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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram