Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Advantage winXP over Win98

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2004 3:16:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason. What are the advantage winXP
over Win98? Only thing I can think of is memory management. Is XP has
better memory magagement than Win98?

More about : advantage winxp win98

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 10, 2004 5:10:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

slimjimwilson@hotmail.com (Jim Wilson) wrote in message news:<1d7125c0.0408090736.53eda1fc@posting.google.com>...
> mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk (Red Cloud) wrote in message news:<1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
> > how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason.
>
> >What are the advantage winXP over Win98?
>
> Speaking from personal experience...... I find WindowsXP more stable.
> I've not had a BSOD or a crash since installing it over a year ago. I
> rarely went over 3 months with Windows98se without having some
> problems.
>
>
>
I know one disadvantage of WinXP is you have to get the confirmation
from MS website before you complete the installation. Win98 has no
such confirmation thing so I can install any many any I want with Win98.
I just do not like WinXP confirmation. ... it bad.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 11, 2004 6:24:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
> how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason. What are the advantage
winXP
> over Win98? Only thing I can think of is memory management. Is XP has
> better memory magagement than Win98?

XP is a superior OS, that's for sure. Drivers and upgrades are automatic in
the background. In fact, if I had a single descriptive word for XP, it
would be 'automatic'. Very stable as others say. Configuring Win98 or
WinME and I always had device conflicts on new systems of one sort or
another; always troubleshooting conflicts it seemed. XP seems to solve all
that. No more inserting one CD disk after another to configure drivers etc.

Networking is superior...perhaps what I like best about it. I used to have
configuration problems on my LAN, but putting all machines to XP solved it
all, instantly almost. Again, no muss, no fuss...well, usually anyway.
XP's own security measures can 'cross' your third party software I've found.
And I'm presently having tcp/ip problems, but not due to XP but spyware.

The drawbacks can be aggravating in XP though. Everything has to be
'certified' bonfide, proven, authentic, and otherwise, 'jump through hoops'
to be acceptable...including YOU, the user. Nothing so frustrating than
being locked out of your own computer [which I have done under XP 'user
accounts' setup; well some of the computer anyway]. I've found most of my
problems under XP have to do with this 'authentication' process; under
Win98, it was mostly device conflicts, drivers, and such. When things are
working under XP however, they work 'very good'.

I have serious questions on the 'activation' strategy Microsoft has come up
with for I think it somehow crosses 'privacy' concerns. I don't really feel
like I 'own' what I bought when I have 'peering eyes' over my shoulder;
guilty until proven innocent kind of policy IMO.

One big drawback to XP I've found is simple upgrading of vital hardware,
like motherboard or hard disk. With Win98, you just switch over the old
hard disk, reinstall your devices [hopefully no conflicts etc]...and you're
done. XP will not boot after 3 days of a new hardware installation unless
you 'reactivate' it over the internet or phone. Plus, you have to do a
'repair install'...which for me, ruined my LAN/internet setup [just last
week in fact]...and after months getting that to work first time around, I'm
back to 'troubleshooting' my LAN again, no workie [after the repair
install...lost my tcp/ip transport as mentioned]. I'll probably have to
end up doing a complete install, which I'm told, I will lose most my
programs [have to reinstall everything...subscriptions, games, downloads,
patches, upgrades, updates...all gone]. I"m just sitting on it for now, at
least I have my internet going. So, XP is far from perfect. That activation
thingy has promoted a tremendous 'sour' view of Bill Gates and company in my
mind; looks like raw 'greed' if you ask me and I wouldn't be in my present
predicament if it weren't for XP having a coniption finding my new mobo and
cpu to deal with [which it automatically rejects as someone 'stealing'
something from Bill Gates making you 'repair' things to calm it down].
Related resources
August 11, 2004 7:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

XP also take up plenty of resorces. I would only recommend it for a
pc with a fast processor and at least 512 meg of ram. It is much
more stable than older versions of Windows.

tooly wrote:

> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com...
> > I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
> > how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason. What are the advantage
> winXP
> > over Win98? Only thing I can think of is memory management. Is XP has
> > better memory magagement than Win98?
>
> XP is a superior OS, that's for sure. Drivers and upgrades are automatic in
> the background. In fact, if I had a single descriptive word for XP, it
> would be 'automatic'. Very stable as others say. Configuring Win98 or
> WinME and I always had device conflicts on new systems of one sort or
> another; always troubleshooting conflicts it seemed. XP seems to solve all
> that. No more inserting one CD disk after another to configure drivers etc.
>
> Networking is superior...perhaps what I like best about it. I used to have
> configuration problems on my LAN, but putting all machines to XP solved it
> all, instantly almost. Again, no muss, no fuss...well, usually anyway.
> XP's own security measures can 'cross' your third party software I've found.
> And I'm presently having tcp/ip problems, but not due to XP but spyware.
>
> The drawbacks can be aggravating in XP though. Everything has to be
> 'certified' bonfide, proven, authentic, and otherwise, 'jump through hoops'
> to be acceptable...including YOU, the user. Nothing so frustrating than
> being locked out of your own computer [which I have done under XP 'user
> accounts' setup; well some of the computer anyway]. I've found most of my
> problems under XP have to do with this 'authentication' process; under
> Win98, it was mostly device conflicts, drivers, and such. When things are
> working under XP however, they work 'very good'.
>
> I have serious questions on the 'activation' strategy Microsoft has come up
> with for I think it somehow crosses 'privacy' concerns. I don't really feel
> like I 'own' what I bought when I have 'peering eyes' over my shoulder;
> guilty until proven innocent kind of policy IMO.
>
> One big drawback to XP I've found is simple upgrading of vital hardware,
> like motherboard or hard disk. With Win98, you just switch over the old
> hard disk, reinstall your devices [hopefully no conflicts etc]...and you're
> done. XP will not boot after 3 days of a new hardware installation unless
> you 'reactivate' it over the internet or phone. Plus, you have to do a
> 'repair install'...which for me, ruined my LAN/internet setup [just last
> week in fact]...and after months getting that to work first time around, I'm
> back to 'troubleshooting' my LAN again, no workie [after the repair
> install...lost my tcp/ip transport as mentioned]. I'll probably have to
> end up doing a complete install, which I'm told, I will lose most my
> programs [have to reinstall everything...subscriptions, games, downloads,
> patches, upgrades, updates...all gone]. I"m just sitting on it for now, at
> least I have my internet going. So, XP is far from perfect. That activation
> thingy has promoted a tremendous 'sour' view of Bill Gates and company in my
> mind; looks like raw 'greed' if you ask me and I wouldn't be in my present
> predicament if it weren't for XP having a coniption finding my new mobo and
> cpu to deal with [which it automatically rejects as someone 'stealing'
> something from Bill Gates making you 'repair' things to calm it down].
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 12, 2004 12:22:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:

> XP also take up plenty of resorces. I would only recommend it for a
> pc with a fast processor and at least 512 meg of ram. It is much
> more stable than older versions of Windows.
>
> tooly wrote:

A fresh, default, install of XP takes up about 96 Meg of RAM, roughly twice
that of Win98SE.

512 Meg of RAM is nice but it certainly isn't 'necessary'.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 12, 2004 1:42:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

tooly wrote:

> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com...
>
>>I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
>>how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason. What are the advantage
>
> winXP
>
>>over Win98? Only thing I can think of is memory management. Is XP has
>>better memory magagement than Win98?

Memory management is better, NTFS is a better file system, and WinXP
resembles a 'real OS" more than Win98's GUI stuck on top of DOS.

Why? WinXP keeps more control over drivers, the hardware abstraction layer
(HAL), rather than just handing unlimited control to them. That means
drivers can't willy nilly do just whatever the heck they feel like and
possibly crash the system as a result. It also means that software which
likes to 'hack' the hardware to do whatever 'fancy' thing it feels like
doesn't work.

