|
Re: Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de John Jay Smith 06/22/2006 03:24
I use everything from win2k upwards.
I will never install win98 on one of my machines unless I absolutely have
to. (I have some old machines laying around)/
Win98 tortured me for several years when I had to do complex graphic work
and
it kept crashing all the time.. it had very bad memory handling...
WinMe was an acknowledged abomination.
if you want to do some very basic things 9x is still ok.. but everything is
getting
updated....
I don't know about vista though.. I have been beta testing it for a long
time
and it just gives me the creeps....its the Bloat king of all OS...
What in the world do they have in 7 gb installation? Xp needed 1.5 gb....
I can understand 3 or 4.. but 7? And the ram? With 512 mb ram its still
slow... lol
When I use vista on production machines I will have to do some
customizing...
But indeed I will have to follow the advancements because of what I do,
I always need the latest technology at least on 2 machines...
so that means upgrading hardware, too.....
So it really has to do with what you want to do..... and what you want to
learn...
"Howard Schwartz" <howardbschwartz4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97E96FDD95E60howardbcaliforniacom@38.119.71.210...
> 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
> =----