|
Re: Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de Roger Johansson 06/21/2006 09:23
Howard Schwartz wrote:
> I stagnated at 98 because it still sports a real dos underneath, and
> I retain a host of still very useful dos programs.
I have used win2000 for a couple of weeks now and I think it is better
than win98se, programs which often crashed before are stable now.
And I still have some kind of DOS, I can open a DOS console and use DOS
commands.
The only program that has stopped working, so far, is ATM, Another Task
Manager, which said it only works under win98 and closed itself. It is
easily replaced by process explorer and other programs from
sysinternals.com.
>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.
I have everything backed up with norton ghost partition imaging, so it
is no catastrophy if the system crashes. No signs of any instability so
far.
I tried replacing notepad.exe with metapad, and found out that this
win2000 system defends itself against such attempts, it just restores
the real notepad.exe.
I don't need a launch bar because I use Total Commander, which has a
toolbar where I put the programs I use often. Otherwise I would maybe
use powerpro, but this saves me an extra program running.
Powerpro is a very good program, but when it crashes it crashes very
hard, at least in win98, that's why I stopped using it.
(TC and ghost are payware, they are among the very few programs I use
which are not freeware)
--
Roger J.