Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I must say Windows ME is the BEST Winodws O/S

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 5:57:12 AM

From using 95 98 2000 and now ME

this is the first time i havent formatted in 2 months!

Amazing

Minimal crashes and occasional memory issue
its stable as a rock!

Can anyone else CONCUR?

More about : windows winodws

March 15, 2001 6:12:57 AM

It'll crash soon...don't worry.

<font color=red>This is a forum, not a chat room. You aren't going to find a date here.</font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 6:17:56 AM

does 3d stuido work on it. i've heard various people have problems getting it to run at all. not that they should be using this os for that but... any one else heard of this problem.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 6:44:37 AM

winME pissed me off sooooo much.

win98SE. super stable, havent formatted since i installed it about 5 months ago, course thats nothign special, and my current uptime is about 2 weeks.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: cape does not enable user to fly.
March 15, 2001 6:47:05 AM

I am sorry but you are a bone.
mbaha

“Build your own you will love it more”
March 15, 2001 7:09:01 AM

Shouldn't this post be somewhere in the software section???

And shouldn't your Hardrive questions have been in the hard drive section?

And shouldn't you format your computer soon?


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
March 15, 2001 7:47:37 AM

Format? I've never had to reformat with Win98SE.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 9:59:06 AM

I must say, i have used all the windows versions apart from 2000, and i don't intend to try 2000 ever... to unstable.

Windows ME is like the p4 chip, it's got all the hype and media coverage, but none of the necessary stuff for a platform. There are 3 benefits to it, 1) you never need the cd to install windows bits, but that just means you use more HDD space installing it. 2) it has some media enhancments, but nothing you can't upgrade 98SE to. 3)it's easier for the newbie to use, but that makes the thing so STUPID for someone who knows what they're doing.

The other thing is, it's the slowest Windows ever. You will find that everything runs much faster on Win98SE coz it's the best Windows version to date.

That is all, PS: like the others said, it will crash soon, just wait...

<b><font color=blue>Note to self: Never buy <i>anything</i> without checking with <font color=red>Tom</font color=red> first...
March 15, 2001 10:07:42 AM

I could never get the 'auto-update' program to stop showing up in the taskbar. Even when I selected the 'don't ever, in my lifetime, run this un-holy auto-update program again' option. I deleted many entries in the registry to no avail. Does ME bother you with the update checks as well?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 11:25:06 AM

I hate ME, I use win2k it's not great but it's the best alround OS from MS, however I think that NT4 is still more stable than 2k you just can't play games on it.....

M


Opinions are like arseholes .... everybody’s got one.... :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 11:37:53 AM

My God, listen to you guys...

"win98SE. super stable" and "current uptime is about two weeks." All in the same sentence! Haven't formatted in 5 months. You sound suprised!

MS has you guys completely brainwashed as to what an OS should be. Crashing is not an acceptable or even expected behavior for a quality OS.

Your uptimes should be measured in months, double digit months! I have 16 linux boxes in a cluster @ work right now. The uptime is about 30 days for the whole cluster. No crashes out of 16 boxes since we turned it on a month ago, and it gets used hard, 24/7. It was up over a month straight before that also, but had to be moved. Several other Linux workstations I know of have uptimes in the hundreds of days ... workstations, not servers. And I've only once had a Linux crash that wasn't traced back to bad hardware. And reformatting.

Why should you ever need to reinstall your OS short of a drive failure?

Microsoft has convinced everyone that Windows behavior = computer behavior. It's not so!


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
March 15, 2001 11:41:28 AM

No one implied Microsoft make quality os's.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 11:45:20 AM

"...first time I haven't formatted in 2 months.!"
"Minimal crashes and occasional memory issue..."

Listen to yourself! This is not acceptable behavior for an OS. Microsoft has so conditioned you to the unreliability if Windows that you think this is good.