The WinXP HAL also supports much more complex hardware configurations, such
as multiple PCI busses, SMP, etc. (This, btw, is why WinXP can't just
automagically load in a different configuration should you swap the disk to
a new motherboard: it can't just 'assume' you have a 'simple PC')

Because WinXP is more like a 'real OS' it has better task scheduling and
resource handling.

WinXP, and NTFS, also have much better security, especially when properly
used (meaning not perpetually logging in as Adminstrator), which isn't hard
considering that Win98 has virually none. You can, for example, give little
Johnny a restricted account that limits what he can do on the system.

NTFS is more robust that FAT32 and includes a number of 'self healing'
features.

WinXP itself, includes a number of 'self healing' features; most notably
keeping track of system files and automatically replacing them if corrupted
(which is separate from the 'restore' [to point in time] feature people
commonly think of).

> XP is a superior OS, that's for sure. Drivers and upgrades are automatic in
> the background. In fact, if I had a single descriptive word for XP, it
> would be 'automatic'. Very stable as others say. Configuring Win98 or
> WinME and I always had device conflicts on new systems of one sort or
> another; always troubleshooting conflicts it seemed. XP seems to solve all
> that. No more inserting one CD disk after another to configure drivers etc.

WinXP, being newer, includes drivers for newer hardware that could not
possibly be 'included' with Win98 because the hardware didn't exist when it
was developed. On the other hand, WinXP doesn't support some older hardware
and I have a couple of Win98SE systems specifically because a couple of my
older devices simply won't work with WinXP.

However, hardware with no WinXP 'included' driver require a drivers disk
just as they did with Win98. There's nothing 'magical' about that.

As for device conflicts, it would seem the machine you had Win98 on didn't
support ACPI IRQ steering, or you had some problematic PCI cards, or you
were using a gaggle of ISA cards, because IRQ steering takes care of the
IRQ sharing issue. WinXP's APCI support also helps in that department but
WinXP can't 'fix' problematic PCI cards nor cause ISA cards to magically
support IRQ sharing any more than Win98 could.


> Networking is superior...perhaps what I like best about it. I used to have
> configuration problems on my LAN, but putting all machines to XP solved it
> all, instantly almost.

I don't know what 'problem' you had but Win98 DHCP auto configures just
like WinXP and if you manually set it up you have precisely the same things
to configure and get right (or wrong), for a simple LAN anyway. WinXP has
'more' things it can do, which means more things to get wrong too but,
then, if you aren't doing the 'extra' things it matters not.

> Again, no muss, no fuss...well, usually anyway.
> XP's own security measures can 'cross' your third party software I've found.
> And I'm presently having tcp/ip problems, but not due to XP but spyware.
>
> The drawbacks can be aggravating in XP though. Everything has to be
> 'certified' bonfide, proven, authentic, and otherwise, 'jump through hoops'
> to be acceptable...including YOU, the user. Nothing so frustrating than
> being locked out of your own computer [which I have done under XP 'user
> accounts' setup; well some of the computer anyway]. I've found most of my
> problems under XP have to do with this 'authentication' process; under
> Win98, it was mostly device conflicts, drivers, and such. When things are
> working under XP however, they work 'very good'.
>
> I have serious questions on the 'activation' strategy Microsoft has come up
> with for I think it somehow crosses 'privacy' concerns. I don't really feel
> like I 'own' what I bought when I have 'peering eyes' over my shoulder;
> guilty until proven innocent kind of policy IMO.

If you look at the license agreement you *don't* 'own' the software. You
purchase a license to 'use' it; on one computer.

<snip>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 12, 2004 8:31:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10hlm86qplcp5ea@corp.supernews.com...
> tooly wrote:
>
> > "Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
> >>how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason. What are the advantage
> >
> > winXP
> >
> >>over Win98? Only thing I can think of is memory management. Is XP has
> >>better memory magagement than Win98?
>
> Memory management is better, NTFS is a better file system, and WinXP
> resembles a 'real OS" more than Win98's GUI stuck on top of DOS.
>
> Why? WinXP keeps more control over drivers, the hardware abstraction layer
> (HAL), rather than just handing unlimited control to them. That means
> drivers can't willy nilly do just whatever the heck they feel like and
> possibly crash the system as a result. It also means that software which
> likes to 'hack' the hardware to do whatever 'fancy' thing it feels like
> doesn't work.
>
> The WinXP HAL also supports much more complex hardware configurations,
such
> as multiple PCI busses, SMP, etc. (This, btw, is why WinXP can't just
> automagically load in a different configuration should you swap the disk
to
> a new motherboard: it can't just 'assume' you have a 'simple PC')
>
> Because WinXP is more like a 'real OS' it has better task scheduling and
> resource handling.
>
> WinXP, and NTFS, also have much better security, especially when properly
> used (meaning not perpetually logging in as Adminstrator), which isn't
hard
> considering that Win98 has virually none. You can, for example, give
little
> Johnny a restricted account that limits what he can do on the system.
>
> NTFS is more robust that FAT32 and includes a number of 'self healing'
> features.
>
> WinXP itself, includes a number of 'self healing' features; most notably
> keeping track of system files and automatically replacing them if
corrupted
> (which is separate from the 'restore' [to point in time] feature people
> commonly think of).
>
> > XP is a superior OS, that's for sure. Drivers and upgrades are
automatic in
> > the background. In fact, if I had a single descriptive word for XP, it
> > would be 'automatic'. Very stable as others say. Configuring Win98 or
> > WinME and I always had device conflicts on new systems of one sort or
> > another; always troubleshooting conflicts it seemed. XP seems to solve
all
> > that. No more inserting one CD disk after another to configure drivers
etc.
>
> WinXP, being newer, includes drivers for newer hardware that could not
> possibly be 'included' with Win98 because the hardware didn't exist when
it
> was developed. On the other hand, WinXP doesn't support some older
hardware
> and I have a couple of Win98SE systems specifically because a couple of my
> older devices simply won't work with WinXP.
>
> However, hardware with no WinXP 'included' driver require a drivers disk
> just as they did with Win98. There's nothing 'magical' about that.
>
> As for device conflicts, it would seem the machine you had Win98 on didn't
> support ACPI IRQ steering, or you had some problematic PCI cards, or you
> were using a gaggle of ISA cards, because IRQ steering takes care of the
> IRQ sharing issue. WinXP's APCI support also helps in that department but
> WinXP can't 'fix' problematic PCI cards nor cause ISA cards to magically
> support IRQ sharing any more than Win98 could.
>
>
> > Networking is superior...perhaps what I like best about it. I used to
have
> > configuration problems on my LAN, but putting all machines to XP solved
it
> > all, instantly almost.
>
> I don't know what 'problem' you had but Win98 DHCP auto configures just
> like WinXP and if you manually set it up you have precisely the same
things
> to configure and get right (or wrong), for a simple LAN anyway. WinXP has
> 'more' things it can do, which means more things to get wrong too but,
> then, if you aren't doing the 'extra' things it matters not.
>
> > Again, no muss, no fuss...well, usually anyway.
> > XP's own security measures can 'cross' your third party software I've
found.
> > And I'm presently having tcp/ip problems, but not due to XP but spyware.
> >
> > The drawbacks can be aggravating in XP though. Everything has to be
> > 'certified' bonfide, proven, authentic, and otherwise, 'jump through
hoops'
> > to be acceptable...including YOU, the user. Nothing so frustrating than
> > being locked out of your own computer [which I have done under XP 'user
> > accounts' setup; well some of the computer anyway]. I've found most of
my
> > problems under XP have to do with this 'authentication' process; under
> > Win98, it was mostly device conflicts, drivers, and such. When things
are
> > working under XP however, they work 'very good'.
> >
> > I have serious questions on the 'activation' strategy Microsoft has come
up
> > with for I think it somehow crosses 'privacy' concerns. I don't really
feel
> > like I 'own' what I bought when I have 'peering eyes' over my shoulder;
> > guilty until proven innocent kind of policy IMO.
>
> If you look at the license agreement you *don't* 'own' the software. You
> purchase a license to 'use' it; on one computer.
>
> <snip>
>

You'll <snip>...so what...your mindset is what's going so wrong with today.

