P
Paul
David said:
Yeah, that's the walled garden approach for you.
Maybe we'll have to hack the UEFI
No problemo.Nothing a soldering iron can't fix. (Two ROMs and switch
between them.)
Paul
Yeah, that's the walled garden approach for you.
Maybe we'll have to hack the UEFI
No problemo.Nothing a soldering iron can't fix. (Two ROMs and switch
between them.)
Paul
B
BeeJ
And ... MS is still providing patches to XP so maybe it is a much more
stable / safe OS that Vista or Win7 (?)
stable / safe OS that Vista or Win7 (?)
M
Mint
I agree with you totally.
Too many people are materialistic and forget that God gave them
everything they have.
Andy
M
Mayayana
I don't "plan" to upgrade. I buy a new one when the old one
I agree with you totally.
Too many people are materialistic and forget that God gave them
everything they have.
----------
Yet one can see how so many people end up thinking
they need to "upgrade". Here's an example from a couple
of days ago:
http://www.businessinsider.com/micr...ness-plan-for-windows-in-big-companies-2012-2
Business Insider shamelessly ran a Microsoft PR piece
that's really not news in any way. But what do they care,
so long as it provides something to fill the space between
ads? In the piece, the "Microsoft investor relations chief"
shamelessly proclaims that MS needs to get businesses sold
on Win7 so that they can then sell them Win8, without
losing out on a version sale that the businesses clearly
don't need. The man is saying, without any attempt to conceal
it, that MS needs to cheat their customers before it's too late!
That kind of MS PR fluff, usually posed as expert tech. advice,
gets published almost daily, generated by either MS or one
of the numerous "analyst groups" that issues recommendations
to business.
I agree with you totally.
Too many people are materialistic and forget that God gave them
everything they have.
----------
Yet one can see how so many people end up thinking
they need to "upgrade". Here's an example from a couple
of days ago:
http://www.businessinsider.com/micr...ness-plan-for-windows-in-big-companies-2012-2
Business Insider shamelessly ran a Microsoft PR piece
that's really not news in any way. But what do they care,
so long as it provides something to fill the space between
ads? In the piece, the "Microsoft investor relations chief"
shamelessly proclaims that MS needs to get businesses sold
on Win7 so that they can then sell them Win8, without
losing out on a version sale that the businesses clearly
don't need. The man is saying, without any attempt to conceal
it, that MS needs to cheat their customers before it's too late!
That kind of MS PR fluff, usually posed as expert tech. advice,
gets published almost daily, generated by either MS or one
of the numerous "analyst groups" that issues recommendations
to business.
J
Johannes A Van KootenIN THE UK SINCE LATE 80s
"Mint" wrote in message
I agree with you totally.
Too many people are materialistic and forget that God gave them
everything they have.
Andy
I agree with you totally.
Too many people are materialistic and forget that God gave them
everything they have.
Andy
J
jw
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:34:31 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
STILL USE XP????
I still use Win98.
I never liked XP, and never used it on my home computer. It came on my
laptop, and I found that the built in wifi dont work with anything
earlier. But that computer is just for use on the road. I can run
firefox and agent. Thats all I need on the road.
I can tolrate Win2000, but nothing later.
STILL USE XP????
I still use Win98.
I never liked XP, and never used it on my home computer. It came on my
laptop, and I found that the built in wifi dont work with anything
earlier. But that computer is just for use on the road. I can run
firefox and agent. Thats all I need on the road.
I can tolrate Win2000, but nothing later.
B
BillW50
In
How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95, and
98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or so. Lack
of drivers is probably the worst. And lack of application support is
probably number two. Another problem with Windows 98 that really
bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources. How do you
put up with that?
Windows 2000 was a godsend. That Resource problem disappeared, but it
was a slow bloated pig on a Celeron 400MHz with 192MB of RAM (maxed out)
on my Windows 98 machine. And Windows 2000 didn't normally need drivers
for such things like USB devices like Windows 98 always did. But Windows
98 really did play DVD movies really well even on modest machines. Only
if Linux could do so well.
I never liked the early XP. But around 2005, I thought it was ready for
primetime and I loved it ever since. And with SP2 and SP3, I believe
Microsoft really did a very good job with XP (and it had taken them long
enough). And I believe Microsoft made a huge mistake marketing-wise with
XP by making it so good.
As earlier versions of Windows, always lacked a *must* have feature that
made me to want to upgrade. Although Vista and Windows 7 doesn't have
any must have features that I need. And I believe this is true of
millions of others as well. And thus Microsoft made XP too good.
Windows 3.1 lacked long file support. Time to upgrade.
Windows 95 lacked USB support. Time to upgrade.
Windows 98 lacked unlimited System Resources and limited USB support.
Time to upgrade.
Windows 2000 does very well, but lacked the support that XP enjoys. And
Windows 2000 is more focused on business use rather than consumer use.
Windows XP does everything I want to do and run.
Vista and Windows 7 takes a step backwards for me. As they run less
applications and has less driver support than XP has. Plus Vista and
Windows 7 runs slower than crap on a single core CPU (they really need
multi-core machines to run well). Plus they don't run games as well
either as well as XP can.
I say this after having three Windows 7 machines too. And I updated two
of them back to XP once again. ;-)
"We're thinking about upgrading from SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." -- Henry
Spencer
How? While I still have a warm spot in my heart for Windows 3.1, 95, and
98, although I cannot use them for about the last 10 years or so. Lack
of drivers is probably the worst. And lack of application support is
probably number two. Another problem with Windows 98 that really
bothered me was constantly running out of System Resources. How do you
put up with that?
Windows 2000 was a godsend. That Resource problem disappeared, but it
was a slow bloated pig on a Celeron 400MHz with 192MB of RAM (maxed out)
on my Windows 98 machine. And Windows 2000 didn't normally need drivers
for such things like USB devices like Windows 98 always did. But Windows
98 really did play DVD movies really well even on modest machines. Only
if Linux could do so well.
I never liked the early XP. But around 2005, I thought it was ready for
primetime and I loved it ever since. And with SP2 and SP3, I believe
Microsoft really did a very good job with XP (and it had taken them long
enough). And I believe Microsoft made a huge mistake marketing-wise with
XP by making it so good.
As earlier versions of Windows, always lacked a *must* have feature that
made me to want to upgrade. Although Vista and Windows 7 doesn't have
any must have features that I need. And I believe this is true of
millions of others as well. And thus Microsoft made XP too good.
Windows 3.1 lacked long file support. Time to upgrade.
Windows 95 lacked USB support. Time to upgrade.
Windows 98 lacked unlimited System Resources and limited USB support.
Time to upgrade.
Windows 2000 does very well, but lacked the support that XP enjoys. And
Windows 2000 is more focused on business use rather than consumer use.
Windows XP does everything I want to do and run.
Vista and Windows 7 takes a step backwards for me. As they run less
applications and has less driver support than XP has. Plus Vista and
Windows 7 runs slower than crap on a single core CPU (they really need
multi-core machines to run well). Plus they don't run games as well
either as well as XP can.
I say this after having three Windows 7 machines too. And I updated two
of them back to XP once again. ;-)
"We're thinking about upgrading from SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." -- Henry
Spencer
B
BillW50
In
Sounds nice, but not very convincing to me. I am still using Word 2000
and I have tried many others. But nothing does what I need better than
Word 2000.
Char said:
Sounds nice, but not very convincing to me. I am still using Word 2000
and I have tried many others. But nothing does what I need better than
Word 2000.
9
98 Guy
BillW50 said:
Lack of drivers has only really affected win-98 since maybe early 2006.
More than 75% of the hardware (motherboards, video cards) available at
retail in early 2006 still came with win-98 drivers.
My own win-98 systems have socket-478 or socket-775 intel pentium CPU's
running anywhere from 2.6 to 3.5 ghz, with 512mb and 1 gb ram, with SATA
hard drives up to 1.5 tb in size, with Nvidia 6200 and 6600 AGP 8x video
cards.
