C
Char Jackson
The OS of today is expected and demanded to do far more than at
anytime in the past. You can pine for the old days if you like, but
you'd have to drag me back there kicking and screaming.
The OS of today is expected and demanded to do far more than at
anytime in the past. You can pine for the old days if you like, but
you'd have to drag me back there kicking and screaming.
S
SC Tom
Maybe it was just the hardware that I had at the time, or I was just lucky, but I went directly from 98 to ME, skippingBillW50 said:
98SE along the way, and never had near the problems that I had with 98 or early XP. After the BS I went through with all
of the Win3.11 workstations we had at work (we had a number of DOS-based programs that did NOT co-exist well with 3.11),
I was happy to go to 95. Then, hearing how great 98 was, I gave it a try (we didn't migrate to it at work), and thought
eh, it's ok. The more I ran it, the worse it got. Then I went to ME and thought Bill finally got it right
It wasquick and stable, and trouble free. 98 to me was like Vista- a poor filler between two really good OS.
C
Char Jackson
I wonder what it would be like to wake up dead. Is it like waking up,
is it like being dead, or is it some zombie-like in-between thing?
B
BillW50
No a lot of people feel the same as you do. The nice thing for me is
even up to Windows 7, I can dump the stock desktop (aka shell) and use
something else. This releases me of many OS limitations. For example, I
used to with Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x pop in Command.com as the shell.
It looked like DOS and felt like DOS, but you had multitasking and GUI
applications too. Although I did switch between stock too, so I knew
both well.
But things are changing, I haven't figured out how to drop the Windows 8
desktop yet to use something else. Microsoft changed things and either
it is now done differently or Microsoft doesn't want users like me
dumping the Windows shell. I don't like my past options to be taken away.
G
glee
Char Jackson said:
Ah, the voice of sanity. There are a lot of things about Seven I do not
like at all.... particularly the Vista/Seven version of Windows
Explorer, which drives me crazy.... but overall, the system is much more
trouble-free than previous operating systems. I was a big fan of Win95,
was a very late adopter of both 98SE and XP, but eventually found them
each to be progressively better than the previous systems.... once
software and hardware companies caught up with the curve in making their
products and drivers compatible.
Y
Yousuf Khan
Awesome! Wow, it really works.
Yousuf Khan
R
richard2
Of course can use either in win98se. If the computer is improperly shut
off, the dos version runs (yea, looks just like the one from Ms-Dos). I
can also run that one from an actual dos prompt. Inside Windows, it's
the GUI one. Although the dos one can run in a command prompt window
too. Normally I use the GUI one, unless the dos one runs because the
power went out or I tripped on the cord. Defrag can be run either way
too. I have this computer set to start with a Ms-Dos screen by default.
But I can select Win98 or Win2000. I start in Dos because my still run
a dos database for my phone address list. If I want a quick phone
number, I dont have to wait for Windows to load. I can just start Win98
by typing WIN too.
This is one reason I find XP real hard to use. I cant boot to dos
first. I actually have a much newer and faster computer that came with
XP. It sits in the closet. I like my 12 year old computer with Win98.
When I bought that newer one, I swore I'd force myself to *like* XP.
But just like with women, you cant make yourself like what you just dont
like..... After fighting with it on and off for a couple weeks, I put it
in the closet. It's been in that closet for about 2 1/2 years now.
B
BillW50
Oh that problem. Yes a DOS boot disk isn't very useful for a Windows NT
OS. Although Microsoft had created WinPE to replace the DOS Startup disc
for NT OS. At first, it was hard to get a license for WinPE. And that
was being the case, a guy named Bart Lagerweij created BartPE. Which
allows you to create an ISO image of a WinPE clone from a XP system. You
can boot this from the hard drive, CD, or even a flash drive.
Bart's Preinstalled Environment (BartPE) bootable live windows CD/DVD
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
So maybe this is the missing part of XP that you don't like. BartPE can
view any Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, or even Windows 8 systems.
Although you don't have to use BartPE anymore, as WinPE is also now
freely available from Microsoft.
WinPE v1 (uses a XP kernel)
WinPE v2 (uses a Vista kernel)
WinPE v3 (uses a Windows 7 kernel)
Download: Windows® AIK for Windows® 7
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=5753
B
BillW50
Every version of Windows 3.1 and since, offered me a feature or two that
I really wanted. This worked for me all the way up to XP. And Vista,
Windows 7, and Windows 8 doesn't have any features that I could use and
want. Worse is that those later OS eats much of the processor power and
leaves much less for applications.
For example, most of my machines has no problems recording TV programs
under XP. And it can also convert the video in real time from MPEG to
say WMV format at the same time. Although any OS later since XP can't do
this without dropping video frames with any of my over 20 laptops.