All the knowledge in the world cannot defray the inability to understand
simple experience.
I argue that you are losing touch with the 'real' world as a matter of
experience. Knowledge
is power, I grant you. But it does not mean true comprehension when those
who regress
from the common experience of the normal reasonable man, to abdicate
themselves into some sort
of elitist position 'overseeing' those 'below'. There is a 'reasonable'
invovlement most users will embrace themselves with the operating system on
their computer...and then, there is that level of the technician, or the
hobbyist. Time itself is the constraining resource, and the reasonable man
simple does not have the time to become as 'intimate' as the elites, and
therefore, looks for the 'functional' usefulness as a matter of simplicity.
The 'perfect' operating system should be one the normal man has no reason to
KNOW a damn thing about, for it's functionality will have become so well
machined, there would be no problems to solve, therefore, it simply operates
without thought.

On the subject of 'owning' a thing or not, I'll not dicker over legalities;
but only to say that 'private ownership' is the mainstay of 'freedom'. In
essence, nothing of our minds is rightfully ours, borrowing from those
around us, even our past...back to our ancestors. Again, I argue upon the
'simplicity' of experience, only relating what it 'feels' like, not
necessary the intellectual concoction of what the elites argue as to it's
social application [the legalities]. When you 'peer' over my shoulder in
any way to 'control my behavior', even if it's for usage of a product you
think of your own output; a tool like a pair of pliers, or a saw, or even an
computer OS, then the 'experience' I gain is one not of 'freedom' but of
'imprisonment'. That's fine of course, if Bill Gates wants to pursue this
avenue. But it's a deathknell policy for good business accumen. People
WILL rebell whenever they feel their freedom being usurped in any way, even
something seemingly so minimal as this stupid activation policy for XP.
He's almost 'chasing' us away toward Linux...arrogantly defying us almost;
thinking he has conquered the world, and we are forced to use his product,
or else.

Argue your legalities and your technicalities all you want. I grant you
your KNOWLEDGE. But you're not comprehending upon the more simpler, but far
more profound level of 'experience'. It is 'experience' people must exist
upon, not knowledge. When you understand that, your 'knoweldge' will become
far more potent. Otherwise, it's just powermonging.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 12, 2004 8:31:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

tooly wrote:

> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10hlm86qplcp5ea@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>tooly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
>>>>how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason. What are the advantage
>>>
>>>winXP
>>>
>>>
>>>>over Win98? Only thing I can think of is memory management. Is XP has
>>>>better memory magagement than Win98?
>>
>>Memory management is better, NTFS is a better file system, and WinXP
>>resembles a 'real OS" more than Win98's GUI stuck on top of DOS.
>>
>>Why? WinXP keeps more control over drivers, the hardware abstraction layer
>>(HAL), rather than just handing unlimited control to them. That means
>>drivers can't willy nilly do just whatever the heck they feel like and
>>possibly crash the system as a result. It also means that software which
>>likes to 'hack' the hardware to do whatever 'fancy' thing it feels like
>>doesn't work.
>>
>>The WinXP HAL also supports much more complex hardware configurations,
>
> such
>
>>as multiple PCI busses, SMP, etc. (This, btw, is why WinXP can't just
>>automagically load in a different configuration should you swap the disk
>
> to
>
>>a new motherboard: it can't just 'assume' you have a 'simple PC')
>>
>>Because WinXP is more like a 'real OS' it has better task scheduling and
>>resource handling.
>>
>>WinXP, and NTFS, also have much better security, especially when properly
>>used (meaning not perpetually logging in as Adminstrator), which isn't
>
> hard
>
>>considering that Win98 has virually none. You can, for example, give
>
> little
>
>>Johnny a restricted account that limits what he can do on the system.
>>
>>NTFS is more robust that FAT32 and includes a number of 'self healing'
>>features.
>>
>>WinXP itself, includes a number of 'self healing' features; most notably
>>keeping track of system files and automatically replacing them if
>
> corrupted
>
>>(which is separate from the 'restore' [to point in time] feature people
>>commonly think of).
>>
>>
>>>XP is a superior OS, that's for sure. Drivers and upgrades are
>
> automatic in
>
>>>the background. In fact, if I had a single descriptive word for XP, it
>>>would be 'automatic'. Very stable as others say. Configuring Win98 or
>>>WinME and I always had device conflicts on new systems of one sort or
>>>another; always troubleshooting conflicts it seemed. XP seems to solve
>
> all
>
>>>that. No more inserting one CD disk after another to configure drivers
>
> etc.
>
>>WinXP, being newer, includes drivers for newer hardware that could not
>>possibly be 'included' with Win98 because the hardware didn't exist when
>
> it
>
>>was developed. On the other hand, WinXP doesn't support some older
>
> hardware
>
>>and I have a couple of Win98SE systems specifically because a couple of my
>>older devices simply won't work with WinXP.
>>
>>However, hardware with no WinXP 'included' driver require a drivers disk
>>just as they did with Win98. There's nothing 'magical' about that.
>>
>>As for device conflicts, it would seem the machine you had Win98 on didn't
>>support ACPI IRQ steering, or you had some problematic PCI cards, or you
>>were using a gaggle of ISA cards, because IRQ steering takes care of the
>>IRQ sharing issue. WinXP's APCI support also helps in that department but
>>WinXP can't 'fix' problematic PCI cards nor cause ISA cards to magically
>>support IRQ sharing any more than Win98 could.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Networking is superior...perhaps what I like best about it. I used to
>
> have
>
>>>configuration problems on my LAN, but putting all machines to XP solved
>
> it
>
>>>all, instantly almost.
>>
>>I don't know what 'problem' you had but Win98 DHCP auto configures just
>>like WinXP and if you manually set it up you have precisely the same
>
> things
>
>>to configure and get right (or wrong), for a simple LAN anyway. WinXP has
>>'more' things it can do, which means more things to get wrong too but,
>>then, if you aren't doing the 'extra' things it matters not.
>>
>>