Take a system like that, add KernelEx, and there isin't much software
that you can't run on it.
KernelEx.
But truth be told, Firefox 2.0.0.20 (the last "win-9x/me" version) can
still correctly render 99% of web pages today. But with KernelEx, you
can go to higher versions of FF. I have Opera 11 when I absolutely need
to access a handful of web-sites, but otherwise FF 2 is my default
browser.
It's no issue, because you're recalling the days back in 1999 - 2001
when your average win-98 system was running with maybe 62 or 128 mb of
ram and had buggy hardware drivers AND application programs. Over the
next 2 to 4 years drivers and software improved.
I simply don't have resource problems - and I have a taskbar with
usually 10 or 20 apps running at any given time.
There are universal USB drivers for win-98. System resources are no
problem.
M
Mayayana
| Same goes for decent hardware, the maker
| usually supports it with their own driver. If maker doesn't care enough
to
| do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway.
|
I think that's a bit optimistic. I switched to XP from
98 because of hardware. There simply isn't a market
for companies to write drivers. And some, like video
hardware, are products that depend on forced
obsolescence. If they're not constantly convincing
teenagers that their video games are suffering under
last years' chip then they're out of business. And even
the few people who might be running Win98 wouldn't
have any reason to update to such advanced graphics
hardware. But they also can't just go and buy an 8MB
ATI card with Win98 drivers at Staples. The hardware
just isn't there anymore.
I had an interesting experience at one point before I
siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via
site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
by lying.
| usually supports it with their own driver. If maker doesn't care enough
to
| do that, it's a BAD idea to use their hardware anyway.
|
I think that's a bit optimistic. I switched to XP from
98 because of hardware. There simply isn't a market
for companies to write drivers. And some, like video
hardware, are products that depend on forced
obsolescence. If they're not constantly convincing
teenagers that their video games are suffering under
last years' chip then they're out of business. And even
the few people who might be running Win98 wouldn't
have any reason to update to such advanced graphics
hardware. But they also can't just go and buy an 8MB
ATI card with Win98 drivers at Staples. The hardware
just isn't there anymore.
I had an interesting experience at one point before I
siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via
site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
by lying.
M
Mayayana
| Sounds nice, but not very convincing to me. I am still using Word 2000
| and I have tried many others. But nothing does what I need better than
| Word 2000.
|
Just as well. MS is trying to move to a rental system.
I saw an article the other day explaining that the next
Office Academic version will require a Windows Live ID.
(Read "online tracking collar".) Then the student will have
to register online with a valid school email address. There
will be no activation code. It will be a machine-locked
download.
It's a very clever strategy. MS just brings in one little
limitation or intrusion at a time: Constant automatic updates;
services that go online without asking; product activation
that provides an excuse for calling home, and establishes
a tradition of OEM licensing that essentially locks a Windows
license to the hardware it comes on; system lockdown
that allows MS to access files that you can't access...
There are good excuses for all of the above. Nevertheless,
after all these years Microsoft have got an OS that they can
control remotely, allowing them to control what runs on it.
And most people never actually bought Windows, so it's
not much of a stretch to tell them that "this is how PCs work".
People are becoming so accustomed to the intrusion that
MS can begin converting software to paid service. It's
reported that IE and MS Office will be pre-installed on
Win8 Metro on ARM chips, and will be the only compiled
software allowed on ARM. (Tablets, phones and perhaps
eventually low-end PCs.) That sounds to me like a subscription
plan. And they won't have to worry about Libre Office. It
can't be installed unless it's a web-app trinket approved for
sale through the online Microsoft Store!
....Which doesn't even address the bloat and ridiculous
prices for MS Office. It's the same situation as with Windows:
No one with any sense "upgrades" simply because there's
a new version. They upgrade because the office workers
in the company down the hall have a newer version and
they're embarassed. They don't want to have to say, "Can
you convert that file to the old type? We don't have Office
Current here because we're losers."