Another thing that newer versions of Windows did was support for newer
applications. This also isn't doing anything for me with Vista and
Windows 7/8 either. As everything I want to run still runs under XP. And
actually, Vista and Windows 7/8 runs less of what I want to run. So for
me, these newer Windows OS are far less useful to me than XP is.
I think all of the seasoned programmers have long retired and now
Microsoft is stuck with younger programmers that have no clue what is
important with a newer OS. And they somehow seem to think that a bloated
OS is the way to go. Although that isn't my opinion, I think it should
go in the other direction.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
French writer (1900 - 1944)
B
BillW50
What is even odder, is apparently *none* of the above is actually true.
As Cambridge University had no such research study for one. I first saw
this paragraph like 7 years or so ago and I don't know where it
originally came from.
reading jumbled letters
http://dan.hersam.com/2005/01/27/reading-jumbled-letters/
And while I can't find examples right now, but others since then has
created paragraphs by the same rules which are almost impossible to
read. So I really don't understand how sometimes it works and sometimes
it doesn't.
R
richard2
I'm surprised anyone says WinME is good. I always heard bad about it,
so I avoided it. At the same time, I have to say that I rarely have
system resources problems with Win98se. Ok, there have been times when
I was running something like Agent, over 20 open web pages in Firefox or
K-Meleon, Paint Shop Pro, Thunderbird Email, Winamp is loaded, Foxit
reader has an open PDF, Five open notepad text files, A Word document,
and when a MP4 video starts playing, suddenly my icons turn black and
the mouse cursor wont move. But even I have to admit this is an
overload. I'm running all of this on a computer that came with Win2000,
but I downgraded to 98se, later installed Win2000 as dual boot. I have
500megs RAM, The CPU is a 1000mhz Intel Celeron, and I have 160 gigs of
HD space (Fat32). [I've never known if this CPU is a Pentium II or III]
I should also mention that I'm running Kernal-EX, which is a non-MS
aftermarket upgrade for Win98se, which makes it compatible with newer
software. For example, I could not run Firefox 3.x on the native 98se,
but now it will run FF3. (But none of the newer versions of FF).
I should also mention that NOTHING loads at bootup, except the files
needed to load Win98se. No virus scanner, no networks, no printers are
turned on, nothing but Windows itself. (Internet Explorer has been
removed).
T
Tim Slattery
You can have it show the extensions, of course. I don't have an XP
machine in front of me, but as I remember there's a command on the
View menu that shows a dialog box that lets you choose what to see.
The default is to hide extensions, which has never made any sense to
me. I always set it to show all extensions.
G
glee
Bill in Co said:
Not sure what you mean, Bill. Win98 also had the "File type" column in
Explorer, and did not have an "extension" column. File extensions were
shown by using Tools> Folder Options> View to uncheck "Hide extensions
for known file types" or something like that.
Windows Explorer in Vista and Seven are a bit different, and for me it
is much harder to manipulate files and folders with it. You can't
travel through the folder trees as easily, the Back button works
differently, it acts more like a web browser than a file manager, the
menus that Explorer used to have are gone... the list goes on.
Some big changes are coming for Windows Explorer in Windows 7:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/wi...coming-for-windows-explorer-in-windows-7/1020
B
BillW50
In glee typed:
The File Type isn't the same as the file extension. Sure you can show
the file extension under XP Explorer, but you don't sort by file
extension.
The File Type isn't the same as the file extension. Sure you can show
the file extension under XP Explorer, but you don't sort by file
extension.
Y
Yousuf Khan
That's still there in Windows 7, just type "Folder Options" at the
search programs and files prompt.
Yousuf Khan
Y
Yousuf Khan
Maybe if the words become too long, then the jumbling doesn't work any
more? Just as a guess, let's say that as long as the words are 7 letters
long or less, then jumbling works, but beyond that, then you do notice
what the internal letters of the words are? Just a hypothesis.
Another possibility is that it works with dyslexic people better than
with others? I'm somewhat dyslexic and I had little problem reading that
paragraph.
Yousuf Khan
Y
Yousuf Khan
I really find Windows 7's use of a search for program name
indispensable. Under XP my programs menu was incredibly large, it would
spread across 3 or 4 columns. Trying to navigate that was nightmarish.
Now, I just do a search for a partial name and it gives me a list of
possibilities. This is actually somewhat a bit of a throwback feature,
from the days before graphical interfaces, where you ran stuff on the
command-line entirely. This is a sort of modern take on the command-line.
Microsoft's older programmers were known for creating bugs more than
anything else. Spaghetti code was another description. I'd say the newer
programmers are doing a better job.
