|
Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de Howard Schwartz 06/21/2006 07:40
Although I tried 2000 for a while, I now use windows 98 for most of my pc
needs. There are significant freeware tradeoffs to upgrading to MS's
latest OS, compared to staying with one that works well for you for a
number of years: Many new freeware applications only work on the
newer OS's. Many beloved old application do not work well or at
all on the newer OS's.
Generally, each new MS OS, seems to require more hardware to work decently:
more disk space, more ram, faster processor, every so often new kinds of
ports (e.g., USB), and new kinds of buses, more disk space, etc. Often
enough old working hardware needs to be replaced because of driver
problems, incompatible cables, ports, file systems (NTFS).
I stagnated at 98 because it still sports a real dos underneath, and
I retain a host of still very useful dos programs. Yet, the thing
seems more unstable and tempremental than even 95: One corrupt file or
setting somewhere, and often a complete reinstall seems the only thing
that repairs the problem.
The newer OSs, claim much better stability using NTFS, eliminating dos,
various self repair mechanisms, etc. But, one's computer then seems
doomed to never become like a car or a VCR: Once you learn it, you
learned it and it continues to do things you want in the same way
for years.
Any opinions whether to perpetually upgrade or when, why and how to
stop at a particular OS?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----