It's like a kid that used to get beat with a stick, who thinks he has it good now that he only gets beat with a belt.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 11:46:31 AM

I expect my server to be operational for as long as I need it to be although MS do some crap software if you stick to the recomended hardware list you can have an NT box up for months if not years, my last NT server was up for a little over 6 months without reboot or crash(the only reason it got switched off is I took it out of service). the current one is win2k and is up and down but that is cos I am messing with it's hardware, if you keep installting and unistalling software on any MS OS you will kill it , it's shite but that is the way of Bill the evil overlord......


M


Opinions are like arseholes .... everybody’s got one.... :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 1:02:01 PM

actually thereis alot of bunk info on this thread..
a few facts..

WINDOWS ME was designed to be the last bridge between win2k and win 98..
it is signifficantly different than win 98,
it has DOS totally removed and it a pure 32 bit kernal using the same win32 code as WIN 2k
dirvers often work in both, and apps do as well,
is shares the same video engine, and similiar communications.

it is far better than win 98 and boots in half the time as no 16 bit dos translators are involved..
it has a new feature system restore where it takes a snapshot every 10 hours of your whole system and in the even of a problem can restore using a mirro image of the
OS, and all the apps in the registry.

it has better security, com files,multimedia support,
a more stable active x desktop etc, and is partially coded for P4..

WIN ME will be the last windows 98 type os,
windows XP will replace both win 2k and win ME\98

unified code will make it much better for developers of drivers and apps, etc..

amd will likely have issues with this as in win 2 k

win ME is at least 3 times more stable and about 40% faster than win 98 under heavy load.

supports XML better too..

hope this helps
man the upgrade is $49 at some stores get it,
its faster and more stable ..
and you can restore it anytime to where it was before problems..

CAMERON

CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 2:11:09 PM

I'll start by saying I don't know much about servers, but your experience does not reflect my experience with NT workstations & desktops.

Our NT workstations can be expected to crash at least once a week, and the NT box I'm on now, which does nothing but web, email, & spreadsheets, has crashes occasionally despite our techs policy of a "prophylactic" reboot at least once a week.

Server loads are likely to be more static, ie. not a lot of new & different processes starting & stopping all the time. This may account for the greater stability?

And installing/uninstalling software should never screw-up an OS. Yes, in Linux you can overwrite libraries with incompatible versions if you're not careful (but the package managers make that difficult). But it's easy to fix. And a bad application should NOT affect the stability of the OS.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 2:27:08 PM

Windows 2000pro is a time bomb ready to go off
When i installed it and only that, it was working great until 1 day BOOM didnt load windows and had this error, since there was no dos... i had to use a bootup disk to get to a commmand prompt..
Then after accessing my hard drive

It was Partitioned. Both partitioned drives-files were merged, everything was messed ie deleted or merged with files
I had mp3's that would start playing britney spears and then chili peppers started playing, Ive never seen anything quite like it.

Also i have heard other people have had it crash too.
Its a good stable os win 2k pro but whehn it crashes.
kiss you hard drive goodbye.

I havent tried that app 3d studio thing yet but i should
everything is stable on this for me,, for now.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 2:43:37 PM

<<<From using 95 98 2000 and now ME

this is the first time i havent formatted in 2 months!

Amazing

Minimal crashes and occasional memory issue
its stable as a rock!

Can anyone else CONCUR?>>>

win me sucks and is for morons.
win 2k pro is the only ms os worth a [-peep-] and i'd take 98 of me.
March 15, 2001 2:44:25 PM

i use win2k pro, server, and adv. server every day. infact i haven't loaded a win9x system for over 2 months now. my server cluster which is all win2k adv server has been up for over 5 months now and this workstation has been up for a month. i never get blue screen or crashed with it but i have found out some important things though. a lot of ppl (even in pro. it field) do not know how to use and setup 2k as it should be and this is a cause of a great amount of trouble for ppl. 2k is difrent from both 98 and nt but mosst techs i know treat it the same (or they never knew how to use nt so they try to use 2k as you did with 98). i forgot but even 1 oem was shipping servers that where formated fat32 and not ntsf and the same with the workstations. if you format fat32 some services will not install, run, or run really wierd. but from what i have seen most problems with 2k have related to user errors.