>>> Again, no muss, no fuss...well, usually anyway.
>>>XP's own security measures can 'cross' your third party software I've
>
> found.
>
>>>And I'm presently having tcp/ip problems, but not due to XP but spyware.
>>>
>>>The drawbacks can be aggravating in XP though. Everything has to be
>>>'certified' bonfide, proven, authentic, and otherwise, 'jump through
>
> hoops'
>
>>>to be acceptable...including YOU, the user. Nothing so frustrating than
>>>being locked out of your own computer [which I have done under XP 'user
>>>accounts' setup; well some of the computer anyway]. I've found most of
>
> my
>
>>>problems under XP have to do with this 'authentication' process; under
>>>Win98, it was mostly device conflicts, drivers, and such. When things
>
> are
>
>>>working under XP however, they work 'very good'.
>>>
>>>I have serious questions on the 'activation' strategy Microsoft has come
>
> up
>
>>>with for I think it somehow crosses 'privacy' concerns. I don't really
>
> feel
>
>>>like I 'own' what I bought when I have 'peering eyes' over my shoulder;
>>>guilty until proven innocent kind of policy IMO.
>>
>>If you look at the license agreement you *don't* 'own' the software. You
>>purchase a license to 'use' it; on one computer.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>
> You'll <snip>...so what...your mindset is what's going so wrong with today.
>
> All the knowledge in the world cannot defray the inability to understand
> simple experience.
> I argue that you are losing touch with the 'real' world as a matter of
> experience. Knowledge
> is power, I grant you. But it does not mean true comprehension when those
> who regress
> from the common experience of the normal reasonable man, to abdicate
> themselves into some sort
> of elitist position 'overseeing' those 'below'. There is a 'reasonable'
> invovlement most users will embrace themselves with the operating system on
> their computer...and then, there is that level of the technician, or the
> hobbyist. Time itself is the constraining resource, and the reasonable man
> simple does not have the time to become as 'intimate' as the elites, and
> therefore, looks for the 'functional' usefulness as a matter of simplicity.
> The 'perfect' operating system should be one the normal man has no reason to
> KNOW a damn thing about, for it's functionality will have become so well
> machined, there would be no problems to solve, therefore, it simply operates
> without thought.
>
> On the subject of 'owning' a thing or not, I'll not dicker over legalities;
> but only to say that 'private ownership' is the mainstay of 'freedom'. In
> essence, nothing of our minds is rightfully ours, borrowing from those
> around us, even our past...back to our ancestors. Again, I argue upon the
> 'simplicity' of experience, only relating what it 'feels' like, not
> necessary the intellectual concoction of what the elites argue as to it's
> social application [the legalities]. When you 'peer' over my shoulder in
> any way to 'control my behavior', even if it's for usage of a product you
> think of your own output; a tool like a pair of pliers, or a saw, or even an
> computer OS, then the 'experience' I gain is one not of 'freedom' but of
> 'imprisonment'. That's fine of course, if Bill Gates wants to pursue this
> avenue. But it's a deathknell policy for good business accumen. People
> WILL rebell whenever they feel their freedom being usurped in any way, even
> something seemingly so minimal as this stupid activation policy for XP.
> He's almost 'chasing' us away toward Linux...arrogantly defying us almost;
> thinking he has conquered the world, and we are forced to use his product,
> or else.
>
> Argue your legalities and your technicalities all you want. I grant you
> your KNOWLEDGE. But you're not comprehending upon the more simpler, but far
> more profound level of 'experience'. It is 'experience' people must exist
> upon, not knowledge. When you understand that, your 'knoweldge' will become
> far more potent. Otherwise, it's just powermonging.
>
>

