|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
rferoni
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:47 pm Post subject: which version of windows????? |
 |
|
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Will Dormann
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
rferoni wrote:
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
|
If you want reliable, forget about anything Win9x.
XP or Win2k should suit you just fine.
-WD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tinklemagoo
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming.
Is XP all that? |
I will only upgrade to XP when game makers ditch w98se :-(
Only then will i get XP of course Longhorn or whatever will by then have
started to replace XP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phisherman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:47:51 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Ron
|
I have Windows 98SE. It runs all my applications and is very stable.
That's all I care about. I don't like WinXP's licensing and high
cost. I might load Linux someday. However, Windows XP is probably
the most recommended O/S today and it will browse, email, and run most
games you can find. If you have the extra money the Pro version is
better than the Home version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patch
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
"rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MKCdnYbNH7FXE0miRVn-tw@comcast.com...
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming.
Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Ron
I have a dual-boot XP & Win98, I rarely use the XP. It's a pain in the butt. |
After replacing a video card, I had to call MS to re-activate it. Finding
drivers is another problem. Getting games to run correctly is a pain. I'll
use Win98 for as long as I can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Gary Tait
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:12 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:14:12 GMT, Phisherman <nobody@noone.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:47:51 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com
wrote:
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Ron
I have Windows 98SE. It runs all my applications and is very stable.
That's all I care about. I don't like WinXP's licensing and high
|
The licensing is the same as with all other MS OSes, it just has a
Product Activation, which will be no problem for legitimate users.
AFAIK, the XP Home upgrade and full retail is on par with what Win98
sold for.
| Quote: | cost. I might load Linux someday. However, Windows XP is probably
the most recommended O/S today and it will browse, email, and run most
games you can find. If you have the extra money the Pro version is
better than the Home version. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon Danniken
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:33 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
"rferoni" wrote:
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
|
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. As for myself, I am running *very* happy with Win2kPro on my
machine, and you couldn't *pay* me to go over to XP.
Jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maintane
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:22 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
If its for your mom, go XP...it does make some things easier and is very
stable. Microsoft announced today that they are retiring Win98 and it will
be no longer available to consumers after Dec 15th...part of the settlement
with Sun. I just built one for my mom's Christmas present with WinXP to
replace her 98 machine because of the ease of picture management, etc.
mb
"rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CKudnVcUZPd3bEmiRVn-tw@comcast.com...
| Quote: | Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........
Ron
"Will Dormann" <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:o01Bb.55531$tu1.36689@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
| rferoni wrote:
|
| > All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and
gaming.
Is
| > XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the
different
| > versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest
and
| > greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
|
|
| If you want reliable, forget about anything Win9x.
|
| XP or Win2k should suit you just fine.
|
|
| -WD
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Strand
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:25 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:47:51 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Ron
|
As you might be able to tell this machine is a Windows box (XP).
However the other box here is Linux (Mandrake 9.2).
Don't rule out the excellent alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Interious
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
Win2KPro SP2. It is mature, stable, and fast.
XP has slowed down every machine I've seen. I see nothing to recommend
it over win2k.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:47:51 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Ron
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Ancra
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:50:48 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........
Ron
|
XP is better for the... uh... eh... common user.
Since I actually have some knowledge of 9x (actually Win95, many years
ago) internals:
A small hole in 9x memory protection has recieved much publicity. In
reality 9x memory protection rarely fails. It's not the problem.
Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being *** up.
Thing is, since Win9x doesn't wear any knickers and has a very short
skirt, that sort of situation can happen very easily.
But if you install and configure your W9x carefully, and don't
'experiment' with driver installs and don't mess around with a lot of
real mode drivers, 'early' demos or shady 'cracked' software, Win9x
should run fine for months between system crashes. Mine always have
since W95.
But some people have real problems with W9x, for whatever reasons.
Multiple crashes a day. And though the same can be said for NT,
experience shows that they benefit from a change to NT or XP, so all
problems cannot be attributed to hardware ;-).
I have one Win98SE and three XPpro PCs. I love 98SE for its speed when
ram is scarce, and willingness to run older stuff. But XP is MS best
effort yet. For your mom, that's what I'd choose. And do it NTFS only.