Disclaimer: I still think ms sucks and with i get more free time i WILL learn how to use linux, unix, novel and wnix (and i do have a copy of that somewhere, if i could only find it:-\) better.

-----------
Chris
ws6@kc.rr.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 3:32:41 PM

I have an issue :) 
Normally I trust what I read on Tom's hardware above all else. so when i read that Tom always Runs Win2000 Pro I decided to give it a shot, I had been running 98se for the longest time with not many problems. so I created a new 7GB NTFS partition and installed the OS. I only have one question... How is this the "Preferred OS" of anybody? ... Now first of all, I'm no stranger to program crashes. I've used every MS OS Since DOS 5.0 (for the record i hated ME) but anyway I've seen all kinds of things crash but somehow win2k manages to crash "Windows Explorer" all the time... I've installed the service pack and everything. but thats only one issue, I don't find it to be any more stable and possibly even less stable than 98SE. but even worse, the performance is down right TERRIBLE. I'd have to say theres at least a 25% slowdown in running everyday applications. please explain to me the benefits of this OS So I can try to appreciate them, because all I see is another Sub-par MS Operating System. Please oh Please can't someone write a viable alternative to Windows!!!

(Please don't respond by trying to cram linux down my throat, I hate it more than ME!)

and BTW I'm not really a hateful person... i just got ticked off :) 

Andre
March 15, 2001 3:35:10 PM

On my machine I don't notice much difference between 98SE and ME. ME sure does boot up a hell of a lot faster than 98SE or 2000 though, which is kinda nice. You format your computer regularly???? I've had my computer for about 8 months, first running 98SE, then a month or so later upgrading to ME, and haven't had the need to format. My system runs pretty good. I leave it running all the time, rarely turning it off, and it often goes several days without crashing, and I usually just do manual reboots to keep it clean. Never had 98SE last so long without crashing.

One thing I HATE, HATE!!!!!!, Windows 2000. It's so frickin stupid the way it works. Totally illogical and lacking of common sense! Have you tried changing video drivers on 2000?!?!?! I tried it on two seperate systems and ran into HUGE problems on both before it finally started working. I followed exactly what it said, knowing it was stupider and more difficult to do it in 2000 than 98 or ME, but it still [-peep-] up and took like 30 minutes to get it to work properly. Everything else about 2000 is just stupid. Conntrol Panel, device managing, hardware, etc. is all done stupidly. As soon as I get a new hard drive for that computer (god it's so funny, C drive in it is only 1 GIG!!!! and the D Drive is 4 gigs but full of bad sectors!!! ITS PATHETIC!) , I'm ditching 2000 and putting ME on. 2000 SUCKS!

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
March 15, 2001 4:23:13 PM

Quote:
Microsoft has convinced everyone that Windows behavior = computer behavior.

No, its more like MS convinced all the applications developers to put all their resources into developing apps for Windows!

No question in my mind that Linux is a far more stable O/S, but it does need to evolve to where it can match Windows' support of interfaces and devices (not to mention the applications thing)!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 5:16:58 PM

"No, its more like MS convinced all the applications developers to put all their resources into developing apps for Windows!"

Kind of a chicken & egg argument, but OK.

"No question in my mind that Linux is a far more stable O/S, but it does need to evolve to where it can match Windows' support of interfaces and devices (not to mention the applications thing)!"

Interfaces? Do you mean desktop gui?
You might be suprised if you gave the latest KDE or Gnome interfaces. I find them far better then the Windows GUI. I couldn't live without multiple desktops anymore!

If you mean interfaces as in USB, firewire, etc., I don't think there is much gap at all there anymore.