That's an impressive smoke and mirrors square dance.

'Feelings' have their place but it's not as a substitute for knowledge and
reason.

However, since you reject knowledge of reality, and apparently the logic of
reason which goes with it, for the child like 'logic of feeling' what you
imagine it should be there's little use in pursuing this further.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 12, 2004 2:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1c9e1197.0408100010.2d513cf6@posting.google.com...
> slimjimwilson@hotmail.com (Jim Wilson) wrote in message
news:<1d7125c0.0408090736.53eda1fc@posting.google.com>...
> > mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk (Red Cloud) wrote in message
news:<1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com>...
> > > I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
> > > how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason.
> >
> > >What are the advantage winXP over Win98?
> >
> > Speaking from personal experience...... I find WindowsXP more stable.
> > I've not had a BSOD or a crash since installing it over a year ago. I
> > rarely went over 3 months with Windows98se without having some
> > problems.
> >
> >
> >
> I know one disadvantage of WinXP is you have to get the confirmation
> from MS website before you complete the installation. Win98 has no
> such confirmation thing so I can install any many any I want with Win98.
> I just do not like WinXP confirmation. ... it bad.

If one was to stumble over a Volume Licensing Key for WinXP, this step is
skipped over. It happened to me in a dream :-)

Another benifit of WinXP is the hibernate feature, it speeds up boot time
and you can start from where you left off, best feature ever, of that and
never crashing (I assume a stable PC is needed for that).
August 12, 2004 2:07:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <2nvqmkF5bv44U1@uni-berlin.de>, phlexor@yahoo.com says...
> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1c9e1197.0408100010.2d513cf6@posting.google.com...
> > slimjimwilson@hotmail.com (Jim Wilson) wrote in message
> news:<1d7125c0.0408090736.53eda1fc@posting.google.com>...
> > > mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk (Red Cloud) wrote in message
> news:<1c9e1197.0408082216.b28dbda@posting.google.com>...
> > > > I'm thinking about installing winXP in my computer. I'm not asking you
> > > > how to do it but I'm asking what is the reason.
> > >
> > > >What are the advantage winXP over Win98?
> > >
> > > Speaking from personal experience...... I find WindowsXP more stable.
> > > I've not had a BSOD or a crash since installing it over a year ago. I
> > > rarely went over 3 months with Windows98se without having some
> > > problems.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I know one disadvantage of WinXP is you have to get the confirmation
> > from MS website before you complete the installation. Win98 has no
> > such confirmation thing so I can install any many any I want with Win98.
> > I just do not like WinXP confirmation. ... it bad.
>
> If one was to stumble over a Volume Licensing Key for WinXP, this step is
> skipped over. It happened to me in a dream :-)
>
> Another benifit of WinXP is the hibernate feature, it speeds up boot time
> and you can start from where you left off, best feature ever, of that and
> never crashing (I assume a stable PC is needed for that).
>
>
>
Not sure, but I couldn't get hibernate to work on a dual-boot system
where XP was on the D drive. It just locked up on restart. Wondering
if it only works when XP is on C.
--
Pete Ives
Remove ALL_STRESS before sending me an email
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 12, 2004 3:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <10hlhin6n4r8e2@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
> JK wrote:
>
> > XP also take up plenty of resorces. I would only recommend it for a
> > pc with a fast processor and at least 512 meg of ram. It is much
> > more stable than older versions of Windows.
> >
> > tooly wrote:
>
> A fresh, default, install of XP takes up about 96 Meg of RAM, roughly twice
> that of Win98SE.
>
THen if you switch off the services listed at blackviper.com.....


--
Conor

Do gooders are your most dangerous enemies. Never turn your back on the
devious bastards.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 13, 2004 7:27:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> In article <10hlhin6n4r8e2@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
>
>>JK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>XP also take up plenty of resorces. I would only recommend it for a
>>>pc with a fast processor and at least 512 meg of ram. It is much
>>>more stable than older versions of Windows.
>>>
>>>tooly wrote:
>>
>>A fresh, default, install of XP takes up about 96 Meg of RAM, roughly twice
>>that of Win98SE.
>>
>
> THen if you switch off the services listed at blackviper.com.....
>
>

Yes, if you do that you can skinny it down to less but I was leaving the
analysis as a 'slap it in and go', as most users do, because that is
sufficient to dispel the "at least 512 Meg" myth.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 13, 2004 7:06:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have a legal copy of WinXP Pro but what I do when I make a hardware
change, I use an activation crack and skip the phone calls and all that
non-sense. Just did it on a fresh install and I yet have had to call MS.
Look into it.

My .02 worth,

Doug


>
> I have serious questions on the 'activation' strategy Microsoft has come
up
> with for I think it somehow crosses 'privacy' concerns. I don't really
feel
> like I 'own' what I bought when I have 'peering eyes' over my shoulder;
> guilty until proven innocent kind of policy IMO.
>
> One big drawback to XP I've found is simple upgrading of vital hardware,
> like motherboard or hard disk. With Win98, you just switch over the old
> hard disk, reinstall your devices [hopefully no conflicts etc]...and
you're
> done. XP will not boot after 3 days of a new hardware installation unless
> you 'reactivate' it over the internet or phone. Plus, you have to do a
> 'repair install'...which for me, ruined my LAN/internet setup [just last
> week in fact]...and after months getting that to work first time around,
I'm
> back to 'troubleshooting' my LAN again, no workie [after the repair
> install...lost my tcp/ip transport as mentioned]. I'll probably have to
> end up doing a complete install, which I'm told, I will lose most my
> programs [have to reinstall everything...subscriptions, games, downloads,
> patches, upgrades, updates...all gone]. I"m just sitting on it for now,
at
> least I have my internet going. So, XP is far from perfect. That
activation
> thingy has promoted a tremendous 'sour' view of Bill Gates and company in
my
> mind; looks like raw 'greed' if you ask me and I wouldn't be in my present
> predicament if it weren't for XP having a coniption finding my new mobo
and
> cpu to deal with [which it automatically rejects as someone 'stealing'
> something from Bill Gates making you 'repair' things to calm it down].
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
!