(Sounds snide, I know, but I've known a number of people
who have told me as much. People are quick to feel stupid
if they don't know about Office, and to feel cheap or
unsuccessful if they don't have the latest version. When you
think about it, the MS Office market altogether is mainly
built around the desire of people in offices to write files that
look as official and logo-festooned as the files they write
on paper -- files that make them look like important people.
The lingua franca of the white collar world is officiality. And
MS Office is an officiality standard. To have an outdated version
of an importance-creation device like that is a unique sort of
embarassment.
| and I have tried many others. But nothing does what I need better than
| Word 2000.
|
Just as well. MS is trying to move to a rental system.
I saw an article the other day explaining that the next
Office Academic version will require a Windows Live ID.
(Read "online tracking collar".) Then the student will have
to register online with a valid school email address. There
will be no activation code. It will be a machine-locked
download.
It's a very clever strategy. MS just brings in one little
limitation or intrusion at a time: Constant automatic updates;
services that go online without asking; product activation
that provides an excuse for calling home, and establishes
a tradition of OEM licensing that essentially locks a Windows
license to the hardware it comes on; system lockdown
that allows MS to access files that you can't access...
There are good excuses for all of the above. Nevertheless,
after all these years Microsoft have got an OS that they can
control remotely, allowing them to control what runs on it.
And most people never actually bought Windows, so it's
not much of a stretch to tell them that "this is how PCs work".
People are becoming so accustomed to the intrusion that
MS can begin converting software to paid service. It's
reported that IE and MS Office will be pre-installed on
Win8 Metro on ARM chips, and will be the only compiled
software allowed on ARM. (Tablets, phones and perhaps
eventually low-end PCs.) That sounds to me like a subscription
plan. And they won't have to worry about Libre Office. It
can't be installed unless it's a web-app trinket approved for
sale through the online Microsoft Store!
....Which doesn't even address the bloat and ridiculous
prices for MS Office. It's the same situation as with Windows:
No one with any sense "upgrades" simply because there's
a new version. They upgrade because the office workers
in the company down the hall have a newer version and
they're embarassed. They don't want to have to say, "Can
you convert that file to the old type? We don't have Office
Current here because we're losers."
(Sounds snide, I know, but I've known a number of people
who have told me as much. People are quick to feel stupid
if they don't know about Office, and to feel cheap or
unsuccessful if they don't have the latest version. When you
think about it, the MS Office market altogether is mainly
built around the desire of people in offices to write files that
look as official and logo-festooned as the files they write
on paper -- files that make them look like important people.
The lingua franca of the white collar world is officiality. And
MS Office is an officiality standard. To have an outdated version
of an importance-creation device like that is a unique sort of
embarassment.
B
BillW50
In
I don't know why they said FF2 renders ok? As I rather use Xandros EeePC
any day over than Ubuntu. But Xandros EeePC has an older kernel that
only works with FF2 tops. And FF2 just doesn't render the web pages I go
to worth a darn since the last year or two. I have some computers here
that still has IE6 installed. And IE6 does a far better job than FF2
does.
Lostgallifreyan said:
I don't know why they said FF2 renders ok? As I rather use Xandros EeePC
any day over than Ubuntu. But Xandros EeePC has an older kernel that
only works with FF2 tops. And FF2 just doesn't render the web pages I go
to worth a darn since the last year or two. I have some computers here
that still has IE6 installed. And IE6 does a far better job than FF2
does.
B
BillW50
In
I don't see that working for me. As I need Microsoft OE6, Microsoft Word
2000, and the Windows Media Player v9 at least. And those by themselves
were enough to drain all of the W98 System Resources.
Yeah you are probably right. But I have been down those roads many times
in my youthful days. But now I am older and I rather take the easier
route. There was a time in my life when it was a big thrill to do the
things that the experts said couldn't be done. Sure it wasn't easy, but
it was fun. Although it still isn't easy, although it is no longer fun
either. :-(
I would love to run Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 once again. And I am not
talking about under a virtual machine. As that just isn't the same thing
to me. But I don't see myself getting too much done with them anymore.