Devices:
This isn't NEARLY the issue it was a year or so ago. The only common things you're likely to have problems with are scanners (but SANE is coming along), winmodems (but what's the point of supporting these really), and RAID functionality of some of the IDE RAID controllers (get a 3ware, much faster anyway).

Plenty of applications are available as well. Some aren't as polished as the MS equivalents, but they work. My home has been MS free for over a year. I haven't found anything nontrivial that I couldn't do, I don't miss MS at all. If you really need windows, get win4lin and run Windows as it should be: as an application where it can't hurt anything :-)


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
March 15, 2001 6:31:31 PM

the only big problem i see with linux is the fact that it dosen't have as many games as MS

if you had reformate your hard drive ever two month, then you were doing some thing wrong.
i the commpputer i'm one has had windows 98se for a year and a half the only reason i had to reformat it was becuase i accidently ddeleted a few needed files and didn't know it until i restated my commputer.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 6:41:26 PM

I can concur with you. I like Microsoft about as much as my mother in law, but I've had less crashes than with any other MS O/S I've used.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 6:43:25 PM

I agree with you that it's a better operating system. If DOS has been totally removed, how come I can still get to a DOS Prompt?
March 15, 2001 7:02:31 PM

Because it's a DOS emulation.
Running a DOS prompt from Windows is a DOS emulator.
Rebooting to start in DOS mode however is the real deal.

And Win2K is the most stable MS OS I've seen yet. Personally, my system locks up every so often, but that's because of really crappy VIA drivers for my VIA chipset motherboard. It's not MS's fault that VIA really sucks at writing drivers.

I've seen two Win2K systems running 24/7 for over three months now without ever locking-up or even blue-screening. They've been rock-stable. Who could ask for more?

I think what a lot of people are blaming on MS is really the fault of the people writing the hardware drivers. If you have good drivers, Win2K is going to be the most stable MS OS anyone can use.

If you have hardware from a company that can't write a good driver to save their life (such as VIA) then expect ANY OS you run to crash frequently and behave oddly.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 7:05:34 PM

It's called... get a Mac!

Screw the risks! -Street
-AMD 1470Mhz-Abit KT7A-Raid-256Mushrev3-Fop38
March 15, 2001 8:48:18 PM

I personally like ME and 2000 and even 2000 Advanced Server. ME runs just about everything but does not take advantage of my hardware where as 2000 and Advanced Server do! My first run with ME SUCKED and I hated it, Ditched my intel and bought a VIA chipset board with and AMD processor and ME runs great.

I have yet to have problems with 2000, so for those that are I would really like to know what kind of problems and what hardware it is running on!



Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 9:44:57 PM

HI
because the DOS is really run as a 32 bit application or program simulated in ME, not the true 16 bit 640k dos nightmare we all came to hate
you cannot shut down to or boot to dos anymore..
its a true 32 bit win32 kernal now as in win 2k
CAMERON

CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
March 15, 2001 10:07:16 PM

To unstable? The only time I have ever had stablity problems under win2k was on a Athlon 600. As people talking about boot up time, I dont have to worry about this. I dont boot my computer often enough for it to matter. I just log out of Win2k and leave. That way I can access my machine from lab win2k machines on campus, nice feature to have. As for win98 I wouldnt trust that think to run over night with out something crashing or the resources slowly leaking away. Not to mention win98 networking sucks complete A$$. It can not download as fast as NT4 or Win2k on a lan. That and its hard to connect to nt boxes without logging into a domain. MS needs to make sure that there sh|t all works together.

If its tourist season, why can't we shoot them? :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 15, 2001 11:46:36 PM

NOTE:

There is a posting subject header called "software"

There, you'll find your favorite (or unfavorite) operating systems. GO THERE for help.

Post yer CPU subjects here, ya dope.
March 16, 2001 12:05:58 AM

I have too agree. I feel sorry for all the ppl on whose computers it doesn't work. Works like a charm on mine! :smile:

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 16, 2001 12:11:40 AM

I'll concur.

