Re: Minimum spec home pc

The message <43d6564d$0$3564$6d36acad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
from "Nick Le Lievre" <nicklelievre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> contains
these words:

> "Daniel James" <wastebasket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:VA.00000d14.08af2d7b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > In article news:<1138024172.738219.218430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > wrote:
> > > I wouldnt be in a big hurry to replace 98 with 2k or XP. It crashes
> > > less often and when you alt tab to a folder window you dont have to
> > > click in the window before using the up/down arrows. Thats about the
> > > only advantage thats noticeable in daily use. 2k and XP are slower than
> > > 98 and have poorer navigation, and NTFS is problematic if you use it.
> >
> > I countn't disagree more.
> >
> > NT-based versions of Windows (including Win2k and XP) are faster and more
> > reliable than Win9x, they have better security, better management of
> > resources, and better stability in the face of buggy (or malicious)
> > programs. NTFS is more reliable than FAT, handles large voulmes better,
> > supports file-level permissions (and even encryption -- though that's a
> > good way to lose data if you don't understand Windows's key recovery
> > mechanisms).
> >
> > The only reason one might want not to use NTFS on an NT system is that
> > other systems (linux, some recovery tools, DOS) can't access it. That's a
> > security feature, too, of course <smile>.
> >

> To sum it up in computer sales speak - '98 is ***.

Spot the trend? win95(A), a rush job to avoid a rename, win95osr2, the
finished article, a vast improvement over win3.11 and, if the defaults
were changed from 'kakameemee' to 'sane' and MinFileCache and
MaxFileCache set to a quarter of the ram size in kilobytes (vcache
settings in windows.ini) and the *** apps kept off the system, it was
quite fast and stable.

Then came win98, a badly broken version of win95osr2 on account Bill
wanted to foist _his_ version of a web browser on the great unwashed.
This was followed by 98SE with improved usb support but the same stupid
bugs remained and then came the last gasp development in the win9x line,
winME, which was quite accurately described by it's acronym (Monumental
Error).

Amazingly, winME's system resource management was actually inferior to
that of it's precursor OS and when parts of it got broken, it was less
amenable to repair than win98 and so usually needed a full reinstall
from scratch in order to fix any such intractable problems. You could
best describe this OS as a tarted up and badly broken win98se (As if
win98se wasn't broken enough already!).

Win2k, the best OS since win95osr2. Then Microsoft decide to repeat
their win95osr2 to win98 downgrade exercise which resulted in winXP, an
OS perhaps best described as "The Idiot Son of Win2k".

I think the reason for such development cycles by Microsoft is on
account win95 and then win2k were initially aimed at the more discerning
corporate market which wouldn't be quite as tolerant of the liberties
taken in the later versions which were obviously aimed fairly and
squarely at the much larger market of the great unwashed. You've only
got to take one look at the 'Fisher Price' look of winXP's desktop to
see exactly who this PoS was aimed at.

--
Regards, John.

To reply directly, please remove "buttplug" .Mail via the
"Reply Direct" button and Spam-bots will be rejected.

.