As the XP world allows me to do what they can, plus tons more. ;-)
Lostgallifreyan said:
I don't see that working for me. As I need Microsoft OE6, Microsoft Word
2000, and the Windows Media Player v9 at least. And those by themselves
were enough to drain all of the W98 System Resources.
Yeah you are probably right. But I have been down those roads many times
in my youthful days. But now I am older and I rather take the easier
route. There was a time in my life when it was a big thrill to do the
things that the experts said couldn't be done. Sure it wasn't easy, but
it was fun. Although it still isn't easy, although it is no longer fun
either. :-(
I would love to run Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 once again. And I am not
talking about under a virtual machine. As that just isn't the same thing
to me. But I don't see myself getting too much done with them anymore.
As the XP world allows me to do what they can, plus tons more. ;-)
B
BillW50
In
I see. And that would bother me. As early 2006 machines just doesn't cut
it for me today. Although later 2006 to 2008 are my favorite machines. I
am not impressed with newer machines than that.
You are running W98 with SATA drives? How do you get that too work? And
what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
advantages to using more.
You see, something just doesn't sound right to me. As my experience with
such stuff in the past was they are never quite as great as the claims.
Remember Lindows? Yes impressive, not.
The last year or two, using FF2 I thought it stunk. People say using IE6
is bad at rendering nowadays. Heck that is nothing compared to how bad
pages look under FF2.
Yeah I could open 50 Notepads with Windows 3.1 too. I am not sure who
would want to, but you could. Although one Yahoo Instant Messenger would
pull down the whole W98 system. That isn't too useful to me either.
Really? Since when? That would be really sweet. As it would be wonderful
if I could plug in any FAT32 formatted flash drive and W98 could
actually read it without a special driver for that flash drive.
I don't see how? W98 uses 128kb heaps if I recall correctly. And
enlarging them is said to be only possible with a major OS rewrite. And
I don't see this as being worth anybodies time to do so.
98 said:
I see. And that would bother me. As early 2006 machines just doesn't cut
it for me today. Although later 2006 to 2008 are my favorite machines. I
am not impressed with newer machines than that.
You are running W98 with SATA drives? How do you get that too work? And
what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
advantages to using more.
You see, something just doesn't sound right to me. As my experience with
such stuff in the past was they are never quite as great as the claims.
Remember Lindows? Yes impressive, not.
The last year or two, using FF2 I thought it stunk. People say using IE6
is bad at rendering nowadays. Heck that is nothing compared to how bad
pages look under FF2.
Yeah I could open 50 Notepads with Windows 3.1 too. I am not sure who
would want to, but you could. Although one Yahoo Instant Messenger would
pull down the whole W98 system. That isn't too useful to me either.
Really? Since when? That would be really sweet. As it would be wonderful
if I could plug in any FAT32 formatted flash drive and W98 could
actually read it without a special driver for that flash drive.
I don't see how? W98 uses 128kb heaps if I recall correctly. And
enlarging them is said to be only possible with a major OS rewrite. And
I don't see this as being worth anybodies time to do so.
C
Char Jackson
Maybe they meant that they no longer supported that OS. That wouldn't
have been a lie.
M
Mayayana
| And
| what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
| added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
| advantages to using more.
|
Why not? Though I never went above 256 MB RAM
on Win98 and it was plenty for me. There's also a
patch to allow CPUs over 2.2 GHz:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];312108
(Unfortuanely MS has removed the download link.)
| what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine? Sure I have
| added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before. But I never saw any
| advantages to using more.
|
Why not? Though I never went above 256 MB RAM
on Win98 and it was plenty for me. There's also a
patch to allow CPUs over 2.2 GHz:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];312108
(Unfortuanely MS has removed the download link.)
B
BillW50
In
I don't know if I could claim such a thing. I remember back in late
2006, many users seemed very excited about Vista. This is before the
release of Vista by a few months. And the word was to wait to purchase a
new computer until Vista came out so you could get Vista instead of XP.