No FAT32, no dual boot. And arrange for her to login on an account
without administrator rights, for normal use.
ancra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rferoni
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:02 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
what is NTFS??
ron
"Ancra" <someaddress@some.domain> wrote in message
news:3fd5f4d8.13607035@nntpserver.swip.net...
| On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:50:48 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com>
| wrote:
|
| >Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
| >building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
| >what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........
| >
| >Ron
|
| XP is better for the... uh... eh... common user.
|
| Since I actually have some knowledge of 9x (actually Win95, many years
| ago) internals:
| A small hole in 9x memory protection has recieved much publicity. In
| reality 9x memory protection rarely fails. It's not the problem.
| Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
| 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
| 2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
| in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
| priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being *** up.
|
| Thing is, since Win9x doesn't wear any knickers and has a very short
| skirt, that sort of situation can happen very easily.
| But if you install and configure your W9x carefully, and don't
| 'experiment' with driver installs and don't mess around with a lot of
| real mode drivers, 'early' demos or shady 'cracked' software, Win9x
| should run fine for months between system crashes. Mine always have
| since W95.
|
| But some people have real problems with W9x, for whatever reasons.
| Multiple crashes a day. And though the same can be said for NT,
| experience shows that they benefit from a change to NT or XP, so all
| problems cannot be attributed to hardware ;-).
|
| I have one Win98SE and three XPpro PCs. I love 98SE for its speed when
| ram is scarce, and willingness to run older stuff. But XP is MS best
| effort yet. For your mom, that's what I'd choose. And do it NTFS only.
| No FAT32, no dual boot. And arrange for her to login on an account
| without administrator rights, for normal use.
|
|
| ancra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeffc
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:14 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
"rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wJOdneCzkamp20uiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
A file system (NT File System). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shepİ
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:27 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:02:42 -0500 Not letting inanimate objects know
I'm a in a hurry "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com> wrote :
New Technology File System which can be used by NT based systems like
Win2k/Win XP etc.
Supposedly les prone to data corruption and can be made more secure
and does not have the partition and file size limits of FAT and FAT32.
| Quote: | ron
"Ancra" <someaddress@some.domain> wrote in message
news:3fd5f4d8.13607035@nntpserver.swip.net...
| On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:50:48 -0500, "rferoni" <rferoni@hotmail.com
| wrote:
|
| >Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
| >building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
| >what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........
|
| >Ron
|
| XP is better for the... uh... eh... common user.
|
| Since I actually have some knowledge of 9x (actually Win95, many years
| ago) internals:
| A small hole in 9x memory protection has recieved much publicity. In
| reality 9x memory protection rarely fails. It's not the problem.
| Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
| 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
| 2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
| in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
| priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being *** up.
|
| Thing is, since Win9x doesn't wear any knickers and has a very short
| skirt, that sort of situation can happen very easily.
| But if you install and configure your W9x carefully, and don't
| 'experiment' with driver installs and don't mess around with a lot of
| real mode drivers, 'early' demos or shady 'cracked' software, Win9x
| should run fine for months between system crashes. Mine always have
| since W95.
|
| But some people have real problems with W9x, for whatever reasons.
| Multiple crashes a day. And though the same can be said for NT,
| experience shows that they benefit from a change to NT or XP, so all
| problems cannot be attributed to hardware ;-).
|
| I have one Win98SE and three XPpro PCs. I love 98SE for its speed when
| ram is scarce, and willingness to run older stuff. But XP is MS best
| effort yet. For your mom, that's what I'd choose. And do it NTFS only.
| No FAT32, no dual boot. And arrange for her to login on an account
| without administrator rights, for normal use.
|
|
| ancra
|
--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Will Dormann
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:50 am Post subject: Re: which version of windows????? |
|
|
Ancra wrote:
| Quote: | Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being *** up.
|
My primary reason for switching from Win9x was the "resources" problem
with the entire line. If you run too many programs at once and your
GDI or User resources drops below a certain level... BAM! The whole
system crashes. You don't even have to be running a ton of programs at
once, either. All it takes is one or two poorly coded programs to suck
up your Win9x resources. (I just noticed today on my parents' machine
that SpyBot Search & Destroy uses lots of resources)
WinNT/2k/XP do not have this same resource limitation. Run as many
programs as you like. The worst thing that'll probably happen is that
the system will slow down as it starts swapping.
For this reason, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Win9x is
significantly less stable.
-WD
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups