XP vs 98 current thinking?

[Boomer]

That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did not
even get into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was not
publicly released until 1999.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Maybe because he/she is "ms" and knows someone at MS? ;o)

Neat trick indeed!

Thanks, Ron.

 

[Ron Martell, the assistant in childbirth]

That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did not even get
into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was not publicly released
until 1999.

More ****ing total bullshit from you, eh, Ron Not-So-Smart-as-Hell.

The SE is probably just the OP adding SE in mere error. Whereas you should
****ing well know better. Win98 was originally named "Memphis" and
subsequently "Windows 97" but Microsoft was forced to change the name yet
again when it figured it was going to miss the 1997 release date.

Win98 was in beta in 1997. I was part of the beta program when I worked for
Ashton-Tate. So shove that up your ****ing gormless arse, along with your
confusion of DisablePagingExecutive meaning the page file is disabled, you
dumb ****.

 

[Boomer]

That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did not
even get into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was not
publicly released until 1999.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Maybe because he/she is "ms" and knows someone at MS? ;o)

Neat trick indeed!

Thanks, Ron.

 

[J. S. Pack]

like scanreg /restore in 9X?

Like ERUNT. Now w/ support under Recovery Console, too.

 

[J. S. Pack]

Personally I find XP (on friends and the gfs computer)very much slower
booting up even though they have 3ghz machines and i have a 733 p3 98se
machine.

Maybe they have more startups?

Rather than getting the occasional bsod they get a nicer microsoft
xp explanation of the fault but it basically amounts to the same thing..a
fault.

It DOESN'T amount to the same thing at all. There's a VAST difference
between having to reboot the computer and merely having to restart an
offending app, or continuing work in another app. A blue screen in XP
usually implies a hardware fault that must be tediously investigated. A
blue screen in 98 probably means your app overwrote a system file (no
protection in 98) or otherwise has a conflict.

I hate all the lsass.exe and svchosts potch , when trying to set up
firewall rules for them.I hate the windows messenger spam vulnerability you
get with xp.I even disagree that 98 is bound to crash and reinstalls are
common.I havent reinstalled for well over a year , and the crash was due to
my own mistake where i accidentally set cyberscrub to delete my c drive
rather tna the contents of my recycle bin.I also hate how xp gives you
warning after warning .."do you really want to look in the windows
folder"?..this could be dangerous sorta thing..now that really bugs me.As
you can tell i personally think xp is a load of old tosh and is only good
for getting rid of the resources issue that plagues old systems.However with
good sense and managment even that is nt much of a problem.In my experience
its usually bad operators that crash w98 and not the system in itself being
unstable.
me

I suspect you're a lot better off in general w/ running XP.

 

[Ron Martell]

"Ron Martell, the assistant in childbirth"

Don't understand ?
Pity


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[bassbag]

Maybe they have more startups?


It DOESN'T amount to the same thing at all. There's a VAST difference
between having to reboot the computer and merely having to restart an
offending app, or continuing work in another app. A blue screen in XP
usually implies a hardware fault that must be tediously investigated. A
blue screen in 98 probably means your app overwrote a system file (no
protection in 98) or otherwise has a conflict.


I suspect you're a lot better off in general w/ running XP.

No they dont have more startups (not in the sense i think you mean anyway
such as av programmes messenger etc).It just takes longer to load XP on
thier computers than my windows 98se .A reboot in my experience is usually
required when an app fails in XP too (if you want to run the offending app
that is) after you get the nice microsoft explanation.I dont get BSOD very
often , and very rarly have to rebbot my machine.Most BSOD i have are caused
by software and closing that software allows work to continue.To me the cons
outweigh the pros for me to consider "upgrading" to XP , though as you say
some might like it.
me

 

[Conor]

That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did not even get
into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was not publicly released
until 1999.

WRONG.

 

[Conor]

Maybe because he/she is "ms" and knows someone at MS? ;o)

Neat trick indeed!

Thanks, Ron.

Ron is full of shit.

 

[Conor]

"Ron Martell, the assistant in childbirth"

Don't understand ?
Pity

Oh yeah forgot its standard practice to put a smiley in your posts when
you haven't a firkin clue about the facts.

 

[Ron Martell]

WRONG.

In what way?

I don't have all of the beta CDs for 98 Second Edition any more. The
one that I do have is for RC1 - build 2183 which was created on 7 Apr
1999.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Toolman Tim]

|
| >In article <[email protected]>, Ron Martell
| >says...
| >
| >> That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did not
| >> even get into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was not
| >> publicly released until 1999.
| >>
| >WRONG.
|
| In what way?
|
| I don't have all of the beta CDs for 98 Second Edition any more. The
| one that I do have is for RC1 - build 2183 which was created on 7 Apr
| 1999.
|

They (TINT) say the memory is the first to go <g>

Of course you are entirely correct, Ron. Seems these people don't understand
the difference between 98 and 98SE.

 

[Boomer]

They (TINT) say the memory is the first to go <g>

Of course you are entirely correct, Ron. Seems these people

TANTP

 

[Toolman Tim]

|
| > | >>|
| >>| >In article <[email protected]>, Ron
| >>| >Martell says...
| >>| >
| >>| >> That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did
| >>| >> not even get into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was
| >>| >> not publicly released until 1999.
| >>| >>
| >>| >WRONG.
| >>|
| >>| In what way?
| >>|
| >>| I don't have all of the beta CDs for 98 Second Edition any
| >>| more. The one that I do have is for RC1 - build 2183 which
| >>| was created on 7 Apr 1999.
| >>|
| >
| > They (TINT) say the memory is the first to go <g>
| >
| > Of course you are entirely correct, Ron. Seems these people
|
| TANTP
|

Well, I just didn't want to "name names" <g>

 

[Boomer]

| "Toolman Tim" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

| > They (TINT) say the memory is the first to go <g>
| >
| > Of course you are entirely correct, Ron. Seems these people
|
| TANTP
|

Well, I just didn't want to "name names" <g>

TY <bg>

 

[Paul Blarmy]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:46:51 +0100, bassbag wrote...

Lots of 98 computers bought from tiny /time etc (uk) came bundled with
powerquest secondchance which in my opinion is better than MEs and XPs
system restore

Or else from Evesham Micros had Go-Back installed which is still serving
me well to this day.

 

[ms]

That is a really neat trick, especially since Win98SE did not even get
into Beta testing until late in 1998 and was not publicly released
until 1999.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

You're right, my memory problem. Now that I recall, back 7 years ago, I was still
using W95, so it was probably 1999 before I migrated to W98SE. I never ran W98 by
itself. But W98SE has been running fine as I said since 1999.

Mike Sa

 

[Ron Martell]

You're right, my memory problem. Now that I recall, back 7 years ago, I was still
using W95, so it was probably 1999 before I migrated to W98SE. I never ran W98 by
itself. But W98SE has been running fine as I said since 1999.

Still use it myself, as an additional o/s on this machine and I have
as the primary o/s on another machine in the house.



Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Conor]

In what way?

THe way which involved me reading SE and ignoring it

 

[H-Man]

What I'm getting at is... where is your "here"?

I understand the message being at 24H but not at ACF.

Duh? Actually it was at ACF, hadn't looked to see this was crossposted.
Sorry all.