Back in the old days, I had a Win95 (K6-233 Intel TX chipset) machine that I left running for about 8 days with no reboots.

At home, I use ME on my T-bird 800 and it is as stable as any ms operating system as I have ever had. Never crashing, locking or needing a reformat (except when one of my hard drivers crashed). I tried 98 on the machine but it was not as stable but, in retrospect, that was probably my fault

At work I have used 98 and NT 4.0 in the past and feel that when done right, both can be stable as I let my 98 machine run 24/7 for 12 days without a reboot (eventually had to with install of software) while NT 4.0 many weeks without a reboot.

I now run 2000 at work and to me, it is as stable as NT 4.0 and performs on par.

That's all my experiences with the MS operating systems

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=3737" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=3737&lt;/A>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 12:35:38 AM

WOW,

Shocked. But then anyone that has a Britney Spears MP3 on his hard drive deserves a merging meltdown.

I use Win2K Pro at work in a network environment (Fore systems Fiber connection). I have Website Pro operating all day via XCalibur Protein database searching program in an Internet Explorer environment. I hate IE, so I simultaneously (and periodically) run Netscape Navigator (4.7) to access the NCBI database for protein sequences which I cut and paste into Word (running periodically) for editing and saving for input files for the Xcalibur searching software. Sometimes I need to connect to the Mass Spectrometer to transfer new datafiles. And periodically, I telnet to a unix host inside the intranet to work on The Wisconsin Genetics Computer Groups Molecular Biolgy Suite.

All this while periodically running Groupwise to check e-mail. I NEVER HAVE TO REBOOT.

NEVER. And The system is running 24/7 for two months.

Your problems are either caused by FAULTY HARDWARE, UNWISE SOFTWARE INSTALLATION, or TRAGIC CHOICE OF HARDWARE TO COMPLEMENT YOUR VIA-based MOTHERBOARD. Take a loan out and BUY a clue..

Your problem is not WIN2K PRO.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 12:46:05 AM

I forget to mention that the hardware is homebuilt. PIII 800 running (OVERCLOCKED) 8x120=960MHZ, with 256MB PC133 memory, a BX-based ASUS P3B-F motherboard, ELSA GladiacMX, Diamond MX400.

There used to be a linksys ethernet card running in the system, but the fiber network upgrade at work necessitated driver removal and fore systems driver installation a couple of months ago. That was the last REBOOT.

And I play four year old DOS-based WIN95 games (and newer ones) on it periodically, which work flawlessly.

AGAIN, WIN2K PRO is NOT your problem.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 1:38:38 AM

hahahahahahhhaaahhhhhahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaahahahhahahhahhahhhhhhhhaaaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaahahahhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaahha

Good one !
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 1:41:46 AM

egeorge. my computer is not a server box. the reason my uptimes are not measured in months is because i'm installing new pieces of software and hardware all the time. i still reboot when i want to, not when i have to. using your server box as an example to compare to my home pc is comparing apples with oranges. the reason its only been 5 months since a reformat is because it was five months ago i told winME to go to hell. i dont forsee myself re-formatting until whistler comes out, then i'll probably go back to 98 anyway :) 

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: cape does not enable user to fly.
March 16, 2001 2:01:56 AM

I have to totally agree windows 2000 is the best operating system ever conceived its the cleanest code that microsoft has come out with because they control the drivers. Becuase if yer stupid enough to use non win2k approved drivers you deserve it to sh*t on yer head and thats a fact. That goes the same with hardware you wanna go cheap no name crap i hope it sh*t's all over yer head. Win Me is a joke all its out for is to test some of the new features that xp will have they also as Cyber said used a true 32 bit kernal makeing it somewhat more stable but once you try some of yer no name software thats 16 bit it will sh*t on yer head too.
And as fer linux lets not go there ive played with red hat, turbo, Ice pack, and SuSE its damn garbage try to run any thing other then kernal based services (web server, dhcp, RAS) she crashes and burns. Unix on the other hand is beautiful, stable and extremly powerful. Linux is a rip off fer users that cant cut unix and thats a fact!!!
But 2000 is the way to go its far more reliable, stable, faster, and sexy (love the mouse shadow it matches my eyes). If you cant run it yer doin something wrong because it should work somewhat well with crap hardware as well.Oh well nuf said you know know i love 2k night folks:) 

clonan P3B-F rules!!!