Yousuf Khan
B
BillW50
In (e-mail address removed) typed:
In my experience, it generally takes a lot of work to get ME running
really well on about 50% of computers. The other 50% doesn't have a
chance of running ME well.
I ran out of system resources just with AVG, IE, OE, and MS Word 2000.
If I could run as much as you could, I would have been fine with it.
If it is a Celeron that is what it is. A Pentium II and III are
different CPUs by Intel. Control Panel and System Properties should tell
you what CPU it is.
Yes I have heard good things about Kernal-EX. I have two Toshiba
2595XDVD from '99 era. They are maxed out with 192MB of RAM with a
Celeron 400MHz. One has Windows 98SE and the other has Windows 2000. And
the Windows 98SE is super fast compared to the Windows 2000 one. As 98
boots really fast, keeps up with DVD movies and can stream video up to
700bps. The Windows 2000 one takes 10 minutes to boot, can't keep up
with DVDs, and can only stream video at 100bps max.
It isn't Windows 2000 fault though, as I had Windows 2000 installed on
other computers and they are fine. It is just awful with 192MB of RAM as
it constantly swaps to disk even while booting up. I can tell you that
Windows 2000 isn't as good as XP as far as multimedia is concern. XP
seems to be tweaked for multimedia while 2000 seems to be tweaked for
business applications.
In my experience, it generally takes a lot of work to get ME running
really well on about 50% of computers. The other 50% doesn't have a
chance of running ME well.
I ran out of system resources just with AVG, IE, OE, and MS Word 2000.
If I could run as much as you could, I would have been fine with it.
If it is a Celeron that is what it is. A Pentium II and III are
different CPUs by Intel. Control Panel and System Properties should tell
you what CPU it is.
Yes I have heard good things about Kernal-EX. I have two Toshiba
2595XDVD from '99 era. They are maxed out with 192MB of RAM with a
Celeron 400MHz. One has Windows 98SE and the other has Windows 2000. And
the Windows 98SE is super fast compared to the Windows 2000 one. As 98
boots really fast, keeps up with DVD movies and can stream video up to
700bps. The Windows 2000 one takes 10 minutes to boot, can't keep up
with DVDs, and can only stream video at 100bps max.
It isn't Windows 2000 fault though, as I had Windows 2000 installed on
other computers and they are fine. It is just awful with 192MB of RAM as
it constantly swaps to disk even while booting up. I can tell you that
Windows 2000 isn't as good as XP as far as multimedia is concern. XP
seems to be tweaked for multimedia while 2000 seems to be tweaked for
business applications.
B
BillW50
In Yousuf Khan typed:
There are lots of utilities like that even for XP. For example Aston
Shell has that and it is so super quick. In fact, I use it on my Windows
7 machine since it is much faster than the Windows one.
I have one machine which I had like 500 applications installed. It
overwhelmed the Programs Menu. So I broke things into categories and
created new folders like Tools, Office, Games, Utilities, etc. and then
dropped the programs into each of these folders. So the Program List
became really small even with all of those programs installed.
Although nowadays I rarely ever use the Program List for anything. As I
have so many other tools like LaunchBar, Left and Right Launchers, etc.
for Windows 2000 and up.
I don't see it that way. As the updates are causing more and more
problems all of the time. Years ago you didn't have to worry about
updates screwing up your system so much. Nowadays though, updates cause
more problems than malware does for many of us. Microsoft is getting as
bad as IBM was with OS/2 FixPaks. As whenever IBM fixed one bug, they
created three more new ones. It was just awful! And what did they do
after about 50 FixPaks? Plug in all of the original code which worked
the best anyway.
There are lots of utilities like that even for XP. For example Aston
Shell has that and it is so super quick. In fact, I use it on my Windows
7 machine since it is much faster than the Windows one.
I have one machine which I had like 500 applications installed. It
overwhelmed the Programs Menu. So I broke things into categories and
created new folders like Tools, Office, Games, Utilities, etc. and then
dropped the programs into each of these folders. So the Program List
became really small even with all of those programs installed.
Although nowadays I rarely ever use the Program List for anything. As I
have so many other tools like LaunchBar, Left and Right Launchers, etc.
for Windows 2000 and up.
I don't see it that way. As the updates are causing more and more
problems all of the time. Years ago you didn't have to worry about
updates screwing up your system so much. Nowadays though, updates cause
more problems than malware does for many of us. Microsoft is getting as
bad as IBM was with OS/2 FixPaks. As whenever IBM fixed one bug, they
created three more new ones. It was just awful! And what did they do
after about 50 FixPaks? Plug in all of the original code which worked
the best anyway.
G
glee
BillW50 said:
In Win98, you couldn't sort by extension either in Windows Explorer, you
sorted by file type. There was no 'file extension" column in Details
view in Explorer It was the same as XP.