Re: OT: Windows question

Firstly I'm running XP pro through 2gb meg of RAM with a bus of over 500 MHz
with a 3.06 gig P4, and secondly I never said this one was slow because it
isn't. I have others too and loads of spares due to being an owner of
computers since 81 or 82 when I had a Sinclair ZX80 as my first computer, so
I've also been around the block a bit and still repairing other peoples
problems from time to time. I also have a 800 Celeron with 256 RAM on Pro
using a 500Mhz with 256 RAM as a SCSI drive running on 98 second edition,
but it still remains that XP is flawed with errors and you all know it.

Nobby


"Hardtime" <hardtime11@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:apng82tfken9fqjomp864ihihm8rkis64f@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:04:51 GMT, "Nobby" <nobbyondanet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

the only good feel to XP is that the picture viewer is handy and most of
the
Drivers are ready to plug and *** up...I mean plug and play. The
fastest
way to use it is to run a Classic view with all the visual performance
disabled and the system performance at optimal. Even then 98 is quicker
at
some things...

Nobby

I do not know what you are using but it must be a machine that can
barely push XP therefore yes 98 probably would do some things faster
than XP would on that particular machine. I do know that Windows 98
(any version original through "D") would not recognize my hardrives
(over a Terabyte combined), CPU (more than 3GHZ HT Overclocked well
past 4GHZ), RAM (3GB), Video Card (DDR XXXmb 8xAGP) not to mention a
few other pieces of hardware.

Actually Plug-n-Pray as you put it is the how to describe Windows 98
at best. After all it is nothing more than a more glorified gui for
the Windows 95 which is a glorified gui for the windows 3.x. All they
did with each version is just upgrade the gui and the drivers for the
same old low bit hardware and software. XP was finally a step into
the area of security and graphics. With Win 98 I can assure you that
there are quite a few that can penetrate whatever security you have on
it without even trying.

Then again, I do not think that anything on your Windows 98 runs
faster than it would on my Windows XP Pro Machine which is also more
than 2 years old. :-)

By the way before you go there, I can run MS-DOS programs, at least
the ones that will run on DOS 6.2 or later. Anything older than that
needs to be gotten rid of or upgraded to the newer versions out there.

There are probably a few here that have something bigger, badder and
faster machines than mine and they also feel the same way.

I think you may be automatically compensating for the poor performance
of the equipment in your machine.

But then again, I have a Brother WP-700D Word Processor/Typewriter
that is just as fast or faster at the word processing than the Windows
98 you may be discussing.

Before you go there with contrary statements be aware that there are a
few so called geeks in this newsgroup. I am just one of the older
ones. :-)



**By the way the machines I disposed of were all in working order just
not worth much and they would at best have trouble pushing any of the
latest applications. I mean I have a few programs that run well over
a GIG or two just for the install.


(¯`·._Hardtime_.·´¯)

http://geocities.com/arcticjohn88/arcticjohn88



.

Loading