Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 27206	2002-11-17 00:06:00	Dumping XP going back to 98SE	longbrim (2545)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
99098	2002-11-20 04:18:00	I'm with loshing on this one.. Its known that 98 will run on a 486, while XP needs a minimum of a P200	Chilling_Silence (9)
99099	2002-11-20 04:19:00	XP Pro SP1 sound good?? *cough cough* ... "Corporate" edition though... :8} ... Best we not mention this anymore ;) Lo.	Lohsing (219)
99100	2002-11-20 10:47:00	> Now boys, calm down, no use getting up set and try to > convince each other that a certain OS is better than > another. > Some people like to have things pretty and have > everything feed to them (XP) > Some people like working as fast as they can even it > does result in instability issues (win9x) > Some people like to experience something that isn't > shoved in your face and explore outside the square. > [also fast] (linux) > > I say use the OS that gives you the most pleasure and > stop trying to convince each other that ones better > than the other. :-) > Gee and that statement was completely impartial wasn't it?	BIFF (1)
99101	2002-11-20 10:47:00	> XP running faster than 98 on your "slug" ... i find > that highly unlikely. > > Lo. You obviously haven't seen the NT kernel in action then.	BIFF (1)
99102	2002-11-20 10:51:00	> You obviously haven't seen the NT kernel in action > then. Sorry dude, but I have... I have tested XP Pro SP1 on a Celeron 400 with 256 SD Ram, as well as a P2 300 laptop. Both slugs, both slower with XP on it compared to 98SE. Lo.	Lohsing (219)
99103	2002-11-20 19:56:00	Biff i think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder because not everyone here thinks winXP is the thing, whereas you do. And it has now become your mission to try and convert everyone. I wonder if you belong to one of those religious groups that think they have to convert people to their religion to get into heaven. My comments regarding the different types of OS's and their features was completely impartial. I have used all 3 types of OS, and have also used the various NT and Novell solutions. So i feel i have a general idea about how each works and the + and - of each. Of course this is merely my opinion that i convey, but i'm not trying to convince anyone am i! FYI i use WinME, so it's not even 98SE that most people recommend here, nor is it linux the one i probably gave the most praise in my analysis.	roofus (483)
99104	2002-11-20 21:26:00	Why try to convince people that one system is better than another? If an OS works for you, then great! If it doesn't, change. It really shouldn't really concern anyone else unless of course you get paid for selling new OS'. I have 4 PC's, one running XP Pro (P3 667 with 384 RAM) , two win98SE(AMD350 with 256 RAM and P133 with 64 RAM), and one with 95(P90 with 16 RAM). I personally love XP on my main PC. It's not a mean machine by any standard these days, but it doesn't crash, and does all I want it to do. Sure it took a while to get it lean and mean, but that's the fun part, isn't it? I wouldn't push XP on anyone, but, hey, it works for me, so why not at least recommend it. The other machines also run fine on their respective OS'. I guess it's using the right tool for the job. Have fun with what you are happy with... there are millions of kids in Ethiopia without computers who would love Win 3.11 !!! J :D	Jester (13)
99105	2002-11-20 21:35:00	> Biff i think you have a bit of a chip on your > shoulder because not everyone here thinks winXP is > the thing, whereas you do . Having had experience in XP, and almost ALL other MS OS's (Including server editions etc), I can say that what works for one person wont be quite the same for another, I agree with roofus here! > And it has now become your > mission to try and convert everyone . I wonder if you > belong to one of those religious groups that think > they have to convert people to their religion to get > into heaven . > I resemble that . . . Only not on an Operating System scale . > My comments regarding the different types of OS's and > their features was completely impartial . > I have used all 3 types of OS, and have also used the > various NT and Novell solutions . So i feel i have a > general idea about how each works and the + and - of > each . > Of course this is merely my opinion that i convey, > but i'm not trying to convince anyone am i! > Good on ya, Practise what you preach . > FYI i use WinME, so it's not even 98SE that most > people recommend here, nor is it linux the one i > probably gave the most praise in my analysis . Basically guys, If you find an OS that YOU like, Stick with it, and let other be for not using it themselves . My best mate uses XP, and only really uses it for the odd game, Downloading music, playing that music/burning it to audio CD's, and also using WORD for his homework . He has no need for the interface of 2K where there's a lot more user management required by an administrator, as him and his family have no idea what a computer admin is! And to do with Linux, I sat him down in front of Knoppix while he was last over so He could do some browsing on a PC of mine that I've just erased the OS and havent gotten around to re-installing it . He found it a breeze to use, having changed the backgrounds, screen saver and everything . So what Im saying is that while some OS's are good for some people, they are all fairly similar in the end . You like tomatoe's, i like tomato's . Same diff if you ask me . . .	Chilling_Silence (9)
99106	2002-11-20 21:53:00	> > Some people like to have things pretty and have > > everything feed to them (XP) 'Feed to them' -negative > > Some people like working as fast as they can even > it > > does result in instability issues (win9x) 'instability issues' - negative > > Some people like to experience something that > isn't > > shoved in your face and explore outside the > square. > > [also fast] (linux) 'outside the square' 'also fast' 'isn't shoved in your face' -all positive statements. Impartial???	BIFF (1)
99107	2002-11-20 22:04:00	Perhaps I do have a chip on my shoulder. After supporting a network of thousands of annoying Windows 9x/ME computers for many years I can safely say that all variations on that OS are piles of steaming horse crap. Linux is OK, Windows 9x is not. NT/2K/XP is fast and stable when configured properly. Frame rates, Disk I/Os, Memory access speeds, are all measurably faster under XP than 9x/ME. Perhaps your celeron 486 struggled a bit but hey, it's a dog anyway.	BIFF (1)
1 2 3 4 5 6