And I boldly said back then, that I didn't see me needing Vista until at
least 2011. When I figured possibly when hardware and newer applications
just wouldn't run under XP anymore. Well 2011 came and went and now it
looks like I'll never need Vista at all. And all of those people who
couldn't wait for Vista just aren't excited about Vista anymore.
I have been playing with Windows 7 since 2009. Although I still use my
XP mainly even today. I don't care much for Windows 7 to be honest. As
unlike previous Windows versions like XP and before, there was a
worthwhile reason to upgrade. I don't see this with Vista or Windows 7.
Worse, it seems to be a step backward to me. As XP runs 100% of what I
want to run right now. And Windows 7 only runs 95% of what I want to
run. So why bother switching any of my computers from XP to Windows 7?
As I don't see the point.
And I am feeling pretty confident in thinking I can get another 5 years
out of my XP machines from now. Which would mean getting about 12 years
out of my XP machines. And I have been buying PCs since '81, and
previously my record was about 6 years tops before it was so outdated it
just wasn't useful to me anymore. XP just isn't following the previous
Microsoft OS cycles. And who knows? Maybe some of us might still be
using XP for another 10 to 15 years from now. ;-)
Colin said:
I don't know if I could claim such a thing. I remember back in late
2006, many users seemed very excited about Vista. This is before the
release of Vista by a few months. And the word was to wait to purchase a
new computer until Vista came out so you could get Vista instead of XP.
And I boldly said back then, that I didn't see me needing Vista until at
least 2011. When I figured possibly when hardware and newer applications
just wouldn't run under XP anymore. Well 2011 came and went and now it
looks like I'll never need Vista at all. And all of those people who
couldn't wait for Vista just aren't excited about Vista anymore.
I have been playing with Windows 7 since 2009. Although I still use my
XP mainly even today. I don't care much for Windows 7 to be honest. As
unlike previous Windows versions like XP and before, there was a
worthwhile reason to upgrade. I don't see this with Vista or Windows 7.
Worse, it seems to be a step backward to me. As XP runs 100% of what I
want to run right now. And Windows 7 only runs 95% of what I want to
run. So why bother switching any of my computers from XP to Windows 7?
As I don't see the point.
And I am feeling pretty confident in thinking I can get another 5 years
out of my XP machines from now. Which would mean getting about 12 years
out of my XP machines. And I have been buying PCs since '81, and
previously my record was about 6 years tops before it was so outdated it
just wasn't useful to me anymore. XP just isn't following the previous
Microsoft OS cycles. And who knows? Maybe some of us might still be
using XP for another 10 to 15 years from now. ;-)
M
Mayayana
|
| > I had an interesting experience at one point before I
| >siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
| >either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
| >chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
| >Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via
|
| Maybe they meant that they no longer supported that OS. That wouldn't
| have been a lie.
|
No, they lied. They offered a driver download. And they said
there was no Win9x version. But they didn't mention that
actually the drivers were not theirs in the first place. The
drivers are for the chipset. The chipset was Via. Via
supported Win98. To offer repackaged drivers but say Win98
is not supported was deliberately misleading.... which was known
as "lying" in the days before P.C. speech.
But I suppose you're right in a way. It's possible that the
action was an expression lazy and/or incompetent negligence
rather than outright lying. Something like "innocent by reason
of systemic amorality".
I find that kind of thing is actually very common. Probably
because it's slightly murky. It's easy to think that one is
not really lying when misleading people by omission or
misinformation rather than blatant lying. For instance, I
was buying a certain type of Benjamin Moore paint for
years after 2 stores I knew claimed it was no longer being
made. They didn't want the added expense of carrying
numerous product lines, so they just discontinued some
of them. But they didn't want customers going to competitors,
so they told them the products in question had been
discontinued. In their own minds they probably reasoned,
"Well, my customers can no longer get that paint, so it
might just as well be discontinued. No sense splitting hairs."
| >site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
| >out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
| >one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
| >apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
| >by lying.
