was designed for...)

Edited June 28, 2006 by brian10161

[Petr]

If you use Windows XP and 2003 and you have cable internet, they give you faster download speeds, unlike 98/ME. I received speeds over 200KB when downloading a file off from HTTP or a FTP when using XP/2003, and when I compared it to 98/ME, I got a measly speed of 30KB maximum. Lame.

Strange. I download files from www or ftp server at speed about 450 KBps on my 4-Mbit line, with no download accelerator and no tuning of Windows 98 SE - just default install.

Petr

[MDGx]

Same here.

I tested Win98 SE fresh install [no updates, no tweaks whatsoever], and I got average download speeds of ~ 800 Kbyte/s.

I have an 8 Mbit/s cable connection [DHCP on LAN].

This is because Win98/ME OSes have by default a built-in MTU [a.k.a. IPMTU as "renamed" by M$] of 1500, ready for broadband.

FYI:

To adapt the MTU for analog/dial-up modems [548] on Win98/ME, one needs to tweak the registry:

http://www.mdgx.com/98-3.htm#98FAST

http://www.mdgx.com/98-1.htm#98SURF

or use a MTU tweaking tool:

http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#MTU

Measured with NetMeter 0.9.9.9 beta 2 [freeware]:

http://www.readerror.gmxhome.de/

HTH