SPUD

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man <font color=blue> :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 3:00:06 AM

Oh yeah.. I forgot to mention that I paid about $200 for that Win2K Pro upgrade license.

It was worth every Penny.

And BTW, you'll have to download a new copy of that B. Spears mp3 file now. Maybe you should make a backup on a zip disk er sumpthing. Until you chuck the VIA, you'll be living in suspense.
March 16, 2001 3:12:58 AM

thanks clonan, atleast someone finally gets the point! anyways you forgot the other big thing that meesed up 2k.....USER ERROR!!! i am sick of having to fix win2k boxes for ppl who don't know how to use nt and try to use it as 98. arghhhh.

-----------
Chris
ws6@kc.rr.com
March 16, 2001 4:05:12 AM

I totally hear ya on that one some people that call themselves so called power users cant figure it out it took me like 6 hours to figure 2k out 6 hours no kiddin(i know i dont havea life) its soo damn easy its not funny everything thats important is better hidden so dumb ass users cant f*ck things up and things are where they are better utlized now its perfect if you cant figure it out (almost have to be brain dead) you should go and play with 98 real users use 2k but i still have to dual boot becasue some of my software dont go that way but oh well.

SPUD

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man:) 

PS: active directory rules!!!

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man <font color=blue> :smile:
March 16, 2001 7:29:29 AM

Could we reduce the hahahah's please. this screen is gone too wide, far beyond my comfort zones.

Please edit your post.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
March 16, 2001 8:29:45 AM

<b>My experience with Microsoft:</b>

Win95: Never Used

Win98: Crashes multiple times a day, need to format HD and reinstall after about 5 months.

Win98se: Crashes multiple times a week, need to format HD and reinstall after about 6 months.

WinME: Painfull experience. HP-CD Writer wouldn't work. DSL modem wouldn't work. Destroyed my registry. I uninstalled it, but it was still there in small corners making my life a nightmare. It lasted a month and forced me to reformat.

Ok, for a comparison.

<b>My experience with Apple OS's</b>

12 years worth starting from the begining up until 7.1: Crashed a couple times; maybe 3 times max. Never had to reinstall. Stable as a rock.

<b>Big difference.</b> IF it wasn't for the lack of games on a Mac platform I would go back. If WinXP digs into my privacy with their hardware and software encoding key crap. I'm going back...I have higher expectations. Microsoft has gotten people used to a low quality product.

<font color=red>This is a forum, not a chat room. You aren't going to find a date here.</font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 9:22:35 AM

Win 95: used - and it was better than 3.11 and OS WARP but it soon showed its weakness when you wanted a HD larger than 2 gig. I blame fat 16

Win 95 osr 2: Used - better than osr 1 but still, it wasn't stable as it was claiming to be both 16 and 32 bit (at least thats the impression i was getting)

Win NT4: Used - Liked it, found to be vary stable, but only worth having in a networked enviorment, no good for games unless setup as a server, serving 98 boxes.

Win 98: Using - Loved it when it first came out, had better stability and support for stuff like USB+ other little things like dat, plus much more support for multimedia. And generaly a faster O/S. Down side, had bugs like the 48 syndrome where if left on for more than 48 day it would automatically shut down, BUT who leaves their 98 machine on 4 that long?

Win 98 se2: Used - same as 98 but with more!