|
|
| > I had an interesting experience at one point before I
| >siwtched to XP. I had just built a new PC. The board was
| >either Asus or MSI. I've forgotten which. It had a Via
| >chipset. I went to the site for the board and it said that
| >Win9x was no longer supported. I then went to the Via
|
| Maybe they meant that they no longer supported that OS. That wouldn't
| have been a lie.
|
No, they lied. They offered a driver download. And they said
there was no Win9x version. But they didn't mention that
actually the drivers were not theirs in the first place. The
drivers are for the chipset. The chipset was Via. Via
supported Win98. To offer repackaged drivers but say Win98
is not supported was deliberately misleading.... which was known
as "lying" in the days before P.C. speech.
But I suppose you're right in a way. It's possible that the
action was an expression lazy and/or incompetent negligence
rather than outright lying. Something like "innocent by reason
of systemic amorality".
I find that kind of thing is actually very common. Probably
because it's slightly murky. It's easy to think that one is
not really lying when misleading people by omission or
misinformation rather than blatant lying. For instance, I
was buying a certain type of Benjamin Moore paint for
years after 2 stores I knew claimed it was no longer being
made. They didn't want the added expense of carrying
numerous product lines, so they just discontinued some
of them. But they didn't want customers going to competitors,
so they told them the products in question had been
discontinued. In their own minds they probably reasoned,
"Well, my customers can no longer get that paint, so it
might just as well be discontinued. No sense splitting hairs."
| >site, which was clear, informative and helpful. It turned
| >out that Via only had one driver package, and Win98 was
| >one of the supported systems. So the motherboard maker
| >apparently just saw a chance to reduce support costs
| >by lying.
|
|
J
jw
You did a great job of comparing the versions of Windows.
3.1 sucked, 95 needed help, but 98 was and still is the best.
Win2000 is decent, but the one thing you did not say about w2000 and up,
is that while 2000 and up may have some better features, it lost DOS. I
still use lots of Dos stuff, and can not be without it.
The 2 problems I have with 98 are lack of decent USB support. Normally
I just dual boot over to Win2k when I need to use a USB device, which in
my case is just a flash stick, or USB backup hard drive. I wont buy USB
mice, keyboards, printers, etc. Who needs them? The serial/parallel
ports work just fine....
Yea, 98 can get goofy when the system resources get low, but it takes a
lot to get it there. I nearly crashed the other day from resource
overload, but this is what I had loaded.
1. Large .DOC file in Wordpad
2. Huge 21Meg PDF file in Adobe 6
3. Firefox 3 running several large downloads, with 4 open windows.
4. Several Notepad text files opened
5. Roughly 30 open windows on websites in K-Meleon
6. Two copies of Agent 2.0 newsreader opened
7. Connection to the internet via dialup
8. Winamp (on standby)
9. Media Player Classic playing a large MP4 video
All my icons turned black. I opened system resources and was down to
5%.
I immediately closed Adobe 6, and Winamp, saved my .Doc file and closed
Wordpad. Then I closed half those windows in K-Meleon, and several of
the notepad files. At that point, my resources went around 35%. I then
closed the video and agent, and went up to around 50%. I let my
downloads finish, bookmarked the web pages I wanted to save, and
rebooted. The ocmputer had been on for nearly a week and was due for a
reboot. When I restarted it, I cleared out all temp files, old cache,
and defragged.
I just had too much shit opened at once. It's my fault!
Note: I have NO files open at bootup, except Windows files themselves.
There is no virus scanner, and no other crap loaded. That's the key to
using Win98.
As far as drivers, thsi computer was made in 2000, came with Win2000
installed. I made it dual boot with 98 and 2K. I've upgreaded lots of
stuff. It's a P3 1000mhz processor and does quite well for it's age.
I just have to remember to close unneeded windows, which I tend to
forget at times.
C
Char Jackson
I completely disagree. You seem to be confused about the meaning of
the word 'support'. You originally said above that Asus or MSI said
your OS was no longer supported. They get to make that decision, and
whatever they say, goes. The fact that you found a driver somewhere
else doesn't change anything.