Win2000 server family: Using - Love it, no more rebooting after small config changes, faster, smoother interface just check out the consol its like using a solaris consol piped into emacs (all u unix freaks should know what im chatting about there), can be used as a server and games machine all in one, usefull if u got a small home network and u wanna play a multiplayer game with 3 mates and u only got 3 machines and one has to be a server (internet+backup+mp3 serving before u ask why).

WinME: used but not really explored - From what i have heard its not really worth bothering with, and i certainly wouldn't pay money for it. I heard its slower than 98, it had a hard disk management prog that would keep cutting in all the time (not experienced this but been told) and its basically 98 with a full 32 kernal and media player 7.

MacOS 6 and above: limited use - from what i have seen its a really well thought out OS but i haven't explored it properly to be able to tell you if it is better/equal too/ or [-peep-] compared to win2000 (i now compare all o/s to win 2000). What i do know about mac O/S is that O/S X it coming out soon and its gonna have it all, the best bit is its gonna be open source and therefore someone out there will convert it for PC systems, i've heard that its gonna be quite a contender to the WINDOWS OS, but i dont think microsoft will care as they own 40% of Apple. The queston is will pc games be abble to run on o/s x you never know they might create some kind of emulator to allow it!

P.S. has n e 1 here ever used the 64bit version of NT4 coupled with and alpha processor before, id love to know what u thought of it (was there much of a difference in performance - dat kinda thing)



I think i think, therefore I may possibly be!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 2:00:14 PM

"egeorge. my computer is not a server box. the reason my uptimes are not measured in months is because i'm installing new pieces of software and hardware all the time"

Ok, if you look at my post again, you'll see that I don't know anything about servers and was talking about workstations. All the "NT/Win2K has high uptime" stories I've heard were wrt servers. A few posts up clonan seems to have good luck with a Win2K workstation, but it hasn't been our experience.

and by the way, the only software upgrade/install that should require a reboot is the operating system kernel itself. A hardware upgrade should only take one reboot, not the multiple that I've encountered adding hardware to MS boxen.



In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
March 16, 2001 2:20:02 PM

"That goes the same with hardware you wanna go cheap no name crap i hope it sh*t's all over yer head."

The NT & Win2K boxes that we have trouble with are all from quality, namebrand integrators, with all MS software, yet they have lousy uptimes under our use. Yet, on a few that we reformatted & installed Linux there is no stability trouble at all.

"And as fer linux lets not go there ive played with red hat, turbo, Ice pack, and SuSE its damn garbage try to run any thing other then kernal based services (web server, dhcp, RAS) she crashes and burns."

I've only had 1 Linux crash that wasn't directly attributable to failed hardware in 2+ years of using it almost exclusivly at work & home. I use a wide variety of applications from StarOffice to very beta freeware, to my own work of course. I've even run some windows applications under Wine (a Win32 API clone). My work is primarily C/C++/Fortran development, very large computation & data reduction loads, distributed computing, etc.

My primary workstation also serves 40GB out over NFS & Samba to the rest of the Linux, SGI, & MS boxes in the office as well as serving the CVS repository for two projects with > 400 MB of code. It runs apache serving up an internal web page as well. This box has NEVER crashed, and has been up about 150 days now (had a water pipe break which killed power a few months back).

Please let me know what kind of applications you've had so much stability trouble with. I'm sitting at a linux box right now. Please tell me how to crash it, as I've never seen an application crash linux.

"Linux is a rip off fer users that cant cut unix and thats a fact!!!"

That's pretty funny, as my office is phasing out our SGIs and replacing them with Linux. It's faster, more stable, far cheaper, and is easier & cheaper to support.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
March 16, 2001 2:27:06 PM

Hey I can get the whole screen........ What resolution you at?

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 16, 2001 2:28:50 PM

1024x768


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
March 16, 2001 2:30:12 PM

That's why... Im higher than that.... Problem solved hehe

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
!